upworthy

mass shooting

The most compelling argument for students keeping their phones in class is also the worst one

It's utterly ridiculous that guns have to be part of this conversation.

Students don't need their cell phones in class. But is that always true in the U.S.?

Should students be allowed to have cell phones with them in class? This question has been plaguing schools, teachers, parents and students for the past 15 years, with little consensus. It's as if we've been conducting an experiment of sorts with kids and teens, as smartphones can be both powerful tools and problematic distractions.

There are arguments to be made on both sides, one argument in favor of letting students have their phones in class is particularly compelling. It's also particularly disturbing.


What if a school shooting happens?

It's a ridiculous question that parents and students have to ask—not because it's not possible, but because it is possible. We all know it can happen because we've watched mass shootings play out in American classrooms, hallways, libraries and cafeterias over and over and over. Kids in this country know exactly what to do if a person with a gun opens fire in their school. And yet all those active shooter drills and all the thoughts and prayers after each shooting hasn't prevented it from happening again.

Do other countries ban cell phones in classrooms?

Other countries have had to have the cell-phones-in-class conversation, but other countries don't have "What about our regularly scheduled school shootings?" as a legitimate argument in that conversation. Parents in the U.K., Italy, Japan—they don't ask "What if a school shooting happens?" because they're too rare to even consider.

Here's an eye-opening statistic: From January 1, 2009 to May 21, 2018, the U.S. had 288 school shootings where at least one person, not including the shooter, was shot on school grounds. During that same time frame, the other G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.) had five school shootings. Not five each—five total between all six countries.

And since 2018, we've kept right on going. We've already had 45 school shootings in 2024 alone. Most shootings in schools don't make national news—just the "mass" shootings, which happen way too often. When the citizens of a country can easily rattle off school shootings like they're listing football teams—Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, Virginia Tech—we have to admit we have a problem.

And that problem influences our lives in more ways than we realize. A seemingly straightforward question—"Should kids have cell phones in class?"—is absurdly complicated by the reality of gun violence in America. In a reasonable world, the answer would be "No, of course they shouldn't have cell phones in class." England, France, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, China, Australia, Greece, Russia, Ghana, Uganda and other nations have established prohibitions against cell phones in classrooms, with Sweden even banning them during breaks between classes. It definitely can be done.

School is the one place where they're supervised and surrounded by peers, so there's really no need for students to have a phone on them during school hours. Generations of people survived entire childhoods and teenhoods without carrying a phone, and even if they need it to coordinate rides after school or whatever, it's not a necessity during class.

Unless, of course, there's an emergency. One that's immediate and life-threatening, but doesn't allow them to evacuate. One that traps kids inside their classrooms with just enough time to text their parents while waiting to see if they and their classmates are going to be killed or have to watch one another die.

In most places, that kind of an emergency would be so unlikely it wouldn't even be considered as part of the conversation. In the U.S. it's a real possibility that must be taken into account.

What are the chances of experiencing a school shooting?

The chances that a child will be killed in a school shooting is statistically pretty small, even with the number of shootings we have. And yet, it's astronomically higher in the U.S. compared to other countries. And that risk has risen dramatically over time, with the American College of Surgeons reporting that school shootings have quadrupled since 1970.

The most damning statistic when it comes to kids and guns is that gun violence has been the leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 18 in the U.S. since 2020. More children and teens are killed by guns than by any illness or accident in this country. Johns Hopkins calls gun violence a public health epidemic, and the U.S. surgeon general has declared it an "urgent public health crisis." And it's not getting better.

Those statistics are only talking about deaths, though. Gun violence entails more than just the people being shot to death. What about life-altering injuries that result from gun violence? What about the lifelong impact of witnessing your friends, classmates and teachers being shot? For every kid killed by a firearm there are many more who are seeing and experiencing it and having to live with that trauma.

Students know this. Parents know this. That's why so many are hesitant to have kids store their cell phones during class time. There are solutions that would keep call phones nearby but not allow them to be a distraction in class, but that doesn't change the fact that we have to talk about guns when we're talking about student cell phone use—nor does it change how ridiculous it is that guns are any part of that equation.

