Arturs A., School Shooter: Gun Laws vs Gun Rights

A Tragedy in Austria and a Familiar Debate

On a quiet Tuesday morning in June, tragedy struck the city of Graz, Austria. A 21-year-old former student walked into his old high school and opened fire, killing nine people – most of them teenagers – and wounding a dozen more before taking his own life. Investigators soon revealed an unsettling detail: the gunman had recently acquired two firearms, which he appeared to have owned legally. In a nation with generally strict gun policies, a mass shooting on campus was almost unheard of. Yet the attack in Austria instantly evoked a grimly familiar scene to Americans, for whom school shootings have become a recurring nightmare. Why did Arturs A. become a School Shooter?

The Graz massacre has reignited a fierce debate that spans continents: How do we keep schools safe from gun violence? Is the solution to add more guns in the hands of “good guys”( President Trump ), or to restrict access so that would-be killers can’t arm themselves in the first place? On one side, gun-rights advocates insist that an armed defence is the best deterrent. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” declared NRA chief Wayne LaPierre, famously encapsulating the view that trained, armed staff could thwart or even prevent school attacks. Opponents respond that introducing more guns into schools will only invite more danger. “Arming teachers will not make schools safer… it is misguided to think… more guns in a school – in the presence of children, and in the hands of educators who don’t want them – is an answer,” countered Andy Pallotta, president of New York’s largest teachers’ union, echoing the concerns of educators nationwide. These duelling perspectives set the stage for a complex examination of recent school shootings, the guns used, and the stark differences between countries with loose vs. tight gun laws.

Legally Purchased Weapons and Recent School Shootings

Multiple school shootings over the past decade reveal a chilling pattern: many perpetrators obtained their guns legally and shortly before carrying out their attacks. In case after case, young attackers with clean records were able to buy powerful firearms with ease, sometimes just days after their 18th birthday, and then turned those guns on classmates and teachers. The table below highlights several examples from the last ten years, illustrating how quickly legal gun acquisitions have preceded deadly school rampages:

In each of these cases, the perpetrator had no serious criminal record or disqualifying history that prevented them from passing a background check. They obtained their guns lawfully, often immediately upon reaching the minimum age. In Uvalde, Texas, for example, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos walked into a local store and bought two semi-automatic rifles within days of his birthday, then used them to massacre 19 children and 2 teachers the following week. As Former President Joe Biden noted in frustration afterward, “The idea that an 18-year-old kid can walk into a gun store and buy two assault weapons is just wrong… What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone?” Yet under U.S. federal law, 18 is the minimum age to purchase a long gun, meaning Ramos was too young to buy a beer but old enough to buy an AR-15 – a paradox that drew national outrage. The shooter in Buffalo, New York, that same month was also 18 and legally armed with a newly bought rifle, despite prior mental health red flags that failed to trigger New York’s “red flag” law. These episodes underscore how easily accessible firearms – even high-powered models – can end up in the hands of impulsive young men. Law enforcement officials and researchers have observed this trend with alarm: many recent school shooters acquired guns legally under current laws, exploiting gaps such as missing background data or the lack of waiting periods and age limits.

In the Michigan case of 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley, the shooter was too young to buy a gun himself, so his father did so on his behalf – a Christmas gift of a brand-new handgun, purchased just four days before the sophomore opened fire in Oxford High School. The teen had easy access to the weapon at home, and when teachers raised concerns about his disturbing drawings that week, his parents failed to disclose that they had recently bought him a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol. He soon returned to class with the gun in his backpack and murdered four classmates. This tragic sequence led to unprecedented involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents, highlighting how legally bought guns can quickly be turned to unlawful ends, especially when adults don’t secure firearms around at-risk youths.

Even beyond the United States, there are rare examples of school shooters obtaining guns legally despite strict national laws. In January 2022, an 18-year-old German student opened fire in a packed lecture hall at Heidelberg University. Germany’s gun regulations are stringent, so the shooter travelled to neighbouring Austria to buy his firearms, purchasing three rifles just one week before the attack. He then snuck them into Germany to carry out the shooting, which killed one person and injured three. Austrian officials confirmed the sales were legal under their laws, illustrating how perpetrators will seek the path of least resistance to arm themselves, even if it means exploiting another country’s looser rules.

These patterns – young attackers with recently and legally acquired guns – have added urgency to calls for tighter measures. Some U.S. states have responded by raising the legal age for rifle purchases to 21 or strengthening “red flag” laws intended to temporarily remove guns from those showing violent warning signs. Yet many would-be school shooters still show up on campus armed with brand-new weapons that no law prevented them from buying. Each incident fuels the growing body of data – and anguish – over how readily accessible firearms are enabling deadly school attacks.

