By Jeff Charles
After any mass shooting, the debate over gun control is reignited. Left-wing media personalities and politicians come out and argue for stricter regulations on firearms. Conservatives argue that additional legislation doesn’t do enough to reduce the number of people who lose their lives in mass shootings. However, the Santa Fe High School shooting has presented a slightly different debate.
The student who carried out the mass murder at the Santa Fe school used a .38 revolver and a shotgun that he had stolen from his father to commit his crime – these are not weapons that the left wants to ban. Moreover, the school’s two resource officers were not able to stop the shooting, despite engaging the killer. This last point has prompted several left-leaning news outlets to claim that additional security measures in our schools cannot prevent mass shooting deaths.
As usual, proponents of gun control are missing the point.
The left has constantly argued against adopting more robust security measures in our schools, despite the fact that nearly all government buildings have armed security. Many on the left seem to believe that the Santa Fe shooting somehow proves that armed guards are ineffective solutions against mass murderers.
CNN responded to the Santa Fe shooting with an article describing how armed guards are ineffective:
“What’s more, the Santa Fe school had two armed police officers and had trained extensively in active shooter protocols, so it wasn’t a situation where “good guys with guns” can solve the problem.”
The Washington Post published an article titled “Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.” In the piece, they point out the failure of the Santa Fe school’s security system:
“They thought they were a hardened target, part of what’s expected today of the American public high school in an age when school shootings occur with alarming frequency,” they wrote. “And so a death toll of 10 was a tragic sign of failure and needing to do more, but also a sign, to some, that it could have been much worse.”
Vox put out a piece titled “Santa Fe High: Texas lieutenant governor blames shooting on ‘too many entrances’” in which they slammed Lt. Governor Patrick for arguing that the shooter may have succeeded because the school had too many points of entry. They wrote:
“There are a number of practical problems with this idea. If you have a mass shooter in the building, you don’t want to trap people in the building. It’s not obvious that security guards would be able to spot someone concealing a weapon even if they were at every door; in fact, there were two armed guards at Santa Fe on Friday. And closing most of the entryways to a school would create a serious fire hazard.”
Later in the piece, Vox argued for a ban on firearms. They assert that “gun control measures, like universal background checks and mandatory buybacks” are the best way to prevent mass shootings. “There is a mountain of evidence that the best way to stop people from killing with guns is to stop them from getting guns in the first place,” they wrote.
At least they’re honest. Many left-wing proponents of gun control claim that they do not want to disarm the American public. However, there is a substantial number of gun control supporters who wish to ban firearms altogether.
Gun Control Lobby Wrong About School Security
Unfortunately for the gun control lobby, they are wrong about the Santa Fe shooting for two reasons: 1. Security measures have been shown to be effective in reducing mass shooting deaths. 2. There are no laws that would have prevented the shooter from carrying out his massacre. The guns he used would not have been covered by any of the proposed gun legislation.
Liberty Nation’s Graham Noble, a Certified Protection Specialist who is trained in physical security and active shooter response, argues that providing more security for our schools would decrease mass shooting deaths by making it exceedingly difficult for a mass shooter to execute an attack on a school. He wrote:
“The most immediate effective measure that can be taken is the hardening of the school building as targets. Physical features of buildings can be added or modified to make those structures less attractive to the would-be killer, more difficult to enter or – once inside – less easy to navigate and, ultimately, less easy to locate and engage intended targets.”
He is right. Indeed, some schools are already using the same types of strategies that Noble describes. Unfortunately, the left does not want to talk about them. Inner city schools — while being located in some of the most violent areas in the country — are some of the safest learning institutions in the nation.
Urban area schools are outfitted with armed police officers who monitor students entering the building. Additionally, they have installed metal detectors and have limited points of entry. Using these security measures has enabled these schools to avoid mass shootings and other types of gun violence.
The bottom line is that we need practical solutions when it comes to protecting our children. Our courthouses are protected by police officers and metal detectors. Sporting events require attendees to go through similar security measures. Many churches protect their congregation with armed security as well.
There is no valid reason why we should deprive our children of the same protections that we afford those who enter other buildings. Most of the additional gun legislation being proposed by the left is nothing more than band-aids designed to make us feel better. They are simply a step towards their ultimate goal: a ban on all firearms. Instead of sacrificing our right to bear arms, we should focus on solutions that actually work.