Who Wants Armed Guards Everywhere?

Putting armed guards in all schools is a terrible idea.

Obviously, (if you aren't in the armed-guard business like some on the NRA board are), the billions it would cost could be better spent.  Oh, I don't mean that the lives aren't infinitely valuable.   But saving more lives is better than possibly saving an average of seven or eight mass-shooting victims a year, isn't it?  If we're going to spend billions and billions, we might consider putting the resources into attacking things that kill thousands and thousands of kids.

Let's look at some actual data.

2010 Deaths, by Cause, Age 5-24 Groups:

Average school mass-shooting deaths: 7.8 per year.*  The 'homicide' total in the graph includes some individual shootings at school, but is mostly off-campus incidents.

I figure if we go after accidents and suicide, we can surely prevent many many more deaths than an expensive program of armed guards everywhere could. Further, the mental health effort to prevent suicide can be expected to also have the effect of greatly reducing school shootings.

But all that is just why guards are a bad idea.  It's a terrible idea because it defines schools as a target, and sends the message that we're really scared about attacks at them.  It in fact institutionalizes the idea that if your anger, pain, evil psychosis or whatever makes you want to kill a lot of people, you act out your bloody desires at a school.  It makes 'school shooter' all the more embedded in the culture as a behavioral meme.  I actually think putting up the guards would result in more dead kids, not less.

                                                                                                                                    

* Based on 1996 to date data for school shootings, including college/university, US incidents, with two or more killed. Average deaths do not include suspected perpetrator.

sources:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pd...oup_2010-a.pdf