Shooter dead, two injured after shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland

[branfont]

A gunman who shot and wounded two students at Great Mills High School in Maryland was killed Tuesday after engaging an armed school resource officer, an official said.

 

The shooter was the only fatality. A female student was critically injured and a male student was also shot but is in stable condition at a hospital, authorities said.

 

"Our school resource officer was alerted to the event. he pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter, fired a round at the shooter," St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron said. "The shooter fired a round as well. In the hours and days to come, we'll be able to determine if our school resource officer's round struck the shooter."

 

 

 

 

 

Full article @ Fox News

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Instances like these are only going to increase, schools should not be places where an exchange of gunfire becomes commonplace, it's absolutely ridiculous that nothing concrete has been put in place to keep people's children safe.

[PatC]

Ban guns and schools! /s

[DocM]

The school School Resource Officer ended the event before it ramped up, killing the shooter.

 

Lessons:

 

School security is essential. We guard our baubles and burger joints better than we guard our schools.

 

'Gun Free Zone' = Target Rich Environment. A homicidal nutcase or criminal doesn't give a damn if it's a GFZ, and often preferrentially chooses one as his target. Easy pickings.

 

An in-facility (school, whatever) armed response works; SROs, trained staff, whatever. The trick is weeding out the cowards.

 

Copycats. Several mass shooters had writings or posts idolizing the Columbine and other mass killers.  24/7/365 coverage and endless punditry about past shooters has many downsides, including proto-shooters getting the idea they too can achieve a degree of immortality. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by DocM

[PGHammer]

32 minutes ago, DocM said:

The school School Resource Officer ended the event before it ramped up, killing the shooter.

 

Lessons:

 

School security is essential. We guard our baubles and burger joints better than we guard our schools.

 

'Gun Free Zone' = Target Rich Environment. A homicidal nutcase or criminal doesn't give a damn if it's a GFZ, and often preferrentially chooses one as his target. Easy pickings.

 

An in-facility (school, whatever) armed response works; SROs, trained staff, whatever. The trick is weeding out the cowards.

 

Copycats. Several mass shooters had writings or posts idolizing the Columbine and other mass killers.  24/7/365 coverage and endless punditry about past shooters has many downsides, including proto-shooters getting the idea they too can achieve a degree of immortality. 

In fact, how many "followers" did the school shooters have on social media (from Facebook to Twitter)?  I am NOT saying that all of them were children (a doubtless surprising number were adults NOT connected to law enforcement); criminal notoriety has been proven to be a rather warped attractant, in or out of social media - have we as a nation forgotten a recent escape from a prison in New York State, and how it was made possible?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Unfortunately, they have taken Jaelynn Willey off of life support after being declared brain dead.  The St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office has stated that this was not a random act ... but all indications are she was the intended target.  RIP

 

The other victim got hit in the leg but was released the following day.

 

ABC News

[FloatingFatMan]

On 3/20/2018 at 5:15 PM, DocM said:

An in-facility (school, whatever) armed response works; SROs, trained staff, whatever. The trick is weeding out the cowards.

Or to translate...

 

Arming teachers works, except where it doesn't.  Great.  Fantastic solution you have there.  Really reliable. I'm sure every student can rest easy now knowing that their armed teachers will protect them.... Or not... Depending on if they're a "coward" or not... Which they won't know until they're faced with a shooter...

 

Fantastic...  

[DocM]

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Or to translate...

 

Arming teachers works, except where it doesn't.  Great.  Fantastic solution you have there.  Really reliable. I'm sure every student can rest easy now knowing that their armed teachers will protect them.... Or not... Depending on if they're a "coward" or not... Which they won't know until they're faced with a shooter...

 

Fantastic...  

 

Organizing willing & trained teachers into an active response team is only one of several options. Like a fire team for 2 legged "fires."

 

In this case it was a competant SRO, which most in these parts the vast majority are and we'll be getting more under new state legislation. Thise not having them will get them.

 

Another item is actually securing the schools as if they meant it; a single entry once occupied with buzz-in inner doors, bus loading/unloading in a fenced off area, police presence at the start and end of day.  Routine in many of our area schools, the rest will be getting those upgrades.

 

911 style tip lines are also open here, with several threats reported over the last few weeks. "If you see/hear something, say something." It's called "interdiction." Being investigated under our state terrorism law.

 

Etc.

Edited March 24, 2018 by DocM

[FloatingFatMan]

Congratulations, Doc.  You missed my point; completely.  

 

Also:

 

Quote

Another item is actually securing the schools as if they meant it; a single entry once occupied with buzz-in inner doors, bus loading/unloading in a fenced off area, police presence at the start and end of day.  Routine in many of our area schools, the rest will be getting those upgrades.

Are these schools, or prisons?

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

18 minutes ago, DocM said:

Organizing willing & trained teachers into an active response team is only one of several options. Like a fire team for 2 legged "fires."

Something is seriously wrong if arming teachers is considered a viable option.

18 minutes ago, DocM said:

Another item is actually securing the schools as if they meant it; a single entry once occupied with buzz-in inner doors, bus loading/unloading in a fenced off area, police presence at the start and end of day.  Routine in many of our area schools, the rest will be getting those upgrades.

Something is seriously wrong if turning schools into prisons is considered a viable option.

18 minutes ago, DocM said:

911 style tip lines are also open here, with several threats reported over the last few weeks. "If you see/hear something, say something." It's called "interdiction." Being investigated under our state terrorism law.

Something is seriously wrong if an oppressive police state is used to investigate students who don't conform to societal norms.

 

None of these proposals address the underlying issues with gun culture in the US.

[DocM]

25 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Something is seriously wrong if arming teachers is considered a viable option.

 

25 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Something is seriously wrong if turning schools into prisons is considered a viable option.

 

Some sort of "fire team" and security are needed. Not having them costs lives. So does spouting platitudes. 

 

25 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Something is seriously wrong if an oppressive police state is used to investigate students who don't conform to societal norms.

 

Kids who talk about shooting or blowing up the school are not just nonconformists. How often have we heard that school attackers have done this but it was ignored? 

 

25 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

 

None of these proposals address the underlying issues with gun culture in the US.

 

The firearms culture exists, and will continue to do so because not only are there more  guns than people it's getting much easier to import or build illegal guns. Cripes, you can build a submachinegun using steel flats, assorted hardware and plumbing parts.

 

Deal with the world as it is first.

[FloatingFatMan]

40 minutes ago, DocM said:

The firearms culture exists, and will continue to do so because not only are there more  guns than people it's getting much easier to import or build illegal guns. Cripes, you can build a submachinegun using steel flats, assorted hardware and plumbing parts.

 

Deal with the world as it is first.

Hallelujah! A gun nut finally admits that the gun culture exists, and is the root of the problem!

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

32 minutes ago, DocM said:

Some sort of "fire team" and security are needed. Not having them costs lives. So does spouting platitudes. 

Not true. Schools in other developed countries don't have armed police officers stationed in them. Here in the UK you occasionally have an unarmed police officer visit a school but usually that's just to check on community issues or give talks, not for the safety of the school. Your proposals conveniently ignore that firearms are the issue.

32 minutes ago, DocM said:

Kids who talk about shooting or blowing up the school are not just nonconformists. How often have we heard that school attackers have done this but it was ignored? 

Kids in other countries make all sorts of remarks like that but don't have the facility to carry out such attacks. Children / teenagers like to rebel and be edgy but it doesn't mean they should be subjected to interrogation by a police state.

32 minutes ago, DocM said:

The firearms culture exists, and will continue to do so because not only are there more  guns than people it's getting much easier to import or build illegal guns. Cripes, you can build a submachinegun using steel flats, assorted hardware and plumbing parts.

