MLB’s metal detector mandate likely to save no lives, ever

And finally, this has nothing to with stadium funding per se, but in case some of my readers might happen to be sports fans with an interest in the experience of attending games (just a hunch), I have an article up at Vice Sports today on how MLB’s new policy of requiring metal detectors at all stadiums isn’t likely to keep anyone safer from anything, ever. Key paragraph:

[Alabama economist Walter] Enders says that the main effect of tighter security at stadium entrances will likely be to drive any hypothetical attackers—and let’s remember that no actual terrorists have actually attacked sports venues in America outside of that time Bruce Dern tried it—to set off bombs outside stadiums instead, which would not be a happy outcome: “You’re trying to get in the door, there’s 20,000 people standing around outside. I could do a lot of damage there, just as easily as I could if I brought the thing inside. Maybe even more.”

Okay, but what’s the harm in added security checks? Aside from giving people a false sense of security, it diverts attention (and resources) from things that actually do kill fans, unlike so-far-mythical stadium terrorists. If you want to pick something that would be a minor inconvenience but would save lives, how about reducing speed limits on streets around sports stadiums by half? Or mandatory breathalyzer tests before anyone is allowed to check their cars out of the parking lot? Or even just MLB using the same money to chip in toward added police to enforce existing laws like speed limits and bans on texting while driving?As Bruce Schneier says in the article, the metal detector dictate is “security theater.” And yes, he says that about most everything, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right.

(P.S. I should probably also remind you of this.)