Cell phones in classrooms are a real problem, but when compared to a gunman shooting up your kid's classroom, that problem seems trivial and unimportant. We're losing the ability to solve problems on so many levels because we refuse to treat a crisis like a crisis. The answer to "What if a school shooting happens?" in response to "Should students have cell phones in class?" can't be, "Eh, don't worry about it." American families already are worried about it. We can't address the cell phones in class issue without also addressing the gun violence crisis issue, because for students in U.S. schools, the two are intertwined whether we like it or not.

As thousands across the nation prepare to take to the streets on March 24, 2018, for The March for Our Lives, we're taking a look at some of the root causes, long-lasting effects, and approaches to solving the gun violence epidemic in America. This is our last installment.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.


We can all pretty much agree that gun violence in the U.S. is a problem that needs to be addressed, right? It's just that we disagree about how to address it.

In the wake of a large-scale tragedy like the Las Vegas massacre or the Parkland shooting, emotions have a tendency to run a bit hot. A quick glance at the comments on any of our past posts about gun violence shows that our audience is exactly who we thought they were: an engaged, passionate group of individuals who want to help make the world a better place.

Yet we often see these conversations veer off-topic, turning to divisive, partisan arguments. (Perhaps you can relate?)

That's why we put together a quick resource for people who want to enact real-world change.

With the help of the "Discover Your Action Plan To Help Reduce Gun Violence" quiz below, we'll match you with an action item that matches your views.

It should only take a minute or two to complete, and we hope you find it helpful.

For more of our look at America's gun violence epidemic, check out other stories in this series:

And see our coverage of to-the-heart speeches and outstanding protest signs from the March for Our Lives on March 24, 2018.

Most Shared

Jimmy Kimmel's emotional monologue on gun violence is a must-watch.

Turns out that not doing anything hasn't worked very well.

After the October 2017 shooting in Las Vegas that left concertgoers dead, Jimmy Kimmel devoted his monologue to the topic of gun violence. After this week's massacre in Parkland, Florida, he did it again.

The first time around, Kimmel peppered his monologue with stats, ideas, and arguments — almost all of which could be recycled for our current response — but this time, he decided to take a simpler approach, asking simply that lawmakers do "something." For many members of Congress, that may still be asking for too much.

He opened his Feb. 14 monologue with a nod to Trump's response to the shooting — not so much what Trump said, but what he didn't say.

Trump's live address to the nation on Feb. 15 was widely panned for its lack of any substantial policy suggestions. In fact, throughout the speech, he made zero mention of guns at all, instead making a few passing references to Scripture and suggesting that the root of our country's gun violence problem is mental health — not a good look, given that he struck down an Obama-era regulation restricting gun access to those with mental health issues.


It was an empty shell of the type of speech we've come to expect from our leaders, and that's why it's crucial that people with large platforms like Jimmy Kimmel use them to say what our president won't: It's time for action.

"What we need are laws — real laws — that do everything possible to keep assault rifles out of the hands of people who are going to shoot our kids," Kimmel said with tears beginning to well.

[rebelmouse-image 19531355 dam="1" original_size="500x281" caption="GIFs from "Jimmy Kimmel Live"/YouTube." expand=1]GIFs from "Jimmy Kimmel Live"/YouTube.

He went on to slam politicians who insist, time after time, that we can't "politicize" these tragedies or that it's always somehow "too soon" to have a tough conversation.

"Don’t you dare let anyone say it’s too soon to be talking about this. Because you said it after Vegas, you said it after Sandy Hook, you say that after every one of these eight fatal school shootings we had in this country this year," he pleaded.

"Children are being murdered," he said, choking up. "We still haven’t even talked about it. You still haven’t done anything about this. Nothing. You’ve literally done nothing."

There are a lot of simple, common sense gun safety measures supported across the political spectrum, so why won't Congress act?

