MCPS policies to prevent school shootings

[Anonymous]

While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing. We need gun bans like in every other developed country.

Any school can be shot open, like Hale did in Nashville.

Also, looking at my senior going in and out of his high school, anyone can get in when a student or staff member goes in. No shooting glass or shooting locks even necessary.

At a minimum banning assault style rifles. The predominate weapon used in mass shootings that has no purpose for hunting or self defense

They already are out there. A bit too late for that. And, some of the incidents were knives and other weapons.

We need more security, metal detectors, bag searches, etc.

We need our schools to be fenced-in fortresses. Gates out front with security guards inspecting all vehicles as they enter. Bullet proof glass everywhere. Metal detectors. Watch towers.

You know, like Rikers.

That's so much easier and cheaper than meaningful gun control and supporting mental health. (Who cares if it takes a couple hours to drop off and pick up kids every day.)

People keep saying "supporting mental health." What the hell does that mean? We poured millions of dollars in hiring social workers and school psychologists this year and the amount of violence and chaos has multiplied.

What, exactly, do you expect mental health resources to do and how much impact and what timeline are they supposed to reverse the unsafe environment?

Supporting mental health means providing a reasonable number of beds so people don't spend days or weeks in an emergency department waiting for one. Making insurance companies pay appropriate reimbursements for mental health care, whether in-patient or out. Most mental health practitioners don't take insurance around here because the reimbursements are absurdly low.

Adding half a social worker to a school is tilting at windmills.

None of those things are within the purview of MCPS. Those are state,county and federal health issues that will increase capacity for those services. And while I think that's completely valid, those are long-term solutions.

When we talk about increasing security, enhancing monitoring and implementing stricter disciplinary consequences for bad behavior, we're looking to address and prevent immediate and short-term security and safety problems. Those are two different things and I think you should be able to appreciate the need to handle both things.

Change at the Federal level is what is most needed here. Vote out the congressmen who are in the pocket of the NRA to make our schools safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing. We need gun bans like in every other developed country.

Any school can be shot open, like Hale did in Nashville.

Also, looking at my senior going in and out of his high school, anyone can get in when a student or staff member goes in. No shooting glass or shooting locks even necessary.

At a minimum banning assault style rifles. The predominate weapon used in mass shootings that has no purpose for hunting or self defense

They already are out there. A bit too late for that. And, some of the incidents were knives and other weapons.

We need more security, metal detectors, bag searches, etc.

We need our schools to be fenced-in fortresses. Gates out front with security guards inspecting all vehicles as they enter. Bullet proof glass everywhere. Metal detectors. Watch towers.

You know, like Rikers.

That's so much easier and cheaper than meaningful gun control and supporting mental health. (Who cares if it takes a couple hours to drop off and pick up kids every day.)

People keep saying "supporting mental health." What the hell does that mean? We poured millions of dollars in hiring social workers and school psychologists this year and the amount of violence and chaos has multiplied.

What, exactly, do you expect mental health resources to do and how much impact and what timeline are they supposed to reverse the unsafe environment?

Supporting mental health means providing a reasonable number of beds so people don't spend days or weeks in an emergency department waiting for one. Making insurance companies pay appropriate reimbursements for mental health care, whether in-patient or out. Most mental health practitioners don't take insurance around here because the reimbursements are absurdly low.

Adding half a social worker to a school is tilting at windmills.

None of those things are within the purview of MCPS. Those are state,county and federal health issues that will increase capacity for those services. And while I think that's completely valid, those are long-term solutions.

When we talk about increasing security, enhancing monitoring and implementing stricter disciplinary consequences for bad behavior, we're looking to address and prevent immediate and short-term security and safety problems. Those are two different things and I think you should be able to appreciate the need to handle both things.

Change at the Federal level is what is most needed here. Vote out the congressmen who are in the pocket of the NRA to make our schools safe.

Exactly!!

[Anonymous]

NRA is not to blame. MCPS and parents/advocates are. We need more security, detectors, etc.

Even if we made more laws, the guns, knives and other weapons are already out there or someone can make them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

Yes, they should make the buildings safer with bulletproof glass, cameras in every room/area outside the bathroom and have adults monoriting the bathroom. Parents coming into the school isn't as much an issue as students/staff violence. Volunteers should be background checked before volunteering. Staff should have yearly background checks. There should be metal detectors or other devices to check personal belongings.

We waste so much money on silly stuff. That money can be used for armed guards. Yes, I am willing to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

Yes, they should make the buildings safer with bulletproof glass, cameras in every room/area outside the bathroom and have adults monoriting the bathroom. Parents coming into the school isn't as much an issue as students/staff violence. Volunteers should be background checked before volunteering. Staff should have yearly background checks. There should be metal detectors or other devices to check personal belongings.

We waste so much money on silly stuff. That money can be used for armed guards. Yes, I am willing to pay.

I am the poster you responded to. I could get on board with bullet proof glass and armed guards at each and every door IF we'd remove guns from everyone, too. But you and I know neither will ever happen. Heck, if communities won't vote to support a referendum to pay a TA a living wage, the ain't going to spend millions each year on safety. And we Americans love our right to own guns much more than we love our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

Yes, they should make the buildings safer with bulletproof glass, cameras in every room/area outside the bathroom and have adults monoriting the bathroom. Parents coming into the school isn't as much an issue as students/staff violence. Volunteers should be background checked before volunteering. Staff should have yearly background checks. There should be metal detectors or other devices to check personal belongings.

We waste so much money on silly stuff. That money can be used for armed guards. Yes, I am willing to pay.

