And not just the impracticality, but the cost. Apparently one state alone is looking to spend $15m on just this technology next year. Plus all the other security theatre like school security guards, magnetic scanners, etc. Imagine how much money their schools would have to spend on actually teaching students if they weren't spending it all on failing to keep them safe from guns.

Strip away the propaganda and the fascists, and 99% of who's left would support that change. Unfortunately we've let them reach critical mass and they're not known for going away peacefully.

Guns are a civic religion here.

Consider whatever it is that you believe in most fervently, and then imagine someone asking you to violate it. That's the American brain, and it doesn't make any sense to me either.

I don't think the culture here will change until someone manages to leak a video of kids being gunned down in a classroom. Americans will have to literally see what this culture produces to have their hearts changed.

I wonder how long it would take to round up all* the guns, theoretically speaking.

*ish

Are people really okay with this?

They're not given the choice. It's the foie gras method of consent. What are they going to do? Not vote red in Florida? Inconceivable.

I feel bad for those kids.

i mean there were already security cameras all over my k-12 schools in the 80s and 90s. only unfilmed places were the toilets and maybe part of the yard

Well, their excuse here is essentially that it's better to have a false positive than a false negative.

And that's actually a pretty standard way of thinking in any industry that deals in automated detection systems. I work with a product that fills a somewhat similar role - automatically detecting a hazard - and what it comes down to is this; a false negative comes back on you, the company. Someone died because your product was supposed to do a job, and didn't. A false positive on the other hand, you can always counter with "But what if there had been a danger and we hadn't alerted you?"

When pressed between those two options, the customer (that is, the execs at the top) will always prefer the false positive. Now, those false positives bring with them a whole host of problems, just like the article describes. Staff get fatigued by constant false alerts, and often start to hate the entire system. But the thing is, the people who pay for the system never have to directly deal with those negative effects. But someone dying who shouldn't have, that's absolutely something those people up at the top get it in the neck for. So they'll happily keep paying for the system, and forcing everyone to use it, even as it burns out their staff. "Better to be safe than sorry."

I'm not remotely arguing that schools should be using this product. I'd need to see a LOT more data on its actual detection rate vs false positive rate to form any kind of opinion on that. Just saying that if you're going to make a product like this in the first place, well, yeah that's how you'd do it.

Aren't the vast majority of pupils black?

/Tone flag indicating that I'm intentionally being obtuse and pedantic for lols

He's fully embraced the era of "just fucking lie no matter how blatantly obvious it is that you're lying" that America has entered.

at least they didn't have an instrument of mass destruction (trombone)