All in the Family: Taking aim at gun violence in schools

By Joseph N. DuCanto
Schiller, DuCanto and Fleck

When five students were shot to death recently at Northern Illinois University, the cry renewed for increased gun control as a way to end violence in schools and universities.

The well-meaning people who hold that opinion have their sights set on the wrong solution. Yes, ”guns kill” seems like a logical conclusion when viewing not only the tragedy at NIU, but also similar events at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Winnetka. But that opinion is based on the wrong premise. Guns aren’t going away, even as many await nervously the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a case that directly challenges the District of Columbia’s total ban on individual ownership of firearms within the home.

A decision striking down the D.C. ban would have a serious impact on similar bans that prevail in Chicago and many of its suburbs, including Oak Park, Evanston, Wilmette, and Morton Grove.

Twenty-five years ago only a handful of states permitted citizens to carry guns; now 38 states have adopted some level of a citizen’s ”right to carry” law. This bodes poorly for any decision or legislation restricting personal use and ownership of guns.

Reportedly, 15 states are considering legislation that would authorize conditional carrying of guns in schools and on college campuses. Increasing security by filling security needs will do far more to protect students than will making gun ownership illegal.

One of the converts to this opinion is David McGrath, a professor of English at the University of South Alabama. In a commentary in the Chicago Tribune, after the NIU shootings, McGrath suggests that some school personnel be armed and capable of responding to future school attacks. McGrath admits moving from an anti-gun posture to one of realistic recognition of an unfilled security need. He wrote:

”My perspective has changed because the country is changing cataclysmically. The rash of cold-blooded serial killings on campuses is now less an anomaly than a wave of terror. It demands new initiatives to safeguard the lives of people seeking a college education.” (”Vulnerable Schools Need Protection,” Feb. 19, 2008, Chicago Tribune.)

David Kopel, writing for the National Review, thoroughly explored the basic issue and should be read for an extended review. One aspect resonates:

”One reason why adult sociopaths so often choose to attack schools — schools to which they have no particular connection — is that schools are easy targets. It is not surprising that police stations, hunting club meetings, stateside army bases, NRA offices, and similar locations known to contain armed adults are rarely attacked,” Kopel wrote. (Oct. 10, 2006, NRO Online.)

Experience shows that properly trained and screened people who are authorized to carry weapons rarely are charged with misuse or abuse of this privilege.

Arming school personnel, if known and publicized, would reduce the attraction of the ”weasel-in-the-henhouse” approach taken by most perpetrators. If quick response is clearly threatened, many possible attackers would be dissuaded when confronted with certain knowledge of an early, death-dealing, response.

Chicago schools are blessed by the presence of armed security at most city schools. These men and women include trained security officers and moonlighting off-duty cops. This presence to date has helped Chicago avoid any incident of this kind.

Yes, students are being shot, but outside, not inside, Chicago schools. The most recent event as of this writing occurred March 26 outside Simeon Career Academy. This is no less a tragedy than losses at universities, and society must seek solutions. For now, reality dictates that within the school itself, armed security forces are a major answer.

Chicago is fortunate; most other Illinois schools have little more than a ruler in the hands of a teacher with which to defend the flock.

Arguments against arming school personnel are predictable: ”Guns and kids don’t mix;” ”teachers might shoot by mistake;” ”it’s too risky;” and ”teachers don’t want to be armed.”

With an estimated six million teachers nationwide, one can expect that many teachers have experience with firearms, either as a rural youngster, as a hunter, or in the military. It is also reasonable to assume that many teachers would accept the responsibility and necessary training to become a designated armed officer in their schools.

Even a small number — say one out of 100 — of willing teachers produces a large number of designees nationally.

Alternative suggestions appear desperately puny in both contemplation and execution. Telling kids to flee, scream, or swarm the attacker will not work well with children younger than teenagers. But, then, how does one train kids to fear and attack while concurrently emphasizing negotiating skills, diplomacy, civility, and fairness?

Our school kids and our teachers deserve a universal plan with some immediate promise of effective results and protection. No solution offered — including this one — is perfect, but imperfection is not a cause for inertia.