What Can Be Done About Campus Shootings?

A few days before Wisconsin voters go to the polls, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calling for common-sense changes in gun laws in the wake of Thursday's shootings at Northern Illinois University.

Given the proximity of the NIU campus to Wisconsin, it's not surprising, really, that the subject of gun laws should come up on the campaign trail.

But I have to wonder, what was the violation of the unwritten rules of common sense? If we can identify that, maybe we can do something to improve the situation and make it less likely that something like the NIU campus shootings happens again.

But what could have been done?

The gunman apparently had a valid state-required firearm ID card. That meant that he could purchase guns legally -- as it appears that he did -- in the days before the shootings.

It's possible, under some existing laws in some jurisdictions, to prevent a person from purchasing a firearm if that person has exhibited unstable behavior, making him/her a threat to himself/herself and others.

Did the gunman, Steven Kazmierczak, exhibit such behavior?

Further details may emerge in the days to come, but right now, all I've heard is that he stopped taking whatever medication he was on in the days leading up to the tragedy. Based on the very limited information I've heard, I can only assume he had been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder -- perhaps he'd been diagnosed as bipolar -- and had been taking some sort of prescribed medication to deal with it.

University police say that people close to Kazmierczak say he became "somewhat erratic" after he stopped taking the medication in recent weeks. But we have no other information about this "erratic" behavior. Was he physically threatening other people?

Until we get more details, there's no way to know if the medication was what prevented Kazmierczak from committing acts of violence in the past.

And if it was, how can we pass -- and enforce -- laws requiring people to take their prescription drugs?

I think it's fair to say we can deduce, in this case, that at least one person in the medical community believed that taking a certain medication would be beneficial to a certain patient. But actually taking the medication is still a matter of individual freedom and choice. If we're going to pass laws that require dispatching officers to make sure the patient takes the medication, doesn't that put society in a hornet's nest of privacy issues?

From the details that have emerged, there were no advance warnings to indicate that beneath a seemingly calm exterior there was a simmering cauldron on the verge of exploding.

It's not unusual for friends and family members, in the aftermath of such an horrific event, to express shock that the perpetrator would do such a thing. I have often observed, to my friends and family, that, within a few hours of a mass shooting, TV reporters can be expected to be airing footage of shocked colleagues and relatives, all saying, "He was always such a good boy."

If my memory serves me correctly, that's what Ted Bundy's mother said when he was arrested.

This case is no different, really. But what is different is how many people are saying it about Kazmierczak.

The graduate student seemed to have had no problems with students or faculty.

"I found Steven to be a very committed student, extremely respectful of me as an instructor and adviser," his adviser at the University of Illinois said.

Kazmierczak "was an awarded student. He was someone that was revered by the faculty and staff and students alike," the campus police chief said.

He seemed to have no problems with his landlord. The man says his former tenant "always paid on time, never a noise problem, left the place spotless."

A criminal justice student, Kazmierczak seemed to have had no problems with police. The only previous run-in with the law that has been uncovered was a speeding ticket in an accident on a snowy day in December 2006. There were no injuries, and Kazmierczak paid a $75 fine.

In the aftermath of the shootings, police have said he was "a fairly normal, unstressed person" who had no known motive for what he did and left behind no notes explaining his actions.

From the information we have in this case, what would Obama and Clinton suggest that would make society safer and protect the rights of gun owners at the same time?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quotes Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, as saying that America needs to "get a handle on all the violence that's been taking place and ... do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws, strengthening our background check system, being able to trace guns that are used in violent crimes ... (and) close the gun show loopholes."

Perhaps Obama should have taken the opportunity to speak out against gang violence and spousal abuse as well. Those subjects have virtually the same relevance to the NIU case.

I agree, violence is out of control in this country. But how were gun laws not enforced in the Northern Illinois University shootings case? What is the weakness in the background check system? How can we trace guns better? And how, for that matter, would that have prevented the NIU shootings from occurring?

And how did "gun show loopholes" get inserted into the discussion?

I remember that such loopholes were factors that contributed to the Columbine shootings in 1999. But I've heard no evidence that suggests Kazmierczak ever attended a gun show. And, if he did, there's no evidence that the weapons he used were purchased at a gun show.

Clinton was similarly obsessed with issues that had no connection with the reality of the NIU shootings.

"I do support lifting the prohibitions on local law enforcement being able to track guns to gun dealers who have a record of selling guns without appropriate oversight. ... I do support closing the gun show loophole. I support reinstating the assault-weapons ban," she said.

As I understand it, Kazmierczak brought a shotgun and three handguns with him. No assault weapons.

I agree that assault weapons should be banned. Permanently. But they simply have no bearing on this case.

Both candidates affirmed their support of the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to own guns.

"I believe strongly people have the right to own and bear arms under the Second Amendment," Clinton said. "And I also believe we can reconcile our constitutional rights with common-sense measures that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and people with mental health problems."

Based on the information available, Kazmierczak was not a criminal. He was not a terrorist. The report that he had stopped taking whatever medication he'd been prescribed implies the possibility of "mental health problems" but doesn't confirm that -- yet.

The concerns that both candidates raised are important and need to be addressed. But they don't appear to be relevant to this case.

In other shootings, like the Columbine shootings, there are obvious issues that need to be addressed -- like the gun show loopholes.

And, in the case of the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, the perpetrator had a history of run-ins with the law and mental health issues.

But the NIU case is bewildering because none of that appears to be a problem. So we struggle with the question: What could have been done to prevent this?

Both campuses are gun-free zones. But how can campus police, which are notoriously understaffed and underequipped, adequately enforce that with campus populations of 25,000 (the approximate enrollment of NIU) or 27,000 (the approximate enrollment of Virginia Tech)? Or more?

Is the answer to build brick walls around every campus and install metal detectors at every entrance? That could be pretty expensive -- especially with talk about building walls along our country's northern and southern borders to keep the terrorists out.

With the federal government already spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq and contemplating spending who knows how much on border walls and increased patrols, campuses large and small could not count on much, if any, financial help from outside their home states. And most states are struggling to meet their obligations as it is.

Or should we reverse the gun-free zone policy? Do we want students and professors coming to class armed? Is that conducive to the kind of learning atmosphere college campuses are supposed to provide?

By the way, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed Obama today. Its editorial made no mention of the NIU shootings -- or either candidate's reaction.