Bum's Bluff

Nutty idea > no idea?

Slammer raised a valid point about Lasee's revised proposal on keeping a gun in schools as a deterrent against violence. We bloggers, as well as others in media and government, continually take the easy approach of putting down these proposals without coming back with alternatives.
So there is the challenge for us -- not just to point out the flaws in the ointment, but to concoct our own oinment.

I think that before coming up with "solutions" we need to understand the nature of the problem better. In my mind, there are two kinds of school violence: the heat of the moment angry student that can usually be de-escalated, and the premeditated deranged Columbine type of violence that simply cannot end well.

The heat of the moment version is nothing new. I grew up in the 70s with fights at recess and after school confrontations. We considered it a pretty normal rite of passage that most kids outgrew by high school. You always had a couple of kids that never outgrew it and you simply steered clear of till they eventually wound up in a state home for boys.

The premeditated version is not something I remember though - except maybe for occasional bomb threats that were designed to disrupt classes. What I want to know is if this truly is something new or if it just receives more attention than ever before. Shootings at inner city schools are not that new nor unique, rather it is the apparent rise of violence at suburban schools that have startled the media circus into high gear. With the speed of digital media and the constant need for news scoops, could it just be that news media casts a much larger net for news items than they used to? With at least four 24 hour news networks and the need for "fresh" stories that they and the internet create, it wouldn't be too surprising to find that what was once local news is now national.

But is this a new problem or just amplified coverage of an existing issue? Could it be that we have always had premeditated violence occuring in schools on occasion but they just didn't receive national attention? I honestly don't know the answer, but think it is imperative that we find out.

Back on track though -- what I didn't like about Lasee's first idea was the "opportunity" for misuse and unanticipated escalation of the "heat of the moment" violence that has always existed in schools. I know that in Jr. and Sr. High School, there was at least one incident a semester that had a showdown between a teacher and an angry student. Often these would become a scuffle where the student would be "escorted" to the principal in a half-nelson. I would hate to think how some of those incidents would have turned out if both the student and teacher knew that there was a loaded gun in the room that might make them feel more in control. I know that some of those kids from my past would have gone for the gun, not to shoot, but to try and gain control of the argument. I also remember some teachers who would have been nervous enough to go for the gun themselves and looked like Barney Fife trying to hold it.

Maybe additional firepower of some sort is needed. Certainly well drawn out plans that teachers understand and can implement are a must. A school should know how to go into lockdown mode in a big hurry. Maybe limiting entrances and adding metal detectors are the way to go. Tasers instead of guns? Tear gas canisters in the ceiling? Set phasers on stun?

I don't have the answers and guess I should tip my hat to Lasee for at least trying -- though I still think his intial proposal was meant to get press and not to solve problems. Until we really understand how real the threat of premeditated violence is though, I think we should be very careful about turning our schools in military bases.

posted by Walton @ 2:45 PM