According to a 2017 report published by The New York Times, with data sourced from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, some of the most effective solutions — such as reinstating the assault weapons ban (which expired in 2004), a ban on sales to violent criminals, and universal background checks — are also some of the most widely-supported (67%, 85%, and 89%, respectively).

It shouldn't be controversial to enact simple, effective laws. Our members of Congress simply choose not to carry out the will of their constituents and often take a fatalistic approach to the issue by suggesting there's no point in making it harder for people to access guns since they'll find a way to get one anyway

Democrat, Republican, Independent, or "other," Kimmel's exactly right: Now is the time to call on our politicians to stop ignoring the problem and do something.

Sorry, people, we need to politicize this one.

Photo by David Becker/Getty Images.

On Oct. 1, a gunman reportedly opened fire from a hotel window, killing dozens at a country music concert in Las Vegas.


The massacre was shocking because of its size — at least 58 dead and 400 injured — but, truthfully, not surprising. According to Mass Shooting Tracker, there have already been 338 mass shootings in 2017 — a rate of more than one per day. The Las Vegas attack wasn't even the only entry on Sunday.

Predictably, gun company lobbyists are already storming the barricades, urging concerned citizens not to read too much into it. Early Monday morning, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch posted on Twitter to ask outraged gun control advocates to "temper [their] desire for politics while the facts come in."

Indeed, skepticism is always warranted, prudence is wise, patience is a virtue, etc., etc., etc. On another context-free, history-free planet, Loesch might have a point. But we've been here before.

Too many times.

"Thoughts and prayers" aren't gonna cut it. We need action.

By sheer macabre coincidence, the United States Congress is currently considering a bill that would lift restrictions on purchasing gun silencers.

The legislation, introduced by South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan, ends the nine-month waiting period currently required to purchase "sound suppressors" and eliminates a measure requiring buyers to submit fingerprints and a photo. Given the news out of Las Vegas, the timing could not be worse, though with a mass shooting taking place at the rate of roughly once a day, it would almost be weirder if one didn't occur while the bill was being considered.

While the bill's supporters characterize it as designed to help hunters and target-shooters prevent hearing loss, it doesn't take an expert to realize that, in the wrong hands, the result could be deadly. After all, it's harder to save oneself from a mass shooting (or for law enforcement to find the shooter) if it's harder to hear that one is taking place. In an opinion piece for USA Today, Virginia Tech massacre survivor Jeff Twigg railed against the bill, insisting that he only managed to escape because he heard loud gunshots.

Not politicizing mass shootings like Las Vegas does serve a political end — it helps gun rights absolutists slip measures like this by.

The silencer bill is proceeding with the full support of the firearm industry, which is looking for new revenue streams after suffering a post-Obama reported decline in sales. They know it's political, and they're making it so. They're counting on the vast majority of Americans who support tighter gun laws shrugging, praying, and moving on.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Proponents of the measure might point to the fact the Las Vegas shooter likely used an automatic weapon and that fully automatic weapons made after 1986 are already illegal to own. Or that the guy probably didn't use a silencer. Yes, there are all sorts of reasons why stopping this specific bill would not have prevented this specific shooting. Or the last specific shooting. Or the one before that or the one before that.

But no mass shooting looks exactly like the one before it.

Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen used a (legally obtained) semi-automatic rifle and pistol to kill 49 and wound dozens more. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho also purchased his pistols legally. Christopher Dorner, who killed four colleagues and their family members in a span of just over a week in 2013, used a silencer to avoid detection for days.

Lax, patchy gun laws make loopholes easier to find and exploit. While the silencer bill may not map 1:1 onto the next act of mass killing, it does provide potential killers another deadly option.

Mass shootings aren't inevitable.

They are the result of choices we — and our government — make. It's not a coincidence that countries with stricter gun laws have far fewer of them.

In order to stop the next one, we can't just hope and think and pray. We have to actually try. Stopping the silencer bill is a place to start.

The Las Vegas shooting was evil. It was also political.

Politicize it.

Correction 10/3/17: An earlier version of this piece identified the main author of the "silencer" bill as California Rep. Duncan Hunter. The bill was introduced by South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan.