Let us start today’s work with a realization that the student survivors of the Columbine school shooting are this day in their 40s. We have been dealing with this nonsense for just about 23 years now- and I for one am sick of it.
After Buffalo, I wrote a bit about the strategic foundations of the active shooter, classified him as a terrorist, and stated that it was more of a first amendment problem than a second amendment problem. The Buffalo shooter wasn’t credible enough to support this position, as he was subordinate to a doctrine, and survived the attack, so this article met with skepticism that I do understand. link. I stand by the assertion that the strategy discussed in the Buffalo is the method, likely the only method- to end active shooters as a social epidemic.
But, if there is a heaven for terrorists, the Uvalde shooter is looking down from it thoroughly satisfied on the coverage and impact that he obtained through the act. We can’t talk about anything else. We are at each other’s throats. We are throwing around single point, absolutist positions that only increase our anger at one another, and get us further from a solution. This cause and effect is exactly the desired end state for a terrorist actor.
Uvalde was a terrorist attack, insubordinate to larger doctrine, other than the personal notoriety that the shooter hoped to gain. As such, the target selected (elementary aged children) was purposely selected for achieve that end. Would the bombast- and the effect it generated- be as pronounced if he had attacked a group of swat team members or Army paratroopers? Choke down your disgust for one moment and visualize yourself as the terrorist- and in realizing with this perspective focus how well it worked, how he carefully and purposely selected the target to gain the attention he craved- and from there one can focus on what can be done, and what cannot.
Strategically, one must not only eliminate the terrorist actor, but also discredit him. This fellow was lionized and glorified, and is now a hero to other potential actors considering the same thing. Let that sink in. He is not different than any others in how he has been sensationalized- but he was more outrageous than Columbine- 23 years ago- and as such he will be emulated.
It is clear that “run hide fight” does not work. The reason that it does not work is that the authorities of the school- the adults- have exported the responsibility to survival to the governed residents of the space- the children. When does a body of citizens resident to a space, like the temporary residents of a classroom- need authority more than during a crisis? Isn’t that when a group needs the authority the most? Run hide fight does not do this.
I have personally been working on this for a few years, and even when I have approached the runhidefighters they get defensive, and say things like “Not ideal, but the best we’ve got.” If the best you have got has not worked for 23 years, why isn’t anyone willing to think of something else, or try something else- even if it’s wrong? At least a new direction will be something that can be built upon, instead of doubling down on a 23 year long failure.
I have spoken about the strategic and will now speak to the operational. Three elements of the operational defense to confront a threat actor intruding into a space- be it a school shooting, home invasion, counterinsurgency, or any other special security situation the operational measures apply equally. Barrier, Response, and Local.
Barrier is the locked doors, the walls of the building, lights, cameras, or anything else that impede or identify the threat actor during his movement, separating the protected from the threat either physically or by advanced warning. Response is the police, who respond after an incursion is attempted or has begun, to engage and apprehend the suspect. Local resistance is what is done by the residents of that space- in the school shooting sense the faculty and students inside the school, until the responding force arrives. These three aspects must be synergized and cooperative to maximize effect in terms of time. I am calling this concept Durational Resistance.
The formulary that I have arrived at is S = RT-BS, or Survival equals Response time minus Barrier strength. This gives us lines of effort to work towards, with time as the critical factor. For example, If Hannibal Lector is trying to get in my house, and will take ten minutes to do so, and the police are there in five, then I have no troubles, as I have a positive S factor. But, if he is in the house in ten minutes, and the police will not be here for 25 minutes, then in these 15 minutes, I am on my own- it is just he and me- for 15 minutes. What is done in those 15 minutes determine if I live or die. Simple as that.
This is what is called the critical question, how do I live through those 15 minutes? I cannot run for 15 minutes in this space; I cannot hide myself or my family for that time where he will not be able to find us- I must buy that time- resist his intrusion for the duration of fifteen minutes in any way possible so the response element can handle him at the 25 minute mark- and hopefully I don’t have to fight. A safe room, ideally- or at the very least a safer space, that one can fight from, if necessary.
In every building, my house included, the architecture of the building gives me sound options in which to do this. I do not wish to meet him in the middle of the living room, where my advantage is lessoned. I wish to place him at a disadvantage- using the features of the property to hurt his chances, that he must overcome to get at me. Every building has places that are safer than others for this end- and identification of these locations- and authority directing those that are to be protected into these areas becomes the main and essential priority of work.
There are exploitations of this safer space that can be done in every school that become key to defeating a school shooter. Let us do this, instead of runhidefight- and in doing so substitute the known for the chaotic. Thereafter, charge the authority of that space to direct it, instead of expecting the least survivable resident, i.e., the children, to see to their own devices.
The other questions that you will have I will attempt to answer before you ask. Banning a certain type of firearm will not work; and if it did I would be first in line to surrender them. Firstly, it will not succeed in removing all of those weapons from getting them into a law breaker’s hands- and even if it did there are options that a shooter has beyond those ugly guns. Truthfully, more dangerous options- the weapon that everyone is attempting to ban is only an average substitute for weapons that we should have legitimate fear, ones that are still available in countries that have done such restrictions. Security by banning weapons will not work.
Determining who do not have access to those weapons is fine with me, Red Flag laws, etc., but that must be in good faith and not abused as a political element of leverage. Ultimately, the problem there is not the type of weapon, as again the offending weapon is not the largest threat when it comes to the tools available. As there are already background checks during every purchase, focused on what the individual has done in their life, a red flag would be about what an individual would potentially do, and we have to understand how dangerous such a thing is, in placing judgement on one’s future potential to do something in another authority’s hands. It would be very natural for this to have a sliding scale, and as such abused.
Arming the teachers in absolute also will not work. Proliferation of weapons to those absent the experience or proper mindset adds more danger to normalized operations, and as such is unacceptable. If, based upon the school’s architecture the only method to resist is to give a tool to a select individual who has both the experience and mindset to overcome this liability is the only solution, then and only then should it be considered. Otherwise, blanket arming is problematic to say the least. If that tool is a pistol, we have to face that- if a taser, club, or pepper spray will work, which they may or may not depending on the nature of the safer space- then no guns in schools. This decision will have to be based upon the ground, and not the preferences or the politics.
Smart use of safer spaces, improvement of barriers, making response time more efficient and timelier, and tools to help the local residents resist for the duration, this is what will work, and the only thing that will. These operational measures used in a complimentary fashion is where our focus should reside. Not run hide fight.
I have not, and will not talk in the open about the tactical level of resistance, as articulating such individual measures could be used against the good guys, but I will do so privately.
Twenty three years. Let’s do something else, even if it’s hard, or God help me, even if it’s wrong. More shootings are coming. The strategic will not work without operational invigoration, and the operational will not work without the tactical. Let’s fix this thing.