Proposal to Prevent School Shootings

Here is the news report on a school shooting in Texas.

Proposal: by law, require and fund the placement of one patrol officer in a patrol vehicle at every K-12 school in the United States.

Cost analysis

There are approximately 100,000 K-12 schools in the U.S. The median salary for a patrol officer is $65,540 [Source]. Labor cost to put one patrol officer outside of every K-12 school is 6.554 billion dollars.

The cost of a new police car, needed by many departments to fulfill this task, is about $45,000. If every police department needs another vehicle to cover the schools in their area, the cost for the vehicle times 100,000 schools would be 4.5 billion dollars more.

Another expense is the cost of administering the program, which is difficult to estimate as the government operates very inefficiently, but perhaps 0.5 billion dollars would be more than enough.

Finally, some money is needed to fund training and equipment for each officer, at perhaps $10,000 per officer. This is not the training for a civilian to become an officer, but specific training on preventing or dealing with school shootings, adding another 1 billion dollars to the cost.

Estimated total cost of this proposed program:
12.554 billion dollars, rounded up to 13 billion.

These funds should be provided by the government subject to documentation that each school is covered during the entire school day, including enough time before and after the official start of the day to protect all students. Departments that do not cover the school should be refused further funds, or fined, or both. This program should be mandatory. It will seem to most police departments that the odds of a school shooting in their area is low, and it is low. But all schools must be protected.

The U.S. Congress has approved 40 billion dollars for the Ukraine war. Less than one third of that amount would protect our schools and our children.

New Police Officers

The U.S. has approximately 800,000 sworn officers at all levels — federal, state, county, city/town. An additional one officer per K-12 school would increase that number by 100,000, which is a 12.5% increase. These officers would be available for other tasks. It would NOT be the case that every school would be protected by whichever new officer were hired. Rather, different officers would cover the school in multiple shifts, so the increase is in person-hours of work time, requiring on average an additional officer per school.

Hiring 100,000 new officers would mean more jobs for the nation. As some persons would be leaving civilian jobs to become police officers, those job vacancies would be filled by persons who are civilians. So the increase in jobs would benefit persons who are not considering becoming an officer.

Such a program could be run at the State level, if Congress does not act to protect schools. But it would be much better if the entire nation were protected by a bill at the national level.

Ronald L Conte Jr

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Proposal to Prevent School Shootings

  1. James Belcher says:

    Your proposal is very reasonable, so with that said, I doubt our current administration will act in protecting our children. It appears to me, the government will use these shootings to push through their political agenda. These are immoral and evil acts perpetrated by our own government.

  2. Robert Fastiggi says:

    Dear Ron,

    In another post, you asked for suggestions of topics about which to write. Perhaps at some point you might consider writing a response to this article by Dr. Regis Martin:

    Professor Martin is correct that infallible papal pronouncements are infrequent. I am not sure, though, what to make of this assertion of his:

    “And, more to the point, they [infallible papal pronouncements] ought not to be uttered unilaterally, as though the pope were himself the Church and not the chief witness to her faith. The definition laid down at the Council [Vatican I] did not authorize the pope to teach apart from or over against the Church but precisely alongside her. Not to believe that had been the extreme ultamontanist position, in which the pope need not consult or take counsel with anybody. “

    Of course, it’s good for the pope to consult with others before making an infallible papal pronouncement, but Vatican I specifically teaches that infallible definitions of the Roman Pontiff are “irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church” (ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae; Denz.-H, 3074). Professor Martin states that Vatican I “did not authorize the pope to teach apart from or over against the Church but precisely alongside of her.” Does this mean that the pope can only teach infallibly when he has the consent of the Church? If this is so, Prof. Martin is contradicting not only Vatican I but also Vatican II, which further explains papal infallibility in these words in Lumen Gentium, 25:

    “And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, IN WHOM THE CHARISM OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH ITSELF IS INDIVIDUALLY PRESENT, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith” (emphasis added).

    In one sense, Professor Martin is correct that ex cathedra papal pronouncements are not issued apart from the Church. This, though, is because the charism of the infallibility of the Church is individually present in the Roman Pontiff when he makes such ex cathedra pronouncements. If Prof. Martin is suggesting that Vatican I specifies that papal pronouncements require the prior consent of the Church, he is contradicting what Vatican I explicitly teaches. At the very least, Prof. Martin needs to clarify his meaning.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Yes, I will write an extensive reply to that article by Prof. Martin. I think I can convincingly argue that there is ample evidence in the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium directly contrary to his position. Also, while Papal infallibility is infrequent, I do not think it is as rare as is sometimes claimed today. I agree with Bishop Gasser in the Relatio of Vatican I that the Popes have taught infallibly many times in the history of the Church (even if infrequently when considering any shorter period of time). Pope often teach infallibly as part of the ordinary universal magisterium.

  3. James Belcher says:

    I just wanted to add the following:
    We have too many broken families here in the USA where parents are not fulfilling their obligations as parents for their children.
    I am all for immigrants coming to the USA legally. There have been many instances in which families get into the USA illegally and find it very hard to assimilate with USA citizens.
    The variables needed to fix are Family decline, alienation, loneliness, government intrusion and social media. Although, we have had mass shootings before, we are currently experiencing more and more evil acts. There has to be a way in which government works for all people and leads to bring back civility.
    Maybe a post on how to bring back civility to the people of the world would help.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Society is decaying because people do not pray, do not believe, and do not practice love and mercy toward their neighbors. There’s no political solution. Society will get worse and worse until people repent.

Comments are closed.