Revision/PPT

School Shootings Comment by Kevin Cross: APA format. Times New Roman 12 pt Comment by Kevin Cross: You should probably get this title more focused to reflect the specific aspect of school shootings that you’re examining. For example, “An Assessment of the Efficacy of Arming School Teachers as a Deterrent against Mass Shootings” … or … “Teacher Perspectives on Carrying Firearms.” At the moment, your topic feels exceptionally broad … when in reality, you can look at a fairly specific set of data here and develop a robust paper. The title should reflect the narrow perspective on the larger topic.

Lamar Howard

Johns Hopkins University

Capstone 1

ED.705.732.61

Kevin E. Cross

April 22, 2018

Need for tThe Study

With the significant expansion of gun rights, especially the accessibility to guns, unfortunately, mass shootings have become somewhat of a hallmark in today's educational system. It would seem that every couple of months, there is another awful incident in which young children, especially within the high school environment, are being shot and killed. This is of course connected to the very essence of what it means to look at gun rights, and accessibility of how individuals are able to actually use guns. Unfortunately, it has also opened up another important and clear fundamental question that is related to the psychology of school shooters as well as understanding whether or not administrators including teachers would be an effective deterrent if they were armed. Of course, this may seem somewhat of an outrageous idea to arm teachers; however, this has become somewhat of the reality in today's unique environment. While gun rights continue to be a heated topic, the expansion of guns, specially to train teachers to prevent incidents such as the one that happened in Florida in early 2018, is a reflection of the entire debate. The need for this particular study is to recognize and consider the non-political and oftentimes scientific basis for paying attention to the psychology of shooters. Individuals who go into high schools or public areas and decide to take the lives of tens if not hundreds of people raise a question about the very veracity of their psychological state. One of the most important influences in response to this incident is how to prevent it. The question at hand is related to whether or not arming teachers would be a preventable step moving forward to address whether the psychology of shooters would actually be influenced by having a deterrent of teachers who are armed. This is of course a critical part of the basic functionality to address the importance as well as what it means to actually have a level of influence in relationship to prevent mass shootings. Of course, mass shootings are related to a multitude of different factors including the capabilities as well as the functionalities of the psychological state of the individual who is actually caring out these heinous crimes. The need for the study is also related to how to influence public policy. Does the expansion of having armed administrators including teachers within the school environment have a level of impact on deterring individuals who are committing these types of crimes? Unfortunately, this has been a part of the current reality that is a function of today's gun environment. Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of value to recognizing whether the conclusion of this study will validate the importance of deterring a possible school shooter. The basic value proposition of the study is based around helping individuals who are in a position to create public policies and legislation to understand whether arming teachers would be a valid approach to deter possible school shootings from happening again in the future. Therefore, this is part of the agreeable portion as well as recognizing whether it will be of any value to having this type of functionality moving into the future. Secondly, it will allow individuals within the very nature of the political spectrum to recognize whether there are specific bipartisan areas in which everyone can come together to support the ideas that are openly proposed. This is a tremendously important point because it is part of the research question as well as the review of whether certain relevant literature is going to validate the conclusion of whether there is a viable solution to stop school shootings. Comment by Kevin Cross: The opening concept here is good, but would be strengthened by listing several of the events and providing sources/citations. For example, “According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, a school shooting occurs every #months in the United States (WSJ citation). Since 2000, # children have been killed and # wounded in mass school shootings alone in cities such as [list cities] (citation). In April 2018, # students and their supporters descended on Washington, DC as a result of the [data shooting] in [city] to encourage lawmakers to … (citation).” In this way, you show people how these events are building up using evidence that has been reliably sourced. You’re saying the same sorts of things, but using an evidence-based approach to get there. Comment by Kevin Cross: Supporters would say it is logical and rationale. Critics would say it’s preposterous. Your research is to analyze one aspect of the issue and your findings may support one side, both sides, or neither. Keep the language objective by saying … “Supporters and opponents are divided on the efficacy of arming teachers. Supporters claim “quote here” (citation), while opponents claim “quote here” (citation).” Once again, evidence rules supreme in these sorts of papers. Everything else is assertion … or opinion, which we want to avoid. Comment by Kevin Cross: And the question you choose to ask will determine what data you need to collect in order to answer this question. Comment by Kevin Cross: If you approached the topic from the perspective of psychological profiles of these (mostly) men, what data would you need to collect? Since most of them are killed, you can’t interview them. How would you assess their psychological state … perhaps through using profiling techniques based on a compilation of characteristics built up by law enforcement agencies who study such issues (?). Comment by Kevin Cross: The challenge in measuring deterrence is that you don’t know how often the deterrent is working … you can really only speak to the times it doesn’t work (i.e., when a shooter attacks a school where one or more teachers are armed). Most schools will never experience a mass shooting … so having armed teachers in a school that doesn’t get attacked (or may never have been attacked with or without armed teachers) doesn’t tell us much. For those schools that are attacked and an armed teacher is present, we might be able to measure their level of deterrence in some fashion, but these cases to date have been rare.

