Do Existing Laws and Security Measures Adequately Prevent School Shootings?
Following the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there has been a widespread call to address the root causes and implement effective measures to prevent future shootings. However, the response from authorities has been criticized, reigniting debates about the adequacy of current laws, security protocols, and school administration responsibilities.
Roles of School Administrators, Law Enforcement, and the FBI
During the four months leading up to the shooting, the school administrators in Broward County, the local sheriff, and the FBI received multiple credible reports and warning signs from the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, indicating violent behavior, weapons possession, and threats against fellow students and staff. Despite this, no punitive actions were taken, raising critical questions about the effectiveness of current measures and the support for abiding by existing laws.
Sketching the timeline, the Broward County sheriff received over 20 calls regarding Cruz's concerning behavior and warning signs of criminal activity. Despite these numerous instances and the severity of the offenses reported, which included animal cruelty, physical assaults, and threats to others, no legal action was ever taken. Similar reports about Cruz's internet posts warning of his plans to attend the school were also ignored by the FBI, highlighting a crucial oversight in their protocols.
The Failure of Current Measures
The case of Parkland demonstrates that the current system has significant flaws. School administrators, law enforcement, and the FBI all failed to act on the warnings and reports they received. The inability to enforce existing laws and protect students reflects a broader issue of systemic failure to prevent such tragedies.
A Call for Enhanced Legislation: Gun-Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs)
David French, a former Iraq War veteran and a conservative columnist, argues for the implementation of gun-violence restraining orders (GVROs) to address these shortcomings. These orders would enable local law enforcement to intervene before a potential shooter commits a crime, seizing firearms from individuals who exhibit concerning behaviors such as threatening violence, disturbances, or domestic abuse.
GVROs could provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to act on warning signs that might indicate someone is a potential threat. While it's impossible to prevent all mass shootings and family murders, GVROs could help reduce the chances of such incidents by providing a legal framework to remove firearms from individuals who are at risk.
Critique and Rebuttals
Critics may argue that GVROs could be abused, similar to how other legal measures like restraining orders have been misused. However, proponents of GVROs suggest that they offer a balance between personal freedoms and public safety. Implementing such measures would require robust enforcement and due process to ensure that individuals' rights are protected while maintaining community safety.
David French’s proposal, which is also endorsed by National Review, is a thoughtful and practical approach to addressing the issue of gun violence. By providing law enforcement with the tools to act on warning signs, GVROs could help stop potential shooters before they have the opportunity to carry out their planned actions.
Conclusion
The tragic events at Parkland underscore the urgent need for comprehensive measures to prevent gun violence. While no single solution can guarantee complete prevention, the implementation of gun-violence restraining orders (GVROs) presents a viable and necessary step toward reducing the risk of future tragedies.
It is time for policymakers, law enforcement, and the public to consider the needs of our communities and take proactive steps to address these critical issues. GVROs offer a promising avenue for enhancing public safety and protecting vulnerable individuals from the threat of gun violence.