Yet rather than address that your solution is to turn the US into even more of a police state than it already is. It's like having a stone in your shoe and deciding to invest in stone-resistant socks or hop on one leg rather than taking the obvious, sensible action of removing the stone.

[DocM]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Hallelujah! A gun nut finally admits that the gun culture exists, and is the root of the problem!

 

 

Nope. We have guns as part of our culture yes, but the problem lies between the ears be of a small minority. You don't remove the rights of the 98% because of the 2%. You address that 2%.

 

 

[xrobwx71]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500

 

The UK Utopia!

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, xrobwx said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500

 

The UK Utopia

We're aware of the political issues surrounding policing in the UK. The current government has slashed spending on the police: Britain's police budgets to lose £700m by 2020, amid rising crime. The drops in crime seen under the previous Labour governments are being eroded by a Tory government hellbent on austerity. Slashing funding to police will always result in crime increasing.

1 hour ago, DocM said:

Nope. We have guns as part of our culture yes, but the problem lies between the ears be of a small minority. You don't remove the rights of the 98% because of the 2%. You address that 2%.

I disagree. You look at the overall benefit to society and weigh that against the cost. Every other developed country manages to keep its populace safe without the right to bear arms - in fact they're demonstrably safer as a result. I think we'll see a similar argument come to be made with self-driving vehicles - at some point it makes sense to deny humans the right to drive when lives can be saved through autonomous vehicles. People's rights end when they intrude upon the rights of others.

 

Nobody should live in such fear of others than only a gun can make them feel safe. Shouldn't you aspire to live in a society where you feel safe without a gun rather than support gun ownership to such a ridiculous level that everybody feels unsafe? Your actions—in supporting the liberalisation of gun laws—continue to increase your own risk.

[FloatingFatMan]

2 hours ago, xrobwx said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500

 

The UK Utopia!

 

I never claimed we were perfect, and note that a 42% increase doesn't mean that 42% of crime is gun related, just that it's an increase on last year's levels. It's still a barely measurable statistic in comparison to the USA.

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I never claimed we were perfect, and note that a 42% increase doesn't mean that 42% of crime is gun related, just that it's an increase on last year's levels. It's still a barely measurable statistic in comparison to the USA.

While I get your point, it seems like a cop out to imply something isn't that bad simply because there's something worse out there.

[PGHammer]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

We're aware of the political issues surrounding policing in the UK. The current government has slashed spending on the police: Britain's police budgets to lose £700m by 2020, amid rising crime. The drops in crime seen under the previous Labour governments are being eroded by a Tory government hellbent on austerity. Slashing funding to police will always result in crime increasing.

I disagree. You look at the overall benefit to society and weigh that against the cost. Every other developed country manages to keep its populace safe without the right to bear arms - in fact they're demonstrably safer as a result. I think we'll see a similar argument come to be made with self-driving vehicles - at some point it makes sense to deny humans the right to drive when lives can be saved through autonomous vehicles. People's rights end when they intrude upon the rights of others.

 

Nobody should live in such fear of others than only a gun can make them feel safe. Shouldn't you aspire to live in a society where you feel safe without a gun rather than support gun ownership to such a ridiculous level that everybody feels unsafe? Your actions—in supporting the liberalisation of gun laws—continue to increase your own risk.

theyarecomingforyou - where do you live?  In fact, where were you raised, if you don't live where you were raised?  The thirteen British (UK) colonies began as an armed culture where guns were necessary tools for both hunting and survival.  When did the disarming of the constabulary happen in the core UK?  (More importantly, what triggered it?)  Even most of the constabularies have Armed Response Units (ARUs) - not all of even the constabulary is disarmed.  Note that Canada did NOT disarm the police - so there is a split - has ANY Commonwealth nation followed the UK into disarming the majority of their law enforcement?

