Why public-safety law won’t prevent school shootings
As parents, and grandparents, what can we do to keep our children and grandchildren safe in Florida’s secondary schools? Following the horrific school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, state legislators passed a public-safety act. I know these legislators meant well, but will this legislation prevent the next school shooting? I suspect not, and if it doesn’t, what do we say to those parents who have lost their sons and daughters?
There are four key parts to this law. Let’s examine what these provisions mean for the safety of your children, and why the law will not prevent the next school shooting:
The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, named for an assistant football coach who died while trying to protect students, permits selected individuals with extensive training or credentials to conceal-carry a gun in school to respond to a shooter. In my view, most school districts are rejecting this voluntary program outright. Local law enforcement does not want a repeat of what happened in Orlando in 2005 when an undercover University of Central Florida police officer fired shots in the air while trying to stop illegal drinking at a tailgating party; a reserve officer arrived and fatally shot the undercover officer.
Hardening schools like penitentiaries is extraordinarily expensive, and like in Parkland, these investments can easily be thwarted when students simply pull the fire alarm, and all entrances and exits must be opened immediately, exposing the campus and students.
These are funding provisions for more school resource officers and mentalhealth assessments, which may seem like a good idea until you ask yourself: Do we want to reliably prevent, or simply react, to the next school shooting?
From the moment of commitment (when an assailant decides to pull his weapon and start shooting) to when the first round is discharged is just 2 seconds. The National Association of School Resource Officers agrees that no officer can reliably be on scene and prevent those initial deaths from occurring.
Virginia Tech’s active shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, in 2007 murdered 33 innocent students and teachers, wounded 23 others, and then took his own life. He was mental-health assessed on three occasions, and each time, he was deemed to be “not at risk of hurting himself or others.” The Parkland shooter was also mentalhealth assessed and deemed to be “not at risk of hurting himself or others.”
Federal regulations too often forbid the sharing of mental-health assessments or any assessments that include culture, gender, education and so much more. How can a school district get out in front of the next shooting when encumbered by these regulations?
Finally, current methods used are far too subjective. Words like “scary, strange, weird and menacing” can quickly overwhelm school-safety specialists who have been charged with protecting students. These subjective references can take the specialists down the rabbit hole of “he said, she said,” which can also lead to stereotyping and lawsuits.
Too often mentalhealth assessments will fail us, and once again, school resource officers will arrive on the scene of an active shooting, stepping over those slain during those horrific first few seconds. This is unacceptable.
As a parent and now grandparent with children attending our secondary schools, I am taking a stand. I want to prevent the next school shooting. What are you going to do?