Factors of School Shootings

School-based violence particularly school shootings have a long history and literature.

From 1760 until 2010, 310 documented shootings have taken place on school property in the

United States (Duplechain et al. 145). Consequently, researchers have overwhelmingly paid the

most attention to personal characteristics and motives of perpetrators while disregarding

environmental factors associated with these shootings. While environmental factors are not the

only neglected subject revolving around school shootings, the un-coined term itself is heavily

undefined relying on a case-by-case scenario. What seems like an ongoing increase in school

shootings has necessitated new research to address the current imbalance in favor of individual

factors. Through several recent studies examining a variety of contextual and environmental

factors shows that a simple increase in school shootings might not be the case (Apodaca et al.

363). Identifying individual characteristics of the shooter, environmental factors of the school,

and social factors surrounding the school will provide insight as to why there is an increase in

random mass shootings.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) does not have a robust and comprehensive

definition for school shootings due to a 1994 law that limits federal government research on

health implications of firearms by restricting funding. As stated by Katsiyannis et al., “This law

dictates that none of the funds made available for Injury Prevention and Control for CDC may be

used to advocate or promote firearm control” (2563-2564). This means the cost of research has to

be publicly or privately funded because the CDC is not allowed to use any of their funds towards

the health implications of firearms which school shootings are categorize under. However,

according to Katsiyannis et al., Follman et al., and Springer, the FBI does define “mass

shootings” as the killing of four or more people in public in the same incident, excluding the
perpetrators/ shooters (2564). Due to the definition of school shootings relying on a case-by-case

scenario, mass school shootings will be defined in this paper as a deliberate act of homicide

committed by a perpetrator who had a formal, legitimate, and ongoing connection to someone in

the school (e.g., student, student family/friend, faculty, or employee). Parameters set by Apodaca

et al. states that “Shootings by someone unaffiliated with the school were not thought to reflect

information about that particular school’s environment, and therefore were not included” (368).

While limiting data in research doesn’t always show the big picture conclusive definitions of

school shootings can further break down the term into deeper levels of meanings instead of by a

case-by-case scenario.

Mass school shootings can be further broken down into two types of shootings; targeted

versus random. Random mass school shootings or “rampage” shootings are defined as multiple

victims being shot at random for their symbolic value. A more in depth definition of rampage is

defined: a) takes place on a school-related stage before an audience, b) involves multiple victims,

some of whom are shot for their symbolic significance, and c) involves one or more shooters

who were former students, employers, and faculty of the school (Apodaca et al. 367). Targeted

mass school shootings are defined as specific victims being shot given specific conflict,

grievances or relationship the perpetrators had with them (Apodaca et al. 369). Further exploring

certain environmental characteristics may predict whether a shooting is random or targeted and

which type occurs more frequently.

Today’s schools and students face many different challenges concerning the rise in

attention from school shootings. The increased attention is a reflection of an overall increase in

the total number of victims injured during a school shooting or random mass school shooting.

Even though the rate and total number of shootings has decreased, the rate for multiple-victim
shootings has increased significantly (Apodaca et al. 364). While the rate and number of school

shootings has actually decreased from 1996-2006 at 0.07 students per 100,000 per incident rate

to 0.03 students per 100,000 the death toll from 1992-2006 still averages 16.5 student victims

each year (Apodaca et al. 364). A study by Springer shows that the 21st century already has seen

more deaths than in the 20th century, a 36 to 51 ratio. Consequently, from 1979 the number of

shootings had steadily increased with the peak being around the 1990’s until eventually

decreasing. The deaths from shootings went from 12 in the 1980’s, to 36 in the 1990’s, to 14 in

the 2000’s, to 51 in the 2010’s (Katsiyannis et al. 2564). In 1996 target school shootings were on

the rise until the frequency of school shootings plateaued around 1999. While the rate of targeted

school shootings plateaued, random school shootings became well known and the frequency of

random shootings lied within the number of victims instead of incident rate (Apodaca et al. 364).

Therefore the illusion of an increase in school shootings actually comes from the victim count

increasing. As a result, new research began looking at environmental factors of the school and

social factors surrounding the school to provide insight and/or correlations as to why the change

and increase in random school shootings is happening.

