Another mass shooting has recently taken place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. Tragically harming the most innocent members of our society, our children, it has left all of us in unbearable agony. Widespread media coverage followed suit as usual, yet such pointed attention apparently could not culminate in substantial dialogue. One mostly hears reactionary outcries right after each of these shocking events, calling out for urgent strengthening of hard security measures at hand without any reference to informed analysis supported by evidence. The proposal for arming teachers and staff as an emergency measure is definitely an example of this sort of reactionary approach, which does not leave much room for substantial dialogue based on comprehensive analysis.
Armed police officers on campuses, tightened control of access to school buildings via identification cards, codes or metal detectors are among the most immediate security measures taken by the administrations right after a mass shooting in a school setting (Jonson, 2017, p. 962). Given years of
…show more content…
To date, there are no indications that pro-gun measures help. Quite the contrary. Recent studies one after another reveal principally that "when there are more guns, there are more deaths" (Brueck, 2018, para.7). Indeed, studies on the correlation between the availability of guns and homicides repetitively state that "in homes, cities, states, and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide" (HICRS, para.1). It flows from this analysis that where there are more guns on high school and college campuses, students, staff, and teachers are at a higher risk as well. Thus, in light of the findings of these studies and the like, it seems that we need to do just the opposite of what the reactionary approach suggests us to