Dam Safety/School Safety.....Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to

Dam Safety/School Safety.....Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to

What does dam safety have to do with school safety, you ask? They have nothing in common, do they? Totally different scenarios, right? So why am I including a photo of a dam failure in progress to start this post? Hang with me, folks. We're just getting started.

The dam failure pictured below with link to a YouTube video documentary that aired 40 years later is of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's only dam failure in the agency's over 100 years of existence. Pretty good safety record, right? Very rare occurrence, right? And, yet, this single dam failure had major consequential impacts on a national level that ultimately resulted in national standards for dam owners and operators that's still evolving today.  

Teton Dam Failure June 5, 1976

In comparing this single dam failure, and the consequences that followed, with school safety related to mass school shootings, I ask you to consider how many schools on a national level have had mass school shootings occur in your lifetime? Have any schools in your own community had a mass school shooting? If the answer is yes, then you understand the dire consequences these incidents manifest. If the answer is no, then why are schools nationally required to have active shooter and lockdown drills? 

Dam failures are what those in the field of emergency management label as low probability/high consequence type disasters. Thing is, so are school mass shootings. They are both statistically rare incidents. But real life consequences if they do occur are really difficult for many folks to be able to wrap their heads around, especially if those folks haven't been directly affected by them.

When I started working for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation way back in 1990, the prevailing attitude of almost all owners and operators of dams in the U.S. was 'our dams don't fail'.

This attitude was actually a conviction they held even though empirical historical data contradicted it.

Dam failures in the U.S. are rare. There's no doubt about that. But they do occur, and when they do, the consequences, both in loss of life and in economic damages can be, and often times are, catastrophic. Hence, the Federal government's requirement to have a 'Dam Safety Program' .

Even after this program was implemented, the focus was primarily on "dam failure", not on those types of events that might have a lesser impact, but a higher probability of occurrence.

It wasn't until 1995 that my agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, actually directed my colleagues and I to design and develop emergency management guidelines to implement as policy for the agency to address all hazards that could potentially affect our facilities nationally. We worked diligently for 5 long, what seemed tortuous years to draft those guidelines with fits and starts along the way.

Once those guidelines were implemented and proven to work in exercises and in actual incidents, requests began coming in to share our expertise. These requests were from other organizations in the U.S. and from other countries including the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Argentina, and others. Reclamation began assisting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in disaster relief activities, and was nationally recognized as a leader in this endeavor.

The reason I'm sharing this here isn't to toot anyone's horn, mine included. Rather, it is intended to illustrate how planning is dynamic, it is ongoing, it cannot be done in a vacuum, and it will be difficult. However, keeping the "eye on the prize" throughout the process will inevitably help ensure a quality product when a goal is finally reached. That doesn't mean the process is done. It just means a safety milestone has been reached and now the hard part begins - sustaining and maintaining.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Emergency Management

The nuclear industry is another fine example of a low probability/high consequence industry. We all know the probability of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant is very low. If that's the case, then why is the nuclear power industry one of the most heavily regulated of any regarding preparedness for those type of events? Simply, it's because of the potential consequences of a meltdown. We're all familiar with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Those three events alone were impetus enough to cause significant damage (although Three Mile Island had much less of an impact than the other two), and resultant calls for additional controls on the industry. Some countries even went so far as to shut down their nuclear power industry altogether following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Low probability/high consequence events. Planning for them is a huge responsibility.

And, with that, I come to gun violence in schools. The low probability/high consequence events like what happened at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high School, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Robb Elementary School and many others that have now become too numerous to mention here are invariably the ones that get the most attention, and result in the most argument over gun rights. The fact there are many more incidents of gun violence of a lesser scale in our nation's schools is often times virtually overlooked as an issue.

In order to plan for gun violence in our schools, a broader approach needs to be taken that recognizes a range of probability vs. consequences. This is a risk analysis. Corporations do risk analyses all the time. They have entire departments devoted solely to doing this. Both FEMA and the Department of Education promote this approach for schools, too. Problem is, schools often times don't really take emergency management seriously, their protestations to the contrary, much less do risk analyses regarding the types of gun violence they face. In fact, often times they don't even address the other types of hazards they may have to face. Fire drills, yes. Perhaps they even do drills calling for lock-downs or active shooters. Beyond that, I'd wager their preparedness and mitigation efforts are sadly lacking, if not non-existent altogether. Plus, who is responsible for doing all this? School administrators most of the time. Do those school administrators actually do what they're tasked with doing? Just one more reason why paid part time school staff as emergency managers is more than justified.

In Colorado, there is a law, Senate Bill SB 08-181, that was passed in 2008 that requires full spectrum emergency management programs at every single school in our state. Not just districts. Every single school. The law failed to include a provision for funding. So, even though there's a law on the books, compliance is iffy at best. Schools need help with this. Law enforcement and other response organizations need help with this. There is a methodology although not a national 'standard' that most school safety subject matter experts promote. It's a methodology that can make for safer schools through cooperative planning. Where there's a will, there's almost always a way. While we have the way, we still do not have a corresponding will.

Consider getting involved in your own community. It might just save lives.

My two cents.....

