Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

School Shooting In Great Mills Maryland


SabreFan1

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

Once more, for the cheap seats...

 

Or, to translate, if less people had guns, there would be even more occurrences.

Again and I know this is difficult because it's part of American culture

 

it has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with your culture.

 

With 10% of the total population of the US Canada has barely 2% of the equivalent crime rate

 

Guns don't stop bad guys.  Proper parenting, solid education and direction do.  If more people cared about their neighbour instead of themselves there would be even less occurrences.

 

I say this as someone who lived in the US for almost 3 years and had guns pulled on him, one at a stop light.  When you make a gun a solution to a problem you're sure not helping the overall issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Because a lot of money have been spent, and will continue to be spent, on saving lives, like my examples of car licensing and deterrence to cigarette smoking.

Other examples: car manufacturers are constantly trying to build cars that are safer for people; scientists working on cures for cancer and other diseases.

 

Yet gun control: zero work is being done.

Yet smoking is still dangerous to users and those around them.  Cars still kill more people.

 

Btw, my earlier comment about "huge" trucks was towards things like the F350, not 18-wheelers (I know there is difference licensing there).  Many owners of big SUVs feel safer, but they are at risk due to increased rollovers and driving faster due to that sense of security.  All the while putting others at risk due to the larger/heavier vehicles.  No one in urban areas need a jacked up pickup or SUV, and they all cause visibility issues to other drivers.

 

Need has absolutely nothing to do with the gun argument.

 

Also, guns laws have been enacted, and are often being discussed.  There are plenty of gun-related laws in the US, so it is disingenuous to say zero work is being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Again and I know this is difficult because it's part of American culture

 

it has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with your culture.

 

With 10% of the total population of the US Canada has barely 2% of the equivalent crime rate

 

Guns don't stop bad guys.  Proper parenting, solid education and direction do.  If more people cared about their neighbour instead of themselves there would be even less occurrences.

 

I say this as someone who lived in the US for almost 3 years and had guns pulled on him, one at a stop light.  When you make a gun a solution to a problem you're sure not helping the overall issue

Absofrickenlutely.

 

Guns can help, but everything else you said here is immensely accurate.  I've commented on that quite often in OT this past year or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2018 at 8:07 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Didn't see a single thing here about the guns themselves.   I don't mind addressing other items but what should be done with all the weapons out there and the ease by which they can be accessed?

My response would be 1.) address the deeper issue and 2.) Where is this a problem in Canada?  But I've also missed a few pages of discussion so that may have already been covered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

My response would be 1.) address the deeper issue and 2.) Where is this a problem in Canada?  But I've also missed a few pages of discussion so that may have already been covered.  

The problem in Canada is for some insane reason there is a "copy the US" mentality.    More and more gun stories are happening in Canada though, agreed, it still far fewer in relative terms to population ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob_Zepp said:

The problem in Canada is for some insane reason there is a "copy the US" mentality.    More and more gun stories are happening in Canada though, agreed, it still far fewer in relative terms to population ratio.

Could you fill out, "More and More gun stories" a little for me?  I'm pretty sure more people die or are wounded via knife attacks in Canada than as a result of guns... although I'd have to double check on that stat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

Could you fill out, "More and More gun stories" a little for me?  I'm pretty sure more people die or are wounded via knife attacks in Canada than as a result of guns... although I'd have to double check on that stat.

I don't live in BC but it seems you have more and more gang stuff in your Surrey region and your Abbysford region happening.    Becoming more like the bad areas in Toronto suburbs perhaps.   Reading about more raids where guns found and more drive by shootings each and every year.

 

Probably more people in Canada die or are wounded falling off of team bangwagons too but that doesn't mean one dying needlessly from a gun that had no business being used in that instance isn't one too many.   Personally, I would rather face a knife than a gun though pucks would be my preferred choice over the first two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

My Dad's an awesome skeet shooter...forgot about that, you're right.  So here's the thing though...people who use guns for "something" rather than just having them "in case" should be able to jump through hoops to have them.  If there are specified reasons, with a burden of proof to prove the use, then fine. 

And in regards to Canada, we do have those rules to make people jump through hoops, we’ve separated out firearms into 3 classifications because of this.

 

We’ve determined that the purpose of restricted firearms is only for target practice at a range.  You can own them but you can’t use them for their designed purpose (sort of like a owning a Ferrari designed for speed where the max speed limit is 110km).  

With restricted firearms you aren’t allowed to kill ANYTHING with them (besides police use and trapping).  The only purpose those types of guns have in Canada is to look cool and give personal enjoyment while firing at targets. 

