Many Americans think of school shootings as mass casualty events involving an adolescent with an assault-style weapon. But a new study says that most recent school shootings orchestrated by teenagers do not fit that image — and they are often related to community violence.
The study, published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 253 school shootings carried out by 262 adolescents in the US between 1990 and 2016.
It found that these adolescents were responsible for only a handful of mass casualty shootings, defined as those involving four or more gunshot fatalities. About half of the shootings analyzed — 119 — involved at least one death. Among the events, seven killed four or more people.
A majority of the shootings analyzed also involved handguns rather than assault rifles or shotguns, and they were often the result of “interpersonal disputes,” according to the researchers from University of South Carolina and University of Florida.
I still don’t see the distinction.
Rather I see what seems like an arbitrary distinction. The authors are trying to make. What I don’t see is why that distinction is relevant.
From the quote that was provided to you:
There needs to be a distinction so that it can be more appropriately and efficiently prevented.
Because the solutions look different.
“take away the guns” would solve for both
But that doesn’t remove the impetus for violence. Preventing school violence requires more than simply removing the weapons for violence.
Sure, but there’s still a difference between school violence with guns and school violence with fists
Typically, the opportunity to get a gun. But the violence that motivates either is typically the same. That’s why school violence prevention is, itself, typically the same, regardless of how it may end.
“My son got beat up in school today”
“My son got shot and killed in school today”
It’s the guns. It’s always been the guns. And that’s why this country is uniquely dealing with this problem. It’s not hard to see it, unless you don’t want to.
Stopping violence before either of those things happens is the point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather neither of those happen. 
Taking the nihilist and defeatist attitude that one of those must happen, and therefore we must settle for it with half-measures meant only to prevent the other is bullshit. 
Restricting access to guns is specifically achievable (see also: most of the rest of the world) and would save many lives.
In tandem, sure let’s work on preventing violence in general. I’m all in favor, but achieving this semi-utopian goal seems far more challenging.
It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that’s what you want to do.
The fact that guns are easy to get, easy to use, and are a means to extreme, and usually fatal violence is a huge factor to consider in the increase in the violence they contribute to.  Not all weapons are created equal, and the type of weapon they are cannot be weighed equally to other weapons when calculating how each type of weapon contributes to violence. And especially considering the fact that most lethal violence that is committed is committed with a gun. 
No, that’s just a distraction the ruling class throws at us to prevent us from addressing the real issue: the disparity in wealth.
Sweden has a higher wealth inequality index than the United States. Strange, how that doesn’t lead to an epidemic of school shootings without unfettered access to guns.
Are you asserting that school shootings are caused by wealth inequality? Do you have any data to back that up? 
No the person I’m replying to is.
While it may be a factor, I’m pointing out America is by no means unique in having these problems, such as wealth inequality. In fact all the problems so often touted as the cause for gun violence are not unique to America. The main exception is the incredible proliferation of guns and the lax regulations surrounding them.
But many Americans love their guns, as long as they don’t have to pay the price in blood for it, they’ll continue blaming other factors…
No they’re not, they just said that was a distraction.
Bad example. Sweden is currently suffering the worst gun violence of any scandinavian country.
I know. It’s still way better than the US. Because guns are a bigger factor than wealth disparity, mental health care, social homogeneity, or anything else which is typically pointed to by people who value their access to guns more than other’s lives.
It’s a specious argument.