Risk factors in school shootings

A gunwoman involved here. I also recall other school shooting reports where a girl was the shooter from a few years back, but couldn't find stores on them (funny, huh?). The author would be right had he said that that _nearly_ all the shooters have been boys.

I remember there was a female sniper shooting randomly at school kids in the 70s in Los Angeles when I was in elementary school. I doubt it's anywhere online though.

A 14-year-old female student was recently arrested as an alleged co-conspiratory in this plotted school shooting that arose from a dispute between two groups of girls. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/227387/sacramento_school_shooting_averted.html

Neither of the two examples you amd Mark A. gave were school shootings. One was a plan, which could have been a cry for help, and the other took place at a McDonalds.

I have different take on this story, which on its face seems to identify males as the violent gender...

Perhaps of some minor interest, adolescent and young males are also the suicide gender -- by ratios ranging from 3:1 up to 7:1 boys killing themselves more than girls.

Why is this?

(See data from this link -)

http://www.familyfirstaid.org/suicide.html

"Teen suicide was the 3rd leading cause of death among young adults and adolescents 15 to 24 years of age, following unintentional injuries and homicide. The rate was 9.9/100,000 or .01%.

The adolescent suicide rate among youth ages 10-14 was 1.3/100,000 or 272 deaths among 20,910,440 children in this age group. The gender ratio for this age group was 3:1 (males: females).

The teen suicide rate among youth aged 15-19 was 7.9/100,000 or 1,611 deaths among 20,271,312 teenagers in this age group. The gender ratio for teenage group was 5:1 (males: females).

Among young people 20 to 24 years of age, the youth suicide rate was 12/100,000 or 2,360 deaths among 19,711,423 people in this age group. The gender ratio for this age group was 7:1 (males: females)."

I still listen to Immortal and Emperor. Not for the lyrics, but the drumming and intensity. Columbine was blamed on KMFDM and Rammstein. Two german industrial bands. The media assumed both bands were nazi's because of their German heritage. Niether band has ever put such propaganda in their music. When people can't find solutions to a problem they play the blame game. I'm focusing on the music aspect because its usually what society blames first. (also video games).

My sister will not let my nephews (ages 6 & 8) play with toy guns. She's afraid they'll grow up with a gun obsession. I tell her, you can't shield them from everything. Let them experiment. There gonna see this stuff in school anyway. She wouldn't even take them to see Spider-Man (too violent). I had to sneak them there. I'm getting off the subject. Regarding guns: I had toy guns, cap guns and a bee-bee gun. I don't own a gun and probably never will. Lets see. I also like video games. Psychotropic Meds? Well, I won't get into that. I don't agree with giving teens any type of psych. meds such as SSRI's. Maybe they should mention an anti-boy environment in school. Thats a factor.

anthony

P.S.

I agree with Roy. Society seems to care less that boys are 4x more likely to attempt suicide. It makes me sick that male suicide is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media. Once again, the expendable gender.

"Neither of the two examples you amd Mark A. gave were school shootings. One was a plan, which could have been a cry for help, and the other took place at a McDonalds."

I didn't say the plot actually occured. The point is that a female shooter was allegedly involved in the plot. And the McDonalds shooting was targetted at high school students on a school day. Whether it took place inside a school or not, to me, doesn't detract from the point.

The author of the story is referring to school shooters who randomly murdered masses of people on school grounds. Neither of your examples meet this criteria.

Leave.

Marc is correct that there was a female sniper incident in California in the 1970s. That was the case of Brenda Spencer, who shot repeatedly at an elementary school, killing the principal and a custodian, and wounding several children:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

Also see:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/female_mass_murderer/13.html

Steve

Your example was a 17-year-old girl who shot AT a school (She never went on school property) that she had no relation to. "She reportedly told them that she'd started shooting for the fun of it, because she didn't like Mondays. 'Mondays always get me down.'" She had done it to cheer herself up." She was not a student at the school - hence, she does not fall into the statistical category of "school shooter."

"The author of the story is referring to school shooters who randomly murdered masses of people on school grounds. Neither of your examples meet this criteria."

