Report

Gun Violence on College and University Campuses

By: Kathryn E. Rivera, Ashley D. Cannon, Kelly Davis, Courtney Zale, J.D., Ruhi Bengali, Megan J. O’Toole, Ph.D., Tannuja D. Rozario, Ph.D.

10.9.2026

Executive Summary

On October 11, 2025, as students and visitors celebrated homecoming week, gunfire erupted on four university campuses. By the end of the day, eight people were shot, including an 11-year-old attending a football game tailgate, and thousands of students and campus community members were exposed to the trauma of America’s gun violence epidemic.¹

Over the past decade, shootings on college and university campuses have increased, exposing a growing number of students, educators, and campus communities to gun violence and its lasting effects. Yet gun violence at institutions of higher education remains comparatively understudied.²

To better understand this violence and how to prevent it, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (Everytown Research) analyzed nearly 400 shootings³ on over 260 US college and university campuses⁴ between August 2016 and July 2026⁵ and conducted a focus group with student survivors from five Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The analysis revealed several key findings:

Campus shootings increased over the past decade, with year-over-year changes averaging 20 percent. The number of people killed or wounded increased as well.⁶
Most campus shootings do not resemble the mass shootings that dominate public attention. Over half of campus shootings were gun homicides and assaults, including mass shootings that represented just 5 percent of all campus shootings.⁷ Shootings were also most likely to occur in outdoor spaces, parking lots, and residence halls.⁸
Campus gun violence frequently involves people from outside the institution. Unlike at K–12 schools, the majority of shooters at colleges and universities were unaffiliated with the institution.⁹ Unaffiliated individuals also made up a substantial share of those shot, highlighting the connections between campuses and their surrounding communities.¹⁰
Shootings were concentrated during the fall semester, particularly in October. October had the highest number of shootings of any month—more than twice the monthly average—and nearly half of October shootings occurred during homecoming weeks, when campuses often experience an influx of visitors.¹¹
HBCUs experienced a starkly disproportionate share of campus gun violence, particularly around homecoming. Although HBCUs represent about 2 percent of postsecondary institutions in the United States,¹² they accounted for 29 percent of campus shootings¹³ and experienced shootings at a rate 20 times that of non-HBCUs.¹⁴
HBCU students discussed how their experiences with gun violence are not limited solely to what happens on campus. In focus groups, student survivors described safety on and around campus, as well as how their institutions responded to incidents of violence. These perspectives underscored the importance of addressing the factors that influence safety both on campus and in the surrounding community.

Campus gun violence cannot be addressed through emergency preparedness or security measures alone. Preventing campus gun violence requires strong gun safety policies that reduce access to firearms, alongside rejection of harmful policies such as allowing guns on campus and arming teachers. Further, coordinated institutional- and community-level interventions like identifying risks early, expanding mental health and student supports, building the trust necessary for students to report concerns, and strengthening partnerships with surrounding communities can help reduce gun violence both on campus and beyond its boundaries.

Introduction

Colleges and universities remain among the safest environments for young adults in the United States,¹ yet no place is truly untouched by the nation’s gun violence crisis, including institutions of higher education. Moreover, today’s college students have come of age in an era largely defined by the gun violence epidemic, influencing both campus climates and students’ perceptions of safety.

While gun violence at K–12 schools has received increasing public attention and academic examination, firearm violence at colleges and universities remains comparatively understudied. The emerging K–12 literature has supported significant advancements in evidence-informed school gun violence intervention and prevention strategies. However, institutions of higher education differ substantially from K–12 schools in their infrastructure, student populations, size, and relationships with local communities and government. These distinctions demand a detailed inquiry into how gun violence impacts college and university campuses and strategies that can help prevent it.

This report examines trends in shootings on college and university campuses over the 10 years from August 2016 through July 2026, as recorded in Everytown Research’s Gunfire on School Grounds in the United States database. In light of the quantitative finding that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) experience campus shootings at 20 times the rate of non-HBCUs,² Everytown Research staff also conducted a qualitative focus group with HBCU student survivors to center their lived experiences and examine the realities of navigating safety on campus and within the surrounding community ecosystems.

A screengrab of the Everytown Research Gunfire on School Grounds map, which shows instances of gun violence that have occurred on or near school grounds. The white map outline of the US is clustered with red, blue, and gray dots, which respectively symbolize incidents involving a gun death, incidents involving a gun injury, and incidents in which a gun was fired (but no injuries or deaths were reported).

In 2013, Everytown Research began tracking gunfire on the grounds of K–12 schools and colleges and universities, collecting information through media reports about incidents in which a firearm discharges a live round inside or into a school building or on or onto a school campus or grounds. You can view the data referenced in this report in this data tracker.

What Do We Know About Gun Violence on College and University Campuses?

Campus shootings increased over the past decade.

From August 2016 through July 2026, Everytown Research’s Gunfire on School Grounds database recorded 389 shootings at 264 colleges and universities.³ Seventy-one percent of campus shootings involved at least one person shot, resulting in 124 people killed and 319 people wounded.⁴ This is likely an undercount, as the database relies primarily on media reports to identify shootings, which often fail to cover a significant portion of shootings that occur in the United States.⁵

Overall, campus shootings increased by an average of 20 percent year-over-year.

