Black Male Lives Are Not Disposable: Confronting Gun Violence and Anti-Blackness, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Black Male Lives Are Not Disposable: Confronting Gun Violence & Anti-Blackness

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

August 3, 2026

Gun violence is a national public health crisis, but its burden is not shared equally. Black communities—and Black boys and men, in particular—experience a profoundly disproportionate share of the deaths, injuries, trauma, and grief.

A recent report from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
documents the scale of this emergency. In 2024, one in every 143 Black men ages 18 to 24 in Philadelphia was killed or injured in a gun homicide or shooting. In Rochester, New York, the figure was one in 85. In Cincinnati, it was one in 81. Although most shootings are committed by a relatively small number of people, the consequences reverberate across entire families, schools, neighborhoods, and generations.

Black Americans die from gun violence at 2.6 times the rate of white Americans. Nearly 13,600 Black people die from gun violence each year, on average. Most strikingly, although Black boys and men constitute only about 6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for more than half of all U.S. gun-homicide victims.

Among Black men ages 15 to 44, homicide has been the leading cause of death for more than half a century. In the nation’s 20 largest counties, Black males ages 15 to 24 die from gun homicide at nearly 23 times the rate of white males of the same age. In 2024, more Black men ages 15 to 24 died from gun homicides than from unintentional injuries, suicide, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, police shootings, HIV, and numerous other leading causes combined.

These statistics require us to say something plainly: Black male life continues to be treated as disposable.

Gun violence Is also structural violence.

We must reject explanations that portray gun violence as evidence of a defect within Black culture. Violence does not develop in a historical vacuum. It is closely connected to racial segregation, economic abandonment, underfunded schools, limited health care, housing instability, unemployment, and the withdrawal of public and private investment.

Shockingly, according to the Giffords Center report, "One study showed that Black Americans are just as likely to be shot and killed by law enforcement if they are unarmed as white Americans who are armed. 39

Disinvestment is itself a form of symbolic violence. 

Disinvestment helps produce violence, and violence is then used to justify further disinvestment, surveillance, policing, and incarceration. Communities are denied resources, blamed for the consequences, and punished rather than supported.

Anti-Blackness operates through these institutional choices. It shapes whose neighborhoods receive investment, whose trauma receives treatment, whose children are protected, and whose deaths generate sustained public urgency.

The trauma extends beyond those who are shot.

Black boys and men are not only the people most likely to be killed or injured; they are also among those most likely to witness gun violence or live near it. More than half of Black youth in one study lived within a mile of a gun homicide. Children living within several blocks of a shooting were nearly 50 percent more likely to seek emergency mental health care.

Every death affects parents, children, partners, siblings, classmates, and neighbors. Black women and girls frequently carry much of the caregiving and emotional labor that follows, holding families and communities together while managing their own grief.

The rising rate of firearm suicide among Black youth is also alarming. Between 2020 and 2024, firearm-suicide rates increased by 26 percent among Black Americans and by 22 percent among Black people ages 10 to 24.

These figures remind us that Black boys and men must be recognized not only as resilient, but also as vulnerable human beings deserving care, protection, tenderness, and mental health support.

Fighting anti-Blackness across aur communities.

This is not a crisis that Black communities should be expected to solve alone. Anti-Blackness exists across institutions and across racial and ethnic communities, including communities that have themselves experienced racism.

It appears when Black masculinity is equated with criminality, when Black neighborhoods are treated as dangerous and disposable, when racial slurs and stereotypes go unchallenged, and when communities pursue their own advancement by distancing themselves from Black people.

Meaningful Black-Brown and multiracial solidarity requires more than symbolic declarations. It requires confronting anti-Blackness in our homes, organizations, schools, universities, churches, movements, and public policies.

Black boys and men should not have to be perfect, respectable, middle class, academically successful, compliant, or unarmed for their lives to matter. Their humanity is not conditional.

From punishment to prevention and healing.

Evidence-based gun-safety laws—including firearm licensing, waiting periods, and strong public-carry laws—can reduce homicides. These policies must be combined with sustained investments in community-led violence-intervention programs, mental health care, youth employment, quality education, stable housing, mediation, mentorship, and trauma recovery.

We must choose prevention over abandonment, healing over punishment, investment over criminalization, and solidarity over racial division.

Black boys and men deserve to grow older. They deserve safety, opportunity, joy, dignity, and belonging.

Black male lives are not disposable. Our policies, institutions, communities, and collective actions must finally demonstrate that truth.

Reference

https://www.ddtonline.com/communities-crime-local-content/one-year-later-seeking-justice-james

REPORT

Gun Violence in Black Communities
by ALEX NGUYEN & KELLY DRANE 

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence | APRIL 14, 2026

Introduction
For decades, gun violence has taken a disproportionate and grueling toll on Black communities—leading to tens of thousands of gun deaths and hundreds of thousands of gun injuries. The impact of gun violence on this community is particularly devastating for young Black men. In 2024, one in every 143 Black men ages 18 to 24 in Philadelphia were killed or injured in gun homicides or shootings.1 In Rochester, New York, it was one in 85 young Black men.2 In Cincinnati, it was one in 81 young Black men.3

The vast majority of shootings in these cities—and in similar communities across the country—are perpetrated by a very small number of people.4 But the impacts of this violence are felt across entire communities, contributing to generations of trauma and collective grief that have disproportionately affected Black people.

Importantly, gun violence in Black communities is a direct cause and consequence of systematic, structural disadvantages. Research shows that high rates of gun violence seen today have been forged by past and present racial discrimination, including historic racial segregation and disinvestment.5 As gun violence plagues these communities, it leads to diminished economic opportunities and a lack of investment, creating a vicious cycle.6 This reality provides not only a strong impetus for action, but also a reminder that solutions to this problem must address the underlying inequalities driving gun violence in Black communities.

Trends in Gun Violence

Gun violence touches every community and every racial group in the United States, but none more so than Black communities. In fact, Black Americans die from gun violence at 2.6 times the rate of white Americans.7 On average, nearly 13,600 Black people die from gun violence each year.8

The total gun death rate among Black Americans declined 20% from 2020 to 2024.9 Yet, in recent years, different types of gun deaths among Black Americans have seen different dynamics. For example, the firearm suicide rate for Black people rose 26% between 2020 and 2024.10 However, both the Black firearm homicide rate and the Black unintentional firearm death rate fell over the same time period (28% and 12%, respectively).11 Additionally, police shooting deaths among Black Americans have remained at high levels over the time period.12

Firearm Homicide

The vast majority of gun deaths among Black Americans are gun homicides, and Black Americans make up the majority of gun homicide victims in the US. In fact, 81% of all Black Americans who die from gun violence die by gun homicide.13 Despite the fact that Black boys and men account for just 6% of the total population, they comprise more than half of all gun homicide victims.14

Recently, gun homicide rates across the country have fallen. Between 2020 and 2024, the gun homicide rate among Black people decreased nearly 28%—the second fastest decline among racial and ethnic groups.15 However, gun homicide rates for this population remain higher than rates seen in 2019, before the pandemic, and Black Americans still die from gun homicide at higher rates than any other group.16 Black women also experience higher rates of gun violence than any other group of women. In 2024 alone, the gun homicide rate among Black women was 5.3 times higher than the gun homicide rate among white women.17

The disparities in Black and white homicide rates are particularly stark in large cities and counties. Research suggests that roughly half of all gun homicides take place in just 127 cities,18 driving the elevated rates of homicides in these geographies. In the nation’s 20 largest counties, Black men ages 15 to 24 die from gun homicides at a rate nearly 23 times that of white residents of the same age.19 This disparity means that while roughly five out of every 100,000 young white men in these counties die from gun homicides, nearly eleven in every 10,000 young Black men are killed in such incidents.16

Homicide has been the leading cause of death for Black men ages 15 to 44 for more than half a century.20 More than 87% of homicides in Black communities involve firearms.21 These disparities are even more striking for young Black men: gun homicides are the leading cause of death and more than outstrip deaths from other leading causes of death combined.16 In other words, in 2024, more Black men ages 15 to 24 died in gun homicides than from unintentional injuries, suicide, heart disease, cancer, nonfirearm homicides, diabetes, congenital abnormalities, chronic respiratory diseases, police shootings, cerebrovascular diseases, anemias, sepsis, influenza and pneumonia, and HIV combined.16

Gun violence is also the leading cause of death for Black children, in large part because of the severe burden of gun homicides on this population. In fact, while gun violence only recently became the leading cause of death for all children in 2020, gun violence has been the leading cause of death for Black children since 2006.22 Eighty-four percent of gun deaths among Black children are gun homicides, and, in 2024, Black children were 16 times more likely to be killed in a gun homicide than white children.23

