Policies to Prevent Gun Violence in Schools

Impact of Gun Ownership on Child Safety

Gun violence continues to rise across the United States. With widespread access to the internet and a 24-hour cable news cycle, the American public receives constant reminders of this critical problem. In recent years, the increase in firearm-related morbidity and mortality among pediatric and adolescent populations has become particularly evident, surpassing motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death.[1] This milestone was reached in 2017 for individuals aged 0–24.[2] By 2021, total firearm-related deaths in children had reached 4,752, with pediatric suicides involving firearms at a record high.[3]

While some have speculated that the increasing levels of gun-related deaths are due to rising gun ownership, in actuality, household gun ownership declined by 28% between 1973 to 2021.[4] However, household gun ownership has started to trend upward again. As of April 2021, approximately 30 million children lived in households with firearms, seven million more than in 2015.[5]

School Shootings Throughout the Decades

2024 marked the 25th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting, which resulted in the deaths of 13 people, including 12 students, and left 21 others injured. This event was not an isolated incident. Over the past quarter of a century, an estimated 311,000 children have been exposed to gun violence in school settings.[6] During the 2023–24 school year alone, there were 144 reported incidences of gun violence in schools.[7] Previous years have also seen notable incidents, including the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which claimed 26 lives, and the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which resulted in 17 deaths and 17 injuries. In May 2022, another devastating tragedy occurred at Uvalde Elementary School, where 19 children and two adults were killed.[8]

Gun violence has extended beyond K–12 schools, affecting a broad range of educational facilities, including colleges and universities. One of the first documented mass shootings in an education setting occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where an enrolled student in crisis killed 17 people and injured 31 others.[9] Since then, patterns of firearm-related threats and attacks have continued at various higher education institutions, with mass shootings occurring at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Michigan State University in 2023.[10]

Scope of Review

This report will focus on firearm violence in primary and secondary schools, excluding post-secondary school violence. Evidence gathered from surveys and, where applicable, experimental data will be examined to understand the perspectives of children, parents, and school personnel on school firearm violence. This analysis will inform future studies by the authors, which will provide recommendations for school districts looking to implement strategies to prevent further violence.

In evaluating approaches to reducing firearm death among school age children, an analysis of the peer-reviewed literature dating from 1963–2023 was conducted. Studies from decades ago reveal trends that remain true today, indicating that past interventions have not changed the tide of gun violence among American youth.

Stakeholder Viewpoints

In order to identify effective solutions and inform current policy, it is useful to examine the statistics and attitudes within key stakeholder groups affected by gun violence: children, parents, educators, and law enforcement.

Children

Specific estimates will differ based on geographic location and other factors, but most data suggests that approximately 33%–40% of households in the U.S. with school-aged children have at least one firearm.[11] Among high school seniors in Kentucky, this estimate is as high as 65%.[12] In households with firearms it is often assumed that children either do not know where the gun is kept or avoid touching it if they discover one.[13] However, numerous tragic incidents involving toddlers and young children finding firearms and unintentionally harming themselves or others highlight the risks and caution needed in such environments.

One study of young boys aged 8–12 paired the children and placed them in rooms containing a gun hidden in a drawer.[14] Of the pairs that found the gun, an overwhelming majority (76%) handled it, contrary to the common assumption that they would report it to an adult. Of those who handled the weapon, 48% pulled the trigger. Importantly, nearly all of the children who picked up the gun had received some form of gun safety education in the past. However, as one child stated in subsequent interviews, they mistook the gun for a toy simply because it looked different from their family’s firearm.[15]

Other researchers have sought to identify who might pick up a gun and bring it to school. Among adolescent males aged 14–18, firearm acquisition typically occurred among those actively seeking to acquire a weapon. These individuals often received one as a gift or found it lying around.[16]

Data reviewed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that:

• 5.3% of high school students in the U.S. had carried a gun to school in the preceding 30 days, with another source estimating a rate of 2.7% among boys.[17]
• Rates of firearm carrying at schools were higher among Black students, though other sources suggest that white students were more likely than Black students to carry firearms to school.[18]
• Males were more likely than females to carry to school.[19]
• Students in rural environments were more likely to carry firearms than those in urban areas.[20]
• Students identifying as sexual orientation minorities were more likely to carry firearms than students identifying as heterosexual.[21]
• Students who were witnesses to violence or victims of bullying were also more likely to carry firearms, with bullying being a significant factor.[22]

Parents

In recent decades, parents have become increasingly concerned about their children’s safety while attending school. According to the 2022 Annual Gallup Work and Education survey, 44% of parents expressed concerns about their child’s physical safety at school.[23] This underscores the importance for policymakers and school administrators to understand the needs of this constituency when considering ways to ensure the safety of children under their charge. Parents of students who attended a school with a firearm-related incident within the previous five years were more likely to believe that another event could occur within the next three years.[24] In addition, a CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, conducted following a multiple-fatality shooting at a nearby school, noted negative impacts on both absenteeism and perceptions of safety.[25]