Source: Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

These trends indicate that a growing number of people in college communities are being exposed to gun violence on their respective campuses. Over the last decade, campus shootings increased by an average of 20 percent year-over-year, while the number of people killed increased by 52 percent and those wounded by 31 percent.⁶ A previous national analysis found that between the 2005–06 and 2015–16 school years, shootings on or near US college campuses increased as well, contextualizing this recent finding within a longer-standing trend.⁷ These shootings directly and vicariously impact millions of students,⁸ negatively affecting their learning and living environment⁹ and often resulting in trauma, which can contribute to lifelong detriments to emotional, educational, and earning outcomes.¹⁰

The vast majority of shootings were gun homicides and non-fatal gun assaults.

Gun homicides and assaults accounted for over half of campus shooting intents.

Source: Percentage of campus shootings by intent (n = 389). Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026. Gun homicides and assaults include mass shootings and domestic violence and stalking-related shootings. See the methodology for more information.

Last updated: 10.14.2026

Over half of campus shootings were gun homicides or assaults.¹¹ Common preceding circumstances included arguments between two people, robberies, or other criminal activity. Mass shootings in which four or more people were shot (i.e., a subset of homicides and assaults) accounted for 5 percent of all campus shootings.¹² The vast majority of mass shootings were not planned in advance.¹³ Instead, many arose from conflicts between two or more people that escalated into exchanges of gunfire or evolved from the commission of another crime.¹⁴ Domestic violence and/or stalking-related shootings (another subset of homicides and assaults) accounted for another 5 percent of all campus shootings, with murder-suicides being prominent in this subcategory as well.¹⁵

While suicides appear to constitute a relatively small portion of campus shootings in the dataset,¹⁶ their sensitive nature may contribute to underreporting by media outlets¹⁷—which Everytown Research relies on for incident tracking—and thus are likely underrepresented.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in outdoor spaces, not inside classrooms.

Outdoor spaces¹⁸ accounted for the largest share of campus shootings, making up nearly four in 10 shootings on campus, followed by parking lots¹⁹ and residence halls.²⁰ The prominence of shootings outdoors and in parking lots may reflect the open nature of college and university campuses. Campuses are designed to cultivate cross-functional environments that best suit students, allowing them to live, study, work, and socialize all in one place and enabling campuses to function as independent academic and social communities.²¹ Conversely, the same spaces that allow for students to build and connect with their community were those most affected by gun violence.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in outdoor spaces, parking lots, and residence halls.

Source: Percentage of campus shootings by location (n = 389). Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

Campus shootings peaked on weekends and in the month of October.

Saturday had the highest number of campus shootings.

Source: Ten-year count of campus shootings by day of the week. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

Over the 10-year study period, over one-third of all campus shootings occurred over the weekend, with shootings occurring with greatest frequency on Saturdays.²² Just 6 percent of campus shootings occurred during the summer months of June and July.²³ Shootings instead were most likely to occur during the fall semester.²⁴

October had the most campus shootings, followed by November and September.

Source: Ten-year count of campus shootings by month. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

In particular, October saw the highest number of shootings over the ten-year study period, more than twice the monthly average of 32.²⁵ This period coincided with collegiate homecoming seasons, when colleges and universities host football games, alumni reunions, Greek life parties, spirit events, and more that draw attendees from surrounding communities and across the nation. While generally positive, these events can also create elevated risks through social conflicts and alcohol consumption.²⁶ For example, in October 2025, a conflict escalated into a mass shooting at Lincoln University, killing one person and wounding six others, one of whom was a student and another an alumnus, outside the school’s cultural center following the university’s homecoming football game.²⁷ Perhaps unsurprisingly, nearly half of the October shootings were found to have occurred during homecoming weeks.²⁸

Shooters were often unaffiliated with the school.

Consistent with past research,²⁹ the majority of shooters on college and university campuses were not affiliated with the institution—they were guests, visitors, or unauthorized trespassers.³⁰ While shooters are more likely to be unaffiliated with the school, students and employees are as likely as unaffiliated individuals to be victims or survivors.³¹ Shooters and victims or survivors were overwhelmingly male³² and college-age.³³ Together, the shooter and victim data highlighted a key characteristic of shootings on college and university campuses: Shooters and victims or survivors were often unaffiliated with the institution.

Over half of shooters, and four in ten victims or survivors, were unaffiliated with the school.

Source: Proportion of shooters (n = 453) and victims or survivors (n = 443) by relationship to the college. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026. Law enforcement includes local, state, federal, or military law enforcement, campus police, and security guards. Employees and students include both those currently affiliated with the institution and former affiliates.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in the South.

Campus shootings were not evenly distributed across the country, with substantial differences across regions and states. The data showed that campus shootings were largely concentrated within the southern region of the United States.

By far, the South experienced the highest rate of shootings on campuses.

Source: Campus shooting rate per 1,000 schools by Census region. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database and US Department of Education, College Scorecard data, 2016–17 to 2025–26 school years.

Last updated: 10.14.2026

The South experienced campus shootings at more than twice the rate of the next-highest region, the Midwest. Shootings were least likely to occur in the Northeast.³⁴

Nevada has the highest rate of campus shootings.

