Politicians Should Resist the Urge To 'Do Anything' in Response to School Shootings
While that impulse is understandable, it can lead to policies that do more harm than good.

After a gunman murdered 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, last week, politicians responded as they always do to such shocking crimes. Democrats pushed gun control policies ranging from the symbolic to the flagrantly irrelevant, while Republicans emphasized improvements to school security.
On its face, "hardening" schools so they are less vulnerable to attacks seems more logical than banning "assault weapons" defined by functionally unimportant features or expanding the federal background-check requirement for gun buyers, which is ill-suited to deterring mass shooters because they typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. But the approach favored by Republicans has pitfalls that legislators should not ignore in their rush to "do something" about crimes that are horrifying but rare.
To start with the obvious: Even sensible precautions do not work if they are not properly implemented. Although the Uvalde school district had a policy of keeping school entrances and classroom doors locked "at all times," the shooter apparently entered through an unlocked rear door; the door to the adjoining classrooms where he killed children and teachers was likewise unlocked.
The school district also had the "good guys with guns" who are supposed to thwart this sort of attack: its own police force and armed guards, plus local cops and members of a Border Patrol unit with "an immediate-response capability" for "emergent and high-risk incidents requiring specialized skills and tactics." Yet it took police more than an hour to confront and kill the gunman—an egregious failure that Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin has asked the Justice Department to investigate.
Beyond those specific lapses, we know surprisingly little about the cost-effectiveness of school security measures. "Whatever evidence does exist on this front is mixed, at best," notes a 2021 RAND Corporation report.
Although safeguards such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras have been widely adopted, the report says, "these technologies' actual effects on detection and deterrence are unclear or mixed." A 2016 RAND review of the literature found that surveillance cameras are "more effective at preventing or minimizing property crimes (e.g., vandalism) than at preventing school violence or other crimes at school."
The evidence concerning "school resource officers" (SROs) is "similarly mixed," the 2021 report says. "Although some studies suggest that having an SRO present can be an effective approach to reducing school violence," RAND notes, "others show that an SRO's presence can degrade students' perceptions of safety."
That is not surprising, since conspicuous security measures like SROs may create the impression that students face greater dangers in school than they actually do. There is also a risk that SROs will transform relatively minor disciplinary issues into criminal matters, sometimes with appalling consequences.
"Active shooter" drills raise similar issues. There is little evidence that they enhance safety but ample reason to think they make students feel less safe.
Even strategies that look promising can be prohibitively expensive. In 2019, The Texas Tribune reports, a Texas school district estimated that adding two secure lobbies to a junior high school would cost $345,000.
Before concluding that the answer is more money, policy makers should take a breath and consider the magnitude of the danger they are trying to address. Since 2013, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox reports, "77 students in grades K-12 have been killed in 11 school mass shootings," defined as attacks that injured at least four victims and killed at least one student.
In a country with more than 130,000 K-12 schools, the risk that any particular school will experience such an attack is infinitesimal. As Fox notes, 40 times as many children die in pool drownings each year than are killed with firearms in schools, which remain one of the safest environments for children.
"We beg you," a group of current and former school principals say in a recent open letter. "Do something. Do anything." While that impulse is understandable, it can lead to policies that do more harm than good.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Getting rid of democrats would do wonders for lowering the crime rate. They do seem to be most of the supply side on that issue.
I even have made $30,180 only in 30 days straightforwardly working a few easy tasks through my PC. Just when I have lost my office position, (res-80) I was so perturbed but at last I’ve found this simple on-line employment & this way I could collect thousands simply from home. Any individual can try this best job and get more money online going this article….
.
>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Close down the government schools and sell the buildings to the highest bidder. Use the proceeds to provide severance pay to the teachers.
Private schools will be more secure, more cost efficient, and more responsive to parents' requests for what is taught and what is not. Parental involvement is the most correlated factor to student success, and nothing guarantees parental involvement like making them pay for what they are getting.
Lots of people assume we need government schools to educate children whose families can't afford tuition. So many people are worried about it that I'm sure they could pool their resources and establish private scholarships for the truly needy.
And most parents will have more money to afford tuition when they stop being forced to pay property taxes to the local school district.
Lots of people assume we need government schools to educate children whose families can't afford tuition.
And, 100 yrs. ago, when it was a choice between walking 10 mi. to school or walking 0.5 mi. to fetch fresh water from the creek and adults confirmed transactions by "making their mark" it kinda made some sense. Now that pretty much everyone in the US can encrypt private transactions with their personal digital keys or PINs, even off of any given network, it's a bit irrelevant. Especially considering that schools are now actively working to destroy common definitions and long-held social and biological concepts such as 'man' and 'woman'.
