Stopping the Surge of School Shootings

Awareness, Interventions Aim to Reduce Disturbing Trend

In 2012, Phillip Resnick, MD, spent more than 6 hours evaluating a 17-year-old charged with killing 3 students and injuring 3 others during an early morning shooting at Chardon High School in Ohio. Dr. Resnick determined the shooter competent to stand trial, the judge agreed, and a year later the defendant received 3 lifetime prison sentences with no possibility of parole.

A forensic psychiatrist who has consulted on a slew of well-known criminal cases over the years, including those involving Timothy McVeigh, Casey Anthony, “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski, and James Holmes (the Aurora, Colorado, Batman movie shooter), Dr. Resnick is a realist. He anticipates no end to the school shootings that have horrified the United States in recent decades but he does take heart in some emerging forces that are identifying would-be shooters before they act.

A psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Resnick will brief mental health providers on how to recognize potential school shooters in their own practices during his timely and important featured session at Psych Congress 2019. Here, he discusses the rise in school shootings and whether he expects the trend to continue.

Q: This year is the 20th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting. Can you remember back to where you were when you first heard about that attack?

A: I don’t remember exactly what I was doing, for example, as I do for the Kennedy assassination. But I recall being shocked, much like the rest of the country. Unfortunately, at this time, school shootings have become so common that there isn’t shock, but more of just thinking “Oh, another one of these.”

Q: Since the time of Columbine, social media, YouTube, and smartphones and other devices have provided school shooters a soapbox, if they seek one, and 24-hour news cycles give them instant publicity. Is fame part of what they seek when they carry out shootings?

A: Yes, fame is often a factor. I wouldn't use the term “soapbox,” though, because “soapbox” suggests someone has an ideology they want to convey and a message they want to get across. I think that has been true of some of the hate crimes where people have had white supremacy ideas. School shooters—and I’m talking about grades 1 through 12 and not college—most often, the motive is revenge. They’re looking to even a score if they feel they've been treated unfairly by a school bully or a faculty member.

See complete coverage of Psych Congress 2019

There was a study done in Australia of 5 mass shooters, and all 5 mentioned Columbine as a model. That’s halfway around the world, but clearly Columbine was absolutely a critical changepoint. Of course, there’s so much information available online, video and various commentary, that is easy to access with the click of a cell phone now.

Q: Are school shooters willing to die during a shooting to achieve fame, or do they think they will get out alive?

A: They commonly have suicidal ideas. And when you are suicidal and commit a school shooting, you have little to lose. In other words, if you are going to take your life anyway, why not get even with some people who you feel treated you badly?

I think even if they get away from the school, they recognize they are likely to be apprehended. They may try to delay their apprehension, but I don't think the primary expectation is they'll get away with it.

Q: If fame is a motivation, do you think the names and photos of shooters should be withheld from news coverage to deny them this incentive?

A: I think it should be withheld. These recommendations have been made for 20 years, but the media has not cooperated. With respect to suicides, it has been shown there are cluster suicides, especially in teenagers. The media has been good about cooperating with that, not placing a person who commits suicide in any kind of favorable or heroic light. But when it comes to mass shooters and school shooters, there are some portions of the media that are going to publish names and photos. And then the other mainstream media would rather not be left out, so they publish them, too.

A study of contagion of mass shooters showed that within 14 days of a mass shooting, there is more likely to be another mass shooting, and then the effect diminishes over time. So, yes, it is a good idea to withhold names and photos of shooters. But I am pessimistic it will happen.

Q: When would-be school shooters see coverage of a mass shooting on TV, does the turmoil and sadness of the people affected, much of which is broadcast on TV, affect them? Could that coverage deter a shooter perhaps— make him think about how his actions would hurt so many people beyond the actual victims?

A: I don't think it does deter them. There is a good dose of narcissism in many school shooters. They see themselves as central and are not concerned about other people. Some also lack empathy, and therefore don't relate very much to the grief induced.

Q: What do you attribute the rise in school shootings over the last couple of decades to? Why didn’t these happen in the 1950s and 1960s, yet they happen with disturbing regularity now?

A: When you don't have a model, people just don't think about that as an answer to the problem. Some of the mass workplace shootings began in post offices. Once you have publicity, then a disgruntled employee, or a disgruntled student, has a model for how to deal with their intense feelings of being treated “unfairly.”

Columbine was a turning point with very high publicity. With each new event, there is more publicity, and it becomes self-perpetuating. The model becomes acceptable in a shooter’s mind when he’s feeling desperate.

Q: You have consulted with lawyers in many notable criminal cases, including Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Scott Peterson, and the Unabomber. Any school shooters?

A: Yes, I have. One was a school shooter near Cleveland who killed 3 and wounded others. And I’m currently consulting on another case involving a high-profile school shooting that I am unable to comment on at this time.

Q: In the Cleveland shooting, did you consult for the defense or the prosecution?

A: Initially, the judge asked if I would evaluate the defendant’s competence to stand trial. I did that. Then I was consulted by the defense, and I interviewed the shooter regarding the question of insanity. My opinion was that he did not qualify for insanity, and therefore I was not called by the defense.

Q: Is there a typical profile of a school shooter?

A: No. There's a study by the US Secret Service of about 130 cases, and their conclusion was that there is not a typical profile. There's a wide range. For example, many come from intact families, the majority do not have any prior criminal record, and 75% report some form of bullying. But if you try to limit yourself to just students who are bullied, then you'd miss 25%. There's a wide range of grievances, and not a single profile.

Q: Back to the Cleveland shooter, was he bullied?

A: That was a complex case. He denied having a specific motive to shoot the students he shot, but then conflicting information later came out. He malingered to appear psychotic, but then eventually admitted he was not. There was a lot of secondhand information that he had a grievance about a girlfriend, but he denied that in his interview with me.

It ended up kind of a mystery as to what his real motives were. He just wasn't forthcoming. Even after spending hours with him, I don't know what really went on.

Q: Have you ever been surprised by the description of a school shooter?

A: Since there isn’t one profile, I haven’t been surprised. But feeling depressed and desperate after a loss, such as a girlfriend rejecting you, being severely depressed, not having a good support network, being bullied— these are all factors that play into various scenarios. But they don't come together into a single profile.

Q: After school shootings occur, the usual calls arise: some for greater gun control, others for arming teachers. What are your recommendations to prevent school shootings?

A: Access to guns is certainly a major issue. The majority of school shooters obtain their guns from their own home. In the most recent case in Colorado [on May 7, 2019], the gun was in some kind of gun cabinet, which the teenager just broke open. So, parents may think their guns are not accessible, but the student may know where the key to the cabinet is, or of any other guns that are left exposed.

There have been studies showing you can have smart guns that require the fingerprint of the owner and it can't be shot by someone who obtains them, or trigger controls. So even though we're not going to remove guns from the community, we can certainly make it more difficult for a student to gain access to a gun in his own home.

Of course, you can't ordinarily buy a gun when you are under 18 without parental consent, but interestingly the student in Parkland [Florida] and the shooter in the Sandy Hook murder both had guns that were purchased by their mothers. The mothers went with them to the gun store to get access. The mother of the Parkland student thought she had taught her son to treat guns carefully and so forth, and she just totally failed to see she was putting a very dangerous instrument into his hands.

Q: Do you have any thoughts on arming teachers?

A: The average school shooting is over in 3 minutes. The average time it takes for law enforcement to get there is 5 minutes, so often the school shooting is over before the police get there. If you have an armed teacher, let's say you have 2 armed teachers in a school, and the school shooter is in another classroom, a great deal of damage could be done before an armed teacher could get there.

I do not favor arming teachers. I don't think it would make a substantial reduction. And there's always the risk with an armed teacher that an angry student will get a hold of the gun, and more harm will occur. For example, in home burglaries, more homeowners are harmed by a gun that the burglar finds than are successful in killing the burglar.

Q: Do you have hope that with increased awareness among schools, mental health clinicians, and the general public, school shootings may become less common?

A: I would not say I'm optimistic. Increased mental health availability is a good move and will reduce school shootings. There are also active shooter drills at schools, school doors are being retrofitted so they can be locked down, and bulletproof glass is being installed. These drills and mechanical devices could reduce the size of a massacre.

The other thing is the average school shooter tells 2 other students—some have told 11 students—about a school shooting. There is now a major “See something, say something” campaign to encourage students to report any threat or implicit threat. I think that is a favorable development.

I am also aware of cases where potential school shooters have been interrupted because someone makes a report—a gun store selling a gun to a suspicious person—and that allowed police to interview and intervene. So, I do think there are some forces in favor of reduction because of awareness on the part of other students, teachers, gun sellers, and clinicians.

But, overall, I cannot say I'm optimistic that we're going to have a sharp reduction. There are always going to be students who have grievances.

—Jolynn Tumolo