Columbine, redux

In September 2003, Wellington Debate was coordinating a trip to Wake Forest University to compete at its Earlybird Debate Tournament. The flights were booked, hotel reservations made, registration completed. And then, the day before we were slated to leave, I received a call from one of my debaters' mothers, who was overly concerned about our trip.

See, our flight to the debate tournament was scheduled for September 11, two years to the day after the horrific events in New York City and Washington, D.C. And the debate parent was having what I would describe as last-minute buyers' remorse over the scheduling. Her fears were tied in to the specific date and relative recency of the terrorist attack. "Couldn't you have left on a different day?" she asked.

My response - and I'm paraphrasing here - delved into several areas. One, yes, we could have left a day earlier (September 10), but that would have cost more, due to an extra hotel night, an extra day of rental vehicles, etc. Two, as I viewed it, September 11 was now the safest day of the year to fly; I mean, what other day would be filled with so much overt concern over airline safety and security? And three, I cannot live in a vacuum; if I worried about all these external events that could potentially happen to me on a daily basis, I'd never leave my condo. I'd be a virtual shut-in.

The debate mom ultimately agreed with me (although I believe it was somewhat reluctantly).

Which leads into the events that unfolded yesterday morning in Newtown, Connecticut.

When I stumbled upon the then-breaking story (filled with, as we now retroactively realize, a plethora of media errors), I was with my Introduction to Speech class at Wellington High School. I gave them a quick heads-up about what had happened, and a flurry of Internet traffic kicked off - me scrolling online and reading updates from CNN and Fox News, myself and students checking Facebook and Twitter posts, to try and obtain information as to the details. I even pulled up the live initial press conference and aired it for the classroom.

After the press conference ended, the class discussed what had happened for a few minutes (it was the end of the period), and I noted, "This is why we do all the drills we do at school - the fire drills, the lockdown drills, the works. It may seem stupid or pointless, or a waste of time, but it's because of moments like this we do these things." I talked about the process we follow in a lockdown - that we lock the classroom door immediately, draw down the self-made window shade on my door (it's the only window in my internal building classroom), turn off the lights, and move students as far away as possible from the door. I noted my classroom is not designed like a "normal" classroom; it's shaped kind of like a backwards "L", with the extension out of the line of sight from the classroom door.

But for all the safety and security measures that can, and are, implemented and practiced, there is no absolute guarantee that can be offered. If someone wants to inflict harm upon another, and are bound and determined to do so, they will find a way to make it happen.

Now, this doesn't mean you don't do everything you possibly can to prevent such a tragedy from occurring. Schools and school districts have policies and procedures in place to ensure as safe an environment as possible, for both the students and the faculty, staff and administration. Again, that's why we have the drills, the precautions, the regular reminders, the regular reviews. According to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, "We'll never be able to prevent every senseless act of violence, but our children, educators and school employees go to school believing it is a safe sanctuary. We've been through this too many times. Everything we can do, we must do, including a renewed focus on gun control and preventing gun violence."

Ah, gun control. It has been suggested - long before yesterday - the Federal Assaults Weapon Ban, which was in place for a decade (1994-2004), should be reimplemented. (The FAWB was passed during the Clinton administration and prohibited the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic firearms, so-called assault weapons.) According to a January 28, 2011 editorial in The Washington Post, in 2004, guns with high-capacity magazines constituted 10 percent of the weapons recovered by police. Just as the ban appeared to take hold, the law was allowed to expire, setting in motion a dramatic reversal the following year when law enforcement officers in Virginia began encountering an increasing number of high-capacity magazines. By 2010, 22 percent of seized crime guns were equipped with high-capacity magazines.

Advocates also cite the number of violent actions that take place in the US linked directly to firearms, the number of mass shootings involving assault weapons (including Aurora, Colorado; Tucson, Arizona; and the 2011 Norway incident), and the lower number of shootings/killings/injuries that would result from such a ban. In 2009, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell noted, "There's absolutely no reason under the sun, no rational reason that we should allow people to legally possess these types of semi-automatic assault weapons. They're made for one purpose. They're not used in a duck line for hunting. They're not used in the Olympics for target shooting. They're used to kill and maim people, and most often it's police officers."

But to every argument, there's an equal alternative argument. One point is that gun laws don't deter crime, and may even worsen the problem; according to Alan Gottlieb, chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, "Homicides actually went up during the 25 years handguns were prohibited in the Windy City, and they are continuing to stack up bodies under the city's current Draconian gun law, which still makes it nearly impossible for average law-abiding citizens to have firearms in their homes.”

