The only way these mild horrors get into children heads is, again, through social media.
The only way these mild horrors get into children heads is, again, through social media.
School shootings are such a regular feature of American life that every school holds safety drills for the risk. I don't think all children get to enjoy the same sort of carefree bubble that you did. Media certainly amplifies the awareness of problems but many kids are far better informed than many adults admit, or want to be themselves.
Case in point: in 2022 there were 51 school shootings [1]. Certainly more than I’d like there to be, but in a nation with about 129,000 schools [2], I certainly wouldn’t call them a “regular feature”. If students are in school for 18 years, let’s say, to include pre-K, Kindergarten, and an undergrad degree, and the number of school shootings stayed steady for that whole time, they’d be in school for 918 school shootings, or a 0.7% chance that they go to a school which experiences a school shooting. Not common.
Yet the media reports them heavily, and that causes fear, and that fear is what drives schools to hold safety drills regularly to prepare students for these situations.
[1]: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year...
[2]: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts...
Here is a real example from the list: "A student was shot and injured when a sheriff’s deputy’s gun accidentally discharged in a classroom during a law enforcement vocational training."
Another: "A male student shot and injured an 18-year-old student. Police say the shooting appeared to have resulted from a dispute between the students."
Read down the list and most are accidents, or take place outside the school (e.g. in parking lots) between 2-3 people. These are accidents and individual beefs between students. They have nothing to do with mass murder. They don't involve anyone outside the students concerned. You could be a student at a school during one of these "school shootings" and not even be aware of it.
It's why the _total_ number of deaths is only 40 (!) from those 51 shootings. 8 of those were teachers so the total number of student deaths was only 32.
"School shootings" in the sense of intentional mass murders are nearly nonexistent. The overwhelming majority of damage related to these events is caused by the media and institutions irresponsibly generating fear that creates real psychological problems and distorts decision-making. The fact that so many here on all sides seem to think that intentional massacres could possibly be happening on a weekly basis in America is a testament to the distortionary power of the media. The reality is simply nothing like that.
Nobody is making that argument or getting confused by these numbers. The Edweek figures were linked by someone complaining about media influence.
"School shootings" in the sense of intentional mass murders are nearly nonexistent.
There are only a few such incidents each year but that is far from 'nearly nonexistent'. Perhaps you'd care to quantify what you consider to be the acceptable number of deaths from shooting sprees?
3,058 teenagers ages 13-19 die in motor vehicle crashes. [0]
In a country of 332,000,000 people, if 32 deaths stemming from parking lot arguments seems to require a society-wide blanket of fear and dramatic political anger, you are just badly miscalibrated. You're thinking like it's a village, which is natural, but if you want to discuss broad issues at scale, you need to put on your adult-style numerical/comparative thinking hat. "One is too many" sloganeering is simply a path to stupidity at scale. It distracts badly from things that actually matter and we end up way worse off in every respect.
Also worth noting that based on these data it is more or less completely true that a random student doesn't need to worry about school shootings for their own personal safety at all. If you don't choose to get involved in armed parking lot arguments over girls or respect or drugs, you'll be fine. (However, please wear your seatbelt and choose your driver carefully!)
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/teena...
It's not like there is a complete lack of advocacy about auto safety or school diets. You might remember that during the Obama administration there was a campaign for more healthy school lunches, preferring vegetables and fruits over salty/sugary snacks, and extolling the value of exercise.
My original comment mentioned school shootings as an example of an issue that teens are understandably concerned about, because while the probability is low it's also a fundamentally horrific situation. I'm rather surprised by the rhetorical contortions so many people are putting themselves through to argue that having several massacres a year just in schools is nothing to worry about.
Stop lumping people who don't want to fret about it in with people who actually think the gun status quo is OK. Of course it's not OK, and should change. That doesn't mean we need to obsess over it. It just happens to be an issue that is very effective at driving media engagement.
By all means, vote and write to your lawmakers -- this actually drives change. But don't waste much time doomscrolling and ruminating -- this does not help, and only helps enhance media company shareholder bottom lines.
The point is that kids these days are exposed to constant encouragement to ruminate, ruminate, ruminate. This doesn't translate into actual action, it just translates into anxiety and depression, and increased dividends for media companies.
But yes, let’s smash the soda vending machines as well!
That's not to say we shouldn't strive to get those numbers down, but personally I think we should be focusing on mental health, of which social media has a huge impact. Banning the weapon - as is the common suggestion - is treating the symptom, not the cause.
