The unbalanced killers that attack schools are striking at society, not children. The children are their way of hurting us the most and taking away innocence and causing the most pain. One of the reasons some of the killers pick school zones is they know guns are not allowed there and they have the highest chance to hurt innocent people. I have heard arguments for putting security details (ex military, retired police or servicemen) at schools the same way we have crossing guards in order to get the children there safely. I’m not totally against armed security, but I hate to think we are at the point where kids need to have a security force to be safe 24/7. I suppose knowing an armed security detail was there might stop someone if they were thinking rationally, but likely it would just be the first person hit in the initial wave of violence. It seems that it would be a false sense of security, and might make things worse by having a shootout mentality. Personally? I think we are still putting the cart before the horse with some of us thinking we should change the Constitution and hoping that gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of people willing to mow down classrooms. Those willing to kill people won’t care or listen to any gun law and will find ways of creating damage. It is, I believe, naive to think they will obey any law if they are going to commit murder. Sure, the gun laws sound simple and they seem rational, right? “Get rid of guns and the crimes committed with them will stop” … 1+1=2, no? But it doesn’t work that way. It’s an emotional desire for quick action without truly understanding what is happening. A rational solution to irrational people committing irrational acts.
Spree killers and mass murderers are going to commit a crime and guns are one of many available tools. Getting rid of that tool (even if you could) won’t stop a committed criminal from doing what he sets out to do. The largest loss of life in a school attack was with a bomb and happened 100 years ago. Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma showed us that lunatics with a cause will look for the way to make the most violent statement. They used fertilizer, kerosene, etc. and got plans off the internet. While we won’t sleep easier at night accepting this, we need to: we cannot easily legislate away violence. Period.
We need to target who shouldn’t have guns, which households should not have guns in them, and get mental health help for those who need it. We need to segregate dangerous individuals from the rest of society, especially kids. Doing anything short of that is just blowing smoke. As long as we want to be PC and not label people and not commit people to state hospitals until they are guilty of something, then we will keep having people spiral out of control until they commit crimes.
It’s not rocket science.
Continuing to allow dangerous individuals to remain free without getting the help they need in the hopes they will not become violent is not a solution. Being worried about their rights to not medicate puts everyone else at risk. Dangerous individuals (emotional and mental imbalance) should, in my opinion, have two options: medication to keep them from being dangerous or removal from society if they do not want to take it. Regular check ups and monitoring.
We either allow people to spiral out of control while we watch, unable to do anything until they do something dangerous and we can act or we decide safety is a priority and we, as a society, attempt to stop them before they do (for both our sakes). Those are the options.