MCPS policies to prevent school shootings

[Anonymous]

I'm not aware of anything that any school has done to prevent a mass shooting. Because there is little they can do.

[Anonymous]

Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardening schools is not the same thing as achieving school safety. Most school shooters are part of the school community in some way (whether current or in the past) and know the security and blindspots. It has to start with creating a culture of trust and support.

That's not the approach we take for concerts, athletic events or the airport. Why are schools supposed to be a free-for-all when they house our most precious resource?

THIS. No one can seem to answer this fundamental question. Why do we protect concerts, government buildings, sport events, airports, etc. with armed security but not high schools with 2000+ students? Are they not worth protecting? In fact, schools are government buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

Seriously!! All the people out there saying banning assault rifles won’t do anything because guns are already out there is ridiculous. No one should have an assault rifle aside from a military officer, and selling one less is a victory. If it was incredibly hard and dangerous to buy one (because there were significant penalties for owning one) fewer people would have them.right now it seems like anyone can and does purchase one! And yes there might still be violence but there might be fewer or at least fewer casualties. Why don’t we try? What is really holding us back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

Seriously!! All the people out there saying banning assault rifles won’t do anything because guns are already out there is ridiculous. No one should have an assault rifle aside from a military officer, and selling one less is a victory. If it was incredibly hard and dangerous to buy one (because there were significant penalties for owning one) fewer people would have them.right now it seems like anyone can and does purchase one! And yes there might still be violence but there might be fewer or at least fewer casualties. Why don’t we try? What is really holding us back?

Military officers aren't the ones actually doing the fighting. They supervise. It's the enlisted and officers don't own their own weapons. They are issued by the military. How do you propose getting all the weapons from people? You realize it's not that simple. Anyone who really wants one will find a way to get it.

Security is where we need to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

So true. Alas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

Seriously!! All the people out there saying banning assault rifles won’t do anything because guns are already out there is ridiculous. No one should have an assault rifle aside from a military officer, and selling one less is a victory. If it was incredibly hard and dangerous to buy one (because there were significant penalties for owning one) fewer people would have them.right now it seems like anyone can and does purchase one! And yes there might still be violence but there might be fewer or at least fewer casualties. Why don’t we try? What is really holding us back?

Military officers aren't the ones actually doing the fighting. They supervise. It's the enlisted and officers don't own their own weapons. They are issued by the military. How do you propose getting all the weapons from people? You realize it's not that simple. Anyone who really wants one will find a way to get it.

Security is where we need to start.

Studies show that police in schools don't prevent violence and lead to criminalization of misbehavior by minority students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardening schools is not the same thing as achieving school safety. Most school shooters are part of the school community in some way (whether current or in the past) and know the security and blindspots. It has to start with creating a culture of trust and support.

That's not the approach we take for concerts, athletic events or the airport. Why are schools supposed to be a free-for-all when they house our most precious resource?

THIS. No one can seem to answer this fundamental question. Why do we protect concerts, government buildings, sport events, airports, etc. with armed security but not high schools with 2000+ students? Are they not worth protecting? In fact, schools are government buildings.

Because when you go to the airport, a concert or a mall you are around strangers. Because they are strangers there is an inherent amount of distrust being around them. When you go to school with the same students and teachers every day they aren’t strangers. But, having the same types of security signals you shouldn’t trust the people around you every single day. This makes kids feel less safe, not more safe. This is why the focus needs to be on trust not on creating prisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responses on this thread are misguided. It seems as a society we are OK with making schools into prisons while we continue a culture that glorifies violence.

Seriously!! All the people out there saying banning assault rifles won’t do anything because guns are already out there is ridiculous. No one should have an assault rifle aside from a military officer, and selling one less is a victory. If it was incredibly hard and dangerous to buy one (because there were significant penalties for owning one) fewer people would have them.right now it seems like anyone can and does purchase one! And yes there might still be violence but there might be fewer or at least fewer casualties. Why don’t we try? What is really holding us back?

