Academic institutions in the United States have turned out to be massacre zones as opposed to learning centers. The matter seems to be getting out of hand with more scenarios of shooting being documented after months. Learning institutions have taken it upon themselves to find ways of dealing with these issues, but this is not enough (Lankford, 2016). The most surprising fact is that despite all the efforts by learning institutions, shootings have doubled over the last five years as compared to two decades earlier. The statistics are worrisome as this might get out of hand soon. The incidents have also grown more deadly with the number of casualties doubling every other time. To deeply analyze the issue of shooting and the trends associated, the Crime Commission has been working back to back to review the incidents to come up with a solution that can end the menace (Tsai et al., 2015). Overall, more than 190 incidents have been used especially those associated with colleges from the period of 2001 to 2016, with at least one person being a victim. The most obvious finding out if this is that states with no gun control had several cases of shootings as compared to those with restrictive measures to gun access and handling (Kellom & Nubani, 2018).

The issue of shooting in learning institutions is in a significant way affecting education in the affected states and posing a threat to the entire nation. To build upon this, it is important to note that not only have the shootings increased but the way into which these shootings are conducted is becoming a complicated day in day out. The result is an increase in the number of casualties. Statistically, from 2001 to 2006, there were more than 40 incidents that went on to be recorded with most of them on college campuses. In the next five years from the year 2006, school shootings have doubled to more than 105 incidents and creating an overall change of 153% (Warburton & Braunstein, 2012).

From 2001 to 2006, there were a total of 61 casualties only in college shootings. In the year 2006 to 2007, the number of victims in college shootings just almost tripled with the highest numbers coming from states with no strict gun control regulations. In Virginia Tech 49 students were shot while in Northern Illinois University the figure stood at 21. The number of casualties continued to pile up drastically over the years leading to 28.5% or 208 casualties an enormous percentage change of 242%. In comparing the different states, it is prudent to acknowledge that twelve states experienced more than five shooting incidents around or in the colleges accounting for more than 63% of the total 190 shooting incidents. The highest number of these occurred in campuses in Tennessee, California, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida with death and casualties being recorded as more than 10. Overall, the trends are worrying especially in the states of Tennessee and Georgia as there have been threats coming from more shooting incidents (Spicer, 2018). Putting all these incidences into context, the 190 shootings have led to deaths of 167 individuals and more than 270 wounded. Student’s deaths accounted for an overall 290, while other individuals who are not part of the college were recorded at 77, employees at learning centers pegged at 40. In the learning institutions, close to 2.7 million students were enrolled at the 142 colleges, and thus they were directly or indirectly related to gun violence (Rorie, 2015).

The issue of shootings is not new in the United States, and it is believed that if enough measures are not taken this might affect the enrollment rates in colleges and in a significant way affect the quality of education. Disaster management experts have proposed solutions that if implemented could help reduce the number of casualties, deaths, and injuries in case these happen in learning institutions. However, by the fact this is an entirely new approach that is being put into practice; enough caution must be taken to ensure that it does not work to the advantage of the perpetrators (Tsai et al., 2015).

The different states where gun violence is rampant should also be at the forefront in designing legislation that will reduce cases of gun mishandling. All in all, the issue of gun violence is now a headache that if not addressed will lead to many deaths (Lankford, 2016). The ultimate goal should be to bring this to an end by all means as the current are worrying if it is something to go by. The concept of run hide and fight might be the solution, but it must be designed in a way that makes it cheap and fully operational.

Statement of Purpose

The increasing number of shootings in academic institutions over the past ten years has been affecting the quality of education and enrolment rates. The situation has created a worrying trend that has pushed security and disaster management experts to devise a solution that could reduce the number of casualties in case gun violence takes place in a learning institution (Darais & Wood, 2019). The concept dubbed “run, hide, fight” is believed to help casualties avoid injury by a huge magnitude and at the same time help them not approach the direction of the situation. Strengthening the casualties to avoid getting weak and bowing to pressure is also the aim of the “run, hide, fight” concept as numerous studies reveal that a high number of casualties have panicked and lost their direction because of the shooting incidences.

