Christchurch Shootings: Media Suppresses Research Again Or Worse

Within hours after the shootings in New Zealand, there were a massive amount of conspiracy theories about it being a false flag, almost as fast there were more articles debunking these conspiracy theories. My best guess is most of the articles debunking them are closer to the truth on most issues, especially since there's no way the conspiracy theorists could have checked their facts so fast before posting these theories; however there are major problems that haven't been fully explained, and the so called skeptics aren't addressing them adequately.

(Edit: since this shooting there have been at least three more mass shootings in Sri Lanka, Poway, Ca. and Baltimore Md. There are already more conspiracy theories about alleged false flags in both Poway and Sri Lanka; I didn't find any for Baltimore, at least not this shooting, but there are some from the Capital shooting last year. As indicated in this article the evidence for many of these conspiracy theories is often weak, but the best research to reduce violence is still absent from the media; they're using this as an excuse for more censorship; and there is something absurd going on, even if the highest profile conspiracy theories don't make sense. Additional details have been added below.)

Some of the strongest evidence of something seriously wrong with the way they cover these massacres isn't from what most people consider bizarre conspiracy theories, it's from credible academic research showing the leading causes of violence that is virtually absent from the mainstream media, as I pointed out in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media. One of the leading causes of violence is definitely early child abuse, including corporal punishment, leading to escalating violence later in life. Children that are subject to extreme abuse at a young age are much more likely to become extremely violent later in life.

For the past ten to eleven years the murder rates in states that still allow corporal punishment in schools, and presumably use it more at home as well has been between 22% and 31% higher than the states not allowing it and there's also plenty of other peer reviewed research showing that this is a major contributing factor to violence from many credible professors or other researcher studying this. There's also plenty of research showing that income inequality, poverty lack of education, and abandoned inner cities where the worst violence takes place is also a major contributing factor to violence and why it's so much worse in the United States than many other developed countries including most of Europe, New Zealand and Australia.

However the mainstream media practically never mentions this! This is far more important than the fact that they're now trying to censor his manifesto, with a significant amount of success, and even refusing to mention Brenton Tarrant's name in the mainstream media very often. This is downright silly, and if he's doing this for recognition it does just as well & he might laugh at how they're smearing him. However, unless there's something very different from all the other mass murders it's virtually guaranteed that he went through an abusive upbringing in as a child perhaps teaching him to blame all the wrong sources, as most of the good research seems to indicate.

The claim that "That's no excuse! I was abused as a child and I didn't turn into a mass murderer," may appeal to many people but it misses the point. Of course it's not an excuse; however it would help people understand what's causing our high rates of violence in the United States, and to prevent it. Furthermore, the amount of abuse the majority of people with strict parents go through isn't nearly as bad as the abuse many of these mass murderers go through, but many people refuse to look at the abuse based on emotional reasons.

There's also no excuse for continuing to allow epidemic levels of income inequality, and cuts to education, child care, and social programs that help reduce child abuse leading to much lower rates of violence, yet that is routine in our political establishment. And there's no excuse for declining to report on the best research to understand how to reduce violence in the mass media or in political debates, even though this is available to those that look for it in libraries, academic journals, or alternative media; as a result of this negligence, political decisions that could reduce violence are based on ignorance, and the majority of the public isn't even aware of what they're missing.

This censorship restricts the debate about the causes of the problem, among other things and could be part of a slippery slope, which is quite common after mass shootings where people are expected to sacrifice some of their rights in attempts to "fight terrorism" or protect the public, however these restrictions ignore the most important causes of this crime. Binoy Kampmark's article in Counter-punch makes the following additional points, comparing it to suppression of Mein Kampf in Germany which didn't prevent their problem with white supremacist from rising again:

Reading Manifestos: Restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement 03/22/2019

A censorious and censoring attitude has engulfed responses to the mental airings of the Christchurch shooter. Material in connection with Brenton Tarrant, the alleged gunman behind the killing of 50 individuals at two mosques in New Zealand, is drying up; his manifesto, for one, is being disaggregated and spread through multiple forms, removed from their various parts with blunt razors. Doing so does a disservice to any arguments that might be mounted against him, but having a debate is not what this is generally about.

Arguments on banning the incendiary and dangerous are easily mounted against a range of publications. The smutty supposedly corrupt public morals; the revolutionary supposedly give citizens strange and cocksure ideas about overthrowing the order of things. Then there are just the downright bizarre and adventurous, incapable of classification, but deemed dangerous for not falling into any clear category. Certitude is fundamentally important for the rule-directed censor and paper shuffling bureaucrat.

One example stands out, a testament to the failure of such efforts and the misunderstandings and distortions that follow. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as a stellar case, was banned in Germany after the Second World War. In January 2016, it was republished on the expiry of copyright held by the Bavarian government. As Steven Luckert remarked in The Atlantic at the time, “the history of the book, and of Hitler’s words more generally, demonstrates that there’s no clear-cut relationship between banning speech and halting the spread of ideas.” The Nazi party did not disappear in the aftermath of the ban; nor could it be said that his ideas had captivated whole states and their governments, despite being accessible.

The book, deemed to be an insight into the darkened corridors of Hitler’s racial and biologically charged mind, was not initially seen as off limits in the war of ideas; even as the United States was doing battle against Nazi Germany, advocates for understanding the mental baggage of Hitler was sought rather than dismissed. Houghton Mifflin made it a patriotic duty for Americans to familiarise themselves with the tenets of the text.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also keen that those battling Germany have a sense of what they were up against. As he noted in his history of the Second World War, “There was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers.” All the elements were there, from “the programme of German insurrection” to establishing “the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world.” Complete article

In the case of Mein Kampf, studying it would only provide part of the explanation as to how he was able to indoctrinate so many people to blindly follow orders; additional research would, of course have to be done into the back ground of his upbringing and the upbringing of the German people and many others that went along with his agenda, including in Europe and in the United States. Of course some of it is racist; but Hitler also described indoctrination tactics in that book, and learning how to recognize that could help warn the public about how to avoid falling for it again. However, our own government and media implement many of these indoctrination tactics, themselves, so they clearly don't want to warn people against it, although they don't have the same agenda as Adolf Hitler.

John Toland wrote about how Hitler was badly abused as a child, in his biography, and Alice Miller elaborated on how this is typical of many mass murders leading them to grow up to become violence adults, in "For Your Own Good." A lot of angry people might be outraged that anyone might offer this as an "excuse," but that isn't the point; if Hitler and many Germans that blindly followed his orders were't abuse in an institutionalized form of indoctrination that taught people to blindly obey orders and resort to violence to solve their problems then World War II never would have happened.

If society was willing and able to learn from this then many of the wars that we fought since then based on lies could have been prevented, and our current practice of suppressing the best research while getting angry at the shooters, who were once victims of violence themselves, prevents us form learning how to reduce violence in the future. This isn't based don fringe conspiracy theories, it's base don credible research, that the public almost never hears about.

In some cases some of these people writing manifestos do have some legitimate concerns, although they go about them in the wrong way as I pointed out in Driving People to "Go Out In A Blaze Of Glory" isn't working so well!; but in order to sort out the racist rants form legitimate concerns we have to have access to the manifesto; furthermore as Binoy Kampmark pointed out, by suppressing it the media is enabling many people to rewrite it for their own purposes, and many of us won't be able to know that they're twisting his manifesto for their own purpose. Joseph Andrew Stack, Christopher Jordan Dorner, and Gavin Eugene Long all had some legitimate grievances, which protesters also tried to address but the political and media establishment suppressed them and they felt that legitimate protest wasn't working, so they went out in a blaze of glory; John F. Kennedy once said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and some of these shootings clearly indicate that he's right but the debate about it is being suppressed when they censor these manifestos, passing up an opportunity to prevent future shootings.



By suppressing this manifesto, and many others and marginalizing research on the leading causes of violence they're depriving people of the educational information they need to make these shootings far less likely; and they're making violent revolution, or terrorist attacks more likely!



Of course, that doesn't guarantee that Brenton Tarrant's manifesto is completely rational; but to find out why he did it, may require an honest look at it; and by declining to cover some of the best research into long term causes of violence the mainstream media has indicated that they're not reliable sources to screen it.

One example repeating a common myth spread by the mass media, that terrorists are "radicalized on the internet" is What the New Zealand Killer’s Manifesto Tells Us About the Radicalization of White Men 03/15/2019 which says, "2. Tarrant Was Radicalized on the Internet. 'From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?' Tarrant asks himself. 'The internet, of course,' he replies. 'You will not find the truth anywhere else.' The sarcastic tone is typical of the manifesto, but it’s also obvious he means it. While the overall notion of the 'Great Replacement' is not new, the internet provides ample vectors to stoke hysterical resentment into violent calls to action."

