That the heroic actions of Antoinette Tuff resulted in the saving of many lives is undeniable.
When Michael Hill walked into the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Academy in DeKalb County three weeks ago, he was armed with an AK-47 and an estimated 500 rounds of ammunition. Tuff talked him out of going on a shooting spree. Of course, this fortunate outcome should be celebrated.
However, it is not acceptable for school security and the fate of our kids to hinge on luck. Not every school has someone like Antoinette Tuff, with the courage, wisdom, skill, humility and grace to talk a would-be shooter out of his plans to inflict mass casualties and become infamous.
Also, the opportunity to talk to a would-be shooter in such a scenario, to provide counsel and comfort, is quite rare. When a perpetrator is armed – and armored – to the teeth, with enough ammunition to kill hundreds of people, it reflects a level of planning and forethought that are exceptionally strong indicators of intention to act. There are far too many examples to list here, with Sandy Hook Elementary and Columbine High School at the top of the list.
On the eve of my daughters’ return to school Aug. 1 in Decatur, I wrote a blog in my “Dangerous Minds” section of Psychology Today titled, “Can we actually protect schoolkids from mass shootings?” I spoke of the potential for advanced weapons to play a prominent role in school security and allow us to transcend the morass of gun debates.
I alluded to the importance of this as a matter of national security, because there is no critical infrastructure that is more important to protect than our children. The events at McNair made this blog seem oddly prescient and more relevant than ever, given that this happened right here in our backyard.
As long as mass casualty shootings continue to be measured in body counts, and there are no substantive changes in access to weapons and ammunition that enable mass shootings in the first place, we can count on this pattern to continue and likely intensify.
So, while the fruitless and counterproductive debates about gun violence rage on, the pragmatic centrist in me wants to see a more careful examination and assessment of the contributions to security that advanced non-lethal weapons can make in preventing school-based mass casualty shootings.
While recent events at McNair showed us that the misguided mantra — that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun — isn’t quite correct, it also highlights that there is really something missing with the range of options that are currently considered and used in the context of school security.
Harnessing the power of light (lasers), energy (millimeter-wave technologies, such as the active denial system), sound (long-range acoustic devices), and even smell (malodorants) to provide non-lethal means of incapacitating a shooter are not the stuff of science fiction. Rather, these technologies are being developed, tested and used across a wide range of contexts, mostly military and law enforcement.
Some of the specific technologies involved have a considerable way to go before they can be successfully deployed in a school security environment, but others are much more developed, cost-effective and ready for prime time. The most promising of these technologies that could be considered as part of a school security program right now are “laser dazzlers,” which would render a would-be shooter unable to see and thus aim at any targets for several minutes. The intense green light of a laser dazzler could provide a window for law enforcement to respond, and for children and teachers to escape.
Of course, mass shootings in school environments are quite rare. However, when they do occur, they have a huge impact. Schools are supposed to be safe and secure environments where learning and growing occur. Violence in schools shakes our confidence and trust in the system.
Some will argue the financial costs make the adoption of advanced non-lethal technologies impossible. But the costs of such technologies will continue to come down. As we begin to do a better job of considering schools a critical component of our national infrastructure — a component that warrants protection — questions of how much cost is too much become less meaningful. In fact, we’d be well advised to consider the costs of such measures as a matter of national security.
Gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts alike support the protection and safeguarding of our children. Good policy doesn’t count on luck; it counts on people coming together to explore potential solutions to complex challenges.
In the case of preventing school shootings, the kernels of advanced non-lethal weapons are there. It’s time we broaden the conversation to include these potentially game-changing technologies.