The concept is however not workable in the present condition because of the huge training limitations arising from time to time. The concept can, however, be improvised with the input and investment of the government. In most instances, capital intensive projects or those that depend so much on legislation are only deemed successful or workable when the government of the day commits resources for research, prototyping, and testing (Skurka et al., 2018). In this case, the input of the government is required as they have the power to bargain with agencies or institutions that are concerned with training.

The “run, hide, fight” concept helps participants to understand the quality of the risk as well as the final implications it might have on them and the surroundings. The element of surprise which is an important underlying factor is also presented in an in-depth manner to make all participants understand it. The aim is not only in helping casualties and victims run away from the situation, but it is also intended at empowering them to become aware of the environment and to act positively and help those around them overcome with ease. Security experts have released vital data that shows that a considerable number of casualties at the scene of the crime are usually unaware of the direction or step to take thus making them stranded and unprepared (Lankford, 2016).

The “run, hide, fight” concept if well implemented and passed onto participants is believed to reduce deaths by more than 50% and injuries by 32%. Further, if the individuals in the surrounding are helped to understand how to integrate this concept with their instinct, cases of shooting could reduce by 14%. This study aims to not only present the facts behind the numerous cases of shootings but also to propose a modern solution and concept that can be replicated to give desirable effects (Tsai et al., 2015). The problem of gun violence and the ineffectiveness of the gun control laws in the country cannot be ended by the approaches that cause it and therefore new concepts like the “run, hide, fight” concept must be supported to see the light of the day.

America and the world are for us to save and redeem and therefore this project is of value to the entire global community because gun violence knows no nations or race. The designing of the “run, hide, fight” concept is to be done through a simulation game since it is easy for participants to practice the application of the concept and ensure that it is effective to use (Tsai et al., 2015). Implementing the “run, hide, fight” through a simulation game will not only reduce the costs of practice but will also make it popular across the country to all community members with ease (Warburton & Braunstein, 2012).

Literature Review

The public mass shooting is not an American problem, but according to Lankford (2016), the dark side of the American culture can be attributed to the frequency of these happenings over the last decade. Activists like Rap Brown have stated categorically that violence seems to be entrenched in the American culture. Lankford (2016) highlights that violence in the United States seems to take a certain shape takes place in certain regions, and above all, it happens in extraordinary frequency. Based on this understanding it is important to manage gun violence by all costs because it seems to have widespread implications on the American society. Insights provided by Lankford (2016), show that although the American history has incidences of riots, killing of indigenous people, civil wars, slavery and race riots, public mass shootings are seen to be more American and are believed to have a more significant impact on the citizens.

According to Lankford (2016), firearms are an important part of the culture from the days of the American Revolutionary War, but their usage has destroyed the public trust that comes with handling such weapons. Lankford (2016), reveals that the United States of America ranks first in matters to do with gun ownership, with more than 270 million firearms owned by civilians. The saddest part of this scenario is that out of a random 100 people there is gun ownership of 88.8%. The idea of relaxing gun ownership laws in the country could even lead to a more worrisome situation. The situation as it calls for a more proactive approach like the “run, hide, fight” which would ensure that Americans find a way to be safe when such public shootings take place because the culture of gun ownership in the United States is not to change soon.

The problem of the gun culture being entrenched in the American people and communities is believed to be caused by violent video games as put forward by Warburton & Braunstein (2012). The media is usually skeptical about this, as there is the notion that violent video games generally harm a kid while growing up. These effects are believed to inspire individuals to engage in gun violence directly; however, there is no scientific evidence of this belief as explained by Warburton & Braunstein (2012). According to Warburton & Braunstein (2012), recent scientific findings reveal interesting insights especially on how helpful and pro-social video games have the possibility of enhancing the lives of children and adolescents, with exposure to harmful gaming leading to anti-social behaviors and further increasing the risks of gun violence.

