I found Matthew Larosiere’s RealClearPolicy article on armed security guards at every school as the solution to mass shootings interesting:
Of course, an armed guard could deter shooters, but other problems would inevitably crop up. In schools, for instance, the school-to-prison pipeline would become even wider. An increased police presence in school has already funneled thousands of kids into prison due to overzealous enforcement against troubled youths. But dumb teenage behavior — getting into fights, experimenting with drugs, etc. — shouldn’t irreparably ruin lives. Armed guards, whether police or private, would increase the likelihood that correcting troubled behavior escapes the confines of guidance counselors and lands in the hands of law enforcement.
Another concern blends aesthetics and costs. Do we really want to live with gendarmerie (a blend of military and police) everywhere people gather, when it may ultimately only help a little? For example, France is absolutely crawling with machine gun-toting gendarmes, but that didn’t stop Paris from being the site of some of the deadliest mass murders in modern history. So, then, would a drastic shift like that really be worth it?
It’s not a popular thing to say, but obsessing over preventing mass shootings isn’t actually productive — in fact, it may be perpetuating the problem. And armed guards aren’t the solution, in the same way that gun control isn’t. In the end, we’d be much better served by addressing the deep-seated, largely cultural issues plaguing the soul of America than experimenting with expensive, ineffective, and dangerous band-aids that will never actually stop the bleeding.
IMO searching for solutions that will end mass shootings with a single master-stroke is inherently futile. The United States is a country of 330 million people. The incidence of such shootings is quite low. There will always be a certain number of crazy people.
We’d be better off trying to mitigate the risk rather than attempting to eliminate it. Enforcing the laws that are already on the books would be a good start. I also agree with those who’ve suggested that a way of mitigating the risks of mass shootings is by making firearms possession déclassé rather than trying to eliminate it. While we’re at it why not address the role played by opinion-forming institutions? Why are movies and television so filled with gunfights even as the producers, writers, directors, and actors decry firearms?
Schools in my district here in Colorado (where we’ve had more than our share of school shootings), most schools have a “man trap” at the entrance. Visitors must be buzzed in through a main door and then buzzed in again through a second door. I think this is a good example of a reasonable security precaution.
The larger high schools do have actual security officers.
Ultimately, this is a wicked problem with no easy solutions.
I don’t even think it has difficult solutions. I think it has only marginal solutions.
Even if the issue were completely resolved for schools, it would just move to a softer target.
Just as an aside, I think the main reasons that people immediately leap onto ban solutions for mass shootings are that a) it’s simple-minded and obvious and b) it drives Second Amendment absolutists nuts. I don’t think it’s easy to separate that second motivation from the first.
Mass shooters tend to be fans of mass shootings. Hard to not sensationalize something so sensational, but we should still try.
Hans Breivik is the exception. His crimes were motivated, reasoned, and targeted by family association.