Attorney General Tom Horne and Rep David Stevens (R-Sierra Vista) are advocating passage of HR 2656, which would allow school districts to designate employees who would have access to a gun that is kept in a secure firearm locker at the school.  In the event of a shooter coming onto campus, such a designated employee could get the campus gun and respond.  Significantly, the bill requires that these employees would only be required to complete 3 days of weapons training focusing on an active shooter scenario, together with “mental conditioning on the use of deadly force”, marksmanship and use of prudent judgement in responding to potential threats.

In a February 20 editorial titled “Arming teachers, principals won’t make schools safer”, the Arizona Daily Star describes the bill as “an attempt at school safety on the cheap”.  The editorial recalls that school resource officers, who worked from schools, were common in Tucson districts until budget cuts eliminated these positions.  The author goes on to state that arming teachers or other employees – especially when only 3 days of training are required to assume this role – is not a replacement for properly trained officers on campus.

While I tend to support allowing school districts to authorize school personnel who are highly trained in weaponry to respond to a shooter’s presence, I have serious qualms concerning the can of worms this would open up.  For one thing, do we really want our teachers and principals to put their lives on the line in this manner?  And suppose that the “designated gun” is kept in a safe in the principal’s office on the third floor, while the designated “responding employee” is on the first floor on the opposite side of the building.  In this scenario numerous students and teachers would most likely be slain before the employee could effectively confront the shooter.  And I totally agree with the Star’s questioning the wisdom of entrusting volunteer school employees with this awesome responsibility – especially when they have received less that one week’s training in this vitally important area.  And how would a teacher feel if in he or she inadvertently misfired and killed a child while attempting to target the shooter?  My advice to the bill’s sponsors – back to the drawing board on this one.  As the Star’s editorial wisely concludes, “Our efforts should be on preventing attacks from happening in the first place.”

Significantly, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), has proposed three bills dealing with gun safety, two of which are concerned with preventing shootings.  All three bills were approved by a House panel this Wednesday and have been forwarded to the full House for a vote.

In advocating passage of HB 2555, which would require teachers and health professionals to report potentially dangerous people to the police, Kavanagh correctly cites that teachers and officials at Pima College were fully aware of Jared Lee Loughner’s bizarre behavior before he killed six innocent people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Giffords, two years ago.  Despite the fact that college officials ruled that Loughner’s aberant behavior constituted grounds for suspension, they failed to notify the police or order a mental health evaluation.

The legislative panel also approved HB 2618, also sponsored by Kavanagh, which would require additional training for police cadets to be able to assess persons for signs of serious mental illness so that a psychiatric team could be called in to conduct a thorough mental health status evaluation.

Significantly, existing law provides a precedent for the required reporting of potentially dangerous persons by teachers and health professionals.  Currently, health professionals,  social workers and mental health professionals are required to report to authorities any communication with their clients that provides grounds for suspicion that the client may be guilty of either child or spousal abuse.  And in California, and possibly other states, under the duty to inform doctrine  psychotherapists are required to inform the possible intended victim of any communication with a client that suggests that the client may intend to harm that individual.

I  support both bills proposed by Rep. Kavanagh as responsible measures to protect the public safety.  In support of these measures, Kavanagh has assured lawmakers that the Department of Health Services would distribute information instructing teachers how to exercise due discretion in identifying true problems that warrant reporting.  I would also recommend that the measures be expanded to require in-service training for teachers, health professionals and police officers on appropriate and responsible reporting as a safeguard against abuse.

The panel also gave the go-ahead to a third Kavanagh measure that would make it easier for persons to bring their guns into public buildings.  Under HB 2554,  Kavanaugh proposes that a government agency seeking to keep armed citizens out of designated buildings would need to provide lockers within 200 feet of the building entrance for individuals to store their guns.  Critics of this proposal consider it an overreaction, and express concern over requiring taxpayers to foot the bill for mandated gun lockers as a prerequisite for declaring a public building a gun-free zone.

In response to these criticisms, Kavanagh states that agencies or communities that don’t want to install gun lockers can simply allow people to carry their guns into the building.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Kavanagh on this particular measure.  In these trying times in which all governmental agencies are subjected to serious financial pressures, an agency that wants to designate any of its buildings as a gun-free zone should be free to do so without having to install lockers for the convenience of those carrying weapons.  A prominent sign banning weapons should be sufficient – and persons carrying guns should either leave their weapons at home or store them elsewhere before entering a building designated as a gun-free zone.

Recommended reading:

Arizona Daily Star Editorial, February 20, 2013, “Arming teachers, principals won’t make schools safer”

Arizona Daily Star front page article, February 21, 2013, “Teachers, clinics are asked to spot next Loughner”

Earlier this week the Daily Star ran an article highlighting findings of a large study of suicidal behaviors in U.S. adolescents: a full report on the study can be found in the most recent issue of JAMA Psychiatry, published this past week.  The study, conducted by a Harvard University research team headed by Dr. Matthew Nock, surveyed 6,483 teenage boys and girls ages 13 to 18.  Findings of this study are truly alarming.

The investigators report that 1 in 8 teens have persistent suicidal thoughts, 4 percent make plans to commit suicide, and 4 percent actually attempt to kill themselves!   Suicide is the third-highest cause of death among U.S. teenagers, after accidents and homicides, accounting for 11 percent of deaths among U.S. youths ages 12 through 19.

Striking differences were evident when the study subjects were broken down by gender.  Of the girls, 15 percent reported episodes of persistent suicidal thoughts, 5 percent made suicide plans and 6 percent made at least one attempt to kill themselves.  While only 9 percent of the boys reported persistent suicidal thoughts, and only 3 percent made plans to commit suicide, a full 2 percent of the subjects actually carried out their plans!  The authors observe that boys’ attempts are more fatal than girls’ because they tend to use more lethal methods, particularly firearms.

The authors clearly contend that teenagers are not being served effectively by the mental health system, underscoring a dire need for effective prevention strategies.  In their words, “Mental health professionals are simply not meeting with adolescents in response to the suicidal thoughts or behaviors”.

Why are mental health services failing to needs the needs of suicidal teens?  Reasons include:

• Schools and other public agencies generally do not place a high priority on meeting these needs.  This is especially true in today’s climate in which both state and local governments are typically strapped for funds.
• Failure to refer troubled teens for help – parents of these adolescents are often in denial, and both teachers and peers generally lack the base of knowledge needed to identify students with potentially serious problems and get them to treatment.
• Teens who are initially evaluated and referred to public clinics may encounter inordinate waits to be seen, despite the fact that many of these kids are desperately in need of immediate help.
• Private hospitals maintaining adolescent psychiatric units are usually for-profit entities.  As such, they focus primarily if not exclusively on treating privately insured patients.  Many units either don’t accept Medicaid patients or severely curtail the number of these patients accepted for treatment.

Toward a solution

Providing adequate mental health services for students in our schools is imperative, both in terms of providing an appropriate crisis response to students at risk of harming themselves, as well as in reducing the risk of violence perpetuated by severely disturbed young men in their 20s.  Regarding the latter, a significant number of future incidents of mass violence might be averted through providing effective intervention to troubled boys during their formative years.

Unfortunately, the current state of affairs will not change until our society makes it a priority to provide effective and readily accessible mental health services for our nation’s youth.  In addition, both parents and teachers need to be trained to identify signs of potentially serious mental disturbance among their children and students, and to take steps to ensure that they get the help they need.

As I discuss in my book “The Tucson Tragedy”, an extremely cost-effective step in this direction would entail initiatives on the part of local, state and federal government agencies to incentivize school districts to integrate age-appropriate mental hygiene education into public school curricula at the elementary, junior high and high school levels.  Had such programs been in place throughout the school districts serving  Oro Valley, Arizona and Newtown, Connecticut, it is possible that the massacres perpetrated by Jared Lee Loughner and more recently by Adam Lanza might have been averted.