Once again ....
There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools -- they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.
Read or skim this article. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there's a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.
The way to stop school shootings is simple:
* Get rid of gun-free zones.
* Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn't matter.
Making carry mandatory isn't necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.
I took my sister-in-law and her retired marine husband shooting with us. She's a teacher and I was amazed at her inability to hit anything with a 22 rifle. I observe her sending a couple of rounds at the target but no signs of any hits. I had to have her lower her aim point by 6 feet to get even close. Some people are incapable of doing simple things. My wife, her sister, can hit almost as well as me.
Not every educator should be armed; more like churches with security teams, a cadre of individuals with the skill and the will to protect.
And, as we have seen, picking churches as a "soft" target has not worked out so well for would be mass shooters.
We could arm them with hand grenades.
Close enough; some get grenades, some horseshoes.
If she's missing by six feet, she's making some kind of fundamental mistake with her sight picture. My guess is that she either wasn't taught or didn't understand what she was taught about how the front and rear sights are supposed to align.
Flinch factor. Probably closes her eyes and jerks the trigger out of fear of the bang and recoil.
Although how anyone could be afraid of .22 recoil is beyond me.
OTOH: A Vermont reporter said firing an AR-15 rifle “felt like a meteor had struck the earth” in an article on Wednesday describing his experience at the state’s first indoor gun range. “It is difficult to describe the impact — physical and personal — of that first shot.
* Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn't matter.
As for staff, that is what the resource officers are for.
As for teachers? Honestly, it's not their job, and it's a little unfair to ask them to. Their job is to teach, not to shoot the bad guys. That is why they are called teachers and not police officers.
The proposal is to let the teachers carry if they personally choose to do so. It is not to mandate that they carry.
Evidence would suggest that Jeffs' teachers were hired primarily for their firearms prowess and even that was sub-par.
Not their job?!? What fricking planet do you live on, that people can be so rigidly compartmentalized? Wrong union maybe?
I did not say "Ask them to". Read it again. In some states, 10-20% of the adult population carries. Let that percolate into the teachers and staff.
Good grief. Not their job. Grow up, boy.
I think open carry in schools would be a very, very bad idea. Some strong lad is going to overpower a teacher and we'll be back to where we are now.
Allowing concealed is something worth talking about, but even that could lead to kids getting guns. What if the teacher leaves it in his briefcase, or desk? There would have to be some seriously enforced rules as well as training before I'd sign onto that one.
They have duty of care for any and all children in their charge. If they are going to claim to be a better version of the parents, then they will need to not be the typical progressive/feminist/left-leaning asshat, demanding everyone else cater to their demands. This is holds true for teaching and providing for the safety of those in their care, collectivist sophist.
carrying on the job seems like overkill considering school shootings are still extremely rare. Just a matter of time before some dumbass teacher leaves his piece in a toilet stall or something.
But a weapon in a secured storage in the classroom? 100%. I'm still reminded of, i think it was the principal at sandy hook, basically ran out of her office into the hall and her only course of action was to become a bullet sponge. Would it have been different if she had a weapon in a safe in her office?
I have two kids in school Based on the present security at the building (locked doors, few access points since its a newer building), weapons on site seems a more rational approach than teacher carry.
Asking politicians to just stand there and don't do something is like asking bank robbers to not rob banks. It's there raison d'etre.
*their
^THIS +1000000000000000...
And humorously; there really isn't any 'is like' to it.. Asking politicians NOT TO ROB the people's bank...
Even sensible precautions do not work if they are not properly implemented. Although the Uvalde school district had a policy of keeping school entrances and classroom doors locked "at all times," the shooter apparently entered through an unlocked rear door; the door to the adjoining classrooms where he killed children and teachers was likewise unlocked.
Perhaps if those who did NOT implement the policy should be held to account? Maybe lose their jobs and face criminal or civil actions?
Without teeth in the law it will not make a difference.
New narrative: The door was closed and locked but the lock didn't work. The one failure that would've prevented every last death, except maybe the shooter's, was nobody's fault. Common sense door lock reform was impractical and unworkable. Clearly, *the* solution is more common sense gun control.
In thin defense of gun controllers, I can't entirely agree with the wisdom of calling for people who can't maintain and lock a door in emergency situations to have more firearms. It's almost like there's some part of the equation, like some sense of personal ownership, that's being entirely overlooked or talked past.
*sigh* Edit: measure that would've prevented/failure that caused...
Should be a mandatory waiting period. Like in some places to buy a gun.
