Only seven months ago, 19 children and two adults were brutally murdered by a school shooter at Robb Elementary School. This was the second-deadliest shooting since the 1970s. And, it worked sufficiently to excite America from its deep slumber of neglect around school shootings, even prompting conservative Texas governor Greg Abbott to publicly claim on the Texas House of Representatives’ investigative report on Robb Elementary, “We will begin working with the legislature to develop and implement the necessary changes to improve public safety, school safety and mental health assessment and treatment.” 

Despite all this talk, trifling progress was made in legislation; schools were not made safer, and less severe school shootings and threats continued. In fact, this year has the highest number of school shootings, with a depressing record high of 51 compared to 35 last year.   

On top of that, many politicians used this violence to further their policy, with gun advocates such as former President Donald Trump claiming murders, mass shootings and crimes wouldn’t happen to the extreme degree we have been seeing if there were enough guns for the average person, known as the “good guys.” Many politicians have extended this line of reasoning to schools, pushing for armed educators in hopes of making schools safer instead of apprehending the ones with firearms.

“It’s unfortunate we live in a society where we have to have these conversations about arming people to protect students in school,” English teacher Daniel Barnes said. “Arming teachers or trusted adults as such would do more harm than good; it would add a very ominous — and frankly, unsafe — atmosphere to the building, to see the people who are supposed to be in charge walking around with firearms.”

Barnes is not the only one who is skeptical about the supposed benefits of adding guns. Harvard professor of Health Policy David Hemenway claims “guns make hostile interactions more deadly” and overall worsen a situation. Americans already seem to understand the dangers of adding more guns, with 53% saying gun laws should be stricter than they currently are. If most Americans realize we can’t fight fire with fire, why don’t policies reflect what Americans truly want?

A darker, more nefarious reason underlies policy: rifle associations fund our politicians, effectively controlling and regulating policies to promote guns. Missouri’s senators, Josh Hawley and Roy Blunt, both conservative, have allegedly received nearly $6 million in contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA). This is shaping our policy, at least more so than public opinion.

In Missouri alone, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, passed in July 2022, just one month after the Robb Elementary shooting, protects gun-owning rights despite Missouri having the most lenient laws among the 50 states. Missouri has no law requiring background checks, no law licensing requirements for owning a rifle, shotgun or handgun. This allows people to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public without a permit or safety training. 

These policies are endangering school students and faculty to promote larger, richer organizations that, in turn, fund politicians. Students’ interests are being ignored, and the worst part is, as non-voting citizens, we have little power over regulating laws, so they reflect our interests. 

Often holding someone accountable has made our society safer, but in the case of school shootings, this has proven to be a complex task. With other crimes, accountability entails placing restrictions and punishments on perpetrators; with school shootings, the opposite has taken place. 

In the past decade, politicians have urged reinforcing school security by “hardening” schools. Proposed methods include adding bulletproof doors and windows, metal detectors, door-locking systems and — in some cases — armed guards. At Parkway West, this entails prohibiting students from propping open doors or letting outsiders in during the school day, as well as having an onsite police officer. 

“Obviously the issue of school shootings needs to be addressed on a bigger scope and with more urgency. But, for now, protecting [ourselves] is as simple as making sure doors are locked and students don’t leave the building,” Doherty said.

While basic safety measures seem reasonable, when it comes to more extreme measures like installing metal detectors or issuing bullet-proof backpacks, they seem restrictive and overbearing. A simple question arises: Why are students’ freedoms sacrificed when we can place restrictions on guns and ammunition?

Not to mention, these safety measures simply won’t suffice in the long run. CVPA had multiple safeguards, including metal detectors, at least one onsite security officer guarding doors and security cameras. Yet, on the fateful day of the shooting, the 19-year-old former CVPA student shooter was able to both enter the building and carry an AR-15-style rifle with 600 rounds of ammunition.

“I [was a student teacher] in the same building as CVPA, and there are many systems in place that protect students from intruders. Our bags were searched, and overall, the environment was very safeguarded; there are virtually no discipline issues. It’d be the last place I would ever think anything like this would happen,” Doherty said. 

Despite all these safety measures in place, they failed: two people are dead, and seven were in the hospital injured. CVPA was not the only school whose safety measures failed to protect them: Door-locking systems failed Robb Elementary in Texas and monitored entrances failed Parkland High School in Florida. 

“There is already a feeling of paranoia living in America as a student, especially now in St. Louis. We’ve had more than three incidents [in our area], and we are anxious about what is to come. School should feel like home, but now that is being taken away from us,” Kerber said. 

If arming teachers in the building, trusting policies or introducing “hardened” security measures prove to be unreliable, what else can prevent school shootings? 

It is time schools give softening techniques a serious chance. Softening techniques include focusing on the emotional and social needs of students, thereby targeting the root of the problem: the mental health of would-be shooters.     

“We should start asking why any individual would try to commit mass murder in a school setting, then understand that our world is so broken that individuals feel there is no hope. They feel like this is their only alternative is that they must do something so extreme to fill whatever void they’re looking to fill,” Doherty said. 

A majority of students who plotted school attacks suffered from depression and anxiety from facing adverse childhood experiences, including substance abuse in the home, violence or parental incarceration. Considering the median age of school shooters is 16 years old, it is evident that these kids often lack an understanding of how to deal with their emotions in unpropitious life situations. Reaching their limit, left with no other option in their view, they turn that hate on others and often themselves, with around 34% of school shootings ending with suicide.