RIP Anne Marie

 

Anne Marie Hochhalter

Born December 19, 1981

Died February 16, 2025

Hero

Courageous

Fighter

Fiercely Independent

Survivor

Advocate

Victim

Following her death on February 16, 2025, all of the above adjectives have been used to describe who my daughter, Anne Marie Hochhalter, was. Thing is, I never saw her as such. I saw her as my daughter, my first-born child. She will always remain so. Please don't get me wrong. I do believe some of those accolades listed above must have, in fact, applied to Anne Marie. Otherwise, so many people would not be using them to describe their own knowledge of who she was. I just never got to see them or experience them with her as they applied to her at least from December 2009 until her death. I wasn't allowed to (more on that later). There were snippets here and there in media stories, but that was all I got to experience of her activities. But I digress.

As most folks already know, Anne Marie was critically injured during the Columbine massacre. She was given a less than 25% chance of surviving her injuries by medical professionals who treated her following the Columbine massacre. That she did survive is a miracle in and of itself. That she lived for almost 26 years after that horrific tragedy on April 20, 1999, especially given the extent of her injuries and the damage caused to her internal organs ("The AR isn't some magical weapon"...Well, DUH!!), is a testament to many things, not the least of which was her own determination to defy those odds and live her life the way she chose to live it. To clarify, when I wrote the blog post about AR's not being some magical weapon, I wrote it as a comparison between what an AR-15 might have done to Anne Marie vs what the weapon used against her, a Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle, actually did to her. To do so, I had to detail many of her internal injuries. They were grievous, but they didn't kill her as I believe high velocity rounds from an AR-15 likely would have.

Some are now casting her as the 14th victim of the Columbine massacre. I believe that claim may have a modicum of validity only if one strives to connect all the dots and if that's what one is actively trying to do. Even the Jefferson County Coroner had to stretch their efforts to support getting her death to a "homicide" in their report. According to them, her death was caused by sepsis that they related to her injuries sustained during the Columbine massacre, and that "the manner of death is best classified as homicide". In other words, they had to jump through some serious hoops to connect the dots in order to come up with their opinion/conclusion that the "manner" of her death was homicide:

For me, personally, Anne Marie was a survivor of the Columbine massacre. Period. She did not die on April 20, 1999. She survived until her death at the age of 43 from sepsis which was a complication of pressure sores which were caused by paraplegia which was caused by being shot and critically injured during the Columbine massacre. Again, she did not die on April 20, 1999. She survived. There's a huge difference. Let the "beloved thirteen" who died that day have their due respect. Commemorate Anne Marie's life if you want to, but do so as her being a survivor of Columbine, not a victim.

I could spend this entire blog post touting a life well lived by Anne Marie. I could spend it praising her courage in overcoming obstacles that no one should have to be confronted with. That Anne Marie overcame formidable obstacles in her life after the Columbine massacre isn't in doubt. She did. She was determined. She was actually quite formidable in her own right in those efforts, just not necessarily always in the way so many people perceive. 

Anne Marie was my daughter, my first-born child, so, I'm going to talk a little bit about her life from my own perspective as I knew it and our relationship as I experienced it. I'll also touch a little bit on a few of the difficulties life threw at her family following the Columbine massacre. Yes, her family was affected, too, in ways only those who've been forced by circumstances similar to ours will, or can, understand. In retrospect, I can't honestly say I believe Anne Marie ever truly and clearly understood or accepted that fact.

In April 2022, I wrote about a rift that developed between Anne Marie and me: Dredging Up The Past To Better Understand Where We Are Now. My family's dysfunction prior to the Columbine massacre isn't something a lot of people are even aware of. It isn't something I've talked about a lot. I did write a blog post about the mental illness of my first wife, Carla (How Can People With Suicidal/Homicidal Ideation Be Helped?). I also wrote about Carla's suicide by gun in the context of gun violence prevention and suicide prevention (Is Suicide by Gun Actually Gun Violence?). But I didn't go into much detail on how mental illness affected all of us especially after Carla's suicide by gun, e.g.: clinical depression, clinically diagnosed PTSD, anger, abandonment issues, etc. etc. In other words, virtually all things associated with the trauma of the Columbine massacre experienced by my family along with the suicide of a loved one added into that cauldron of chaos. No one was immune, not me, not Anne Marie, not my son Nathan who was also a Columbine survivor. Not one of us. We presented a public persona we believed everyone wanted to see. We each compartmentalized our own trauma. Behind the scenes, though? An entirely different reality. 

In the years leading up to December 2009 the relationship between Anne Marie and me gradually deteriorated to a point where communication was minimal and tensions were significant. During the time between April 20, 1999 and December 2009, I watched as Anne Marie took a path I didn't believe was in her own best interests physically, emotionally, psychologically, and even socially. Every therapist and medical professional involved in her recovery and rehab efforts told her she needed to do things she likely wouldn't want to do to stay healthy. They strongly counseled me to encourage her to do the things they were making her do to keep herself healthy and fit. She fought me pretty much every step of the way whenever I tried to encourage her as her therapists said I should. Her begrudging participation was always on a level of having to do it rather than wanting to do it with the exception where she could passively participate. Those were easy for her and demanded nothing, really, from her.

