Yet another tragic school shooting occurred yesterday.
According to this Guardian article, there have been eight school shootings resulting in death or injury in the United States since January 1, 2018. This figure contrasts with the figures collected by Everytown for Gun Safety, which includes incidents where no loss of life or injury occurred but that a gun was present or possibly even discharged. Excluding yesterday's horrific event, Everytown for Gun Safety has recorded seventeen (17!!) incidents.
Seventeen gun-related incidents in seven weeks.
It's appalling.
Terrifying.
Unacceptable.
I know that talking about this subject is not easy. I also understand that the topic of gun control is a red-button topic for many people because they see it as a direct and immediate assault on their 2nd Amendment Rights. Frankly, I don't care. I don't care about your butt hurt feelings if you hear about dead children and your first thought is for your precious firearms instead of those who were injured or even killed. Maybe that attitude right there is part of the problem in this country. When an inanimate object seems to be of more inherent worth than human lives...I find that troubling.
And don't tell me this isn't the time to talk about this issue. Don't tell me we should be praying and grieving alongside the families of the fallen instead of working toward a solution. That's bullshit talk. That's distraction and subversion. Here's why. When you average a deadly or injurious school shooting nearly once a week, there will never be a "good" time to address the problem.
No, the time is now.
And don't tell me this isn't the time to talk about this issue. Don't tell me we should be praying and grieving alongside the families of the fallen instead of working toward a solution. That's bullshit talk. That's distraction and subversion. Here's why. When you average a deadly or injurious school shooting nearly once a week, there will never be a "good" time to address the problem.
No, the time is now.
Conversations need to happen not just among the citizens of this country, but among our legislators. Serious conversations about the shootings, gun safety/control, and mental health issues should be ongoing. The 2nd Amendment should not be overturned (bet you didn't see that coming!). Guns don't need to be rounded up and collected - that's right, my dear paranoid right-wing friend, I don't want your guns. I just want to put some reasonable safety measures in place. And before you start crying about infringement, let's take a look at our beloved 2nd Amendment as it appears in our nation's founding documents.
Amendment II
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.
Source: National Archives
That's it, folks. That's all it says.
It doesn't say you have the right to bump-stocks, military grade weapons, extended ammo magazines. Then again, it doesn't say you can't.
Does our Amendment need amending to deal with modern weaponry? Remember, this was added to the Constitution in 1791.
Weird History put together a list of weaponry available in 1791. As you can see, no assault rifles, bump stocks, or extended magazines in that list. Do you think our Founding Fathers even considered a day when such marvels of death and destruction would be available so readily? Do you think they envisioned a nation where its citizens would turn those weapons against each other not for purposes of defending the state or nation, feeding oneself, or for personal protection but for...God knows why?
Also, can we consider words two and three in that sentence? Well regulated. Well. Regulated. To my mind, that implies oversight, rules, and laws. So why can't we discuss ways in which to regulate the average citizen's access to some of the more commonly used mass murder accessories at the very least? Yes, I'm picking on extended magazines, bump stocks, and even military grade weapons. Are those fun to own? I'll say yes. Are they necessary? I'm not quite so convinced.
Also, if we're talking about having military grade weapons in order to fight against our government or an invading nation, I'd still put my money on the guy with the nuclear button, drones, aircraft, tanks, and naval ships. Just sayin'...
Also, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're the better shot, will get the upper hand, be in the right position, or will somehow become magically invincible simply because you are on the side of all that is GOOD and HONORABLE. If only life worked that way...
And I guess that brings us to the argument to arm all teachers or to post armed guards at all schools. Might it deter a few crazy gunmen? I'll say yes. However, there are still issues with both scenarios. First, if the shooter could see the guard and could kill them from afar when the guard is unaware, there goes that line of defense. Unlikely, sure. So, let's say for the sake of argument that the guard is better trained, better armed, and wearing protective body armor. How can schools that can't afford to pay for textbooks and other basic educational needs be able to suddenly pay for armed guards? Funding is an issue for the majority of public schools in this country.
Also, here's something else to think about with armed guards. I work on a campus with unarmed safety officers and armed police men. There are several federal law enforcement agencies just a couple of buildings away. City police patrol the area regularly. Yet, we still have active shooter drills because even a well-staffed police force cannot be everywhere at once. The same would be true of armed guards at a school. Which door should they focus on? How about windows?
Also, do you think that Virginia Tech didn't have a police force on campus? They most certainly did and yet that massacre happened. According to their website, the department had 40 sworn officers, 8 dispatchers, and 7 security guards. Thirty-two people died in that shooting.
So what about arming instructors and employees? I can see this as a last line of defense and am not necessarily against it. However, yesterday's assailant pulled the fire alarm with the intent of drawing victims from the safety of locked classrooms. Why? My guess is that this student knew the policies and procedures for an active shooter because he had practiced them as a student himself. He knew there would be locked doors once the shooting started. In order to do as much damage as possible, he pulled the alarm in hopes of drawing people out of those safety zones.
Now, imagine the press of bodies that a teacher or administrator would have to assess in those moments. Who is the shooter? Was that a gun I just saw or was it a cell phone? Crying, screaming, chaos. What if they shot an unarmed person by mistake? What if they killed an innocent themselves?
My point in raising these issues is not to say that armed guards and armed faculty and administrators is a terrible idea. It might actually save lives. I just wanted to point out that those options come with no guarantee. When I hear people talk about placing guards or arming staff, they talk about it as if it would magically stop all this madness. I'm not so sure.
This madness, to my mind, must be fueled by mental illness, diagnosed or not. After all, does a sane person commit mass murder? Strangely, the professionals in the field of psychiatry offers some surprising information on this matter that seems to dispute my thoughts on the matter.
A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.
Sourced: Pacific Standard
These figures raise a couple of questions for me. First, does the lack of documented psychiatric history mean there was, in fact, no form of mental illness at play? Had the individual in question sought out help or been forced into counselling would a disorder have been identified? Were they mentally ill despite the missing diagnosis? It seems possible, perhaps even likely.
Yet, let's assume the most common denominator is the real factor here. According to an article in the NCBI, loneliness can lead to psychiatric disorders as well as health problems. 70% of the mass murderers studied were loners. Does that mean we as a society need to be more mindful of the isolated and unseen? Would inclusion and acceptance have prevented these horrors?
What about substance abuse and its roll? Isn't addiction a form of mental illness? It has earned a place on the American Psychiatric Association's site, which leads me to believe this disorder definitely has some mental illness potential.
I'm not even sure what to say about a fascination with weapons. I know a lot of sane people who are obsessed with their guns and yet I would trust them with my life and those of my loved ones, so this statistic alone this doesn't seem too damaging. Noteworthy, perhaps, but I would need it contextualized to view it as a symptom of mental illness.
However, the research on bullying, as one scholar points out, "is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm, violent behavior, and psychotic symptoms" (Cambridge University Press Article by L. Arseneault, L. Bowes, and S. Shakoor).
Does all this mean the right cocktail of isolation, substance abuse, weapon obsession, and victimization at the hands of bullies could result in an undiagnosed mental illness? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know, and I think it would be dangerous to erroneously attribute mental illness to everyone who shares these traits or experiences.
Still, it makes me wonder if we started working as a society to address issues of mental health if we could perhaps reduce these violent and horrific events from occurring with such frequency?
There are no easy answers. Taking away guns from upstanding, mentally sound citizens is not the answer. Addressing mental health issues may help, but its unlikely to be a cure-all either. Equipping public places with armed guards or staff may save lives but, again, it's also unlikely to dissuade the truly homicidal who intends to die that day, too.
I don't know what we can do different. I just know that we are doing right now isn't working.
That's it, folks. That's all it says.
It doesn't say you have the right to bump-stocks, military grade weapons, extended ammo magazines. Then again, it doesn't say you can't.
Does our Amendment need amending to deal with modern weaponry? Remember, this was added to the Constitution in 1791.
Weird History put together a list of weaponry available in 1791. As you can see, no assault rifles, bump stocks, or extended magazines in that list. Do you think our Founding Fathers even considered a day when such marvels of death and destruction would be available so readily? Do you think they envisioned a nation where its citizens would turn those weapons against each other not for purposes of defending the state or nation, feeding oneself, or for personal protection but for...God knows why?
Also, can we consider words two and three in that sentence? Well regulated. Well. Regulated. To my mind, that implies oversight, rules, and laws. So why can't we discuss ways in which to regulate the average citizen's access to some of the more commonly used mass murder accessories at the very least? Yes, I'm picking on extended magazines, bump stocks, and even military grade weapons. Are those fun to own? I'll say yes. Are they necessary? I'm not quite so convinced.
Also, if we're talking about having military grade weapons in order to fight against our government or an invading nation, I'd still put my money on the guy with the nuclear button, drones, aircraft, tanks, and naval ships. Just sayin'...
