averaging it out over 180 years fails to represent the increase of gun-related deaths/injuries over the years and looks like you're manipulating the data to make it look better and agenda driven. I get the response was to a facetious remark about it being a pastime which may warrant this ridiculous average but I see no benefit in clouding the details and it isn't being responsible to the issue.
How is adding the data up or calculating the average "manipulating the data?"
Methinks that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
If you read my last comment to that poster though, I politely pointed out his comment had nothing to do with the point of the thread - and neither does yours.
That said, let's see why and look at your point. Adding up all the deaths since 2000, we find the number of deaths has increased substantially. 302 in just over 20 years. THAT average is right at
15 deaths per year - in a period of time ONE EIGHTH that of the previous (20 yrs vs. 160), we see a TENFOLD INCREASE in gun violence.
My question, and the question of the OP is, considering the circumstances... why?
First, did you bother to read the article? In it you'd find the relative prevalence of guns, gun toting, gun wielding in schools radically different than it has been the past 30 or 40 years. Indeed, guns in this last period are not even allowed in schools. No more rifle clubs, no more shooting ranges in schools, no more carrying one's shotgun proudly down the halls as a member of the school's shooting team.
In fact, we see precisely the opposite - "Gun Safe Zones," an ironic choice of words, btw, since the inception of these zones, safety has become anything but in our schools.
So I ask again... what changed?