Every book I ever read on paraplegia, every bit of research I found on paraplegia, all the resources I had access to all said pretty much the same thing: "expect resistance, expect reluctance, expect downright refusal, expect temper tantrums, expect anger, expect tears, expect frustration, expect depression". I just didn't expect the level and intensity of those things that came out of Anne Marie. Many of Anne Marie's therapists even told me that I would have to push her very hard to do what she needed to do to keep herself as healthy as possible, especially given the fact paraplegia could, and would, cause serious health issues if the patient didn't take proactive ongoing measures to prevent those health issues from happening. They also told me, and this is something I, and others, actually observed, Anne Marie had muscle movement in every muscle group below her waist. I knew her injury was what the medical profession labeled an "incomplete spinal injury", and that she could actually move her lower extremities in limited movements. Her therapists told me she needed to focus on intense physical and neuromuscular therapy in order to hopefully be able to walk again some day (think Christopher Reeve on the order of his therapy regimen before he passed away). Add to that the fact Anne Marie's physical condition had already been compromised by her injuries suffered during the Columbine massacre, and I took all of that to mean she faced a perfect storm if I didn't keep after her to do what she needed to do. 

When Anne Marie became a legal adult, I simply had to back off pushing her as hard as I did when she was still in my care and under my guardianship. I never stopped trying to encourage her to do what she needed to do to keep herself healthy and fit, though. It just wasn't as intense as it was when she was still in my care and under my guardianship. Could I have approached doing those things more 'softly'? Maybe, but I did what I did with purity of intent with her best interests at heart. For that, I will never apologize. In December, 2009, Anne Marie estranged herself from my side of her family. So, any involvement I might have had in her ongoing therapy from that point forward stopped cold. From then on, she was on her own by her own choice.

After December 2009, Anne Marie made no secret how she felt about me and about my side of her family. One example of many is when, in a media interview, Anne Marie lamented the fact I'd moved our family to Bailey, a small town located in the mountains not too far from Littleton. She mentioned it was the darkest time of her life and that she'd contemplated suicide. What she didn't acknowledge and  refused to accept was I moved the family in order to force us to do for ourselves what so many were still doing for us while living in Littleton. Without realizing it, the Columbine community, through their kindness and compassion, had become enablers. Without realizing it, my family had become takers. When that fact finally dawned on me, I became very uncomfortable with it. Moving to Bailey literally forced all of us to work harder (Don't Make It Too Easy....) to move forward and survive. 

The move to Bailey didn't eliminate our necessities or deny access to them. It just forced us to do for ourselves what so many kind folks had been doing for us. It literally forced us to move forward with our survival and healing. Anne Marie didn't see it that way. Would she have taken her own life as she threatened to do? Well, obviously she did not, so the question is moot. Why she brought it up in interviews is known only to her, and now she's gone. 

Anne Marie did begin driving after having left a specially equipped vehicle sitting in the driveway for nine months before finally getting behind the wheel, starting the engine, and driving away. Prior to that, she relied on me, certain individuals, and some specific organizations to get her where she needed to go. I didn't have to travel to pick her up because I lived with her. Those who tried to get her where she needed to go had to travel from the Metro area to Bailey in order to do so.

I finally told Anne Marie I couldn't be at her beck and call any longer. My own life dictated other responsibilities besides being her caregiver 24/7. Nathan was one of those. My job was another. I told her she was going to have to start taking more responsibility to do things for herself that I'd been doing for her. She didn't take that very well.

When the individuals and organizations who were ferrying her about essentially got tired of doing so, she realized she was going to have to overcome her fears and get behind the wheel of her truck and drive herself. After that, the world was kind of her oyster, to coin a phrase, and she took full advantage of her new found freedom. 

Anne Marie had already gone through driver training and got her drivers license while at Craig Hospital during rehab. So, it wasn't like she couldn't drive herself anywhere. She simply wouldn't as long as others were willing to get her where she needed to go. When others could not, or were not, going to be able to do that any longer is when she finally put that training to use. She looked for, and found, a townhome in Westminster that she eventually moved into and lived in on her own. She got a job. She got a degree. In other words, she became that "fiercely independent" person the adjective above describes. 

But, to say I was aghast at what she sometimes said about us in public would be an understatement. And therein are a few conundrums I continue to face:

• Should I write about Anne Marie? Should I not write about Anne Marie? Am I allowed to write about her. Some would say no. Some have, in fact, said no.
• Should I grieve? Am I allowed to grieve? Some would say I'm not entitled. Some have, in fact, said I'm not entitled.
• Should I feel as conflicted about her life and death as I do? After all, she was my daughter, my first-born child. Some would say I'm not entitled. Some have, in fact, said I'm not entitled.
• Am I allowed to feel my own feelings, to stand in my own truth, to know in my heart of hearts I did the best I could under some extreme circumstances? Some would say no. Some have, in fact, said no.
• Am I allowed to feel anger? Bitterness? Resentment? Disgust? Especially toward certain individuals and specific organizations who inserted themselves into a very traumatized family with no regard as to how their interference was tearing that traumatized family apart. Some would say no. Some have, in fact, told me no.
• Should I feel love for Anne Marie? Some would say I'm not entitled. Some have, in fact, said I'm not entitled.

These are conundrums I've had to deal with for a number of years now. With her death on February 16, 2025 I still wonder if what I say and write about is actually something I should say and/or write about. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario (if you know, you know). The pushback I've gotten from some folks has been intense and unforgiving. Some of it has been downright cruel. It's been very difficult, to say the least. 

