In the article he calls for bolstering security at schools. Which I always find funny because what if… And this is a wild idea… But what if there’s a shooting at a location other than a school? Not to mention that studies have shown that the presence of armed guards in schools doesn’t actually do much to deter shootings.
Security has a place. But even at schools, really all it can do is prevent a handful of deaths from turning into dozens or hundreds. You can have someone manning a metal detector at the front door. But a gunman can just walk in, shoot that person first, and walk right through the security checkpoint. Lockdowns and secure classrooms help, but they can still shoot plenty of people as they’re running for the exits or running to the secure classrooms. If a gunman comes to a high school during their passing period, there really just isn’t anything that can be done to prevent them from taking a handful of lives at a minimum. Even having armed swat teams available within minutes just reduces the final body count; it doesn’t eliminate it. When you can just walk into a crowded building and start spraying gunfire, security really just can’t prevent that, just ameliorate it.
Why would armed guards have an impact? These kids that plan on shooting up their schools are planning it as a suicide mission. It’s a super elaborate suicide by cop, taking out as many of their classmates and tormentors, perceived or otherwise, as possible. Armed guards aren’t going to help. Stricter rules on guns and mental fucking health care might, but that would be actually doing something that the vast majority of Americans support, and we can’t do that. If we let people think overwhelming support for something gets it then they may get uppity and start demanding other things, like unions and healthcare
