There are millions of disturbed young men in this country.
People only pay attention to them when they go do something horrible.
Then they fiercely argue that they should not be able to get guns. To them, that’s the only thing that matters. Those lost boys can suffer; as long as they don’t own guns…
Are mass shootings a gun problem? In part yes. If it was a bit more difficult to access guns, it would help. But it would not even get close to solving the real problem, which is the degeneration of our society.
U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households, with almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 living with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%). Add to this the other societal problems, like low-income, like drugs, etc., and it is not difficult to imagine thousands of teenage boys or girls falling through the cracks.
Yes, there are amazing single moms and dads. But the plural of anecdote is not data, and as a parent myself, I can tell you that parenting is the single most difficult job in the world. It is extremely taxing even when it is shared between two people, especially when those two people are also working and have no outside help like grandparents living nearby. After all, it takes a village…
So part of the problem is that we are generating too many disturbed young men as a society (and stupid pandemic policies such as school closures supercharged this trend, unfortunately). Without a good family environment, a supportive society, and good role models, they lack guidance and meaning.
The second part of the problem is that they can then go and easily get their hands on assault rifles, and then commit these horrific acts.
Why schools?
I believe there is a deep societal reason for this. Those troubled teenagers frequently have some kind of school-related resentment. Maybe they believe their school failed them. Maybe they were bullied. Maybe there was a girl who humiliated them. Whatever the reason is, for some of them, the obvious target is their schools. I believe this is the majority of the school shootings (although I am not speaking based on data here - just my hunch). Then there are others who are simply copycats.
Unfortunately, over time, this turned schools into frequent shooting targets… I am not sure if it can be reversed easily…
So what is the solution?
In the short term, schools need more protection. We need to audit every school and make sure they have the resources they need to protect the kids. Ideas abound - maybe hire veterans as a patrol during school hours and have them carry concealed guns. Professionally-designed entry/exit systems. Cameras…
In the long term, we need a national plan to locate and help our lost boys (and girls). We need to support them in any way we can, give them meaning, skills, jobs, etc... We need to assign a serious budget to this and give grants out to communities, schools, churches, YMCAs, you name it.
And have an honest conversation about gun laws. Are they too lax? Can we add some additional steps to make sure it is more difficult for a disturbed individual to get one? This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be able to own guns. While advocated by many, it is not a culturally suitable solution.
But all of this requires a serious desire and commitment to solving the problem. Which, unfortunately, doesn’t exist in our current politicians because divisive issues like gun control are cash cows and they like milking them for as long as possible…
Attorney here. There's an aspect of the school shooting problem you didn't address - and that's hardly surprising, because most people outside the legal profession aren't aware of it. I posted this on FB yesterday:
1: Government makes schooling mandatory. Which means that due to various circumstances, most people send their children to government schools.
2: Government made laws generally (with exceptions) preventing government employees, agencies, etc... from being held liable for the results of the acts and omissions of those government employees and agencies under the legal doctrine of "qualified immunity", other immunity doctrines and legal provisions.
3: The result is that, for example, Courts have held that law enforcement officers have no legal duty to protect individuals in the general public. See Warren v. D.C. (horrific facts involving multiple rapes and police inaction to prevent the rapes), among others:
"... the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html
If the government is under no general duty to any particular individual citizen, then the government owes no duty whatsoever. Because society is made up of individuals.
4: Similarly, generally, a government school and it's employees and law enforcement would not be held liable for failure to protect the children at the school.
"It is historically very challenging to hold a school district legally responsible for a shooting, said Chuck Vergon, a professor of education law at Youngstown State University.
A majority of past school shooting cases featured some kind of warning in advance of potential violence, he said. But it is difficult in most state courts to meet the required standard of proving gross negligence on the part of school officials — that they acted in “wanton and willful disregard” for the safety or well-being of others, he said. “That standard has usually shielded school officials in most school shooting cases from civil liability.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/oxford-high-school-responsibility-legal.html
5: To my understanding of the law (I'd welcome additional information that might show otherwise), private schools could more easily be held liable for failure to protect students. Which could be a reason why school shootings are less common at private schools. Perhaps private schools have better security. Or a better culture that doesn't result in pissing off some students who might come back to shoot up the place.
6: So what we have is government mandating that kids attend school, which - because of various circumstances de facto means that government is mandating that most kids attend GOVERNMENT schools. And government has passed laws to prevent itself from being liable in most instances for failure to protect the children that government mandated be placed in government care.
7: As such, there is minimal motivation - legally speaking - for government to ensure that children are protected in government schools. It is far easier for politicians to stir up division over guns than it is to take action to protect children. Arguing in the media over gun rights gets viewers and attention. Strong, practical action to protect kids doesn't as much.
8: Notice that when government wants to, government is quite able to protect people. Presidents and other prominent politicians have trained guards with guns, as well as substantial other security measures to ensure their protection and safety.
Those government agents KNOW that those methods work to prevent shootings and such. That being the case - even though a substantial percentage of the population is annoyed or angry at a particular politician at a particular time... and even though a small percentage of those people might be annoyed or angry enough to try something desperate.
Yet we rarely see attempts on politicians' and other government officials' lives (the Congressional baseball game incident 5 years ago being a prominent relatively recent exception). Their security is effective - even though there are just as many guns in society that could be used to attack politicians as there are that could be used to attack schools and children.
So why aren't similar measures implemented in relation to schools?
Possible answers:
A: Politicians and other government officials care more about their own safety than the safety of children.
B: Politicians would rather have an issue with which to leverage votes and media attention than to actually solve the issue.
C: Politicians realize that the general public doesn't want that degree of protection for their children because of the disruption and fear that could cause.
But if that's a/the reason, then that implies that the general public is ok with a lower level of safety for schoolchildren than for politicians... and that means that the general public will accept a higher amount of risk for schoolchildren potentially being the victim of a school shooting. That may well be - there are ALWAYS trade offs. We cannot rid the world of ALL risk... and ridding the world of even most risks results in a less than ideal day-to-day life. We saw everyone weighing those risks/benefits (usually not very effectively) for the last 2+ years in relation to COVID.
These aren't easy issues.
But the lack of potential liability for failure to protect the children is why we saw (according to the reports so far) government agents hiding and waiting for backup for approximately an hour while kids are being murdered in the school. We even saw government agents literally holding back parents who wanted to potentially sacrifice their own lives by storming the school and saving the children.
It's simply a fact that if there's no duty for a government agent to protect the children... and if the government agent involved does not have a child in that school... then many of those government agents are not going to act to save the children until there is so much backup that there's a minimal risk to the government agent.
(There are certainly heroic and brave people who work for the government in some capacities. We did not see those people in the first hour of the recent school shooting).
I can GUARANTEE you that if government (and it's individual employees) were actually legally liable for failing to protect children in government schools, then the children would be a lot better protected than they are now. Or government schools would be a less popular idea.
Government has chosen not to accept the liability for failing to protect the children that government mandates be put in their care and custody. And the children suffer for it sometimes.
Perhaps we should have a national discussion about THAT issue at the same time that people are arguing about guns.
Agree with this 100%.