In American political culture, we prove we’re concerned about something by spending money on it. Americans are obviously concerned about protecting schools from more mass shootings after Newtown. But in this case, the best response may not be the most expensive.
It’s not clear why Newtown would be seen as a mandate to devote more resources to crime prevention. Yes, it was an horrific act. Our hearts went out to the young victims and their families.
Yet violent crimes have fallen in America over past years. There has been no uptick in gun violence and the incidence of mass shootings is stable. Still, the debate over guns and school safety has dominated our political discourse for over a month now.
As always, the assumption is that it’s going to take some money. “The responsibility of the Legislature is now clear: fully fund school safety” said one public commentator, evidently speaking for many.
But more government money doesn’t always solve problems. Sure, we went to the moon, we discovered how to treat AIDS and we ameliorated the misery of old age. Yet we spent trillions trying to eradicate poverty and all we have to show for it is a permanent, dependent underclass. We shoveled money by the boatload into dysfunctional schools but achievement levels haven’t budged. We’ve pumped billions into politically popular green energy schemes that seem no closerthan before to supplying real energy needs.
Have we learned from our misspending? State Senate Minority Leader Chad Campbell has stepped up with a plan to spend a lot more on school safety. His $261 million Arizona Safer Schools, Safer Communities Plan would include more money for “school resource officers”, more money for video equipment and security gates and even more money for counselors.
That seems like a lot to prevent school mass shootings, since statistically they don’t exist in our state. A more sensible solution would be to permit each principal to authorize one (or two) school employees with a concealed carry permit to bring firearms to school, a variation on AG Tom Horne’s idea. They would be trained, of course, and anonymous.
It’s at least arguable that this plan would be a more effective deterrent to mass shooters then an identifiable guard. Shooters know that once they have neutralized the guard, they are effectively back in their desired “gun free zone”. But an unidentified, invisible heat packer or two would be harder to account for.
The cost would be modest. Concealed carry permit holders would probably provide this public service for minimal reimbursement, since most of the weapons carriers would never bring out their firearm in the course of a career.
Ironically some of the criticism of Horne’s idea is that it doesn’t cost enough money. “We can’t protect our children on the cheap”, you know.
Others argue that it’s too risky to add more guns to our school environment. But the record of concealed carry holders has been remarkably positive. They tend to be stable individuals with strong feelings about using guns responsibly. They virtually never use their weapons in road rage situations or nonviolent personal disputes. On the contrary, the strong statistical evidence is that crime rates fall when there are more carriers around.
But can armed citizens stop mass shootings? Like most questions around gun-control, both sides claim mounds of statistics support their position. Ed Schultz of MSNBC recently reported that “we’ve never had a civilian stop a mass shooting”.
It’s a little more complicated. His definition of a mass shooting is four or more deaths. But there are scores of incidents where armed citizens have stopped shootings in theaters, restaurants, churches and schools before four people were killed – two in last December alone. The take-home is that our children would be safer with a trained, armed adult on the premises.
Obviously, we want our to be as safe as possible at school, but our efforts to prevent mass shootings should be appropriate and, yes, cost-effective. We’re in a lot of trouble now from our habit of spending public money as if it were limitless. It just doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of millions so politicians can appear to be doing something.
• East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:21 am on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Well, it isn't often Patterson is right, but this time he is at least partly correct.
More money WON'T prevent school shootings.
However, neither will one or two anonymous concealed carrying teachers / administrators.
The CC people could be in the East Wing when someone starts shooting in the West Wing of the school.
Unless EVERY teacher was armed and there was an armed person in EVERY hallway it would be too easy for a shooter to get his deed done.
No, practical, amount of guns will prevent a mass shooting.
The problem isn't guns or lack of them --- it's a mental health problem.
The courts prevent mental health facilities from holding the mentally ill against their will unless they are proven violent.
THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE -- PRONTO
Rich posted at 12:18 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Actually, it's a question of responsibility. Schools will get safer when the people who work in them take the responsibility to be trained and equipped to stop a shooter. When people recognize the signs of mental illness and get the person some help. The whole question of safety, gun control, security hinges on the average man shouldering the responsibility of them. If we sit and cry for government to do something, the unintended consequences of governmental action make the situation worse, and since you have removed the responsibility of them to the government, no prospects of making it better.
Ed Schultz' dictum that “we’ve never had a civilian stop a mass shooting”. Is crack-brained. It would only be news, only reported if the mass shooting occurred, it's ridiculous in conception, and, in fact armed citizens stop them all the time, simply by being armed and there. It is an absurd hyperbole.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:21 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Rich, even if EVERY teacher was armed, a shooter could still do his deeds.
I believe most of the school shooters have had a rifle.
They could sit outside and fire through the windows.
Or are we going to put bullet proof glass in every window of every school?
We are turning schools into the prisons kids think they are :)
The only 100% positive way to stop school shooting is to stop having schools in their present form.
We spend gazillions of bucks building corrals to herd kids into making it a target rich environment.
We have the technology now that schools, as they currently are, are no longer needed.
We < could > build on the Khan Academy model and local teachers would be available for tutoring kids who need more help.
With online classes, we could have EVERY kid taught by the best teachers that can be found.
Of course, that creates other problems, cause parents have used schools as free baby sitters.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:29 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
1. What kind of training?
2. How often?
3. To what level of proficiency would these anonymous school employees be required in order to carry the gun?
4. Would the gun be on his/her person?
5. What kind of weapon?
6 How would the person be chosen?
7. Has Patterson read about firearms training for police?
8. Has Patterson read about the brain function during a shooting situation?
9. Will the employee have some kind of vest or other sort of armor to protect him from the possible immensely stronger firepower the shooter might have?
10. Has Patterson even spoken to police about how their bodies react in those situations? Does he believe a school employee will have at least the same reaction as a policeman?
Nope, this is indeed, safety on the cheap. Why don't we take Patterson's idea beyond school? Why don't we slash most of our police forces and replace them with voluntary civilian police forces? You know, give them some training and a gun and have at it?
Any takers (at least beyond the guy above, who probably does think it's a good idea).
Rich posted at 2:09 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Mike,
All you're asking is what would it take to acquire a well-regulated militia? Which is what the government is supposed to handle, and doesn't. Instead we get political posturing, dangerous losses of rights, and killing fields in place of our schools. All because people like you refuse to take responsibility and solve the problem.
Willy,
Most of them use handguns. The nutball in CT left his assault rifle in the car.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:38 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
So Rich wants a huge government program. Talk about spending.
By the way, Rich, we have among the most lenient gun laws in the country, so where are all your John Wayne's when crimes take place? We should have hardly any crime in this state. Cartels should be terrified given all the guns on the loose in this state, yet we're told by the Babeu's and Arpaio's and Pearce's of the state that we're not safe. And we have shootings every day.
By your accounts, we should be practically crime-free. I guess the John Wayne's just aren't in the right place at the right time.
What gives?
samkat posted at 5:40 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Well Mike, I suppose we could equate the effectiveness of our teachers in the classroom vs doing double duty protecting our children. Perhaps they might be better as protectors than they are in teaching. Now, if we are going to slam every gun owner, its time to do the same for some of our pacifist retired teachers. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of our teachers are not gun owners themselves.
Perhaps, rather than to be slamming gun owners and I suspect I purchased my first one long before you were born, lets put our collective heads together to identify the root causes of gun and domestic violence as opposed to slamming each other. I believe we all have some productive ideas and certainly we all have the best of intentions.
In reviewing the FBI statistics published in the New York Times, rifles present only a small fraction of the murders in this country and even then, the FBI does not distinguish a single shot rifle from a muzzle loader from that nasty assault rifle. Actually, the number of knife killings exceeded the number of rifle deaths.