This is a highly unscientific conclusion which the media repeats over and over again, giving people the impression that an ordinary rational person can go on the internet, read propaganda and suddenly become a mass murder, which they repeat over and over again without rational scrutiny. Part of the message they're trying to give people is that the information they get from the internet isn't as reliable as the mainstream media, which in some cases, it isn't however, in many other cases it's far more reliable. The claim that you won't "find the truth anywhere else," isn't quite right either, libraries also have good research once people are accustomed to sorting through the best non fiction books and academic journals, although for many of us the easiest way to access those is from the internet.

As I explained in Fundamentals of Psychology behavioral patterns begin in early childhood, and unless they're corrected at some point they stay with people throughout adulthood; this includes violent tendencies and bigotry, or willingness to go along with the crowd pout of insecurity. According to research done by Dorothy Otnow Lewis author of "Guilty by reason of Insanity" it's virtually guaranteed that Brenton Tarrant went through an abusive upbringing; she claims that she was able to find evidence of this in every murder she researched thoroughly, often with police reports or hospital records to back it up; and James Garbarino, author of "Lost Boys" also made similar statements in his research, as have many other good researchers.

At this point there's no research thorough enough into his background to confirm this, but some reports have also come out about him living in areas of desperation, although they don't mention early child abuse, they don't rule it out and these environments often include that, and other reports indicates that he was into violent video games. To the best of my knowledge, violent video games alone isn't a leading cause of extreme violence as many pundits try to imply; however combined with early child abuse that contributes to later violence and racism it may make it more likely.

This isn't nearly as far-fetched as the fringe false flag conspiracy theories that Alex Jones and many other right wingers come up with and it can be confirmed with rational research from reliable sources; which shows that at best the media and political establishment is incredibly incompetent, even if they're not intentionally creating a false flag; however the entire political establishment has been highly irrational often coming up with their own fringe conspiracy theories, like Russia manipulating the elections; without mentioning the fact that by giving obsession coverage to a small number of candidates while refusing to cover the vast majority of them as I've pointed out in numerous articles including More Censored Candidates From The Underground and a long list of other absurd behavior including fighting one war after another base don lies, and ignoring climate change despite the fact that it will eventually cause as much damage to the wealthy as it does to the rest of us. which means that I wouldn't completely rule out all conspiracy theories; although false flags to take away guns clearly won't hold up since if that was the case they would have done far more to do so by now.

Furthermore, while reviewing the statistics previously for school shootings and how they're more common in states still allowing corporal punishment in schools in Inciting School Shootings In Trump Country I did find some statistical evidence of something highly improbable, which might raise some doubts. One of the studies that I cited for this article was School Shooting Fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States 2002 PDF, which was peer reviewed by traditional academics and is consistent with an enormous number of other studies showing that violence is far more common in states that allow corporal punishment or that early child abuse leads to escalating violence. This study says, "Student deaths from school shootings were examined across all 50 states according to the state’s policy on the use of corporal punishment in schools after controlling for associated differences in poverty rates and the prevalence of conservative Christian religions. There were significantly more school shooting deaths found in states allowing school corporal punishment compared with those that do not. The odds of fatal involvement in a school shooting were greatest in states permitting school corporal punishment compared with those prohibiting it (odds ratio, 2.04) or restricting it to districts serving less than half the student population (odds ratio, 1.77). Moreover, the rate of school corporal punishment was moderately correlated with the rate of fatal school shootings both across all states and within the South, the region in which endorsement of school corporal punishment is most prevalent. Aggr. Behav. 28:173–183, 2002."

This study was consistent with my review in early 2018, which at the time said that 36 out of 41 deaths in school shootings were in states still allowing corporal punishment, and that all those states, along with two additional states with three more deaths were ones voting for Donald Trump; which meant that in the first five months of 2018 39 out of 41 of the deaths in school shootings were in states voting for Trump. Since then I checked the whole year and found that twenty-five out of thirty-six school shootings in 2018 took place in states still allowing corporal punishment even though they only account for 40% of the population, this is about 69% of the shootings. they also had 37 out of 44 deaths from school shootings and 69 out of 82 injuries from school shootings; which comes to about 84% of the deaths or injuries in school shootings, despite the fact that they only have about 40% of the population, which is and even bigger difference than the peer reviewed 2002 study. However this is a smaller sampling so it's bound to be a little higher some years and lower in others, which makes it consistent, with the previous study and many other statistical reviews from many sources.

