i had this conversation with my gf last night, but it went nowhere because we disagree on the value of public school. she favors home or private schooling, so to her it’s a no-brainer to just not send your kid to public school. aside from that, she felt that a potential shooter would just shoot the metal detector monitor and then proceed with his regularly scheduled shooting. i disagreed, saying that school shooters usually have some particular targets (bullies, jocks, whatever) and would not want to jeapordize the mission by breaking out the guns too soon. she also felt that metal detectors were too obtrusive and would somehow harm the educational atmosphere. my position was that considering the harmful effect the recent shooting trend is already having on schools - for example this article - it may be time to weigh the options. what’s more intrusive - walking through a metal detector, or arresting second graders for making “terrorist” threats? are there already schools with metal detectors that still have shootings?
Yes, in theory, metal detectors at every entrance into the school would minimize the possibility of someone getting a school onto campus.
However, there would still be several problems…
-Possibility for school shooting outside of campus, either before school or after school.
-Putting up metal detectors (and the resulting other measures to ensure the metal detectors are effective) would make the schools seem like prisons… and I think they’re scary enough as it is.
-Cost… putting a metal detector at EVERY entrance to the school, with a guard or two to monitor the equipment all the time, and security measures to make sure someone doesn’t just climb over a fence or something, would cost MILLIONS… PER SCHOOL.
So while it’s a nice idea, I really doubt it’d be as effective as some people would want it to be.
And, yes, some schools HAVE put up metal detectors… I did a quick search (not very thorough, because the computer I’m on has a slow-ass connection, but this is coming from memory) and didn’t find anything, but I recall that some of the most “violent” schools (mostly “inner city” or something like that) put them up and saw only a modest reduction in fighting and injuries and such.
Perhaps someone who can load up a webpage in less than seven minutes can provide an article or two.
don’t have data on shootings in metal detector schools, but let me explain a bit about the detectors themselves.
They’re expensive and slow traffic through an entranceway to a crawl. In order to be effective at keeping metal stuff out, they must be on, have some one monitoring them at all times (more than one is preferred), be supplemented with hand held detectors etc…
So, you’d have to have these at every door. Since they’re so expensive, probably on a practical basis, you’d have them at the main door only (perhaps one other), but since schools have many, many entrances, it wouldn’t take but a moment to have some one open another door/window etc. to allow a person/gun to enter.
As a ‘we’re doing something about violence’ measure, sure it has an effect.
But anyone who is serious about shooting up their school will have no real problem getting by such a system.
I am reminded of a case in Michigan where a prisoner in a maximum security prison was found with both a cell phone and a gun, both smuggled in by the girlfriend who was supposed to fly a heliocopter into the compound…
The professional guards with their routine searches of both prisoner and cell, in addition to huge amounts of security for visitors were unable to keep those out.
metal detectors just probably would not pick up on the guns:)
Nope. Haven’t you seen The Matrix?
Sometimes I interview applicants to my alma mater. One young woman came from a high school that did have metal detectors. She considered them a joke. Due to budget constraints the district brought them only occasionally. The kids caught on to the scheduling and once every week or two everyone would leave their weapons at home.
She wouldn’t have minded if they’d ran the system better, but felt this approach only drained resources from the school’s real mission.
I gave her an excellent recommendation.
I don’t think metal detectors would do much at all. I think a better solution would be to have dogs come in at random times and check rooms and lockers. That’s what my school does, and there is very few instances of people getting busted with drugs, and there hasn’t been an instance of someone having a gun there in 12 years.
I feel very safe at my school. It’s a private school, and I think a lot of the people there have better things to do than fighting or killing each other. In fact, fights become legends at my school because they’re so rare.
I think if public schools were run and managaed more like private schools, there would be a very large decrease in school violence.
that would be great if it weren’t so absolutely hypothetical. the best teachers and administrators will always work at the schools that cost a lot to attend and pay very well. the people who can run and manage schools as well as it’s done at a private school are either already working at private schools or will someday. it is the fact that public schools are “free” that makes them prone to problems. and i agree with what several posters have said - that metal detectors would be too expensive to implement and maintain in any effective manner, especially in the schools that need them most.
I think if all students were like private school students–i.e. affluent, culturally homogenous, serious about education, and the violent/hyperactive/disabled were all forbidden from attending because they cost too much to educate–there would be a lot less school violence.
Please.
[/hijack]
What am I missing here?
If I have no qualms about shooting a bunch of people at my school, what is it about a metal detector that’s going to stop me from doing it? All it will do is make noise when I go through it. And that’s no big deal, because what stops me from shooting the guy manning the detector?
Finding the guns is neither the issue nor the solution. THERE IS NO QUICK AND EASY ANSWER. The only real solution is to loosen up, quit looking the other way when kids are tormented by other kids, quit cutting off all normal channels for kids to vent stress, and to get parents to raise their F-ing children properly.
As I say time and time again, if a person is determined to commit a crime, they will do it. Metal detectors won’t stop them. The threat of being turned in won’t stop them. Nor will counselling. In the short term, the only way to stop a determined killer is to meet him with force.