Rich posted at 6:32 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
"So Rich wants a huge government program." Yeh Mike, I do. I want every high school kid to be minimally proficient with a gun. I want them to understand what guns do, what their limits are and how to deal with them. Because once that happens, they cease to be a major problem. A whole lot of kids get to grow up, and everyone is safer.
You think in prejudices, because a politician bundles them, doesn't require any thinking person to. You will never be crime free, according to a court yesterday, the President committed a crime. If we ever became crime free one of the politicians you elected through your prejudiced thinking would make something else illegal to make his friends a buck.
It's a problem, it can't be solved by repeating past mistakes. No matter how much childish sarcasm you can apply to it.
downtownresident posted at 7:33 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Keep guns out of schools.
We don't hunt any more, so kids need to know how to order food, or shop for it, not kill it.
Teachers are not shooting professionals.
Paranoia is a bad thing.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:10 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Okay, Rich, what is "minimally proficient"? And how will that make them safer at school? Or in a theater? Or in a parking lot? Or at the mall?
This, to your chagrin, maybe, isn't sarcasm. It's incredulity at your simplistic solution to a complex problem. Because if more weapons make us safer, then we should be the safest country in the world -- but we're not. And your rootin' tootin' fantasies of the hero gunman saving the day rarely happen, Thank God they do -- sometimes -- but most of the time, they don't.
I'm not being sarcastic when I wonder where the hero-gunman was to stop Loughner in the Safeway parking lot. In gun-invested Arizona, there should've been plenty of them around. In fact, there was one. But he showed up after the slaughter had ended.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:10 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
This spam thing is brutal . . .
And samkat, I agree that we should be looking at "root causes," but don't put words in my mouth -- I'm all for gun ownership. It's a vital part of our DNA, it a vital part of our Constitution. As I've written before. But just because I don't believe that an "anonymous staff person at school" is sufficient doesn't make me a, as you say, a "pacifist."
The mental health side of the issue is as complex as the gun one. For every Loughner -- who should've been i.d'd and kept from buying guns -- you have the Aurora guy, who wasn't on anyone's radar at any time. So how do we identify them? You and I wish we knew, but, sadly, we don't. So what do we do? More mental health help? More reporting of possible mentally ill people to authorities? Maybe so.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:11 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
So if you divvie up the comment, it magically becomes something other than spam . . .
And the incessant play of ultraviolent video games by boys has to have some effect on them, at the very least desensitizing them to violence a bit.
The entertainment industry has to give itself a hard look -- the "well, I don't become violent when I play video games, so why should they be changed" just doesn't work.
But does that remind you of something? "Well, just because some nutjob uses a large-capacity magazine to shoot a bunch of innocent kids doesn't mean I will, so why should we ban them?"
Can't we agree that allowing the unregulated sale of weapons at gun shows by unlicensed dealers is a recipe for major problems? Can't we agree to that at least?
And can't we agree that large-capacity magazines aren't really necessary? I hear some of the absolutists say it's a fantasy to believe that restricting magazine size will deter slaughter, that the shooter can quickly change out the magazine before he can be stopped.
Yet that's just what happened in Tucson, right? Loughner unloaded one magazine, and while he tried to snap in another, he was jumped. And stopped.
sam, I believe we can find some modest common ground somewhere between "ban all weapons," and "don't change anything." But it'll take people of good will free from the propagandists to do so.
Rich posted at 8:14 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
"Paranoia is a bad thing." No it isn't once you know what it is and its limits. Part of being a teacher, because you've banned it, makes it imperative that they are "shooting professionals" and because of you 'gun free' schools, makes those skills an imperitive to hold the job. That's your fault, however.
Rich posted at 9:45 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
The "spam' thing here is about 99% off base. In any case "I believe we can find some modest common ground somewhere between "ban all weapons," and "don't change anything." It isn't "don't ban anything" Who bans and how is much more relevant. If the average man foregoes an automatic weapon, it is banned. If the government does it is a target of opportunity.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:34 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Rich, I know most of the school shooters didn't use their rifle ( although the Columbine shooter did as I recall ), but they HAD one and if a determined shooter couldn't get access to a school what's to keep them from shooting through the windows?