But we also place too much emphasis on school shootings when, as demonstrated, other things are far more dangerous to kids.
Strictly speaking on numbers though, the evidence I’ve seen weighs heavily on the side of weapon availability being the root cause, with countries and states with fewer weapon restrictions having more weapons-related deaths per capita. All this talk of “weapons aren’t the problem, people are” therefore strikes me as disingenuous.
I thoroughly believe in keeping rifles around because hunting is vital to my community. I remain unconvinced that handguns and automatic weapons are at all important to protecting US democracy (though I’m certainly willing to be disproven).
You compared Japan's rate of violence to America's, and conclude that America's policies must be the cause. This is wrong because you're comparing completely different groups of people. What you should be doing is to compare Japan's rate of violence to the rates among Japanese immigrants in America.
If you want to figure out which variable matters you need to isolate that variable. And if you do, you'll discover that results come from the people much more than the policy.
The difference between America and these places is that America harbors specific subcultures which glorify violence, gangs, drug trade, criminality and generally antisocial behaviour. If you're not involved in these subcultures, or in close proximity to them, you really have nothing to worry about. Hyper-rare stray bullet incidents "in a decent part of town" don't change this. (I recognize that some people can't escape these subcultures and suffer from them, but again, this is a subcultural problem).
I know you are most likely anti school shootings. But whats the point of trying to deny it's impact with statistics?
Whatever statistics you try to conjure. 52 in one year is way too much. And 1 in 150 kids being on a school with a school shooting is a lot.
We can do two things at once. We can both, within our control, advocate for making school shootings less common, making climate change less problematic, etc, etc, while also try to actually worry about these things less, and not spread a culture of constant fear and disempowerment. Research who makes sense to vote for, what letters to write to lawmakers, and do that. Then, with the rest of your 364 days of the year, relax and focus on what you can control and having a good time.
The Edweek numbers are doing what they were designed to do, which is mislead you and parent / grandparent. They are advocacy numbers, deliberately distorted to make things seem as bad as possible in order to drive clicks to further their political agenda. Which is exactly what's happening here!
You could read the edweek links, or the comment by jlawson, or you could do some math yourself. School shootings (in the meaningful sense, not the BS sense that edweek uses--shootings where a student is killed, which is what people really mean) are vanishingly rare in the U.S., a nation of 300,000,000 people. "Preparing" for them is the result of innumeracy, anxiety, fear-mongering, profitability of reporting on them, and lack of critical thinking skills in the U.S. population. The risk is so small that counteracting basically any other risk is a better use of resources. Teach kids about drugs. Teach them about driving safely. Teach them about how to be safe around pools, and how to swim. Teach them to eat healthy. Build them some exercise habits.
An hour invested in any of these activities is much better-spent than an hour of hand-wringing about an almost nonexistent risk of your kid being shot in school in the U.S. It's simple math.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/10/e023114
The children just get stabbed instead
Do you have any sources you can cite?
What exactly makes you say that the Edweek numbers are inflated or distorted?
(I am genuinely curious.)
You can follow the edweek links to look at their data. It gives enough detail on any given incident for you to make your own call about whether it's included for political reasons or actually representative of the type of thing parents might fear.
Mother Jones maintains a database of mass shootings int the U.S. that would include school mass shootings, and they (to their great credit) use non-crazy criteria to determine what to include: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-...
I reject your argument that the media is to blame for hyping this. It is not normal to have people go into schools and start shooting children and teachers at random.
"It is not normal to have people go into schools and start shooting children and teachers at random."
We agree about that. If you mean "it's not okay" OR if you mean "it doesn't happen often".
Per capita comparisons aren't informative because you should care about the ABSOLUTE risk, rather than relative risk.
The ABSOLUTE risk (as I calculate in another comment, charitably about 0.000043% per year per student risk of being killed at school) is extremely small. The fact that it's 5x Greece's or something is irrelevant, because both are tiny. If you're trying to answer the question "How do I make sure my kid grows up happy and healthy?" worrying about school shootings is a waste of time. The kid has a 22x higher likelihood of being killed by drowning, focus on that. Or responsible drug use. Or physical fitness. Or driving safely (or not driving!).
