Blinded With Vision or Vision With Blinders?
I originally shared this blog post February 25, 2015. Since then, it's become readily apparent it's in need of a significant update/amendment.
The rationale for being "Blinded with Vision" rests in the aftermath of shooting massacres, schools included, and the advocacy that arises as a direct result.
Some advocates push agendas/policies based in their own personal experiences.
In a February 27, 2015 article, NPR talked about proposed legislation wending its way through the Colorado State Legislature that year that would allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to do so on any school campus. That's right......ANY school campus: elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities. ANY school campus! My initial reaction to this was along the lines of WTF???
That being said, I've been told by any number of pro-gun advocates I'm too close to this issue (Columbine parent....two kids there that day, one of whom was shot and paralyzed from the waste down) to be able to speak to it while leaving the emotion out of the equation. Granted, leaving the emotion out of this equation is not easy, but I try to do so as best I can.
One of the bill's sponsors, Patrick Neville, was a sophomore at Columbine High School when that massacre occurred April 20, 1999.
According to the article from NPR, Mr. Neville couches his desire for this legislation to become law in what I consider to be a misguided and dangerous attempt to save lives by allowing guns in schools:....the old anti-gun free zone stance taken by so many pro-gun advocates and advocacy groups.
The old pro-gun mantra that "guns save lives".
And there you have it.
Front and center.
"Guns save lives".
Think about his statement for a second....or two....or however long you need:
How so? Because he has no viable proof to bolster his belief/opinion. He does not offer, nor does he have, any viable data to bolster that belief/opinion either. Ergo, it is an 'emotional' statement based on nothing more than his own belief/opinion that it is true.
Where am I going with this?
Well, the sad reality is Mr. Neville has a public forum to state his 'beliefs/opinions' on any subject by virtue of his holding public office. Sadly, many of those who share his 'belief/opinion' also buy into that 'belief/opinion', and they view that 'belief/opinion' as, at the very least, being factual as far as teachers being armed is concerned.
Don't believe me? Fast forward to 2018 and into 2019 in the aftermath of even more school massacres.
But I digress.
My own simple reality, my interpretation, my 'belief/opinion' is that if Mr. Neville were singing a little different tune on this issue, if he were speaking out against arming teachers and/or allowing guns in schools, his stance would be received a bit differently by pro-gun advocates. In fact, I kinda sorta 'believe' he'd be a one term elected official, at best.
Truth is, those who've been directly affected by massacres involving the use of guns, and who've mustered the courage to speak out against the very thing Mr. Neville is advocating for are often times castigated, vilified, threatened, condemned, reviled, and even slandered for that stance.
Castigated.
Vilified.
Threatened.
Condemned.
Reviled.
Slandered.
Told they don't know what they're talking about.
Told they should just go home and wallow in their own self-pity.
And so much more....much, much more. Much, much worse.
But, here's another thing to consider....based on the fact Mr. Neville's assertion is an emotional assertion, why, then, are those whose children have been murdered by someone using a gun, or whose children have been injured by someone using a gun not supposed to, or be allowed to, put forward their own emotional views regarding their own personal traumas? Why are their views any more irrational, any less valid?
I ask this because when one comes right down to it, right down to the nitty gritty of the issue, Mr. Neville's comment above, simply stated, is based solely on his emotion, his own personal deeply held emotional trauma surrounding what happened to him. It is not based on, nor does it rely on fact or factual data or factual reasoning.
In his comment above, he was referencing teachers being armed. I'll give him that much, at least.
However, his proposed legislation draws no distinction between arming teachers and arming members of the general public when it comes to guns on campus. Does anyone else see a problem with this? I know I sure do!
Is this omission an oversight? Or, is it intentional? Think about it.
In the proposed legislation, itself, the very last paragraph says this:
It does not specify students, staff, administration. It specifies "public". I must admit that I have a serious.....no, a VERY serious.....issue with that provision. More on that later.
By now, at least some of you who follow my blog know our family was directly affected by the massacre at Columbine High School, as was Mr. Neville.
Our family also experienced indirectly the hostage taking and murder of Emily Keyes at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, CO.
