There has been a great deal of debate in the media and among academics recently about the extent to which school shootings are becoming increasingly common. Much of the disagreement here lies with how school shootings are defined. Often it is the case that these numbers are politicized with gun control advocates favoring broader definitions to amplify the size of the problem, while gun control opponents favor far more specific criteria so as to minimize the extent of the problem. That said, several recent studies from Mother Jones, the FBI, and others have concluded that school rampage shootings (and other mass shootings in public places) have indeed increased since the turn of the 21st century.

There is no one definitive cause of this rise, though the additional media attention that recent cases have received have certainly increased both public awareness and enhanced copycat and contagion effects. Copycat effects occur when various features of a highly publicized crime are imitated by others, while contagion effects are based on the notion that behaviors can “go viral” and spread through society like diseases, with increased likelihood of their occurrence either in the short term or long term. The causes of school shootings are multi-faceted, but the extensive media coverage given to school and mass shooting events in recent years has likely contributed to their increased occurrence, as the vast majority of school and mass shooters have expressed an explicit desire to attain lasting fame and recognition as a result of their attack.

One of the most common reactions to the various school shootings of the late 1990’s was the implementation of various zero tolerance disciplinary policies, which mandate strict penalties for student misbehavior, regardless of individual or situational circumstances. Though the original formulation took the form of the 1994 Gun Free Schools Act which required schools to expel, for a minimum of one year, any student caught carrying a firearm in school, various states and individual school districts broadened the scope to include zero tolerance policies for aggressive or threatening behavior, possession of other objects deemed weapons, various controlled substances, and numerous other infractions. As a result, schools have suspended or expelled large numbers of students for fairly minor misbehavior, such as sharing over-the-counter medications with their peers, for bringing utensils and toy weapons (some made of paper or plastic) to school grounds, or for making relatively questionable gestures or comments which have been deemed violent or threatening. Recent research indicates that zero tolerance policies are now on the decline overall, though some forms of them remain in full force, particularly at the local level, in districts that serve high proportions of poor and/or minority students, in special education programs that serve students with disabilities, and in charter schools.

In my research, I discovered that a zero tolerance climate actually makes school rampage attacks more likely to occur. This is because rampage attacks are prevented almost always as a result of other students aware of threats coming forward to school or police authorities, and a school climate of trust is necessary for students to feel comfortable reporting this crucial information about an impending attack. In contrast, students in schools that emphasize punitive one-size-fits-all punishment over supportive environments where kids feel as if they can trust and confide in school staff are far less likely to report serious threats.

Further, simply excluding students from school via suspensions or expulsions does nothing to resolve the original causes of problems or to prevent conflicts from escalating. In fact, a zero tolerance punishment has the potential to exacerbate the isolation and anger of a student contemplating a rampage attack at their school, as various disciplinary infractions such as suspensions and expulsions have been vital precipitating factors in numerous previous school rampages around the world. For example, the 14-year-old boy who shot two students and two teachers before committing suicide at the SuccessTech alternative high school in Cleveland, Ohio on October 10, 2007 had been placed on a three-day suspension for being involved in a fistfight two days prior to the shooting. He told his uncle that he felt the suspension was unfair and that his teachers wouldn’t listen to him or help him deal with the many bullies who tormented him daily at the school. The shooting began after another student at the school punched him in the face for bumping into him. When that student walked away after punching him, the offender shot the boy bullying him in the abdomen before shooting three others and ultimately shooting himself. Thus, the suspension did not prevent this shooting from happening and one might argue that it served as a fairly significant contributing factor.

There is no one single profile of someone who commits mass violence at a school. They vary in many ways – as school rampage shooters have come from a wide variety of family environments, some have been abused and others have come from nurturing homes, some have excelled academically while others have struggled, and some have demonstrated chronic behavior problems while others have never previously gotten into trouble of any kind. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that violent video games contribute to school shootings, and most of the presumed relationships between school shooters and youth subcultures (like goths) are overblown, inaccurate, or based only in prejudice. Though some school shooters have had serious mental health issues like schizophrenia, most have not, and suicidal thoughts and depression are far more common among this population (and the population at large).

What is true for the vast majority of school shooters is that they are heterosexual boys. Accordingly, gender and sexuality play a significant role in these crimes. School shooters have typically experienced multiple failures throughout their lives (being bullied or ignored by peers, being rejected by romantic interests, etc.), and they often feel profoundly emasculated as a result. To combat this shame, mass shooters intentionally employ an act of extreme violence as a mechanism designed to regain their lost sense of masculine dominance, superiority, and power over others.

People often discuss school shooters or other mass killers as having “snapped” shortly before going on a killing spree. This popular image suggests that such violent onslaughts are spur-of-the-moment, impulsive reactions to life stressors which lack any particular rationale or objective. However, this pervasive notion is simply inaccurate.

The vast majority of school and mass shootings have involved extensive planning and preparation. For the killers, a massacre constitutes the final power-asserting moment of a disastrous and failed existence, so it is clearly in their interest to have the event well-planned and achievable. This planning is an involved and often lengthy process. Most mass killers create a plan at least two days before initiating their attack. Yet many of them plan not for days but for weeks or months prior to carrying out a shooting spree. For example, the Columbine killers spent over a year preparing their attack.

Over the last few decades, American public schools have increased the use of security cameras, armed guards, school police, and target hardening practices such as metal detectors. These solutions, however, lack empirical evidence confirming their preventative purpose and amount to short-sighted efforts to alleviate the anxieties of parents, faculty, and students.

Schools continue to install security cameras and armed guards or police specifically to prevent “another Columbine,” yet both of these measures were already in place at Columbine High School and did not deter or prevent the killings there. Many other school shootings have taken place at schools or universities with cameras, security guards, and/or school/campus police. In my study of averted incidents of school rampage attacks, I found that these events were not deterred due to the presence of metal detectors, security cameras, or school police. In fact, many of the student plotters considered these developments to be minor stumbling blocks easily resolved through additional preparations among already detailed plans. For example, the school shooter who killed nine people at Red Lake Senior High School in Minnesota walked right through the school’s metal detector at the front entrance. When a security officer confronted him, the student perpetrator promptly shot and killed the man.

While security cameras, armed guards, school police, and metal detectors may not deter potential school shooting attacks, I did find that school police can play a preventative if not deterrent role in averting school rampage shootings. In several of the cases that I investigated, students who were aware of their peers’ dangerous behavior notified school police who ultimately helped prevent incidents from being carried out and who even garnered vital confessions from accused students.

Finally, there have been many calls in recent years to respond to the issue of mass shootings in schools with proposals to change concealed carry laws by allowing teachers and other faculty members to be armed on school grounds. Many states and school districts across the United States already have various versions of this in place. While there certainly have been incidents where armed civilians have intervened to stop a mass shooting in progress, it is notable that none of these have occurred in school settings. The reality is that this approach has far more challenges and negative consequences than suggested by simplistic rhetoric that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The idea that armed teachers or other civilians who lack in-depth military or law enforcement training would be able to avoid accidently shooting bystanders in the chaotic environment of a mass casualty situation is far more fantasy than reality. In simulations of active shootings, armed civilians fare far worse than advocates for this policy imagine, often getting killed or killing innocent bystanders. Even police officers, who are required to do target practice and other firearms trainings on a consistent basis, hit their intended target less than 20% of the time, on average. Active shooting situations are inherently disorganized and confusing scenes where there is great potential risk to accidently target the wrong people, as has happened in numerous cases where both law enforcement and armed civilians have nearly or actually killed completely innocent people who were, in the heat of the moment, wrongly believed to be the assailant. More generally, a recent report discovered dozens of incidents of guns being mishandled in schools in just the last few years, including guns left in places easily accessible to children, guns unintentionally discharged, students managing to take guns from armed adults, and guns pointed at students for relatively minor disciplinary infractions or during the course of personal conflicts. As no empirical data or even anecdotal evidence exist to conclude that arming school faculty will deter or prevent mass shootings in schools, policy makers should be far more wary of implementing such programs, especially in light of all the unintended consequences of such a practice.