Point/Counterpoint: School Safety in the Post-Parkland Era; Against

Gavin Woods, Senior, Co-Editor-In-Chief

Following the Parkland High School shooting in which 17 students were killed and another 17 sustained injuries, schools nationwide are updating their security policies. While the decade-old debate as to whether or not the second amendment is still appropriate for the modern day wages on, most officials will agree that the current system is not acceptable. However, the answer to this conundrum is not to add expensive security systems that may deter a potential shooter. This is merely putting a band-aid on a bullet hole. Rather than creating temporary solutions to this dilemma, time would be far better spent addressing the current legislation regarding the right to bear arms.

The primary rebuttal for bringing police protection to the schools is what is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Because most schools will not experience a shooting epidemic, an armed guard is far more likely to misuse their firearm than to successfully prevent a shooter. It’s become evident as more schools experiment with police on campus, that the number of arrests and referrals increase. It’s also statistically proven that once a student has a criminal record in high school, they are more likely to have another run-in with the law. This tactic of stationing police officers in schools has taken criticism, especially following the Parkland High School shooting. Parkland had armed security guards patrolling their campus and many feel as though they did not heed the repeated warnings of the perpetrator, Nikolas Cruz, in his threats toward other students.

Because of the painfully slow pace at which the gun control legislation is being addressed, schools have no choice but to make temporary solutions. Some schools unfortunately don’t have the budget for the increasingly expensive defense security industry. For example, a Pennsylvania superintendent recently made the news for implementing a new security system in which all classrooms are armed with “a five gallon bucket of landscaping stones.” The superintendent, David Helsel, has since commented, “We wanted to provide some type of last response to an intruder rather than crawling under a desk and getting shot.” While this is a creative idea, a bucket of rocks is not an adequate defense to an AR-15. Even if a school can find it in their budget to improve their security, nothing is impenetrable. Last year Atlanta, Georgia public schools invested over nine million dollars into protecting its students with armed police, cameras, and metal detectors. However, these precautions failed to stop a student from Price Middle School from shooting and injuring his classmate, shortly after installing additional security. School budgets should be spent on school supplies and teachers’ salaries rather than costly security installations with the hopes that they will deter a prospective school shooter.

Purchasing and installing expensive defense mechanisms to private and public schools nationwide is not addressing the problem at hand. It’s time for the US congress to be proactive with this pressing issue. Gun regulations must be increased federally as it is the only appropriate reaction to the recent Parkland shooting.