Among policy decisions supported by parents, half believed that universal background checks for firearm purchases would help reduce school violence.[26] Data from the RAND Science of Gun Violence suggests this belief is supported by evidence, as universal background checks have been shown to reduce homicides in jurisdictions where they are implemented.[27] Parents also expressed support for additional measures, such as preventative storage measures (e.g. safety locks, storage safes, etc.) and setting a minimum age for purchasing firearms, believing these steps would contribute to safer schools.[28]

When it comes to encouraging firearms on-site at schools to protect students — a policy solution that has gained support from politicians in recent years — parents tend to believe that school safety officers, rather than teachers, should be the ones carrying firearms.[29] In a survey conducted with parents in New York state, many indicated they would support having armed police on campus.[30] These parents also supported measures such as limiting entry points, installing panic alarms, and requiring metal detectors as ways to reduce school violence. While a majority agreed on these solutions, the strength of their support varied depending on whether parents were from New York City or upstate New York. Of particular note, parents living in urban environments were much more likely to support interventions.

A review of existing studies also indicates that researchers have focused more on students’ perspectives regarding firearm safety than on parents’ opinions. However, it may be prudent to include the parents as a target audience for firearm prevention strategies, as they are often the source of firearms brought to schools and used in many incidents of violence.

Teachers and School Personnel

In addition to youth and their parents, teachers and school personnel are important stakeholders in keeping schools free from firearm violence — and they could play an important role in its prevention. An early guide in 1963 proposed teaching firearm safety in junior high school, either as a component of physical education or health education classes.[31] This was followed by a decades-long hiatus, until researchers began exploring the viewpoints of teachers regarding gun safety in the 21st century.

A significant number of teachers in one study believed that gun safety should be taught in schools, with over half stating it should be taught by a police officer or trained military professional. Only 9% felt it should not be taught at all. While supported by the vast majority of educators, only 18.6% of teachers in the study supported gun safety education prior to first grade. In another study, 62% of the 352 teachers surveyed had not considered teaching firearm safety, and only 10% stated that they were actively teaching it. Of those who did teach the topic, 75% did not use a specific curriculum.[32]

Both teachers and principals recognize gun violence as a moderate to major issue. Among principals who have experienced a firearm-related incident in the past five years, there is significant concern about the likelihood of similar incidents occurring in the next three years, with these principals expressing greater worry compared to those from schools that have not had such incidents.[33] In a survey of 329 high school principals, the majority identified several key factors contributing to school firearm violence, including inadequate parental monitoring, insufficient mental health services, bullying and harassment from peers, and easy access to firearms.[34] It is worth noting that many of the principals interviewed personally own firearms.

One concerning finding among educators was that 36% of principals reported their school had yet to provided professional development to school staff on firearm violence prevention, including active shooter training, identifying at-risk students, or training in bully or violence prevention strategies.[35] Funding often serves a barrier to implementing these programs.

Case analyses of violence in schools recommend that teachers and school officials be trained to recognize and manage the signs of rejection, anger, and poor conflict resolution skills, which are often present in individuals who later engage in school firearm violence.[36]

Law Enforcement

The Columbine High School incident prompted law enforcement to rethink their traditional approach and develop the active-shooter strategies used today. Such incidents require a rapid response, moving away from the “contain and negotiate” tactics of the past. However, as law enforcement continues to evaluate each school shooting in the U.S., they apply lessons learned but still face challenges in finding consistent solutions. For example, one safety proposal suggested a single point of entry. Yet an analysis of 84 active shooter events revealed that one-third of police officers who entered a scene with a single point of entry were shot.[37]

Many schools across several states have adopted the presence of an armed guard or police officer on-site to promote safety. However, it is important to clarify the goals of the officer in the school. Armed guards were present in 23.6% of school shootings, but their presence has not been linked to a significant reduction in injury rates.[38]  Officers can also serve other roles, such as fostering school culture and working alongside school officials, which may have an upstream impact on school safety.[39] It is imperative that schools adopting an officer on-site program consider its impact on the students, the school culture, and the specific goals of the program.

Implications For Schools and Policymakers

Prevention Techniques

A recent report from Columbia University outlined a preventive framework to mitigate school firearm violence. It called for approaches in primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention in order to comprehensively address school firearm violence.

Primary prevention strategies include community support, such as improved housing and street lighting, as well as investments in the school environment, including improved connections between students, peers, and teachers. Primary prevention also focuses on preventing prohibited users from accessing firearms through more secure storage practices.

