Reflection Post #7
The chapter this week focused on the ways that school shootings can be prevented. Of those solutions one that seemed like the best method to me is the usage of metal detectors. Although they do pose a problem of being able to pay for them they seem like the one of the most effective ways to keep something like a school shooting from happening. I understand that in schools with a mass amount of students might make it hard to go through all of the students I think that a system can be put in place for it to work. I also do understand that the cost are a lot for a school to afford but I think that if the schools can work something out like sponsorship from companies or from their state they could be able to afford it. I think that the method that I think is the least effect would be arming teachers. Whenever I hear about this method I don't really like it. I think of all of the possible things that could happen. What would happen if the teacher decided to open fire on a class? Or a student somehow manages to take the gun? Arming teachers just does not make sense in the long run because do the teachers take the guns home or do they leave them on the school premises. I just think that there are so many things that can go wrong with arming teachers.
I do think that the expenditures are doing what they are supposed to. I feel like if we combined some of the tactics they could be even more effective. The way that we can make these changes stick it to make noise about things that we think we need. The expenditures are something that seem like they are doing what they are supposed to. When reading the chapter some of the methods although expensive did seem to work.
This post was so well written and I agree with a lot of your points! I think metal detectors are a great idea, but the cost of them is definitely an issue among school districts. But if they were able to get sponsorships from companies, it may be easier to afford. Having teachers be armed is definitely one of the least effective ways of trying to prevent a mass shooting. I don't think the teachers themselves should be armed, but in the video they mentioned having gun safes around the school. That could be a good idea, but like you said you have to think about everything that could potentially go wrong. Having $3 billion dollars to spend makes it easier to afford the more expensive security methods, but schools have a budget and only a small portion of it goes to different things the school needs. School districts want to make sure that their students and teachers are safe, and with that amount of money you can buy a good amount. And lastly, the expenditures are doing what they are supposed to. Definitely combining the tactics would make them even more effective.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! The issues I have noticed with metal detectors are that A) they are expensive and B) if someone is truly motivated to commit a mass shooting, what is stopping them from shooting the person manning the metal detector and then walking right through. However, they can be great at preventing anything like bombs, small firearms, or other dangerous materials from entering the school for a inside attack that is planned to happen at a random point later in the day. I agree that $3 billion dollars for school security can mean the difference between life and death and that is great. However, some of the lower funded schools have $0 in funding for even the basic of supplies so while yes having $3 billion in funding is great for some schools, for others they have to focus on other funding issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree that metal detectors would be beneficial in the case that a student or teacher were to bring a weapon to the school that were going to use it at a specific time after entering but they do not stop anyone from bringing a weapon to campus and harming those who are outside or guarding the metal detector. Also, schools that can afford metal detectors may not have them at every entrance and the shooter could create and entrance and bypass them. Therefor, metal detectors would help but I believe there are too many ways to get around them that would make them very little effective.
ReplyDeleteHi Jasmine, you had a very well written post! I had not considered metal detectors as the most effective method for schools, however your post was very convincing. I choose having an officer on school grounds as the most effective method that way schools have a direct line of communication with the police department, and they have some sort of defense on school grounds at all times. That is the only fault I see with metal detectors, is that once a weapon is detected, there is no communicating that with the authorities. Otherwise I feel as though it’s a great defense method!
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with the option you chose as the most effective. For me, metal detectors were the least effective. The price you mention does not match the safety it adds. There are proven examples given in the text where the metal detectors do not stop shootings. There were schools with metal detectors that still had shootings. I do agree that arming teachers is not a good idea. It lends itself to a can of worms of problems that are not worth it. SROs would be a better option of having someone armed in a school. I agree that the benefits of spending 3 billion dollars are very high. It helps saves the student’s lives. Although we disagree, great post.
ReplyDelete