Source: Campus shooting rate per 1,000 schools by state. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database and US Department of Education, College Scorecard data. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

Last updated: 10.14.2026

At the state level, four out of the top five states with the highest rates of campus shootings were located in the South: Nevada had the highest rate of shootings on campus, followed by Alabama, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Georgia.³⁵

Contrary to the widely held notion that gun violence is a predominantly urban issue,³⁶ campuses located in mid-size cities and distant towns had higher shooting rates than campuses located in large cities.³⁷ These findings mirrored overall gun violence trends in recent years: A 2024 analysis found that, during a 10-year period, half of all shootings occurred in small cities and towns with populations under 1 million people, and most cities and towns with the highest rates of shootings were located in the South.³⁸

A Closer Look at Shootings on Historically Black College and University Campuses

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are institutions of higher education with the principal mission of educating Black Americans and fostering the next generation of Black professionals, educators, and leaders.³⁹ Although HBCUs enroll students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds, their historic mission to uplift Black students remains central to their institutional identities and to the individuals they serve. Today, there are about 100 HBCUs located across 19 states and the District of Columbia, representing roughly 2 percent of postsecondary institutions in the United States.⁴⁰ Alabama is home to the greatest number of HBCUs, with a total of 14 colleges and universities.⁴¹

Despite being only a small fraction of colleges and universities in the United States, HBCUs accounted for a disproportionately large share of campus shootings in our analysis—resulting in a campus shooting rate 20 times that of non-HBCUs.⁴²

HBCUs face a disproportionate number of campus shootings during homecoming.

While shootings at HBCUs generally paralleled patterns observed at non-HBCU campuses, several key differences emerged. Over the 10-year study period, the average year-over-year increase in campus shootings was higher at HBCUs than at non-HBCUs (63 versus 16 percent).⁴³ Homecoming week shootings also hit HBCUs particularly hard, with the vast majority of homecoming week shootings—81 percent—taking place on HBCU campuses.⁴⁴

Nearly one-third of all shootings at HBCUs occurred during October.

Source: Percentage of campus shootings at HBCUs (n = 111) and non-HBCUs (n = 278) by month. Everytown Research analysis of Gunfire on School Grounds database. Analysis limited to shootings on college and university campuses, August 1, 2016–July 31, 2026.

At HBCUs, unaffiliated individuals made up just over half of victims or survivors, while students accounted for about one-third.⁴⁵ Among shooters, only 14 percent were HBCU students, largely in line with the proportion of non-HBCUs,⁴⁶ suggesting that campus gun violence was often not perpetrated by members of the campus community.

Student Perspectives on HBCU Campus Safety

For students and parents alike, feeling safe is critical to the college experience. Colleges often define campus safety through visible security measures, emergency procedures, and campus crime statistics. But for students, safety is shaped by their firsthand, everyday experiences, which determine whether they feel supported, comfortable, and able to fully participate in campus life. As student survivors from five HBCUs in our focus group shared, institutional definitions of safety did not always align with their experiences.

Students saw a distinction between the portrayals of safety on campus and their lived experiences.

“I think the main thing for me is the reality versus the actual idea of safety.”
—HBCU Student

While most students reported feeling generally safe attending classes during the day, their sense of security depended on the time of day, whether campus events were taking place, and where they were on or near campus. Rather than relying solely on campus security measures, many students described adopting their own routines to reduce their risk of victimization. A student discussed these decisions:

“Pick a different route, go to a different place, or don’t do this at night.”
—HBCU Student

Several participants also questioned whether the security measures put in place were sufficient for preventing gun violence. Students observed that during high-profile events, there were often additional police and security personnel, but shootings at campus events persisted despite this increased presence. This raises broader questions about the other types of prevention measures that must be put into place alongside security to maximize student safety.

“When [a celebrity or something] comes, security is heightened. But if it’s a random Monday, I might catch a security guard asleep while I go get my DoorDash order from the back gate.”
—HBCU Student

Scholars have described similar concerns where colleges and universities may prioritize visible demonstrations of safety during moments of public attention.⁴⁷ One focus group student suggested that these measures did more harm to the campus environment overall and instead served as “security theater”⁴⁸ to quell the worries of parents and other college or university stakeholders.⁴⁹ Students also acknowledged that the majority of these shootings took place during the month of October during homecoming celebrations. These celebrations are culturally paramount to the HBCU identity, encompassing unique traditions that attract a diverse and expansive volume of visitors, including local residents and alumni from across the nation. Violence during homecoming therefore disrupts an occasion that fosters cultural identity, institutional pride, and connections across the broader HBCU community.⁵⁰

“Around homecoming, that’s when everybody is on campus; that’s when you have different types of people, different groups, so then that level of safety shifts. But I do believe there are places on campus that you can be safe and have access or proximity to safety. But I do think it all just really depends around the timing.”
—HBCU Student

Students remarked that campus safety efforts often felt reactive, with policy changes or increased security occurring only after shootings and other acts of violence. One student discussed the environment created by reactive security following a recent shooting on campus: “Our security has strengthened. . . .I know me personally, as a student, [I] feel like I’m not on campus anymore. It’s almost like a military base.”

While many still appreciated the efforts, some were concerned that investments to prevent violence on campus were not made earlier.

Students’ experiences of safety extended beyond campus boundaries.

The communities surrounding colleges and universities are part of students’ daily lives, shaping where they live, travel, work, and socialize, and, in turn, how they experience safety. Students in the focus group described their campus and the surrounding community as interconnected. Many acknowledged that HBCUs are rooted in communities with a history of disinvestment, affecting both permanent and on-campus residents who share some of the same safety challenges. Research confirms this: Violence is influenced by historical and structural inequities, including poverty, housing instability, economic disinvestment, limited access to opportunity, and concentrated disadvantage.⁵¹

“One thing that someone gave me a good perspective of, they’re from [the area]. They were like, ‘Yeah, this is your community, this is your environment, but this is our home. We live here. You go to school here. This is my house. You’re in my backyard.’”
—HBCU Student

This perspective affected students’ understanding of violence as a shared community challenge rather than an exclusively institutional problem. Students also described how racial bias shaped their experiences of safety beyond campus. One student explained: “I’m not going to walk—just my own self as a young Black man, I’m not about to walk with my hood on at 9 p.m. to the gas station, because even the gas station person won’t even open up the door for me. It’s so weird. They’ll lock the door.”