Warburton & Braunstein (2012), believe that focusing on the good side can help train kids how to practice the “run, hide, fight” concept from an early age and prepare them in advance. Since most video games promote resilience and battling till death, these video games can be used to show how one should be smart to hide, fast to run, and strong to fight as the “run, hide, fight” concept instills as Warburton & Braunstein (2012) suggests. On average, American children spend n roughly 8-10 hours on video gaming in a week and if used well, this time would be used to instill an understanding of the “run, hide, fight” concept to the children with fun. According to a revelation by Warburton & Braunstein (2012), playing is a vital tool in the growing up of American children with playing being heavier between the ages of 11 to 14 and boys out playing the girls. Since boys spend an average of 2.5 hours, a quarter of this time can be used to practice the “run, hide, fight” concept with ease. The testing of the concept can be tried on the children since 99% of boys, and 95% of girls play video games with some spending up to 20 hours a week as according to (Warburton & Braunstein, 2012).

Video gaming has been tested in several other instances and thus the idea of introducing the “run, hide, fight” concept has proof as Tsai et al. (2015) reveal in their work. The most widely used example is Taiwan, which experiences typhoons and heavy rains every year. The natural calamities have been extremely destructive leading to huge losses. The government of the day has in recent years been investing so much in disaster management and preventive measures, but this has not been yielding enough fruits. According to Tsai et al. (2015), developing a flood game has helped them reduce the investment required to make the public aware and ready before typhoons hit them. In the words of Tsai et al. (2015), adopting the same concept and tailor making it to the needs of the country could in a significant way reduce the costs associated with these mass shootings in learning institutions.

The “run, hide, fight” concept could use game-initiated learning methods more like the “Shikakeology” in Taiwan.   Tsai et al. (2015) further explains that game initiated learning helps the gamers to change their behaviors and players are allowed to face a real-world problem, and they are expected to come up with a solution and thus a “run, hide, fight” concept might make so much sense in the case of mass shootings or gun violence. The designing of the game allows instructors to provide information that is useful in solving the problem at each stage. Video gaming is believed to have a huge capability in training the public on matters to do with disaster management and how to evade the destructive effects of such disasters. Based on the insights generated from the Taiwan Flood Management video game, and Tsai et al. (2015) believe that this would too interest Americans and push them to try such a game if after all it contributes to the common good and makes their neighborhoods safer.  Tsai et al (2015), suggests that the aim is to not only bring fun to the gamers but also offer them information on disaster management and prevention and therefore the acceptability and adaptability of a video game with the “run, hide, fight” concept would present a new dawn for security experts and learning institutions across the country.

Kissner (2016), supports the above sentiments by revealing that active shootings often traumatize the communities involved and leave them devastated furthering the urgency of development of such a game. The proposed policy responses are seen only to encourage more shootings to happen in the future since they do not involve the public and the communities affected as Kissner (2016), further states. A study conducted by Kissner (2016), reveals that the policy responses shy from addressing the situation and only trigger more to happen in the coming days and making the shootings even more contagious.  Kissner (2016), reaffirms that eliminating the problem in totality or partially would mean involving the government in reviewing the gun ownership laws or educating the public on how to act in a shootout using the “run, hide, fight” concept.

According to Darais & Wood (2019), the trend has been more of the same in healthcare facilities like it is in learning institutions. The government has hastily intervened and provided guidelines to healthcare facilities especially while implementing policies on shootings and how emergency operation plans are to be conducted. The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigations have suggested the “run, hide, fight” approach especially during active shooting incident and this only shows how the concept could change the story (Darais & Wood, 2019). According to Darais & Wood (2019), a survey conducted in hospitals in states that have had serious gun violence, indicate that the employees find the training as not adequate prompting need for more. Darais & Wood (2019), suggest that this is enough proof of need that a video game based on the “run, hide, fight” would have significant implications on the trainees, as it would enable them to deepen the whole concept with ease.

