The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed hand guns on public colleges and universities. With the bill currently on its way to Governor Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it, it will soon permit the presence of concealed weapons on college campuses. But this raises some serious questions about the levels of danger the schools could potentially face as a result of the new law.

The final version of this bill allows private institutions to opt out, while public universities would be able to create gun-free zones in areas of campus. This new bill allows licensed gun owners to carry their handguns in classrooms, libraries, and other campus buildings. The law would be in effect in September for four year colleges and universities and by fall 2017 for community colleges.

Some key components of the law include a requirement for university presidents to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university may also create rules on policies regarding carrying guns into dorms and the storage of guns. The bill does not change who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Any locations that have their own rules off campus, such as bars and hospitals, can keep those rules. Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

As a student, and someone looking at law schools in Texas, I am not sure how I would personally respond to a bill like this being passed on my college campus. In addition to attending classes, campus is a place where students eat, sleep, and live. It doesn’t really seem fair to invade one’s home with a weapon without really asking. That sentiment is consistent with some of the reactions coming out of Texas and the country right now in response to this legislation.

Julie Gavran, the western director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, said she worries accidents involving guns, gun thefts, and suicides will increase. She also fears that if the bill is passed, colleges will have to invest more money into hiring security officers and buying metal detectors, which will be taken away from education spending. Gavran stated:

The legislators were more concerned with (concealed handgun license) rights rather than the quality of research and education that the state provides. This total disregard of the voice and concerns of the campus community is an insult to the State of Texas.

Despite these fears, Bill McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System does not seem to agree, stating:

It is helpful that the bill was amended to allow our campus presidents to consult with students, faculty and staff to develop rules and regulations that will govern the carrying of concealed handguns on campuses. I pledge to our students, faculty, staff, patients and their families and to all those who may visit a UT institution that, as UT System leaders, we will do everything in our power to maintain safe and secure campuses.

The bill’s House sponsor, State Representative Allen Fletcher explained his motivation for filing it, stating:

Currently, a student, faculty member, or other adult with a concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun throughout a campus as long as they remain outside, but the moment they step foot into a building on campus they become criminals.

Despite that point, the safety factor is still a large issue. Fletcher believes that the media, parents, students, and higher education officials exaggerate the bill’s consequences. He argues that the measure will just broaden current laws that already allows concealed handguns on campus outside of buildings. Those in favor of passing the bill also believe permitting gun owners to carry weapons on college campuses can help students and faculty members defend themselves.

The arguments in favor of this bill are extremely valid, but I feel like there could be a different solution that accommodates the needs of all people. An increased presence of weapons on campus still makes me and many others very wary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Will Allow These Weapons on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

This won’t be news to anyone who experiences it, but this “just in”–being targeted and locked up by racism and the criminal justice system dramatically increases people’s experiences of depression, suicide ideation, and many other types of “mental illness.”

Except here’s the thing: like Bruce E. Levine over at AlterNet has shown, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has shoved under the table a survey that demonstrates the explicit connections between high rates of mental illness and mass incarceration, racism, unemployment, heterosexsim, and classism.

One of the most damning aspects of the survey is that the rate and severity of experiencing mental illness is double for adults who have contact with the criminal justice system compared with adults who don’t. (Seriously. Check it out.) There seems to be the perception that this country locks up people because they experience mental illness: this is often true, and is repulsive. But if we want to look at the proverbial big picture, we also have to consider the ways that mass incarceration–and the solitary confinement often involved with imprisonment–and the virulent racism that shapes the prison-industrial complex actually cause mental health issues.

Levine writes, “[f]or decades doctors — and Big Pharma — have pointed to neuroscience [as explanations for “mental illness”]. Cultural variables are often more telling.” Indeed. But by SAMHSA’s logic, why damn the system that produces these mental illness-causing oppressions when you can convince people to buy overpriced, toxic pharmaceuticals drugs and therapy from it?

Of course, people who experience these oppressions don’t need government-sponsored studies and surveys to elucidate the ways that racism, mass incarceration, classism, and heterosexism make many of us live with severely impaired mental health.

