Rethinking School Shooter Defense

This week, a radical Palestinian opened fire on Israeli seminary students with an assault rifle, killing 8 and wounding 11. Last month, a graduate of an Illinois university with a shotgun and at least one handgun terrorized students in an auditorium by taking the stage and shooting as many as he could before taking his own life. Taken together, these cases illustrate the real and not-so-real merits of relying on ready access to firearms on campus.

The American case produced debate to the effect that allowing weapons in the hands of responsible teachers or students could have limited the body count. One radio talk show caller opined that Reserve Officer Training Cadets should be so authorized on US campuses. The pro-firearm argument further stated that the firearm prohibition at schools only affects victims. Shooters bent on more serious crimes, hardly balk at adding weapons charges to murder. Does this position make sense?

The Israeli case may seem to say it does. Early reports claimed an armed citizen first stopped the shooter by returning fire with a handgun. Then security forces finished off the shooter. However, the Israeli casualty count was higher -- and this in a toughened society where armed security is much more prevalent than here, in the US. So, what is the answer?

Simply passing out guns to young adults isn't the answer. Why should we entrust deadly force to people who do not yet qualify for lower driving insurance rates because they are under 25? If, statistically, this group produces more injuries and fatalities, then surely it makes little sense to place into its hands even greater capacity to wield deadly force. But insisting on total weapons bans in the vicinity of any educational institution is equally unsupportable. After all, such bans carry weight with everyone but the shooter. Is there a middle ground?

Of course there is. First, let us not blindly cripple the ability for responsible persons to intervene. If Americans qualify for the authorization to carry a firearm anywhere else in the same jurisdiction, then let them do the same on campus. If they still want response options beyond just hunkering down and waiting for a bullet, allow and encourage the use of purely defensive weapons.

One such defensive weapon now comes with certain deterrent values: the commercially available taser. The first deterrent aims at limiting abuse of the device to commit crime. The modern taser comes with taggants that spit out like confetti when the user fires at a target. The taggants, tiny pieces of paper with unique registration markings, trace to the user and leave an audit trail for law enforcement to use in collaboration with the vendor. Tracking down the taser user becomes fairly straightforward. But an even better deterrent is bundled in.

Commercial grade tasers now come with a laser sight, just like target pistols. Not only does this improve the chance that the user will hit the target, it also gives the target pause. If you are a school shooter who suddenly sees a red dot on your torso, what is your first thought? That's right: the SWAT team has arrived. Under the circumstances, the dot alone may slow a school shooter down long enough to allow at least one potential victim to get out of the line of fire. Interestingly, if the manufacturer's claims are valid, a taser is not classified as a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. If so, then this is a way to introduce some kind of response capability into the equation without crossing the existing line against firearms proliferation.

And what to do until this debate advances to a point of action? Let me see, where did I store my old laser pointer?

– Nick Catrantzos