Here's the thing, though....those two experiences, in and of themselves, do not BY themselves 'qualify' me, in any way, shape, or form, to speak to this issue in the manner and tone I am about to do. To be sure, they evoke a LOT of emotion for me personally! A LOT of personal trauma revisited! But they do not, BY themselves, qualify me on a 'professional level' to speak to this issue.
No, they do not.
However, my professional experience in the field of Emergency Management does. This professional experience is my ticket to being able to speak to the issue of school safety rationally and with critical analyses of things being proposed....things like Mr. Neville's proposed legislation.
My professional experience in the field of Emergency Management also tells me this proposed legislation, and other similar legislation either proposed or already enacted in other states, flies directly in the face of everything I've ever been trained in or actually experienced in a professional capacity.
Let's be very clear here: This proposed legislation does not now, nor will it ever, include my support for allowing guns on school campuses anywhere.
There is only one exception to my stance, and that is for certified law enforcement personnel like SROs and appropriate police department personnel.
I struggle mightily in trying very hard to suppress my own emotion and trauma that revisits every time I see something like Mr. Neville's proposed legislation. In fact, there are times I struggle in trying to offer a rational response to what I consider to be a 'Vision with Blinders' advocacy.
Following mass shootings, an inevitable reaction is for some who are directly affected to become advocates/activists. That's a statement of fact.
Too often, in my professional opinion, those advocates adopt a vision that metaphorically blinds them, a 'Vision with Blinders' approach to their advocacy. That's perfectly understandable. There's nothing more emotional than having a loved one taken away by murder or changing their lives forever because of injury resulting from a gun shot wound.
These visions adopted by advocates motivate them, more often than not, to pursue their vision with blinders on. Nothing else matters. Nothing else will stand in their way. In other words, they become 'blinded by their vision'. Therein lies the danger in their advocacy.
That malady, if one wants to call it that, isn't unique to either side in the vision to arm or not to arm school staff.
Frankly, however, when I saw this proposed legislation, I was nothing short of being pissed off! Why? Because after so many mass shooting incidents, the victim's families are accused of being too emotional if they promote the idea, the concept, of 'common sense gun control'.
You're just going to have to pardon my emotion on this issue for awhile, and indulge me in my rant before I get to the more emotionless analysis from an emergency management perspective I intend to share with you.
I know, I know - I'm not supposed to be.....emotional, that is.....especially according to those advocating for more guns, more guns in schools, more guns everywhere. After all, an armed society is a polite society, right? Sheesh!!!!
Then those victim's families are confronted with something like this proposed legislation, from a 'victim' no less, someone who was there, someone who lived through this massacre.
The article states:
So, because he was there, because he was a student at CHS, he is apparently, by association, asserting his qualifications to speak to the issue of school safety by advocating more guns, more guns everywhere (including schools), at least according to him.......everyone who was there is an expert, right? An expert in first response. An expert in emergency communications. An expert in emergency medical response. An expert....an expert....an expert. WOW.
Oooh, but wait a second here, you say.
He's an Army Vet you say.
In the Army, he was trained in risk management and insurance you say.
Doesn't that experience 'qualify' him to speak to this issue, you ask?
Well, that....that right there, is why I'm so flummoxed by what he's advocating....guns in schools --- guns everywhere. It's also why I'm writing this blog because he should, yes SHOULD, arguably know better than to advocate for guns in schools and guns everywhere.
So, the fact is he was there...at Columbine High School...on April 20, 1999.
Does his experience in risk management, does his experience with the insurance industry, both of which are critical to doing a sane analysis on the issue of school safety vis a vis guns, make him an expert enough to be able to say, "I truly believe that had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends might be with me today"? I truly do not know. But, given his risk management and insurance industry experience, he should arguably know better.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to diminish or dismiss his trauma in any way, shape, or form. More than most, I can empathize with him in his trauma. That's not what I'm going after here.....not at all.
But I DO disagree with his view that more guns might have prevented more loss of life. In fact, in my view, he's speaking to this issue from more of an emotional view than a rational or viable risk management view, by far.
