I offer the following as a blueprint for
preventing school violence. The answer is
simpler than you think. Arriving at the
solution requires those of us who want to
make a difference recognize that we can do
something about it, and the rest who want to
see a difference allow it to occur.

In my studies of the legal system we learned
of a concept called the "causal chain." The
causal chain includes all factors which lead
up to certain event (usually a crime or
"tort," a civil transgression).

In a causal chain, there are two types of
factors - cause in fact, and a legal cause.
Any factors which can be removed from a
situation and prevent the occurrence is
known as a cause in fact.

Examples of cause in fact in the above
occurrence would be had the child been
enrolled in another school, had the teacher
called in sick, had the boy not been sent
home, had the grandparent not have had an
accessible handgun. If any one of these
were not so, we could presume the shooting
would not have occurred.

Cause in law in not so simple. This is a
concept which states that although some
course of action may have precipitated an
event, from a societal standpoint it only
makes sense to place the blame so far up the
causal chain.

Since few would believe police officers
should be weaponless, society would not want
to say that the gun manufacturer should
assume responsibility for the shooting.

Other factors are less easy to peg as
"causal." For example, it's difficult to
say whether a Marilyn Manson song actually
"caused" the events that unfolded at
Columbine, though we know the shooters
played one of his songs repeatedly. They
might have done the shooting even without
this anthem.

Likewise it's difficult to blame the teacher
for showing a film which may have influenced
the child. Like the musician, it's possible
these things were a causal factor, but these
unintended consequences are not sufficient
to lay blame for these unexpected events.
In legal terms, these actions were not
"foreseeable."

However, in hindsight there are often a
number of factors which can be identified
which both easily satisfy the definition of
"foreseeable" and society has a greater
interest in assigning responsibility than in
accepting as a worthwhile sacrifice.

From a liability standpoint, we have to ask
ourselves what is the value of certain
actions compared to their foreseeable
consequences. Two obvious issues for
analysis involve assessing our freedom of
expression (in the form of popular
entertainment) against the inevitable
copycat crimes, and the value of Second
Amendment freedoms (right to bear arms)
against the harm that occurs when these arms
get in the wrong hands.

So what's my point? I have three.

In the events that occurred Friday at the
Florida school, and in all of the school
shootings, we can identify a number of
causes which are both causes in fact.
Removing any one of these causes in fact
will break the causal chain and prevent the
shooting.

1) We need to recognize that only one cause
in fact needs to be removed to prevent the
shooting. Other causal chains might lead to
a shooting anyway, but focusing on
possibilities that did not occur instead of
causal factors essentially defeats our
ability to prevent the outcome which
occurred.

2) Similarly, concluding that all of the
causal factors need to be removed and
therefore it is hopeless is both untrue and
akin to giving up and accepting these
shootings.

3) Last, when we attack those who seek to
correct one of the causal factors as either
hopeless for one of the above reasons, or as
wrong because it is not the most obvious
causal factor, we are not merely accepting
that which we can change, we are actually
expending energies to maintain the status
quo. By chiding those who seek to enact
safer, more responsible gun laws, or those
who seek responsible video game and
television programming, or more responsible
parenting, counseling, teaching, or campus
safety, we fight to preserve every link on
the causal chain. Those who feel threatened
by any movement in changing these areas need
to analyze why they are threatened, whether
a change in these areas needs to necessarily
come at a cost of freedoms we value, and if
not - do not impede, and if so, seek to
direct these changes to preserve.

Let me provide an example. In the US, one
of the most powerful lobbies is the NRA.
It's no secret that the NRA is quite
responsive and effective at scuttling most
attempts at restricting gun access, since
these are viewed as infringements on Second
Amendment rights. But it most be recognized
that the closing loopholes in our nation's
"gun freedoms" do not necessarily have to
involve the Second Amendment. It cannot be
argued that the Second Amendment protects
the rights of felons to own or carry
handguns, or six year old children. The
Second Amendment also does not prevent one
who negligently stores a weapon from civil
or legal liability when that weapon is
stolen and/or used in the commission of a
violent crime.

When gun advocates recognize that the
freedom for Americans to bear arms under the
Second Amendment can be preserved while we
reduce the likelihood of occurrences like
this past week, we can together sensibly
address a cause in fact that contributed to
this most recent shooting. It takes little
imagination to come up with safety measures
and theories of liability which can actually
prevent gun tragedies and hold the gun
owners liable for foreseeable harms without
involving Constitutional protections.

By the same measure, our First Amendment
protections do not shield programmers and
producers from liability for mass media
entertainment which leads to foreseeable
harms. Civil liability has been
successfully assigned in the past for books
and movies which inspire people to lie in
roads between high-speed lanes, to set
fires, and a number of other expectable
outcomes. The first time it happens it
might be argued that the harm is
unforeseeable; the second time there has
been ample warning to hold the producer
accountable.

Even ignoring civil liability, there are a
number of controls which the supervising
adult can utilize which can reduce the
likelihood of copycat events. The V-Chip is
an example of voluntary restrictions which
do not impact First Amendment freedoms.
Boycotting of sponsors is another very
effective measure.

Other protective measures can only be
enacted at a cost to our freedoms. Searches
and metal detectors, training teachers to
recognize and report telltale signs,
inspiring parents to more "invasive"
parenting each reduce our freedoms in some
way, but in some locations and situations,
these might be indicated in some measure,
they might be worth the intrusion. Our
freedom to live peacefully must be superior
to a risk that is calculably high in certain
environments.

These are not meant to be an exhaustive
listing of potential safeguards against
school shootings. If you ask 100 parents or
teachers what steps would most effectively
prevent school violence, you'd have 100
different lists. It's up to us to identify
what elements our lists have in common, and
to stop reflexively stepping in the way of
those who seek to take action once they have
identified a priority.

Bob R/CA
5/29/00

This month's letters: