Statistics on Bullying and
School Shootings
In t roduct ion Defining and measuring bullying is difficult, with different researchers using different definitions. I consider two categories
of behavior as constituting bullying. One is behavior that attacks
someone’s dignity (teasing, taunting, insulting, mocking, etc.),
and the other is behavior that attacks someone’s sense of safety
(threats, intimidation, physical assaults, sexual assaults, etc.).
In addition, there needs to be a pattern of behavior to constitute bullying. Being called “stupid” or “a jerk” one time is not
sufficient. (For a discussion of definitions and the challenges
in gathering bullying data, see School Violence: Fears vs. Facts,
by Dewey Cornell.)
Reports of bullying against school shooters have often been
highly inconsistent and impossible to corroborate. The data
included here represent my best effort to sort out the frequently
contradictory claims about which perpetrators were picked on
and how severe the harassment was. The statistics are drawn
from my study of 48 perpetrators that I present in my book
School Shooters: Understanding High School, College, and Adult
Perpetrators.
1 Peer harassment is extraordinarily common;
school shootings are extraordinarily rare.
A recent study by the American Psychological Association found
that “70 percent of middle and high school students have experienced bullying at some point.”1 There are approximately 55
million primary and secondary school students in the USA.2
Seventy percent of 55 million equals 38,500,000 students; this
Peter Langman, Ph.D.
is how many students are bullied at some point in school. Very,
very few of these students will commit a rampage school attack.
Two or three school shootings in an academic year seems like
a lot, but it means that fewer than one bullied student out of
ten million goes on a rampage. Though it might be argued that
those who did commit shootings must have been more severely
bullied, my review of dozens of school shooters has not shown
this to be true. In most cases, the bullying consisted of common
verbal taunting and teasing. In only a few cases, such as Gary
Scott Pennington, Asa Coon, and Wellington de Oliveira, was
the bullying severe.
2 Not all shooters were picked on.
Based on the available information, many school shooters simply were not picked on. This doesn’t mean that no one ever said
a rude word to them; it means that there was apparently no
pattern of harassment. Of the 48 shooters I studied, I estimate
that approximately 40% experienced some kind of bullying.
This means, of course, that approximately 60% did not. Even
if my numbers are a bit off due to lack of information, this still
suggests that approximately half the shooters were not teased
or otherwise harassed.
3 Bullies were the least targeted victims.
Despite the widespread belief that school shooters are motivated
by bullying to seek retaliation against their tormentors, this
WWW.SCHOOLSHOOTERS.INFO Copyright © 2014 by Peter Langman, Ph.D. Version 1.2 (31 January 2016) 1
20
20
14
40
40% 44%
Victims of Bullying
30
30% Psychopathic
18%
Psychotic
44%
20
20% Traumatized
75%
18%
10
10% Perpetrators of Bullying
0
0% 70% Psychopathic
Psychopathic
94%
Psychopathic Psycho6c Trauma6zed Psychotic
Traumatized
Psychotic
psychological 48%
type of shooters
60% Traumatized
17%
88
9
6
6
44
1
Bullies
Bully
3
Rivals Family
Family Females
Females Staff
Staff
Rival
type of victims
These results suggest that shooters were more enraged by teachers who failed them, administrators who disciplined them, and
girls who rejected them than they were by peers who teased
them. For more details on victim selection, see the document
“Intended and Targeted Victims” on the Edited Data page of
www.schoolshooters.info.
4 The frequency of bullying varied dramatically
across the three psychological types.
Looking at bullying among school shooters as a group is not as
revealing as examining the issue across the three psychological
types of shooters. The result of this approach demonstrates that
psychopathic shooters were the least victimized and traumatized
shooters the most victimized, with psychotic shooters falling
in the middle.
5 50% 100%
80%
30% 10
00
50
50% 40% 90%
12
2
60
60% Many school shooters bullied people.
70% fact that school shooters often bully others is rarely atThe
20% tended
to, but approximately 54% of the perpetrators harassed,
60%
10% intimidated,
threatened, or assaulted people prior to their at50%
tacks. The ratePerpetrators
at which theyofdid
so, however, varied across the
Bullying
0% 40%
three types Psychopathic of shooters.