For those who may be wondering about the conundrum I listed above in which I asked whether or not I should be allowed to feel anger, resentment, bitterness, or disgust toward certain individuals and specific organizations who inserted themselves into a very traumatized family still struggling to stay afloat while also struggling with the aftermath of the Columbine massacre and its effect on all of us, I now believe I trusted them way too much. That's just something that's inherent in my nature.....I trust people to do the right thing. I still do, but, in this instance, I got burned.....really bad. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I was incredibly naive especially regarding their motives. If they would have stuck to just giving her rides where she needed to go, my feelings would be entirely different. My gratitude would have been unending. That isn't what happened, though. To be clear, Anne Marie was a willing participant, and I believe a sometimes instigator, in what was going on. In fact, over time Anne Marie went so far as to choose them over her own family. The details of how and why this happened will stay with me, but those who know know. Because I'm human, the anger, resentment, bitterness, and, yes, even the disgust I feel toward those certain individuals and those specific organizations are very real. I will likely never forgive them for what they did to my family. And I'll leave it at that.

My reality is Anne Marie was almost taken from me on April 20, 1999. Then, in December, 2009, I did lose her when she estranged herself from my side of her family, the details of which I will NOT discuss here or anywhere else from this point forward. It doesn't matter to me any longer that those who know a few of the details of this estrangement think they know everything. They really don't know shit about the FULL details of it other than what Anne Marie shared with them, and I'm leaving it at that.

There was no contact between Anne Marie and me from December 2009 forward. That was by her choice and was made very clear to me when I was told that "it would be best" if I did not try to contact her. I believe that's the point at which I knew in my heart  there would likely never be any reconciliation between us or resolution of our differences. The metaphorical 'death' of our relationship was exacerbated for me by virtue of the fact both of us were still alive. I never imagined that she would precede me in death, especially after what she'd had to go through to recover from injuries many medical professionals didn't believe she had a chance of surviving in the first place. I still have difficulty wrapping my head around the fact she's gone even now. So, on February 16, 2025, her death made 'losing her' very real and very final. It shouldn't be this way. It didn't have to end the way it did, but it did. My reality is there can now be no resolution to the deep rift that developed between us.

My daughter, my first-born child, has died. All I can do with that is hope she's now at peace. She fought a valiant, but very steep and ongoing uphill battle as a result of what happened to her at Columbine High School. She earned, and deserves, eternal peace. As for me, my personal healing journey continues.

RIP Anne Marie.

Love,

Dad

    * Comments on my blog posts are moderated. Proceed accordingly.

Arm Teachers? Let's Make Them 'Emergency Management Specialists' Instead

A long time ago, Katherine and I advocated parent groups to help schools be the safe learning environments they're supposed to be. Our efforts never gained much traction despite our best efforts. 

Several reasons for this come to mind.

Lack of knowledge on what emergency management is, much less entails, was one of those reasons. 

Another reason was apathy. It seems like this kind of effort is almost cyclical. A graphic I made helps illustrate this point:

Another reason was no one appeared to know where to start. Parents are key stakeholders in their children's safety while at school. Problem is, few of them know what emergency management is, what their role in it might be, or how overwhelming the process can sometimes be, especially without adequate training in that process.

That's pretty much where everything broke down. 

Today, we still have school districts kind of floundering as they face active shooter drill requirements by law. They also have little, to no, knowledge on how to design, develop, and conduct active shooter drills that actually do no harm to those they're intended to protect.

Frustrating? You bet! Why? Because now there's an ongoing and growing call to arm teachers and/or school staff instead of looking at the bigger school safety picture.

So, I got thinking there has to be a better way because school safety is so much more than active shooter drills. 

Voila! FEMA, by it's very organizational structure, could serve as a model for how to better address this issue. There's the Federal level emergency management organization (FEMA). There are state level emergency management organizations in every state. There are county level emergency management organizations in every state. There are even city level emergency management organizations albeit mostly in 'larger' communities. County and/or city emergency management organizations are the 'boots on the ground' that actually engage in designing, developing, and implementing their jurisdictions' emergency management programs.

My point is, that's a model for educational organizations, as well. There's already a Department of Education at the Federal level that has resources available to help provide for school safety. There are similar state level organizations. There are similar county level organizations. Jefferson County Schools in Colorado (home of Columbine High School) is an example of this. Their approach to school safety is considered by many to be a gold standard: Jefferson County Public Schools Protocols.

Thing is, though, many schools aren't at this level, yet. I'd be willing to wager most school staff in Jefferson County, Colorado aren't even at that level either. If any of them can tell me they are familiar with all the things detailed in the Emergency Response Crisis Management Manual they would be required to do if an actual incident played out, I'll eat my words. 

So, what's missing here? In emergency management circles, the local emergency management director at county and/or city levels directs emergency management activities including all five Mission Areas and Core Capabilities. The same preparedness mission areas of emergency management also apply to school safety:

REMS TA Center

But, in schools, who actually does all this stuff? Finding the answer to this question can be a bit of a challenge. The FEMA hierarchy includes 'boots on the ground' at local levels that actually design, develop, and implement local emergency preparedness missions. Schools, however, lack that last, most vital tier. And, that's where teachers can fill a vital role. Teachers could become paid part time 'emergency management specialists' in an extra-curricular capacity, like coaches, in their individual schools. That's what's been missing here. 

Simple. Straightforward. Cost-effective. All that's needed is for school districts to find it within their budgets to allocate for, and create, these positions.

Arming teachers with weapons is fraught with risks that far too many do not take into consideration. For me, personally, arming teachers is a non-starter. There are better alternatives. Creating 'emergency management specialist' positions to be filled by school staff willing to acquire appropriate training and certification is arguably one of the best alternatives available in my humble opinion. Also, training is free and accessible online from multiple sources including FEMA's Multihazard Emergency Planning for Schools Site Index (currently undergoing development), schoolsafety.gov, and Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center.