Secondary prevention efforts include implementing behavioral threat assessments and improving bystander responses to bullying. It also calls for the community to recognize and address disparities in reactions to firearm violence. For instance, “schools appear to differentially employ security interventions and disciplinary action based on sociodemographic factors unrelated to school safety.”[40] While it is documented that most school shootings involve middle-class, white males, harder restrictions and safety measures are often implemented in schools with disproportionately minority demographics, contributing to a limiting learning environment in those schools.[41]

Tertiary prevention techniques often include the well-known lockdown drills. While these drills can be effective, it is important to consider the role of the child in any drill and ensure that their mental health is prioritized. Additionally, active shooter drills — which often involve law enforcement and firearms, as opposed to lockdown drills — may not be appropriate for children.[42] Finally, having a robust and timely mental health response following school shootings is essential to the community, as is a commitment to trauma-informed care.

Policy Implications

With CDC estimates suggesting that as many as 1 in 20 students may have carried a firearm to school, the perceptions of students regarding the need to bring such weapons must be addressed.[43] Schools must be seen as a place of safety by children, parents, teachers, and communities. To achieve that goal, several policies favored by parents and school personnel may help mitigate firearm violence. These policy measures include the following:

• Implement child access prevention laws to increase the use of secure storage and limit firearm access to minors.
• Raise the minimum age for purchase of firearms.
• Institute universal background checks.
• Mandate firearm safety educational courses for both students and staff, taught by professionals trained in firearm use.
• Prioritize funding for mental health monitoring and resources, as well as training specifically geared toward parents.
• Invest in programs such as behavioral risk assessments to help identify individuals at risk of perpetrating violence.
• Strengthen student behavioral risk assessments by adding risk factors such as gender and/or sexual identity, geographic location, previous history of violence, and any record of bullying.

Research Recommendations

Supporting research and providing the necessary tools to better understand gun violence in schools would inform more effective policies that could ultimately save lives. For example: 

• Provide adequate funding for future studies and research tools that identify the risks associated with school firearm violence.
• Improve the research environment that evaluates factors influencing school shootings. For example, the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System asks if a student has ever carried a gun but only inquires about carrying a weapon on school property. More specific questions could help to identify effective local interventions. 

In short, while no single solution exists to address gun violence in schools, evaluations from key stakeholders can inform current policy and create safer learning environments for children.

Notes

[1] “About Underlying Cause of Death, 2018–2023, Single Race,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), accessed June 17, 2024, http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10-expanded.html. 

[2] Norah W. Friar et al., “Firearm Storage Behaviors — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021–2022,” The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 13, 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1.

[3] Jason E. Goldstick et al., “Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine 386, no. 20 (2022): 1955–6, https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2201761.

[4] Violence Policy Center, Gun Ownership in America: 1973 to 2021, November 2022, https://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf.

[5] Violence Policy Center, Gun Ownership in America: 1973 to 2021. 

[6] Sonali Rajan et al., “Gun Violence in K-12 Schools in the United States: Moving Towards a Preventive (Versus Reactive) Framework,” Preventative Medicine 165 (December 2022): 107280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107280. 

[7] Sarah Burd-Sharps et al., “Gun Violence Is Down in Our Cities. Why Not Also in Our Schools?,” Everytown Research & Policy, October 14, 2024, https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-is-down-in-our-cities-why-not-also-in-our-schools/.

[8] “Mass Shooters,” Violence Prevention Project, accessed March 12, 2024, https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database.

[9] Gary M. Lavergne, “University of Texas Tower Shooting (1966),” Texas State Historical Association, updated June 29, 2017, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/university-of-texas-tower-shooting-1966.

[10] “Mass Shooters,” Violence Prevention Project.

[11] Erica Payton et al., “Parents' Expectations of High Schools in Firearm Violence Prevention,” Journal of Community Health 42 (December 2017): 1118–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0360-5.

[12] Geoffrey A. Jackman et al., “Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?” Pediatrics 107, no. 6 (2001): 1247–50, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. 

[13] Ann L. Coker et al., “Frequency of Guns in the Households of High School Seniors,” Journal of School Health 87, no. 3 (2017): 153–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12479.

[14] Daniel W. Webster et al., “How Delinquent Youths Acquire Guns: Initial Versus Most Recent Gun Acquisitions,” Journal of Urban Health 79 (March 2022): 60–9, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.1.60. 

[15] Samaa Kemal et al., “Gun Carrying Among Freshmen and Sophomores in Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles Public Schools: The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2007–2013,” Injury Epidemiology 5 (April 2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-018-0143-1.