Personal Example Time: I am certain that my being a white queer woman in this society fundamentally shaped my diagnoses as depressed and bipolar. Expected to be easily “corrupted” and traumatized because of my whiteness and white privilege; expected to be dedicated to others and feel guilty for putting myself first because of my womanness and heterosexism; expected to daily endure the structural and interpersonal impacts of sexism and queerphobia and always be “polite” about it…my diagnoses (and the feelings that precipitated seeking them) are not surprising.

White men–much like those who shoot people in schools and much like Germanwings co-pilot Andrea Lupitz–are routinely portrayed empathetically by mainstream media sources (instead of being called terrorists) because of their emotional angst and “understandable” mental illness when they kill over 100 people. However, people (especially working-class women) of color who defend themselves against attack are imprisoned, villified, and pathologized. In light of this, the consequences of not addressing racism, heterosexism, and classism in mental health are… well… life-threatening.

And far, far beyond depressing: the causes and consequences are outraging.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Incarceration Leads to Depression, So Why Don’t We Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

The rate of “active shooter” incidents has been increasing since 2000, according to a new study from the FBI in conjunction with researchers at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. The study identified 160 incidents occurring between 2000 and 2013, and concluded that there were over twice as many of these shootings in the second half of that period as there were in the first.

In total, these incidents caused over 1,000 casualties — which the FBI classifies as both injury and death — leaving 557 injured and 486 dead, not including the shooters themselves. Among the study’s many important conclusions is the finding that police officers are often not able to respond in time, making civilian response extremely important.

Researchers found an average of six active shooter situations per year between 2000 and 2006. That rate increased to over 16 in the second half of the years studied. The number of casualties – including both injuries and deaths– increased from an average of 35 per year in the first half of the study to 113 in the second.

It is important to note that active shooter situations are not the same as mass shootings. The agreed upon definition of an active shooter is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though the FBI expanded it slightly for its research. In contrast to this definition, a mass shooting is an incident where a shooter kills three or more people.

Of the 160 total cases identified by researchers, 64 incidents or 40 percent would be classified as mass shootings. The distinction between “mass” and “active” shooter situations is small, but very important, as a person can be an active shooter without directly causing injury. Even the Wall Street Journal conflated the two, as the title of its coverage is “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says.”

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, cautioned against the conclusion that mass shootings are increasing. In an interview with Time he said, “A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters… A majority kill fewer than three.” Fox went on to say that, if the study focused specifically on mass shootings it might not reveal an increase. Instead, he contends that the number of mass shootings have remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

Implications for Law Enforcement

While the findings about the rate of active shooter situations are important, the report’s primary purpose was to take a closer look at these incidents and their trends to see how law enforcement can better respond. The focus on active, rather than mass shooters is based on the underlying implication that the situation is in progress, meaning that law enforcement and bystanders may be able to influence the outcome.

One major finding about these situations is that they often end very quickly. In the 64 incidents where a duration could be determined, 44 ended in five minutes or less and 23 of those finished in just two minutes or less.

Equally important is the specific ways in which these incidents end:

 “At least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene.”

-FBI’s Active Shooter Study

Additionally, over half of the situations (56%) ended on the shooter’s accord; the shooter either committed suicide, stopped shooting, or ran away. Also important is the fact that 21 incidents (13.1%) ended when unarmed citizens intervened, only two of which involved off duty law enforcement. Armed citizens were only involved in five incidents, four of which ended after armed security guards intervened, and only one ended after an armed civilian bystander engaged the shooter.

Also important is the location of these shootings. The three places with the highest rate of active shooter incidents are commercial areas (45.6%), educational environments (24.4%), and government properties (10%).

The study’s findings indicate that law enforcement may have a limited ability to respond to active shooters, as they typically end very quickly and before officers can arrive. However, they may also emphasize the importance of prevention and response training for citizens. Prevention remains the most important strategy for dealing with this problem, but the FBI’s recent emphasis on training may also help reduce the danger posed by shooters.

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard via Flickr]

—-

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard/TSgt Richard Kerner, NCNG Public Affairs, 145th Airlift Wing via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New FBI Report: Active Shooter Incidents on the Rise appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

After the Columbine school shooting in 1999, some schools cancelled all classes. Students around the nation observed moments of silence in honor of the 12 students and one teacher who lost their lives in the massacre. Headlines covering the event did not seem to subside for weeks; however, mass shootings have now become commonplace, and most hardly think twice when we hear of yet another attack.