His view is, in my professional opinion as an emergency management professional with decades of experience in this field, a 'Vision with Blinders' on.
What he fails to acknowledge is what I call a logical fallacy in his thinking. To listen to him, one gets the impression that more guns in the hands of qualified teachers might have, I repeat, MIGHT have saved more lives.
On its face, this perception may be, I repeat MAY be, correct.
Conversely, this perception, had it actually been a reality, might, I repeat MIGHT, have had the exact opposite effect and more lives might, I repeat MIGHT, have actually been taken as a direct result.
It's called the 'law of unintended consequences' including the possibility of collateral damages.
I believe it's appropriate to ask a question here: Did anyone consider this 'law of unintended consequences' and the possibility of collateral damages possibly rearing its ugly head when writing and then proposing this ill advised legislation?
But I digress.
In point of fact, those family members who've been directly affected by school massacres who also advocate for a saner approach to the issue of school safety have been, and continue to be, accused of being too emotional to be able to speak to this issue, kind of a 'Blinded with Vision', a 'no guns anywhere' vision accusation from pro-gun advocates.
Why is that?
Sorry, rhetorical question. I think we ALL know the answer to that one. If not, then we're pretty dense, aren't we? Either that, or we completely and totally lack any semblance of what we call empathy.
Enough with my rant. Time to get down to some serious analytics from an emergency management and school safety perspective.
To start, following the massacre at CHS, then Governor Owens commissioned a panel to analyze this incident. The result was The Governor's Columbine Review Commission Report.
Basically, in the opening remarks of this report are contained all one needs to know about how this massacre went down:
So, how is this paragraph all one needs to know, you ask? Well, please take a look at the methodology here. The idea was to detonate bombs and to then "pick off" fleeing students as they exited the school building.
Had these two monsters been more capable, that plan might very well have resulted in many more casualties.
My point? They set themselves up OUTSIDE the building to carry out their malevolence. Had their bombs actually detonated, they would, in fact, have been successful in picking off students and teachers as they exited the school. But, because their bombs did NOT detonate, they had to enter the school and conduct their mayhem.
Had their bombs detonated, the cold hard reality is that arming teachers and other school staff wouldn't have made one single bit of difference in the "good guy with a gun " perspective of being able to take out those perps! Not even a little bit!
The University of Texas, August 1, 1966: a sniper......yes, a SNIPER......set up in the university clock tower and began shooting.
When he was done, he'd taken 13 lives and injured 43 others over a "96-minute killing spree", as stated in the article.
My point? During the incident at CHS and during the response, there were reports during that response there might actually be a sniper on the roof of the school, since debunked, but reports never the less that caused some major confusion and anxiety during that response.
Furthermore, and here's where my emergency planning analytical mind kicks in, what if a sniper were to set up OFF school grounds somewhere hidden and start shooting at kids on school grounds?
Granted, most, if not all the more recent school massacres have involved a miscreant breaking into a school to perpetrate their madness, but the "what if" scenario I present here cannot simply be ignored.
So, arm those teachers? Allow guns on campus? Anyone's guns?
Sadly, the 'law of unintended consequences' doesn't end there.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that teachers are armed and ready. Here again, the "what if" questions resurface.
For example, what if.......law enforcement response is to engage and neutralize? Arming teachers and allowing citizens to concealed carry does NOT take into consideration the tactical training law enforcement officers must consider when responding to active shooter incidents.
Please note, this expert said nothing whatsoever about anyone other than cops being affected by friendly fire, of making sure that anyone carrying a weapon isn't a cop before pulling their trigger.
Fact is, if a cop is confronted by anyone.....yes, ANYONE.....other than another cop who is carrying a weapon of any kind, what is the likelihood the cop will recognize the carrier as "a good guy with a gun"? Think about that for a second. Or take as long as you need to in order to digest that information, that reality faced by cops responding to extremely stressful conditions in which they would have no prior knowledge of who is, and who is NOT, supposed to be carrying a weapon in that school.
So, if there is any one single detriment I see with the proposed legislation to allow concealed carry on school campuses, it is this one. This should be a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.
The FACTs are irrefutable. If experts in the field of emergency response can get confused over HOW to respond to active shooter scenarios, then legislators should also accept the FACT that they are not the experts in the field of emergency response and defer to those who are......even if those experts acknowledge they get confused. This is simply from a perspective those experts are, at the very least, analyzing, studying, and trying to come up with a methodology that works the best. I find it hard to believe that legislators are doing the same.
It is, quite simply put, not simply as simple as arming teachers, much less allowing anyone with a concealed carry permit to do so on school campuses. And, it's not always about guns either. The single worst school massacre in U.S. history involved a bombing.....shades of what the massacre at Columbine High School could have been.
And that.....that right there is why schools of today need to......no, MUST.....conduct what those of us in emergency management call a Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment. There's more to it than just this one single aspect of emergency management, but it's the place to start, in my professional opinion.
It's not always about guns. It's not always about active shooter scenarios. It's so much more than that.
If that emergency planning, by virtue of the hazards and risks analyses conducted, yields the 'guns on campus' idea as being a good and/or necessary thing (urban vs rural needs, for example), then, by all means have at it. But to codify this into law mandating that schools allow guns on their campuses flies not only in the face of school safety preparedness, but also in the face of local control over this type of scenario - state government overreach, perhaps?
One more thing to consider here in that regard: Why is this kind of mandate any different, really, than mandating that schools be designated as gun free zones other than from an 'oppositional gun control' perspective?
Truth is that active shooter scenarios in schools, at least the kind this type of legislation is striving to errantly address, are low probability/high consequence events. Schools need to......no, MUST......plan for their possibility of occurrence, but to devote this kind of legislative attention to guns on campus is misguided, and ultimately may even end up being more dangerous than the problem it's attempting to solve.
The problem in emergency planning lies in the danger of doing so with blinders on, either for something or against something, without 'listening' to those who might be more in the know about such things, and without heeding their advice or their expertise.
That's EXACTLY what I'm seeing here with this proposed legislation. The sponsors, alongside those who support this 'oppositional' form of gun control, appear to not understand the potential long term negative effects of ramming this legislation down the throats of those who see things otherwise, hence the term I used previously, "oppositional gun control".
And, finally, the legislation does not consider the potential for insurance consequences, either - arguably one of the more pertinent risk factors associated with allowing guns on campus. This is an area in which I will argue Mr. Neville, given his insurance industry background, should also know better than to try and push through this kind of legislation.
Insurance companies have discontinued coverage, or threatened to raise premiums, of some school districts that have opted for arming teachers and allowing concealed carry on their campuses.
Liability suits following the Columbine massacre could conceivably have broken the entire school district if not for insurance coverage. Asking the right questions of insurance carriers regarding guns on campus policies they might not be willing to cover is simply another absolutely critical question that needs to be asked during the planning process, and BEFORE moving ahead with that 'vision with blinders' mentality of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.
Bottom line from my professional perspective:
With all due respect,
Ted Zocco-Hochhalter
The rationale for being "Blinded with Vision" rests in the aftermath of shooting massacres, schools included, and the advocacy that arises as a direct result.
Some advocates push agendas/policies based in their own personal experiences.
In a February 27, 2015 article, NPR talked about proposed legislation wending its way through the Colorado State Legislature that year that would allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to do so on any school campus. That's right......ANY school campus: elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities. ANY school campus! My initial reaction to this was along the lines of WTF???
That being said, I've been told by any number of pro-gun advocates I'm too close to this issue (Columbine parent....two kids there that day, one of whom was shot and paralyzed from the waste down) to be able to speak to it while leaving the emotion out of the equation. Granted, leaving the emotion out of this equation is not easy, but I try to do so as best I can.
One of the bill's sponsors, Patrick Neville, was a sophomore at Columbine High School when that massacre occurred April 20, 1999.
According to the article from NPR, Mr. Neville couches his desire for this legislation to become law in what I consider to be a misguided and dangerous attempt to save lives by allowing guns in schools:....the old anti-gun free zone stance taken by so many pro-gun advocates and advocacy groups.
"I truly believe that had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends might be with me today."That's what he said. That's EXACTLY what he said.
The old pro-gun mantra that "guns save lives".
And there you have it.
Front and center.
"Guns save lives".
Think about his statement for a second....or two....or however long you need:
"I truly believe that had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends might be with me today."Is this statement 'emotional'? Methinks it kinda sorta is.
How so? Because he has no viable proof to bolster his belief/opinion. He does not offer, nor does he have, any viable data to bolster that belief/opinion either. Ergo, it is an 'emotional' statement based on nothing more than his own belief/opinion that it is true.
Where am I going with this?
Well, the sad reality is Mr. Neville has a public forum to state his 'beliefs/opinions' on any subject by virtue of his holding public office. Sadly, many of those who share his 'belief/opinion' also buy into that 'belief/opinion', and they view that 'belief/opinion' as, at the very least, being factual as far as teachers being armed is concerned.
Don't believe me? Fast forward to 2018 and into 2019 in the aftermath of even more school massacres.
But I digress.
My own simple reality, my interpretation, my 'belief/opinion' is that if Mr. Neville were singing a little different tune on this issue, if he were speaking out against arming teachers and/or allowing guns in schools, his stance would be received a bit differently by pro-gun advocates. In fact, I kinda sorta 'believe' he'd be a one term elected official, at best.
Truth is, those who've been directly affected by massacres involving the use of guns, and who've mustered the courage to speak out against the very thing Mr. Neville is advocating for are often times castigated, vilified, threatened, condemned, reviled, and even slandered for that stance.
Castigated.
Vilified.
Threatened.
Condemned.
Reviled.
Slandered.
Told they don't know what they're talking about.
Told they should just go home and wallow in their own self-pity.
And so much more....much, much more. Much, much worse.
But, here's another thing to consider....based on the fact Mr. Neville's assertion is an emotional assertion, why, then, are those whose children have been murdered by someone using a gun, or whose children have been injured by someone using a gun not supposed to, or be allowed to, put forward their own emotional views regarding their own personal traumas? Why are their views any more irrational, any less valid?
I ask this because when one comes right down to it, right down to the nitty gritty of the issue, Mr. Neville's comment above, simply stated, is based solely on his emotion, his own personal deeply held emotional trauma surrounding what happened to him. It is not based on, nor does it rely on fact or factual data or factual reasoning.
In his comment above, he was referencing teachers being armed. I'll give him that much, at least.
However, his proposed legislation draws no distinction between arming teachers and arming members of the general public when it comes to guns on campus. Does anyone else see a problem with this? I know I sure do!
Is this omission an oversight? Or, is it intentional? Think about it.
In the proposed legislation, itself, the very last paragraph says this:
SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety."Public peace, health, and safety". That's what it says.
It does not specify students, staff, administration. It specifies "public". I must admit that I have a serious.....no, a VERY serious.....issue with that provision. More on that later.
By now, at least some of you who follow my blog know our family was directly affected by the massacre at Columbine High School, as was Mr. Neville.
Our family also experienced indirectly the hostage taking and murder of Emily Keyes at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, CO.
Here's the thing, though....those two experiences, in and of themselves, do not BY themselves 'qualify' me, in any way, shape, or form, to speak to this issue in the manner and tone I am about to do. To be sure, they evoke a LOT of emotion for me personally! A LOT of personal trauma revisited! But they do not, BY themselves, qualify me on a 'professional level' to speak to this issue.
No, they do not.
However, my professional experience in the field of Emergency Management does. This professional experience is my ticket to being able to speak to the issue of school safety rationally and with critical analyses of things being proposed....things like Mr. Neville's proposed legislation.
My professional experience in the field of Emergency Management also tells me this proposed legislation, and other similar legislation either proposed or already enacted in other states, flies directly in the face of everything I've ever been trained in or actually experienced in a professional capacity.
Let's be very clear here: This proposed legislation does not now, nor will it ever, include my support for allowing guns on school campuses anywhere.
There is only one exception to my stance, and that is for certified law enforcement personnel like SROs and appropriate police department personnel.