Research Question The main research question related to understanding the psychology of school shooters is to determine whether arming teachers will be an effective deterrent. At the end of the day, this is an important fundamental approach to understanding and implementing a level of psychological approach to recognizing the basic nature of school shooters. Unfortunately, arming teachers may not seem to be the most logical approach from a legislative perspective. However, the holiness of the Second Amendment in terms of being able to bear arms has a tremendous connection with what this nation is supposed to stand for. Therefore, removing the second amendment or trying to control it in a way has significant fearful repercussions, especially for individuals who believe in the more conservative values of the United States. Regardless of where a person may find themselves, especially with respect to the changes of this idea, the research question will be able to balance out whether the idea of armed teachers will be able to fundamentally address the issue of school shootings. Of course, many factors have to be considered with respect to the research question. However, the basic idea is related to whether this particular strategy is an effective solution to discourage school shooters. Secondly, it takes into consideration the psychological factors as well as the appeals that are balanced on how school shooters operate. Whether or not it is an effective deterrent is related to implementing arming teachers in the classroom. However, this cannot be implemented unless there was a specific level of focus and research on the psychology of school shooters that is ultimately connected to what pushes a young man or woman to plan and orchestrate a mass school shooting. Overall, the research question will be focusing on this particular factor while moving away from any political discussion, as well as the one that doesn't apply to the psychological nature of the issue at hand. Secondly, there will be a focus on the solution of arming teachers and the psychological approaches that may be connected with how school shooters operate. Comment by Kevin Cross: Let’s try to get the question expressed in 1-3 sentences to force us to focus on a narrow topic. The question should be highly focused and be targeted as at “aspect” of arming teachers. For example, you might ask a question about the willingness of teachers to carry arms … or ask about their perceptions on whether it makes them feel safer knowing some teachers would be armed. The goal here is to make this manageable. Comment by Kevin Cross: You have an interesting approach here. If I am reading this right, then it sounds like you are asking this specific question: “Based on a psychological profile of the typical school shooter, would an armed teacher serve as an effective deterrent?” Does this accurately reflect your research question?