For students, campus and community safety were inseparable, suggesting that creating safer campuses also required addressing the structural conditions around safety in surrounding neighborhoods.

The normalization of gun violence shaped students’ experiences of safety.

Many students in the focus group described how their experiences as gun violence survivors informed their perceptions of safety and risk on campus.

“[City]⁵² has one of the highest gun homicides or gun violence rates in [State], is something that I was like, ‘Wow, I didn’t even know this.’ Because of what I’ve experienced back home, I wouldn’t have noticed that this was abnormal.”
—HBCU Student

These reflections from students showed how repeated exposure to gun violence can lead to a feeling of normalization. Research shows that childhood exposure to violence often results in emotional desensitization as individuals mature,⁵³ fostering a perception that violence is an inevitable part of life,⁵⁴ even on campus. This burden is not equally distributed, as Black and Latinx students are more likely to grow up in communities with greater exposure to gun violence.⁵⁵

To better understand students’ perspectives, Everytown researchers also shared the preliminary findings of this report with focus group participants. Instead of reacting with surprise at the findings, students commiserated about the realities of gun violence.

“These [stats] are not surprising to me, and the fact that they’re not being highlighted in the media as much as they should, like… the shootings at PWIs [Predominantly White Institutions] and things like that, it’s not surprising to me, just simply because these are Black institutions and we’re Black students… so of course we’re not going to be represented fairly or making the people aware of what’s going on.”
—HBCU Student

Students viewed the limited awareness of violence at HBCUs as both a consequence and a reinforcement of broader racial inequities. They argued that the relative lack of media attention contributed to diminished public awareness, fewer opportunities for accountability, and less urgency to invest in violence prevention strategies that protect Black students. These concerns about violence at HBCUs can be situated within a broader history of racial inequity in the US, as Black Americans have long been subjected to racialized media depictions, especially regarding issues related to crime, gun violence, and gun policy.⁵⁶

Students believed that institutions should prioritize effective communication regarding active and recent shootings.

While students recognized the difficult circumstances colleges and universities face, including frequent HBCU scrutiny and underfunding, they felt these challenges should not come at the expense of transparency, communication, or safety. Several participants perceived university leaders as prioritizing institutional reputation over keeping students informed during incidents affecting their campus community.

Students were particularly frustrated when officials minimized incidents that occurred near, rather than on, campus. Students wanted administrators to acknowledge the impact of violence on the broader campus community.

“[The administration] basically were like, ‘This had nothing to do with the university; this didn’t even happen on campus.’ Just trying to distance the school as far away from the issue as possible… they eventually did make a statement the next day, like, ‘Okay, guys, there was a shooting.’ But the fact that they were comfortable enough to even make that statement in the first place, knowing that they aren’t telling the whole truth and that students were near the scene, was just really disheartening.”
—HBCU Student

Another significant concern among students in the focus group was effective communication from institutions of higher education during emergencies. Several participants described delayed emergency notifications and inconsistent messaging following shootings. These experiences contributed to feelings of mistrust and uncertainty, raising questions about whether institutions were equipped to respond appropriately during emergencies.

“They didn’t make a call, a text, an email to anybody until 30 minutes after the shooting happened. So, people are like, ‘I’m finding out more through my friends or Fizz and GroupMe⁵⁷ than I am from the actual school.’ So, yeah, I think that while our schools and institutions do need help from governments, from whatever, they definitely need to take accountability when these things happen, because at the end of the day, students are impacted.”
—HBCU Student

Students concluded that they should be treated as partners in campus safety rather than just recipients of institutional decisions. They contended that their everyday experiences provided firsthand knowledge of campus conditions that administrators or policymakers may not have. For them, meaningful accountability included creating space for students to shape planning, emergency preparedness, and violence prevention.

“Young voices are the ones who, when it comes to the school shootings, we’re the ones setting up the vigils, we’re the ones getting the balloons for our fallen friends. So, it’s like the students who have the lived experiences are being excluded from the conversation.”
—HBCU Student

Students were committed to safety and looked to the future.

“If you love a community, the community is going to try to love you back…. My friend that lost his life to gun violence could have had a different route if he had other people pour into him, or [do] stuff like my college was doing.”
—HBCU Student

Despite student concerns about institutional responses to gun violence, their reflections were grounded in a deep sense of care and commitment to their campuses and broader communities. Students expressed motivation to strengthen the HBCU experience and protect future generations of students. They praised the work their colleges and universities had done to invest in their local communities. Others reflected on the importance of investing in young people—describing the benefits of mentorship, community engagement, and support systems as means for violence prevention.

“Investing in these organizations, partnering with these organizations, even student volunteers, they take volunteers, referring students to these organizations, just because they are working to prevent gun violence or even violence period in the community, which we are impacted by. So, just creating a mutual relationship.”
—HBCU Student

Encouragingly, participants also highlighted examples of successful collaboration among HBCUs, local government, community organizations, and law enforcement. Those who felt their school had strong partnerships also reported improvements in trust and communication over time, suggesting that sustained, mutually beneficial relationships among students, institutions, and the surrounding community could contribute to a safer campus environment.