Since active shooter incidents transpire quickly within a range of 5-7 minutes, Kellom & Nubani (2018), suggests that the “run, hide, fight” could help save the situation before law enforcers arrive at the scenes of crime. Kellom & Nubani (2018), further reveal that enormous damage is usually done within such a time frame indicating the level of preparedness to be low. Studies by Kellom & Nubani (2018) analyzing the level of preparedness of faculty members in two university buildings with different layouts show that executing the “run, hide, fight,” would take less time as compared to the time taken by police officers to get to the scene. According to Kellom & Nubani (2018), the level of preparedness exhibited by individuals, in this case, would help reduce the effects of public shootings by close to 49%.

Based on an observation by Kellom & Nubani (2018), during this drill, it also emerged that it would take police officers so much time to return the situation to normalcy while training individuals on the  “run, hide, fight” would mean empowering them to be in charge of the situation with law enforcers using less effort and time. In designing the video game with the “run, hide, fight” it would be important to take enough measures to avoid exposing the individuals to the shooters or make it easy for the shooters to identify potentially hidden spots in a building as Kellom & Nubani (2018) guide. Since the overall goal is to reduce the number of casualties and the damages, great caution must be applied to design the game with the ability to give instructions based on the complexity of the situation (Kellom & Nubani, 2018). The advantage of the “run, hide, fight” is that it helps to stimulate and sharpen the ability of individuals to act as Kellom & Nubani (2018) reveal.

Spicer (2018) in his work, expound on the nature of active shooter type attacks as incidents of low probability, but very high consequences and therefore every organization must always find a way to make it part of the organization’s all hazards and emergencies preparedness program. The Federal government is making it mandatory for all organizations to encompass in their preparedness towards disaster, a workable approach to gun violence and thus the “run, hide, fight” concept can be a good option. The nature of such incidences cannot allow law enforcement to be used as a viable response since its role is imperative (Spicer, 2018). To overcome this problem, it would be wise to use on-site security and bolster it with the “run, hide, fight” concept. Altogether this should mean training all security officers and agents on how to identify and deal with Pre-Attack INdicators (PAINs). In the words of Spicer (2018), the “run, hide, fight” concept should not in any way replace the training and awareness provided to security officers, and it does not in any way conflict with the policies by the Federal government on preparedness.

Breaking down the “run, hide, fight” concept in palatable parts means that members of the public can take care of low risk by the run and hide options since it is also highly effective (Spicer, 2018). Sentiments by Spicer (2018), reveal that early recognition of Pre-Attack INdicators, and a good understanding of the surroundings and the environment, helps security officers to provide directions for run and hide before an emergency occurs. The “run, hide, fight” concept has many dynamics that if well used can help Americans overcome the issue of gun violence in the country. Buildings should also be designed in a way that makes it possible for the concept to be implemented because such instances of gun violence can be shifted from open grounds to enclosed settings. This last sentiment by Spicer (2018), proves that to deal with such a crisis effectively, all security options have to be at play.

The overall adoption of the “run, hide, fight” concept across learning institutions in the United States, will create to the emergency preparedness team a robust way to help the American public with ways of overcoming active shooting incidences. Rorie (2015) believes that if organizations continue to conduct yearly hazard vulnerability assessment while insisting on the value of the “run, hide, fight,” then it is easy to find synchronization when such emergencies take place. Strengthening preparedness is vital in this case as it reduces the impact and drastically lowers the costs of such incidences by a huge margin. Helping healthcare facilities adopt such approaches like the “run, hide, fight” automatically creates in them a deficit to acquire skills on how to handle casualties in shootings without endangering their own lives. According to Rorie (2015), the “run, hide, fight” concept helps to expand the capability of organizations and therefore it’s suitability can be ascertained despite organizations having different emergency plans. Perpetrators of the shooting incidences understand that by instilling fear, members of the public will become less responsive and therefore Rorie (2015),  suggests that an effective “run, hide, fight” concept should help them overcome fear, while at the same time creating a way out to the members of public. According to Rorie (2015), the convenience of the “run, hide, fight” concept should make it become the preference for Americans in responding to shooting incidences and therefore a game based on this concept is an idea whose time has come. Skurka et al. (2018), believes that if only organizations can find a mechanism to deal with gun violence, then it would be easy to overcome other challenges and crimes that can hamper peace and stability in the country.