The toll of our nation’s gun violence epidemic, however, extends beyond gun deaths and injuries. The high rates of gun violence in Black communities lead to more exposure to gun violence. In fact, Black boys and men not only are the most likely victims of gun violence but also are exposed to gun violence most often.24 For example, more than half of all Black youth in one study lived less than a mile away from a gun homicide.25 These exposures traumatize communities, leading to and exacerbating mental health problems like elevated levels of psychological distress, depression, and suicidal ideation.26 In one study, researchers found that children who lived within a few blocks of a shooting were nearly 50% more likely to seek mental health care at an emergency department.27

While Black male youth are the most likely to experience gun violence and particularly gun homicides, entire communities grieve and mourn losses inflicted by firearm homicide. Black girls and women are often tasked with providing care in the aftermath of loss.28 One scholar describes this as a “living death” or a “…‘second killing’ of Black women and girls who are forced to relive the trauma of vicarious, violent loss at the hands of others.”16

Firearm Suicide

In the US, the vast majority of gun suicide deaths have involved white people: over the last 20 years, in fact, white people have comprised 81% of all suicide deaths.29 However, more recent data suggests a worrying trend. Suicide and gun suicide rates have risen for every racial and ethnic group in recent years, with Black people seeing a more rapid increase in such rates compared to white people. From 2020 to 2024, gun suicide rates increased just 9% for white people, but 26% for Black people.30

Gun suicide increases—and the racial disparities in these increases—are particularly pronounced for Black youth. From 2020 to 2024, the firearm suicide rate for Black people ages 10 to 24 rose 22%.31 During the same period, the firearm suicide rate decreased 2% for 10-to-24-year-olds overall.32 For white youth in this age range during this time, the firearm suicide rate decreased 7%.33

From 2020 to 2024, gun suicide rates increased just nine percent for white people, but 26% for Black people.

On average, more than 3,700 Black Americans die by suicide each year.16 Nearly 3 in 5 (59%) involve firearms.16 However, scholarship suggests that these numbers likely undercount the burden of suicide in this community. Black Americans face numerous barriers to accessing mental health care,34 meaning that medical examiners are less likely to have sufficient data to accurately determine and classify deaths in these communities as suicides.35

Police Shootings

The sharp disparities in gun violence impacting Black Americans also extend to police shootings. One in four fatal police shootings involves a Black victim, though Black Americans make up just 14% of the US population.(In 2024, there were 49,207,745 Black Americans in the US and a total population of 340,110,990. From 2020 to 2024, there were 5,766 fatal police shootings. During that same time period, there were 1,437 Black victims. 36 When compared to all other racial and ethnic groups, Black Americans experience the highest rate of fatal police shootings.37 Police fatally shoot Black Americans at three times the rate they fatally shoot white Americans.38 One study showed that Black Americans are just as likely to be shot and killed by law enforcement if they are unarmed as white Americans who are armed.39

Recent research also suggests that Black–white disparities in police shootings were even more pronounced for nonfatal police shooting injuries.40 For example, researchers found that in Florida, Black people were approximately three times as likely as white people to be fatally shot by police, yet more than five times as likely as white people to be nonfatally shot by police.16

Risk of fatal police shooting if Black

Unarmed black civilians are three times more likely to be shot and killed by police than unarmed white civilians. Importantly, research is clear that these disparities in police shootings are not simply a product of more police contact between Black Americans and police or a product of increased crime in communities of color.41 Rather, police shooting disparities are amplified by residential segregation and the resulting racial biases.42

Police shootings have broad impacts on entire communities, leading to trauma and worsening mental health. One study, in fact, found that a police killing of an unarmed Black person led to a significant increase in the number of poor mental health days for Black people living in proximity to the shooting in the following three months.43 The mental health burden of police shootings in Black communities is estimated to be nearly as large as the mental health burden associated with diabetes in these communities.16

The consequences of police violence, however, extend beyond the shooting itself and its traumatic impact. Research is clear that shootings by police can erode community trust in law enforcement.44 Fractures in police-community trust, in turn, can fuel cycles of community gun homicides and shootings that disproportionately impact Black people.16

GET THE FACTS

Follow the Research

Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level. Learn More

Conclusion

The statistics on gun deaths among Black Americans paint a grim picture, but we should not be resigned that this toll and these disparities are inevitable.