“I think in order for us to see something different, we have to see institutions be very intentional about engaging their student body and working with student leaders across different disciplines. … Because there are more students on my campus who have dealt with gun violence being on campus than any student should have to ever go through.”
—HBCU Student

Students aspired for a world where prevention was a priority. They envisioned investment in long-term and comprehensive solutions to gun violence centered on collaboration, transparency, mental health, and community investment. Taken together, students’ experiences reinforced a central finding from the quantitative data: Campus gun violence cannot be understood solely by examining what happens on campus. The conditions surrounding an institution—including community violence, economic disinvestment, access to services, and gun availability—can shape the safety of the campus itself.

How Can We Prevent Campus Gun Violence?

Preventing gun violence on college and university campuses requires a layered approach combining prevention, preparedness, institutional support, community partnerships, and policies that reduce firearm-related harm.

Gun Safety Policies

Research shows that allowing guns on campuses is associated with more shootings, homicides, and suicides, and that it is unlikely to prevent mass shootings on campus,⁵⁸ making gun safety policies central to shaping campus safety. Several of the states with the highest rates of campus shootings are missing key gun safety policies. Local, state, and federal policymakers play a critical role in creating an environment that supports safety and reduces firearm-related harm. Further, advocacy by students, parents, faculty, and administrators can also play an important role in advancing these evidence-informed policies across the country.

Prohibit Guns on College Campuses

For decades, the gun lobby has pushed legislation that would force colleges and universities to allow students, faculty, and/or visitors to carry guns on campus,¹ despite research showing that campuses face unique risk factors that make access to guns particularly dangerous² and campus community members—including gun owners—expressing opposition and safety concerns.³ To prevent campus shootings, state legislatures should reject any proposal to force guns onto college campuses, and should instead act to prohibit the possession of firearms in these critical learning environments.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus.
Reject Arming Teachers Laws

There is currently no evidence that supports the effectiveness of arming teachers or staff. On the contrary, evidence from K–12 schools shows that this practice poses a range of serious physical and educational risks, as well as unintended harms to members of school communities, especially for children and teens.¹ Concerningly, Florida enacted a law in 2026 to extend its K-12 Guardian Program² to public colleges and universities in the state,³ despite a history of related misconduct,⁴ including Guardians unintentionally firing their guns, leaving them unattended, and sexually abusing a student.⁵ States should repeal these types of laws where they have been enacted, and reject proposals to arm teachers in states where it is being considered.
Raise the Minimum Age to Purchase Firearms to 21

Young adults account for a disproportionate share of both firearm victimization and perpetration: 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at over triple the rate of adults 21 and older,¹ and the present study found that people in this age group are the ones frequently involved in campus gun violence.² Federal statutes require a person to be 21 years old to buy a handgun, or 18 years old to buy a long gun, from a licensed firearm dealer. The law is weaker for purchases from an unlicensed seller (e.g., online sales, gun shows) with a minimum age of 18 for handguns and no minimum age for long guns.³ The Trump administration has taken steps to undermine these foundational public safety laws, with the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel opining that the law prohibiting dealers from selling handguns to people under 21 is unconstitutional.⁴ State-level protections are thus more important than ever to limit firearm access among this high-risk age group, and states should take action to require buyers to be 21 in order to purchase a firearm—whether from a dealer or an unlicensed seller—to help reduce access among individuals at the highest risk of involvement in violence.⁵

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states have raised the minimum age for purchasing firearms.
Require Background Checks on All Gun Sales

Requiring background checks on gun sales helps prevent prohibited persons, including people below the minimum purchase age or subject to an extreme risk or domestic violence protection order, from purchasing guns. Current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to run background checks on all gun buyers, but it does not require background checks when guns are sold by unlicensed sellers. This dangerous loophole makes it easy for prohibited people to buy a gun with no questions asked.¹ States should require background checks on all gun sales.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states require background checks.
Pass Extreme Risk Laws

Extreme Risk laws empower family members, law enforcement, and other designated community members, including educators and household members in some states, to petition a court for a civil order that will temporarily prevent a person who is exhibiting dangerous warning signs from accessing guns. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) limit access to guns during the period of crisis, providing a critical intervention for protecting public safety while simultaneously allowing the person the chance to obtain the help they need. These laws have shown to be an effective intervention to address threats to schools¹ and other forms of gun violence.² States without Extreme Risk laws should enact them, and states that already have them can improve them by expanding the groups of eligible petitioners, clarifying and strengthening existing laws, and implementing training programs and public awareness campaigns.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states have Extreme Risk laws.
Enact and Enforce Secure Gun Storage Laws

Despite the high number of campus shootings that occur in outdoor areas and parking lots, and vehicles being the number-one source of stolen guns in US cities, under some state laws and/or pursuant to some university policies, guns may legally be present in certain locations on campus, or within vehicles on campus parking lots.¹ Although few students report owning guns, among those who do, only about two out of five reported storing them securely.² Secure gun storage laws are among the policies with the strongest evidence base for reducing gun violence,³ and practicing secure storage can reduce theft and unauthorized access.⁴ States should enact and enforce laws requiring secure gun storage whenever the gun is not in the person’s immediate possession or control, including in unattended vehicles.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states require secure gun storage.
Stop the Spread of Rapid-Fire Devices

Fully automatic machine guns—those that fire bullets in rapid succession with a single pull of the trigger—and the parts used to create them have been tightly regulated under federal law since the 1930s.¹ However, the gun industry and third-party sellers continue to produce devices that make it easy to convert semiautomatic firearms into illegal machine guns in a matter of minutes. Machine gun conversion devices, which include auto sears or “Glock switches,” dramatically increase a gun’s rate of fire, making them attractive to mass shooters and other criminals, and pose an increased danger to the public. These devices have increasingly been recovered at crime scenes,² including campus shootings.³ States can take action by enacting laws prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and possession of machine gun conversion devices as well as any rapid-fire devices that increase a semiautomatic weapon’s rate of fire.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states prohibit auto sears.
Stem the Flow of Illegal and Trafficked Guns and Improve Law Enforcement Data Sharing Practices

ATF data show that the majority of traced crime guns are recovered within 25 miles of the dealer from which they were purchased,¹ highlighting the importance of firearm dealer regulations in crime prevention. Guns can move from legal commerce into illegal markets through straw purchasing, unlicensed dealing, and theft; therefore, strong gun dealer oversight is necessary to stem the flow of illegal and trafficked guns within and across state borders. States should adopt a strategy that includes using data to identify and interrupt trafficking and implementing robust oversight of gun dealers, alongside laws like waiting periods and limiting the number of guns that a person can purchase per month. Because guns used in violence can cross jurisdictions,² all law enforcement agencies should also participate in ATF’s eTrace system³—including the collective data sharing feature—to trace the sources of recovered crime guns, help identify traffickers, and stop violent crime.

Visit Everytown’s Gun Law Rankings to learn which states require gun dealer licensing and give law enforcement tools designed to address crime guns.

Institutional-Level Interventions

Colleges and universities themselves can leverage a range of strategies to strengthen campus gun safety. Institutional leaders—including administrators, faculty, and governing boards—play a critical role in implementing evidence-informed campus policies and investing in prevention, communication, and security.⁵⁹ Together, these efforts can reduce risk and help prevent campus gun violence.

Strengthen and Prioritize Prevention Infrastructure

Mitigating gun violence on campus requires an integrated approach that prioritizes identifying risk before tragedy strikes. Because institutions vary widely in their size, populations, infrastructure, and surrounding communities, prevention strategies should be tailored to each campus’s unique needs and risks. Institutions should establish multidisciplinary behavioral intervention and threat assessment teams to identify warning signs, coordinate support services, and facilitate early intervention before a situation escalates into a crisis.¹ These teams are increasingly used in institutions of higher education to provide a structured process for assessing concerning behavior and connecting individuals with appropriate interventions and support, while simultaneously protecting the safety of all individuals involved.² In addition, relevant campus stakeholders should be trained on when and how to use Extreme Risk laws appropriately, in states where they apply, as part of a greater violence prevention strategy.³ Similarly, institutions should provide information to students and faculty on the importance of, and best practices for, securely storing guns, as it is a critical piece of the continuum of creating time and distance between a gun and someone experiencing a crisis or an escalating conflict.
Cultivate Trust Through Transparency and Clear Communication

Ensuring safety on campus is contingent upon the strength of the bonds between students, faculty, and institutional stakeholders.¹ This is particularly important for prevention since students are more likely to report threats when they feel connected to their campus and trust their institutions.² Institutions should reinforce this trust by providing clear, reliable pathways for reporting concerns, like anonymous tip lines,³ and clearly communicate with students on how to report concerning behavior, what resources are available, and what students can expect after making a report or a report is made about them.

Transparency is one way that institutions can build and sustain trust with their students. When appropriate, institutions should provide timely, accurate information about gun violence on or near campus and follow up as investigations progress or arrests are made. Institutions should also consider routinely publishing firearm-specific information in campus safety reports, including incidents that may not be captured by existing federal reporting requirements.⁴ More complete reporting can help students, families, faculty, and staff understand firearm-related harm and how to prevent it, while strengthening institutional accountability.⁵
Expand Access to Mental Health and Student Supports

Universities can mitigate risk by expanding institutional access to crisis services, training staff to recognize signs of emotional distress,¹ and ensuring that individuals exposed to violence receive timely support to address trauma and foster a resilient campus environment.² This requires sufficient mental health infrastructure not only to meet students’ ongoing needs but also to respond to increases in demand following campus violence, which have been shown to grow sharply after campus shootings.³ In a recent national survey, 81 percent of college counseling center directors reported difficulty meeting demand for services, often resorting to staggering appointments or using a triage system to address demand.⁴ Colleges and universities should therefore invest in mental health systems with sufficient capacity and flexibility, and regularly assess gaps between student demand and available services to inform long-term funding strategies and community partnerships that can help address those needs.⁵
Prioritize Core Security Engancements and Emergency Preparedness

Following high-profile acts of violence, colleges and universities often face pressures to invest in visible security measures and emerging technologies.¹ Schools should evaluate new technologies based on campus-specific needs, institutional resources, budget availability, characteristics of the surrounding community,² and potential trade-offs with other prevention strategies.

Physical security should complement, rather than replace, broader prevention efforts. Foundational measures include access control and interior-locking doors in residence halls and buildings not open to the public.³ This was identified as a vulnerability during the shooting at Florida State University in 2025, where students could not lock classroom doors from the inside while the shooting was ongoing.⁴ Other interventions include improving lighting in parking lots and outdoor gathering spaces,⁵and utilizing environmental design principles to proactively reduce the risk of antisocial behavior on school grounds.⁶

Institutions should also maintain robust emergency preparedness protocols, including coordinated response plans and reliable notification systems. Institutions should also ensure that these plans reflect the experiences, needs, and safety concerns of students by using strategies such as a student advisory board, liaisons, focus groups, and/or campus surveys.⁷

Large gatherings and high-traffic events warrant specific plans that define roles, communications, and coordination among campus officials, security, law enforcement, and emergency personnel.⁸ A purely law enforcement–driven strategy is insufficient for violence prevention and can negatively impact students, and although crisis training is vital for harm reduction during an ongoing incident, it is not a substitute for long-term violence prevention.⁹
Establish Policies to Prohibit Firearms