 

Non Restricted guns, the law permits us to use them for harvesting an animal and for use among pest and predator control, as well as target practice at the range. 

 

In order to legally acquire a firearm you need to jump through hoops, you need to pass your PAL or Restricted PAL, which I don’t think many Canadians have a problem with. 

 

With that said, I think it diverges into three questions.  

1 )Do Canadian laws reduce “gun” crime? 

2 )And would more laws prevent even more gun crime?

3 )Would crime decrease with stricter gun laws.

 

With the first question, I would say, that evidence suggests yes, according to stats can, only 2% of all violent crime involved a firearm, compared to where 17% of all violent crime involved a weapon other than a firearm.  Guns are not the weapon of choice in choice.  That could very well be because of the lack of access to firearms.

 

With the second question, it involves a little bit more digging,  if you look at the perpetrators of gun violence, the majority of crimes are done through gangs and people who have a previous criminal record.  This shows that those perpetrators obtained their firearms outside of the legal method, as Canada does daily back ground checks on ALL PAL and restricted PAL holders.  The other interesting thing to note is that when violent crime is committed with a firearm, 60% of the time it was done by a stranger.  This really goes to show that responsible gun owners are not the problem, so if we are to add even more laws it should be trying to target criminals that do the crimes, not you’re every day Joe. 

 

The third question, no one really knows the answer for sure but, the fact that Canada has such a low % of firearm related violent crime, (crime is happening 98% of the time without a firearm) you could conclude that firearms really have no impact on whether a person commits a crime.   While at the same time since firearms aren’t allow for self-defense, you really have no way of knowing if that would add another preventable measure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Again and I know this is difficult because it's part of American culture

 

it has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with your culture.

 

With 10% of the total population of the US Canada has barely 2% of the equivalent crime rate

 

Guns don't stop bad guys.  Proper parenting, solid education and direction do.  If more people cared about their neighbour instead of themselves there would be even less occurrences.

 

I say this as someone who lived in the US for almost 3 years and had guns pulled on him, one at a stop light.  When you make a gun a solution to a problem you're sure not helping the overall issue

This is what I have always said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Nobody wants to ban guns. Nobody is proposing to take away people's choice to have guns. 

 

Actually many people are.

 

7 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The fall back argument.  Without that statement their argument has very little to fall back on sadly

In another thread you did say that we should ban guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Actually many people are.

 

In another thread you did say that we should ban guns.

I was very specific about the type of guns and gun owners that ban should be applied too and I stand by it.

 

Again, part of that culture.

 

There is no reason Joe Smith accountant in Oregon who owns no permits to hunt needs to or deserves to own the latest and greatest in semi automatic weapons and 18 different types of handguns all kept in a pretty cabinet free of locks with ammo in the drawers below it.  Simply because...that's his right

 

That's the culture I speak of.  Our culture...our laws, rules regulations it appears that even when scaled down we are far more responsible almost to a person than the US is.  We are still a gun happy nation without any of the major problems the US has.  Doesn't make us perfect but it sure shows that stronger regulations and licensing requirements won't be the end of the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So about that good guy with a gun

 

Ya..turns out he didn't stop the shooter.  Turns out the shooter stopped himself

 

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59j3dd/great-mills-high-school-maryland-gunman-shot-himelf-officials-say?utm_source=vicenewsfb

 

Although a school resource officer intervened in a Maryland high school shooting last week that killed one student, the 17-year-old gunman died from shooting himself in the head, officials investigating the case said Monday.

The male shooter showed up to his school, Great Mills High School in St. Mary's County, Maryland, last Tuesday with his father’s Glock 9-millimeter pistol, the Baltimore Sun reported. Around 8:00 a.m., he shot his former girlfriend Jaelynn Willey, 16, in the head, and the bullet also hit Desmond Barnes, 14, in the leg. Both were transferred to hospitals, and Wiley later died. Her funeral is planned for this Friday.

 

Less than a minute after the shooting, school resource officer Deputy First Class Blaine Gaskill confronted the gunman. At first, it wasn’t clear if Gaskill fatally shot the gunman — the two fired their weapons at the same time, police said. But Gaskill shot him in the hand and hit his gun, officials reported on Monday. Rollins died later that day. Gaskill was not injured.

Gaskill is just the second school resource officer to exchange fire with an active shooter since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, according to the Washington Post,

At the time, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron said there was “no question” that Gaskill’s quick response prevented more injuries, despite not knowing if Gaskill killed the shooter. Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan heralded Gaskill as a “tough guy” and used his action to push forward a political move to fund more school resource officers, the Washington Post reported.

 
 

In the hours and days after the shooting, Gaskill became a national representation of the “good guy with a gun” argument to ending gun violence in schools. In the wake of the deadly mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which a former student killed 17 people, Republican politicians, including the president, as well as the NRA called for arming teachers and placing additional officers, like Gaskill, on campuses.

“Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” the NRA tweeted, quoting NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. “Today that call from the #NRA was once again proven right.”

But many survivors from school shootings, particularly those from Parkland, argue that arming teachers and school resource officers would only make matters worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

So about that good guy with a gun

 

Ya..turns out he didn't stop the shooter.  Turns out the shooter stopped himself

 

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59j3dd/great-mills-high-school-maryland-gunman-shot-himelf-officials-say?utm_source=vicenewsfb

 

Although a school resource officer intervened in a Maryland high school shooting last week that killed one student, the 17-year-old gunman died from shooting himself in the head, officials investigating the case said Monday.

The male shooter showed up to his school, Great Mills High School in St. Mary's County, Maryland, last Tuesday with his father’s Glock 9-millimeter pistol, the Baltimore Sun reported. Around 8:00 a.m., he shot his former girlfriend Jaelynn Willey, 16, in the head, and the bullet also hit Desmond Barnes, 14, in the leg. Both were transferred to hospitals, and Wiley later died. Her funeral is planned for this Friday.

 

Less than a minute after the shooting, school resource officer Deputy First Class Blaine Gaskill confronted the gunman. At first, it wasn’t clear if Gaskill fatally shot the gunman — the two fired their weapons at the same time, police said. But Gaskill shot him in the hand and hit his gun, officials reported on Monday. Rollins died later that day. Gaskill was not injured.

Gaskill is just the second school resource officer to exchange fire with an active shooter since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, according to the Washington Post,

At the time, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron said there was “no question” that Gaskill’s quick response prevented more injuries, despite not knowing if Gaskill killed the shooter. Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan heralded Gaskill as a “tough guy” and used his action to push forward a political move to fund more school resource officers, the Washington Post reported.

 
 

In the hours and days after the shooting, Gaskill became a national representation of the “good guy with a gun” argument to ending gun violence in schools. In the wake of the deadly mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which a former student killed 17 people, Republican politicians, including the president, as well as the NRA called for arming teachers and placing additional officers, like Gaskill, on campuses.

“Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” the NRA tweeted, quoting NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. “Today that call from the #NRA was once again proven right.”

 

But many survivors from school shootings, particularly those from Parkland, argue that arming teachers and school resource officers would only make matters worse.

 

So, while he didn't kill the shooter, he did shoot him in the hand and hit his gun.  Did the shooter attack anyone else (aside from himself) after he was hit?  If not, isn't that completely successful use of defensive firearms?  It sounds nearly ideal, since the shooter was only wounded, and had it not been for the suicide, he could have stood trial, go to prison, and be rehabilitated (some sarcasm on that last phrase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

So about that good guy with a gun

 

Ya..turns out he didn't stop the shooter.  Turns out the shooter stopped himself

 

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59j3dd/great-mills-high-school-maryland-gunman-shot-himelf-officials-say?utm_source=vicenewsfb

 

Although a school resource officer intervened in a Maryland high school shooting last week that killed one student, the 17-year-old gunman died from shooting himself in the head, officials investigating the case said Monday.

The male shooter showed up to his school, Great Mills High School in St. Mary's County, Maryland, last Tuesday with his father’s Glock 9-millimeter pistol, the Baltimore Sun reported. Around 8:00 a.m., he shot his former girlfriend Jaelynn Willey, 16, in the head, and the bullet also hit Desmond Barnes, 14, in the leg. Both were transferred to hospitals, and Wiley later died. Her funeral is planned for this Friday.

 

Less than a minute after the shooting, school resource officer Deputy First Class Blaine Gaskill confronted the gunman. At first, it wasn’t clear if Gaskill fatally shot the gunman — the two fired their weapons at the same time, police said. But Gaskill shot him in the hand and hit his gun, officials reported on Monday. Rollins died later that day. Gaskill was not injured.

Gaskill is just the second school resource officer to exchange fire with an active shooter since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, according to the Washington Post,

At the time, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron said there was “no question” that Gaskill’s quick response prevented more injuries, despite not knowing if Gaskill killed the shooter. Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan heralded Gaskill as a “tough guy” and used his action to push forward a political move to fund more school resource officers, the Washington Post reported.

 
 

In the hours and days after the shooting, Gaskill became a national representation of the “good guy with a gun” argument to ending gun violence in schools. In the wake of the deadly mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which a former student killed 17 people, Republican politicians, including the president, as well as the NRA called for arming teachers and placing additional officers, like Gaskill, on campuses.

