The one-year anniversary of Uvalde is fast approaching. It’s an anniversary no one wants to “celebrate,” to say the least, but it’s going to be marked with things like protests and op-eds pushing gun control in Texas.

However, lawmakers there are doing something different.

Instead of bowing to the pressure–pressure that only grew after the shooting at an outlet mall in Allen, TX–they’re focusing on protecting our children rather than curtailing gun rights.

They’re hardening schools.

One year after the Uvalde mass shooting, Texas lawmakers are poised to pass measures that they say will make schools safer, even as they have not seriously entertained any gun control bills.

Driving the news: The measures would provide incentives to school employees to arm themselves on campus, require school safety inspections, and mandate mental health training for teachers.

• They already sent to Gov. Greg Abbott a bill that would require school districts to install silent panic buttons in every classroom.

The big picture: As they did after the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, GOP lawmakers who control the Capitol have opted to further fortify schools rather than restrict the purchase of guns and ammunition.

Once again, it seems this is a problem for anti-gun folks, and I cannot fathom why.

The same people who claim their children don’t feel safe going to school continue to object to efforts that make schools tougher targets in the first place, efforts that might alleviate those fears in kids.

Texas is doing it right, in my opinion.

Sure, I get that some people think gun control will work better. I disagree, but I get it.

What I don’t get is why anyone would object to this kind of thing. Everyone acknowledges that bad guys can still get guns, even if we disagree on how or why they get them. If that’s the case, why not “fortify” our schools to mitigate any threat posed to students by those bad guys?

Why is this controversial?

Is it because they’re convinced that this will prevent the passage of gun control? If that’s the case, I’m curious as to why that is. After all, if the gun control argument is so sound, these efforts shouldn’t have much of an impact long term.

Or is it that they suspect they might actually work?

If that’s the case, and they’re objecting to them, what does that say about the gun control “for the children” argument?

Texas is doing the right thing. All 50 states should do the same thing, even if they favor gun control. Our kids matter and we can and should take all the steps we can to protect them, particularly while at school, and particularly without stepping on the rights of people.

Hardening our schools should have happened years ago. We should have a set of best practices in place right here and now that every state, not just Texas, could implement and make happen.

You can never get all the guns, so why not do something that actually can happen?