Evidence-based gun safety laws can help address the epidemic of gun violence in Black communities. Recent research has found that specific policies, like waiting periods,45 firearm licensing laws,46 and strong public carry laws16 all reduce homicides in Black communities. Importantly, many of these policies enjoy strong support from Black Americans. A poll of Black Americans and Black gun owners found that these groups support a number of gun safety laws, in many cases at higher rates than white Americans and white gun owners.47

These policy reforms must also be coupled with direct investments in community-led violence intervention programs. Community violence intervention programs engage individuals at highest risk of being victims or perpetrators—or both—of violence through a variety of strategies including building relationships and providing supportive social services, addressing conflict through nonviolent means like de-escalation and mediation, and working to support community healing from violence. At their core, these programs ​​directly invest in communities and the people in them, with many programs helping to address systemic inequalities by meeting the economic, educational, health, and social needs of the participants and their families. Many communities have been employing these strategies for years, but dedicated, stable investments are needed to scale and sustain these programs.

Black communities have disproportionately shouldered our nation’s gun violence epidemic for decades, and will continue to do so unless we take concerted, community-driven steps to address this public health crisis. It is imperative—from an equity perspective, a moral perspective, and a human perspective—that we support these communities in reducing gun violence.

Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature," by Marwick, Clancy, and Furl (2022)

Friends,

As we ponder yesterday's shooting at Joel Osteen's Houston Lakewood church that resulted in the death of the assailant, injury to the child she entered the church with, and a church member, the terms, "extremism" and "radicalization" come to mind.

With so much going on these days of an extremist nature, it's good to see what the research says as are assumptions are not always correct. Just the Executive Summary is eye-opening. For example,...
"No specific type of person is vulnerable to radicalization, and most people who commit political violence are not mentally ill or alienated from society."

Knowledge in this fight against extremism is power. As "extremism" and "radicalization" are complex issues with "definitional ambiguity," this study by Marwick, Clancy, and Furl merits a close read.


My thoughts and prayers go out to all those impacted by this at Lakewood. And the poor little child who is injured didn't deserve this.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Marwick, A., Clancy, B., & Furl, K. (2022). Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature. The Bulletin of Technology & Public Life.

Maxouris, C. & Mascarenhas, L. (2024, Feb. 12). A woman entered a Houston megachurch with a child and began shooting. Here’s what we know, CNN.com. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/us/joel-osteen-lakewood-church-shooting-monday/index.html

Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature

This literature review examines cross-disciplinary work on radicalization to better understand the present concerns around online radicalization and far-right extremist and fringe movements.

by Alice Marwick, Benjamin Clancy, and Katherine Furl

ABSTRACT

This literature review examines cross-disciplinary work on radicalization to situate, historicize, frame, and better understand the present concerns around online radicalization and far-right extremist and fringe movements. We find that research on radicalization is inextricably linked to the post-9/11 context in which it emerged, and as a result is overly focused on studying the other. Applying this research to the spread of far-right ideas online does not account for the ways in which the far-right’s endorsement of white supremacy and racism holds historical, normative precedent in the United States. Further, radicalization research is rife with uncertainties, ranging from definitional ambiguity to an inability to identify any simplistic, causal models capable of fully explaining the conditions under which radicalization occurs. Instead, there are multiple possible pathways to radicalization, and while the internet does not cause individuals to adopt far-right extremist or fringe beliefs, some technological affordances may aid adoption of these beliefs through gradual processes of socialization. We conclude that the term “radicalization” does not serve as a useful analytical frame for studying the spread of far-right and fringe ideas online. Instead, potential analytical frameworks better suited to studying these phenomena include theories prominent in the study of online communities, conversion, mainstreaming, and sociotechnical theories of media effects.
Executive Summary

The adoption of extremist, far-right, and fringe beliefs is often referred to as “radicalization,” a term formulated post-9/11 to understand jihadi terrorism, a very different context from the far-right.

Radicalization research is full of uncertainty.

No specific type of person is vulnerable to radicalization, and most people who commit political violence are not mentally ill or alienated from society.

Radicalization is not caused by poverty, oppression, or marginalization.

There is no one way in which people are “radicalized.”

Viewing extremist media does not necessarily lead to adopting extremist beliefs or committing political violence.

In contrast to the “red pill” model, radicalization is gradual. Recruits slowly adopt the identities, emotions, and interpretations shared by a community. They conceptualize their problems as injustices caused by others, and justify using political violence against them.