DeCamp & Ferguson (2017), in a bid to clarify on the adverse effects of violent video games on youth, attributes other factors like gender, social influences and mental health as possible reasons behind violent teenagers who play video games. Dispelling the fears at this stage is vital as it will help streamline the development process and the testing phases as well (DeCamp & Ferguson, 2017). Studies on how violent video gaming contributes to violence in children and adolescents, provided statistically insignificant figures further strengthening the need for adoption of a video gaming based on the “run, hide, fight” concept. The results of the study conducted by DeCamp & Ferguson (2017), show that developing a video game based on the “run, hide, fight” concept to train the public on how to handle mass shooting incidences, will not in any way have adverse effects on the society. DeCamp & Ferguson (2017) concludes by restating that a solution should be developed with enough consideration to ensure that it doesn’t create more problems.

Developing multimodal approaches by learning institutions is believed to play a significant role in reducing the effects of shootings as according to (Skurka et al., 2018). Administrators of learning institutions must agree to step up and provide directions on this issue before it becomes a threat to the United States (Skurka et al., 2018). Adopting approaches and strategies towards disaster readiness and preparedness should entail communication to all involved as with clear communication, extensive damages can be averted, and students can be able to contain their fear. Preparation significantly reduces anxiety and creates a stable mindset which in turn helps to reduce damages when approached with the “run, hide, fight” concept. Several studies conducted by Skurka et al. (2018), on communication, revealed that communicating in the right way increased attitudes, the perceived norms and behavioral control and the intentions while at the same time knowledge and understanding. Emergency preparedness videos proved to have immediate and lingering effects on the participants and to lead to participants feeling ready to take charge of their security in case a shootout took place. Overall, believes that school and learning institution administrators have a big task to bring stakeholders on board who will help to lobby for resources to have the concepts in the video game trained to participants so that applicability can be understood.  Skurka et al. (2018) believe that besides focusing on the to be developed video game, students should aim to have appropriate response behaviors because they play a big part during a shootout.

According to Bonanno & Levenson (2014), the past few years has had an increase in situations involving active shooters. The drive in most of these situations is usually not well known but findings by Bonanno & Levenson (2014), reveal that mental instability, access to weapons, and social isolation could be the triggers in these incidences. However, as Bonanno & Levenson (2014), outline that no single reason or reasons can be used to justify mass shootings. After the fact-finding of most incidences, does not offer essential insights into causes and how to prevent such from happening in the future specifically. However, prevention strategies should keep evolving as this issue is dynamic day in day out. Schools should also invest in security systems and not only depend on the minimum provisions by the Federal government.

The idea of developing a video game that will train individuals on how to effectively use the “run, hide, fight” concept is just a single step towards creating safe public places, learning institutions, and communities. The concept is as relevant as others because they are all complimentary approaches as no single concept or approach can deter gun crime or gun violence all by itself. Bonanno & Levenson (2014), believes that allowing the development of the video game with the “run, hide, fight” concept is towards the right direction and should be supported by all relevant agencies and stakeholders as it is helping the Federal government achieve its mandate with ease of creating a safe country for all. The most robust way to deal with gun violence in the country is by first creating an awareness and through that ensuring that community members and schools can deal with outcomes of gun violence in the country (Kellom & Nubani, 2018). The “run, hide, fight” has attributes that if well structured can enable participants to be able to overcome fright, and fear that comes with an incidence of a gun attack.

