I used to work in info security.
You know how you guarantee a computer system can’t be hacked?
Take it off the network, lock it in an unbreachable container and destroy the key.
True story.
One of the key principles of Infosec is that there’s no such thing as “foolproof” security. Implementation of security protocols isn’t about absolute prevention, it’s about assessing vulnerabilities and minimizing risk.
Same applies to school shootings. Is it feasible or even possible to guarantee it won’t happen again, or that these people won’t just try another means? No, but how can we minimize risk?
Arming teachers is asinine.
- Even if they are a pretty good shot on a range, do they have what it takes mentally to perform well in a crisis? Will they be trained in simulated active shooter situations? Can they jump mentally from teaching geometry immediately into first responder mode with no preparation? Will they freeze? Or panic and shoot the wrong person? Could they bring themselves to shoot someone who may have been their own student? In parkland we had presumably trained responders couldn’t bring themselves to go into the building...
- Kids who do this are on a suicide mission to begin with. Knowing teachers are packing won’t deter them.
- And what about the everyday risks? One or two bigger students jump a teacher, take the gun? Teacher with anger management issues?
- Overall Increased risk, not reduced risk.
Raising the legal age to buy a gun -
- Most states determined that kids aren’t mature enough to responsibly handle alcohol until age 21. Raising the legal age (for all or some class of firearms) should be a no brainer. “Depriving our kids of the ability to defend themselves” is bs.
- Parkland shooter bought the gun legally. This would have made it more difficult for him to obtain a weapon = reduced risk.
Banning gun ownership for those with violence-linked mental illnesses and history of domestic abuse
- Back when 2A was implemented by the founders, there were bans on gun ownership for citizens judged to be “untrustworthy”.
- History of domestic abuse is a recurring theme in gun murders - individual and mass shootings. Texas church shooter for example (aside from the fact that the army dropped the ball when he was dishonorably discharged) had a history of domestic violence. His MIL (of his estranged or ex wife) was a member of the church he chose to shoot up.
- Make it illegal = make it more difficult to obtain = reduced risk.
Owner biometrics - only the owner can shoot.
- Interesting potential future solution.
- Feasibility issues - Cost, difficult to implement. Wouldn’t be applicable to historic /legacy weapons
- Would prevent kids from using a gun stolen from parents (Sandy Hook)
- Would deter gun theft in general (though determined criminals could remove or alter)
- Would also prevent some accidental shootings (kid gets a hold of parents gun, accidentally shoots sibling or friend)
- Reduced risk, but implementation obstacles,
Banning or closely restricting ownership of a certain class of weapons, types of ammo, etc. (The most controversial option)
- AR15s and the like weren’t designed to protect you from a burglar or to hunt deer - they were developed as weapons of war, intended to quickly maim or kill large numbers of people. Maximum damage, minimum effort. They seem do that very effectively.
- Individuals are already banned or heavily restricted from owning other weapons of war (“destructive devices”) you can’t buy your own nukes, grenades are restricted and/or banned as title ii weapons, you can’t keep those damned kids off your lawn by planting land mines.
- “People will just use other types of guns. Or knives . Or punch people. Or make their own. Or blow things up.” True. But are they as easy to do implement and are they likely to do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time, in the hands of the average person? Fertilizer purchases have been restricted since OKC - we don’t see too manny fertilizer bombs these days.
- “We need them to protect against the government.” Fair point. But the government has drones and other weapons of war.. If they really want to go rogue and take you out, no contest.
- “But 2A” - 2A specifically puts gun ownership in context of “a well regulated militia” that is necessary for the “security of a free state.” Originally the “free state” planned to rely on calling upon these “well regulated” groups to defend itself in an emergency. Public safety. OTOH, this it’s been interpreted by SCOTUS to apply to individuals, but we’ve gotten pretty far from the spirit of the original intent. Just sayin.
- Would this reduce risk? Make it illegal = make it more difficult = reduced risk.
There’s a saying “You if you do what you’ve always done, you get what you’ve always gotten.”
Whatever we’re doing now isn’t working.
Lots of options to reduce risk. Pick one or three and just do it.
