The Active Shooter Crisis in America

The Active Shooter Crisis in America: Proactive Responses The term “active shooter” has been in widespread use since the 1999 Columbine school massacre (Fox and Levin 8). Criminal justice agencies and the Department of Homeland Security differentiate active shooters from both mass shooters and domestic terrorists, although these all may share methods and tactics in common.

An active shooter is defined as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” but with no apparent pattern or logic in their means of targeting victims (United States Department of Homeland Security 2). Active shooters are “active” because they will continue to kill as long as they have access to victims, which makes quick responses critical to saving lives and minimizing casualties.

Although active shooter incidents do remain relatively rare, the prevalence of active shooters in America has risen considerably, with more attacks having occurred since 2004 than in the prior three decades (Capellan 406). The proliferation of active shooters in America has led to the conceptualization of the problem as a crisis or epidemic. While the media can often fuel public fears, exacerbating tensions unnecessarily, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the reality that active shooters present a major threat to national security and to respond accordingly.

Myths abound regarding active shooters, so one of the most important elements of a proactive response strategy is to reduce misinformation. First, not all active shooters are ideologically driven, but many are. Second, the majority of active shooters over the past several years have shared in common several demographic characteristics including being white males in their 30s, either single or divorced, unemployed, with a low level of education and a history of mental illness (Capellan 407). Yet beyond this, there are potent differentiations between ideologically-driven and non-ideological active shooters.

Those motivated by ideology tend to engage in far more planning, and could theoretically be identified prior to carrying out an attack (Capellan 397). Furthermore, it may be helpful for law enforcement to differentiate between different personality profiles and features to develop improved responses to active shooters. As Capellan points out, some active shooters do a lot more pre-planning than others, and those are the same type that tends to be ideologically motivated (407).

Similarly, mass murderers and lone wolves also tend to share characteristics in common even though they may be perceived differently and portrayed differently in the media (Capellan 398). Whether or not a suspect has been ideologically motivated is less important overall than teaching civilians how to respond. Empowered with knowledge, law enforcement has the ability to create evidence-based action plans to guide public policy and practice.

Issues like revenge, power, loyalty, terror, and even profit motives have been identified among mass murderers in general but not necessarily active shooters (Fox and DeLateur 127). It is therefore important to focus more on the specific crisis and response plan than on general risk management. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security has developed the “run, hide, fight” model of response, whereby educators and other potential first responders are instructed to follow a certain set of procedures to maximize safety and reduce the chance of conflict escalation (4).

It is also important to divert resources selectively to active shooter training. As Fox and Levin point out, preparation and training for responding to active shooters should not eclipse the resources needed for addressing more pervasive, immediate, and common problems in public schools (10). The Department of Homeland Security has offered all American public schools a campus safety training video that has been shown to improve overall self-efficacy in the face of a crisis, which can provide global crisis management and intervention skills (Ford and Frei 438).

When training videos are carefully designed to improve situational awareness and skills competencies, they can be of tremendous benefit to all community stakeholders. Training programs need to be based on evidence, including bodies of theoretical knowledge grounded in protection motivation theory (Ford and Frei 438). Law enforcement at the local level can work together with federal partners to anticipate crises and respond to them immediately.

Analyses of active shooter characteristics yield a plethora of evidence showing how to prevent crises or at least provide the tools for a more proactive intervention program. While Fox and DeLateur potentially undermine the significance of the active shooter crisis by claiming that, contrary to most other evidence, that the frequency of these events are not on the rise, it is far more productive to create a society that is prepared with the knowledge of how to respond to any situation involving an active shooter, terrorist, or any other criminal.

Surveillance of ideologically driven individuals may certainly help with prevention methods, but it may be nearly impossible to identify the lone wolf types given their lack of interest in or affiliation with suspicious groups (Capellan 398). Even as gun control policy is a sensible debate to have, public policy on gun control is only one of many possible and necessary approaches to the.