...since 26 people were shot by Adam "Fuckface" Lanza. This is the worst mass shooting in American history since the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007 (perpetrated by Seung-Hui "Also-a-Fuckface" Cho) killed 32 people.
My first reaction, when I heard about it, was, "Twenty-six people? Are you kidding me?" My second reaction was, "Boy, this is sure going to shift the gun-control and school safety debates into overdrive." And I was right. There's currently some serious talk about how to prevent this from ever happening again. I've taken this week to give the matter some serious thought, and I've come up with four possible lines of attack, as it were.
So, let's give them a look, shall we?
1. Better school security
This is an obvious one, in many ways. In others, though, not so much. I mean, improve it how? Some schools already have metal detectors, and some even have armed guards. Heck, Colombine had armed police on site, way back in 1999, and still there were 13 deaths.
What more can we do?
And even if we do it, will it really be effective? Even if we make schools the next best things to fortresses, with metal detectors, patdowns, and armed guards at every entrance — airport-level security, essentially — then a gunman could just open up on the people waiting in line to go into the building. Remember, these people are rarely interested in specific people; they just want to cause as much death and mayhem as they can manage.
And, of course, more security is expensive. It would require at least one armed guard at each entrance, each of which is well trained to respond to an armed incursion. A bored guard who isn't paying attention, or a poorly-trained one, will just be the first victim of any gunman trying to enter.
Conclusion: More security, even if it's possible, is far too expensive to ever be implemented. And it wouldn't work if it was. It'd just shift the slaughter to outside the school, or to another target entirely.
2. Allow teachers to carry weapons
In a lot of ways, this is just a slightly different way of implementing idea #1, except instead of being at the entrance (or perhaps in addition to it) the guns are in the classrooms themselves. This has the advantage that the teacher likely doesn't have to pay as much attention to security as a guard would. They'd learn of an incursion from afar, most likely, and could be ready to shoot in attack or defense, as the teacher thought best.
On the other hand, how likely is this scenario, really? Not very, unless we not just allowed teachers to bring guns, not even encouraged them to come armed, but actively armed them. Because most teachers simply wouldn't want to introduce guns to school, and they'd just go unarmed. Some would start packing, but not many. So unless a gunman was fantastically unlucky, they'd still get their murder and mayhem. And if we force teachers to carry firearms, then I suspect a good many will quit in protest. And I wouldn't blame them. Kids and guns do not mix well.
And even armed, a teacher is not going to blast away at every person who walks through their door unexpectedly. They have to know an incursion is happening first. And that requires the gunman to get off a few shots, and possibly quite a few shots, before a response could be mounted.
Conclusion: We'd likely need to hire a lot of new teachers, and of course buy the guns and train teachers in firearms use and safety. Once again, impracticably costly. And even if it was done it would at best cut down on the kill count. At worst, a kid gets a hold of a teacher's gun and uses that for his rampage, and can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then? All in all, probably best to leave the guns to the guards.
3. Perform psych evaluations
Or at least background checks, which would include checking to see if they were diagnosed with potentially dangerous mental instabilities. This, actually, I can agree with. And we already do that, at least somewhat. But not everywhere; gun shows and certain private sales do not require background checks. Some people are talking about closing that hole, and I can't agree more that it needs doing.
But Fuckface wouldn't have underwent a check, anyway. The guns weren't his; they were his mom's, who, as far as anyone can determine, owned them legally and had no mental issues. I heard someone propose that background checks be applied not just to buyers but to their families, who would also have access to the weapons. Makes sense... at first. Then you start thinking about it.
If I buy a gun, I get a background check. Should my roommate also get checked? He'd be able to just grab my gun, after all, unless I have it in an actual gun safe. So, okay, he gets a background check.
But what about my friends who come over most weeks to play board games? They could call for a bathroom break, walk into my bedroom, and take my gun. Maybe they should be included. And my family, who lives nearby and stops by two or three times a year. Let's add them to the list. And friends who live out of state, who sometimes stay here rather than pay for a motel room. And... and... and...
Just how wide should this net be cast? And, frankly, it doesn't matter at all, because no matter how many of my friends, family, and associates you check out, it'll never include the criminal who breaks into my home and just steals my gun.
Conclusion: Background checks for buyers is fine, and loopholes that allow buyers not to get checked should be closed. There's no sense in giving weapons directly to criminals or troubled people, after all. But widening those checks to include people other than the buyer would be stupid, expensive, and ultimately futile.
4. Ban guns
This is, of course, what is being discussed mot vigorously. But nobody but the far left fringe is advocating banning all guns. A good part of that is because they know it'll never happen. It'd require revoking the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and there's nowhere near enough support to manage that.
So if guns as a whole aren't banned, then what about the most dangerous guns? Which is to say, assault weapons. Problem is, does anyone really think that if we ban those that this sort of thing will stop? They'll just use pistols. I've heard one proposal to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is ridiculous. That's damn near every gun out there, these days, and so it's about as likely as a full ban.
Conclusion: Banning assault rifles may, maybe, cut down on the kill count, but it won't eliminate school shootings. Doing that would require banning all guns, and that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Grand Conclusion
School shootings — and shootings elsewhere, like at the Clackamas Town Center Mall a couple of weeks back — are a tragedy. But any possible solution would involve sacrifices to our wallets and freedoms that Americans simply would not accept. We might implement some half-measures that make them a little rarer, but they will keep happening.