Relevant Literature Creating an important component as well as addressing the needs of different levels of impacted research is based on how qualitative research can ultimately allow individuals to recognize what motivates school shooters. Of course, this is a very heated topic and oftentimes requires a level of awareness and functionality in reference to how school shooters actually operate. However, school shootings as well as the punishment that is related to them oftentimes reflect on the psychology of the student or individual who is the shooter. Oftentimes, the psychology of the student is connected to a multitude of different variables including the behavior that is expressed within their environment. Therefore, psychology continues to play a tremendous factor in terms of how students who are impacted by their peers operate. Within a qualitative study that was introduced in 2002, author David Arcus clearly articulated that the psychology as well as the violence that is attached to the individual to operate is related to the impact of the school environment. In other words, how a student is actually able to relate to the environment and often be connected to what can be a motivating factor for their decision to actually take a gun into the school environment and shoot (Leary et al., 2003). The author speaks about a critical opportunity in terms of determining a school shooter. School shooters only operate in an environment that they deem to be a soft target. In other words, if there were factors within the environment that prevented them from making the decision to actually go and shoot other students, it may prevent them from taking that route (Arcus., 2002). Fundamentally speaking, violence within the school environment is related to environmental factors that are part of how students operate. In other words, opportunities which students ultimately are faced with can be a clear factor in terms of understanding how aggressive behavior is created. Oftentimes, the idea of creating a profile for who is going to become a school shooter is based around a multitude of different factors. However, as author Duplechain et al. narrated within the ideas and presentation of the information of school violence, they were able to identify that school violence created extreme violence as seen with school shooters. Although this may seem somewhat of a simplistic assessment to be created, there are of course a tremendous number of critical factors that must be considered. First, violence within the school environment is connected to school shootings and violence at home is an output of how individuals ultimately take the decision to take the lives of others. Therefore, determining the school environment is a critical factor to remove the opportunity as well as the impact of school shootings (Duplechain et al., 2014). The psychological reactions after witnessing a killing are ultimately dramatic for anyone. However, it has to be connected to the psychology of the entire situation from the perspective of the shooter. Within the narrative written in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology, authors Elklit and Kurdahl were able to conclude that the basic assessment of how students would act was antithetical to the actual students that would carry out a school shooting. Therefore, it's important to recognize that having to determine or to be able to assess whether or not a student has certain psychological dysfunctions is a critical part of the basic assessment that should be implemented. When it comes to recognizing the psychological impact of school shootings, it is connected to the psychological state of the shooter. Having a deterrence to prevent the shootings is part of the overall aspect of what it means to actually create a level of function and assessment. Although the idea of arming teachers seems somewhat antithetical to basic liberal values of the Western European society, this is not so much the case in the United States (Elklit et al., 2013). Therefore, having the psychological understanding of individuals who may compromise the basic assessment of school safety would help in turning the situation around by the arming of administrators and teachers. The basic assessment is related to having a national response to school shootings. By understanding the psychological state of the shooters, arming teachers would not only prove to be an affective component but also one that clearly show students who may think about hurting others that there are repercussions and that they are prepared to protect students (Fritz, 2015). Oftentimes, the offender’s characteristic, especially within a school shooting paradigm, is connected to how school shooters are able to recognize certain variables and attach those variables to have a connection to the very essence of what is happening that promotes the psychological disparity (Shapiro., 2015). Arming teachers as narrated within the article is a clear opportunity to be able to address the characteristics of certain psychological factors, including those that often times are seen across a trend (Gerard et al., 2016). Usually, individuals that decide to carry out a heinous act in which they kill others are related tsuffer fromo a tremendous amount of personal and oftentimes social and psychological dysfunction. Therefore, having armed teachers can ultimately neutralize those types of dysfunction by having a broad understanding that any level of a threat that is made to students or teachers will ultimately be neutralized. This also plays into the basic neutrality in conclusion paradigm that is part of what it means to be able to recognize the values that ultimately push individuals to have a function of carrying out these massive attacks (Gereluk et al., 2015). Usually, what happens is an effect that is entrenched in the psychology of individuals who may feel that it will be an acceptable behavior to take outcommit these attacks and kill others as a highlighted reasoning to be able to understand that the ultimate laws that have to be taken into consideration cannot be applied. Creating stricter gun laws do not address the entire problem because they do not actually take into consideration the psychological impact of how students actually interact with others (Leuschner et al., 2011). Therefore, providing training and arms to the teachers is part of the only way to be able to address the growing and almost seemingly acceptable behavior that students are beginning to adopt. The fact of the matter is, the exposure as well as the trauma that many students may be impacted by is a reflection of how this is a critical psychological factor that has to be taken into consideration. At the end of the day, the way that students operate and the impact that it has on their daily life is part of the psychological approach that is entitled to what teachers and administrators focus on (Kalish et al., 2010). When it comes to understanding the overall impact as well as the basis of how students operate, masculinity and of course thea aggravated sense of entitlement in rampage shootings within the United States is part of that narrative. Of course, the idea of addressing this as a social and mental health care problem has never been an acceptable factor especially when taking into consideration the type of solutions that have to be addressed (Haravuori et al., 2011). The fact of the matter is, what is happening in the United States is a deep reflection of the ultimate pathways that have to be taken and changed. Fundamentally, the United States has a serious issue and oftentimes students are at the heart of this issue. Therefore, being able to understand that the trauma that students oftentimes face affects their psychology can be the foundation for mass shootings (Kalish et al., 2010). Having legislation and public health policies will not only impact the way the media is created but also the ability to recognize the impact of the entitlement theory. This is of course part of the entire position and scope that is related to what it means to actually create healthy psychological states. Usually, individual students who take the action and often create an acceptable behavior in which they shoot others are reflective of the type of dramatic experiences they had in their life (Lindberg et al., 2012). Oftentimes, what allows students to feel that this type of behavior is acceptable is that there isn't any level of deterrence within the school environment. Therefore, having teachers and individuals to protect students is a critical basis moving forward (O’Dea., 2015). Functionally speaking, the psychological factor is one of the most important and critical appreciations of the entire issue. Usually, masculinity, as well as the psychological impact of how young men operate, is part of how the students often create a paradigm in which they have to kill others (Kasdorh., 2007). The Journal of Ttraumatic Sstress clearly points out that the psychology of students, especially the individuals who turn out to be killers and shooters at mass shootings, is part of a masculinity dysfunction. In other words, there is a hyper- connection to trying to have some level of justice across their entire life. This is of course a more developed and micro perspective in reference to the macro environmental factors. However, arming teachers will be a critical component of being able to allow individuals to recognize that there is a deterrence to prevent school shootings from happening (Keehn et al., 2015). According to Keehn (?) or Martinez (?), This is because it is a reflection of the psychological state of shooters, especially individuals who feel that it is acceptable to have this type of a paradigm. It is usually a reflection of a multitude of different factors including how students operate. Of course, every student is going to be damaged from the position of psychology and in terms of the basic essence of how they operate. Rather, it is connected to being able to recognize the specific paradigm which students operate within (Martinez, 2009). At the end of the day, this is part of how students are able to recognize that deterrence and removing the factors of psychological barriers are inseparable. In other words, arming the teachers will be a positive way to create the appearance of security to prevent shooters from feeling that the school environment is a soft target. Arming teachers and having this type of psychological atmosphere will reduce school shootings because it will take into consideration the psychological appeals of shooters (Nedzel., 2014). The raging interest that has been created in terms of creating a policy that addresses the issues related to mass shootings, especially within school shooters, has always looked at it from an external perspective. However, this is an issue that must be addressed from the internal perspective in terms of recognizing the internal aspects of what motivates individuals, especially young individuals, to carry out these mass shootings. The fact of the matter is, these shootings are related to a tremendous amount of both internal and external sources. The fact of the matter is that shootings do not happen accidentally. There are many signs and flags that have to be recognized to address how shooters actually develop a thirst for killing others. Of course, tThe psychological state is the foundation for what creates killers (Thompson., 2014). Normative behavior is connected to a tremendous amount of influence including those from public policy and of course the home environment. However, creating public policy that addresses the home environment is not only not possible, but would also require such a significant amount of resources that it would actually be counterintuitive to what is actually happening in the public sphere. Therefore, the best cost-effective way to address the expansion as well as the implementation of school shootings is by ensuring that there is a deterrences to prevent students from feeling as if they can go to into school and start to kill people (Turunen et al., 2014). Arming teachers will create a preventative measure in that it will take care of students who may feel that this type of action is the only way they can express some level of public grievance. It will be able to address this issue by creating a deterrence. Of course, nNot every teacher has to have some level of military training in which they are constantly having their finger on the trigger. Rather, it is about ensuring the basic pattern and ideas that are related to the perceptions of students. By providing this level of support, it allows students to feel connected to the very essence, capabilities, and recognition that are built on how students should operate. At the end of the day, what needs to happen is a recognition of the needs of students by focusing that public policy does not always address public issues (Warnick et al., 2015). The fact of the matter is, this is a psychological issue, and creating a deterrence within the environment especially in the academic environment is going to address the issues of school shootings on every level of the debate. It prevents the actual determination and application of possible school shootings and at the same time removes the perceptions of the provided support for students to take these actions. Whether it is based around the perception of safety or the possibility of being stopped, school shooters will be able to recognize that these types of targets are not only impossible to create, but also they are no longer easy targets. Schools have always been targets of mass shootings, especially when there isn't any level of perspective in terms of protecting students. No parent should send their children to school and be fearful of not seeing the child again (Warnick et al., 2015). The qualitative approach to being able to research the subject matter is the only way to have a functional appreciation of what is happening in the school environment. At the end of the day, this is the most important public policy issue that has to be taken into consideration because it is part of what is a clinical aspect of creating the perception of balancing out psychological factors with the environmental factors. At the end of the day, this is also the most important idea that has to be balanced in terms of recognizing the importance of creating deterrence as well as taking into consideration the critical aspects of the psychology of school shooters. Proposed Methods One of the most important ways to recognize the ideas of how to address whether the proposal of arming teachers would be beneficial to deterring school shootings from happening is by using quantitative and qualitative research designs. Of course, due to the sensitivity of this topic, it will be very difficult to use the research design that doesn't take into consideration the internal aspects of looking at previous data. Therefore, the majority of the information will be based around looking at previous studies and at the same time recognizing how those studies were able to influence the basic understanding of school shootings. Of course, when it comes toIn recognizing the factors that play into the psychology of school shootings, there has to be a focus on looking at phase 1 of the entire research method. The proposed method is to first understand the profile of students, especially those that are going to impact the very essence of what needs to create a school shooting. Using this type of qualitative data usually creates a profile of who is more likely to have a higher level of transcendence in terms of actually exposing students to the ultimate risk of being killed in a mass shooting. The second phase is to look at the