Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies.
Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye will have moved on by then.
If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent.
Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.
Imagine the chaos of multiple people with guns trying to take down an assailant with the police involved. Who are the good guys here? Friendly fire happens with cops accidentally shooting hostage victims occasionally and they are well trained.
Do civilians really know how to deal with hostage scenarios?
Do teachers want to carry firearms to protect elementary school students?
Are the school districts going to pay for training and armament?
What if a teacher attacks the children in their class? What if a student carries a weapon to the school and creates a hostage situation? (You eliminated a gun free zone).
Assailants can be better armed than teachers and they can wear armor, which teachers/security personnel will not be equipped with. (See Buffalo massacre)
These are just off the top of my head. I would like to hear a security analyst take on it.
https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun...
Edit: and let me just respond to one thing
> You are making bad assumptions here
I'm not just making assumptions. This is the conclusion I come to from reading firearms experts like the one I just linked, sociological analysis of gun ownership, use of force law, etc.
I'm not saying a chaotic situation like that couldn't happen, but that can be prepared for, and the result would still be a significant net positive.
To what extent have you studied criminology? How many relevant research papers have you read that have been published in the journals of the American Society of Criminology, which is the largest criminological organization in the US?
Why do you ask?
A firearms expert is not the same as a physical security specialist who can do a full threat model on the pros/cons of arming teachers. The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic. I have yet to read an pro gun analysis that states any downsides to this method proposed. They do not state any downsides at all. That gives me pause, it demonstrates lack of real physical security expertise.
Do these schools even have basic security reviews, district level security practices, crisis training, surveillance, lock down procedures, egress planning?
That all requires funding from tax payers. Is Gov. Abott going to fund that across Texas?
The strategy seems to be arm teachers (conceal carry)and shooter will either get killed or avoid the situation entirely. It is hard to know what a enraged psycho will do. You have to plan for it.
Read the play by play for the Ulvade shooting. The shooter entered from an unsecured backdoor and barricaded himself in the classroom. It was a surprise attack in an enclosed space with tens of children. Total chaos. The teacher(s) most likely would not have time to respond even with training. Even safety officers (with training and arms) have been known to flee (see Parkland shooting). This has to factor into the analysis.
Once you are in a hostage situation the stakes are extreme and school teachers are not really prepared to deal with that. Two trained police officers were shot in the situation, there is no real hope for a teacher with a few hours on the shooting range. What are the ages of these random teachers, capabilities, fitness, etc? It is a total tossup. The assailant was just one 18 year old, what if there are two or more (see Columbine).
These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review.
He spends quite a bit of time laying out his qualifications with regards to tactical and legal complexities of using a gun on another human being.
> He is not very articulate.
What exactly is your objection here? That he is plain spoken, or that he uses jargon you're unfamiliar with?
If you are merely critiquing his style that's rather superficial.
> The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic.
I don't know what to tell you. It could go poorly. Physical security planning is a great idea, whether the teachers are armed or not. Training is also important, which CCW permits generally require, but even then the teachers aren't going to be highly trained. People often miss when are firing under pressure, or lose their courage and run. The teachers might merely be speed bumps to the shooter.
These are all true for any mass shooter scenario. The fact of the matter is, despite no central planning for any of that stuff, the presence of CCW permit holders putting up a fight reduces the the average number of people who die in a mass shooting. It is also clear that the potential presence of CCW holders deters mass shooters given that the vast majority of such shooting happen in gun free zones.
> These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review
The right to self defense is a simple but robust solution to sporadic, unpredictable violence. It works despite all the possible ways it could fail because most violent crime is predicated on the expectation of little to no resistance.
But the following facts I think make a good case to believe his is mistaken about this scenario:
- statistics on the utility of CCW in mass shooter scenarios
- the preference of mass shooters to target gun-free zones.
- the precedent of Utah allowing teachers with CCW for roughly 10 years without real incident.
It's certainly not the only step that should be taken to curb mass shootings in schools, but I think there's good evidence it will help.
.. oh it has happened already :D hahahah
Any solution to the problem of mass shooting in schools will have to work within that constraint.
In the UK, where you're not allowed to use firearms to defend yourself, home invasions where someone is home is 64%. In the US, where it is permissible, home invasions where someone is home is 27.6%.
You're over twice as likely to be robbed while you're home in the UK as you are in the US. I'm sure the factors are complex, but knowing that you're actually risking your life when you break into a home in the US has to be one of the factors.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/home-insurance/burglary-statist... https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/burglary-statist....
Tell us again how giving a firearm to Betty the school lunch lady will help in any way ?
I know Betty the lunch lady is supposed to be a strawman of sorts, but women are actually pretty good shots. It's amazing how quickly criminals, even when they are armed and outnumber you, will fold once you present armed resistance[2].
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-man-shot-colorado...
[2] https://sandrarose.com/2016/09/georgia-woman-shoots-three-ho...
This is just not realistic suggestion.
Think for example how suicides are generally covered. Reputable organisations don't publish the details of the precise method, and they include a link/phone number to a help line for those who struggle themselves.
> What is the punishment if you break it?
The same as with most norms: Professional embarrassment, and loss of reputation among your peers.
It's so realistic that it's already a real thing.
The government. We need a comprehensive set of media safety laws that prevent publication of these dangerous reports so they won't fall into the wrong hands.
So? Shouldn't all options be on the table to solve this problem?
Of course it is on the table. Just pass a media safety law, and if the Supreme Court dares to get in the way, pack it with supporters of the law. Or just ignore the court, too. Didn't it basically grant itself the power to veto laws?
The Supreme Court is probably the least democratic part of American government.
That said, in the end, some may not be worth it.
There are centuries worth of Supreme Court rulings on this topic. You should read them before making such suggestions.
We don't need information to be unobtainable, just not plastered on every possible medium.
I do agree that media organizations should be more responsible about not glorifying violence or publicizing the identities of violent criminals. A desire for notoriety seems to have been one of the motives in some mass shootings.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-shootings-ar...:
> The investigators applied a mathematical model and found that shootings that resulted in at least four deaths launched a period of contagion, marked by a heightened likelihood of more bloodshed, lasting an average of 13 days....
> Previous studies have shown that suicide can be similarly contagious. In one recent example, researchers found a correlation between celebrity suicides, like that of Robin Williams, and an increase in suicidal thoughts in an online Reddit suicide watch group for people battling depression.
> “People are susceptible to information about these events, but the mechanism is less clear,” says Andres Gomez-Lievano, a co-author of the mass-shooting study, published in July in PLOS ONE. Where and when the news reports were published could have an effect on incidence, says Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent Communication Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved with the study. It is important to note, he says, that “suicides will trigger others, so it makes sense that people who want to commit suicide while killing others could be influenced in the same way.”
Unless you get the causes and triggers under control, the attacks will just happen with whatever tools are available (e.g. guns, bladed weapons, bombs, or fire).
I've had to dismiss and block more than one news organization from my feeds to avoid knowing the name of the most recent shooter. I'd settle for their information just not being shoved down my throat.
The fact that first person shooters are played by hundreds of millions all over the world, but mass shootings are 99% a US thing (which much predated first person shooters, e.g. "I don't like Mondays") should answer the question...
Gun control is not going to fix this kind of radicalism or its impact. The dude was a straight up terrorist and IMO he made the correct observation that this sort of terrorism will be successful in driving the divide and creating more extremism.