For public goods and services to be effective they need to be supplied with certain resources. Road construction workers need asphalt and paint and public schools need AR-15's and armored vehicles. The Department of Defense 1033 Program allows the transfer of excess and outdated military weapons to be used by public schools for security programs and to protect our children. However, with many of the donated items not even being used, the program is being called into question and the issue of the appropriate level of government funding and support to a public service is being debated.
The full story can be read at:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/federal-program-supplies-surplus-military-gear-to-schools-1410884584
Public schools are government funded, which means that the government is responsible for providing them with resources. Citizens are extremely divided on the issue, some stating that the government needs to be so involved as to provide security weapons to keep kids safe while others argue that this is more intervention than is called for. This exemplifies the debates that commonly occur between different political typologies.
Is the program necessary or is it over-the-top?
What difficulties are being faced between the two parties understanding each other and reaching a compromise/conclusion?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic that I too greatly understand the complexity of, and have trouble saying which way I lean. I see both sides of the coin.
ReplyDeleteIs the program necessary? To some extent, based on what we have seen in our lives (the article uses the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut). I understand the precaution, but I also question the incentives this program could potentially derive. In other words, I am referencing this portion of the article:
"Adding the presence of military-grade weapons to school climates that have become increasingly hostile due to their overreliance on police to handle routine student discipline can only exacerbate existing tensions," the letter said. "We write to urge you to end the Department of Defense 1033 Program's transfer of military weapons to local school districts." Does the program incentivize the wrong things? Possibly.
The article states, "civilian-type weapons like these are being purchased every day," but I don't think that argument truly justifies the different settings for which civilians are purchasing guns. Furthermore, what's the point of having the officer keep a gun locked up? Because if he/she needs it, then he/she will need it immediately, when an incident is occurring. As far as the funding a long with the under use of the donated items, to me this just indicates that the program is over the top. Though I think the ideology of having armed officers at schools for obvious precaution and safety is excellent, I agree (to an extent) with the two advocates who wrote the letter requesting the end to the program.
Speaking of incentives, do you think that the presence of an armed officer at a public would discourage or encourage an estranged person to attack a school? Because I am not convinced that the presence of weapons would fully dissuade someone to not attack a school. Could it even promote violence? Would having guns on campus make for a more "hostile" environment? I am curious to hear your thoughts
DeleteYeah that's exactly what I was thinking Bret in terms of incentives. I think it, in some instances, could wrongfully pose incentives for more violence.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree that having armed officers on school grounds would induce more violence. I think that in many cases schools are attacked mainly because the attacker knows that they will not meet any resistance at the school until the police arrive, and by in that amount of time they will be able to cause much havoc. I think that if an officer was present it could eliminate many of these incidents.
DeleteThe question of whether the threat of resistance will deter a shooter or not is very important when we discuss incentives, I think. Many (not all) school shootings I hear about end in suicide, meaning that the threat of personal harm is not of consequence to the shooter. In this situation, having armed SWAT trained professionals will not deter an affected individual from attacking others. However this is only one kind of situation, and I concede that there are times in which being armed would actually deter violence.
DeleteI like Cam's comments because they are so nuanced. This overall topic reminds me of the questions in the survey we took Tuesday night. Mufti-dimensional issues and no easy answers. But the program sending surplus military equipment to schools and cities is over the top for me.
ReplyDeleteWhirlpool fridge repair
ReplyDeleteThey are providing washing machine repair services which consist of single door refrigerator,Double door refrigerator ,Triple door refrigerator,Four door refrigerator,french door refrigerator ,side by side fridge and Semi-automatic Washing machine repair Services,Fully-automatic Washing machine repair Services,Top load Washing machine repair services ,front load washing machine repair services. We also provide Microwave repair service ,oven repair service and other appliance repairs etc.
Whirlpool fridge repair