I struggle mightily in trying very hard to suppress my own emotion and trauma that revisits every time I see something like Mr. Neville's proposed legislation. In fact, there are times I struggle in trying to offer a rational response to what I consider to be a 'Vision with Blinders' advocacy.
Following mass shootings, an inevitable reaction is for some who are directly affected to become advocates/activists. That's a statement of fact.
Too often, in my professional opinion, those advocates adopt a vision that metaphorically blinds them, a 'Vision with Blinders' approach to their advocacy. That's perfectly understandable. There's nothing more emotional than having a loved one taken away by murder or changing their lives forever because of injury resulting from a gun shot wound.
These visions adopted by advocates motivate them, more often than not, to pursue their vision with blinders on. Nothing else matters. Nothing else will stand in their way. In other words, they become 'blinded by their vision'. Therein lies the danger in their advocacy.
That malady, if one wants to call it that, isn't unique to either side in the vision to arm or not to arm school staff.
Frankly, however, when I saw this proposed legislation, I was nothing short of being pissed off! Why? Because after so many mass shooting incidents, the victim's families are accused of being too emotional if they promote the idea, the concept, of 'common sense gun control'.
You're just going to have to pardon my emotion on this issue for awhile, and indulge me in my rant before I get to the more emotionless analysis from an emergency management perspective I intend to share with you.
I know, I know - I'm not supposed to be.....emotional, that is.....especially according to those advocating for more guns, more guns in schools, more guns everywhere. After all, an armed society is a polite society, right? Sheesh!!!!
Then those victim's families are confronted with something like this proposed legislation, from a 'victim' no less, someone who was there, someone who lived through this massacre.
The article states:
Patrick Neville was a 15-year-old sophomore at Columbine High School in 1999. He was on his way to a fast food lunch when the shooting started.That could be interpreted to mean he was on his way to the school cafeteria or it could also be interpreted to mean he was on his way to a fast food restaurant off campus. In the end, it really doesn't matter, I guess. He was a student at CHS. That, ultimately, is what matters.
So, because he was there, because he was a student at CHS, he is apparently, by association, asserting his qualifications to speak to the issue of school safety by advocating more guns, more guns everywhere (including schools), at least according to him.......everyone who was there is an expert, right? An expert in first response. An expert in emergency communications. An expert in emergency medical response. An expert....an expert....an expert. WOW.
Oooh, but wait a second here, you say.
He's an Army Vet you say.
In the Army, he was trained in risk management and insurance you say.
Doesn't that experience 'qualify' him to speak to this issue, you ask?
Well, that....that right there, is why I'm so flummoxed by what he's advocating....guns in schools --- guns everywhere. It's also why I'm writing this blog because he should, yes SHOULD, arguably know better than to advocate for guns in schools and guns everywhere.
So, the fact is he was there...at Columbine High School...on April 20, 1999.
Does his experience in risk management, does his experience with the insurance industry, both of which are critical to doing a sane analysis on the issue of school safety vis a vis guns, make him an expert enough to be able to say, "I truly believe that had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends might be with me today"? I truly do not know. But, given his risk management and insurance industry experience, he should arguably know better.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to diminish or dismiss his trauma in any way, shape, or form. More than most, I can empathize with him in his trauma. That's not what I'm going after here.....not at all.
But I DO disagree with his view that more guns might have prevented more loss of life. In fact, in my view, he's speaking to this issue from more of an emotional view than a rational or viable risk management view, by far.
His view is, in my professional opinion as an emergency management professional with decades of experience in this field, a 'Vision with Blinders' on.
What he fails to acknowledge is what I call a logical fallacy in his thinking. To listen to him, one gets the impression that more guns in the hands of qualified teachers might have, I repeat, MIGHT have saved more lives.
On its face, this perception may be, I repeat MAY be, correct.
Conversely, this perception, had it actually been a reality, might, I repeat MIGHT, have had the exact opposite effect and more lives might, I repeat MIGHT, have actually been taken as a direct result.
It's called the 'law of unintended consequences' including the possibility of collateral damages.