Gun Laws and School Shootings: A Tale of Two Worlds

The prevalence and severity of school shootings differ drastically around the world, often corresponding to the strength of national gun control laws. In countries with permissive gun regulations and high firearm ownership, school shootings happen with grim frequency. In countries with strict gun laws and low firearm prevalence, such events are exceedingly rare or virtually non-existent. A comparison between the United States and several peer nations is striking:

The disparities are stark. The United States stands out as an outlier, suffering dozens upon dozens of school shooting incidents each year, from accidental discharges and suicides on campus to the horrific mass murders that dominate headlines. In contrast, countries like Japan and Australia have virtually eliminated gun violence in schools. Even other Western democracies with some private gun ownership, such as Canada and Germany, experience school shootings only on rare occasions. A widely cited analysis found that between 2009 and 2018, the U.S. had 288 school shootings, while the entire rest of the G7 countries combined had just 5 in that period. This 57-to-1 disparity highlights an oft-noted correlation: places with more guns and weaker gun laws suffer more frequent school shootings, whereas those with stringent laws and fewer guns in circulation see these tragedies far less. Social and cultural factors play a role, too, but the availability of firearms is a decisive factor. In his global research on mass shootings, criminologist Adam Lankford found that a nation’s rate of gun ownership strongly correlates with its incidence of mass shootings – and indeed, over 30% of the world’s public mass shooters were Americans. In short, the easier it is for people to get guns, the harder it is to keep schools safe from gunfire.

It’s worth noting that when school shootings do occur in countries with tougher gun laws, the death tolls tend to be lower. Attackers in those countries often cannot easily obtain semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity magazines. (For instance, the 18-year-old Heidelberg shooter could not buy an AR-15 in Germany – he had to settle for lesser weapons bought on the Austrian market, and his rampage, while tragic, was far less lethal than what’s seen in U.S. mass shootings.) In the United States, by contrast, assailants frequently arm themselves with military-style rifles and ample ammunition, enabling them to kill large numbers in minutes. The result is that American school shootings are not only more frequent, but often more severe in casualties than those abroad. This contrast has led many experts and lawmakers around the world to point to America’s comparatively lax gun policies as a key explanation. As Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard remarked on the 25th anniversary of Australia’s gun reforms, “We took hundreds of thousands of guns out of the community… and the evidence since is that there have been no mass shootings [here] since then, and the country is a much safer place.”

Arming Teachers: Panacea or Peril?

In the wake of each school shooting in the U.S., the political debate intensifies. Alongside calls for stricter gun control, an opposing proposal often resurfaces: arming teachers and school staff. This idea – to put guns in the hands of educators as a first line of defence – has been championed by gun-rights groups and some conservative politicians, especially after high-profile massacres. Former President Donald Trump became the most prominent voice for the policy. “If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly,” Trump argued in 2018, days after the Parkland shooting, suggesting that trained, armed teachers could deter would-be killers or stop them in their tracks. He later reiterated at a National Rifle Association convention that having armed personnel on campus – ending the “gun-free zone” status of schools – would make attackers think twice, essentially hardening schools into less attractive targets. This logic mirrors the NRA’s stance that “gun-free schools” are magnets for madmen, and that good guys with guns (be they police, guards, or trained teachers) are the only sure way to stop a bad guy intent on murder.

Trump’s call to arm teachers drew vigorous agreement from allies – and swift backlash from many law enforcement leaders, educators, and academic experts. Supporters like John Lott, a pro-gun researcher, claim that schools allowing armed staff have not suffered the kind of mass shootings seen elsewhere, and they point out that at least 20 U.S. states already permit teachers or other school employees to carry guns on campus in some form or another Fox News. In fact, some states, such as Texas and Ohio, have expanded programs to train and authorize volunteer school staff to carry concealed firearms at work. By 2022, over 30% of Texas school districts had adopted policies to arm certain staff members. Advocates argue that these armed educators could save lives by confronting a shooter immediately, rather than waiting precious minutes for police. They often cite instances where armed officers or armed civilians have intervened to end threats. (One oft-mentioned example: an armed sheriff’s deputy exchanged gunfire with and subdued a shooter at a Maryland high school in 2018, potentially preventing greater carnage – though that deputy was a law enforcement officer, not a teacher.)

However, critics of arming teachers contend there is no evidence this strategy makes schools safer, and plenty of reason to think it could backfire. A comprehensive 2019 study reviewed 18 years of data on U.S. school security measures (including armed staff) and found “no evidence of reduced gun violence” from arming teachers. The research aligns with what public health and safety experts have been saying: more guns in schools might increase the risks. “The policy of arming school personnel [is] ill-advised,” said Denise Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, noting that bringing guns into classrooms introduces new dangers. Firearms might be fired accidentally, teachers might use them inappropriately, or most likely, the guns might end up in the hands of students. Teachers’ organizations overwhelmingly oppose the idea. In one national survey, 74% of U.S. educators said they would not want to carry a gun in school and believe arming staff is misguided. Many teachers stress that they entered education to teach and mentor children, not to act as armed guards. They worry that the presence of guns could intimidate students, erode the learning environment, or lead to tragic mistakes. “Schools must remain sanctuaries for learning… More guns in a school, in the hands of educators who don’t want them, is not an answer,” as union president Pallotta put it pointedly.

Real-world incidents underscore those concerns. There have been multiple cases of accidental discharges and close calls in schools that adopted armed staff policies. For example, in 2018, a California teacher (who was also a reserve police officer) accidentally fired his pistol during a classroom safety demonstration, causing the ceiling to crumble and injuring a student with falling debris. In another case, a school resource officer left his service weapon in a bathroom where a student found it. These incidents, fortunately, did not result in deaths, but they illustrate the potential for error when more firearms are brought into schools. Opponents also ask: even if a teacher is armed and trained, are they truly prepared to shoot one of their students in the chaos of an attack? The scenario of a firefight on campus raises nightmares of crossfire injuries or police mistaking an armed teacher for the assailant.

Public opinion on arming teachers is deeply divided. Surveys show a consistent split: a significant minority of Americans favour the idea, but a majority do not. In mid-2022, about 45% of U.S. adults told pollsters they supported policies to arm teachers, but most respondents (around 55%) remained opposed. Among those with direct stakes in schools, the opposition is even higher; in the same year, 75% of polled teachers said they outright oppose being armed in the classroom. Even many police chiefs and school security experts have argued that arming staff is “a recipe for disaster”. They point out that responding officers arriving at a chaotic scene might not be able to tell a teacher apart from the attacker. The training required to ensure armed teachers could perform well under life-and-death pressure is extensive, far beyond the basic firearms instruction most states mandate for school staff. And every hour teachers spend in firearms training is an hour not spent on education or other safety measures that have proven benefits (like training to recognize warning signs in troubled students).

Then there is the question of liability and implementation challenges. Schools must consider insurance costs (some insurers have raised premiums or balked at covering armed campuses), logistical issues of securing weapons on school grounds, and the community psychological impact of turning schools into armed fortresses. In practice, relatively few teachers have volunteered to carry guns even where it’s allowed. For instance, Ohio saw only a few hundred staff sign up statewide when it first opened a program for armed teachers – a tiny fraction of the educator workforce. Many who did volunteer tended to be ex-military or hobby shooters. The average teacher, it seems, has little interest in adding a gun to their lesson plan.

What about evidence of success? Supporters of arming educators often claim that the absence of shootings in some schools with armed staff proves the policy works as a deterrent. Yet experts counter that it’s very hard to measure deterrence, and thankfully, school shootings are so rare in any given school that one can’t conclusively credit an armed teacher for a shooting that never happened. As the RAND Corporation noted in a 2020 analysis, there have been no rigorous studies to date that demonstrate armed-staff laws reduce school shooting incidents or casualties. On the other hand, there are examples where having a school resource officer (a trained police officer) on site helped limit the harm during a shooting, for example, the case in Maryland in 2018, where the officer’s quick action halted the shooter. But even that scenario is not guaranteed: at Columbine High in 1999, an armed deputy was present and engaged the shooters, yet could not prevent 13 deaths. And in the recent Uvalde, Texas, massacre, dozens of armed officers infamously waited in the hallway for over an hour while children were shot, failing to intervene in time. These incidents suggest that simply having more guns on scene is no panacea; what truly matters is training, tactics, and the element of surprise.

As America grapples with how to protect its schools, the rest of the world watches with a mix of sympathy and bafflement. In countries like Japan, Germany, or Australia, the idea of arming teachers as a solution seems alien, mostly because gun violence in schools is not a pressing threat there to begin with. Their focus has been on preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands, rather than preparing for armed confrontation in classrooms. U.S. conservatives argue that America’s unique gun culture and constitutional rights demand uniquely American solutions (like armed faculty). Gun-control advocates retort that the uniqueness of America is precisely the problem – that no other developed nation accepts such a high level of gun violence, and that the U.S. could learn from abroad by adopting tougher laws to keep guns out of young would-be shooters’ hands in the first place.

Conclusion

From a high school in Austria to the halls of American campuses, the scourge of school shootings lays bare a cruel equation: when lethal intent meets easy access to firearms, the results are catastrophic. This article was meant to look at two points of view, the view that training teachers can carry guns and defend students from a shooter is probably the worst argument for any debate. The facts are clear. The past decade has provided painful examples of how legally purchased guns, obtained without impediment, have enabled some of the deadliest school attacks. It has also showcased the gulf between nations – how a society awash in guns faces threats that others largely avoid. There is no simple fix to the horror of school shootings, a phenomenon at the intersection of mental health, security, law, and culture. But as policymakers debate solutions, the experiences from around the world draw a sharp contrast. The United States continues to wrestle with whether to double down on armed defence or to tighten gun access (or both), while countries with far fewer guns continue to see far fewer school shootings. Each new tragedy tests the resolve of leaders and the public’s willingness to change. And so long as students can obtain or borrow a gun as easily as a textbook, the pattern of “legally armed, lethally close” may well persist – with educators and children left in the crossfire of a debate that remains as polarized as ever.

Sources: All data and quotations are drawn from reputable public sources, including news reports, academic studies, and official statements. Key references include the Associated Pressapnews.comapnews.comapnews.com, ABC Newsabcnews.go.comabcnews.go.com, NPRnpr.orgnpr.org, Vox/Reutersvox.com, the New York State United Teachers unionnysut.org, and comparative research compiled by the World Population Review and othersworldpopulationreview.comworldpopulationreview.com. These and other cited materials provide the factual basis for the discussion above. Each tragic case and policy claim has been cross-verified to ensure accuracy in this report.