Hardening Schools Is Not The Answer To Stopping School Shootings
Start writing a post

Hardening Schools Is Not The Answer To Stopping School Shootings

Hardening schools is an expensive roundabout "solution" to a problem that needs to be solved with gun control.

Hardening Schools Is Not The Answer To Stopping School Shootings
Delaney Tarr

After the February 14th shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the national debate about gun control and how to prevent increasingly prevalent mass shootings started up again and the usual talking points arose. Two main sides formed with one group calling for gun reform and the other calling for increased mental health. Often seen as mutually exclusive, the solution is actually both but these main topics aren't what I'm going to talk about today. Everything to be said about both has been said and what I want to focus on now is a narrow group of people who are neither for or against either of the two major groups but instead focus on the issue of "school safety."

The idea behind this "school safety" mindset is that gun regulation probably won't pass so what we need to do add more security to our schools in order to prevent school shootings, like the one that happened in parkland, from happening again. And while some common sense school security measures need to be put in place, what has been proposed and what has been implemented at Stoneman Douglas has gone way too far.

Recently the school got back into the news cycle for requiring all students wear clear backpacks, provided free of charge, in order to prevent kids from bringing weapons into school. The bags received much backlash from students and I totally understand why. Requiring them to wear clear backpacks does nothing but invade their privacy and provide an illusion of security that does nothing to stop the real problem. A clear backpack would not have stopped Nicholas Cruz carrying out the Parkland massacre and does nothing to protect them from similar attacks in the future. Let's just call it what it is, a move by politicians to make it look like they are making schools safer when in actually it doesn't make anyone secure, makes students feel more vulnerable and misuses taxpayer money to do this. The thousands of dollars wasted on backpacks could have been spent on school supplies and materials students actually need and help replace materials that were lost.

Stoneman Douglas has also set up barricades around campus and set up security checkpoints, which only harasses students and teachers and makes them feel like cattle instead of regular people. All students and teachers want after all of this is some sense of normalcy and routine but this makes them feel the exact opposite and only heightens their anxiety. Security checkpoints and barricades won't do anything to stop a shooter, they aren't going to follow the rules if their intent is to kill people. They will circumvent the checkpoints and hop over barricades in order to accomplish their twisted objective.

Stripping kids of their privacy and turning schools into prisons is not how the issue of schools shootings is solved. Hardening schools with disproportionately negatively affect minority students whom studies have shown are at far greater risk of mistreatment and harassment by the police than white students. Metal detectors won't do anything besides hassle students and staff and maybe catch the occasional Juul. This ramping up of security does nothing to actually protect the students, it just looks like it does.

The only real way to solve this issue and other types of gun violence throughout this country is common sense gun reform in order to make sure people who want to cause harm do not have access to weapons which can greatly enhance their ability to do so. Regulation is needed and any other "solution" is only a patch to part of the problem. We need to prevent this from happening everywhere in America, whether it is a school or not.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.

Sex And The Church

A letter to fellow believers.

Amanda Hayes

I know many of you just read that title and thought it was scandalous to see something so “risque” in the same setting as something holy. Well guess what – sex is part of that. Everyone seems to think they are separate, which makes since because most people treat them as though they are complete polar opposites. Shall we think this through?

Keep Reading... Show less

Chick-fil-A, I love you.

Keep Reading... Show less

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

Is God Reckless?

First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.

Keep Reading... Show less
Student Life

10 Signs You Grew Up In A Small Town

Whether you admit it or not, that tiny town will always have your heart.

The Odyssey

1. You still talk to people that you went to elementary school with.

These are the people you grew up with and the people you graduated high school with. The faces you see in kindergarten are the same faces you’ll see for the rest of your life.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments