Prevention Not Possible

Seven more kids killed in a university classroom, this time in our own backyard here in Illinois. "Tragic" doesn't quite describe it.

Could it have been prevented?

Let's review the suggestions I've heard today.

Number one: metal detectors.
It's a wonderful idea but where are you going to put them? At the entrances to every building on campus? And you're going to pay for that . . . how? OK, say we live on Fantasy Island and some wealthy alum goes along with the idea and forks over the cash. Now you have a way to detect if anyone is carrying a weapon into your buildings but...who monitors the detectors? Cops? Security guards armed with guns of their own they barely know how to use? Unarmed students (we call those kinds of guards "targets")?

Number two, better screening of, and help for, students with "problems."
That's a wonderful and very humane idea, Dr. Phil, but what kinds of problems are we talking about, how are we going to identify the students and just exactly what kind of help are we providing? Privacy laws often apply to such cases. Getting around them might be tricky, expensive, and more work than most universities are willing to do. And how do you enforce or maintain the assistance? Lock the troubled student in his dorm room? In the case of the NIU shooter, early reporting suggests he was referred to a psychiatric hospital after one of his instructors felt his creative writing indicated he was suicidal. Good move but not applicable in all cases. And besides, what happens when someone like that is discharged? Who keeps an eye on them then?

Number three, take away all the guns.
We tried that with booze and the Volsted Act back in the Twenties. Remember how well Prohibition worked out? (Hint: it didn't.)

Number four, the opposite of Number three, allow students who have the legal right to posess handguns to carry them on campus.
So, instead of one guy shooting in a crowded classroom, we'll have gunfights. Crossfire. And, no doubt, many instances of alcohol fueled gunfire in dorms, frat houses and bars. Sure, a student or instructor (I know of a high school principal in Minnesota who carries three handguns while at school) skilled in combat shooting might have taken down the offender at NIU but, more than likely would never have had time to draw. Remember, surprise works as a weapon, too, and the NIU shooter had that going for him. It's not like on TV, kids. Timing is everything. To accurately return fire during an unexpected attack requires a mindset and tactical training most college students, even those experienced on the target range, are unlikely to have.

Number five, cameras. I'll buy that the use of surveillance cameras on college campuses deters certain crimes but they're unlikely to stop someone in the grip of homicidal rage. Certainly, if someone in a command center somewhere is watching the right monitor at the right moment, they might see a man carrying a shotgun approaching a building or a classroom but, what then? Situations such as these offer very little reaction time. By the time an armed officer can respond, chances are people will already be dead.

So how do we prevent shootings like this? The answer unfortunately is, we don't. They are random, and the shooters are seldom going to telegraph their intentions in such a way that they can be stopped. Rapid response by law enforcement is the best we can hope for and, by first accounts anyway, that seems to have been the case at NIU.

Reality sucks, doesn't it?