Methods

Reviewing the mass shooting events in the last decade within educational institutions reveals that most incidences happened with no preparedness, while at the same perpetrators instilling fear. The concept of “run, hide, fight” was arrived out after numerous surveys across the learning institutions and conducting interviews on the witnesses and or victims of the incidences (Kellom & Nubani, 2018). Secondary data on the extent of these shootings and what could be done to end the menace was also used in the study. Observations were done on institutions that had preparedness of the “run, hide, fight” concept was also conducted to find out the effectiveness of the idea (Cicero et al., 2017). Controlling guns in the United States has been a struggle for the last many years and therefore finding a solution to deal with the challenges that arise during mass shooting incidences is seen to be a perfect way out.

Critically analyzing the situation of the typhoon in Taiwan and the impact video gaming has had on this in the last few years was also done (Tsai et al., 2015). The study also reviewed the literature with the aim of understanding if violent gaming has an impact on making children violent. The amount of time spent by American children gaming was also collected across the 30 states spread evenly in the country to ascertain if children had time for video games (Spicer, 2018). The study did not, however, reveal any limitations of the concept as the consensus is that it should be used in complimenting the already existing disaster management programs. According to Spicer (2018), the rallying call to end the menace in American schools is not only a solution to help the students or the communities but also a good alternative to empower us.

According to Skurka et al. (2018), a Visibility Graph Analysis was conducted on the individuals who were playing a video game to understand how it helped sharpen them ahead of the next activity or course of action. The cost implications of the concept were reviewed, and it turned out to be expensive; thus, the reason for gamification (Cicero et al., 2017). Face to face interviews on how best to develop the game was done to those believed to be the first users and beta testers (Cicero et al., 2017). Questionnaires to assess the knowledge and understanding of what the game entails to achieve were also done. Overall secondary and primary methods of data collection were used to develop insights into the development of the “run, hide, fight” concept into a training video.

References

Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson Jr, R. L. (2014). School shooters: History, current theoretical and empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. Sage Open, 4(1), 2158244014525425.

Cicero, M. X., Whitfill, T., Munjal, K., Madhok, M., Maria Carmen G Diaz, M. D., Scherzer, D.    J., … & Symons, N. (2017). Sixty seconds to survival: A pilot study of a disaster triage           video game for prehospital providers. American journal of disaster medicine, 12(2), 75-  83.

Darais, M., & Wood, M. (2019). Employee variables influencing ‘Run Hide Fight’ policy  knowledge retention and perceptions of preparedness in the hospital setting. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 1-13.

DeCamp, W., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). The impact of the degree of exposure to violent video games, family background, and other factors on youth violence. Journal of youth and    adolescence, 46(2), 388-400.

Kellom, K., & Nubani, L. (2018). One Step Ahead of Active Shooters: Are Our University       Buildings Ready? Buildings, 8(12), 173.

Kissner, J. (2016). Are active shootings temporally contagious? An empirical assessment.     Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(1), 48-58.

Lankford, A. (2016). Public mass shooters and firearms: a cross-national study of 171 countries.        Violence and victims, 31(2), 187-199.

Rorie, S. (2015). Implementing an active shooter training program. AORN Journal, 101(1), 5-        6.

Skurka, C., Quick, B. L., Reynolds-Tylus, T., Short, T., & Bryan, A. L. (2018). An evaluation of a college campus emergency preparedness intervention. Journal of safety research, 65,     67-72.

Spicer, B. (2018). The role of unarmed security in active killer defense. Journal of business          continuity & emergency planning, 12(1), 40-55.

Tsai, M. H., Wen, M. C., Chang, Y. L., & Kang, S. C. (2015). Game-based education for disaster prevention. AI & Society, 30(4), 463-475.

Warburton, W. E., & Braunstein, D. E. (2012). Growing up fast and furious: Reviewing the impacts of violent and sexualized media on children.