Since these shootings are now regular occurrences, police need to keep updating their response methods. During the Colorado attack, police did not enter Columbine high school and attempt to stop the shooters for at least 30 minutes. The reasons behind the delay can be attributed to their training, which was focused on containing the situation and waiting for SWAT team members to arrive and respond. These tactics; however, are intended to be used in hostage situations, which Columbine was not. Naturally, the delay of the SWAT team caused widespread disapproval and quickly led police departments to realize the need to lower their response time in the event of future attacks. During the shooting at Columbine high school, most of the students were shot while the police waited outside for the SWAT team to arrive.

SWAT is typically too slow. Very few cities in America can field a full SWAT team in less than 30 minutes.
– Mike Dorn, former school police chief and head of Safe Havens International, a nonprofit school-safety organization.

The nation averaged five active-shooter situations annually between 2000 and 2008. Since 2009, that number has tripled, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines an active-shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm[s] and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

Updated Tactics, New Equipment

Officers on the site of an active shooting can no longer wait around for reinforcements as they did unsuccessfully at Columbine in 1999. With the increase in shootings nationwide, cops are taking action to increase the effectiveness of their tactics.

Long Island police departments have changed their tactics to respond faster to mass shootings, and civilians who work at potential targets such as schools and shopping malls are being taught how to help. The new approach to active-shooter incidents, adopted by New York police and law enforcement across the nation, provides responding officers with specialized training. Instead of waiting for SWAT teams, officers are being trained to run toward the shooter(s) and remove the threat in order to save lives. Today the goal is rapid response. Most police departments provide cops with extensive active-shooter training and equip them with high-powered rifles.

If someone in the building is shooting, and you’re the first one there, you’re going in.
– Indiana State Police Trooper Aaron Gaul

Police officers at the scene of an active shooting are instructed to get to the shooter and end the situation. The priority now is doing so as quickly as possible, which leads to some controversial tactics including not stopping to help wounded victims.

If we stop and try to treat and help every person, we’re losing seconds where seconds can cost lives.
– Indiana State Police Sgt. Trent Smith

The Role of the Public

In addition to their extensive and updated training, police departments are reaching out to civilians to seek their help during shootings. On Long Island, the Nassau Police Department is collaborating with employees of public venues that face a greater risk of an attack in order to revise their emergency plans. Police departments across the nation are holding seminars to better educate the public on how to react in the event of a shooting. Individuals inside the building are generally told to evacuate at once and call 9-1-1 once they are at a safe distance. If leaving the building is not possible, they are told to hide in a quiet place until the danger dissipates.

A Joint Effort

Cops are not the only ones receiving specialized training for active-shooter situations. Emergency responders are taking part in new exercises designed to increase their response time to aid victims. Once again referring to the tragedy in Colorado in 1999, EMTs cite as a concern the length of time victims waited to receive necessary medical attention. Just last week, police and firefighters in Kansas City, Missouri demonstrated a new plan to respond to shootings during a practice drill. In the event of a school shooting, police would enter first. During the training exercise, police and firefighters showed how that response plan is evolving. The two departments have planned their response tactics to the last detail. To ensure that officers are prepared for handling school shootings, precincts will hold staged events at schools from time to time for practice.

Are These Changes Making A Difference?

In January of this year, there was a shooting at a grocery store in Indiana that may have ended substantially worse if not for the quick thinking of the officers responsible for dissipating the situation. There is still disagreement, however, among law enforcement professionals as to whether or not cops should confront a shooter or wait for backup.

The string of school shootings in recent years has demonstrated that these incidents really can occur anywhere. As scary as this sounds, the mentality that no school is completely safe is the one that needs to be embraced. With better preparation and modern police tactics, perhaps the upward trend in the number of school shootings will begin to reverse.

Featured image courtesy of [t i g via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Continual Mass Shootings Prompt Tactical Changes Within Law Enforcement Community appeared first on Law Street.