"Should be a mandatory waiting period. Like in some places to buy a gun."
Unfortunately, waiting periods, according to the research, have virtually no effect on overall homicide rates. While the Buffalo shooter may not have had to deal with a waiting period (New York only has waiting periods for handguns, if memory serves me correctly), he may had to spend a week, or perhaps longer, to obtain the parts necessary to turn his rifle into an "assault weapon."
These tragic events are seldom done at the "spur of the moment."
The "downside" of the waiting period is that someone who actually needs a gun may be denied it, and become an unarmed victim. While that, too is uncommon, it has to be taking into consideration.
There are no easy answers.
These tragic events are seldom done at the "spur of the moment."
IIRC, the number of incidents where the shooter proceeded from the gun shop to the scene of the shooting is exactly zero. Any "If we'd made him wait X days." is between a post hoc and *ahem* Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
This happened in supposedly rough and ready Texas, run by the GOP so that fairy tale is now discredited. An army of cops and Rangers couldn't get it done and James Bond and Jack Reacher don't live close enough to help. Your policy idea just failed big time because life isn't like the movies.
Muted, because you're a one note dumbass.
He gives me hope. Clueless, elitist, detached from reality and the concerns of every day Americans, the type that causes Americans to raise their pitchforks, torches and hang traitors like the American colonists did.
Do not insult one note dumbasses by comparing them to Joe.
I've muted most of the established trolls here [Tony, Squirrel Daddy, etc.] but for some reason I just can't let go of Joe. It's like reading the NYT morning briefing* and deriving entertainment from the shit the put out there.
*to be fair, yesterday the NYT did something Joe could never do:
"Because masks work and mandates often don't, people can make their own decisions. Anybody who wants to wear a snug, high-quality mask can do so and will be less likely to contract COVID." NYT The Morning: May 31, 2022
It happened in a "gun free zone" because killers like targets that can't shoot back. And the fact that the cops were useless only bolsters the argument that people need to protect themselves because the government won't.
Your policy idea just failed big time because life isn't like the movies.
Unless you're celebrating Christmas in Waukesha. Then, apparently, it's a lot like a couple of Stephen King movies.
Hey 4 bit, good to see you on topic today!
Hey Joe! I saw the other Joe (the one that plays POTUS) was using one of your talking points the other day. The one about a doctor showing him images of the damage big bullets do compared to little bullets. In his case, he was talking about the 9mm vs. the .22. Apparently, according to the other Joe, if you're shot with a .22 it only tickles a little and everyone lives happily ever after, while a 9mm destroys everything and everyone in its path. He said the 9mm handgun is next to be banned after the "assault rifles", don't you agree?
If there was a way we could keep the names of the PERPETRATORS out of the media, these instances might be less common. At least some of these folks seem to have rather twisted, personal, or pseudo-political agendas, and see themselves as martyrs to their own cause.
Unfortunately, I don't see any way, realistically, to do that.
I don't think "he whose name shall not be spoken" makes them any less (in)famous. I do think the idea of giving them considerably less weight when it comes to sociopolitical influence is valuable. "Intentionally shoot innocent bystanders, get killed at the scene or get tried and executed, and nothing else happened." is a pretty solid narrative, IMO.
You may be correct on that. My most relevant support for this has to do with the Golden Gate Bridge. Once up on a time, the bridge was once famous as a suicide spot, at least before the "nets" were installed. The names of the persons jumping were printed in the daily papers. Once the newspapers agreed to NOT publish the names, the number of suicides (at least from that "venue") dropped significantly.
Everybody wants their 15 minutes. If they thought they wouldn't even get that, it would be one less incentive to go down in flames and everybody knows my name.
Yeah, that's my basic feeling, but I can't prove it. And, between media outlets, and there desire to increase their audience, and the internet (two hundred million "news outlets?"), I can't see how it could work.
"their"
Americans should take note:
Justin Trudeau plans to freeze handgun sales in wake of US school shooting
Canadian prime minister’s proposal would effectively end buying, selling, transferring and importing of short-barrelled firearms
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/05/31/canada-plans-freeze-handgun-sales-wake-us-school-shooting/
Canada is heading straight to outright tyranny and the Left is applauding it. You already cannot protest if the government does not support it. Now you cannot transfer or buy guns.
It's almost as if they've planned this all out...
Like The Reset wasn't a reset to the 1980s, 1950s, or even the 1850s, but to the more broadly equal days of the 10th-11th century.