Where there's a will, there's always a way.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

The 'Real' Bullies in Mass Shootings.....

Remember awhile back when there was a counter-movement to the March For Our Lives movement called #WalkUPnotOUT? While well intentioned, I personally believe that effort was an attempt to try and address bullying in schools and to place responsibility for doing that squarely on the shoulders of the kids choosing to participate in the walk-outs and the protests of March For Our Lives.

 
With that, who are the real bullies in mass school shootings? Really. Who are they?

Soon after the massacre at Columbine High School April 20, 1999, rumors began circulating about the possibility that the two shooters who carried out this massacre had been the victims of bullying at the school. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Whether they were or were not is a conclusion that, by its very nature, must be reached individually by each of us based on our own knowledge and on our own perceptions of the incident, itself.

The fact is they, themselves --- the two shooters of Columbine, became bullies in the most extreme sense of the word as soon as they set their insane plan in motion. I would venture to say this is the case with any shooter, or shooters, in any mass shooting be it in a school or other public venue.

Bullying, while having been in existence since, well, forever, has taken on a new identity, a new methodology, if you will, with the advent of social media on the Internet. It takes on many more forms than it ever has in the past, as well. There's cyber-bullying, physical bullying, work-place bullying, verbal bullying, and the list goes on. There is also much more of a focus on bullying now than there ever has been in the past, due, in part, to the media attention being focused on teen suicides as a result of bullying. The problem as I see it, however, is there are so many facets, so many levels, to bullying in general, that it is difficult, at best, to be able to put a definitive face on it every single time.

The Columbine shooters were bullies extraordinaire. One of those shooters, was, in fact, a psychopath.

They bullied to the point of carrying out a massacre.

They caused an ensuing debate with few, if any, answers as to 'why' by taking their own lives, thereby leaving entire families and a grievously wounded community with no one at whom to direct their collective grief, sorrow, and, in some cases, rage.

Not only did these two bully an entire school, they bullied an entire community, as well. They bullied their parents, their siblings. They bullied their surviving victims. 

In reality, I suppose it could be said they actually bullied a nation.

I've been asked the question, "Do you hate them --- the shooters, that is?" I didn't know them, so how could I realistically hate them? Do I hate what they did? That pretty much goes without saying. Have I forgiven them? I honestly can't say that I have. Perhaps someday, I'll be able to reach a definitive point of forgiveness toward them. That day hasn't yet arrived.

They did so much harm to so many, I can't begin to wrap my own head around why they would do such a thing. Maybe that's a good thing - if any of us actually understood why they did this horrible thing, wouldn't that make us capable of similar acts? I don't know. What I do know, however, is that the answers to 'why' died the day they took their own lives. Beyond that, I believe anything anyone comes up with is pure speculation.

I've also been asked, "Do you blame the parents?" You know, even my Dad asked a similar question. He tried so very hard to wrap his head around why anyone would do this, how the parents could be caught so off guard. All I could say to him was that these families were as caught up in their grief as any other families were. These families had suffered great loss, too. These family’s lives were also changed forever. Does that absolve them from guilt? Could they have been more aware of what was going on? Could they have done more to get help for their kids? I don't presume to judge them in any way, shape, or form. That's something they must work through in their own healing process. I don't wish them ill, never have and never will. They didn't bully anyone that I am aware of - their sons did. Does that make them guilty by association? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I prefer to think not.

So, how can any of the questions asked following this massacre be definitively answered? I don't know. All I know is if we do nothing, if we do not engage in dialogue, intelligent and meaningful discussion, we'll never be able to put an end to the issue of bullying itself.

Hell, as time has elapsed and the nation keeps experiencing more and more mass shootings, Columbine has faded into most people's collective memories. Oh, it’s still there for sure. It’s just not the primary topic of conversation when another mass shooting goes front and center in our lives. Rather, it’s a sort of a citation, something to be referenced as a comparison. And even those instances are becoming fewer and fewer as more recent mass shootings eclipse the savagery the shooters of Columbine carried out. I've heard tell there are even those who don't know what is being talked about when the subject of Columbine is brought up. That's not their fault. No, indeed, it isn’t. It’s our OWN damn fault.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of this out of any sense of need for sympathy or condolences either for my own, or for my family’s, personal experiences in the massacre known as 'Columbine'. Likewise, I'm not doing this to gain anyone's approval or permission to proceed with my memories, my experiences, etc., either. It took me a long time to even be able to give myself permission to do something like this. And I'm not going to stop just because someone who does not truly know me apparently thinks ill of me, or thinks I'm too close to the incident to be able to speak to it rationally, or believes I'm using my children in some way to further an agenda because of their direct involvement in the massacre. I simply do not care what people like this think. My thoughts and my experiences are my own, not theirs. That's a simple statement of fact. Truth is, bullies are everywhere. On social media sites, the bullying can be, and often times is, brutal.

For far too long, prior to the massacre at Columbine, my family hid behind a veil of secrecy, pretty much pretending that everything was okay, putting on the happy face so no one would suspect any underlying problems even existed. That facade was erected to hide a very pervasive, very debilitating mental illness in my first wife that ultimately resulted in her suicide with a gun. I've been told her suicide by gun was my fault. That, to me, is bullying in the extreme.