natural implications of the psychological environment that is part of the practice looking at the profile of who is the school shooter. Using qualitative data, it is clear to see that individual shooters are more likely to be White males who may come from families which are classified as broken. A broken family is a family in which a father and a mother are no longer together. Whether through amicable separation or one that is built around violence, it makes a tremendous amount of difference in terms of the psychology of the child. Overall, this is part of the practice of utilizing the second phase of the research method to look at the qualitative profile of who is more likely to have a risk factor associated with actually committing a crime such as a mass shooting. Secondly, there will be a focus on understanding how those qualitative factors ultimately impact the very essence of how school shootings actually occur. The third phase is to look at the statistical information which is based around a data platform that ultimately exposes an individual to the risk factors of looking at how school shooters operate. Do the school shootings usually happen in inner cities much like the stereotype within the public domain dictates? On the other hand, do shootings actually happen in suburban areas in which wealthy and affluent areas are more likely to experience the impact of the psychological state and detriment of a young child? This is part of the conceptual framework of recognizing that even though there are a number of hardships to be able to actually address the issue, the main practices are based around looking at the qualitative analysis and then making a conclusion by validating it with quantitative data sets. Comment by Kevin Cross: Awkward sentence. Perhaps … “Understanding what motivates a school shooter using qualitative research is essential to assessing the deterrent effect of armed teachers.” (?) Comment by Kevin Cross: Arcus therefore believes that school shooters are therefore both a product of their environment and take advantage of the fact that is poorly protected? Comment by Kevin Cross: Word choice. Identifying? Comment by Kevin Cross: Be explicit here. You are saying violence begets violence. Is Duplechain implying that most school shooters are products of violence at school or home that result in them retaliating? Where I think you’re headed here is that the shooter’s environment plays a key role in motivating violent behavior … and that understanding the environment may play a key role in understanding the shooter’s motivation. Comment by Kevin Cross: Not sure I follow this … are the authors saying that a school shooter’s actions are contrary to their ordinary behavior and demeanor prior to the shooting (i.e., a wolf in sheep’s clothing?) Comment by Kevin Cross: Are you presenting Fritz’s ideas here or your own? If you are presenting Fritz’s, start off this section by saying “In Fritz’s article on [name of article], the author promotes the idea of arming school teachers because …” If this is your hypothesis, hold onto it until you spend some more time conducting research on the efficacy of arming teachers. Comment by Kevin Cross: Elaborate on this statement. Comment by Kevin Cross: Grammar … something is amiss in this sentence. I think you (on behalf of the author) are pointing out that teachers and administrators should focus on the environment that exists in the school as a preventative measure against school shootings (?). Comment by Kevin Cross: There seem to be two major threads surfacing in your literature review up to this point … one is focused on the complex set of environmental variables that cause a student to commit a mass shooting at school and the other focuses on the potential deterrent effect that arming teachers might have on individuals based on the resulting psychological issues resulting from the environment. Both concepts inform the research question. The environmental argument looks at the root causes of school shootings and the deterrence discussion examines the efficacy of armed teachers in overcoming the resulting psychological factors that lead to violence. Comment by Kevin Cross: Clarify this a bit … what pathways need to be changed? Are Kalish et al making specific recommendations about changing our approach to addressing mental health challenges in schools? Comment by Kevin Cross: I would recommend that you address one source at a time in the relevant literature section. In this paragraph, you use material from both Lindberg and O’Dea. Instead of blending … focus on Lindberg’s work first and discuss his or her study, methodology, and findings and discuss how the work is relevant to your research question. Then move on to O’Dea. Comment by Kevin Cross: Name of journal? If so, initial caps. Comment by Kevin Cross: Discuss this in depth. What does this mean? Every student is psychologically damaged? Comment by Kevin Cross: This sentence needs work … perhaps “Policy solutions designed to address the challenges of mass shootings in general, and school shootings specifically, tend to focus on external factors, such as ….” Comment by Kevin Cross: You don’t need to use this … just jump right into your sentence. Comment by Kevin Cross: Are you (or the author you’re discussing), saying that armed teachers will create an environment that is conducive to learning and development? I am not sure what this sentence means. Comment by Kevin Cross: Here’s a few thoughts about the literature review that I hope you’ll find helpful as you work on your final draft. First, see my comment about addressing one source at a time and not blending sources. Second, I think you might be blending your own hypotheses in with the words of the author. The lit review is really about showcasing other authors’ ideas and explaining how they inform your research question. Your hypothesis will come later, after your research initiative is completed. Finally, make sure to clearly indicate which author is saying what … everything here is cited, but sometimes it’s hard to tell whether the intervening sentences between quotes belong to you or one of the other authors mentioned in the paragraph. The research is going well, but the presentation needs a bit of work. Comment by Kevin Cross: Impossible to create? I follow you on the concept of hardening the target, but why would it be impossible to create? Do you (or the author you’re discussing) mean that an armed deterrence would, by definition, eliminate the concept of schools as soft targets? Comment by Kevin Cross: OK. So far, I see review of secondary sources, examination of primary sources/case studies, and psychological profiles of students as components of the study. Comment by Kevin Cross: Stray highlighting? Comment by Kevin Cross: Some law enforcement agencies create such profiles, yes? Can you leverage the ones that exist already? Comment by Kevin Cross: Source this and provide a citation. Comment by Kevin Cross: You’re getting ahead of yourself here and discussing the findings before conducting the research here. The goal of the “proposed methods” section is strictly discussing how you will pursue finding an answer to your research question, which is “Based on a psychological profile of the typical school shooter, would an armed teacher serve as an effective deterrent?” (I think, but let me know). Note that the question is still broad … it concerns me somewhat that on one hand, you are noting the complex set of variables involved in understanding the motivations of a school shooter, and on the other hand, you are trying to determine whether an armed teacher will deter a shooter. It’s doable, but will need a lot of research and effort. Comment by Kevin Cross: Be specific about the data sets you plan on using. Does the data you need exist? Where might you find it? If it doesn’t exist, will you try to collect it? How?