Learn to cope.
My first reaction, when I heard about it, was, "Twenty-six people? Are you kidding me?" My second reaction was, "Boy, this is sure going to shift the gun-control and school safety debates into overdrive." And I was right. There's currently some serious talk about how to prevent this from ever happening again. I've taken this week to give the matter some serious thought, and I've come up with four possible lines of attack, as it were.
So, let's give them a look, shall we?
1. Better school security
This is an obvious one, in many ways. In others, though, not so much. I mean, improve it how? Some schools already have metal detectors, and some even have armed guards. Heck, Colombine had armed police on site, way back in 1999, and still there were 13 deaths.
What more can we do?
And even if we do it, will it really be effective? Even if we make schools the next best things to fortresses, with metal detectors, patdowns, and armed guards at every entrance — airport-level security, essentially — then a gunman could just open up on the people waiting in line to go into the building. Remember, these people are rarely interested in specific people; they just want to cause as much death and mayhem as they can manage.
And, of course, more security is expensive. It would require at least one armed guard at each entrance, each of which is well trained to respond to an armed incursion. A bored guard who isn't paying attention, or a poorly-trained one, will just be the first victim of any gunman trying to enter.
Conclusion: More security, even if it's possible, is far too expensive to ever be implemented. And it wouldn't work if it was. It'd just shift the slaughter to outside the school, or to another target entirely.
2. Allow teachers to carry weapons
In a lot of ways, this is just a slightly different way of implementing idea #1, except instead of being at the entrance (or perhaps in addition to it) the guns are in the classrooms themselves. This has the advantage that the teacher likely doesn't have to pay as much attention to security as a guard would. They'd learn of an incursion from afar, most likely, and could be ready to shoot in attack or defense, as the teacher thought best.
On the other hand, how likely is this scenario, really? Not very, unless we not just allowed teachers to bring guns, not even encouraged them to come armed, but actively armed them. Because most teachers simply wouldn't want to introduce guns to school, and they'd just go unarmed. Some would start packing, but not many. So unless a gunman was fantastically unlucky, they'd still get their murder and mayhem. And if we force teachers to carry firearms, then I suspect a good many will quit in protest. And I wouldn't blame them. Kids and guns do not mix well.
And even armed, a teacher is not going to blast away at every person who walks through their door unexpectedly. They have to know an incursion is happening first. And that requires the gunman to get off a few shots, and possibly quite a few shots, before a response could be mounted.
Conclusion: We'd likely need to hire a lot of new teachers, and of course buy the guns and train teachers in firearms use and safety. Once again, impracticably costly. And even if it was done it would at best cut down on the kill count. At worst, a kid gets a hold of a teacher's gun and uses that for his rampage, and can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then? All in all, probably best to leave the guns to the guards.
3. Perform psych evaluations
Or at least background checks, which would include checking to see if they were diagnosed with potentially dangerous mental instabilities. This, actually, I can agree with. And we already do that, at least somewhat. But not everywhere; gun shows and certain private sales do not require background checks. Some people are talking about closing that hole, and I can't agree more that it needs doing.
But Fuckface wouldn't have underwent a check, anyway. The guns weren't his; they were his mom's, who, as far as anyone can determine, owned them legally and had no mental issues. I heard someone propose that background checks be applied not just to buyers but to their families, who would also have access to the weapons. Makes sense... at first. Then you start thinking about it.
If I buy a gun, I get a background check. Should my roommate also get checked? He'd be able to just grab my gun, after all, unless I have it in an actual gun safe. So, okay, he gets a background check.
But what about my friends who come over most weeks to play board games? They could call for a bathroom break, walk into my bedroom, and take my gun. Maybe they should be included. And my family, who lives nearby and stops by two or three times a year. Let's add them to the list. And friends who live out of state, who sometimes stay here rather than pay for a motel room. And... and... and...
Just how wide should this net be cast? And, frankly, it doesn't matter at all, because no matter how many of my friends, family, and associates you check out, it'll never include the criminal who breaks into my home and just steals my gun.
Conclusion: Background checks for buyers is fine, and loopholes that allow buyers not to get checked should be closed. There's no sense in giving weapons directly to criminals or troubled people, after all. But widening those checks to include people other than the buyer would be stupid, expensive, and ultimately futile.
4. Ban guns
This is, of course, what is being discussed mot vigorously. But nobody but the far left fringe is advocating banning all guns. A good part of that is because they know it'll never happen. It'd require revoking the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and there's nowhere near enough support to manage that.
So if guns as a whole aren't banned, then what about the most dangerous guns? Which is to say, assault weapons. Problem is, does anyone really think that if we ban those that this sort of thing will stop? They'll just use pistols. I've heard one proposal to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is ridiculous. That's damn near every gun out there, these days, and so it's about as likely as a full ban.
Conclusion: Banning assault rifles may, maybe, cut down on the kill count, but it won't eliminate school shootings. Doing that would require banning all guns, and that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Grand Conclusion
School shootings — and shootings elsewhere, like at the Clackamas Town Center Mall a couple of weeks back — are a tragedy. But any possible solution would involve sacrifices to our wallets and freedoms that Americans simply would not accept. We might implement some half-measures that make them a little rarer, but they will keep happening.
Learn to cope.