There was a controversy surrounding the phrase "We Are Columbine" that came into widespread use almost immediately following that fateful day. Because this massacre affected so many, a modification was eventually made to the phrase to read "We Are ALL Columbine". Whether or not that satisfied everyone is a question each individual will need to answer for themselves. If we truly are all Columbine, then we should all also have a voice, a means by which we can all share our own stories, our own paths toward healing, and our own journeys as we each move forward with our lives. That's the only way, in my opinion, that meaningful lessons can be learned from any of this. That being said, I do not for one second believe any of us will ever completely heal from this. I do know, however, that each of us can once again find happiness if we never, ever give up striving toward it.

Given the fact kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have put themselves out there in order to try and turn their own personal trauma into something positive, and given the fact they continue to get attacked and bullied for doing so, it behooves ALL of us ---- EVERY..SINGLE..ONE..OF..US --- to heed the call for calm and rational conversations on how best to address not only the ongoing issue of bullying, but also the ongoing issue of gun violence in this country.

Our journey continues.....

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

DO SOMETHING!!!

 

October 15, 2015 Eric Mace published the following missive on his Facebook timeline Do Something. In it, he asks folks on both sides of the gun safety reform issue to actually do something. His daughter, Ryanne, was one of the victims in the Northern Illinois University mass shooting February 14, 2008. I'll let Eric speak for himself, though:

Eric Mace: 

Several days ago a close friend of mine posted a statement about doing something to reduce the number of mass shootings there have been over the last several years and the fact that they are becoming more frequent. He referred to what I've gone through since Ryanne's murder in '08 and echoed a sentiment that I've had since the day she was gunned down. That sentiment is simple and easily encapsulated by the following statement: do something!

To put some more detail behind it, it's not a simple request even though it can be boiled down to just those two words. Remarkably, it confuses the hell out of lots of people because of their own internal biases and fears. For some, it's a call to action on the subject of gun control while others see it as an expression of desire to take away someone's rights. Overall, it's an example of people fixating on whether the glass is half full or half empty when they should be making a cheeseburger. Even more confused now? Well, I'll try to clear it up in the next few paragraphs so, please, bear with me.

When I ask for something to be done I'm not specifically talking about guns. While the problem revolves primarily around them there are plenty of things that can be done to have a positive impact on the number of people dying because of them. In my case, I'm often intentionally NOT talking about doing anything about the guns themselves simply because so many people lose their minds and nothing happens other than yelling and screaming.

What I am asking for is innovative thinking that will cut through the rhetoric and the arguments and just accomplish some kind of change in what is an ever-increasing problem. I've tried to do this on my own but I've hit the point to where I must acknowledge that I do not know everything I need to know to fix this problem. Mostly, it's because of my own ignorance and inexperience but also because I'm not the kind of thinker that is needed in this case.

My view of innovative thinking in the weeks after Ryanne's murder was to look at all of the things that were coming at me and try to pick a unique combination of them that might make a difference. This was motivated by the old saying about doing the same thing repeatedly hoping the outcome will change - you must do something different to expect different results.

So I set about looking at things that I could do outside of the gun debate. I took the NRA at their word that the solution was not in banning guns but in addressing mental health issues. They said it was evil that killed my daughter and 4 other innocent young adults in a classroom and that the gun was simply the tool that evil chose to use. So, it seemed to make sense that we would start a scholarship in Ryanne's memory to produce more mental health counselors, the career calling Ryanne herself was answering by getting her education. Folks from the pro-gun side of the spectrum stated all over the place that, short of arming everyone, greater access to mental health treatment was the way to go and they fully supported efforts in that area. Well, I gotta call bullshit on that one 'cuz once it was time to pony up some money to do exactly that all we saw from them was nothing. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

So, I got involved in trying to strengthen the background check system. Once again, not about guns themselves but about people. That's what the NRA said was the problem on millions of t-shirts, bumper stickers, and TV ads - "guns don't kill people, people kill people". So, cool, let's check the people and see if they meet the criteria to be trusted with a gun. If we stop only one mass shooting in the process it's a victory. It might not make a huge dent in the total numbers of people killed by people using guns but it would make a world of difference for those few who don't have to live through what I've had to experience. Sadly, the NRA changed its stance on background checks from what it was in the late '90s when they strongly supported them to their current position of blocking a control on people instead of weapons. So, once again, I'm left at an impasse without any results to show for the trip down to the dead end.

So, all of this typing and talking boils down to a single reality, I'm out of ideas but I'm not out of energy to work on something. I am, however, limited on the amount of time and energy I have before I die and I want to make something count. So, a few years ago I started asking for someone to propose something to me that would make a tangible difference and would rally both sides of the gun divide to a common goal. Believe it or not, I got even more pushback than when I was talking about guns from people who still thought I was talking about guns. The majority of them were folks who didn't trust me, I guess, because they continued to act as if I was maneuvering into position to take their guns when I was proposing nothing and simply asking for ideas. Others discounted me since I was not actively pursuing their agenda and did little to help. But, perhaps the most insulting of all of these people were the ones who said that simply advocating that something be done is easy. Like hell it is.

I've seen this throughout my life and it all comes to one pinpoint for me about human behavior - everyone's an expert when looking at someone else's plan but most are total morons when it comes to coming up with one of their own. I've served in various capacities as part of decision-making teams and it's almost always been the same condition: it's incredibly difficult to come up with a possible solution and stupid easy to say it won't work or complain about it. Both look like they involve the same amount of effort on the surface but that's a flat-out lie.

