Framing the School Shooting Prevention Debate

When Anti-Gunners frame the debate, it is entirely focused on guns and keep the discussion in the emotional sphere. However, guns are just one aspect of the three that really should be discussed and the discussion needs to be moved into the logic sphere. They are very neglectful of the other 2: Mental Health and “Hardening” Schools (as opposed to the “Soft” targets they currently are)

Guns are a Constitutional right. Restrictions that you can’t Constitutionally put on the freedom of speech or to vote cannot be Constitutionally be placed on guns.

That leaves 2 other avenues for discussion: Mental Health and turning schools into more “Hardened” Areas.

Mental Health:
Both of these sources have some important points. It seems that violent crime increased quite a bit when more mentally ill people were prematurely released from institutions (yes, correlation=/=causation, but an interesting fact nonetheless). I’d have no problem with tax dollars going to fund institutions that dealt with helping the mentally ill from hurting themselves and others. Ultimately, if these people are kept in a proper institution, they cannot get their hands on weapons, period.

“Hardening” Schools:
Local and state governments already have the framework to immediately address this. The issue isn’t more locks or metal detectors, but a quick reaction of force (QRF). The best person to deal with an active shooter is the person who is already THERE. A school resource officer is a good start. Volunteer teachers should also be permitted via a course with local or state police to carry concealed firearms. They could be trained and qualified by the very people that train and qualify the state and local police, they will be given instruction that directly deals with an active shooter scenario. Their names will be kept secret so that a gunman does not target them first.

Of course the opposition immediately jumps in with “What about bystanders!?!?”. However, such a questions reveals a fundamentally incorrect assumption they haven’t placed in the scenario. During an active shooter scenario, the assumption of total casualties must be made. That means you must assume that the active shooter can inflict 100% casualties when they walk into a room full of unarmed people. Say you have 10 people in the room, the active shooter will kill all 10 of them (what would stop the shooter from doing that? Nothing.). But what if someone intervenes? The shooter is able to kill 5 people before the person can draw their gun and kill the shooter, but kills 1 person with accidental fire from the intervener. 6 People still die (they would have died in the previous scenario as well), but 4 people survived who wouldn’t have previously survived, therefore it is a net gain and a better outcome than the scenario we have now.

Ultimately, this is a very cold, logical and detached way to examine it, however reality is colder, harsher and far more permanent. This discussion will not happen because those controlling the frame are keeping it on a purely emotional level otherwise they cannot accomplish an agenda that has nothing to do with keeping schools safe from attack.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Framing the School Shooting Prevention Debate

  1. holyhandgrenadeofantioch says:

    More bad news from Michigan. The governor just veto’d the bill that would have extended the abilities of CCW holders to carry with-in some traditional “no-carry zones”. Over the summer break it seemed like a no-brainer. Republican gov. republican legislature. Take an extra class with extra range time and you get a new endorsment. But now it’s just too riskyPR for a gov. to do. Bad PR foils good laws. MEH!

  2. holyhandgrenadeofantioch says:

    Just catching-up with some reading and saw this:

    Some might feel the need to inspect her facts/sources, but I have always found Miss Coulters’ research to be impecable. It’s what I’ve been saying since that day- You just don’t know how many mass killings are stopped by CCW holders, because you don’t hear about it.
    “Crazy person shoots someone on the street, someone else shoots crazy person… next in Sports- How ’bout them Yankees.”
    It’s just not big headline news, BUT all thew worthwhile studies say the same thing; concealed carry laws lower crime and save lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s