The shooting at Stewartville High School represents yet another tragic example of how vulnerable our educational institutions remain despite decades of similar incidents. While the immediate response from coaches and first responders was commendable, the fact that a student was critically injured in a school parking lot—a place meant to be safe—points to profound systemic failures in our approach to school safety, mental health support, and gun access.
Sheriff Torgerson’s emotional response during the press conference speaks volumes about the psychological toll these incidents take on communities. But emotional responses, while understandable, cannot substitute for effective prevention strategies. The call to avoid speculation and show grace is appropriate in the immediate aftermath, but must not become an excuse to avoid the difficult conversations necessary to prevent future tragedies.
Early Morning Vulnerability Exposes Security Gaps
The timing of this shooting—5 a.m. as students prepared to board a bus for a wrestling tournament—highlights a critical vulnerability in school security protocols. Most school safety measures focus on regular school hours, leaving early morning and after-school activities with minimal protection. The Parkland shooting commission in Florida identified similar gaps in security during transition times and extracurricular activities at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School before the 2018 tragedy there.
Security experts have long advocated for comprehensive safety assessments that account for all hours when students are on campus. Yet budget constraints and the challenge of securing sprawling campuses with multiple entry points often result in patchwork solutions. The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission similarly found that schools frequently lack adequate security during non-standard hours, creating windows of opportunity for those intent on causing harm.
Rather than treating these as isolated incidents, school districts must implement 24-hour security protocols that account for all campus activities. This includes enhanced lighting in parking lots, extended security personnel hours, and surveillance systems that cover all school grounds regardless of the time of day.
The Missing Mental Health Connection
While details about the shooter’s motive remain unclear, this incident follows a disturbing pattern seen in school shootings nationwide. The Secret Service’s analysis of targeted school violence found that most perpetrators exhibited observable behavioral concerns prior to their attacks. Yet our mental health identification and intervention systems continue to fail at critical moments.
The superintendent’s offer of counseling services after the fact, while necessary, represents the reactive approach that dominates our response to these tragedies. The American Psychological Association has repeatedly called for proactive mental health screening and support in schools, yet implementation remains inconsistent and underfunded. The Columbine shooting in 1999 should have been a watershed moment for mental health intervention in schools, yet more than two decades later, the average school counselor-to-student ratio in America remains an abysmal 1:444—far from the recommended 1:250.
Comprehensive mental health screening, adequate staffing of school counselors, and clear threat assessment protocols must become standard practice, not aspirational goals. This requires significant investment but costs far less than the immeasurable toll of lives disrupted or lost to school violence.
The Unaddressed Gun Access Problem
The sheriff’s report noted the presence of a rifle at the scene—a detail that cannot be overlooked. While respecting the ongoing investigation, the ease with which firearms can be accessed by those intending harm remains a central issue in school shooting cases. The Rockefeller Institute’s database of mass shootings shows that in 80% of school shooting cases, the perpetrator obtained their weapons legally or from their home environment.
States with stronger gun safety laws, including secure storage requirements and extreme risk protection orders, have shown lower rates of gun deaths, including in schools. Massachusetts, which has some of the nation’s strongest gun laws including strict storage requirements, consistently reports lower rates of gun violence in schools compared to states with more permissive regulations.
Reasonable measures like universal background checks, secure storage laws, and red flag laws provide critical intervention points without infringing on Second Amendment rights. These policies create time and space for intervention before a person in crisis can access lethal means.
Alternative Viewpoints: The Argument for Hardening Schools
Some will argue that the solution lies in hardening schools with armed guards, single entry points, and more extensive security infrastructure. The Texas School Safety Center, following the Uvalde tragedy, recommended precisely such measures. This approach has merit in creating immediate physical barriers to potential shooters.
However, the evidence for the effectiveness of such measures remains mixed at best. A RAND Corporation study found little conclusive evidence that hardening schools significantly reduces shooting incidents. Moreover, such approaches risk transforming educational environments into prison-like settings that can increase student anxiety and negatively impact learning outcomes.
The hardening approach also fails to address the root causes that lead individuals to target schools in the first place. A more balanced strategy combines reasonable security measures with upstream prevention through mental health support and responsible gun safety policies.