This is part of the conceptual framework as well as the approach that is both around what it means to actually address and at the same time recognize the risk factors associated with how individuals operate. Usually, this means that there is a connect to factor in at the same time a practice that ultimately pushes individuals outside of the normative paradigm of psychological development. However, using qualitative and quantitative data actually expresses a level of appreciation for how each particular aspect is going to operate. Fundamentally speaking, the opportunity as well as the perspective for developing the sense of multistage research design is based around qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research is of course founded on the idea of using external sources which alternately push the very essence and ideas of how school shooters actually interact. The second is based around how school shooters are able to implement a level of intrinsic risk factors. The quantitative data sets are based around statistical analysis of the causation as well as the calculation risk factors associated with school shootings. Even though school shootings have been relatively mentionedare frequently highlighted in the news, especially when it comes to having a political spin on certain news items, using quantitate research data will expose a true and authentic approach that is based on how school shootings actually happen. For example, do the news media outlets expose our exaggeration of the impact of school shooting for political gain or is it truly a rising problem? Using quantitative data sets allows individuals to recognize whether this is a true issue that has to be addressed and in a qualitative way. Secondly, using the quantitate data would expose a non-political idea as well as a proposal of understanding the method of both intake and outtake. Moving on to the development of the proposal, there will be an interview component which will allow individuals whom we are starting this with from a non-technical and non-educated perspective to recognize whether or not a teacher would be able to prevent an actual school shooting if it were to happen. Fundamentally, it is critical to recognize that school shootings are part of a unique balance between psychology, power paradigms, and the very essence of what it means to actually expose the risk factors associated with psychological balances. Secondly, the overall approach will be based on looking at the psychology of classroom environments. Do classroom environments have a level of impact by having armed teachers? This is of course one of the main questions that will be analyzed because it is part of the research question and at the same time relates to the basic understanding of how the research design will be created. Fundamentally, it is critical to recognize that the appropriate level of detail that is needed through the interview process to assess whether not arming teachers will be critical aspects of option or choice. For example, the interview process will focus on 10 different school teachers who are within the high school environment. The questionnaire will focus on identifying whether arming the teachers would be beneficial to prevent school shootings. Of course, it would be very difficult to try to speak with the teacher who has been in this position for a multitude of variables. However, creating a sense of perspective as well as development to address this issue is a key aspect of what is actually occurring with armed teachers. Therefore, being able to recognize this is ultimately what is going to conclude and validate the conclusion on whether or not arming teachers will have any level of effect on the psychology of shootings if the shooters know that there are armed teachers. At the end of the day, school shootings are related to a multitude of variables that continue to call into question the psychological state of what it means for a person to be able to recognize the demographic of shooters. What it means for shooters to actually be created over time is a functionality of how to create a public policy that takes into consideration all of the variables that need to happen. Fundamentally, what has to be created is an appreciation as well as a fundamental principle of taking into consideration the connection between the psychological state of a shooter as well as arming the teachers. By arming the teachers, there will be a sense of purpose and perspective, especially when it is related to the basic essence of what it means to move forward in the relationship paradigm between students and teachers. Shooters do not happen overnight, rather, they are a collection of a multitude of different factors that contribute to their ideas and their perceptions of grievance. Some shooters are motivated by anger, functions, and disparities between income or even aggression against others. Rather than having a generalized approach that looks at this from a public policy perspective, there has to be a focus on removing the internal risk factors associated with how individuals are able to operate and at the same time what it means to actually identify what determines actions that may be taken against others. The fact of the matter is, this is one of the most important and critical factors that are related to how individuals are able to decrease school shootings. Comment by Kevin Cross: The preceding paragraph introduces a lot of new components, some of which should be relegated to background/context for your study. Your study should stay directly focused on one question and the methods used for answering it. In other words, whether the media uses these incidents to push specific agendas or not does not influence whether arming teacher is an effective deterrent. It’s compelling news, but doesn’t help you answer your question. Comment by Kevin Cross: You mention interviews and a questionnaire here. Will you be doing both? Comment by Kevin Cross: Lamar, You’ve put a lot of work into this submission and there’s some good research here. We need to work together to get your research question laser focused and then take a closer look at what methodology gets you the answers you need to respond to the question, develop a hypothesis, and demonstrate that arming teachers will/will not serve as a deterrent. Take a look at my other comments above as well. The literature review needs some revisions … the real goal is to describe the authors’ research and discuss its relevance to your own. Also, at this point, you can have a theory … e.g., armed teachers would serve as a deterrent against active shooters … but you should not have findings or conclusions yet. The research will determine your answer to that question. So, if you posited that arming teachers would deter active shooters, your survey of teachers might either confirm or reject that hypothesis. The research proposal should just 1) describe the need for conducting the study, 2) ask a focused research question, 3) describe what SMEs say about the question, and 4) propose a methodology for answering the question. We will discuss this in more depth, but what you have developed here, particularly in terms of the research done so far, is a great start. 10/10