Also, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're the better shot, will get the upper hand, be in the right position, or will somehow become magically invincible simply because you are on the side of all that is GOOD and HONORABLE. If only life worked that way...
And I guess that brings us to the argument to arm all teachers or to post armed guards at all schools. Might it deter a few crazy gunmen? I'll say yes. However, there are still issues with both scenarios. First, if the shooter could see the guard and could kill them from afar when the guard is unaware, there goes that line of defense. Unlikely, sure. So, let's say for the sake of argument that the guard is better trained, better armed, and wearing protective body armor. How can schools that can't afford to pay for textbooks and other basic educational needs be able to suddenly pay for armed guards? Funding is an issue for the majority of public schools in this country.
Also, here's something else to think about with armed guards. I work on a campus with unarmed safety officers and armed police men. There are several federal law enforcement agencies just a couple of buildings away. City police patrol the area regularly. Yet, we still have active shooter drills because even a well-staffed police force cannot be everywhere at once. The same would be true of armed guards at a school. Which door should they focus on? How about windows?
Also, do you think that Virginia Tech didn't have a police force on campus? They most certainly did and yet that massacre happened. According to their website, the department had 40 sworn officers, 8 dispatchers, and 7 security guards. Thirty-two people died in that shooting.
So what about arming instructors and employees? I can see this as a last line of defense and am not necessarily against it. However, yesterday's assailant pulled the fire alarm with the intent of drawing victims from the safety of locked classrooms. Why? My guess is that this student knew the policies and procedures for an active shooter because he had practiced them as a student himself. He knew there would be locked doors once the shooting started. In order to do as much damage as possible, he pulled the alarm in hopes of drawing people out of those safety zones.
Now, imagine the press of bodies that a teacher or administrator would have to assess in those moments. Who is the shooter? Was that a gun I just saw or was it a cell phone? Crying, screaming, chaos. What if they shot an unarmed person by mistake? What if they killed an innocent themselves?
My point in raising these issues is not to say that armed guards and armed faculty and administrators is a terrible idea. It might actually save lives. I just wanted to point out that those options come with no guarantee. When I hear people talk about placing guards or arming staff, they talk about it as if it would magically stop all this madness. I'm not so sure.
This madness, to my mind, must be fueled by mental illness, diagnosed or not. After all, does a sane person commit mass murder? Strangely, the professionals in the field of psychiatry offers some surprising information on this matter that seems to dispute my thoughts on the matter.
A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.
Sourced: Pacific Standard
These figures raise a couple of questions for me. First, does the lack of documented psychiatric history mean there was, in fact, no form of mental illness at play? Had the individual in question sought out help or been forced into counselling would a disorder have been identified? Were they mentally ill despite the missing diagnosis? It seems possible, perhaps even likely.
Yet, let's assume the most common denominator is the real factor here. According to an article in the NCBI, loneliness can lead to psychiatric disorders as well as health problems. 70% of the mass murderers studied were loners. Does that mean we as a society need to be more mindful of the isolated and unseen? Would inclusion and acceptance have prevented these horrors?
What about substance abuse and its roll? Isn't addiction a form of mental illness? It has earned a place on the American Psychiatric Association's site, which leads me to believe this disorder definitely has some mental illness potential.
I'm not even sure what to say about a fascination with weapons. I know a lot of sane people who are obsessed with their guns and yet I would trust them with my life and those of my loved ones, so this statistic alone this doesn't seem too damaging. Noteworthy, perhaps, but I would need it contextualized to view it as a symptom of mental illness.
However, the research on bullying, as one scholar points out, "is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm, violent behavior, and psychotic symptoms" (Cambridge University Press Article by L. Arseneault, L. Bowes, and S. Shakoor).
Does all this mean the right cocktail of isolation, substance abuse, weapon obsession, and victimization at the hands of bullies could result in an undiagnosed mental illness? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know, and I think it would be dangerous to erroneously attribute mental illness to everyone who shares these traits or experiences.
Still, it makes me wonder if we started working as a society to address issues of mental health if we could perhaps reduce these violent and horrific events from occurring with such frequency?
There are no easy answers. Taking away guns from upstanding, mentally sound citizens is not the answer. Addressing mental health issues may help, but its unlikely to be a cure-all either. Equipping public places with armed guards or staff may save lives but, again, it's also unlikely to dissuade the truly homicidal who intends to die that day, too.
I don't know what we can do different. I just know that we are doing right now isn't working.
Comments
Post a Comment