I wasn't responding to the author. I was responding to the apparent statement by the Secret Service that all school shooters are male. The author doesn't elaborate on exactly what the Secret Service incuded or excluded from this statement, but generally speaking the statement from the Secret Service is not true. The examples include a female student who shot randomly at high school students who happened to be at McDonalds on a school day, probably at lunch, another who plotted shootings at the school (though thwarted by police), and another who, though not a student, shot from outside the school at people in the school. Why wouldn't that count as a "school shooter"? The man and his son who not long ago shot at a school were both considered school shooters even though the man was not a student. I don't see the article stating how the Secret Service was defining the term. I think you're obsessing over distinctions without distinctions, perhaps in defense of what you see as an attack on the author.

The author has analyzed students who randomly mass murdered fellow students as well as school staff on their school campuses. All your examples don't meet that criteria. For example, the 17 year-old girl randomly picked the school - not her targets. Therefore, statistically speaking, that incident doesn't meet the criteria to fit into that statistical control group of student school shooters. The analysis of her motives are completely different. All the students had issues with their school and their classmates. The girl had issues with the police.

Do you just not want to accept the fact that girls are plenty capable of school shootings?

Or are you just a troll with nothing to do?

I did an Internet search on "Joe Manthey" and "violence" - and all of the results (news articles and op-eds) highlighted female violence against males:

SEXIST REPORTING OF VIOLENCE STUDIES

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EE575CBDC45C656&p_docnum=1&s_dlid=DL0107061405261012801&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa&s_accountid=AC0105061516020614723&s_upgradeable=no

ARE THINGS REALLY SAFER AT HOME? N. COAST DEBATES LATEST STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EAFEE6EDE238978&p_docnum=1&s_dlid=DL0107061405213301701&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa&s_accountid=AC0105061516020614723&s_upgradeable=no

MALE VICTIMS NOT RARE IN DOMESTIC ABUSE CASES BATTERED MEN TOPIC IN PETALUMA SESSION

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EAFEE476FDE2677&p_docnum=8&s_dlid=DL0107061405235813513&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa&s_accountid=AC0105061516020614723&s_upgradeable=no

The Press Democrat: Print a Story
© The Press Democrat. For copyright information visit our User Agreement page at
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/services/agreement.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO EXCUSE
Published on May 6, 2006
© 2006- The Press Democrat

BYLINE: JOE MANTHEY, Petaluma

PAGE: B6

COLUMN: LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK

EDITOR: Susan Swartz closed her April 2 column, ``The madness of planning for doomsday'' by writing, ``We need someone like Derrick's mother [who earlier in the column, had slapped her husband] to slap those people into reason.''

Please advise Swartz that ``slapping'' an intimate partner is a crime -- misdemeanor domestic violence. And there is no excuse for domestic violence -- whether the victim is female or male.
JOE MANTHEY

Petaluma

Battered Men: Research Reveals A Secret Side To Domestic Violence - Women Are Doing The Abusing, Too

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/batteredmen.html

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2004/12/irritable-male-syndrome.htm

The Irritable Male Syndrome?

So I am posting Mr. Manthey's coverage from these 1999 Press Democrat articles, which you can verify at www.pressdemocrat.com.

ARE THINGS REALLY SAFER AT HOME? N. COAST DEBATES LATEST STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Published on September 20, 1999

© 1999- The Press Democrat

BYLINE: Guy Kovner

...Arrests of women have risen steadily since 1988, from 6 percent to 16.5 percent of the statewide total, the Attorney General's report states.

To Joe Manthey, a Petaluma men's advocate, that's proof that women are aggressors, and are not just hitting men in self-defense. Still, Manthey opposes the ``primary aggressor'' standard, contending it encourages police to arrest men because they are bigger and stronger.

Police should be making more dual arrests -- both the man and woman -- because half of domestic fights involve mutual combat, he said...

MALE VICTIMS NOT RARE IN DOMESTIC ABUSE CASES BATTERED MEN TOPIC IN PETALUMA SESSION

...Manthey, a Petaluma substitute teacher, said the ``cycle of violence'' between abusive mothers and male offenders needs recognition.

``For men to engage in true dialogue, we have to be open to hearing their criticisms, their experience and their pain,'' he said.

Kay Russo, a Petaluma Health Care District board member, said Manthey was the ``catalyst'' for the series of domestic violence programs.

Domestic violence was identified as one of Petaluma's nine major concerns at a community health summit in 1997, she said, and last fall Manthey asked the district to sponsor a program on abused men and boys.

