Where is the outrage about safety in our schools? |

Where is the outrage about safety in our schools?

Getty Images
Friends and family attend a vigil held in Santa Fe, Texas for the victims of a mass shooting at Santa Fe High School on May 18.

Do you recognize any of these names?

• Jared Black

• Shana Fisher

• Christian Riley Garcia

• Aaron Kyle McLeod

• Glenda Ann Perkins

• Angelique Ramirez

• Sabika Sheikh

• Christopher Stone

• Cynthia Tisdale

• Kim Vaughan

Chances are you don’t. They are the names of the 10 victims of the May 18 shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas.

Their names are not familiar but their stories most certainly are: one student was planning a 17th birthday party, another was a football player and, at 17, the baby of a family of three siblings.

Then there was the substitute teacher who worked two jobs to help pay for the medical expenses of her terminally ill husband.

And the exchange student from Pakistan who was getting ready to go back to her country and yearned to eat a home-cooked meal from her mother.

Their stories are our stories.

On the same day of the Texas shooting, the Washington Post reported this sobering statistic: 2018 has been deadlier for our nation’s children than for our servicemen and servicewomen who are in the military.

Could this possibly mean that being a student is more dangerous than being in the military?

No one is saying that just yet.

But this much is true, as students from Western Pennsylvania revealed in forums sponsored by the Trib in recent months: Students are scared to go to school. They are on edge. They are constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering not if a shooting will happen but when it will happen.

That there isn’t more outrage about safety in our schools is stunning.

Because some day, the names on the list of victims will be names we recognize.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.