Is there Good Cause for not having Metal Detectors?

   Why our schools are not jumping to install metal detectors is a wonder to me. Why there isn't a national outcry for metal detectors, I do not understand. But, there must be a reason.
   So, I word search. Up pops an article titled, "5 reasons metal detectors in schools are a bad idea, according to security expert."
  The expert is Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services,  a man who has testified before Congress various times on the topic. Trump argues:
 1. A metal detector needs to be coupled with other measures and those other measures simply aren't realistic. You would need to run the metal detectors around the clock, shut windows so no one could sneak guns through them, and every entrance and exit would need to be manned. Everyone would need to be screened every time they entered.
   What do I think? Yes, the metal detector would need to be in operational all hours the school was open. I don't see that that is a problem As for closing windows, that might enhance the system, but it isn't integral. You still have a large benefit even without sealing off the windows. But, if we concede the point and seal off windows and all exits, is that so great a burden? To me, it is not.
   As for everyone needing to be screened every time, that, again, might enhance the system, but if schools wanted to let their teachers and staff get entry without going through the metal detector every time, that could be done, and the benefit of screening everyone else would not be lost.
   2. The cost would be too great.
   My reply: The metal detectors are affordable, in my eye. Say they cost $20,000 per school. To me, that is affordable.
   3. Metal detectors cause a false sense of security.
   My answer: If they stop crime, that is what matters. If you are afraid having them means other measures will be overlooked, then simply don't overlook and do take those other steps, as well.
   4. There are better ways to discover whether guns are being brought onto the school grounds.
   My response: Say, what? If you want to do other things, that is fine. But, why is this an either-or situation? Why must it be either metal detectors or something else? There is nothing wrong with doing more than one thing.
   5. A student is more likely to be bullied than shot.
   My response: What? Run this one by me again. I don't understand. What does this have to do with the matter at hand? How does the fact being bullied is more likely than being shot have anything to do with whether we should have metal detectors?
   Forgive me if I am wrong, but the article comes across -- to me -- as something generated by the gun lobby. I would say, though, if these are the reasons against metal detectors, there is not good cause for not having them.

(Note: Slight edits made 5/27/18)