why do school shooters fail?

why do school shooters often get a kill count of 3-5 people while some kill 20?

The spree killers who only manage to kill a few people are rather impulsive, impatient and tend to move on to their next victim quickly after they’ve fired a shot at someone, since their goal is to annihilate as many people as possible. They forget to check if their victim is actually dead, since they're in a hurry to shoot as many people as possible. Plus, one single person with a gun doesn't have enough time to bring down an entire student population or a significant amount of people without interference from the police.

Well, it'a acombination of a lot of thing:
-the timing
-weapons used
-skills and experience with said weapons
-mindset of the killer
The timing is important because it determines how many potential targets will be present at the site, not to mention that you can use the time of day (such as night) to cover your tracks and maybe even escape.
Weapones used are also important for obvious reasons. You'll get a much higher killcount using a semi-auto rifle vs let's say a bolt action carbine.
Skills and experience is even more important than the type of weapon used. The weapon is only as good as the person wielding it.
Mindset of the shooter is also a factor. Someone can be a bit jaded like Eric and Dylan, wanting to cause havoc and have fun more than a high killcount. Then you have people like Cho who are determined to kill as many people as possible at any cost.
The contrast between E/D and Cho is a perfect example:
E/D had four guns and homemade bombs- they killed 13 beacuse of the state of their weapons their experience with the weapons and the fact that they were demoralised from the bomb failiure.
Cho had two pistols- killed over 30 people because he was concentrated, knew his weapons well and kept them in good condition.

Glamazon wrote:

Plus, one single person with a gun doesn't have enough time to bring down an entire student population or a significant amount of people without interference from the police.

Adam Lanza killed 15 Kids and 2 teachers hiding in a bathroom within seconds

Omar Mateen mowed down at least 35+ on the Pulse dance floor within seconds

Martin Bryant massacred the port Arthur Cafe and killed 10-15 in under 10 seconds All headshots

TheSpiral wrote:

Cho had two pistols- killed over 30 people because he was concentrated, knew his weapons well and kept them in good condition.

He also barricaded the entrances to the building, limiting police response time. He also used hollow-point bullets, which fragment on impact causing intense organ damage. He also specifically aimed for the head and chest with said hollow-point bullets. He also returned to rooms he had previously been, and shot people noticeably alive people again.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

STK wrote:

TheSpiral wrote:

Cho had two pistols- killed over 30 people because he was concentrated, knew his weapons well and kept them in good condition.

He also barricaded the entrances to the building, limiting police response time. He also used hollow-point bullets, which fragment on impact causing intense organ damage. He also specifically aimed for the head and chest with said hollow-point bullets. He also returned to rooms he had previously been, and shot people noticeably alive people again.

I think its safe to say Cho is either Max payne or the Terminator in disguise lol

TheSpiral wrote:

Well, it'a acombination of a lot of thing:
-the timing
-weapons used
-skills and experience with said weapons
-mindset of the killer

Well the condition of the weapons is also important. You could have a good gun however it might've not been cleaned for a while, which would of course cause problems like it did with Adam Lanza.

Most failed attacks have one or multiple of these:
- Tackled and disarmed (ex. Kip Kinkel or Jon Romano)
- Loss of motivation, either giving up the gun (ex. Michael Carneal,) wandering away from the scene and being apprehended (ex. Andrew Wurst) or killing themselves (ex. Jaylen Fryberg or Nathaniel Berhow) despite being able to shoot far more.
- Loss of targets. When everyone runs away, either out of view of snipers (ex. Brenda Spencer, Mitchell Johnson & Andrew Golden) or behind classroom doors (ex. William Atchinson,) there's just no one to shoot.
- Technical difficulties, either constant jamming (ex. Jesse Osborne), having to reload after every shot (Bastian Bosse) or low-power weapons
- The attack occuring in an area with few people (ex. Randy Stair and most familicides)
- Bad aim or random firing (ex. T.J. Solomon)
- Rapid police / school resource officer response
- Unfamiliarity with target and where people are in it (ex. Anton Petterson)
Sorry for the constant name dropping.

