Content warning: violence, school shootings
Police officers took seventy-four minutes to end the Uvalde massacre, three hours to shoot the gunman at the Pulse nightclub mass shooting, and fourteen minutes to end the Nashville shooting. One could praise the amelioration in time efficiency, yet this improvement cannot be seen as an end. The lives of three innocent children and three staff members may numerically be less than the death toll of Columbine, Marjory Stoneman, or Buffalo. However, those six lives could have been saved, not through a faster response but through gun laws. There are plausible tactics to ameliorate emergency response, such as improving police training or increasing security technologies in schools and public spaces. Ultimately, these responses are band-aid solutions, distracting our society from the urgency to address the underlying issues at the root of gun violence.
The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) was created to respond to active shooter situations following the Columbine school shooting. It has received over seventy-two million dollars in state and federal grants. Over 130,000 first responders have voluntarily attended training sessions, practicing emergency responses in the most realistic conditions. The methodology taught is centered around the idea of immediate confrontation with the shooter. In the past, road patrol officers have waited until SWAT teams arrived on the scene. Even though SWAT teams may be more efficient in stopping the shooting, in terms of numbers, they are fewer, thus not coalescing with situations that require urgency. During the Uvalde shooting, officers waited for higher-ups and more advanced officers, which delayed the response. Yet, the first responders in Uvalde had attended a similar training program to ALEERT within the last two months leading up to the shooting. This sparks uncertainty regarding the efficiency of these programs. Although officers have been trained at this center since 2002, there have been several instances during which the police weakly responded. Some officers who responded to the Marjory Stoneman shooting were charged with neglect. Victims were also forgotten and neglected at the Pulse Night Club shooting.
On the other hand, police officers swiftly entered Covenant Elementary School regardless of rank in policing. Policing experts across the country have stated that the response followed the textbook method; getting to the assailant as a priority and shooting them when reloading. It is important to note that this response was successful in some ways due to pure luck. Of course, the officers used strong decision-making and communication skills, but there was also greater proximity to patrol units, and they could catch the assailant reloading. In addition, police officers nationwide have expressed pride in the response. However, it is extremely difficult to associate pride with a police response. Despite the ability to save lives and reduce casualties, the police response is not one of pride but rather their job. During the Uvalde shooting, reports claimed officers feared confronting the shooter and risking their lives. Although this claim may align with human nature, at the end of the day, the police officer has signed up to do so. Experts in response to violent situations have explained how the body and brain react. Officers who have not been through stress inoculation will get significant physical and mental symptoms, such as tunnel vision, loss of hearing, or even loss of control. Even if police recruits receive pre-traumatic stress training, depending on their day-to-day roles, they are not likely to confront active shooter situations regularly. One cannot undermine how mentally difficult these situations are to confront. Out of the 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S., they cannot all be prepared to respond to these situations. The police take over such a wide variety of tasks in our cities. Unlike firefighters, who tend to be confronted with similar tasks daily, a police officer’s job can range from conducting interviews to responding to violent situations. Their dominance lacks foundation and specialization. Until recently, officers responded to mental health crises, which is problematic because they have little to no experience and knowledge of psychology.
Nevertheless, if we are to establish specialization, it would require substantial numbers of forces throughout the country. It would also be extremely costly. Furthermore, specialization or extensive training reinforces the acceptance of deaths and does not address the underlying issue of gun violence.
While it may seem logical to improve police response, it may not be the most efficient tactic if the end goal is to reduce deaths. Of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States from 2000 to 2021, 249 ended before the police arrived. For the instances during which the police managed to get to the scene before the attack ended, half of the time, the police shot the assailant. This goes to show that the police are far from entirely reliable when it comes to response to shootings. Regardless of the rapidity of dispatch, the police cannot outpace the intensity of the weapons system. Even with substantial training and a proficient communication system, police responses cannot prevent all deaths, as a response to an attack implies that it has already begun.
One may imagine that developing safety technologies could allow a better response to attacks or attempts to attack. Schools and colleges are increasingly investing in security technologies and resources. Some products acquired are gun-detection scanners, facial recognition software, and high-tech threat detector sound systems. According to Omidia, in 2021, 3.1 billion dollars were spent on security resources in schools and colleges nationwide. The Bipartisan Gun Safety Bill passed in June 2022, provides a supplemental 300 million dollars to fortify school security by strengthening the incentive to improve security. However, these steps taken to create safer schools are fueled by anxiety, but most importantly, accompanied by rhetoric that promotes material self-defense. As gun violence continues in the United States, individuals seek to protect themselves. With the rise of gun culture and the influence of politicians, many believe that guns and weaponry will protect them. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign of 2016 reinforced this idea, and it continues to persist today.
Further, individuals are more and more resorting to guns. Women and people of color are increasingly becoming gun owners as a means of defense from discrimination. Antonia Okafor, the director of the women’s outreach for Gun Owners of America, sees a clear relation between her safety as a woman of color and ownership of guns. Although arming teachers and increasing security technology are not the same, they are both defense tactics that steer away from the main issue, which is guns in the first place.
In addition, there is little evidence that supports the efficiency of these investments. Although acquiring them does demonstrate the institutions’ willingness to address the issue, this tactic lacks an understanding of the root of gun violence. It also does not consider students’ input, who tend to believe these technologies make them feel safe. Indeed, these installments could intrude on students’ privacy and constantly remind them of the horrors they could face. The widespread fear these technologies induce removes the idea that schools should be safe. A Johns Hopkins University study showed that school security technology contributes to a negative perception of their education experience. Some even feel as if they were paying a “safety tax.” Moreover, increased security technology accentuates discrimination against Black students,
Centralizing policy around police response is accepting the death of thousands. It appears absurd to give that responsibility to those who often perpetuate gun violence. As an “emergency response” to mass shootings, policies around gun rights have to change. Reimagining police response is distracting us from confronting the real issue. Instead, we must reimagine the role guns play in US society. Gun culture may be an obstacle but it is not a barrier. We must elect leaders who plan to reduce the accessibility of guns drastically and hold accountable lobbyists, especially those growing under the pretext that they aren’t as harmful, such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Ending gun violence will only be possible once we address the “gun” in gun violence.