School Shootings
Lessons from Past Attacks Real-world incidents have shaped and sharpened our approach to active threat response. These events are not just tragic stories—they’re catalysts for strategic improvement in how we prepare, train, and act. Key FBI statistics include that 67% of active shooter incidents end before law enforcement arrives. Most events conclude within 2 to 5 minutes. Immediate communication and decisive action on campus are essential.
To better grasp the evolution of active threat response, we must first examine past incidents and what they revealed about vulnerabilities—and solutions. 1966 — University of Texas Tower Shooting: Regarded as the first mass shooting on a public campus, this tragedy highlighted the dangers of open-access environments and initiated early discussions on active shooter protocols. 1999 — Columbine High School: This attack marked a grim shift toward mass casualty events in schools. The perpetrators used assault rifles and planted explosives throughout the campus. Fortunately, those devices failed to detonate—but had they worked, the loss would’ve been even greater. 2007 — Virginia Tech: Here, the attacker locked building doors to delay law enforcement entry, gaining unchallenged access to classrooms. One noteworthy detail: a classroom that successfully secured its door was able to prevent entry and save lives—underscoring the importance of lockdown capability.
Sandy Hook
2012 — Sandy Hook Elementary: This heartbreaking event proved that even our youngest are not exempt from harm. In its wake, schools nationwide shifted practices to keep classroom doors locked throughout the day, reflecting a new era of proactive campus security. These incidents have informed and transformed modern response strategies. Each event brought lessons in preparedness, communication, and structural defense. Learning from history is key to building a safer future.
Attackers often target locations with minimal resistance, making places like schools particularly vulnerable. These individuals typically strive to exert control over a situation, create chaos, and cause significant harm in a short span of time. Rather than seeking confrontation, most attackers choose settings with large groups of people who are defenseless, allowing them to strike swiftly and with minimal opposition. Though no two attackers are exactly the same, many are driven by deep-seated feelings of hatred or a desire for revenge, sometimes compounded by mental illness or other complex motivations. Recognizing these behavioral patterns can be vital in developing strategies to prevent violence and strengthen community safety.