This is the third article in a series on preventing mass shootings, especially at schools. The first article pleads that we stop the insanity of the same tired debate about guns, and focus instead on preventing deaths. The second lays out dozens of existing federal laws, urging that we teach teens about them. This article focuses solely on preventing any more school shootings.
Stop School Shootings, Don’t Push a Political Agenda
The purpose of this series is to set the terms of the debate. If we are to avoid the pitfalls of the past 40 years of argument, we must steer the debate away from a discussion of ‘gun laws’ and toward a discussion of solutions. The Foundation for Economic Education published an outstanding, thoughtful analysis by Trevor Burrus of why the gun debate is so hard.
If our aim is to protect our children, then let’s talk directly about how to protect them, not about political agendas.
If our aim is to protect our children, then let’s talk directly about how to protect them, not about political agendas. Listen to what Andrew Pollack, father of one of the dead teenagers, had to say to the President on Wednesday.
Seventeen promising young high school students are dead because we failed to devise a solution to protect them. We failed to protect them because we were debating the wrong issue. Every debate on this issue since the 1970s has focused on how to use the vulnerability of innocents to accomplish a political objective.
The Left used the murder of innocents in their attempt to rid American citizens of guns. The Right countered by calling for changing the culture.
The Left used the murder of innocents in their attempt to rid American citizens of guns. The Right countered by calling for changing the culture, limiting mass exposure to violence in movies, music and video games. Neither set of proposed solutions focused on the immediate objective of protecting our children.
To quote from article two in the series, “it is twisted logic to believe that criminal behavior can be altered by taking punitive measures against non-criminals. No other area of public policy tries to do that, and no other policy solutions focus on inanimate objects, rather than personal behavior.”
Until we have protected our children, all other policy proposals must take a back seat.
So what can we do? We can come up with a solution rather easily, if we focus on the problem of protecting our students. Until we have done that, all other policy proposals must take a back seat.
Harden the Target
The Crime Prevention Research Center has compiled a list of all mass shootings in America since 1950. Over 98% of them have occurred in areas designated as gun-free zones. The movie theater shooter in Aurora, Colorado, famously traveled far to target a theater that banned concealed carry.
Over 98% of all mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in areas designated as gun-free zones.
Security professionals call these spaces ‘soft targets.’ Mass shooters are mentally or emotionally unbalanced, but the CPRC statistic proves that they are rational actors. They are choosing soft targets.
Every school should have armed protection, now. This is the one proposal that addresses the problem directly. We protect everything else we value (and lots of things we don’t value that much) with armed guards: airplanes, banks, jewelry stores, politicians, celebrities, art museums, sports arenas. Don’t we value our kids?
There are several options within this category. Some schools already have metal detectors and uniformed armed guards. That is expensive, and making thousands of teenagers pass daily through magnetometers is a frightful logistical exercise. And a single, identified guard may not be sufficient.
Douglas High School in Parkland had an armed guard, but the shooter avoided him. It also emerged Thursday night that the deputy stayed outside the building for four minutes while the shooter was inside. It takes only minutes to kill 17 unarmed people.
Licensed, Trained Concealed Carry
A more meaningful option is to require schools to allow trained, licensed professionals to carry concealed weapons. If a few teachers and administrators carry concealed guns, and it is not commonly known who they are, that raises sufficient uncertainty to deter most shooters. And it allows an armed defense against those who are not deterred.
Some school officials raise objections to introducing lethal weapons into children’s lives. True, it is an awesome responsibility to carry a gun anywhere, especially around children. It cannot be left to someone with only a few hours’ training. A child killed by an accidental discharge is just as much a tragedy as one murdered by a madman.
Fortunately, every community has a vast resource that could be tapped for this service. Many teachers, administrators and staff are military veterans. More should be.
Fortunately, every community has a vast resource that could be tapped for this service. Many teachers, administrators and staff are veterans, or already are trained and licensed to carry concealed firearms. More should be. Department of Education grants should require that at least ten percent of school personnel (teachers, aides, coaches, or administrative staff) are veterans or retired law enforcement officers.
Those individuals should receive further, specialized training for concealed carry at schools. There are veterans who could fill any position at a school. They would bring the added benefit of providing positive role models for the young men and women they teach and serve. Most important, they would keep our children safe.
We Know How to Do It
We know how to protect people and places. We do it everywhere else, and we should do it in schools, right now, this year. Politicians and ‘activists’ can continue their arguments about guns, culture, medications, and everything else for as long as they want. But don’t do it over any more dead bodies.
Future articles in the series: the Australia model, and “Our Brother’s Keeper.” or how communities can recognize potential shooters and intervene in time.