Another basic thing you might want to keep in mind is: kids don't die much. Their overall risk of being killed from ANY cause is quite low. If you're worried about maximizing happiness or something, I wouldn't even worry too much about death. Sure, teach them to swim and when they're little make sure there's a lifeguard, but don't stress about them being killed unless you live in a war zone. (And I recognize that too many people live in war zones, and that's a real problem that real people have)
This: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/school-enrollme...
Makes it look like there are 55,548,000 K-12 kids enrolled in school in the U.S. in 2020
This: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01 Makes it look like there are between 12 and 35 homicides of kids 5-18 years of age at school per year in the years 1992-2019.
The average of 12 and 35 is 23.5, call it 24 kids on average murdered at school per year in the United States in recent years.
Note that this is not quite correct because it includes murders other than shootings, so it's a little inflated. But anyway.
Also note they say, "“At school” includes on the property of a functioning elementary or secondary school, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school-sponsored event. In this indicator, the term “at school” is comparable in meaning to the term “school-associated." So again, it's going to be a little inflated because a bunch of these are going to be murders that people wouldn't intuitively understand to be a school shooting (e.g., kid murdered on the way to school in gang crossfire).
Okay, so 24 / 55,548,000 = 0.000043% chance per year of dying in a school shooting for a given U.S. child who attends school, all else being equal.
And of course, all else isn't equal. School shootings aren't random, and are much more common in the types of environments other shootings are common (poor cities, high % black populations, gangs, etc.).
For context, about 520 kids 5-19 die via drowning in the U.S. per year, making it about 22x the risk of being killed at school, all else being equal.
(https://wisqars.cdc.gov/data/explore-data/explore/selected-y... for death by drowning)
Edit: this data makes it seem like 11.5 or so deaths per year rather than 24 (because it's shootings specifically, I think), and gives more colour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
But the cultural framing (or lack thereof) makes the risk of driving in a car _feel_ like it's completely different
[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o...
What argument are you making, that news outlets should not report this? I don't think much coaching is required for people to feel anxious about the idea getting shot by a homicidal maniac, even if the probability of a homicidal maniac showing up is relatively low. Applying your logic, we should avoid having reports or drills about it, and any additional loss of life from lack of preparedness should be offset against the aggregate increased happiness of prior obliviousness to the risk.
There are many causes of death which children are not scared of, despite them being far more likely to occur than school shootings.
Homicide infants and grade-school kids is disturbingly high up the list, although that includes domestic violence and other causes rather than only school shootings. But there is a high qualitative difference between dying because you did something stupid or because you are the unfortunate victim of disease or an inherited medical condition, vs someone actively trying to kill you.
Our states are as big as countries so they really should be considered separately. Just because Texas had one doesn't mean a child in California is suddenly in more danger. But actually reporting on it in news media does increase the likelihood because it puts the idea into a shooter's head.
To put it another way the school district I grew up in has never had a mass shooting. Is a child in that school district actually a 0.7% risk? Statistics can be skewed in any direction.
There isn't good evidence to support this claim, though it's popular with people who have never thought about such issues before.
School shootings are to the left what terrorist attacks are to the right —- fear-mongering over an ultimately rare and insignificant problem to drive desired policy change.
School shootings are genuinely frightful, not the subject of artificial fear-mongering.
This shallow and ideological analysis represents such a callous disregard for the trauma that any child would experience is they had to go through that.
Terrorist attacks are genuinely terrifying. That doesn't mean the probability of experiencing one isn't vanishingly small.
It's extremely disruptive to a child's psyche even if they are never unlucky enough to be at one of the weekly school shootings (which is a horrifically dystopic line that I'd never considered possible 20 years ago).
There are 9614 schools in Australia, and since 1992 there's been a total of six shootings resulting in a sum of 3 deaths. The deaths were at universities, so strictly speaking no children were lost. There have been no more school shootings since 2012, a year that took no lives.
By US standards we could have 3-4 shootings per year and that would be "not regular"?
Christ.
As a parent in Australia, youth violence with knives as well as distracted drivers concern me. Guns? Not even on my radar.
(https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/could-a-mass-shoo...)
The fact that there are school shootings for the media to report on at all is so crazy to me.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/youth-mortality-rate
Publicly stating that you are concerned about child obesity is dangerous because it's implicitly stating that people are raising their children incorrectly and making poor decisions, which is more of an accusatory than empathetical statement.
The "think about the children" crowd don't actually want you to think about the children.
What a sentence.
More than one a week during the school year definitely makes them a regular feature. I can think of one in my entire lifetime in the UK.