 

IN Europe, they also ALL - no exceptions - use the military in domestic law enforcement - the United States specifically prohibits the practice except under specific conditions.

 

There is also a greater trust in the central state in Europe than there is in the United States; the United States, on the other hand, is a nation born of rebellion.  Has it occurred to ANY of you that is - in and of itself - a CORE difference between the United States and Europe?

[FloatingFatMan]

15 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

When did the disarming of the constabulary happen in the core UK? 

No such disarming happened. Our police have never been generally armed.

[DaveSharp]

6 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Not true. Schools in other developed countries don't have armed police officers stationed in them. Here in the UK you occasionally have an unarmed police officer visit a school but usually that's just to check on community issues or give talks, not for the safety of the school. Your proposals conveniently ignore that firearms are the issue.

Kids in other countries make all sorts of remarks like that but don't have the facility to carry out such attacks. Children / teenagers like to rebel and be edgy but it doesn't mean they should be subjected to interrogation by a police state.

Yet rather than address that your solution is to turn the US into even more of a police state than it already is. It's like having a stone in your shoe and deciding to invest in stone-resistant socks or hop on one leg rather than taking the obvious, sensible action of removing the stone.

Yet interestingly they don't have the "acid attack" problems that are plaguing the UK, over 450 in 2016 and those blade crimes keep climbing over 130,000  which the DM marks up to about 1 every 4 minutes. Apples and Oranges. The citizens of any country have the right to bear arms, the rest is just words. If the 20th century taught anything it was you cannot trust your governments, and to further that, the 21st is looking far worse. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

43 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

theyarecomingforyou - where do you live?  In fact, where were you raised, if you don't live where you were raised?  The thirteen British (UK) colonies began as an armed culture where guns were necessary tools for both hunting and survival.  When did the disarming of the constabulary happen in the core UK?  (More importantly, what triggered it?)  Even most of the constabularies have Armed Response Units (ARUs) - not all of even the constabulary is disarmed.  Note that Canada did NOT disarm the police - so there is a split - has ANY Commonwealth nation followed the UK into disarming the majority of their law enforcement?

Police in the UK have never been routinely armed; in fact attempts to arm the police have been rejected by rank and file members.

43 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

IN Europe, they also ALL - no exceptions - use the military in domestic law enforcement - the United States specifically prohibits the practice except under specific conditions.

The military is NOT used for domestic law enforcement in the UK; the military CAN be used for emergency logistics, like assisting with flooding.

43 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

There is also a greater trust in the central state in Europe than there is in the United States; the United States, on the other hand, is a nation born of rebellion.  Has it occurred to ANY of you that is - in and of itself - a CORE difference between the United States and Europe?

You're of course right that there are cultural difference between the US and Europe, particularly with respect to the trust placed in government. And it is hard to expect people to give up their arms when police abuse is rampant - police in the US are openly murdered suspects and getting away with it. However, simply perpetuating the existing gun culture is clearly NOT going to work. It's better to try an approach, however gradual, than to continue on a path that is known to be ineffective.

 

For instance, ban open carry and you know that anyone walking around with a weapon is a criminal and can be treated as such. Investigations into police fatalities should be handled by an independent organisation and no benefit of the doubt should be afforded - if police kill a suspect they should have to demonstrate there was a risk to life. Ban rapid fire weapons - if weapons are used for hunting then they don't need to be rapid fire; they are also not needed for self-defence. Limit magazine / clip sizes - no more than five rounds, so that any armed attacker could be taken down when they go to reload. Require weapon owners to obtain a licence to regulate ownership and trace weapons - all weapons should be able to be traced to the registered owner.

[theyarecomingforyou]

10 minutes ago, DaveSharp said:

Yet interestingly they don't have the "acid attack" problems that are plaguing the UK, over 450 in 2016 and those blade crimes keep climbing over 130,000  which the DM marks up to about 1 every 4 minutes. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, but I'm not sitting here defending the right to carry around acid, am I? In fact I would argue that it's extremely dangeorus and action should be taken to reduce the risk of acid attacks. Afterall, people have the right to walk around without acid being thrown in their face. Also, you're talking about a tiny number of non-fatal acid attacks versus the 30,000 deaths a year in the US due to firearms. The issues you highlight are not proportional to the threat posed by gun violence in the US.

10 minutes ago, DaveSharp said:

The citizens of any country have the right to bear arms, the rest is just words. If the 20th century taught anything it was you cannot trust your governments, and to further that, the 21st is looking far worse. 

Actually, the right to bear arms is uniquely American. Other countries may allow gun ownership but it's not a constitutional right at the foundation of society. As for trust in government, the US government is one of the most corrupt on the planet yet there is no willingness to overthrow it. Claiming people have a right to bear arms to protect against an oppressive government is meaningless if people choose not to exercise that right.

[PGHammer]

3 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Yes, but I'm not sitting here defending the right to carry around acid, am I? In fact I would argue that it's extremely dangeorus and action should be taken to reduce the risk of acid attacks. Afterall, people have the right to walk around without acid being thrown in their face. Also, you're talking about a tiny number of non-fatal acid attacks versus the 30,000 deaths a year in the US due to firearms. The issues you highlight are not proportional to the threat posed by gun violence in the US.

Actually, the right to bear arms is uniquely American. Other countries may allow gun ownership but it's not a constitutional right at the foundation of society. As for trust in government, the US government is one of the most corrupt on the planet yet there is no willingness to overthrow it. Claiming people have a right to bear arms to protect against an oppressive government is meaningless if people choose not to exercise that right.

Never said that it was.  But then, the United States is born of rebelling against a centralized authority - in that aspect it IS unique among merely the top Twenty-Five Most Admired Countries.  The vast remainder are republics (transitioned from absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, and - in some cases - from autocracies; name one other merely in the Top 25 that basically kicked out the landlords ala the United States)?  In THAT aspect, the United States IS unique; why should we - as a nation, mind you - NOT be proud of that?  I can see where it makes the older colonial powers (such as the UK, France, etc.) nervous - the LAST thing they wanted is that throwing off the shackles became a trend!  And "most corrupt" compared to whom?  If you are talking about the recent study quoted by our resident Russophiles, note that the Swiss are higher ranked on that scale compared to the United States - the Swiss government is also older than that of the United States.  What are the standard USED in judging corruption?  Yet I see no great hurry to administer a beatdown to the Swiss - even in the court of public opinion - why?  The United States has never - as in ever - claimed to be a nation of saints; the only nations that have seemed rather determined to point out the flaws OF the United States, however, see themselves as adversaries OF the United States (in one or more areas) - in what way has the United States ITSELF sought to be the adversary of ANY nation - going all the way back to the Mexican American War (the one prior to the Civil War) or, for that matter, the War of 1812?  (In case you forgot, the War of 1812 began as a protestation against the forced pressing of American sailors into the Royal (UK) naval service.  (Basically, "How DARE you object!"?)  World War I - mutual-defense treaty with the UK.  World War II - the Nanking Incident (we followed diplomatic channels with that one, and took everything to the League of Nations - which slapped an embargo on Japan; at the time, the United States was the largest trade partner of Japan, and we actually enforced that embargo and shipped diddly-squat to Japan - during the Great Depression.  Again "How DARE you object" despite the ruling from the League - which we didn't have to follow; remember, the United States was NOT a League member.)  Sounds like your objection comes from the United States largely NOT kissing up - even when we weren't supposed to.

[xrobwx71]

7 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I never claimed we were perfect, and note that a 42% increase doesn't mean that 42% of crime is gun related, just that it's an increase on last year's levels. It's still a barely measurable statistic in comparison to the USA.

So, the BBC is like the American media?    The title of the article is: "Gun crime in London increases by 42%"