NOTHING
Deddzone posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Jan 27, 2013.
Mr. Patterson is upset at spending money in public schools, but has no problem taking money from parent's at Charter Schools. Yes, it costs money to do things. I'm not for waste and excess spending--not ever! .
It's funny to be told by an Ivy League graduate (BTW, Yale is expensive) to stop expecting to spend money to make the commoners public schools safe. How dare they ask, right? Mr. Patterson doesn't want money spent on the people, simply arm a few of the teachers and hope they can think like a police officer in the moment. He says statiscally we've not had a school shooting---no, just that shooting in Tucson, we didn't forget.
The problem to me is the "haves" are not interested in spending Government money on who they deem the have-nots to be. The problem is, being Ivy League does not mean you own all the tax money. We the People pay are fair share....do you?
Rich posted at 7:09 pm on Sun, Jan 27, 2013.
Deddzone
"We the People pay are(sic) fair share....do you?" Actually, if you did we wouldn't have half the problems we do. 47% of 'we the people' don't.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:57 am on Mon, Jan 28, 2013.
I guess when Rich isn't channeling John Wayne, he's the second coming of Mitt Romney,
So, the 47% of "we the people" who don't?
62% pay federal payroll taxes, which means that 82% of all adults send some part of their income to the Feds.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:05 am on Mon, Jan 28, 2013.
Leon: Indeed sexual abuse of kids is a major problem in public schools. When you only want to pay teachers 30 - 40 K all you will attract is pedophiles.
As for the lie detector tests --- well on #2 almost every male teacher would flunk that one. All the young half-dressed girl meat walking around the halls would make ANYONE < think > about that. DOING something about it is the problem.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:02 am on Mon, Jan 28, 2013.
Rich, 95% of that 47% has incomes in the 20K area. They are not receiving much from society so society has judged that they should not be asked to give up any of their subsistence income to the Federal Government for personal Income Tax.
They DO pay other taxes. And they do contribute in other ways. The children of the 47% serve in the Armed Forces way out of proportion to their numbers. The higher the family income the less likely the children will ever be in the military. Giving up years of their lives should count for something.
Why is it that so many of us who are much better off, have such hatred for those on the bottom of the economic scale?
Remember the average American IQ is only 100. Not their fault. They didn't get to pick their parents so they had no choice about their physical and mental capabilities.
It's not like they were getting ready to be born and told God " I'd like to be a bit on the dim side and work the worst jobs available so that I don't have to pay Income Tax ".
Rich posted at 9:56 pm on Mon, Jan 28, 2013.
Willy,
Until they are part of us, pay a share, feel that, feel they are a part of us, then we can't progress. No free passes, no free lunch, we are in debt, and if it's only a c-note, only 1% of income, it has to be there, and we all have to pay together. No more elections where we elect those who promise more, we need elections where we get those who promise better, and you don't get that with more free rides.
rhmnlc posted at 2:11 pm on Tue, Jan 29, 2013.
Unless the job descriptions of principals and staff are now to include an ability and willingness to kill another person, Patterson's idea seems to be an infringement on those people's individual liberties. Why should they be compelled to act as a law enforcement officer or military personnel if they do not wish to do so? Freedom is sacred in America. Mr. Patterson seems to have no regard for freedoms when they do not suit his argument.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:16 pm on Tue, Jan 29, 2013.
Rich: the 47% do pay State Income Tax and they do pay Federal Excise Taxes when they get things where that applies.
I'm sure they feel that they are part of us, the U.S.A.
So the poorer folks get a little break in life. They sure need it.
I've never heard a 47%er threaten to leave the country if his taxes were raised 3% but the Super Rich not only threaten to do that, some actually do. Tina Turner now lives in Switzerland ( she has for years but now she has officially renounced her U.S. Citizenship ).