The internet does not cause radicalization, but it helps spread extremist ideas, enables people interested in these ideas to form communities, and mainstreams conspiracy theories and distrust in institutions.


We conclude that “radicalization” is not a useful frame for understanding the spread of far-right and fringe ideas online.

It is analytically imprecise and morally judgmental


It doesn’t help us understand the role of media and digital technologies.


It is inextricably tied to a global security infrastructure targeting Islam.


It doesn’t account for the fact that fringe or far-right beliefs may change what people think is “true” and “false,” making it hard to find common ground.


The focus on violence ignores other worrying effects of mainstreaming far-right and fringe ideas.

Table of Contents [Go to this link for access to the entire piece]

Introduction

1. What is radicalization?

Radicalization as Acts of Violence (Terrorism)

Radicalization as Adoption of Extremist Ideologies

Definitions in this Document

Implications of Definitional Ambiguity

2. What makes people vulnerable to radicalization?

Individual, Psychological Characteristics

Structural, Systemic Causes

Movement-Level Causes

3. How are people radicalized?

Pathways and Pyramids

Social Networks and Relational Approaches

Problems with Pathways Approaches

Radicalization as Agented Meaning-Making

4. What is the role of the internet in radicalization?

Platform Affordances

Online Discourse

5. Are there differences between radicalization into far-right and jihadi extremism?

Jihadi Extremism

White Supremacist and Far-Right Radicalization

6. Is online radicalization a useful concept?

Should we use “online radicalization”?

What concepts can we use instead?

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence

This 2019 report of "targeted school violence" by the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is very important as it generated credible findings with clear policy implications. Red flag laws, for instance, could prove beneficial by preventing individuals exhibiting signs of posing a threat to themselves or others from acquiring or owning any type of firearm. See this example of a New York Red Flag Protection Law: https://www.ny.gov/programs/red-flag-gun-protection-law. A need for mental health services for youth is clear.

Bullying in schools is another problem area with specific policy and practice implications mentioned in the report as follows:

"The evidence presented here supports past research findings that bullying causes significant stress and harmful outcomes for students. Schools should adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy toward bullying and should encourage students to report bullying when they witness it or are victims of it." 

The report recommends intervening to stop bullying once reported. Moreover, "Bullying does not have to meet a legal threshold before schools can intervene." 

A finding I found interesting is that violent incidents occurred most frequently at the very beginning of the school year in September or after students returned from the holidays in January. Hence, these are times for schools to be especially vigilant. The Uvalde shooting was different because it took place at the end of the school year that this report suggests is rare.

Mental health factors and this troubled person's family situation seem to have been determining, as well as easy access to an AR-15. Uvalde parents have appropriately pushed for policy that disallows youth under the age of 21 to own or possess an AR-15. The shooter at Robb Elementary purchased it just two days after turning 18, and then set out to kill 21 people, injuring 17 others, with a 22nd person dying from "broken heart syndrome," upon discovering that his wife, a teacher, was among the deceased. News reports further suggest that the Uvalde gunman had been bullied, attacking the same 4th grade classroom where this bullying had allegedly earlier occurred when he was in elementary school. He clearly had mental health issues that were never treated.

It's so disappointing and tragic that despite numerous incidents of mass shootings in Texas over the years, lawmakers have been unsuccessful in enacting substantial gun control measures.

You'll draw your own inferences from this report . The executive summary below provides a quick guide to findings.

-Angela Valenzuela

#UvaldeStrong #RememberUvalde

Download Report here [pdf].

Executive Summary

Ensuring the safety of children at school is a responsibility that belongs to everyone, including law enforcement, school staff, mental health practitioners, government officials, and members of the general public. To aid in these efforts, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) studied 41 incidents of targeted school violence that occurred at K-12 schools in the United States from 2008 to 2017. This report builds on 20 years of NTAC research and guidance in the field of threat assessment by offering an in-depth analysis of the motives, behaviors, and situational factors of the attackers, as well as the tactics, resolutions, and other operationally-relevant details of the attacks. The analysis suggests that many of these tragedies could have been prevented, and supports the importance of schools establishing comprehensive targeted violence prevention programs as recommended by the Secret Service in Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model: An Operational Guide for Preventing Targeted School Violence. This approach is intended to identify students of concern, assess their risk for engaging in violence or other harmful activities, and implement intervention strategies to manage that risk. The threshold for intervention should be low, so that schools can identify students in distress before their behavior escalates to the level of eliciting concerns about safety. Because most of these attacks ended very quickly, law enforcement rarely had the opportunity to intervene before serious harm was caused to students or staff. Additionally, many of the schools that experienced these tragedies had implemented physical security measures (e.g., cameras, school resource officers, lockdown procedures). Prevention is key. Some of the key findings from this study, and their implications for informing school violence prevention efforts, include: 