I believe it's appropriate to ask a question here: Did anyone consider this 'law of unintended consequences' and the possibility of collateral damages possibly rearing its ugly head when writing and then proposing this ill advised legislation?
But I digress.
In point of fact, those family members who've been directly affected by school massacres who also advocate for a saner approach to the issue of school safety have been, and continue to be, accused of being too emotional to be able to speak to this issue, kind of a 'Blinded with Vision', a 'no guns anywhere' vision accusation from pro-gun advocates.
Why is that?
Sorry, rhetorical question. I think we ALL know the answer to that one. If not, then we're pretty dense, aren't we? Either that, or we completely and totally lack any semblance of what we call empathy.
Enough with my rant. Time to get down to some serious analytics from an emergency management and school safety perspective.
To start, following the massacre at CHS, then Governor Owens commissioned a panel to analyze this incident. The result was The Governor's Columbine Review Commission Report.
Basically, in the opening remarks of this report are contained all one needs to know about how this massacre went down:
The Columbine High School tragedy was the work of two disgruntled seniors at the school (personal note: I'm leaving names out in support of the No Notoriety Cause), who determined to kill as many teachers and fellow students as possible, first, by planting and detonating two 20-pound propane bombs in the school cafeteria and then by shooting survivors fleeing the inferno they hoped to create. When their explosive devices failed to ignite, the two approached the school and killed one student and seriously wounded a second as they ate their lunches on the grass. They then entered the school building and began firing at students leaving the school cafeteria, wounding five students and deliberately executing one of them.I could take issue with the accuracy of this paragraph because my daughter was one of those critically injured outside the school in this initial onslaught, but I won't. That part of it simply isn't important to the message being conveyed here.
So, how is this paragraph all one needs to know, you ask? Well, please take a look at the methodology here. The idea was to detonate bombs and to then "pick off" fleeing students as they exited the school building.
Had these two monsters been more capable, that plan might very well have resulted in many more casualties.
My point? They set themselves up OUTSIDE the building to carry out their malevolence. Had their bombs actually detonated, they would, in fact, have been successful in picking off students and teachers as they exited the school. But, because their bombs did NOT detonate, they had to enter the school and conduct their mayhem.
Had their bombs detonated, the cold hard reality is that arming teachers and other school staff wouldn't have made one single bit of difference in the "good guy with a gun " perspective of being able to take out those perps! Not even a little bit!
The University of Texas, August 1, 1966: a sniper......yes, a SNIPER......set up in the university clock tower and began shooting.
When he was done, he'd taken 13 lives and injured 43 others over a "96-minute killing spree", as stated in the article.
My point? During the incident at CHS and during the response, there were reports during that response there might actually be a sniper on the roof of the school, since debunked, but reports never the less that caused some major confusion and anxiety during that response.
Furthermore, and here's where my emergency planning analytical mind kicks in, what if a sniper were to set up OFF school grounds somewhere hidden and start shooting at kids on school grounds?
Granted, most, if not all the more recent school massacres have involved a miscreant breaking into a school to perpetrate their madness, but the "what if" scenario I present here cannot simply be ignored.
So, arm those teachers? Allow guns on campus? Anyone's guns?
Sadly, the 'law of unintended consequences' doesn't end there.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that teachers are armed and ready. Here again, the "what if" questions resurface.
For example, what if.......law enforcement response is to engage and neutralize? Arming teachers and allowing citizens to concealed carry does NOT take into consideration the tactical training law enforcement officers must consider when responding to active shooter incidents.
As officers, it is a given that we are responsible for every bullet that comes out of our guns. That means that we must be sure of our target, but also what’s beyond it. You can’t just open up on the first person who has a gun; you have to make sure that he or she is not a cop before pulling the trigger.The quote above was taken from an article in Campus Safety Magazine and was written by a certified law enforcement officer and training instructor (please click embedded link above to read the full article).
Please note, this expert said nothing whatsoever about anyone other than cops being affected by friendly fire, of making sure that anyone carrying a weapon isn't a cop before pulling their trigger.
Fact is, if a cop is confronted by anyone.....yes, ANYONE.....other than another cop who is carrying a weapon of any kind, what is the likelihood the cop will recognize the carrier as "a good guy with a gun"? Think about that for a second. Or take as long as you need to in order to digest that information, that reality faced by cops responding to extremely stressful conditions in which they would have no prior knowledge of who is, and who is NOT, supposed to be carrying a weapon in that school.
So, if there is any one single detriment I see with the proposed legislation to allow concealed carry on school campuses, it is this one. This should be a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.
The FACTs are irrefutable. If experts in the field of emergency response can get confused over HOW to respond to active shooter scenarios, then legislators should also accept the FACT that they are not the experts in the field of emergency response and defer to those who are......even if those experts acknowledge they get confused. This is simply from a perspective those experts are, at the very least, analyzing, studying, and trying to come up with a methodology that works the best. I find it hard to believe that legislators are doing the same.
It is, quite simply put, not simply as simple as arming teachers, much less allowing anyone with a concealed carry permit to do so on school campuses. And, it's not always about guns either. The single worst school massacre in U.S. history involved a bombing.....shades of what the massacre at Columbine High School could have been.
And that.....that right there is why schools of today need to......no, MUST.....conduct what those of us in emergency management call a Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment. There's more to it than just this one single aspect of emergency management, but it's the place to start, in my professional opinion.
It's not always about guns. It's not always about active shooter scenarios. It's so much more than that.
- Types of hazards
- Risks presented by those hazards
- Likelihood of occurrence of those hazards
- Consequences of those hazards should they occur
- Costs associated with planning for those hazards to occur, trying to mitigate their effects, responding to, and/or recovering from their occurrence
- Potential benefits of addressing each hazard somehow with realistic means available to the "community"
- And so much more
If that emergency planning, by virtue of the hazards and risks analyses conducted, yields the 'guns on campus' idea as being a good and/or necessary thing (urban vs rural needs, for example), then, by all means have at it. But to codify this into law mandating that schools allow guns on their campuses flies not only in the face of school safety preparedness, but also in the face of local control over this type of scenario - state government overreach, perhaps?
One more thing to consider here in that regard: Why is this kind of mandate any different, really, than mandating that schools be designated as gun free zones other than from an 'oppositional gun control' perspective?
Truth is that active shooter scenarios in schools, at least the kind this type of legislation is striving to errantly address, are low probability/high consequence events. Schools need to......no, MUST......plan for their possibility of occurrence, but to devote this kind of legislative attention to guns on campus is misguided, and ultimately may even end up being more dangerous than the problem it's attempting to solve.
The problem in emergency planning lies in the danger of doing so with blinders on, either for something or against something, without 'listening' to those who might be more in the know about such things, and without heeding their advice or their expertise.
That's EXACTLY what I'm seeing here with this proposed legislation. The sponsors, alongside those who support this 'oppositional' form of gun control, appear to not understand the potential long term negative effects of ramming this legislation down the throats of those who see things otherwise, hence the term I used previously, "oppositional gun control".
And, finally, the legislation does not consider the potential for insurance consequences, either - arguably one of the more pertinent risk factors associated with allowing guns on campus. This is an area in which I will argue Mr. Neville, given his insurance industry background, should also know better than to try and push through this kind of legislation.
Insurance companies have discontinued coverage, or threatened to raise premiums, of some school districts that have opted for arming teachers and allowing concealed carry on their campuses.
Liability suits following the Columbine massacre could conceivably have broken the entire school district if not for insurance coverage. Asking the right questions of insurance carriers regarding guns on campus policies they might not be willing to cover is simply another absolutely critical question that needs to be asked during the planning process, and BEFORE moving ahead with that 'vision with blinders' mentality of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.
Bottom line from my professional perspective:
- Do your hazards and risks analyses
- Plan accordingly
- Get community involvement in the planning process which includes schools, first responders, emergency management personnel, parents, students (yes, I did say students.....at least age appropriate students), and appropriate community members and organizations
With all due respect,
Ted Zocco-Hochhalter
* Comments on this blog are moderated.
No comments:
Post a Comment