Rich posted at 8:27 pm on Tue, Jan 29, 2013.
Willie,
They need to pay their fair share. They need to be a part of this country, they are not currently. If you live in a house, you are responsible to pay for it. They don't pay and until they do, you divide the country, wallow in recession (despite the fact that it's been over daily for four years now according to the journalists), and steal your children's future.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:03 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
Rich, many of those people you say ' are not currently part of this country ' are in the military. Are you really saying that they are not citizens of this country because they get an income tax subsidy?
Rich posted at 7:31 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
Willie,
Seeing as you're talking about a dozen relatives here... pretty much...yes. they are pampered, worthless and considerably overpaid. More than that, psychologically destroyed by a stupid continuation of a war in the graveyard of Empires with no hope of victory. They are victims, I'll grant you that, but to have them voting, deciding? Please that's brain dead. We didn't learn from Vietnam, whoppee, we all gonna die. We support 47% and kill any initiative they ever had, teach kids who can't make it a path to destruction if they kill for us, and, by you, this is a good thing?
Arizona Willie posted at 11:20 am on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Rich: I don't know what " dozen relatives " you are talking about. Your entire message didn't make sense to me --- did you write at 2 am or something?
Rich posted at 12:26 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
A dozen of my relatives, fourteen actually are in the service, so I know them. It's too many, fighting an absurd war we can't win. They don't need a tax break, they need to come home and do something useful, not destructive.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:58 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Well, Rich, I agree it is a bad war that should never have happened. But blame a certain Republican administration … not the people fighting the war.
Conservatives admire a wealthy man who hires tax attorneys and gets his tax bill down to zero. They all aspire to be that guy. But, they hate poor people who have a zero tax bill. Sorta strange.People with a zero tax liability fill out the same tax forms as everyone else.
They have the same deductions as people who wind up paying Federal Income Tax.
When a wealthy man's tax attorneys fill out his tax forms and he winds up owing zero conservatives applaud. When the poor man's Turbo Tax fills out the SAME FORM as the wealthier guy and also winds up owning zero --- you claim he isn't part of this country.
The poor people aren't cheating ( but the rich guy may be ) they are simply playing by the rules. They don't make the rules. The rich man's lobbiest owns the Congressmen who make the rules.
Yet we see no complaints at all about companies getting refunds and subsidies when they made billions of dollars in profits. At least not from the right wingers. They admire right people who pay nothing but hate poor people who pay nothing.
Arizona Willie posted at 5:01 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Sorry, last sentence should read " They admire rich people who pay nothing but hate poor people who pay nothing.
Looks like the SPAM filter doesn't like messages with more than 5 paragraphs.
I had to consolidate 10 paragraphs into 5 and then it took it even though it is all squashed up. :(
Rich posted at 7:41 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Willie,
That's just silly. If I could hire a man to show me how to pay zero taxes, I would. Rich man pays nothing? It's fantasy, and if you fall for it you're an idiot. I pay taxes to the U.S., Japan, and the U.K. Tax is what you pay for government. Maintenance on your proprietary claim. I'm two percent higher than Romney. I don't think it's fair, not if some people pay nothing, and still vote. But if you're going to play the gross tax versus gross income game, I pay four times what I end up with, in taxes of one kind or another. So I get 20% of my income? 20% of what I earn? that's not a fair share, let alone I pay 35K to the guy who makes it that way? All I asked was that the government not destroy the economy so I can, at least, keep up. And what do I get?
A guy who tanks the economy to sell out to the nearly half who don't pay anything? The people who get 80% of what I earn? Get real, deal in reality,not slogans and mythology.
Rich posted at 8:01 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Willie,
The Spam filter doesn't even like civility or logical conclusions.
My last sentence was "Liberalism is wonderful if you could convince God to handle it personally, leaving it to humans results in the worst possible widespread corruption."