• There is no profile of a student attacker, nor is there a profile for the type of school that has been targeted: Attackers varied in age, gender, race, grade level, academic performance, and social characteristics. Similarly, there was no identified profile of the type of school impacted by targeted violence, as schools varied in size, location, and student-teacher ratios. Rather than focusing on a set of traits or characteristics, a threat assessment process should focus on gathering relevant information about a student’s behaviors, situational factors, and circumstances to assess the risk of violence or other harmful outcomes. 

• Attackers usually had multiple motives, the most common involving a grievance with classmates: In addition to grievances with classmates, attackers were also motivated by grievances involving school staff, romantic relationships, or other personal issues. Other motives included a desire to kill, suicide, and seeking fame or notoriety. Discovering a student’s motive for engaging in concerning behavior is critical to assessing the student’s risk of engaging in violence and identifying appropriate interventions to change behavior and manage risk. 

• Most attackers used firearms, and firearms were most often acquired from the home: Many of the attackers were able to access firearms from the home of their parents or another close relative. While many of the firearms were unsecured, in several cases the attackers were able to gain access to firearms that were secured in a locked gun safe or case. It should be further noted, however, that some attackers used knives instead of firearms to perpetrate their attacks. Therefore, a threat assessment should explore if a student has access to any weapons, with a particular focus on weapons access at home. Schools, parents, and law enforcement must work together rapidly to restrict access to weapons in those cases when students pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. 

• Most attackers had experienced psychological, behavioral, or developmental symptoms: The observable mental health symptoms displayed by attackers prior to their attacks were divided into three main categories: psychological (e.g., depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation), behavioral (e.g., defiance/misconduct or symptoms of ADD/ADHD), and neurological/developmental (e.g., developmental delays or cognitive deficits). The fact that half of the attackers had received one or more mental health services prior to their attack indicates that mental health evaluations and treatments should be considered a component of a multidisciplinary threat assessment, but not a replacement. Mental health professionals should be included in a collaborative threat assessment process that also involves teachers, administrators, and law enforcement. 

• Half of the attackers had interests in violent topics: Violent interests, without an appropriate explanation, are concerning, which means schools should not hesitate to initiate further information-gathering, assessment, and management of the student’s behavior. For example, a student who is preoccupied or fixated on topics like the Columbine shooting or Hitler, as was noted in the backgrounds of several of the attackers in this study, may be the focus of a school threat assessment to determine how such an interest originated and if the interest negatively impacts the student’s thinking and behavior.

 • All attackers experienced social stressors involving their relationships with peers and/or romantic partners: Attackers experienced stressors in various areas of their lives, with nearly all experiencing at least one in the six months prior to their attack, and half within two days of the attack. In addition to social stressors, other stressors experienced by many of the attackers were related to families and conflicts in the home, academic or disciplinary actions, or other personal issues. All school personnel should be trained to recognize signs of a student in crisis. Additional training should focus on crisis intervention, teaching students skills to manage emotions and resolve conflicts, and suicide prevention. 

• Nearly every attacker experienced negative home life factors: The negative home life factors experienced by the attackers included parental separation or divorce, drug use or criminal charges among family members, and domestic abuse. While none of the factors included here should be viewed as predictors that a student will be violent, past research has identified an association between many of these types of factors and a range of negative outcomes for children. 

• Most attackers were victims of bullying, which was often observed by others: Most of the attackers were bullied by their classmates, and for over half of the attackers the bullying appeared to be of a persistent pattern which lasted for weeks, months, or years. It is critical that schools implement comprehensive programs designed to promote safe and positive school climates, where students feel empowered to report bullying when they witness it or are victims of it, and where school officials and other authorities act to intervene. 

