As school boards around the state contend with the embarrassing school gunslinger law passed by our Legislature and signed by our Governor last month (any takers yet?), they must perform a rational cost-benefit analysis. That analysis must include a calculation of the expected value of guns in the classroom. That calculation would involve calculating the probability of a situation arising in a school where a teacher or other trained volunteer might justify responding with a firearm (one armed assailant in one school building in South Dakota's 124 years of statehood) and multiplying that tiny fraction by the probability that an armed teacher or other trained volunteer will be able to retrieve and use that firearm effectively.
The latter probability is clearly less than 100%:
Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland took no chances after one of his assistant prosecutors was gunned down two months ago. McLelland said he carried a gun everywhere he went and was extra careful when answering the door at his home.
"I'm ahead of everybody else because, basically, I'm a soldier," the 23-year Army veteran said in an interview less than two weeks ago.
On Saturday, he and his wife were found shot to death in their rural home just outside the town of Forney, about 20 miles from Dallas [Nomaan Merchant, "Texas DA Slain in His Home; Had Armed Himself," AP, 2013.03.31].
You can spend money on firearms and training, project fear with your ever-present weapon, and still end up dead (or as we say in policy debate, with no solvency). A good guy with a gun does not always stop a bad guy with a gun. South Dakota's school gunslinger law guarantees that adopting schools will pay a price in weaponry, training, liability insurance, and counter-educational psychic and philosophical damage. It does not guarantee any increase in security.
Republicans Put South Dakota on Sale.
This story, along with the Madville Times' post on ALEC and Keystone all seem to say that from the perspective of the SD GOP...South Dakota is For Sale.
We were sold out to the NRA on guns in schools.
We were sold out to ALEC.
We were sold out to TransCanada.
We sold out our Christian values to gambling and usury.
We sold our souls to commit moral and cultural genocide on Native Americans...witness the latest documentation on the atrocity of foster care of native children...which our state GOP run media ignores.
We sold out when state efforts were devoted to luxury communities who flooded and ignored the rest that were hurt.
We were sold out when the GOP is allowed to rejigger referendum votes by "we the people" of South Dakota into new hidden legislation to get around those pesky voters on education, abortion, insider legislator compensation and economic development.
We were sold out when Republican leaders advertise their citizens as "KMART Blue Light Specials" for cheap labor and knowledge.
With the Republican dictatorship of South Dakota we might as well put up a sign that says "South Dakota For Sale."
I agree with Jana. Sad but true that the SDGOP sells South Dakota out and will continue to do so as long as the public allows them to do so. Yet voters have only allowed four Democrat administrations in 124 years. The last one ended 34 years ago and got much more done for South Dakota's benefit in eight years than Bill Janklow got done in 16 years.
So with such miserable results from one-party rule in the last 34 years, why do voters choose overwhelmingly to elect incompetent administrations and legislatures to enact their agendas?
Thanks Dougal!
But in response to your question "why do voters choose overwhelmingly to elect incompetent administrations and legislatures to enact their agendas?"
I can only come up with something that Governor Daugaard said about South Dakota voters after voting down his own ALEC inspired legislation.
"They are lazy and stupid."
Actually I believe if you simply look at the gun death statistics you can get a good idea of how often an armed "good guy" will prevail over an armed "bad guy". Gun deaths due to preventive action (when guns are used to prevent a crime) are below 1%. I haven't looked specifically (being a lazy stupid SD'n who is not being paid to do the governor's research for him) but assuming that the use of guns to prevent crime in general is approx. the same ratio - I.E., guns are used to commit crimes about 99 times for every time they are used to thwart one.
Well having lived in an open carry State in Pa My life was threatened by Gun 3 times. Never shot the badguys because as quick as i drew they ran. I have a problem with shooting unarmed or fleeing people. None the less I am glad Pa has respect for second amendment. I might not be writing this comment. And the 3 other people that were there were happy too. The best security is for the bad guys to not know who what or where defense might come from. Criminals like the path of least resistance. So if they think they might have a problem they move to where they think it would be easy. None the less me nor you have any right to tell any one what they can or can not have to feel safe. Nobody has that right.
Ed I whole heartedly agree with your above statement. and I applaud the State Legislature of South Dakota to give the Local School board to decide which course of action is most suitable for their school district to be safe. They effectually left the debate up to the local populous instead of forcing the heavy hand of government upon the citizens. They are in no way advocating that all teachers should place handguns in their desk, but those who can show proficiency with a handgun and can carry it concealed on their person with no students able to access it should be able to carry if their district finds it essential to security, or the parents of the district see it to be fit. We must remember in South Dakota, as well as in many states there lies a division between the rural areas, and those with more population (I refuse to say cities... big cities, with big city problems have more than one million people, Sioux Falls and Rapid City are simply not cities...) but to be fair one group should not dictate to the other how they should live, and for once, the state lawmakers realized this and finally left something to be decided at the local level.
Jake, the Legislature is making it possible for every teacher to have a gun in his/her desk. That is a travesty, a failure of moral courage and sensible policymaking. We have a right and an obligation to forbid dangerous policies from higher levels.