The Cold Math of Securing Schools

What makes you think that? I quoted 11%. So, five times that is 55%. Total federal outlays for FY 2021 were $6.822 trillion. So, 55% would be around $3.75 trillion. Do you believe we have a $3.75 trillion military budget? What evidence do you see for that? Be specific, please.

54% of discretionary spending is on defence.
 
21 funerals. Your screeching about "doors" isn't going to save your soul I hope visions of those poor kids running around the classroom, screaming and having their heads blown off are in your head forever, punk.

Do you reserve some of your caterwaulings for the dozens of kids shot over the weekend in one of our nation's largest cities or do you not care about gangs of black kids that shoot at each every day in this country. I take it as the latter because you seem to have selective vitriol.
 
54% of discretionary spending is on defence.

Yes, I see you trying to walk away with those goal posts. No, I'm not going to allow that. The argument was "This government should have its budget cut by at least 50% and it would go unnoticed by most US citizens." Nothing there about discretionary spending. That 50% of the budget. Period. Feel free to play with the numbers and try to identify 50% of the budget that could be cut without most people noticing. You might be able to find 5% or 6% of the total budget to cut if you got rid of military spending that isn't really needed to secure the country.... but even that would be acutely noticed by many, since those working for defense contractors would experience mass layoffs, as would anyone in a community with a military base that was closed.
 
Which law, specifically, are you referring to?


Yet, by definition, every single shooting ever happened in a place that wasn't free of guns.

Answered Bimbo.
The Gin Free Zone Act of 1990
The act mandated the creation of gun free zones at all U.S. schools.
 
about a year ago, yes I did, as always.

cant tell much from your picture. not all glass is created equal.

Yes, and so not every ground-floor window would need to be replaced. But we have a huge number of schools in this country, with many school buildings dating back half a century or more, without having had any significant security retrofits. So, such retrofits would wind up being very expensive on a national basis. I was just in a school a couple weeks ago (for an event) that was built in the 1920's, and which still has a bunch of ground-floor windows that open. On a temperate day, a shooter could literally just walk up and climb through any open window.
 
Yes, I see you trying to walk away with those goal posts. No, I'm not going to allow that. The argument was "This government should have its budget cut by at least 50% and it would go unnoticed by most US citizens." Nothing there about discretionary spending. That 50% of the budget. Period. Feel free to play with the numbers and try to identify 50% of the budget that could be cut without most people noticing. You might be able to find 5% or 6% of the total budget to cut if you got rid of military spending that isn't really needed to secure the country.... but even that would be acutely noticed by many, since those working for defense contractors would experience mass layoffs, as would anyone in a community with a military base that was closed.

Sorry Bimbo that wasn't my argument.
Try again.
 
Answered [my conqueror].
The Gin Free Zone Act of 1990

What a shame, and I'm so fond of Tanqueray.

The act mandated the creation of gun free zones at all U.S. schools.

OK. That one doesn't define "gun free" and only deals with school zones, so unless most shootings happen in school zones (which they don't) doesn't satisfy the claim that most happen in gun-free zones.
 
Yes, and so not every ground-floor window would need to be replaced. But we have a huge number of schools in this country, with many school buildings dating back half a century or more, without having had any significant security retrofits. So, such retrofits would wind up being very expensive on a national basis. I was just in a school a couple weeks ago (for an event) that was built in the 1920's, and which still has a bunch of ground-floor windows that open. On a temperate day, a shooter could literally just walk up and climb through any open window.

And an armed teacher could shoot him before his feet hit the ground.
 
Do you reserve some of your caterwaulings for the dozens of kids shot over the weekend in one of our nation's largest cities or do you not care about gangs of black kids that shoot at each every day in this country. I take it as the latter because you seem to have selective vitriol.

21 Funerals. Are you going to watch any of them? It's going to be torture but I am going to watch all of them. I am going to learn each of their stories. I'm going to mourn with the parents, the families.

Welcome to what you rednecks have done. Sleep well.

21 Funerals.. TRY TO BE ASHAMED.
 
OK, let's turn this around. What does YOUR math say?

Let's go WAAAAAY cheaper than I did last time. Say it's just $50,000 per school..... say one minimum-wage guard and some minor retrofits with security doors and the like. Well, there are still 130,930 schools. So, that's about $6.5 billion per year.

Now, how many lives will that save?

Again, we have a cap to work with, since we know we've been averaging about 36 school shooter deaths per year. We'll round up to 40. So, assume for the sake of argument the plan works perfectly, by saving every one of them without costing a single life (e.g., no incidents where our minimum-wage guard mistakes a kid with a squirt gun for an active shooter and kills him). So $6.5 billion divided by 40.

That's still $162.5 million per life saved.

Now, again, remember that when the government considers things like new environmental regulations, if the cost goes over a certain threshold, it's considered not worth it. In 2001, it was $6.1 million:

https://web.mst.edu/rrbryant/cba/Arsenic Controversy.pdf

That led even the liberal Michael Kinsley to grudgingly admit that George Bush was right not to tighten regulatory standards around arsenic in water:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ic-darn/566e8ac9-b39b-4d35-9eae-f8564bd724d3/

Adjusted for inflation that's just under $10 million today.

So, how about instead of pissing away that $6.5 billion to save 40 lives, we instead go with a bunch of programs that cost just over $10 million per life saved? In other words, we go with programs currently deemed just slightly too expensive to be worth it. Say $12 million per life saved. Well then, with $6.5 billion, we'd save about 542 lives, which randomly would mean around 120 kids lives saved, or three times as many as we'd save with school security.... with all those adult lives saved just thrown in for good measure.

If you don't like my math, what's yours? How much would you spend, and how many lives would you expect it to save?

I can tell you that the schools I went to 40 years ago had full on security doors everywhere, exterior as well as interior.

I can also tell you that the schools my children went to had on scene police presence.
The expense was convered in the police budget and the town agreed that it was a small price to pay.
Finally I can tell you that you are a heinous force for evil, ignorant and stupid besides.
Your efforts here will come to naught.
 
Back
Top