So, if you've made this far in this post, I thank you for reading through it. I wrote this mostly because I've had good people on both sides of the gun debate ask me what they can do to help as if I'm an expert in what the solution might be. My message to all of them is to come up with something that you can do to help. You're all intelligent, rational people or you wouldn't be on my friends list. So, here's the direction I'll give you all (if you care to take it) - come up with something new that makes a small change and present it to me or this entire group. It doesn't have to be much, anything might help. Just be constructive and courageous enough to take some criticism. Remember, you always get more points for trying and failing than anyone gets by simply crapping on an idea. Even if it doesn't work or can't work we can at least identify it and move on to a new thing. All I care about is getting something, almost anything, positive accomplished.

I will close this out with one of my favorite quotes: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.” ~ Margaret Mead

 Eric's two cents (and mine in support of what he has to say, too).

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

"The AR isn't some magical weapon"...Well, DUH!!

I did a thing. Yes, I did. The thing I did I probably shouldn't have done given past experiences debating with gun nuts, but I did that thing anyway. What was that thing? The thing I did was I posted a tweet on Twitter awhile back in which I said:

Ted Zocco-Hochhalter Twitter Link

That tweet was a retweet of, and response to, K-12 School Shooting Database (David Riedman), a researcher on school gun violence I have an awful lot of respect for. The reason I retweeted his tweet was because he mentioned school shootings in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s compared to school shootings today. Because the Columbine massacre took place in the 90s, I thought I'd throw in my two cents in support of what he was putting forward.

Enter the gun nut:

Well, DUH!!

That is the newest in a long and idiotic line of AR style weapons defender's defenses I've seen so far.

"The AR isn't some magical weapon." That's what he said.

It was meant as an insult directed at those advocating for gun safety reform. 

It was taken by me as a laughable condescending disingenuous attempt to dismiss gun violence trauma personal experiences, not only by my daughter and me, but also by anyone and everyone directly impacted by gun violence of any kind.

I honestly don't know why gun nuts invariably go to some condescending disingenuous remarks as soon as they see something that doesn't necessarily agree with their perception of AR style weaponry. I even referenced another blog post I'd written quite awhile ago on My Thoughts on 'Civilian' Weaponry in which I shared a few details of the injuries my daughter suffered during the Columbine massacre and tried to explain why, if AR style weapons had been used at Columbine, my daughter's injuries likely would have been fatal. It appears those details weren't enough.

So, before anyone reads any further, be forewarned that some folks will find what I'm about to say a bit disturbing because I'm going to describe, in graphic detail, why, exactly, an AR style weapon firing high-velocity rounds would likely have killed my daughter during the Columbine massacre. I haven't done this before. In fact, it's still emotional and raw for me. I try to imagine how emotional, raw, and physically damaging it is/was to my daughter.

That being said, here goes:

The weapon used to shoot my daughter was a Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. She was shot two times. 

One of her lungs was nicked by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. Her lung collapsed. During her hospital stay, her lung collapsed multiple times. Chest tubes had to be inserted and re-inserted multiple times to drain bloody discharge. Watching how painful this procedure was (no anesthesia) broke my heart and almost broke my own resolve to be strong for her. But, good news is her lung did not blow up from a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Her vena cava vein was nicked by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. The cut in her vena cava vein allowed blood to flow into and fill her chest cavity. The reason I know this is because the ER doctor told me they opened her chest by cutting from the top of her sternum to her naval and from just under her breast on one side of her chest to just under her other breast on the other side of her chest. They then pried her chest open to basically try to determine her cause of death, basically a 'cadaver' procedure, because they thought she was dead. He also told me my daughter really should not have survived this procedure. His word for this procedure? "Radical". When they detected a very faint heartbeat, they rushed her into OR at which time a trauma surgeon took over. Over the course of the surgery to repair her vena cava vein, she had what amounts to a whole body blood transfusion. The OR surgeon also implanted a vena cava filter to break up any blood clots that might flow back to her heart which would have killed her. He told me he had to clamp her aorta in order to do this surgery. He also told me every once in awhile, he unclamped her aorta to give her brain a 'drink'. He cautioned me about the possibility of brain damage from lack of blood flow. But, once again, her vena cava vein was not severed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Her liver was damaged by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. Doctors assured me her liver, if she lived (they placed her survival chances at less than 25%), could regenerate. When I think what happened to her liver, I think of Brett Cross whose son Uziyah (Uzi) was killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX when a bullet from an AR style weapon left a gaping void where his stomach should have been. Once again, her liver was significantly damaged but was not destroyed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Finally, her spinal column was damaged by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. The bullet entered her spinal column and spiraled downward until it stopped near the T-12 vertebra. In the process, the bullet damaged what spinal cord experts told me they euphemistically call the 'horse's tail'. The medical term for this is 'cauda equina' for it's resemblance to a horse's tail. Her spinal cord was bruised and caused paralysis from the waist down. Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jamie was murdered in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre, described his daughter's fatal injury as having her spinal column shattered by a bullet fired from an AR-15. She died instantly. My daughter survived. Her spinal cord was not destroyed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive. 

I could go on to describe more of what happened to my daughter in the ER, OR, CCU, MTU, and spinal cord rehab in Craig Hospital, all of which lasted four months, but won't. Those are things I lived with my daughter all day every day for those four months and beyond. They still stir feelings and emotions decades later that I'm still uncomfortable talking about.