You all can feel free to install your metal detectors and cross your fingers, but that’s not going to work.
well from the tone of your post (“You all can feel free to install your metal detectors”), you seem to be missing the fact that no one in this thread supports using metal detectors as a solution. the closest was me, but i conceded that it would be too expensive to administer effectively.
as i said in the op, school shooters usually have some particular targets (bullies, jocks, whatever) and would not want to jeapordize the mission by breaking out the guns too soon. you disagree?
If the goal is to reduce/put an end to school shootings, I can think of one solution: when it is reported that a school shooter is gunned down by a vigilant person before he can begin his spree, other prospective shooters will think twice about holding their own pistol parties. Shouldn’t matter if he’s stopped by armed guards, faculty, or even another student with a conscience, so long as he’s stopped quickly and seriously.
The press has already failed us on this count; they’re not focusing on the fact that, in the last California school shooting, it took a gun to stop a gun.
Shooters clearly don’t care about the consequences of their actions, since they never have plans to escape and don’t care if they’re seen. The only thing they care about is their own lives (unless, as in Columbine, they’re so deeply disturbed that they intend to commit suicide to begin with). If school shooters face the real risk of being shot themselves, they’ll think twice.
Interesting theory there, Max. Got any support for that? I know, for instance that in one of the last school shootings, the participant was found to be suicidal. And of course, theres’ Columbine, where they succeeded.
Airblairxxx…
Please yourself, pal. It has nothing to do with wealth - some of my best friends and myself have barely been scraping by - so this destroys your little theory.
In short, I can’t begin to describe how woefully inaccurate this statement is.
wring…
Well, just the assumption that if someone wants to go shoot up his or her school, they’d like to succeed. Not much change in succeeding if you know that you’re likely to get taken out yourself before being able to fire two shots.
depends on what the real plan is. Max noted
and I agree. Sounds suicidal to me, and several of the past ones have been diagnosed as such. So, if the shooter is suicidal in the first place and wanting to take others out with him, wouldn’t having guns available at the school actually add to the problem? since the ‘aim’ of the plan would be, in that case, to kill and be killed.
In any event, I’m looking for a bit more than 'gee in this one case recently, ‘it took a gun to stop a gun’ Feel free to bring on some evidence to support the hypothesis.
I guess she’s ruling out sending the tykes to Catholic parochial schools also; after all, one of the most recent school shootings was at a parochial school.
Or maybe just commence shooting from the curb as seems to have been the case in El Cajon, CA.
Good on you! You’re paying attention to the news, which the “gf” apparently isn’t. The 18-year old non-juvenile in El Cajon appears to have been a mite peeved at the Vice-Principal of his high school because he (the shooter, not the veep) wasn’t accepted for the Navy.
Being retired Navy myself, I think I must applaud his local recruiter’s decision to reject him.
Does this bother other people too, or just me?
A skinny fifteen-year-old is a boy to his family and teachers until the day he shoots his classmates. Then the entire country calls him a “gunman.”
I don’t like the idea that a heinous crime confers manhood in any form. C’mon Associated Press, the delinquent’s just a shooter.
**
If I recall correctly the Jonesboro shooters pulled the fire alarm and shot students as or after they exited the school.
**
I doubt it would stop a determined shooter. Not only are there ways to avoid metal detectors but a determined shooter might very well start shooting earlier rather then later.
In short I don’t think metal detectors will make school safer.
Marc
Did I just read this correctly? You brag about the fact the in this one case, “it took a gun to stop a gun”. Well what do you wnat us to do? Issue firearms to every single person who enters the building? Do I really need to remind you that just because something happened during this one case in San Diego, doesn’t mean that it will work anywhere else. Ho, and contrary to your statement, most school shooters are suicidal or extremely depressed. None of them ever make a serious effort to escape from law enforcement.
As for metal detectors, they’re a waste of money. They would be a major distraction and delay, and as many people have already mentioned, they can’t be very effective. And the idea that school shooters are aiming for a specific target in school is wrong; mostly, they just want to show how angry they are. Suppose that the Columbine kids really wanted to kill jocks, then why didn’t they just shoot up a football game?
Sorry, I wasn’t attacking anybody here in particular, only the concept. In other words, giving my response to the OP. I don’t think that it fails on economic reasons, but practical ones. It may well be too expensive, but that doesn’t matter. Even if it was dirt cheap, it wouldn’t work.
I do. Ref: Columbine. Those kids wandered all over the school, setting bombs, shooting people, acting menacing in general. I’m with Max in that I think the only thing that will stop a determined shooter is quick and decisive opposing force. By the way, you don’t seem qualified to say what school shooters usually want to do. Note that there haven’t been enough of them to make a good judgement. The only think you can judge so far is that they are disturbed individuals with serious problems.
On the recent shooting, (it wasn’t emphasized, but it was reported in the NYC media) that he didn’t succeed because he was shot down by a school patrol officer. Get that? He wasn’t stopped by a metal detector or a new gun law or even counselling. He was stopped by a bullet.
Like I’ve said a dozen times before, a bunch of sheep can’t stop a wolf or two. You need teeth to match teeth. Do shepherds put up signs that say
Nope. They train dogs and carry guns to guard them. You don’t rely on the goodwill of the wolf or appeal to its better nature. You answer it in its own language. With teeth.
(By the way, It’s a metaphor, so I don’t need links and cites to ProfessionalSheepHerderMagazine.com or ShepherdsIllustrated.net, ok?)
Also note that, to quote Bad Hat: