There weren’t many school shootings, and suddenly Columbine happened.
The thing is - Columbine wasn’t really a school shooting.
It was a failed bombing. The shooting was to get everyone into the cafeteria where they’d set up barrel bombs which luckily didn’t go off. In fact, the largest casualty attack in a US school remains a bombing from 1927.
As a school shooting, Columbine was also quite atypical, with two perpetrators.
But as soon as you now had what was really a failed bombing being covered by the news as a school shooting, suddenly thereafter were a ton of school shootings (that fit the normal archetype of a mass shooting with a lone perpetrator).
And each of those got a ton of coverage and the numbers of mass shootings went up yet again.
If you suddenly prohibited covering mass shootings in media (impossible because of the 1st amendment, but hypothetically), I am certain you’d see mass shootings drop by double digit numbers.
The fact that Columbine was so atypical of what events followed in its planning but was so close to what followed in how it was covered in the news tells a pretty damning story of the role of mass media in this phenomenon.
Also see:
Towers, S., Gomez-Lievano, A. Khan, M., et al. (2015). Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings. PLOS One. 10(7): e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
Lankford, A and Tomek, S. (2017). Mass Killings in the United States from 2006 to 2013: Social Contagion or Random Clusters. The American Association of Suicidology. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12366
As massive consumers of American news media that includes the extensive covering of mass shootings, I wonder what is keeping Canadians from a rise in shootings that is equally meteoric.
Coverage - since so much media comes from America - would seem to be the same, but the results are different.
Far from gun-avoidant, Canada boasts the longest rifle hit on a target, both for moving and stationary.
Canada has fewer guns per person than the US, but still many more than most countries. I think there are a couple of other differences though. The types of guns are very different. Handguns are extremely restricted, and ownership is rare. Many (most?) semi auto rifles are either prohibited or restricted, and there are mag limits (5 rounds) for all centrefire rifles. This doesn’t exactly prevent people from committing shootings, but a lot fewer people have those types of guns because they’re kind of a pain in the ass get, store, and use. Safe storage is legally required, and much more encouraged by the gun-owning community.
The other factor might be what guns are used for in Canada. Concealed carry is practically non-existent, open carry is severely restricted, and while self-defence with a firearm is technically legal, ownership for that purpose pretty much isn’t.
Media coverage becoming a compounding factor.
There weren’t many school shootings, and suddenly Columbine happened.
The thing is - Columbine wasn’t really a school shooting.
It was a failed bombing. The shooting was to get everyone into the cafeteria where they’d set up barrel bombs which luckily didn’t go off. In fact, the largest casualty attack in a US school remains a bombing from 1927.
As a school shooting, Columbine was also quite atypical, with two perpetrators.
But as soon as you now had what was really a failed bombing being covered by the news as a school shooting, suddenly thereafter were a ton of school shootings (that fit the normal archetype of a mass shooting with a lone perpetrator).
And each of those got a ton of coverage and the numbers of mass shootings went up yet again.
If you suddenly prohibited covering mass shootings in media (impossible because of the 1st amendment, but hypothetically), I am certain you’d see mass shootings drop by double digit numbers.
The fact that Columbine was so atypical of what events followed in its planning but was so close to what followed in how it was covered in the news tells a pretty damning story of the role of mass media in this phenomenon.
Also see:
Towers, S., Gomez-Lievano, A. Khan, M., et al. (2015). Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings. PLOS One. 10(7): e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
Lankford, A and Tomek, S. (2017). Mass Killings in the United States from 2006 to 2013: Social Contagion or Random Clusters. The American Association of Suicidology. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12366
Thanks for citations!
Finally a good response. Thanks for posting
As massive consumers of American news media that includes the extensive covering of mass shootings, I wonder what is keeping Canadians from a rise in shootings that is equally meteoric.
Coverage - since so much media comes from America - would seem to be the same, but the results are different.
Far from gun-avoidant, Canada boasts the longest rifle hit on a target, both for moving and stationary.
Cold weather, maybe?
Have you considered any of the underlying factors to such and how Canada might differ?
Access to guns. How many guns per person are in Canada vs in the US?
It’s probably a combination of this and better access to mental health and social services.
It’s almost entirely that.
When you have nearly no-one who wishes to commit such atrocities as a violent suicide, it doesn’t matter what tools are available for the job.
And tbf Canadians don’t exactly have a reputation as being violent individuals. I believe the stereorype is “Sorry eh.”
Canada has fewer guns per person than the US, but still many more than most countries. I think there are a couple of other differences though. The types of guns are very different. Handguns are extremely restricted, and ownership is rare. Many (most?) semi auto rifles are either prohibited or restricted, and there are mag limits (5 rounds) for all centrefire rifles. This doesn’t exactly prevent people from committing shootings, but a lot fewer people have those types of guns because they’re kind of a pain in the ass get, store, and use. Safe storage is legally required, and much more encouraged by the gun-owning community.
The other factor might be what guns are used for in Canada. Concealed carry is practically non-existent, open carry is severely restricted, and while self-defence with a firearm is technically legal, ownership for that purpose pretty much isn’t.