Main|Bio|Books|USA
Today columns|Opeds|Boston.com blog|Media|Other Publications|
Speaking|Links
Responses to school shootings should
be based on the level of risk, not the level of fear
The fear of school
shootings is rampant, and understandable, but this is not an epidemic. We
can make schools safer without turning them into armed fortresses.
By James Alan Fox, Updated May 27, 2022, 3:29 p.m.
The rebuilt Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Conn. includes landscaping
that limits outside access to schools.NATHAN
KLIMA FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE
In the aftermath of Tuesday's
horrific shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, emotions
are raw and fears are running high. As the nation attempts to make sense of
what took place, it is important to provide some reassurance to anxious
students, parents, and school personnel that, despite the tragic loss of
life in a fourth grade classroom, the risk of a deadly school shooting
remains low.
Since 2013, a total of 77 students in grades K-12 have
been killed in 11 school mass shootings, each involving at least one student
fatality and four or more gunshot victims overall, based on my analysis of a
school shooting database compiled by the Center for Homeland Defense and
Security. Adding to these casualties, another 17 students whose shooting
deaths were not part of a mass shooting, and the annual averages stands at
10 students killed.
Every one of these assaults caused immense pain
to the families who lost a child and to the communities that endured
senseless tragedy. Yet the risk of such fatalities at school is actually
low. By my calculations, with more than 50 million school children in
America, the likelihood is about 1 in 5 million that a child will be killed
by an armed assailant at school in any given year. While recognizing that
school shootings tend to have a ripple effect extending well beyond those
directly impacted, there are many greater perils that children confront in
their daily lives. For example, about 400 children perish each year in pool
drownings. Perhaps we need more lifeguards at pools rather than armed guards
at schools.
Notwithstanding the handful of devastating school
shootings that have shaken the nation and frightened parents to their core,
schools are safe. Schools provide students with structure and supervision
that they don't necessarily have when not in school. Indeed, their risk of
gun violence is far greater away from school - on city streets and, for
some, at home.
It is also the case that, notwithstanding a handful of
high-profile incidents over the past few years, fatal attacks in schools
have generally not increased over the past couple of decades. In fact, there
were more fatal school shootings in the 1990s, including the early 1990s,
when gang conflicts often spilled over into school halls.
School
shootings are not an epidemic, although fear of school shootings is
certainly rampant. I am not suggesting that we do nothing besides worry and
grieve for the victims. To the contrary, there are reasonable and measured
steps that can help, as opposed to strategies that are well out of
proportion with the risk and have significant downsides.
For example,
the type of aggressive and even unannounced active-shooter drills that
schools undertake, often by state mandate, can be exceptionally traumatizing
for children. These exercises should be toned down or even replaced by
simply talking to students about safety. Also, drills, along with various
visible security measures, such as metal detectors and security cameras,
send a message to children that they are truly in danger: The bad guy is
gunning for them.
It is far more desirable to invest in unobtrusive
security tactics, including landscaping that limits outside access to
schools (as in the rebuilt Sandy Hook Elementary School) and internal design
features (e.g., keeping hallways clear of obstacles in escape routes and
using bullet-resistant glass) that reduce vulnerability. These protect
children without alarming them.
And we should abandon the idea of
arming teachers, especially when they are ill-prepared to deal with a
high-pressure, surprise encounters that are nothing like target practice at
a shooting range. For teachers, marksmanship should be about A's and B's,
not guns and ammo.
As for tighter gun restrictions, which I fully
support, they are needed to deal with the thousands upon thousands of gun
homicides that occur in the streets and homes of America every year.
Ironically, although often proposed in the wake of a deadly massacre,
various gun control measures will only have a marginal effect on preventing
mass shootings (except for large capacity magazine bans that tend to reduce
the number of casualties). Nearly two-thirds of public mass shooters acquire
their guns legally, such as the Uvalde gunman did days after his 18th
birthday, and others who were prohibited based on a criminal or psychiatric
history still had many other avenues to acquire them. These assailants are
generally very determined and motivated to find a weapon of mass murder
destruction.
America is reeling in the wake of the massacre at the
Robb Elementary School with so many young lives tragically ended. We need to
respond, but in a deliberate way so as to make schools safe without turning
them into armed fortresses and, in the process, unnecessarily scaring
children and their parents.
James Alan Fox is a professor of
criminology, law, and public policy at Northeastern University and coauthor
of "Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder". Follow him on
Twitter @jamesalanfox