Russo said the board agreed, stipulating that his issues were presented ``as part of a larger discussion.''

The third program, ``Domestic Violence: A New Generation at Risk'' will be April 14 at Petaluma City Hall.

________________________

His Press Democrat op-ed on female teen dating violence can also be found here: http://www.joemanthey.com/j11.htm

I said it before, I'll say it once more, Heretic, I wasn't responding to the AUTHOR, I was responding to the SECRET SERVICE'S statement that no school shooters are male. I don't know if the Secret Service actually said that, but I'm assuming the author is right that they did. As I said below, and as you fail to respond to, the article says NOTHING about how exactly the Secret Service defined school shooter in their "statistic." This has nothing to do with how the AUTHOR defined it. It has to do with how the SECRET SERVICE defined it, and that is NOT clear from the article. When a man and his son shot at students at a school, in the public's and media's eye, he and his son were school shooters. Similarly, it's perfectly justified for me and others here to assume the broader category of the term in responding to the statement by the Secret Service, such that even this man would be a school shooter, and thus, so would the women in the examples, regardless of whether they shot from the campus or from outside the campus, shot at students at a McDonalds near the school during school hours, shot at students in their dorm, etc. etc., or what their movives were other than to kill. You, and the author, can define that however way you want. But nothing so far indicates how the Secret Service defined it in their statement. So your reacto-defensive comments make no sense unless you're able to show from the article exactly how the Secret Service defined the term.

The author, Manthey, has done alot of good work. In fact, one of his lawsuits changed Take Your Daughter to Work Day to Take Your Daughter and Son to Work Day state-wide and I think even nationwide. His work is very good. Unless I'm mistaken, Heretic appears to think we're attacking Manthey, for some reason, which is not true. I'm responding to the Secret Service's alleged statement. Manthey's article is very good and his points stand regardless of whether the Secret Service's claim is correct.

Boys suffer the majority of childhood brain disorders and diseases, many of which eventually translate into immoral or undisciplined behavior; and the adolescent male brain tends more toward diseases that affect self-control. But our schools have not realized how mentally and emotionally fragile boys can be.

Right. And I have seen studies that show that boys in elementary school are punished much, much more severely than girls FOR EXACTLY THE SAME INFRACTION.
This is where it starts. And when the schools have no idea what they are doing when systematically punishing boys MORE than girls....this cannot lead to good things.

oregon dad

Bots and girls are treated differently from birth. Now, I'm not a believer in social constructionist theory (everything is a result of environment and nothing is biological, except when feminists say it is), but environment is definitely a factor.

Perhaps it starts even further back in how parents treat infants and toddlers differently depending on gender. Since there really is no significant physiological differences between boys and girls until the onset of puberty (there are neuro-chemical differences in the brain but...) this different treatment of boys and girls as children may not be necessary or benificial.

Definitely food for thought anyway. I can see how treatment outside the home - like in school - could definitely be a factor.

For the fourth time, the Secret Service and the author (and everyone else who studies the issue) define "school shooters" as:

(1)Student(s)

(2)who randomly mass murdered fellow classmates and school staff

(3)on their school grounds.

None of your examples meet this definition.

Redundant redundant.
And your posts have bearing on these men's opinions of this article. You sound like a broken record.

Show me where the article says that the Secret Service defines school shooters that way? If you can't show me where the ARTICLE says that, then you were clearly wrong in saying we are "factually incorrect." There is no way to know from the article how the Secret Service defines school shooters. So, no Heretic, I think it's you who refuses to get it.

In any case, you're wrong to begin with that "anyone who studies the issue" defines school shooters that way. The Wikipedia says: "School shooting is a term popularized in American and Canadian media to describe gun violence at educational institutions, especially the mass murder or spree killing of people connected with an institution. A school shooting can be perpetrated by one or more students, expelled students, alumni, or outsiders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#List_of_school_shootings

And here, Heretic, are the Wikipedia's examples of some FEMALE school shooters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

The Secret Service never mentioned gender in their report (http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf) because it wouldn't be PC. That being said, all the assassins that meet their definition of a school shooter have been boys and young men. Contrary to your self-selected definitions of what a school shooter is, the Secret Service defines such (See http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf) as "a current or recent former student" (5% have been the latter) who "purposely chose the school as the location of the attack." They stipulate that kids who chose a school "as a random site of opportunity" to attack do not meet this criteria.