So, when gun nuts tell me things like "the AR isn't some magical weapon", all I can say is I know that. I know that because AR style weapons don't work magic on anyone. No, they don't. Exactly the opposite in fact. And that's the whole point behind advocating that these kind of weapons simply do not belong in civilian hands in our society.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

NRA, All Y’all Might Want to Stay in your OWN Lane!

 

NRA, All Y’all Might Want to Stay in your OWN Lane! 

Awhile back (2018 following the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to be exact), the NRA created a virtual shitstorm when they ‘suggested’ that medical professionals stay in their lane. That same year, the NRA also created something they called their "National School Shield Program". Between the time they created the National School Shield Program and today, there has been little, to no, media coverage I'm aware of for this highly touted program (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek)....until May 31, 2023 that is. I give you their tweet here:

Tweet: NRA National School Shield Program

There's a video attached to the above tweet, but I won't share it here. That's how much I think of it. If you, the reader, feel the need to view it, you'll have to go to Twitter by clicking the above link and watch it there.

“Stay in their lane”….that’s what the NRA said medical professionals should do. 

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Jeez, I’m digressing quicker here than I usually do! 

Back on topic….

The NRA has told medical professionals to stay in their lane. They've been critical of so-called Hollywood 'elites' for speaking out about gun safety reform. They've been critical of politicians and gun safety reform advocates like Moms Demand Action, March For Our Lives, and others for doing so, too. But, to my knowledge, the NRA hasn’t come out and specifically told educators to stay in their lane. However, and more importantly, the NRA has advocated arming teachers.

The first question that comes to my mind when I see the NRA advocating for arming teachers? Wouldn’t arming teachers require that they not stay in their lane of educating our children? 

Sorry, rhetorical question.

So, when I saw this tweet from educator, Susannah Hogan, back in 2018, it resonated with me:

Susannah Hogan Twitter Response to NRA

Active shooter drills have become her and so many other educators’ lane.

Now enter the NRA, self-professed facilitators of school safety.

Wait! What?

Don’t believe me? 

Take a look at what they say on their NRA National School Shield Program website:

"We Have A Singular Mission: To Protect Our Children"

 Wait! What? I thought their singular mission was to advocate for the 2nd Amendment. Am I missing something here? Sorry. Rhetorical....

Also, from their website:

School security is a complex issue with no simple, single solution. The NRA School Shield program is committed to addressing the many facets of school security, including best practices in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy. Through this  multidimensional effort, NRA School Shield seeks to engage communities and empower leaders to help make our schools more secure."

And this from NRA Chief Executive Officer, Wayne LaPierre when he announced this program on NRA-ILA:

“The nra (sic) is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.”

In other words, the NRA said they were going gung ho on school safety….to bring it all home and make it happen. 

Did they do so? 

Not so much according to Mother Jones:

After Sandy Hook, the NRA Made Big Promises About a New School Safety Program. It Hasn’t Done Much.

That article was published in 2018, but color me not surprised one little bit. 

From the Mother Jones article:

“According to the foundation tax returns through 2016, it didn’t issue a single grant for school security after 2014.”

So, while the NRA School Shield Program is still active on their site, no grants were issued between 2014 and 2016. I seriously doubt any grants have been issued since then either. 

Why is that?

According to Mother Jones, at that time NRA spokes-‘model’ Dana Loesch was asked about this by a grieving Parkland Mom. Her response was schools had to 'volunteer' to take advantage of it (the program).

Interesting…not very practical, but interesting nonetheless.

And then there's this from NBC News from June 10, 2022: Wayne LaPierre touted an NRA school safety program after Uvalde. Here's how much the NRA really spent on it.

"The total amount of NRA funds given to schools to improve security since the program began in 2014 is less than $2 million, or .08 percent of the $2.2 billion in revenue the NRA and its associated foundation have raised in the same timeframe, from 2014 to 2019, according to an NBC News review of charitable tax filings and information from the Second Amendment organization."

From the same article:

"One former adviser to the organization told NBC News that multiple former NRA employees were “stunned” that LaPierre chose to highlight the program in the wake of Uvalde."

So, do you, the NRA, keep full-time school safety subject matter experts on payroll on the off chance a school 'volunteers' to take advantage of the NRA School Shield Program? After all, you (NRA) stated you were bringing together subject matter experts in their respective fields to contribute said expertise in developing your School Shield Program.

Serious question NRA. Do you?

If so, what are their school safety qualifications?

If you haven't kept them on your payroll, well….some pretty damn empty promises don’t you think?

When the National School Shield Program initially came out, I decided to take a pretty deep dive into the kinds of guidance that were available. On the whole, the guidance was pretty repetitive from other sources (FEMA Multihazard Emergency Planning for Schools, SchoolSafety.gov under Dept of Homeland Security, Readiness and Emergency Management Technical Assistance Center, etc. etc.) with the singular exception that the NRA program was advocating for armed personnel in schools. And now, in 2023, the NRA is again touting its National School Safety Shield Program as something schools should invest their time and energy into taking advantage of even though it's been largely dormant pretty much since its inception. Seriously? 

Perhaps all y’all should leave school safety to those who actually have the training and expertise to make it happen because I really don't believe you or Wayne LaPierre give two shits for our children even though you say you do. Empty words are just that....empty.

Perhaps all y’all should stay in YOUR lane lobbying for guns everywhere. 

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.