Have you ever felt violated, disrespected and dishonored to the point of no return? Many students around the world feel such a way every day. According to a 2002 National School Board Association report, 10.1 percent of school districts nationwide implement the use of metal detectors. Are metal detectors even effective? Why should students be forced to cooperate with a violation of their rights? High Schools around the world should not employ the use of metal detectors at all.
A metal detector cannot determine the will in the minds of students; therefore metal detectors would have no effect on a student’s judgment about bearing arms. To illustrate, researchers asked “Of what value is a metal detector when an attacker is willing to kill others and take his or her life? Or threat-evaluation software, when most attackers do not make a threat before an attack?” In other words, this means that a metal detector cannot and will not alter an individual’s thoughts and timing of when an attack can happen. This shows how metal detectors have a minute effect on the mentalities of certain students.
High schools should not have metal detectors because they band students from their god-given rights. Also, metal detectors cannot be unswerving at all times. In fact, in the article “Does every school need a metal detector” written by Bill Dedman, a student shooter named Luke Woodham was asked by secret service investigators what he would have done in 1997 if he’d encountered a metal detector. His response was “[I] would have walked right through it.” This means that even with a metal detector, nothing could have corrupted his mind about accomplishing his mission. Therefore, relying solely on metal detectors would be horrific for students on school grounds because they can be easily bypassed.
Opponents to my position would argue that high schools should have metal detectors because they effectively deter students from bearing arms in schools with violence and weapon problems. For instance, Modzeleski, Director of the Drug Free School program for the United States Department of Education admits “Some schools with a weapons problem can benefit from [metal detectors]”. According to them, this means that metal detectors can serve as effective restraints if schools have many students attending who may be carrying guns, knives and other deadly weapons. This shows that high schools with weapon problems should have metal detectors. This is because; in that situation the positives prevail over the negatives.
On the contrary, their position is incorrect because metal detectors aren’t completely 100% effective. According to the table “Comparison of Violence in Schools with and without Metal Detectors” it shows how over 7 percent of New York City students in 1992 would carry a weapon anywhere, to or from school, and inside school in any case. This means that a number of students will bear arms no matter what the condition implying that metal detectors would have no effect on them. This shows my opponents are incorrect because there is no sure positive way to prevent students from bearing arms, therefore making it inevitable.
Even though metal detectors aren’t 100% percent effective, other opponents to my position would argue that they are beneficial because they reduce the percentile of students bearing arms. If you refer to the table, in schools with a metal detector programs, 2.1% of students are known for carrying a handgun inside of school. On the other hand, the percent of students without metal detectors approximately doubles to an astonishing 4%. According to them this means that the percentile of students that carries a handgun inside schools without metal detectors increase by 1.9% causing more havoc and creates a more dangerous vicinity for students in the area leaving them feeling unsafe in their ordinary school climate. They suggest that schools without metal detectors are more likely to have fatal shootings within school grounds.
However their position is incorrect because metal detectors pose and influence the wrong ideas into the young minds of students. For example Modzeleski quotes “ [Metal detectors can send a wrong message and have an adverse effect on the climate of the school. It also sends a message that if you have a metal detector, you’re safe. And I’m not sure that’s so.” This means that the implementation of metal detectors can sometimes impose that danger is evitable. This shows my opponents are incorrect because danger cannot be tracked, and can happen at any given moment.
In short, students shouldn’t be forced to cooperate with the violation of their rights. Even though metal detectors are somewhat effective and benefit schools by reducing the amount of potential danger, it is inevitable and all it takes is one mentally troubled person to physically affect us in a negative manner.