In a statement, the National Rifle Association has called for someone at schools in America to be armed. We flatly reject their argument, consider their suggestion, and come to a different conclusion altogether. The Washington Post reports:
In his first extensive public remarks since the mass shooting at a Connecticut school last Friday, the head of National Rifle Association on Friday suggested that pressing for schools to be free of guns makes it easier for mass shootings to occur there.
“Politicians pass laws for gun-free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them … in doing so they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk,” said National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at a press conference in Washington, D.C.
In a press conference that was interrupted twice by vocal protesters, LaPierre also blamed “blood-soaked” movies and violent video games such as “Kindergarten Killers” for the Connecticut shooting.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he added.
We now examine various aspects of this statement. First up: having no guns in schools makes it easier for mass shooting to occur there: Politicians “tell every insane killer … schools are the … place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”
It’s hard to confirm this statement, because what “insane killers” is he talking about? A few serial killers have been interviewed (see below), and they haven’t mentioned gun-free school-zone laws as giving them any ideas about prospective targets. Does LaPierre have personal knowledge of how insane killers interpret the passage of laws? That would be newsworthy if he did. But the fact is, most of the mass school shooters killed themselves before they could be interviewed, so we may never know how they interpreted the news of the passage of certain laws.
Anyway, just how many “insane killers” are there in our cities? The Justice Department currently lists 73 unsolved murders of 16-year-olds in Baltimore City, Md., alone between 1980 and 2008, and about 150 unsolved homicides of 16-year-olds in Cook County, Ill., during the same time period. Not all of these occurred by gun, but the cases have not been reported to the FBI as having been closed.
Just to let you know how difficult it is to find the number, it is entirely possible that some of these cases have been solved or the killers are in prison for other crimes or even dead themselves. But we’re willing to allow the language used by the NRA—insane killer—to mean someone who has killed another human being and not confessed their crime. With that definition, we have to use these numbers. We take “insane” to mean not feeling enough remorse to confess the crime and “killer” to mean simply a person who has killed at least one other person.
Therefore, we conclude that there are a high number of insane killers in Baltimore City, Md., and Cook County, Ill. But to confirm or refute the NRA’s statement, we need to know how these people interpret the passage of gun-free school-zone laws or the bragging that politicians do about those laws. For this, we need some psychology.
In an extensive study of serial murderers and their victims, interviews suggest that they tend to pay little attention to laws or statements by politicians in selecting their victims. For male serial killers who kill strangers, as was the case in Newtown, Conn., the most common class of victim appears to be young females who are alone, especially prostitutes, hitchhikers, students, models, waitresses, and women seeking employment. Children alone rank second on the list of victims most commonly targeted by serial killers, but children in a school are not alone. Researchers suggest one of the most important criteria when it comes to selecting a victim is that the body is easily disposed of.
It’s entirely possible that mass killers aren’t the same as serial killers. Their actions tend to happen only once, whereas serial killers’ actions tend to occur over and over. Maybe we should steer away from research that looks at what leads serial killers to select their targets, but there is very little research on how mass killers select their targets or on what gives them the idea to select a certain location where the strangers they kill will most likely be found.
The fact is, most mass killers in the US have ended up killing themselves shortly after they killed others. That is the case with the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary. There’s not much research. The killers at Columbine simply shot up their own school—no law or politician bragging encouraged or discouraged their selection of Columbine as their target. The killer at Sandy Hook targeted a school he knew because of his mother’s limited affiliation with that school. Again, no laws appear to have encouraged him to pick that school over any other.
In summary, we find no evidence to support the NRA’s assertion that gun-free school-zone laws or the bragging about those laws carried out by the politicians that pass them have told any “insane killer” that actually exists in America that a given school would make a good target for a mass shooting.
Violent video games
This argument is staggering, but LaPierre asserted that violent video games and movies are to blame for the shooting in Newtown or at mass school shootings in general.
In considering the evidence, we find that lots of insane people watch those violent movies and play those “blood-soaked” video games, and they do not, ever, shoot up a school. The NRA’s assertion is refuted.