References Arcus, D. (2002). School shooting fatalities and school corporal punishment: A look at the states. Aggressive Behavior, 28(3), 173-183. doi:10.1002/ab.90020 DUPLECHAIN, R., & MORRIS, R. (2014). SCHOOL VIOLENCE: REPORTED SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND MAKING SCHOOLS SAFER. Education, 135(2), 145-150. Elklit, A., & Kurdahl, S. (2013). The psychological reactions after witnessing a killing in public in a Danish high school. European Journal Of Psychotraumatology, 41-7. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v4i0.19826 Fritz, G. K. (2015). A national response to school shootings. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 31(12), 8. doi:10.1002/cbl Comment by Kevin Cross: Check the formatting in here. Perhaps this is centered or justified? Some segments of the references seem appropriately formatted, but other sections have formatting problems.

GERARD, F. J., WHITFIELD, K. C., PORTER, L. E., & BROWNE, K. D. (2016). Offender and Offence Characteristics of School Shooting Incidents. Journal Of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 13(1), 22-38. doi:10.1002/jip.1439 Gereluk, D. T., Kent Donlevy, J., & Thompson, M. B. (2015). Normative Considerations in the Aftermath of Gun Violence in Schools. Educational Theory, 65(4), 459-474. doi:10.1111/edth.12127 Haravuori, H., Suomalainen, L., Berg, N., Kiviruusu, O., & Marttunen, M. (2011). Effects of media exposure on adolescents traumatized in a school shooting. Journal Of Traumatic Stress, 24(1), 70-77. doi:10.1002/jts.20605

Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 451-464. doi:10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.451

Kasdorf, J. S. (2007). To Pasture: "Amish Forgiveness," Silence, and the West Nickel Mines School Shooting. Cross Currents, 57(3), 328-347.

Keehn, G., & Boyles, D. (2015). Sense, Nonsense, and Violence: Levinas and the Internal Logic of School Shootings. Educational Theory, 65(4), 441-458. doi:10.1111/edth.12126 Comment by Kevin Cross: There are some “buggy” margins in here that need to be fixed

Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202-214. doi:10.1002/ab.10061

Leuschner, V., Bondü, R., Schroer-Hippel, M., Panno, J., Neumetzler, K., Fisch, S., & ... Scheithauer, H. (2011). Prevention of homicidal violence in schools in Germany: The Berlin Leaking Project and the Networks Against School Shootings Project (NETWASS). New Directions For Youth Development, 2011(129), 61-78. doi:10.1002/yd.387’ Lindberg, N., Sailas, E., & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2012). The copycat phenomenon after two Finnish school shootings: an adolescent psychiatric perspective. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), 91-101. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-12-91

Martinez, S. B. (2009). School Shootings and the Paranormal Case Study: Cho, The Question Mark Kid. Journal Of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies, 32(4), 211-219.

Nedzel, N. (2014). Concealed Carry: The Only Way to Discourage Mass School Shootings. Academic Questions, 27(4), 429-435. doi:10.1007/s12129-014-9459-7

O'Dea, J. (2015). Media and Violence: Does McLuhan Provide a Connection?. Educational Theory, 65(4), 405-421. doi:10.1111/edth.12124

Shapiro, H. (2015). When the Exception Is the Rule: School Shootings, Bare Life, and the Sovereign Self. Educational Theory, 65(4), 423-440. doi:10.1111/edth.12125

Thompson, C. (2014). Our Killing Schools. Society, 51(3), 210-220. doi:10.1007/s12115-014 9767-0 Turunen, T., Haravuori, H., Pihlajama¨ ki, J. J., Marttunen, M., & Punama¨ ki, R. (2014). Framework of the outreach after a school shooting and the students’ perceptions of the provided support. European Journal Of Psychotraumatology, 51-9. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.23079 Turunen, T., Haravuori, H., Punamäki, R., Suomalainen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2014). The role of attachment in recovery after a school-shooting trauma. European Journal Of Psychotraumatology, 51-10. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.22728

Warnick, B. R., Kim, S. H., & Robinson, S. (2015). Gun Violence and the Meaning of American Schools. Educational Theory, 65(4), 371-386. doi:10.1111/edth.12122