The typical individual characteristics of school shooters are male with mean age of 16

years, drug and alcohol abuse, involved in interpersonal disputes, and frequently belonged to a

street gang (Katsiyannis et al. 2564). “The FBI, (Apodaca et al. 366, Duplechain et al. 147),

although cautioning against the idea of a singular “profile” reported a number of personality and

family characteristics commonly found in the backgrounds of school shooters such as: poor

anger management and coping skills, strained family relationships, and insufficient parental

monitoring. A number of encounters with juvenile court also played as an important predictor

(Duplechain et al. 146-147). Some mental deficiencies shooters also portrayed included a lack of
executive functioning and social maturity. All of these characteristics have been reported as

correlations but are not predicators of school shootings (Apodaca et al. 366). While these

characteristics do not predict who could be a school shooter they do make way for a better and

more precise understanding and definition of a school shooter.

School shootings may follow as a response to the social complexity inherent in larger

schools. The environmental factor has been proportionally under-investigated in fatal school

shootings (Apodaca et al. 363). Certain characteristics such as higher total enrollment in the

school and higher average class size exhibit higher rates of violence compared to smaller less

crowded schools at a ratio of 8 to 1. Larger schools with crowded hallways have large population

mobility, which creates an atmosphere of anonymity (Duplechain et al. 147). The anonymity

makes it more possible for students to withdraw from social contact and become anonymous

without being easily noticed. This condition or lacking a sense of belonging directly correlates

with the population size of a school and highly occurs in larger schools (Apodaca et al. 374).

Another contribution to anonymity is the student-teacher ratio, the higher the ratio the greater the

likelihood. This is caused from the difficulty of enforcing disciplinary actions and certain

behaviors going unnoticed i.e., policy violations, bullying, small acts of violence, and even

planning larger-scale incidents (Apodaca et al. 375). Unfortunately due to the nature of larger

populated schools this allows inappropriate behaviors to go unnoticed and uncorrected.

As school populations grow the ethnic ratios in a school, the location of the school, and the

type of school changes effecting the environment of the school. When the ethnic make-up was

predominantly non-white, while the perpetrator was usually a white male, school shootings were

six times more likely to happen (Apodaca et al.372). This concludes that white males are

considered to be the minority in that situation and could possibly feel the aspect of alienation
mentioned earlier created from the social environment of the school. Besides student ethnicity

ratios, the location of a school also shows a correlation in environment factors and school

shootings in a variety of ways. For example, school shootings were three times more common in

urban and suburban schools than rural schools (Apodaca et al.372). And when comparing types

of schools (elementary, middle, high, college etc.), stated by Apodaca et al., school shootings

were 2.5 times more likely to occur at high school or middle school campuses compared to a

college campus (372). However, random shootings were proportionally more likely to occur at

college levels versus other school types; so much so that random shootings were 20 times more

likely to happen than a targeted shooting at college level campuses (Apodaca et al.375). These

discrepancies, as stated above, between high/middle/elementary schools and college campus

shows that there are significant varying factors between types of schools and the ethnic makeup

of the campus that directly contribute to school shootings.

Continuing research will only grow a greater understanding of the correlations between

individual characteristics of the shooter, environmental factors of the school, and social factors

surrounding the school will be operative in the occurrence of school shootings. One major factor

that would immensely further research in this field is setting a universal definition for school

shootings and breaking that definition into corresponding categories: target shootings vs. random

shootings and high school vs. college. Since mass shootings are still being defined on a case-to-

case basis, the data and research currently shows that each type of school and type of shooting

has varying factors that all affect each other. As this world adapts these correlations may change

and therefore a definition that’s flexible to incorporate new laws and regulations is absolutely

necessary. It remains for future research to constantly improve on these characteristics and

universal definitions to strengthen the statistical findings (Apodaca et al. 375). By having a
universal definition to identify school shootings, target shootings, and random shootings, one can

start to create the narrative to find the real reason for the change and increase in a certain type of

school shooting.

A clear definition of “school shooting” lacks across the board when looking at research

on school shootings. There are so many types of school shootings that exist now today, e.g.,

target shootings vs. random shooting that varying definitions listed don’t allow other types of

shootings to go into other categories. These varying factors lead to varying definitions, which

create a lack of continuity across the board. In Apodaca, the research gained shows that there is a

distinction in environmental factors that directly plays a role into which type of shooting occurs

more in which school setting. For example, it was documented that a high school’s environment

was less likely to have a random rather than targeted school shootings compared to college’s

environment (372). By creating universal definitions and categorizing types of shooting it will

prevent varying factors that lead to varying definitions and create more unity to a clearer picture

and better understanding.