However, the years from 2002 to 2017 aren't even close to these statistics, with more shooting per capita in states allowing corporal punishment in schools but far more deaths and injuries in states not allowing it. From 2002 to 2017 there were 185 school shootings with only 84 of them in states allowing corporal punishment, which in the first few years was still 23 dropping by four between then and 2011 when four states banned it, Delaware in 2003, Pennsylvania in 2005, Ohio in 2009, and New Mexico was the last to ban it in 2011, bringing it down to nineteen states, which continues to this year. These school shootings caused 228 deaths and 323 injuries and only 57 of the deaths and 95 of the injuries were in states allowing corporal punishment almost a complete reversal of the statistics found in the 2002 study or in 2018; which is a massive swing that lasted about 16 years, which a=is a long time for statistical purposes.

The massive difference comes mainly from ten shootings with five or more dead from 2002-2017 all in states without corporal punishment in schools; there were two shootings with five or more dead in 2018 both in states allowing corporal punishment in schools. Seven out of nine shootings with five or more deaths were in states allowing corporal punishment prior to this, which was the time period studied in the 2002 study, although some of them have since banned it.

This certainly isn't enough to support the right wing conspiracy theories about false flags designed to give the government justification to take away their guns, since they clearly aren't even coming close to doing any such thing, and if they were sophisticated enough to create massive number of false flag shootings to drive people into a panic they would be able to do a much better job taking away guns, assuming they actually wanted to. furthermore, there should be reasonable consideration of less far-fetched sociological causes to this; however this is a massive swing in statistical patterns of behavior. All but one of those ten school shootings were in cities with very low murder rates; New Zealand and the Netherlands, where another shooting three days after the Christchurch shooting happened also have even lower murder rates, less than one fifth of the rates in the United States.

These shootings simply aren't fitting a rational statistical pattern.



On top of that, even though the theory about taking away guns doesn't make sense they are using it as a justification to shroud their activities in secrecy, treat everyone as if they're potential terrorists, spy on us, and censor people, among other things; so even without a false flag conspiracy that's something to be concerned about.

If there were a false flag operation of some sort, what could it possibly be trying to accomplish? And how could they possibly convince so many people to go along with it? If there isn't a false flag operation why is there such a massive organization trying to convince us that there is one? A close look at these conspiracy theorists may indicate they're not as irrational as they seem and that they're much more coordinated than you would expect from a bunch of fruitcakes creating these theories incredibly quick.

The answer to this may not be nearly as conclusive as some of the research about how early child abuse, poverty, income inequality, abandoned inner cities, lead to escalating violence; however, it's one of many major unsolved mysteries that takes a close look to figure it out, assuming there's enough information available to figure it out, which is in doubt.

Skeptics claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, with justification; the evidence of a massive shift in statistical trends starting after the 2002 study and continuing until 2018 when it reversed again isn't strong enough evidence to draw a conclusive conclusion, and many might not even consider it strong enough to prove that there's a big mystery here. However, there is extraordinary evidence of many unsolved mysteries, although there might not be enough evidence to connect it to this one, at least not without careful research and review.

Thousands of years ago ancient civilizations with primitive technology allegedly moved massive megaliths, some over 700 tons dozens if not hundreds of miles, despite the fact that experiments to replicate this failed miserably. The only high profile explanation for this that I know of are either supposedly scientific explanations by skeptics that routinely spin the facts that they can't explain adequately, or the Ancient Aliens theorists, most famously from the history channel, who often mix their theories up with major blunders and wild speculation. Both of these are seriously flawed; however, if there was an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort that impacted early development of our society, whether you call it Aliens, God or anythings else it could have influenced the creations of the pyramids and many other structures that shouldn't have been possible for primitive societies to build; although the blunders made by History Channels Ancient Aliens theorists need to be fixed before their theory becomes reasonably viable; and if it's not true the skeptics need to do a better job explaining how this megaliths have been moved.

In 1997 Philip Corso published his book "The Day After Roswell." where he claims that he was part of an effort to share alien technology with corporations to develop starting in the late forties; I went into this more in several articles including False Flag Bombs, Incredible Incompetence or Both? and Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens? which are among my most recent. If there is something to this then it has to have an enormous impact on both early development of society and more recent rapid development of technology much faster than it's been developing for thousands of years. If it's not true then in addition to a better explanation about how the megaliths were moved, and many mystics, which require a closer look to understand were able to carry out strange phenomenon, or at least convince people that they did, but there has to be a better explanation for why there's such a massive organized effort to make it seem why this is happening when it isn't.

