Economists use the term Schnelling Point when talking about any particular location, in space or in time, which is the "natural" meeting place/time. For example, if we were to meet on a particular date, at a particular place, but hadn't specified a time, when would you arrive? The majority of people respond to this question that they would assume the meeting was at noon - making noon a Schnelling Point.
Another example of Schnelling Points is how Latin-American day workers tend to find a place to gather, often outside a convenience store, and wait for potential employers. These potential employers know to head to this particular spot if looking for short-term workers. In this case the convenience store becomes the Schnelling Point.
So the real question is; can government change the location of a Schnelling Point?
I ask this because recently, in the area around Washington DC here, several of the smaller communities have tried to establish designated day-laborer sites, often with the intention of moving the gathering points for the day-workers from some pre-established, Schnelling Point, location.
We shall see - this could be very interesting.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
School safety
First: About the recent rash of school shootings of various terrible sorts.
There has been much hand-wringing along the lines of "what, oh what can we ever do to make the children safe at school?" Predictably there has been noise made about "making sure guns can't get into schools" (almost like the guns had little legs and just up and walked themselves into the schools), "faster response from authorities", and even a couple of remarks about the need for armed guards stationed in every school.
I find myself in agreement with those declaring that schools in these United States need to be safer, but most others probably won't agree with my methods. No, I'm not talking about an automatic deathray school-defense system (though that might do the trick). I'm talking about applying the basic economic theories of incentives, risk, and uncertainty.
When an individual chooses to attack a school he (or she, one of these days) can be assured of two things. One: The attack will be given a great deal of attention in the news media across the nation. Two: The individuals within the school will not be armed, and therefore will unlikely mount an effective response to the attack.
The response to number one is easy - the incentive to choose a school for an attack, for a violent outburst by a desperate/depressed individual, can be substantially reduced if the potential perpetrator no longer believes that everyone in the nation will hear of his deed. The short version? Report the tragedy, but don't constantly repeat and cause the nation to dwell on the shooting.
My response to the second point is the one that is a little more off the "normal" way of thinking.
I think that teachers and other school staff should be allowed to carry guns.
Yes, I think there should be more guns in schools.
More specifically; teachers who hold a valid concealed handgun permit should be allowed to carry their pistol on school grounds. Allowed, not required. This policy would increase the risk of anyone's plans to commit a violent, lethal, assault on school property by introducing the possibility that one or more school employees are armed.
Any citizen (teacher) with a valid concealed weapons permit would have already received a state-mandated level of training and would already own their own firearm - a firearm they would have chosen themselves. The school would be welcome to offer funding for additional training classes that would help armed employees respond to lethal threats in a crowded school environment.
A plan that allows already-licensed teachers the option of carrying their personal pistol on school grounds would add the element of uncertainty and risk as a disincentive to anyone's plans of attacking a school. So why not arm all teachers? Allowing the teachers to choose would reduce costs to the district because the school district would not be required to pay for training or provide the handguns for teachers who don't have them. Many teachers may feel extremely uncomfortable carrying a firearm around their students, under my plan these teachers could easily opt not to carry. Finally, the honest truth is that while I believe all individuals should take the responsibility to learn how to protect themselves and their loved ones, I do not believe that all individuals possess the capability to extend this protection to others around them (such as the students).
Anyway, feel free to knock holes in my plan. Of course, I would like to see schools in the US of A go back to sponsoring rifle and pistol teams, and allowing the students to bring their competition or hunting rifle to school with them. Remind me, how many school shootings were there when students would bring their rifles to school and stack them in the classroom or office for the day?
There has been much hand-wringing along the lines of "what, oh what can we ever do to make the children safe at school?" Predictably there has been noise made about "making sure guns can't get into schools" (almost like the guns had little legs and just up and walked themselves into the schools), "faster response from authorities", and even a couple of remarks about the need for armed guards stationed in every school.
I find myself in agreement with those declaring that schools in these United States need to be safer, but most others probably won't agree with my methods. No, I'm not talking about an automatic deathray school-defense system (though that might do the trick). I'm talking about applying the basic economic theories of incentives, risk, and uncertainty.
When an individual chooses to attack a school he (or she, one of these days) can be assured of two things. One: The attack will be given a great deal of attention in the news media across the nation. Two: The individuals within the school will not be armed, and therefore will unlikely mount an effective response to the attack.
The response to number one is easy - the incentive to choose a school for an attack, for a violent outburst by a desperate/depressed individual, can be substantially reduced if the potential perpetrator no longer believes that everyone in the nation will hear of his deed. The short version? Report the tragedy, but don't constantly repeat and cause the nation to dwell on the shooting.
My response to the second point is the one that is a little more off the "normal" way of thinking.
I think that teachers and other school staff should be allowed to carry guns.
Yes, I think there should be more guns in schools.
More specifically; teachers who hold a valid concealed handgun permit should be allowed to carry their pistol on school grounds. Allowed, not required. This policy would increase the risk of anyone's plans to commit a violent, lethal, assault on school property by introducing the possibility that one or more school employees are armed.
Any citizen (teacher) with a valid concealed weapons permit would have already received a state-mandated level of training and would already own their own firearm - a firearm they would have chosen themselves. The school would be welcome to offer funding for additional training classes that would help armed employees respond to lethal threats in a crowded school environment.
A plan that allows already-licensed teachers the option of carrying their personal pistol on school grounds would add the element of uncertainty and risk as a disincentive to anyone's plans of attacking a school. So why not arm all teachers? Allowing the teachers to choose would reduce costs to the district because the school district would not be required to pay for training or provide the handguns for teachers who don't have them. Many teachers may feel extremely uncomfortable carrying a firearm around their students, under my plan these teachers could easily opt not to carry. Finally, the honest truth is that while I believe all individuals should take the responsibility to learn how to protect themselves and their loved ones, I do not believe that all individuals possess the capability to extend this protection to others around them (such as the students).
Anyway, feel free to knock holes in my plan. Of course, I would like to see schools in the US of A go back to sponsoring rifle and pistol teams, and allowing the students to bring their competition or hunting rifle to school with them. Remind me, how many school shootings were there when students would bring their rifles to school and stack them in the classroom or office for the day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)