2008 Woodie Awards
When will calls for gun control be heard?
Am I the the only one, what's the deal?
Jim Elliott
Issue date: 2/22/08 Section: Opinion
Originally published: 2/21/08 at 8:11 PM EST
Last update: 2/21/08 at 8:10 PM EST
On Thursday, Feb. 14, Steven Kazmierczak stepped into a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University armed with four guns and opened fire on a geology class for no apparent reason. By the time the carnage was over, Kazmierczak had killed five students and wounded 15 others before taking his own life.
As the details leading up to Kazmierczak's attack slowly emerge, one fact is already clear: No one saw this coming. The Investigation into Kazmierczak's background has yet to reveal any clear behavioral warning signs that could have indicated what was to come. This disturbing fact, along with the damage Kazmierczak was able to inflict, has left the confidence in increased security at college campuses across the nation in shambles.
Kazmierczak's attack has demonstrated that the increased security measures instituted at many college campuses are reactionary and only serve as damage control by warning students after an emergency is already taking place.
"We did everything we could when we found out." NIU President John G. Peters said in a solemn admission to this fact.
After the tragedy at Virginia Tech unfolded last spring, there was a national push to increase campus security. Cardinal Points devoted a couple of stories to the implementation of security increases on the Plattsburgh State campus, which included new locks in the dorms and a new campus alert system. Northern Illinois University also heeded this call for increased security, but ultimately that security failed to protect students from Steven Kazmierczak.
After a fatal school shooting, many people, out of anger or a sense of helplessness, lay the responsibility for the attack on the college's shoulders by asking what the institution should have done to prevent the attack or what they should do to deal with the possibility of future attacks.
While these questions are completely legitimate, people need to understand that colleges are going to continue to be vulnerable no matter what. This is primarily because it's futile to hope to predict human behavior. Not every potential mass murderer is a characteristically quiet, brooding and disturbed individual. Some people just snap and often there is no way to predict when. Colleges can't be expected to be held accountable for the mental health of every student. To expect that is simply not realistic. And if there's no way for a college to monitor the behavior of all its students, then a complete assurance of safety isn't possible either. Complete safety would require the security equivalent of a prison or a military compound and that would just blanket schools across the nation in an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.
As the details leading up to Kazmierczak's attack slowly emerge, one fact is already clear: No one saw this coming. The Investigation into Kazmierczak's background has yet to reveal any clear behavioral warning signs that could have indicated what was to come. This disturbing fact, along with the damage Kazmierczak was able to inflict, has left the confidence in increased security at college campuses across the nation in shambles.
Kazmierczak's attack has demonstrated that the increased security measures instituted at many college campuses are reactionary and only serve as damage control by warning students after an emergency is already taking place.
"We did everything we could when we found out." NIU President John G. Peters said in a solemn admission to this fact.
After the tragedy at Virginia Tech unfolded last spring, there was a national push to increase campus security. Cardinal Points devoted a couple of stories to the implementation of security increases on the Plattsburgh State campus, which included new locks in the dorms and a new campus alert system. Northern Illinois University also heeded this call for increased security, but ultimately that security failed to protect students from Steven Kazmierczak.
After a fatal school shooting, many people, out of anger or a sense of helplessness, lay the responsibility for the attack on the college's shoulders by asking what the institution should have done to prevent the attack or what they should do to deal with the possibility of future attacks.
While these questions are completely legitimate, people need to understand that colleges are going to continue to be vulnerable no matter what. This is primarily because it's futile to hope to predict human behavior. Not every potential mass murderer is a characteristically quiet, brooding and disturbed individual. Some people just snap and often there is no way to predict when. Colleges can't be expected to be held accountable for the mental health of every student. To expect that is simply not realistic. And if there's no way for a college to monitor the behavior of all its students, then a complete assurance of safety isn't possible either. Complete safety would require the security equivalent of a prison or a military compound and that would just blanket schools across the nation in an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Lindsay
posted 2/22/08 @ 12:32 PM EST
I will agree that there isn't much more colleges can do to prevent attacks like that from happening. However, gun control is not the issue. If we start putting more and more limits on guns, the only people who will have guns are the bad guys. (Continued…)
Post a Comment