The article said nothing about how the Secret Service defined "school shooters," so people here were perfectly justified in mentioning the various examples of school-based shootings committed by girls as examples of how the Secret Services was wrong if it said *all* such cases are of boys.

In any event - and this is a totally different point - I just looked at the report. It does not say that all school shooters are male. It made a limited search between 1974 and 2000 using narrowly-defined terms, similar to what you're saying but including recent former students too, looking at media accounts and other limited available sources for that time period, and it found only 37 cases. THEN it CLARIFIED:

"It is possible that incidents of targeted school violence other than those identified by Safe School Initiative researchers might have occurred prior to the 1974 incident included in the study, or between 1974 and the completion of data collection for the study in June 2000. For example, incidents that met the study definition, but that were not identifiable under the study search strategy, or that were not reported as school-based crimes, would have been unlikely to come to the attention of Secret Service and Departmentof Education researchers. In addition, incidents of targeted school violence that have occurred since June2000 were outside the scope of the study." (Page 8.)

It later admits its shorcomings again:

"Although all of the attackers IN THIS STUDY were boys, there is no set of traits that described all–or even most–of the attackers." (Page 28.)

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nHs0KK72DCoJ:www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf+secret+service+school+shooters&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Interestingly, according to a 10/15/00 article in the Chicago Sun Times, at least one or two of the 37 incidents the study deemed school shootings did not fit the strict definition used. For example, "Seth Trickey, 13, Fort Gibson, Okla., Dec. 6, 1999. Wounded four students OUTSIDE Fort Gibson Middle School."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:HQNsCXhh-wwJ:knowgangs.com/school_resources/deadlylessons.pdf+secret+service+school+shooters&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

If shooting students outside the school counted as a school shooting, why wouldn't the example we gave of a girl shooting students outside the school at McDonalds count as a school shooting too?

Another is: "Andrew Wurst, 14, Edinboro, Pa., April 25, 1998, Killed a teacher and wounded three students at a dinner-dance."

It doesn't say whether the dinner-dance was on or off campus. But it appears the Secret Service itself was including incidents in their definition even if it was somewhat off-campus but still campus related. The McDonalds incident would fit that.

In any event, nobody was "factually incorrect" by giving these examples, because the article didn't say anything about how the Secret Service defined school shootings, and the Secret Service was being quoted as saying all school shooters are boys (which isn't exactly what the Secret Service said).

Why can't you simply accept the fact that, given the Secret Service definition of what a "school shooter" is and is not (which is the standard definition), none of your examples of "school shooters" meet this definition, therefore you are indeed factually incorrect?

Please do your research of relevant primary sources before you opine in the future.

Best,

Heretic 2

The article said, "But the Secret Service has determined that school assassins do not fit a “profile” — aside from the fact that they have all been boys."

First, I just showed that the Secret Service did NOT say this. They said they only found boys within the time period and limited sources searched, and their narrow definition, and then they admit this was limited and had shortcomings.

You didn't respond to that.

Second, even if the SS had actually said that (they didn't), we showed that this is not true, because there ARE female school shooters. We gave several examples Since the article didn't say how the SS defined "school shooters," we were perfectly justified in showing those examples and you were wrong that these examples are "factually incorrect."

Third, I showed that at least one or two incidents that the SS considered "school shootings" were in fact NOT on the campus, and thus, the examples we gave, e.g., of the McDonalds incident, should be included too in the SS report, except that the report only covered up to the year 2000 and not 2007.

You didn't respond to any of the above except to repeat, again, that the definition used by the SS excludes the examples we gave. That may be, but it doesn't answer any of the 3 points above.

Most importantly, the SS NEVER said that all school shooters are male, and clearly this would not be true even if they had. Period.

Marc -

I am not going to play your game of getting distracted by your Red Herring fallacious argument(s).

The fact remains that all your examples of "school shooters" don't meet the Secret Service (and universal) definition of such. Hence, you are factually incorrect.

But rather than admitting your mistake, you are now attempting to change the subject rather than concede that you were indeed wrong. By bringing up something irrelevant from the original debate - whether or not their have been any female "school shooters" - you are attempting a counter-attack to overshadow the fact that you were wrong.