It’s important to have a set definition because more clear and concise research can be

done. Right now, as the research stands because there is no clear-cut definition, or even a

standard broad definition, each research study is done on a case-to-case basis. This means each

research study has their own definition of school shooting. This lack of continuity doesn’t allow

for research to pinpoint the ongoing problems with school shootings. For example, some of the

school shooting definitions revolves around shootings that happen during school vs. after school,

on school property but not in school, on a college campus vs. elementary, middle school, and

high school. Even with all these environmental discrepancies, there’s even less clarity when

taking single gun wounds involving gang violence versus multiple gun wounds involving a
single student and the student body without gang affiliation into consideration. Setting these

boundaries in research will only make way for more correlations to be found and set the narrative

of what is really going on.

A recent research study done in 2012 by Apodaca et al., looked at environmental factors

of school shootings and found a clear separation between the atmosphere of a college campus vs.

elementary, middle school, and high school (363). Through the separation of atmospheres

associated with each type of school, it shows a direct impact on each site’s environmental factors

differently. The research was done because of the lack of research on social and environmental

factors, which they found clearly played a role in school shootings, possibly a much larger role

than they were expecting. This shows that in order to have a greater understanding, the research

of each shooting needs to be broken down even further and split between college shootings vs.

elementary, middle school, and high school shootings. Further, the separation between targeted

vs. random definitions need to be split categorically as well for one to a unified understanding. If

the shooting definitions were to be better split categorically it is possible other correlations could

be found.

Another discrepancy between definitions happens when laws that define shootings

change, and how they’re incorporated for future research and data. According to Follman et al.,

in January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by president

Barack Obama lowered the regulation to three or more victims killed when it was originally

defined as four (Follman et al.). This questions whether previous research should be updated

with the new regulation standard in mind or applying regulation to future incidents. Ultimately,

tracking mass shooting is complex and an ongoing process that will continually need to be edited

and revised.
 Researchers and law makers will fix this situation by setting up a universal definition of

school shootings that would split categorically down into different types of shooting based on

location (college vs. elementary, middle school high school) and reasoning behind the shooting

(targeted vs. random) will give researchers and the public a clearer understanding of what is

happening. Once a set definition and categories are established by law makers, researches will go

out into different environmental settings such as colleges, elementary, middle, and high schools,

rural, suburban, and urban schools and will collect data from those areas. The researchers will

conduct research based on social interactions of the school by interviewing students and staff

whom were witnesses to the shooting, people who knew the shooter to know if the shooting was

premeditated, and families affected by the shootings, and school officials about their bullying

policy and if the shooter was bullied and their policy implemented. Researchers will also obtain

information about environmental factors such as the city surrounding the school, the financial

allocation of money for the school, political views on gun rights. Lastly, researchers will focus

on individual characteristics of the shooters, their research will dedicate to the “why” and

reasoning behind the shooting in personal interviews with the shooters family and their political

views and opinions on gun rights and the right to bear arms. This newer categorization will

create a consensus in research to better analyze data/compartmentalize it to better look for trends.
 Works Cited

Apodaca, Roberto Flores de, et al. "Characteristics of Schools in Which Fatal Shootings Occur."

Psychological Reports, 15th ser., vol. 110, no. 2, Apr. 2012, pp. 363-77. EBSCOhost,

DOI:10.2466/13.16.PR0.110.2.363-377. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019. Abstract.

Duplechain, Rosalind, and Robert Morris. "School Violence: Reported School Shootings and

Making Schools Safer." Education, 6th ser., vol. 135, no. 2, Winter 2014, pp. 145-50.

EBSCOhost,

ezproxy.uwgb.edu:2443/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

AuthType=ip,uid&db=aph&AN=100464126&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 28

Feb. 2019.

Follman, Mark, et al. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America." Mother Jones, 15 Feb. 2019,

www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

Katsiyannis, Antonis, et al. "Historical Examination of United States Intentional Mass School

Shootings in the 20th and 21st Centuries: Implications for Students, Schools, and

Society." Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 27, no. 8, July 2018, pp. 2562-65.

Springer Science, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1096-2. Accessed 28 Feb.

2019.

Musu-Gillette, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., and Oudekerk, B.A. (2017). Indicators of

School Crime and Safety: 2016 (NCES 2017-064/NCJ 250650). National Center for

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Accessed 28

Feb. 2019
Springer, editor. "Study Shows Rapid Rise in Mass School Shootings in the US." Phys.org,

edited by Springer, Science X, 18 Apr. 2018, phys.org/news/2018-04-rapid-mass-

school.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.