So the story goes that 20 years ago because the then government issued "regional development grants" to deprived areas. Often those areas were in places with strong regional accents which can be initially hard to follow if you're not used to them.

The RDGs were ended a long time ago and the jobs moved overseas once they were no longer subsidised. Go figure.

I completely agree that you can't have shootings without guns.

That being said was a point where there were virtually zero school shootings though, in the pre-columbine days.

And in those days, the % of Americans reporting to live in a home with a firearm was actually higher pre-columbine as well.

The biggest change post-columbine was the obsessive sports-like reporting on shootings by the media, showing mentally ill and suicidal individuals that they could get their names in the history books and on the lips of every person, pundit, and politician in the country if they would just pick up a rifle and commit a shocking atrocity.

This also explains why we see controversial firearms used at places of innocence such as elementary schools. These shooters know that they will get more attention with the above combo than they would with a pump shotgun at the bingo parlor.

I'd bet that the media could have a massive impact on the number of school shootings if they made it a point to not report on these outside of local news, but fat chance they'd miss out on the profits.