I have been frustrated watching the debate about what we should do about the problem of shootings in our schools. That is what this blog is about.
I am not going to repeat this, but I know a lot about making decisions and fundamental decision theory. My big concern is the total lack of any kind of organized logic and application of accepted decision theory to help solve our school shooting problem. Here are my thoughts.
The decision procedure is very simple. It only has a few parts. First you need an objective and I think that we can agree on that. It is to prevent our children from being killed by a shooter in their school. Easy step one. The second part is to come up with "all" the decision or action alternatives. This might be a very long list. It might contain some alternatives that 100% of the people might not accept in the end., but they still need to be on the list. This is a critical step because very often the very best solution or decision is not on the list. If that happens, it is impossible to end up with the best decision. The final step is to pick the best solution off that list. It has to be on the list or we will never come up with the best decision. Now, the final step.
Picking the best solution is the most difficult part of the decision process. In this case, there are at least two parts and it is still simple and easy. You need to come up with the "benefits" or "positive" impact and the "cost" or "negative" impact. Sounds easy, but can be difficult to apply. How about an example? Let's took at having "some" of the teachers to be armed vs not letting the general population to buy or own guns, Let's also put a dollar value on each action. First off a few facts. The ratio of teachers vs non teachers is about 1 to 500. If we want 25% of teachers to be armed, the ratio of armed teachers vs non teachers is 1 to 2000. If the value or cost of not letting the general public to own a gun is $50, which is very small. This means that the break even point for the cost of an armed teachers is $100,000. All you need to do is to judge if the social cost of $100,000 is too much. If it is not then the decision would be to "arm" 25% of the teachers. This all assumes that gun control of honest citizens would have the same impact of arming 25% of teachers.
Is this too difficult to understand? What is the batting average of gun control in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC and New Your City who have strict gun control? Easy one!
I am not going to repeat this, but I know a lot about making decisions and fundamental decision theory. My big concern is the total lack of any kind of organized logic and application of accepted decision theory to help solve our school shooting problem. Here are my thoughts.
The decision procedure is very simple. It only has a few parts. First you need an objective and I think that we can agree on that. It is to prevent our children from being killed by a shooter in their school. Easy step one. The second part is to come up with "all" the decision or action alternatives. This might be a very long list. It might contain some alternatives that 100% of the people might not accept in the end., but they still need to be on the list. This is a critical step because very often the very best solution or decision is not on the list. If that happens, it is impossible to end up with the best decision. The final step is to pick the best solution off that list. It has to be on the list or we will never come up with the best decision. Now, the final step.
Picking the best solution is the most difficult part of the decision process. In this case, there are at least two parts and it is still simple and easy. You need to come up with the "benefits" or "positive" impact and the "cost" or "negative" impact. Sounds easy, but can be difficult to apply. How about an example? Let's took at having "some" of the teachers to be armed vs not letting the general population to buy or own guns, Let's also put a dollar value on each action. First off a few facts. The ratio of teachers vs non teachers is about 1 to 500. If we want 25% of teachers to be armed, the ratio of armed teachers vs non teachers is 1 to 2000. If the value or cost of not letting the general public to own a gun is $50, which is very small. This means that the break even point for the cost of an armed teachers is $100,000. All you need to do is to judge if the social cost of $100,000 is too much. If it is not then the decision would be to "arm" 25% of the teachers. This all assumes that gun control of honest citizens would have the same impact of arming 25% of teachers.
Is this too difficult to understand? What is the batting average of gun control in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC and New Your City who have strict gun control? Easy one!