Another is that neither the Aurora nor Tucson shootings would have been prevented under the ban. According to a July 21, 2012 article in The Washington Post, "Two of the top priorities for gun-control advocates are a ban on assault weapons and an expansion of required criminal background checks to include buyers at gun shows. But those measures wouldn't have stopped James Holmes, the alleged shooter in Colorado, from buying most of his firearms. A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks." And on February 7, 2011, The National Review noted, "Neither the weapon used in this heinous assault [Tucson] nor the high-capacity magazine that fed it were banned under the AWB. Hardly an exotic assault weapon, the Glock pistol used by Loughner is one of the most common privately kept firearms in the United States - a great many U.S. police departments use it too - and such a weapon could reasonably be banned only if almost all U.S. handguns were."

In researching this topic, I happened upon what I believe to be the most sane and logical debates on whether handguns can ever be regulated effectively. Professors James B. Jacobs (New York University) and David Kairys (Temple University) discuss America’s long-running debate over the effectiveness of gun (specifically handgun) control regulation. A summary of their debate:

Professor Jacobs initiates the debate by asking whether it is realistic to pursue a strategy of enhanced regulation of firearms in a country in which “there are 300 million firearms in civilian hands,” and “the large majority of firearms used in crime ... are either stolen or purchased on the black market.” After providing a number of critiques of what he believes to be a shifting target set by pro-gun-control advocates, Professor Jacobs concludes that “[g]un control offers no magic bullet for reducing crime, suicide, or accidental deaths and injuries.” 

In contrast, Professor Kairys does not consider the current amount of handgun regulation to be nearly enough to satisfy what common sense should tell us is necessary to adequately ensure that handguns are not easily available to criminals and youth. He specifically notes that any emphasis on the “black market” in handguns overshadows the disturbing reality that “any person without a record can buy large quantities of cheap, easily concealed handguns and sell them to others indiscriminately, often without violating any law.”

I understand their logic and points in their detailed debate, and have come to the conclusion the only possible way to end firearms violence is to get rid of all firearms, which is of course impossible, regardless of one's 2nd Amendment interpretation. That genie left the bottle a LONG time ago. There is no conceivable way, short of the total and epic destruction of the entire planet.Sigh ...

It has also been suggested to me, by several individuals, that educators such as myself should be allowed to carry firearms in the classroom to provide protection for their students and themselves. Heck, the Michigan Legislature just passed such a measure 24 hours before the Newtown massacre; Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has not signed it into law as of yet.

One of the arguments is while security guards and/or school police are great for ensuring a comfortable state of security in the hallways, very seldom are they actually inside the classroom. Teachers however, are present in the classroom regularly. If teachers were allowed to carry weapons inside the school, they argue, students would be less likely to bring a weapon on campus because if they knew that if they pulled a gun, there will be teachers that would defend the other students, as well as themselves. This would create an area of increased safety precautions to make a better learning environment for students.

However, any comparison between police officers and educators is a little off-kilter. Law enforcement has a specific role, and it is not teaching children. If someone has a motive to do harm and a psychological commitment to achieve their goal, no amount of deterrence, even certain death, is going to stop them. I only need to raise the issue of the failure of the secret service to stop the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Further, one cannot say in advance what a particular person is capable of or will do, regardless of their current mental status. More guns in schools, no matter who has them, does not mean more safety. I wouldn't be comfortable at school knowing anyone had a gun, whether they be teachers or not. Also, the screening process and training for police officers and secret service agents is somewhat more rigorous than that of a teacher with a concealed carry license.

Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated in a January 19, 2011 Christian Science Monitor article that, "It would be extremely dangerous to have teachers firing weapons in the classroom." He added even some highly trained law enforcement officers often miss their mark when shooting, and the risk is increased for students finding a gun or a gun accidentally discharging when guns are brought into the school.

I'm sure there are many educators who are qualified to brandish a firearm: former members of the military, children of law enforcement personnel, those who have an interest in weaponry. Despite my rifle range experiences whilst in the Boy Scouts, I'm not one of them, and I'm not really sure how much training I would realistically require to be comfortable with one at my side. (Hell, I would more than likely be the one who ends up injuring an innocent rather than a perpetrator, or - even worse - to have a student grab or steal said weapon from me, which leads to a whole different world of concern and liability). I'll continue to live my life out of the vacuum, do the best I can with what I have, and hope I'm never in a position to deal with my own version of Columbine.