Question

What has research discovered about (a) backgrounds and (b) psychological characteristics of school shooters? Do you believe certain weapons should be banned? Which ones and why?

Answer 1

Boys involved in school shootings often struggle to live up to what they perceive as their school's ideals surrounding masculinity. When socially shunned at school, they develop deep-set grudges against their classmates and teachers. The shooters become increasingly angry, depressed, and more violent in their gendered practice. A shooting rampage is their ultimate performance, says Kathryn Farr of Portland State University in the US. In a study published in Springer's journal Gender Issues, she investigated the characteristics shared by 31 school boys involved in 29 mass shootings at American schools between 1995 and 2015.

Farr's analysis suggests that boys' social status in middle and high school is determined in great part by peers' acceptance of them as "appropriately masculine." Their guidelines for gender appropriateness are found in a set of Adolescent Insider Masculinity norms that describe masculinity as the ideal that men are cool, heterosexual and tough, shy away from "sissy stuff" and embrace activities, behavior and mannerisms that are typical of "guys." Falling short of this ideal sets some boys up for school-situated problems and reactions that are typical of adolescents.

Ten of the 31 shooters had a history of serious psychiatric problems, while another ten grew up in extremely abusive households. The remaining eleven boys tended to react explosively and inappropriately to incidents that they perceived as unjustly discrediting them. Twenty-five boys were white and all but one identified as heterosexual.

"Many of the adolescent shooters had personal troubles that affected their ability to manage their social performances at school," explains Farr. "Moreover, the potential rampage of a boy with severe mental illness and rampage-related risk factors could be especially injurious."

Most were repeatedly and publicly tagged with homosexual and feminized epithets such as being a "homo," a "cry baby" or a "fag." All 31 shooters were made aware of their failings through their classmates' emasculating bullying, rejection by girlfriends, and marginalization in general. Some reported being physically and sexually victimized by their male peers.

According to Farr, the shooters' gender performances at school were typically 'off', either not meeting or exaggerating the Adolescent Insider Masculinity imperatives. They saw the responses they received as undeserved injustices that denied them their masculine entitlements. Most used dramatic displays of masculine bravado to try and show that they were indeed tough and powerful. They, for instance, brought guns to school, or emphasized violent themes in their writings, drawings, and class presentations. Almost all had bragged about their rampage plans. Such behavior violates the moral boundaries of masculinity, and further damaged the boys' already low social status.

Farr believes that schools should teach their students about such shooting incidents, and the possible warning signs that need to be reported. In-school and referral services should be provided. School curriculums should also address adolescent masculinity issues and discussion-based forums about issues of gender should be instigated.

"How often are adolescent boys given the opportunity to talk with one another about masculinity norms and their challenges, including norms embracing violence or the effects of emasculating bullying? Such classroom-based discussions could also help schools identify, provide and give value to activities that appeal to boys whose interests and skills lie outside the norms of insider masculinity," Farr says.

She warned against unnecessary stigmatizing of troubled adolescents: "Although many boys display at-risk behaviors and attitudes, very few will actually become school shooters."

Many Americans' hearts broke as everyone read the news of the most recent mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In the attack, the shooter used an AR-15 assault rifle to kill 17 people and injure 15 others within the school.

While angered students push Florida legislature for gun control, a positive push to curb mass shootings, the focus on banning assault weapons won’t stop future mass shootings. The main reason being that the ban has been done before with minimal results.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Clinton banned assault weapons for ten years. The ban, which barred the manufacture and sale of guns with military features and the sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, had no proof it contributed to a decline in mass shootings.

In fact, the number of mass shootings stayed relatively the same before and after the ban. From 1976 to 1994, there were 18 mass shootings a year. 1995 to 2004, the time period when assault weapons were banned, saw 19 shootings a year. From 2005 to 2011, there were 21 shootings a year.

This is because assault weapons are not the deadliest gun in America: handguns are. Handguns comprise 80 percent of gun related deaths each year. The victims of mass shootings only make up less than 1 percent of gun homicide victims, according to non-profit Gun Violence Archives.

An assault weapon, such as the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, can dispense 45 rounds a minute. It might be the easiest gun to use in a mass shooting, but it’s not necessarily the only one. Having multiple loaded firearms or legally modifying firearms to do more damage offers just as deadly results in a mass shooting.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons was like taking whiskey away from an alcoholic; they’ll just use another drink to fill their vice. During the ban, other weapons were plentiful to commit mass murders. For example, the Columbine shooters used a semi-automatic handgun and a double barreled sawed-off shotgun.

This isn’t to say that obtaining a military-style assault weapon shouldn’t be made difficult, with the would-be purchaser undergoing scrupulous background checks and mental health screenings. Even banning assault weapons would be a good move for the eradication of needlessly deadly weapons, but it isn’t the end-all to mass shootings.

Assault weapons have become the symbol of mass shootings, and a ban on them would ease the students of Parkland as well as other survivors of assault weapons. But in a society drunk on violence, the underlying causes of mass shootings will not go away simply by banning the most popular gun for a mass shooting. Another gun will always fill its place.