State laws governing guns on college campuses vary widely, with some prohibiting guns on campus, others requiring them to be permitted in certain circumstances, and others still leaving the issue to individual institutions to decide.¹ In one example, a study examining Georgia’s campus carry law found that it was associated with increased fear of crime and perceptions of unsafety on campus, and decreased confidence in campus police.² These findings suggest that allowing guns on college campuses affects perceptions of campus safety and undermines a trusting school environment. In states where institutions have the authority to regulate guns in some manner, they should set strong policies to prohibit gun possession in accordance with the maximum authority provided by law. In addition, if guns are allowed on campus by virtue of state law, to the extent permitted by law, the school should establish a policy to require secure gun storage whenever the gun is not in the person’s immediate possession or control, including in vehicles.
Build a Culture of Secure Gun Storage

Administrators should take steps to educate students, employees, visitors, and surrounding community members alike on policies relating to guns on campus, as well as the importance of, and best practices for, secure gun storage.¹Examples of how this can be implemented include: adding information to the school’s website, student and employee handbooks, event flyers, and ticket-holder email reminders; placing signage in campus parking lots, dorms, and other high-traffic areas; posting public service announcements on school social media accounts and stadium digital displays; and engaging campus members in educational campaigns targeting the surrounding community. For more information about secure gun storage and educational resources, visit besmartforkids.org.

Community-Level Interventions

Because campuses are embedded within surrounding communities, prevention also requires partnerships with local governments, health systems, community organizations, and residents to collaboratively address risks beyond campus boundaries.

Examples of community-level interventions include:

Street outreach programs: Community-based programs that engage individuals at the highest risk of violence, mediate conflicts, provide support and resources, and help interrupt cycles of violence before they escalate.⁶⁰
Group violence intervention programs: Strategies in which high-risk offenders are presented with strict consequences for continued violent behavior, coupled with access to social services and ongoing support from community members, should they choose a different path.⁶¹
Hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs): Programs that pair service providers with patients and families immediately after and during the months that follow a violent injury to ensure that they have the support and resources necessary to heal and remain safe.⁶²
Safe passage programs: Community partnerships that, through coordinated outreach, visibility, and support, improve safety along routes that students and residents use frequently.⁶³
Community-driven crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): Approaches that improve safety in shared spaces by addressing environmental factors such as lighting, visibility, maintenance, and access.⁶⁴

Community-level interventions benefit from shared responsibility across institutions of higher education, local governments, health systems, and community-based organizations. Institutions can contribute funding, technical assistance, and research and evaluation expertise, while community partners are often best positioned to lead direct implementation because of local knowledge, relationships, and credibility in their communities.¹ This division of roles is reflected in several university-community violence prevention partnerships. For example, in 2022, the University of Chicago committed $15 million over three years to support and expand violence intervention efforts.² University researchers also provided evaluation support—another uniquely helpful form of collaboration—to READI Chicago, a local street outreach program.³ This model demonstrates how institutions of higher education can use their financial and institutional resources to strengthen community-led prevention efforts. Programs like READI also benefit college communities, helping ensure that students, faculty, staff, and visitors can live, learn, and move about in a safe environment.

Conclusion

“I just feel like the work is never-ending, and it’s still so much that needs to be done, especially in our communities, but also for all colleges who experience gun violence.”
—HBCU Student

The rise in gun violence on college and university campuses over the past decade, paired with disparate impacts on HBCUs, highlights the need for understanding and addressing the institutional, community, and policy environments that shape students’ risk of gun violence both on and beyond campus.

Research and student perspectives each point to a comprehensive prevention approach centered on evidence-informed strategies that invest in robust mental health services, strong campus-community partnerships, effective threat assessment and response, and state and institutional policies that address the root causes of gun violence. Further research is needed to better understand how community-level conditions influence campus safety outcomes, how prevention strategies can be tailored to different institutional and cultural contexts, and how exposure to gun violence at institutions of higher education affects the school community over time. Future studies should also explore the experiences of HBCUs, as well as institutions that primarily serve historically underrepresented communities in higher education. Colleges and universities cannot address campus gun violence alone. Effective gun violence prevention depends on strong institutions, strong communities, and strong policies, working in unison.

Acknowledgements

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund gratefully acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions to the development and drafting of this report:

Dr. Sonali Rajan, former Senior Director of Everytown Research

Justin Wagner, Senior Vice President of Everytown Law & Policy

Makayla Jordan, Organizing Manager, Students Demand Action

Anna Gratzer, Program Manager, Everytown National Campaigns and Engagements

Andrea Azalia, National Organizing Director, Students Demand Action

Dr. Justin Heinze, Associate Professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and Co-Director of the National Center for School Safety

Learn More:

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

Kathryn E. Rivera

Kathryn E. Rivera is a Senior Research Associate at Everytown for Gun Safety, specializing in issues of children and teens, school safety, and gunfire on school grounds. Before Everytown, they worked as a pollster at Global Strategy Group, advising political, advocacy, and corporate campaigns. They hold a Bachelor of Arts from Marist College, focused in mathematics and political science, and were a Hansard Society Scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Their background also includes work in the UK Parliament and the US Congress.
Ashley D. Cannon

Ashley D. Cannon, M.A., is the Managing Research Editor at Everytown for Gun Safety. Bringing nearly 20 years of experience in the gun violence prevention field, she leads research on unintentional shootings by children and secure gun storage, and supports research projects across the organization. Before joining Everytown in 2018, Ashley served as director of public policy at the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and in various roles at the Vera Institute of Justice, where she conducted research (including authoring “Aiming At Students: The College Gun Violence Epidemic”) and advised lawmakers, government officials, law enforcement agencies, and service providers on policies related to gun violence, policing, criminal and juvenile justice, corrections, and other public safety issues. She holds degrees in criminal justice from American University and John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Kelly Davis

Kelly Davis, MPH, is a Data Scientist at Everytown for Gun Safety, where she serves as the research department’s data lead, supporting advanced analysis, data management, and the quantitative components of original research studies. Kelly first joined Everytown in 2018 as Research Manager and led the development of EveryStat.org and the organization’s federal legislative research. She then spent several years at PATH, where she led impact evaluations of malaria prevention programs across sub-Saharan Africa. Kelly holds a Master of Public Health from The George Washington University.
Courtney Zale, J.D.

Courtney Zale is the Director of Policy Development at Everytown for Gun Safety. With more than a decade of experience in gun violence prevention, she specializes in developing innovative policy frameworks, analyzing state-level laws and proposed legislation across all 50 states, and executing impactful federal and state legislative campaigns. Prior to joining Everytown, Zale worked as a corporate lawyer at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.
Ruhi Bengali

Ruhi Bengali is the Senior Advisor for Implementation at Everytown for Gun Safety, overseeing a team of researchers who provide critical evidence to support the organization’s state and federal legislative campaigns. She joined Everytown’s research team in 2016 focusing on the intersection of gun violence and intimate partner violence, the impact of gun violence on children and teens, and school violence. Prior to Everytown, Ruhi worked on the research team at New American Economy, a nonprofit focusing on immigration reform and has policy research and advocacy experience on affordable housing and global poverty issues.
Megan J. O’Toole, Ph.D.

Megan J. O’Toole, PhD, is Senior Director of Research at Everytown for Gun Safety. Her work focuses on preventing gun violence in cities primarily through collaborative and community-led strategies. She also serves as Research Chair at Fund for a Safer Future, where she leads a committee of subject matter experts in stewarding annual research grants. Prior to joining Everytown, she worked at the Vera Institute of Justice and John Jay’s Research and Evaluation Center. She holds a doctorate in psychology and law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where she also serves as an adjunct professor.
Tannuja D. Rozario, Ph.D.

Tannuja D. Rozario, PhD, is the Director of Research and Engagement at Everytown for Gun Safety. She conducts research on the intersections of gun violence and trauma, intimate partner violence, political violence, suicide, and the social impacts of firearms. Tannuja is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Her work has been published in International Sociology, Social Science & Medicine, and Ethnic and Racial Studies.

Introduction

Tracking Gunfire on School Grounds

What Do We Know About Gun Violence on College and University Campuses?

Campus shootings increased over the past decade.

Overall, campus shootings increased by an average of 20 percent year-over-year.

The vast majority of shootings were gun homicides and non-fatal gun assaults.

Gun homicides and assaults accounted for over half of campus shooting intents.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in outdoor spaces, not inside classrooms.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in outdoor spaces, parking lots, and residence halls.

Campus shootings peaked on weekends and in the month of October.

Saturday had the highest number of campus shootings.

October had the most campus shootings, followed by November and September.

Shooters were often unaffiliated with the school.

Over half of shooters, and four in ten victims or survivors, were unaffiliated with the school.

Campus shootings were most likely to occur in the South.

By far, the South experienced the highest rate of shootings on campuses.

Nevada has the highest rate of campus shootings.

A Closer Look at Shootings on Historically Black College and University Campuses

HBCUs face a disproportionate number of campus shootings during homecoming.

Nearly one-third of all shootings at HBCUs occurred during October.

Student Perspectives on HBCU Campus Safety

Students saw a distinction between the portrayals of safety on campus and their lived experiences.

Students’ experiences of safety extended beyond campus boundaries.

The normalization of gun violence shaped students’ experiences of safety.

Students believed that institutions should prioritize effective communication regarding active and recent shootings.

Students were committed to safety and looked to the future.

How Can We Prevent Campus Gun Violence?

Gun Safety Policies

Prohibit Guns on College Campuses

Reject Arming Teachers Laws

Raise the Minimum Age to Purchase Firearms to 21

Require Background Checks on All Gun Sales

Pass Extreme Risk Laws

Enact and Enforce Secure Gun Storage Laws

Stop the Spread of Rapid-Fire Devices

Stem the Flow of Illegal and Trafficked Guns and Improve Law Enforcement Data Sharing Practices

Institutional-Level Interventions

Strengthen and Prioritize Prevention Infrastructure

Cultivate Trust Through Transparency and Clear Communication

Expand Access to Mental Health and Student Supports

Prioritize Core Security Engancements and Emergency Preparedness

Establish Policies to Prohibit Firearms

Build a Culture of Secure Gun Storage

Community-Level Interventions

Implementation and Shared Responsibility

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Learn More:

Authors

Kathryn E. Rivera

Ashley D. Cannon

Kelly Davis

Courtney Zale, J.D.

Ruhi Bengali

Megan J. O’Toole, Ph.D.

Tannuja D. Rozario, Ph.D.

The Latest

Methodological Note for Gun Violence on College and University Campuses

Artificially Assisted Gun Violence: Chatbot Risks and Preventative Steps for Responsible AI Companies

Ghost Guns Recoveries and Shootings

Gun Trafficking and Crime Guns in Kentucky