The call to 'do something' is an expression of a perceived failure by government to perform constitutionally enumerated OBLIGATIONS. Namely -
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress and
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The failure is not merely a perception. It is a profound incompetence at comprehending what those two sentences mean. And a comprehensive unwillingness to give a shit.
'"We beg you," a group of current and former school principals say in a recent open letter. "Do something. Do anything." While that impulse is understandable, it can lead to policies that do more harm than good.'
Understandable? Only if we expect school principals to have the intellectual and emotional capacity of little children or old ladies.
School administration majors do seem to post many of the lowest SAT and GRE scores of all students to struggle through to college graduation.
"Beyond those specific lapses, we know surprisingly little about the cost-effectiveness of school security measures."
This is not true. Israel, facing a far greater threat to school shootings, by highly motivated people, has largely eliminated them. Their approach is multi-faceted, from securing entrances to schools to encouraging teachers to voluntarily arm themselves. With these efforts in place, there have been only two attempts at school shootings since the 1974 Ma-Alot massacre. In those two subsequent attempts, the shooters circumvented the security, entered the school, and were shot by armed teachers. The debate in the US ignores the fact that if a shooter can't identify who, or how many, of their potential victims may be armed, they will largely avoid attempting a shooting. Repealing the US 1990 Federal law requiring all schools to be "Gun Free Zones" should be considered in this debate.
Mr. Biden has indicated opposition to "hardening" schools even when most private businesses and government offices in the US utilize electronic photo id cards controlling access to their buildings. This should be applied to schools.
Israel doesn't have the delusion that simply letting people carry turns them into a force that is organized and disciplined and willing enough to do something productive.
We have that delusion.
Since you like comparing the US to Israel, perhaps you would be in favor of the forced 2 year conscription of all Israeli citizens over the age of 18! They all may not carry, but they all know how to use them!
One has to be politically retarded to expect politicos from not being true to their psychopathically meddlesome nature.
So Jacob, what is your solution? Do you have any ideas?
Defending the status quo, which the GOP has been doing for decades now, and that status quo is ongoing multiple mass shootings, that makes the GOP pro-mass shootings. Consciously or not, what want mass shootings to continue.
A functional, not insane, adult mentality government would try different ideas, and see what works or not, discard those that don's, and impliment those that do.
Doing nothing is promoting, ecouraging, and indeed promoting more mass shootings.
Frankly; Dumb*ss - the 'status quo' is Democrats and their tyrannical UN-Constitutional over-lording Nazi-Regime.
What a fucking strawman.
The "Do Nothing" option is often the best option!
Political zombies beg their masters: "Do something. Do anything."
The belief: Give away your rights to others by voting and you will be protected. Authorize those "others" to force your choice on all, on pain of death. Why? Freedom to choose, e.g., individualism, personal sovereignty, is chaos. Being ruled by force is security.
Is this, "The Most Dangerous Superstition"?
Voting is NOT choosing. It is forfeiting choice to an elite who are granted the power to make law. Law is rule by the initiation of force, threats, backed by the ultimate power to kill. It's legalized tyranny.
While a reasoned argument may disguise a specific threat (law), if all arguments are refuted, exposing no justification, the sham is dropped with "the law is the law", meaning, "do it or die".
When individual sovereignty, expressed by one's conscience, one's value judgements, one's life choices, is not allowed on political principle, as expressed in the rule of law, then right to life, liberty, property, happiness, is denied. That is the worldwide political paradigm, justified as benefiting the "common good". But, is the sacrifice of reason, rights, personal choice, to violence, ever good?
After 20 years of experience is your point that there is NOTHING to be done that would both be effective and consistent with the constitution? That is a failure of imagination.
Many school shooters are young men (<21 and all <25) that have been bullied and are intent on inflicting harm and dying in the process. Could we put in a better screening process for <25 year olds? Not a ban, but a screening process.
What if we required a day long firearm safety class with a licensed instructor? We could then have the instructor sign give a recommendation and require two non family references. If all three adults think you are trustworthy, then you can purchase a semi-auto, centerfire rifle at 18. If not, then try again in six months.
No one wants to be associated with a school shooter, so hopefully the adults will carefully evaluate the individual.
This places the power and the responsibility in the hands of the community, not the government.
It's just so much more fun to act impulsively and thoughtlessly though!
In my opinion, crime is always and everywhere, and unfortunately, our state is not always able to keep track of everything and fight it. Therefore, when I bought an apartment in an expensive area, I realized that I needed to protect myself and my property from any theft because our area is a tasty morsel for everyone. That's why I installed Ajax Systems because I know that this is a reliable alarm system and all my friends have been using it for a very long time, I think you should look at the site to find out more about it if you've never heard of it.