Buying a $299 whiteboard that can stop bullets is a startling reality for educational professionals across the country. The LA Times estimates that Hardwire LLC sold around 100 such boards to schools in 5 different states. According to the website “the high-tech tablet — which hangs on a hook, measures 18-by-20 inches and comes in pink, blue, and green — can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack and as a portable writing pad in quieter times”.

Being an alternative to arming teachers, the invention of this multifunctional tablet draws attention to the fears in the American education system.

But does this mean that people are simply waiting for more mass shootings to happen? Does it mean that it’s no longer safe to send your kids to school, or pursue a career in education?

I decided to look at the statistics to find the definitive answer, specifically a Small Arms Survey New Armed Actors Research Note, provides a reliable data on gun ownership in participating countries. According to their report, the United States has 270,000,000 firearms in the possession of its civilian population alone, making the U.S. the world’s leader in civilian gun ownership. Although almost every American agrees that mass shootings, particularly those at schools, are a very important issue, there remains a great deal of disagreement on how to solve the problem. Anti-gun folks will argue that all mass shootings happened just for one reason: the availability of guns. The solution they offer is to prohibit guns, and voilà, the problem is solved! But the reality is – the prohibition of guns will not happened because American society is not ready for that. The latest poll by Gallup showed that 74 percent of Americans are against banning guns for civilians! Thus, it will take many more significant events like school shootings for Americans to change their perceptions on firearms and reform gun laws in the United States. Furthermore, the government can’t even tighten existing gun laws due to the political rivalry, and strong lobbying of pro-gun organizations. In contrast, pro-gun politicians suggest that we arm teachers, and again, voilà, the problem will be solved. The irony of this proposition is all too clear to me, so I have to ask: is it really going to help? Mother Jones analyzed 62 mass shootings in America, finding that not even one of these events was prevented by an armed bystander.  In fact, some of these heroes were actually injured or killed as a result of their attempts to stop the attack.

Live Science indicates that although mass shootings are not a common phenomena, when compared to other violent crimes in America, the amount has been steadily increasing. The same source suggests that most of the shooters had difficulty to connect with other people and wanted to be seen as notorious as possible. The interesting characteristic of almost all mass shooters is their ability to plan and execute their projected shootings despite their mental instability. This reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell-Tale Heart” where murder was meticulously planned and executed by the unknown narrator who is suffering from a mental disease. The Huffington Post suggests that “a history of abuse or ineffective parenting, a tendency to set fires or hurt animals, a sadistic streak, and self-centeredness and a lack of compassion” all can characterize mass shooters. So will arming teachers prevent these people from shooting until their last breath? Probably not.

The problem of mass shootings, especially on campuses, is not only due to the availability of guns, but also to the lack of proper treatment for the mentally-ill. Real Clear Politics encourages us to address the widespread problems of young unstable adolescents and to stop meaningless fight about gun control. The violence exposure through TV and video games combined with alienation, individualistic culture, pressure to succeed, and mental disturbance, can create a lonely mass shooter who might come to your college, school, movie theatre, or grocery store tomorrow.

I decided to look at the statistics again, but now within the American mental health care system. Washington Post provides seven facts about mental health system in the United States, among those are high price tags on mental health services, bias in mental health treatments, and restricted access to mental medical care. Fox News also breaks down for us what is wrong with mental health care in America, and the picture is not all bright. Inadequate training of professionals in the industry and sky-high costs of treatment itself are only two perplexing realities of mental health care system today.

So how do we cure campuses form mass shootings? Changes can happen, but people should not only be aware of the issue realities, they should fiercely advocate for changing the ineffective policies that currently exist. Tightening gun laws to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing firearms, and providing more mobility and resources to mentally-ill people alone can decrease mass shooting incidents. The problem itself should be viewed as multidimensional issue that involves government, local communities, educational system, and healthcare.

There is no time for meaningless fights about gun control and dubious ideas to transform schools and colleges to citadels with armed teachers. A $299 pink board also won’t help tackle the problem.

But what should teachers and students do in the meantime?

Teachers will buy those colorful boards hoping they will never use them as “protection shields”, put guns in their classroom drawers, and start to teach hoping that history will never repeat itself.

In memory of Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting.

—

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [woodleywonderworks via Flickr]

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guns, Whiteboards, and the Mentally Ill: How to Cure Campuses From Mass Shootings appeared first on Law Street.