The risk of getting used to this horror

In the aftermath of another school shooting, we are in danger. Not physical danger, since crime is at historically low levels, and the odds of a shooting at your child’s school is infinitesimally low.

The danger is much more profound: Desensitization.

When experiencing something for the first time (good or bad), we feel the most emotion. But the more it occurs, the more we succumb to desensitization that accompanies routineness.

We aren’t quite at the point of: “Oh, another school shooting? That’s a shame. Pass the pretzels and turn on the Olympics” – but we’re getting perilously close, since mass shootings are becoming routine.

And make no mistake, they will keep happening until we stop searching for feel-good tactical “solutions” to an eminently strategic problem – tactics that have zero chance of preventing massacres.

For a non-politicized analysis, it is necessary to separate mass killings into two components: How to physically prevent them; and, much more difficult, figure out why they are a relatively new phenomenon.

Laws should be enacted that preclude the government from publicly releasing the names of mass killers, at least for a year. Doing so would strip them of the one thing they crave above all: A social media legacy steeped in their warped sense of romanticism, achievement and infamy.

It would be hard to enforce, naturally, as freedom of the press should not be restricted, and acquaintances and neighbors would talk. But perhaps the media, in a nod to journalistic responsibility over sensationalism, could honor the “name blackout,” with any outlet violating the “code” being publicly shamed and shut out of related media events.

At its core, the “gun debate” is, ultimately, irrelevant. Consider:

There are at least 300 million guns in America, and likely more. Given the risk of all-out civil war, not to mention the Second Amendment, guns will not be banned and/or confiscated, especially the millions of “assault weapons” already owned – guns, by the way, that look scary, but which have no legal, mechanical or practical definition designating them as such.

For the record, more mass killings are carried out by those using ordinary pistols than “assault weapons.” (And no, the “AR” in AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle,” but an abbreviation of the original manufacturer, Armalite.) The inflammatory language and loaded phrases must stop.

The nation’s worst mass shooting zones also have the strictest gun laws (Chicago, New York, L.A., etc.), demonstrating that there is no correlation between increased gun restrictions and lower death/violence rates.

Excluding war, the nation’s two worst mass attacks (9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing) were accomplished without a single bullet. People intent on mass killing will find a way, and no laws, no matter how stringent, will dissuade them.

Enforcing existing laws and closing loopholes go a long way toward achieving “common sense” gun regulations. But idiotic laws do not, such as a new Massachusetts law making ownership of previously legal “bump stocks” punishable by potentially life in prison. Bump stocks should be outlawed, but seriously, where’s the common sense?

Almost all mass murderers, on their chosen day, have committed to seeing their last sunrise, content to die by their own hand or suicide-by-cop (the Florida shooter was different in that he attempted to escape, though he too was surely willing to die).

In other words, had there been a gun ban, the Florida murderer would not have shelved his plans in favor of resuming a “normal” life of college, cookouts and ball games. He had snapped, and no law was going to stop him from carrying out his “vision.”

Let’s also remember that the Columbine killers committed their atrocity while an assault weapons ban was in place. We must focus our energies on identifying these troubled children sooner, and attempt to render help before they act.

Should teachers carry guns? Yes, but only with firearms proficiency certification and continuing intensive training. In the event of an attack, teachers will attempt to protect our children anyway, so let’s at least give them the ability to fight back.

And while expensive, schools should consider hiring retired police and military to provide armed security, so long as they are unobtrusive and do not turn schools into military zones.