Frankly it’s not clear what point you think you’re making, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the one you actually make. A close-to-1%-chance (I didn’t check your math) of experiencing a school shooting is now low, it is ABSURDLY high.
Your kid's chances of being killed in a school shooting are about the same as being struck and killed by lightning (many more people are struck and survive).
No they're not.
> ...that every school holds safety drills for the risk.
They also hold drills for tornado, fire, etc. These aren't regular parts of life either; they are emergencies for which people can prepare for the extremely rare chance it actually happens.
We could debate the utility or practical implementation of active shooter drills compared to fire drills, but just waving your hands saying they are injecting horrors into children's heads is overblown. Most kids just find them a waste of time. Just like fire drills.
Yes, they are.
But rather than merely gainsay, I'll support that by observing:
a) here in Australia we regularly, consistently, have zero school shootings each year. Can recommend.
b) you are probably misunderstanding the meaning of regular, and conflating it with frequent.
Halley's Comet is regular - at once every ~76 years. But obviously not frequent.
(I'd argue, as per (a), that the USA has too high a frequency of school shootings as well. If your tolerance for slaughtered children is higher than mine you may disagree with that claim.)
Bullying is regular in America. It happens in every school.
Police brutality/abuse is regular in America. It happens in every city with a large enough police force.
Pharmaceutical addiction is regular in America. It happens in every town.
It sounds like instead of just mistakenly using it as a synonym for frequent, you're mistakenly using it to mean something like prevalent or widespread or pervasive.
Either way you're responding to a perfectly valid claim by re-purposing the words used by the parent post and then arguing against that.
Speaking of which, when people bring these things up it's usually framed as "see? there's ALWAYS been some new media to complain about!"
But this isn't really true. The treadmill of new mass media really only began at all (in a very small primordial way) with the printing press, and in earnest with radio. Prior to radio, things really were very different, and did not change dramatically for hundreds of years. Radio brought about massive change and people did have a hard time adapting to it, although they did eventually, but ever since then, we've been on a treadmill where just as one generation manages to get a handle on how to deal with a new media technology, yet another one comes out, throwing everyone off balance again.
The idea that this is how things have always been for humans is ignorant. This is new to the last hundred years or so. Prior to this people had the privilege of learning how to deal with the world and pass on their wisdom to their kids without having most of their wisdom invalidated before they could finish raising their kids.
Now, it's a tranquil present, with no hope for the future.
While the latter is materially better, psychologically it's far more damning.
Every single successful society survived on a story, or myth, of a better future. The current Western world is the only society that has fully abandoned that notion, and we are seeing the consequences. Every single political struggle, artificial conflict and strife is downstream of this fundamental disruption in this core societal promise.
I'm sure China has plans too.
I don't think their ascendancy is necessity assured.
The more one looks, the less this appears to be true. Malcom X and the Black Panthers didn't arise because things were just peachy. MLK's murder wasn't just a stray bullet. When the Philadelphia Police Department dropped a bomb on their own city, it wasn't just an accident. When the National Guard massacred a defenseless crowd of students in Ohio, it wasn't because twenty-eight trigger fingers slipped simultaneously. All while McCarthyism ran rampant, dividing Americans into Faithful Patriots and Godless Communists, pitting neighbor against neighbor in a nationalistic furor gleefully fed by the upper echelons of government, media, and industry.
I ain't trying to say things are going well these days, but let's not forget how shitty the past was.
Also, you seem to conflate locally and personally with globally and universally relevant.
Threats are diverse and not restricted to being simplistic. Proper handling necessitates serious effort on all levels and certainly isn't done by relying on tradition.
I was terrified my entire adolescence by the prospect of nuclear war
The soviet era had the risk of nuclear, but there was still a good chance that would never happen. By contrast, most of the things OP mentioned are already happening.
Kids in our day got it through regular media. The cold war had a big influence on music at the time and shows like The Day After (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After) were on TV. I was very aware that we could be nuked at any moment, and later, that we were destroying the environment. We had the rest of the world's evils pushed on us by Very Special Episodes and After School Specials. I had plenty of other mundane concerns to worry about too, but concern for our future was always there in the background.
Kids today get it much worse since the message is that it's already too late and we're basically doomed.
Social media isn't the cure, but it sure as hell didn't cause all those other things.
I never heard a better justification for blissful ignorance and no, it's not a good thing.