[16] Benjamin P. Comer and Eric J. Connolly, “Correlates of School Gun Carrying Among Black, Hispanic, and White Male Adolescents: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample of Youth,” Preventative Medicine 141 (December 2020): 106277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106277.

[17] Patricia I. Jewett et al., “Weapon Carrying Among Boys in US Schools by Race and/or Ethnicity: 1993–2019,” Pediatrics 148, no. 1 (2021): e2020049623, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-049623; Nancy M.H. Pontes et al, ”Additive Interactions Between School Bullying Victimization and Gender on Weapon Carrying Among U.S. High School Students: Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2009 to 2015,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3, no. 19–20 (2019): NP10886-NP10907, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519877945.

[18] Carl G. Streed Jr. et al., “Safety and Predictors of Sexual Minority Youth Carrying Weapons,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37, no. 11–2 (2023): NP8724-NP8746, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520978183.

[19] Alice M. Ellyson et al., “Trajectories of Handgun Carrying in Rural Communities from Early Adolescence to Young Adulthood,” Jama Network Open 5, no. 4 (2022): e225127, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5127. 

[20] Christopher R. Harper et al., “Witnessing Community Violence, Gun Carrying, and Associations with Substance Use and Suicide Risk Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2021,” The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, April 28, 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/su/su7201a3.htm?s_cid=su7201a3_w.

[21] Streed et al., “Safety and Predictors of Sexual Minority Youth Carrying Weapons.”

[22] Catherine N. Rasberry, “Student-Reported School Safety Perceptions, Connectedness, and Absenteeism Following a Multiple-Fatality School Shooting — Broward County, Florida, February 14–21, 2018,” The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, March 6, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909a3.htm?s_cid=mm6909a3_w.

[23] Muhammad Waseem et al. “Should Teachers Carry Guns? An Emergency Room Survey of Parents of Two New York Communities,” Cureus, February 14, 2023, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.34962.

[24] Jewett et al., “Weapon Carrying Among Boys in US Schools by Race and/or Ethnicity: 1993–2019.”

[25] Cecilia Obeng, “Should Gun Safety Be Taught in Schools? Perspectives of Teachers,” Journal of School Health 80, no. 8 (2012): 394–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00519.x.

[26] James H. Price et al., “Elementary School Teachers’ Involvement in Firearm Safety Education” Journal of School Health 75, no. 3 (2005): 105-11, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.tb06650.x.

[27] Price et al., “Reducing the Risks of Firearm Violence in High Schools: Principals' Perceptions and Practices,” Journal of Community Health 41 (April 2016): 234–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-0087-0.

[28] Thomas W. Miller et al, “Violence in the Schools: Clinical Issues and Case Analysis for High-Risk Children,” Child Psychiatry Human Development (Summer 2000): https://doi.org/10.1023/b:chud.0000037153.18246.70.

[29] Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents, March 2014, https://bit.ly/4iEU37A.

[30] Jillian Peterson et al., “Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980–2019,” Jama Network Open 4, no. 1 (2021): e2037394, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37394.

[31] William E. Wilgus, “Teaching Firearm Safety in Junior High School,” Journal of School Health 33, no. 7 (1963): 306–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1963.tb09765.x.

[32] Price et al., “Reducing the Risks of Firearm Violence in High Schools: Principals' Perceptions and Practices.”

[33] Price et al., “Reducing the Risks of Firearm Violence in High Schools: Principals' Perceptions and Practices.”

[34] Miller et al., “Violence in the Schools: Clinical Issues and Case Analysis for High-Risk Children.”

[35] Price et al., “Reducing the Risks of Firearm Violence in High Schools: Principals' Perceptions and Practices.”

[36] Miller et al., “Violence in the Schools: Clinical Issues and Case Analysis for High-Risk Children.” 

[37] PERF, Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents.

[38] Peterson et al., “Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980–2019.”

[39] Steven Clark, “The Role of Law Enforcement in Schools: The Virginia Experience — A Practitioner Report,” New Directions for Youth Development 2011, no. 129 (2011): 89–101, https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.389.

[40] Navjot Buttar et al., “Protocol for a Nationwide Case-Control Study of Firearm Violence Prevention Tactics and Policies in K-12 Schools,” PLOS ONE 19, no. 5 (2024): e0302622, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302622.

[41] Buttar et al., “Protocol for a Nationwide Case-Control Study of Firearm Violence Prevention.”

[42] Everytown Research & Policy, The Impact of Active Shooter Drills in Schools, updated May 14, 2024, https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-active-shooter-drills-in-schools/.

[43] Samaa Kemal et al., “Gun Carrying Among Freshmen and Sophomores in Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles Public Schools: The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2007–2013.”

This publication was produced on behalf of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, the material was reviewed by external experts prior to its release. Any errors are the responsibility of the author(s) alone.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.