• Most attackers had a history of school disciplinary actions, and many had prior contact with law enforcement: Most attackers had a history of receiving school disciplinary actions resulting from a broad range of inappropriate behavior. The most serious of those actions included the attacker being suspended, expelled, or having law enforcement interactions as a result of their behavior at school. An important point for school staff to consider is that punitive measures are not preventative. If a student elicits concern or poses a risk of harm to self or others, removing the student from the school may not always be the safest option. To help in making the determination regarding appropriate discipline, schools should employ disciplinary practices that ensure fairness, transparency with the student and family, and appropriate follow-up. 

• All attackers exhibited concerning behaviors. Most elicited concern from others, and most communicated their intent to attack: The behaviors that elicited concern ranged from a constellation of lower-level concerns to objectively concerning or prohibited behaviors. Most of the attackers communicated a prior threat to their target or communicated their intentions to carry out an attack. In many cases, someone observed a threatening communication or behavior but did not act, either out of fear, not believing the attacker, misjudging the immediacy or location, or believing they had dissuaded the attacker. Students, school personnel, and family members should be encouraged to report troubling or concerning behaviors to ensure that those in positions of authority can intervene. 

A multidisciplinary threat assessment team, in conjunction with the appropriate policies, tools, and training, is the best practice for preventing future tragedies. A thorough review of the findings contained in this report should make clear that tangible steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood that any student would cause harm, or be harmed, at school.

Serbians hand in guns and question culture of violence after two shootings: We have much to learn from them

In the wake of two recent mass shootings in Serbia, one in a school that resulted in the violent deaths of 17 people, wounding 21 people, with children being among its many victims. Relatedly, also read this May 6 story in PBS.org Newshour titled, "Funeral held in Serbia for Several Victims of Two Mass Shootings."

Something they thought not possible in their own country, the country has woken up to their "gun problem," evidenced, in part, by high gun ownership and unconscionable, unexpected recent gun violence. Serbian protestors are addressing state policy, as well as violent, reality TV as unacceptable. 

The graph below tells the story of gun ownership that correlates to gun violence, generally. Look at how the U.S. stacks up against other countries on the Switzerland-based, "Small Arms Survey." It's eye opening to see how the U.S. outpaces, by far, every other country with Serbian officials clearly trying to exploit this evidence as a problem of "Western values," that protestors, marching in the streets, are not buying. Rather, they decry the "values" imposed upon them by their own government.

These dynamics sounds like our country, too—with our NRA-influenced government officials generally hesitant to pass gun safety laws.

Maybe we here in the U.S. can learn a few things from the Serbian people. Them not wanting to become the U.S. speaks volumes about not only how were are perceived by other countries, but also our actual levels of gun violence and the policy conundrum we find ourselves in.

My heart goes out to those traumatized by this terrible violence. Globally, we must push collectively push for a world with no wars or gun violence.

-Angela Valenzuela

#MarchForOurLives #guncontrol #gunsense #nra #GunControlNow

Serbians hand in guns and question culture of violence after two shootings

Thousands of unregistered guns were handed in after back-to-back mass shootings in Serbia

By Guy Delauney

BBC News, Balkans correspondent

Shock and horror might have been Serbians' first reaction to two mass shootings in as many days earlier this month. But outrage swiftly followed.

Tens of thousands of people attended two protests in the capital, Belgrade, with smaller rallies in other cities around the country.

They marched under the banner "Serbia Against Violence" and called for an end to what they viewed as a culture of violence which led to the shootings at a school in Belgrade and, the next day, around Mladenovac, south of Serbia's capital.

More protests will follow - and the government seems rattled. Senior figures have been talking down the numbers involved, as well as making plans for a "solidarity" rally of their own.

But there is one issue which both protesters and authorities seem to agree on: gun control.

"There is no pro-gun lobby in Serbia," says Bojan Elek, the deputy director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy and an expert on firearms issues in the country.

"There is a national association of gun owners - but nothing close to what they're doing in the US with the National Rifle Association (NRA)."

In the wake of the shootings, President Aleksandar Vucic swiftly announced what he called a "general disarmament" of the country. He declared a month-long amnesty for illegally-held weapons, with a warning of harsh consequences for anyone who held on to guns without a permit.

The president also has legally-held weapons in his sights. Mr Vucic has announced a moratorium on new weapons permits and a review of current gun licences.

All this would appear to be quite an undertaking in a country where the number of guns in circulation is, apparently, alarmingly high. In 2018, the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey ranked Serbia third in the world for the number of weapons in private hands, with 39 guns per 100 people.