Although the introduction of the red herring makes sense to you as a tactic of defense when under criticism, (also known as "defense by counter-attack), it remains irrelevant to the original question in dispute.

So, as an attempt to "divert the hounds from the hunt," you deploy a red herring to draw across the foxes track ahead of pack. The dogs would hopefully then be diverted by the fresher, stronger sent.

Nice try.

You're funny, Heretic! The original point WAS that there are female school shooters, remember? That isn't a "change" of subject. That WAS the subject. We gave several examples. You then argued that these examples didn't fit the definition that the Secret Service and "everyone who studies the issue" uses. I showed that isn't true, using the Wikipedia. Then I admitted that this was indeed the SS's narrow definition, but I pointed out that this narrow definition led them to only find male shooters within a narrow time frame and with limited sources, and that they admitted their shortcomings, and in fact they NEVER said only boys have been school shooters. They said that's all they found within their limited definition, time period and resources.

Get over it, funny dude. I made no red herrings. I answered every single point you made and you didn't do the same.

by actually using Wikipedia as your source? Talk about a joke. LOL.

Thanks for continuing to expose yourself as someone who will stoop so low as to use a dubious and discredited source as a last ditch effort to not admit you were factually incorrect.

Fact - No females have been "school shooters" as defined by the Secret Service.

Fact - The Secret Service definition is the universal definition.

Fact - None of your examples met the Secret Service criteria.

Fact - You have not been able to refute this reality, contrary to your claim in your last post.

Instead, all you have done is to throw up Red Herring arguments, and I'm not taking your bait.

Get over it.

Yeah, the silly Wikipedia. How can it define school shootings to include shootings from outsiders when everyone knows that there is only one universal definition used by the SS used by *everyone* who studies school shootings. Oh my and now there's the silly article in the ICU Journal of Social Work that actually says the definition is not so clear:

"Researchers have already posed several different definitions of what a “school shooting” is. Moore et al. (2003) used the term “adolescent mass murder” to describe a school shooting, and his definition was, “…the intentional killing of at least three victims (other than the perpetrator) in a single incident by an individual age 19 or younger” (p. 303). Another definition of school shootings was proposed during the research on Westside, Arkansas and Heath, Kentucky. This definition identified four aspects that had to be present in order for the researchers to regard the incident as a school shooting: the shooting had to occur at school or at a school event; the shooters had to be students or former students of the school in which the shooting took place; there had to be multiple targets; and some of the targets had to have either been specifically chosen because of their significance or been randomly shot at (Newman et al., 2004). Newman et al. (2004) also stated that school shooters may actually be targeting the institution rather than specific individuals and that those cases would also be counted."
http://www.bemidjistate.edu/SW_journal/issue14/articles/mongan.htm

Geeze. First the silly Wikipedia and now this ridicuous article in the ICU Journal of Social Work? What next??? Someone actually thinking it's a school shooting when a girl shoots and kills kids at her school from across the street rather than from on campus???

The author of your newest "study" was authored by an "undergraduate student." LOL.

Funny how MRA like you deploy gender feminist tactics - deploying phony "studies" by unqualified "researchers" that have never seen any peer review - in order to push their agenda. LOL.

Because your tactic of throwing up Red Herring fallacious arguments failed to work, your next defensive move is to question the Secret Service definition.

Again Marc, you miss the point. Whether or not you approve of their criteria is irrelevant.

I guess you missed it, Heretic. She CITED experts, Moore et al., who define "school shooting" in a way that is (gasp!) different from the SS! I found that on the internet in one minute. The horror! Don't they know that "everyone" who studies the issue uses the SS definition? Why didn't they consult Heretic first! They should know better than to not use the "universal" definition that EVERYONE uses!

You were wrong, weren't you Heretic? Wrong that "everyone who studies the subject" uses this definition? Let me here you say it. "I was wrong." I know, you can't. That's ok.

The original point made here, by me and others, was the it is not true that only males are school shooters, *and* that if the SS said that, it's wrong. And it turns out the SS did NOT say that. Even if the examples we gave don't fit the precise definition used by the SS, and I admitted long ago that that may be true (I also showed that some of the SS's own examples don't fit its own definition), our point remains true that there ARE female school shooters, and it's not true that "everyone who studies the subject" uses the SS definition.

Hey, you're Joe M., aren't you? :-)

deleted