“Schools must be the most hardened targets in this country,” the NRA tweeted, quoting NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. “Today that call from the #NRA was once again proven right.”

But many survivors from school shootings, particularly those from Parkland, argue that arming teachers and school resource officers would only make matters worse.

 

Nice shot though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kragar said:

So, while he didn't kill the shooter, he did shoot him in the hand and hit his gun.  Did the shooter attack anyone else (aside from himself) after he was hit?  If not, isn't that completely successful use of defensive firearms?  It sounds nearly ideal, since the shooter was only wounded, and had it not been for the suicide, he could have stood trial, go to prison, and be rehabilitated (some sarcasm on that last phrase).

I think it is obvious that the shooter went there to murder his ex.  The armed school resource officer didn't stop that.  The officer may have stopped added carnage but it looks like there wasn't time for the shooter to really indicate that he was going to shoot up the place.  So, we really cannot conclude that this was going to be a mass shooting.  The only thing that we can conclude is the armed officer really didn't stop a shooting since students were shot and students died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

I think it is obvious that the shooter went there to murder his ex.  The armed school resource officer didn't stop that.  The officer may have stopped added carnage but it looks like there wasn't time for the shooter to really indicate that he was going to shoot up the place.  So, we really cannot conclude that this was going to be a mass shooting.  The only thing that we can conclude is the armed officer really didn't stop a shooting since students were shot and students died.

It is incredibly obtuse to expect anyone to prevent a shooting.  The shooter has the initiative, and unless they are sloppy and give signs of their intentions, they will have the opportunity to fire off a few rounds before anyone can react, whether to defend or to hide.

 

Sure, we don't know what more the shooter was going to do.  But by shooting him, albeit in the hand and gun, the shooter took no more offensive action against other people.  How does that not qualify as stopping a shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I don't live in BC but it seems you have more and more gang stuff in your Surrey region and your Abbysford region happening.    Becoming more like the bad areas in Toronto suburbs perhaps.   Reading about more raids where guns found and more drive by shootings each and every year.

 

Probably more people in Canada die or are wounded falling off of team bangwagons too but that doesn't mean one dying needlessly from a gun that had no business being used in that instance isn't one too many.   Personally, I would rather face a knife than a gun though pucks would be my preferred choice over the first two.

By that logic we're back to banning sports cars, motorbikes, alcohol and just about everything else we use for some level of enjoyment in society... banning and or placing way tougher restrictions on those things will save A LOT of lives, certainly a lot more than banning or restricting firearms, but if the accepted logic is that if it saves even one life it should be done, then we need to apply that across the board (which comes back to my point that freedom comes with risk.) 

 

As to gang related shootings... they're not using weapons they've legally purchased.  Why put restrictions on the law abiding citizens when clearly we should be going after those who are dispensing firearms to those who are going to use them for crimes?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

It is incredibly obtuse to expect anyone to prevent a shooting.  The shooter has the initiative, and unless they are sloppy and give signs of their intentions, they will have the opportunity to fire off a few rounds before anyone can react, whether to defend or to hide.

 

Sure, we don't know what more the shooter was going to do.  But by shooting him, albeit in the hand and gun, the shooter took no more offensive action against other people.  How does that not qualify as stopping a shooting?

In this particular case, I have to side with the pro-gun side. We don't really know the shooter's motivations, so we have to assume that the intervention prevented more injuries, or possibly even deaths.

 

That being said, this one situation does not at all change my opinion that better background checks, (including prohibitions for those with mental illness, a history of violent acts, or spousal/animal abuse) restrictions of ownership of certain types of weapons and ammunition, minimum purchase age, mandatory training and mandatory waiting periods would be a more effective solution than armed guards/teachers in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

In this particular case, I have to side with the pro-gun side. We don't really know the shooter's motivations, so we have to assume that the intervention prevented more injuries, or possibly even deaths.

 

That being said, this one situation does not at all change my opinion that better background checks, (including prohibitions for those with mental illness, a history of violent acts, or spousal/animal abuse) restrictions of ownership of certain types of weapons and ammunition, minimum purchase age, mandatory training and mandatory waiting periods would be a more effective solution than armed guards/teachers in schools.

That's reasonable.  Until one thing or the other is tried extensively and accurately measured and analyzed, either solution is just speculation.  This one instance isn't conclusive, it's just a single positive sign.  Likewise, had the defender shot a student or faculty member by accident, it would have been a big negative for the pro-armed side of the argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...