[DMN Editors] Gov. Abbott, you must act on gun violence: Texas is being shaped by fear and anguish

It's hard having a blog on education in Texas and not mention the recent spate of gun violence. The Dallas Morning News editors weigh in on this and urge our governor to prioritize this as a policy issue. After all, our legislature is currently in session. Something can be done now.

I had dinner with a few colleagues yesterday evening and stories were shared of concerns with sleep overs for their children with friends' families and how what should be a straightforward conversation of guns in people's homes are difficult questions to ask, even when Facebook posts indicate the presence of guns and rifles in these same peoples' homes. Even asking such questions are "political."

What gets me is that when the governor and others say that gun violence is an artifact of mental illness, why doesn't that translate into gun safety measures like red flag laws and background checks so as to increase the chances that guns don't get into the wrong hands?

One encouraging development in the wake of the shooting in Allen, Texas is a move to raise the age when an individual can purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Read: In surprise move days after Allen mall shooting, Texas House panel OKs bill raising age to buy semi-automatic rifles

This is an important development in the right direction. However, more must be done. A big thanks to the DMN editors for expressing, I trust, most people's, concerns.

-Angela Valenzuela

Gov. Abbott, you must act on gun violence

Texas is being shaped by fear and anguish.

By Dallas Morning News Editorial

8:01 AM on May 7, 2023

A man got out of his car and sprayed them with bullets of such a high power and in such rapid succession that a mass killing was inescapable.

You responded that this was an “unspeakable tragedy.” We tell you that it was not unspeakable, and that the people of Texas need you to speak to it and its cause.

There is nothing conservative about refusing to acknowledge evidence or give voice to the true nature of a problem. The people who are dead today are not dead because a twisted and evil soul walked among them. They are dead because that person was able to obtain a weapon so powerful and with such high capacity that even the bravest and fastest response of law enforcement could not save their lives.

That is what you must speak to if you want to truly lead this state. You must speak to the terrible imbalance that you and Republican leaders have created between the individual liberty of nearly unrestricted ownership of the most powerful rifles and guns versus the increasing decline in society’s ability to function without constant fear of violent death.

It’s too bad that, when given the chance to do so Sunday morning on Fox News, you instead embraced what has become the dodge of the right — focusing on mental health measures. Those are needed. But in a world where mental health struggles are becoming more common, no nation suffers from mass shootings like the U.S. The lack of commonsense controls on gun sales is the reason.

The people you represent are living in fear. Our public spaces are no longer places we can go without considering the possibility that we may become victims of once-unimaginable violence. Our private spaces are at risk, too. Our schools, churches, shopping malls, big-box stores, airports and funerals are all possible targets. So are homes, backyards and front yards, and highways and city streets. Every place, every gathering.

Parents fear letting their children go to school or go to the mall. Children exchange messages about constant rumors of guns someone might be carrying around them. Their lives are being changed by the presence of fear.

Texans have had it with living under the gun. A February poll from the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Politics Project showed half of Texans want stricter gun laws. That includes 22% of people who strongly identify as Republican. Those numbers are only going to grow as people’s fear about living their daily lives grows.

We recommended your return to office because the people of this state have prospered under the pro-business environment fostered here. People need the opportunity to lift themselves up, and Texas has given them that chance. But what good is prosperity if we cannot have freedom from fear to enjoy it?

When we recommended you, we did so with reservations and urged you to recognize that “the Second Amendment does not amount to an absolute right to individual ownership of firearms.”

Images on social media show the Allen shooter used a high-power rifle. Sounds from video of the shooting indicate it fired in rapid succession. While facts still must be confirmed, other images indicate the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle with a high capacity magazine.

How many people might be alive today if that shooter had not been able to obtain that rifle, or that magazine, or the power of rounds loaded in it? We don’t know whether the shooter obtained the weapon legally or not. It doesn’t matter because there are so many guns all around, and they are so loosely controlled, that anyone with intent and money can get one with no trouble at all.

This has to stop. You cannot say this is an “unspeakable tragedy” and move on. A leader must have the courage to speak. You must look at this horror, at the devastation wrought on these people, and you must summon the will to act to change the laws that have put us in this terrible place.

Editor’s note: This editorial was updated at 2:37 p.m. on May 7, 2023 to reflect Gov. Greg Abbott’s comments on Fox News.

Correction, 7:32 a.m. May 9, 2023: This editorial has corrected the description of the rounds used in the weapon in the Allen murders. They are high-velocity, high-power, but low-caliber rounds.