Metal Detectors in Schools When confronted with a frightening phenomena, people often tend only to look at the symptom, rather than the underlying cause, and in turn they end up making the problem worse, as in the case of installing metal detectors in schools in an attempt to stop violence. Although at first glance installing a metal detector might seem like an obvious choice towards making schools safer, this kind of thinking only makes the problem worse by wasting time and energy on a "solution" that ignores the larger problem, is not actually effective, and harms the very people it is meant to protect. Examining these three faults in greater detail will reveal how the use of metal detectors is born out an ignorant, careless approach to safety that harms the public while making money for a few self-interested parties.

The first problem with using metal detectors in schools is that they allow those in charge to ignore the larger problem, which can not be solved with scanners but only by looking at the social conditions and motivating factors that encourage this violence in the first place. However, investigating social injustice and reducing poverty does not make much money, and not nearly as much as expensive contracts to install and maintain metal detectors in schools. The fact that this is largely about money, and not about solving any real problem, can be seen in an article arguing in favor of metal detectors in schools, which actually begins by admitting that "violence-related behavior in schools has declined in recent years" without bothering to wonder if that renders the rest of their essay irrelevant (Mawson et al., 2002, p. 243).

However, because they need fear to in order to sell metal detectors, the authors continue,...

[that] has prompted policymakers to address the public's growing perception that our schools are unsafe" (Mawson et al., p. 243, DeAngelis et al., 2011, p. 312). This misguided concern over dramatic, rare events allows those with a vested interest to make the argument that these dramatic, rare events are actually so common as to necessitate constant vigilance and increased surveillance in order to maintain even the smallest bit of safety.
Thus, Mawson et al. continue on to suggest that installing metal detectors in schools will mostly make people feel safer, as if spending millions of dollars to install expensive equipment in order to alleviate the anxiety caused by people's ignorance is somehow better than educating people about the realities of violence in schools (Mawson et al., 2002, p. 243). Because the fear of violence is much more prevalent than actual violence, the most important step towards preventing the violence that does occur would be to learn about why it happens, not throw one's hands up in desperation and decide the only way to protect students and teachers is to scan them for metal objects.

The second problem with metal detectors is that in general, they are not even effective in stopping the majority of violence that happens in schools. The authors arguing in favor of metal detectors claim that "current proposals for preventing school violence [do not] address the issue of lethal violence and hence personal safety," arguing that the only way to prevent lethal violence is by using metal detectors to search students for weapons (Mawson et al., 2002, p. 243).…