The rapid development of technology is refuting one of the strongest arguments against alien visitation, that it's just to far to a habitable planet to travel and that it would take thousands if not millions of years to get here from there. A combination of advanced propulsion, nanotechnology, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc. is proving that even if they didn't come here, it may be possible for us to go there; or perhaps they did come here and they've had an undisclosed agenda all along. If so one possibility that I speculated about in the past was that they might be experimenting with advanced medical research as pointed out in Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology?; or if there Climate Change is influenced by man that would indicate that some form of geoengineering or climate control is possible, although not necessarily as much as indicated in many science fiction books or movies as I pointed out in Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory. If aliens did come from another planet and developed laws protecting their own citizens they might have been reluctant to conduct risky climate change experiments on their own planet; but after arriving at other planets where people don't have organized societies to resist such an extreme experiment they might do it there, or here.

A lot of this is just speculation, of course, since there isn't enough information to come to hard conclusions but something like this might be big enough to go about some crazy false flag conspiracy, creating or faking mass shootings. However, if there is an advanced intelligence, perhaps one that religious people refer to as God, influencing society, then at best we have enough information to know that he or it withheld educational material that could have prevented massive amounts of violence including the crusades, inquisitions or holocaust, since God could have found a way to say this wasn't what he had in mind; and instead of inspiring profits from multiple religions that often fight each other he could have maintained an open honest line of communication advising how to get along with each other instead of staging wars as the Bible claims, or remaining silent while we fight them based on misunderstandings or lies of our leaders.

God could have also provided better advise on how to prevent diseases, develop better health care, prepare for weather beyond our control and much more, including teaching better parenting methods that are more concerned with education children than using corporal punishment as part of a control process to teach them to blindly obey orders.

If on the other hand, there aren't any aliens; we still have much better research about how to prevent violence than the mass media is providing and it can be found in libraries, alternative media or academic journals. It would still be a good idea to inform the public of epidemic levels of fraud by our own government and massive corporations profiting off this fraud and corrupting the government.

Additional information on this theory is also available on Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? which includes a list of most of my other articles on the subject.



'If This Guy Can Be Senator, You Can Do Anything': Progressives Mock Mike Lee's Climate Speech 03/26/2019



If there's a massive charade to cover up a conspiracy like this, then it could explain some of the insane activities of our politicians who have access to some of the best political research to enable them to do a far better job pretending to try to do a good job, even if they're still selling us out to corporations. It could have something to do with Mike Lee's incredibly foolish attempt to ridicule the "Green New Deal" which is base don far better science than the Republican Party routinely comes up with.

Even if the research on Climate Change isn't perfect, there's plenty of other research about many other ways that environmental destruction is causing massive amounts of health problems killing mainly the poor. Yet these demagogues have convinced many people taught to blindly believe what they're told from their leaders when based on appeals to emotion and intimidation to keep them in their place.

It could also explain a long list of additional insane and idiotic activities like Devin Nunes lawsuit against a Twitter Cow or Mom, which predictably backfired in a massive way; before Devin Nunes’ cow was sued it supposedly only had a few thousand followers and many people including me never heard of it, now it has over six hundred thousand followers, and there are dozens more satire accounts named after his cow, mom or some other satire, not to mention the fun comedians had with it defeating the purpose even if he managed to win his frivolous lawsuit which is unlikely. This may seem like an idiotic blunders; however before he filed this suit he would have had to consult with lawyers or advisers and many of them must be aware of the McLibel lawsuit and numerous other examples that were as frivolous and extreme and backfired as well, yet they did it any way!

If on the other hand there is a massive charade going on to keep us distracted while they pursue what ever goal they're accomplishing this can be just another part of the charade.



Edit 04/29/2019: Since the Christchurch shootings there were a series of bombings in Sri Lanka. they responded by blocking all social media, and there was little or no criticism of this in the press. Then there was a shooting in Poway California, the shooter also had a manifesto which was promptly taken down and censored, without criticism by the media. They made a point of not mentioning his name more than once on the mainstream media, as if that was a major motive for these shootings. they continue declining to cover many of the most important long term causes of violence. This is still available in libraries, however with all the appeals to emotion the majority of the public aren't thinking to learn about it on their own, and the media continues to hype it without letting people know what they're missing.

