School safetySpotting potential killers, rather than armed guards, would make schools safer: study
Tragedies involving children, such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School, fuel outrage and calls for immediate action to prevent similar atrocities. Lawmakers are debating different gun control measures, while the National Rifle Association’s unveiled a plan – the National Shield School Proposal — which calls for placing armed guards at schools. Three criminal justice researchers argue that the NRA’s proposal is problematic, expensive, and would not be effective. The researchers say there is evidence to show that in the majority of school shootings, the assailant suffered from some type of mental health issue, dysfunctional family, problems at school, social isolation, and in some instances, bullying. The article authors suggest that it is these issues that are the root cause of these tragedies, and that in order to prevent school violence, society must address troubled youth.
Study finds many common psychological problems, as in Adam Lanza's case // Source: newsbomb.gr
Tragedies involving children, such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School, fuel outrage and calls for immediate action to prevent similar atrocities. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has put forward a National Shield School Proposal which supports the placement of armed security in all schools. A springer publishers release reports that a new review of the proposal, by Gordon and Angela Crews from Marshall University in West Virginia and Catherine Burton from The Citadel in South Carolina, attempts to find what the authors say is a balanced and unbiased view of the facts within this heated debate.
Their paper, which appears in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, published by Springer, sets out what these proposals would mean to schools, and offers some alternative suggestions.
The National Rifle Association presents a convincing argument, but the authors have found that some of the evidence which the NRA used to back its proposals is erroneous:
The NRA contends that schools are not safe places for children, but the article’s authors say that, to the contrary, schools are indeed a very safe place. The NRA proposal states that school violence is the “leading cause of death” of children, but statistics show that unintentional injury is the primary cause of death among 5-24 year olds.
Crews and his colleagues then point out that it is still not proven that security guards actually prevent school violence. Both Columbine and Virginia Tech, where two of the most deadly school shootings occurred, already employed armed security guards. There are also the financial implications of such a scheme. These are very large, both in terms of implementation and civil or criminal liability. The authors say that suggestions that volunteers carry out armed policing of schools, though cheap, only adds another layer of potential problems.
There are numerous other concerns. There is the increased chance of injury and death. Questions have already been raised about the potential conflict of interest for security firms involved. There are problems already documented relating to security guards in schools, ranging from criminal activity to increased student detention rates. There is the not inconsequential potential for arms kept at schools to fall into the wrong hands. The authors argue that when there are such questions about the efficacy of a proposal and the costs are so high, alternative solutions should be considered.
Crews and his colleagues write that two questions which the NRA fails to address when looking at school shootings, are: whose hands the weapons were in, and the ease with which they got there.
Crews and his colleagues note that in the past there has been a reluctance to profile school shooters. There is evidence, however, to show that in the majority of cases the assailant suffered from some type of mental health issue, dysfunctional family, problems at school, social isolation, and in some instances, bullying. The article authors suggest that it is these issues that are the root cause of these tragedies, and that in order to prevent school violence, society must address troubled youth, along with their ease of access to weapons.
The authors conclude:
Preventing school violence does not have to be expensive. All it takes is preventing the development of young men and women into perpetrators of school violence, and putting armed guards at fortified schools will not do this…It just requires someone to pay attention, to listen and to care, which really cost nothing.
The authors say that teachers in California support this approach: 67 percent of California teachers surveyed believe that hiring a counselor would be more effective at preventing school violence than hiring a police officer.
— Read more in Gordon A. Crews et al., “The Only Thing That Stops a Guy with a Bad Policy is a Guy with a Good Policy: An Examination of the NRA’s ‘National School Shield’ Proposal,” American Journal of Criminal Justice (March 2013) (DOI: 10.1007/s12103-013-9202-x)