Psychopathic
94%
Psycho6c Trauma6zed 30%
Psychotic
48%
Traumatized
17%
Figure
3: Shooters Who Bullied Others
20%
10%
100
100%
0%
90
90%
94%
Psychopathic
percent who bullied others
number of shooters
18
16
75%
70
70% 80% Figure 1: Shooters Who Targeted Specific Victims
18
80
80% percent who were bullied
virtually never happens. Out of 48 shooters, only one shooter
tracked down and killed a boy who reportedly had picked on
him. This case, however, is ambiguous because the perpetrator,
Evan Ramsey, originally simply planned to kill himself. His two
friends talked him into killing others, and even gave him a list
of people to murder. It appears that without their influence,
there would have been no rampage.
A review of the targeted victims of the 48 shooters reveals a
surprising pattern. School personnel (staff ) and females were
the most frequently targeted groups. In some cases, the perpetrators targeted specific individuals they knew, such as an
ex-girlfriend. In other cases, females as a group were targeted.
Victims of Bullying
Psychopathic
18%
Psychotic
44%
Traumatized
75%
Figure 2: Shooters Who Were Bullied
80
80%
Psychotic
Traumatized
70
70%
60
60%
50
50%
48%
40
40%
30
30%
20
20%
17%
10
10%
0
0%
Psychopathic
Psychotic
Traumatized
Psychopathic
Psychotic
Traumatized
psychological type of shooters
Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate that bullying cannot be meaningfully discussed as if school shooters are a homogeneous population. There are significant differences in who victimizes, and
who is victimized by, their peers depending on the psychological
type of the perpetrator.
WWW.SCHOOLSHOOTERS.INFO Copyright © 2014 by Peter Langman, Ph.D. Version 1.2 (31 January 2016) 2
6 Summary Bullying also varied across populations
of shooters.
The connection between bullying and school shootings is elusive. Certainly, harassment may contribute to perpetrators’ rage
and/or depression. At most, however, it is but one factor among
many that cause rampage attacks. Even those shooters who were
most severely bullied, such as Pennington and Coon, did not
target kids who picked on them. In fact, both targeted teachers
who gave them unacceptable grades. This indicates the complexity in sorting out the possible impact of peer harassment
on the perpetrators’ motivations.
Perhaps not surprisingly, bullying appears to have been most
prevalent among secondary school shooters. It was much less
frequent among college shooters. Its role with aberrant adult
shooters is difficult to determine because the peer harassment
often occurred years before their attacks. Though it was not a
recent trigger for violence, the suffering endured in childhood
may have%left
deep scars and lingering rage.
Bullied
Secondary
54%
% Bullied College
Figure 4: Shooters 23%
Who Were Bullied
Aberrant
Adult
45%
60
60% percent who were bullied
% Bullied
Secondary
54%
54%
50
50% College
23%
Aberrant Adult
45%
4060% 40% % Bullied 45%
3050% 30% 2040% 20% 23%
notes For more information on bullying and school shootings, see my
two books, School Shooters: Understanding High School, College, and Adult Perpetrators, and Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds
of School Shooters, as well as several articles available at www​
.schoolshooters​.info — “Eric Harris: The Search for Justification,”
“Luke Woodham: The Search for Justification,” “The Search for
Truth at Columbine,” and “Charles Andrew Williams: Sorting Out
the Contradictions.”
1 American Psychological Association, “Bullying: A Module for
Teachers.” https://​www​.apa​.org​/education​/k12​/bullying​.aspx.
1030% 10% 020% 0% 2National Center for Education Statistics. “Fast Facts.” http://​nces​
.ed​.gov​/fastfacts​/display​.asp​?id​=​372.
Secondary Secondary
10% College Aberrant AAdult
dult College
Aberrant
population of shooters
% Bullies
% Bullies Not only
were college
Secondary
50%shooters the least bullied; they were the
0% College
83%
most likely toSecondary bully
others. This College includes perpetrators
Aberrant Awho
dult 90% Aberrant
36%
wereAdult
students as well
as those who were university employees.
80% percent who bullied others
% Bullies
% Bullies Secondary
50%
70% Figure 5: Shooters Who
Bullied Others
College
83%
90
60% 90% Aberrant Adult
36%
80
50% 80% 83%
70
40% 70% 60
30% 60% 50
20% 50% 50%
40
10% 40% 36%
30
0% 30% Secondary 20
20% College Aberrant Adult 10
10% 0
0% Secondary Secondary
College Aberrant AAdult
dult College
Aberrant
population of shooters
WWW.SCHOOLSHOOTERS.INFO Copyright © 2014 by Peter Langman, Ph.D. Version 1.2 (31 January 2016) 3