dyonqqr wrote:

Most failed attacks have one or multiple of these:
- Tackled and disarmed (ex. Kip Kinkel or Jon Romano)
- Loss of motivation, either giving up the gun (ex. Michael Carneal,) wandering away from the scene and being apprehended (ex. Andrew Wurst) or killing themselves (ex. Jaylen Fryberg or Nathaniel Berhow) despite being able to shoot far more.
- Loss of targets. When everyone runs away, either out of view of snipers (ex. Brenda Spencer, Mitchell Johnson & Andrew Golden) or behind classroom doors (ex. William Atchinson,) there's just no one to shoot.
- Technical difficulties, either constant jamming (ex. Jesse Osborne), having to reload after every shot (Bastian Bosse) or low-power weapons
- The attack occuring in an area with few people (ex. Randy Stair and most familicides)
- Bad aim or random firing (ex. T.J. Solomon)
- Rapid police / school resource officer response
- Unfamiliarity with target and where people are in it (ex. Anton Petterson)
Sorry for the constant name dropping.

no need to worry about name dropping lmao bro it's ok

anyways here's my thoughts for OP

personally i find that some school shooters normally target random bystanders- however some are concentrated purely for the mayhem their massacre will cause- like cho and lanza for example, put a lot of thought into planning their shootings and prepared for high deathtolls, as cho barricaded the doors to prevent police and practiced with his weapons well and lanza chose people who could not fight back against him(even though his weapons jammed multiple times) and sometimes it just happens to be the perfect storm- like nik cruz being able to fire through the classroom door windows and the police not intervening as he was firing his weapon on the students & teachers. but some shooters are impulsive and just begin to shoot without thinking like Asa Coon, William Atchiso- or some shooters like Heather Smith have specific targets/victims and only go after them

.

Insufficient weapons or being tackled seem to be the main reason.

I don't like this thread. Feels like giving prospective shooters "good tips".

Sorry for being a spoilsport.

.

Sabratha wrote:

I don't like this thread. Feels like giving prospective shooters "good tips".

Sorry for being a spoilsport.

Everything here could be gathered with a couple hours of interweb surfing, but sure 

Guest wrote:

why do school shooters often get a kill count of 3-5 people while some kill 20?

Put simply, poor foresight. Everything you've seen discussed in this thread is largely thanks to that one issue. If more of them spent time seriously contemplating and planning instead of wallowing in self-pity, then you'd see shootings with higher death tolls. Stephen Baillet is the crowning example of this, having not considered that his targets may be protected by a locked door. A smart person would've had an alternate target, or would've hopped the fence, or found a different entrance, or would've planned the attack for when services ended so that everyone would be walking out and the question of how to overcome a locked door would be moot. Even John Earnest was more successful by comparison, since John said in his manifesto that "if I kill even one Jew it would be worth it".

QuestionMark wrote:

Guest wrote:

why do school shooters often get a kill count of 3-5 people while some kill 20?

Put simply, poor foresight. Everything you've seen discussed in this thread is largely thanks to that one issue. If more of them spent time seriously contemplating and planning instead of wallowing in self-pity, then you'd see shootings with higher death tolls. Stephen Baillet is the crowning example of this, having not considered that his targets may be protected by a locked door. A smart person would've had an alternate target, or would've hopped the fence, or found a different entrance, or would've planned the attack for when services ended so that everyone would be walking out and the question of how to overcome a locked door would be moot. Even John Earnest was more successful by comparison, since John said in his manifesto that "if I kill even one Jew it would be worth it".

Elliot Roger was thwarted by a locked door, but he didn't try and shoot out the windows to get in.

-

Poor prior firearm knowledge, no practice for what to do if their gun jams, resulting in them getting tackled.