I certainly don’t think you’re a “douche”, and you’re obviously entitled to your own opinion. I was just trying to share some information with you: that the people with knowledge / training / experience / duties dealing with active shooters have looked at it, weighed the risks and benefits, and generally decided that it’s better for officers to focus on stopping the threat as quickly as possible, even if that threat is armed with big guns, and that Columbine (where they did not do that, instead choosing to wait for SWAT to arrive and make entry) was handled poorly, resulting in additional deaths.
For the people celebrating this officer while denigrating the Parkland one (and I’m fine with both of those) - note that two students were still shot, one critically. So the armed response may have reduced the mayhem, but it didn’t prevent it.
Uh…yeah? It’s impossible for intervention to prevent everything. Having an officer can prevent things from worsening. Two students shot is much better than 30 students shot.
And no students shot because the attacker was prevented from gaining access to a firearm is better than two students shot. See how the math works?
Stranger
Plus, with the attacker dead, he escapes a trial.
I don’t understand. Are you saying this is a problem / downside?
As someone who is such a vehement supporter of Rule of Law as you are, I’m sure you know the answer to this.
It’s a terrible plan no matter what state it is in, but I appreciate this one having a better outcome. This MD person was able to find and engage the shooter in under a minute. The Parkland deaths occurred over six minutes, and that shooter was smarter about it and pulled the fire alarm first.
In situations like “bad guy is shooting students randomly, and the SWAT team is at least thirty minutes away, but I’m here with a pistol”, the only plans available are pretty much all terrible (although, IMHO, “with a pistol” makes one of them somewhat less terrible than without).
Here the school officer is with SWAT so it’s a lot less terrible. The event is extremely different from Parkland.
Another disaster.
It also likely made a big difference that the Great Mills shooter was apparently trying to shoot one specific person, while the Parkland shooter was trying to shoot anything that moved with a gun that could fire a lot of bullets real fast.
This - and apparently found his target while she was fairly close to the resource officer (if he actually responded in one minute as referenced above).
Is anything known about the other victim? New boyfriend (so potential secondary target)? Hit by accident while the shooter was aiming for the girl and missed?
Also: this is what it means to survive when you get shot with an AR-15, or similar high-velocity guns. Sure, you live, but if a bullet went through your torso, you spend the rest of your life with a ruined body. I can’t even imagine.
While it’s true that most of the gun deaths in the U.S. are from handguns, people wounded by guns like the AR-15 are much more devastated physically than people who survive a handgun shooting, and far more of them will never recover to anything like a normal life.
You know, I’m not a huge fan of taking away guns because I think we should be addressing the underlying discontent that makes people want to kill other people. But that said, I think the vast majority of people have no idea what happens when a bullet enters a body, especially one designed to perform as the 5.56mm NATO. It’s capable of killing, but that happens pretty much because it sometimes ‘overmaims’ its target. It’s just not an appropriate weapon for casual ownership.
The .223 Remington and ssentially identical 5.56x45 mm NATO round are not extraordinarily powerful compared to other centerfire rifle rounds. Virtually any enterire rifle round would do comparable or greater damage, especially if it cuts through the torso longways where it can damage multiple organs. This particular demonization of the AR-15 by a media not conversant with the technical aspects of firearms has missed this point badly; the objective should not be to “ban AR-15 rifles” but to endeavor to see that any firearms are kept out of the hands of irresponsible and unstable people.
Stranger
I…think…that was my point. Address potential shooters first–mass slayings are unpleasant for all involved, and I can’t imagine the psychological state of a shooter leading up to the event is particularly nice. That’s just a larger picture quality of life thing, for which the massacre is a symptom.
And the larger rounds are more likely than the smaller high velocity ones to kill outright than to horribly maim. Are we disagreeing on which outcome is worse?
Cite?
It depends on the type of bullet used and the location and trajectory of the bullet through the body. Regardless, any serious penetrating bullet injury will likely have debilitating and lifelong effects, unlike movies where the protagonist shakes it off and recovers within fifteen minutes of being shot. Even low powered pistol rounds can do severe internal damage that can leave a victim with reduced function, and it doesn’t matter if that bullet was deliberately aimed by a sociopathic mass shooter or a stray round from a would-be citizen-hero trying to stop him. Mass shooters do seem to favor military-style weapons in some kind of glorification complex, but one could do equal damage at a nearly equal rate of fire with a Winchester 94 lever action in .30-30, which can also be reloaded via the side gate without removing the gun from battery, hence the need to focus on controlling access to firearms by unstable people rather than on particular forms or characteristics themselves.
However, one aspect of the proliferation of violence is the increased militarization of civil society; not just the yokels running around in their private militias, but the general adoption of weapons, clothing, accessories, et cetera of pseudo-military appearance by people who have never served in any public capacity a day in their life, and the militarization of police concurrent an aggressive War on Drugs. Placing increased requirements for background checks, purchases outside of FFL-licensed storefronts, and open public carry of such weapons may dim the coolness factor if it requires more effort and responsibility.
Stranger
This wasn’t a mass shooter.
Ex bf with murder on his mind. He could have attacked her practically anywhere.
Very thankful both victims survived.
Glad the shooter didn’t.