Sri Lanka attacks: Suspect Zahran Hashim's relatives die in raid 04/28/2019

Sri Lanka bombers had clear links to ISIS, President says 04/29/2019

Sri Lanka Blocks Social Media Following the Deadly Easter Bombings 04/22/2019

Did the shooter declare his intentions online? 04/28/2019

San Diego synagogue shooting: What we know about suspect John Earnest 04/27/2019

Alleged Synagogue Shooter Lives With Parents, Thinks Jews Control The World 04/28/2019

Police: 8 shot, 1 fatally, in latest Baltimore shooting 04/29/2019

The following are some sources or related articles:

What we learned from analyzing thousands of stories on the Christchurch shooting 03/15/2019 This article does little or nothing to report on research that could help prevent violence from escalating yet it plays in to prejudices and appeals to emotion that's designed to make censorship look justifiable calling for suppression of some information that could help this research. It doesn't call for suppression of best research like some that I cited in this article, and much more but it doesn't draw attention to it either, nor does the vast majority of establishment media.

Dutch shooting: Utrecht police arrest suspect after three killed 03/19/2019

Alleged Christchurch terror attacker’s manifesto banned 03/23/2019 A manifesto reportedly written by the alleged Christchurch gunman has been officially classified as objectionable — with those who have copies told to destroy them — the Office of Film & Literature Classification has confirmed.

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday to the New Zealand Herald, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Brenton Tarrant: Nowhere Man 03/18/2019

'HE CHANGED' New Zealand shooter Brenton Tarrant’s gran reveals how he went from computer nerd scared of girls to terrorist after foreign trip as family apologise for massacre 03/17/2019

Terrorist Brenton Tarrant makes reference to Hagia Sophia in his manifesto 03/16/2019

The Great Replacement: The Manifesto of Brenton Tarrant – The New Zealand Mosque Shooter 03/16/2019

Former CIA Officer: Christchurch Shooting Smells like a ‘False Flag’ 03/24/2019

Erdoğan: Agia Sophia will never be a church as long as there is Turkish people 03/18/2019

White supremacism has turned into terrorism 03/18/2019

Rodney Tarrant: Brenton Tarrant’s Father Died Young 03/15/2019

Rush Limbaugh Claims New Zealand Mosque Shootings Were False Flag Operation, Offers No Evidence 03/15/2019

The Christchurch terrorism conspiracy theories are not just false. They’re dangerous 03/20/2019

The fifth suspect of Christchurch shootings has defected to Israel 03/16/2019

Limbaugh: ChristChurch Shooter A 'Leftist' Who Staged 'False Flag' Attack To Frame Conservatives 03/16/2019

Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent increase in hate crimes 03/22/2019

School Shooting Fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States 2002 PDF



Some statistics cited on this page are based on Wikipedia's List of school shootings in the United States The following are the statistics for shootings/deaths/injuries in each year from 2002 to 2018:

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2002 1 school shooting/4 deaths/0 injuries
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2002 5 school shootings/4 deaths/7 injuries
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2003 3/4/5
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2003 1/2/1
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2004 0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2004 3/1/5
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2005 2/2/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2005 3/10/9
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2006 2/3/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2006 7/11/16
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2007 0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2007 4/35/25
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2008 6/7/3
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2008 4/9/24
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2009 2/2/0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2009 5/1/12
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2010 6/5/8
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2010 6/4/6
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2011 6/1/10
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2011 3/4/3
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2012 3/2/3
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2012 7/39/14
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2013 16/7/19
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2013 9/10/15
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2014 18/5/16
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2014 16/10/21
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2015 12/8/17
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2015 9/12/24
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2016 5/5/8
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2016 10/5/20
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2017 2/2/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2017 9/14/26
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2018 25/37/69
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2018 11/7/13

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2018 109/94/164
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2018 112/178/241

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2017 84/57/95
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2017 101/171/228

There were ten shootings with five or more dead from 2002-2017 all in states without corporal punishment in schools; two shootings with five or more dead in 2018 both in states without corporal punishment. Seven out of nine shootings with five or more deaths were in states allowing corporal punishment prior to this, although some of them have since banned it.

From 2002-2017 states allowing corporal punishment had .039 school shootings per million people, .026 deaths, .044 injuries.

From 2002-2017 states banning corporal punishment had .037 school shootings per million people, .062 deaths, .083 injuries.

In 2018 states allowing corporal punishment had .183 school shootings per million people, .272 deaths, .506 injuries.

In 2018 states banning corporal punishment had .058 school shootings per million people, .037 deaths, .069 injuries.