Military officers aren't the ones actually doing the fighting. They supervise. It's the enlisted and officers don't own their own weapons. They are issued by the military. How do you propose getting all the weapons from people? You realize it's not that simple. Anyone who really wants one will find a way to get it.

Security is where we need to start.

Studies show that police in schools don't prevent violence and lead to criminalization of misbehavior by minority students.

Yep. But who cares about criminalizing the minority students when parents only care about their precious Larla and no one else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is MCPS doing to prevent school shootings in our kids’ schools? Heightened security? Closing most entrances? Do parents feel comfortable still sending their kids to public school?

MCPS has no meaningful security plans and they're not seriously looking to address it either. They're hoping there's enough space between violent incidents that parents and teachers forget about it and don't demand change.

It’s ridiculous to say this and absolutely not true. Is there more that could be done, maybe, but to say they have no plan and have not looked into it, is a complete lie.

Same plan as for a pandemic.

No plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardening schools is not the same thing as achieving school safety. Most school shooters are part of the school community in some way (whether current or in the past) and know the security and blindspots. It has to start with creating a culture of trust and support.

That's not the approach we take for concerts, athletic events or the airport. Why are schools supposed to be a free-for-all when they house our most precious resource?

THIS. No one can seem to answer this fundamental question. Why do we protect concerts, government buildings, sport events, airports, etc. with armed security but not high schools with 2000+ students? Are they not worth protecting? In fact, schools are government buildings.

Because when you go to the airport, a concert or a mall you are around strangers. Because they are strangers there is an inherent amount of distrust being around them. When you go to school with the same students and teachers every day they aren’t strangers. But, having the same types of security signals you shouldn’t trust the people around you every single day. This makes kids feel less safe, not more safe. This is why the focus needs to be on trust not on creating prisons.

Just to add one more thing here, when you exist in that security environment every day you easily see the blindspots. So a student determined to commit violence wants to, they will figure out how. The vast vast majority of incidents are committed by those already connected to the school in some way; it’s not an unknown stranger trying to infiltrate the school. The focus needs to be on prevention— building trust, addressing social skills (SEL), school climate, mental health services, and overall building connection between students and school. And gun control to make sure if an incident does happen it isn’t so immediately deadly.

[Anonymous]

From my experience of students are showing antisocial or destructive behavior they are sent to the admin for some candy then sent back to class. Usually this seems to reward negative behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardening schools is not the same thing as achieving school safety. Most school shooters are part of the school community in some way (whether current or in the past) and know the security and blindspots. It has to start with creating a culture of trust and support.

That's not the approach we take for concerts, athletic events or the airport. Why are schools supposed to be a free-for-all when they house our most precious resource?

THIS. No one can seem to answer this fundamental question. Why do we protect concerts, government buildings, sport events, airports, etc. with armed security but not high schools with 2000+ students? Are they not worth protecting? In fact, schools are government buildings.

Because when you go to the airport, a concert or a mall you are around strangers. Because they are strangers there is an inherent amount of distrust being around them. When you go to school with the same students and teachers every day they aren’t strangers. But, having the same types of security signals you shouldn’t trust the people around you every single day. This makes kids feel less safe, not more safe. This is why the focus needs to be on trust not on creating prisons.

Just to add one more thing here, when you exist in that security environment every day you easily see the blindspots. So a student determined to commit violence wants to, they will figure out how. The vast vast majority of incidents are committed by those already connected to the school in some way; it’s not an unknown stranger trying to infiltrate the school. The focus needs to be on prevention— building trust, addressing social skills (SEL), school climate, mental health services, and overall building connection between students and school. And gun control to make sure if an incident does happen it isn’t so immediately deadly.

Wait! That doesn't sound like building a fortress or employing a SWAT team! Minds will be blown!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The guns are aready out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The guns are aready out there.

And yet, in the last several mass shootings the shooter only recently purchased the weapons, legally. Banning future sales of assault rifles would definitely help make it more difficult for shooters to get them. There is absolutely no justification for assault style weapons. None.