In this regard, there’s also a gaping hole in the argument. Many of the mass school shooters have been white males. Statistically, black males listen to violent lyrics, play violent video games, etc., more than white males. Yet, there have been zero black male mass school shooters in recent memory. It is simply inconceivable that video games would share some of the blame with whites but that those same video games would have a null effect on blacks in terms of being in some way responsible for mass school shootings.
Another factor in this is that white or predominantly white communities do not feel as threatened when a white child reports his intention to inflict violence on a school. His friends might not even report the threat. However, if a black male makes a threat against a school or against children, that black male is much more likely to be reported than his white counterpart.
The argument has also been advanced that our moral compass is eroded by these violent video games, song lyrics, and movies. And that may be the case in general, but there has been no evidence to suggest that anyone who actually committed a school shooting was brought to the point of committing the crime by movies or video games.
The flaw in the NRA’s argument here is that the organization is trying to put all school shootings in one category. Again, the argument is staggering. No such categorization is possible, given the wide diversity of school shootings. Here, we quote from a report published in the January/February 2010 edition of Educational Researcher (39 (1): 27-37):
The use of profiles and warning signs to prevent school shootings is not supported by existing research. After the attack at Columbine High School, some authorities identified apparent similarities across the cases and suggested that there might be a profile of the typical school shooter (Band & Harpold, 1999; McGee & DeBernardo, 1999). The effort to profile students who are likely to become “school shooters” is a flawed endeavor (Heilbrun, Dvoskin, & Heilbrun, 2009). Because these shooting events are so rare, most students who fit the profile will not engage in a targeted school-based attack, and some students who are planning and preparing for an attack will be missed because they do not fit the expected profile (Sewell & Mendelsohn, 2000).
As a practical matter
What we need is not flawed rhetoric, like that coming from the NRA. We need practical solutions to what people see as a problem, which affects mostly white communities.
For example, when LaPierre asserted that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, we find the statement itself false on its face. There is no such thing as “the only” of anything, let alone “the only” way to stop a killer.
Most of them end their own lives anyway, but in one recent school shooting in Baltimore County, Md., and in one earlier this fall in Normal, Ill., the shooter was stopped by a teacher who took action. The teacher was not armed.
Therefore, the NRA’s assertion that a good guy with a gun is “the only” way to stop a bad guy with a gun is refuted.
Despite the flaws in the argument, the solution is worth consideration
I’m not willing to let the fact that LaPierre uses false statements to back up his position and doesn’t know the first thing about supporting his position with a well-reasoned argument stop me from considering absolutely every option for a solution.
If we put guns into teachers’ hands, in our school buildings, will we stop or significantly reduce the impact of lunatics who have a death-wish desire to kill a bunch of children?
As we think about this, bear in mind that we’re talking about a hypothetical situation here. Imagine, at a school building you know, perhaps where your own child attends school, with its layout, all the teachers and administrators and secretaries you know at that school, that one or two people on the premises are armed with a handgun.
Do you have the picture?
Now, consider all the days you have sent your kid to that school this year. Take it out of the hypothetical and use the present time at the school building you’re most familiar with.
Have there been break-ins? Has anyone hurt the kids? If so, how might having an armed first-grade teacher, say, have changed the outcome?
Now, consider the possibility that teachers actually would leave their guns in the school overnight. Would criminals be more or less likely to target the school for a break-in and theft if they knew where the gun was? Have they ever stolen computers? Imagine how much more valuable a Glock is to criminals or even to the neighborhood bully. Do you really think locks on the gun-boxes will prevent theft?
Also, what money should be used to purchase the gun? I realize the federal government can give our schools unfunded mandates to run untested, unresearched programs, but should this be one of those unfunded mandates? Or, should our tax dollars actually pay for weapons? What exactly is the NRA suggesting in terms of the funding for weapons purchases by our schools?
Now, consider depressed kids at the school, those with suicidal thoughts. What will they do to get their hands on a gun? We must conclude that the presence of a gun in the school overnight will make the school a more likely target of crime, and if the teacher takes the gun home with her at night, she becomes a potential target in the parking lot or when she gets out of her car in the driveway.