I am the poster you responded to. I could get on board with bullet proof glass and armed guards at each and every door IF we'd remove guns from everyone, too. But you and I know neither will ever happen. Heck, if communities won't vote to support a referendum to pay a TA a living wage, the ain't going to spend millions each year on safety. And we Americans love our right to own guns much more than we love our children.

You need to live in the real world. Even if we ban guns, there are so many already out there and people can just build them/buy off the black market that it's a losing battle at this point. I don't vote for a living wage as then stores, governments, landlords, and others just raise the prices of everything else so its less of a living wage as means tested programs like food stamps, medical, etc. aren't changing their baselines so in the end if people lose their benefits for a little more income, in the end they are in worse shape than when they started at a lower wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

Yes, they should make the buildings safer with bulletproof glass, cameras in every room/area outside the bathroom and have adults monoriting the bathroom. Parents coming into the school isn't as much an issue as students/staff violence. Volunteers should be background checked before volunteering. Staff should have yearly background checks. There should be metal detectors or other devices to check personal belongings.

We waste so much money on silly stuff. That money can be used for armed guards. Yes, I am willing to pay.

I am the poster you responded to. I could get on board with bullet proof glass and armed guards at each and every door IF we'd remove guns from everyone, too. But you and I know neither will ever happen. Heck, if communities won't vote to support a referendum to pay a TA a living wage, the ain't going to spend millions each year on safety. And we Americans love our right to own guns much more than we love our children.

You need to live in the real world. Even if we ban guns, there are so many already out there and people can just build them/buy off the black market that it's a losing battle at this point. I don't vote for a living wage as then stores, governments, landlords, and others just raise the prices of everything else so its less of a living wage as means tested programs like food stamps, medical, etc. aren't changing their baselines so in the end if people lose their benefits for a little more income, in the end they are in worse shape than when they started at a lower wage.

Gotta start somewhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand that districts do need policies of prevention for many things (fire drills, severe weather drills, active shooter drills) the onus on schools is beyond me. It's an awful lot like "what did she do to prevent rape". We're focusing on the wrong things here. The issue is when folks have easy access to guns and are mentally ill. The combination of those two things are THE issue. And yes, I'm aware that most people with mental illnesses aren't violent. But every single person who shoots up people in schools, theaters, grocery stores ARE mentally ill.

I don't understand. You want someone other than the schools to be responsible for safety and security within school buildings. Why? We don't apply that logic anywhere else.

When we have a concert, the event venue and the concert producers are responsible for hiring event security to ensure the safety and wellbeing of concertgoers.

When you go to a nightclub, the nightclub is responsible for hiring security to ensure it's safe and to prevent or minimize violence.

When you go the airport, we have airport security as well as TSA to ensure the safety and security of air travelers.

Why should we not explain schools to develops strategies and dedicate resources toward the physical safety and security of students who they are obligated to safe guard and watch over, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentisin loco parentis.

I really can't understand this POV that you and others have that schools are not responsible for safety and security within their own buildings.

Outside of the schools and in the communities, no, schools aren't responsible. But inside their school buildings, if they aren't responsible for security, who else should be????

THIS

School systems are responsible for keeping kids safe while they are AT school.

But when it is suuuuper easy for mentally ill folks to get automatic weapons, it is pretty much impossible for schools to provide a safe environment. It's easy to shoot through doors and windows. Should districts retrofit buildings so they are impenetrable? Are tax payers willing to pay for multiple armed guards outside school buildings? (which have also been shown NOT to prevent school shootings)

I agree that schools have a part to play in terms of safety, but they are already doing that. (drills, locked doors, etc) Honestly, I think schools should completely stop allowing anyone in buildings who is not a staff member. No more parents in schools, no volunteers, no assemblies, nothing. No one who isn't employed by the district should be allowed in, ever. No more open house, no more parents dropping off lunches or forgotten materials, no more in person conferences, no sporting events, no theater productions. Why allow anyone in a school ever? It's clearly not safe.

Yes, they should make the buildings safer with bulletproof glass, cameras in every room/area outside the bathroom and have adults monoriting the bathroom. Parents coming into the school isn't as much an issue as students/staff violence. Volunteers should be background checked before volunteering. Staff should have yearly background checks. There should be metal detectors or other devices to check personal belongings.

We waste so much money on silly stuff. That money can be used for armed guards. Yes, I am willing to pay.

I am the poster you responded to. I could get on board with bullet proof glass and armed guards at each and every door IF we'd remove guns from everyone, too. But you and I know neither will ever happen. Heck, if communities won't vote to support a referendum to pay a TA a living wage, the ain't going to spend millions each year on safety. And we Americans love our right to own guns much more than we love our children.

You need to live in the real world. Even if we ban guns, there are so many already out there and people can just build them/buy off the black market that it's a losing battle at this point. I don't vote for a living wage as then stores, governments, landlords, and others just raise the prices of everything else so its less of a living wage as means tested programs like food stamps, medical, etc. aren't changing their baselines so in the end if people lose their benefits for a little more income, in the end they are in worse shape than when they started at a lower wage.

Gotta start somewhere

Exactly. Start with police in the school and more security.

[Anonymous]

School shootings are not the problem. Regular school violence is. You are far more likely to have another Magruder than a Parkland.

And MCPS does not care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School shootings are not the problem. Regular school violence is. You are far more likely to have another Magruder than a Parkland.

And MCPS does not care.

Regardless we need more security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School shootings are not the problem. Regular school violence is. You are far more likely to have another Magruder than a Parkland.

And MCPS does not care.

Regardless we need more security.

The approach is different.

SROs (police in general) would help reduce everyday violence.
Gun safety laws would reduce mass shootings.


Still, MCPS does not care.