 An odd thing has happened. Advocates for gun control have actually begun arguing against practical measures addressing school security. Rather than take strategies that can be implemented virtually immediately and which address the dangers in a specific place in a common sense way, gun control advocates would rather focus on a political victory at some point in the future and continue to leave schools without proper security measures. Hello, I'm Ryan McMakin and this is Radio Rothbard for February 21st, 2018. The general argument we're encountering here from these opponents of school security is that any effort at meaningful security is unacceptable because it turns schools into fortresses. Numerous examples of this line of reasoning can be found on Twitter. They are often remarkably similar in message which is, forget school security, just ban guns. Yes, the ban gun solution, it certainly works in Latin America. And of course, as soon as the guns are banned, everyone will immediately turn theirs in to the authorities and no one will have them anymore. And of course, then security of any sort will immediately and forever be rendered unnecessary. So why even think about security for your building? At least this is how the thinking goes. That example comes from a person named Soviet Sergei on Twitter where he says, how about instead of making schools like effing fortresses in a war zone, you just ban the assault rifles to god damn imbecile. I've cleaned that up for you slightly. Another comment comes from someone named Nippy Sweetie who's responding to CNN's Chris Cuomo and says, schools shouldn't have to become fortresses to keep children safe. They shouldn't need metal detectors or armed police officers on patrol. Get rid of the damn guns. One wonders if Nippy Sweetie would then be in favor of abolishing all security at all courthouses or legislatures or theme parks or any other places like that immediately. Because once you get rid of the guns, well, there's no more danger anywhere. Heck, you could leave your house unlocked at night. But of course, others are filled with reasons why security is useless. They point out that Columbine High School had security cameras and this therefore proves that all security measures have no effect. Gun control advocates and social media have also begun passing around an article by Brian Warnick, Benjamin Johnson and Sam Rocha titled, Why Security Measures Won't Stop School Shootings. The article, however, only briefly asserts, without much argumentation at all, that the security won't work and barely touches on the tactics of so-called target hardening. Most of the articles actually devoted to a sociological discussion of how a kinder, gentler school environment will make school shootings less likely. It looks more at the effects of security on student attitudes. Not even the article sources much support the theory that greater security makes a school more scary, though, as many opponents of security are claiming. A prominently cited study within the article called predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African-American and white students does not support the idea either. Indeed, the study found that when securities applied aggressively within the school, students report feeling less fearful. But the overall strategy here is startling. Gun control advocates are in a way holding school children hostage to their message by shooting down calls for better school security. Their essential position is no security for children until we get the gun control legislation we want. Most of the talk about schools being turned into dreary fortresses, of course, is pure sentimentalism. But it's the sort of thing we should expect from panic-prone Americans, many of whom routinely overestimate the threats to their safety, should be reminded that the odds of dying in a mass shooting are about equal to dying in a legal execution. Meanwhile, many responsible owners of private facilities, i.e., not public schools, have already implemented just the sort of security measures that anti-security advocates now denounce as measures that turn schools into prisons. Disney theme parks in California, for example, implemented metal detectors in 2015. Orlando theme parks, including SeaWorld and the Universal Parks, have implemented metal detectors and other security measures as well. The theme parks have implemented just the sort of security that we're told turns the place into a fortress and will make everyone feel as if he is inside a prison. But the park owners want greater security, lest they are subject to lawsuits that might result from a mass shooter situation. The theme parks, especially Disney, are famous for keeping security unobtrusive, but it's there. At the same time, theme park owners are motivated to make security as pleasant and experience as possible and, of course, get people in the door. This is why security personnel is trained to be friendly and professional. Meanwhile, Disney reported a 13% increase in theme park revenue in 2017. It seems that the fortress isn't exactly keeping all that many people away. Theme parks aren't the only places where security is done better than at public schools. Early in my career, I was a lobbyist at the Colorado State Capitol in Denver. Prior to 2007, except for a short period following the 9-11 attacks, the building had unrestricted access. It had on-site security, though. In 2007, a man armed with a handgun entered the building and threatened personnel in and around the governor's office. He was shot dead by on-site security. Building access was heavily restricted after that. Nowadays, all visitors must go through a basic security screening unless they are members of the legislature or our pre-approved personnel subjected to background checks. Hundreds of people pass through the building each day. But even those of us who had to go through the screening would enter and exit the building multiple times per day. This meant going back through the screening, of course, but it was marginally inconvenient and we questioned the need given the presence of armed on-site security personnel. But in general, it just, it wasn't a big deal. Moreover, school kids were regularly visiting the building for field trips. They moved freely and exuberantly through the building. They sat in the gallery. They noisily ate their lunches in the rotunda. And yet, the experts would have us believe that by merely being in a building with armed security or metal detectors, the children were in fact being tormented psychologically, having been given the message that the building was to use the words of the Warnick at all, a scary, dangerous, and violent place. In reality, none of us who worked in the building really cared anything at all about the presence of the guards. It's certainly, I never hesitated to invite family members to the building. For places like amusement parks, concert venues, city halls, county courthouses, state legislatures, and of course the US Capitol, security measures have already been implemented. Is there evidence that everyone working in these buildings regards them as prisons? Well, now I certainly have my issues with the way the federal government does things, or implements security, or even state governments. But those things aren't necessarily an argument against all security. After all, private owners, people who are potentially liable for violence on their premises, want security. And you hear few of them resort to a knee-jerk declaration of it won't work when their lawyers and stockholders advise them to implement security solutions. Indeed, what we often hear as objections to security are really just objections to the incompetence and unpleasantness of public schools. We're told that greater security of schools will encourage more abuse of student rights via random searches, drug tests, and aggressively unpleasant encounters with security personnel. In other words, we're being warned that public school security reflects the quality of public schools in general. If greater security automatically leads to abusive behavior by security, then why do we not see this behavior at the Magic Kingdom or at a baseball stadium? The answer lies in how public schools function. Those places that actually value the safety and quality of experience for the people present have a much different attitude towards security than public schools do. And no doubt, part of the reason that public schools and their supporters can continue to get away with their dismissive attitude toward real security is because no matter how many shootings take place on school property, the schools are never held legally accountable. It's much easier for the counties and the school boards to shrug and say, eh, there's not enough money. But why is the security experience at some non-school government facilities even so much better than at public schools? The answer lies in the fact that schools simply aren't a public policy priority. The grown-up lobbyists and politicians and other visitors who visit a legislature will complain bitterly and possibly even sue. They've treated the way public school children are treated. They also demand real security that they can see for themselves. Thus, meaningful yet unobtrusive measures are implemented even if they are costly in many locations. The attitude for public schools is quite different. For them, the plan is to slap up a few security cameras, hire a tiny handful of ill-tempered, unprofessional security personnel, poorly trained in dealing with students. Those who oppose security will continue to claim it can't work. Outside the tiny echo chamber of public school thinking, though, practical security measures are already common and the results have been nothing like we associate with public school security. Perhaps there's a reason why the public schools and not-theme parks continue to be primary targets for homicidal maniacs. Thank you for listening to this edition of Radio Rothbard. We'll be doing more of these over time for those of you who like to listen to the columns rather than read them, and I'll be adding a little additional commentary when they're my columns as well. Have a wonderful afternoon. For more content like this, visit Mises.org.