There was a school shooting in my neck of the woods. A young man entered the school, shot one girl, who is still critical, and another boy, who is injured, but released from the hospital. A school resource officer shot him. Still a tragedy for that girl.
Why didn’t CNN interview those students? Does it just not fit the narrative? He was 17, too young to buy a gun in MD, which is 21. There is also a 7 day waiting period, that didn’t help either.
What law do we suppose would have stopped this from happening?
Maybe because the shooter had a relationship with one of the victims? It was more a targeted crime than a random massacre (it could have been, though). That’s my guess.
The school shooting that happened just prior to the Parkland, Florida tragedy was a random shooting in the high school in Aztec, New New Mexico - a small town I lived in for a couple of years as a kid. Two students were killed. There was a some modest national coverage at the time, but that faded away quickly.
Now with the advent of the Parkland shooting, some in Aztec are feeling a bit overlooked by the public and the news media, perhaps because they had “only” two killed (three if you count the shooter - who was not a student), and perhaps because it happened in a small town in a sparsely-populated state far from the east coast media centers. But for them it was and still is a huge, traumatic tragedy.
The tragic event was covered. People were interviewed. Parkland went on because is was a mass shooting AND because the students spoke out loudly. As to what laws could have the potential to stop it? It has been reported that the gun was his father’s. Parents are can be held responsible when kids get into their liquor cabinet. I’ll just leave it at that.
They spoke out loudly because those with big money and an agenda made sure that happened - so yeah MD doesn’t fit the narrative or the messaging that those same groups with big money are pushing.
The Maryland shooting was the headline for most of the day on CNN where I live. Some events get more coverage, I don’t think there is necessarily an agenda behind that. The Kentucky shooting occurred before parkland and had very little coverage here. The upcoming March has helped the Parkland issue stay in the news, along with the advocacy of its young victims. I don’t know if anyone in Maryland is advocating that way.
“What law do we suppose would have stopped this from happening?”
@eyemamom Maryland’s laws made it less likely that the shooter could get his hands on a semi automatic with a large magazine, so this incident didn’t end up having the same huge impact as Parkland or Columbine or Sandyhook …
Laws which held gun owners criminally and financially liable for illegal use of their guns or laws that treated guns like cars might have prevented it altogether. Maryland voters could start lobbying for that.
Agree that domestic violence murders (and I include this one in that) get much less coverage than stranger on stranger murders. I’ve heard this covered as the act of a “love sick teenager” which makes me want to hurl.
I actually think this one probably got more coverage than it would have before the Parkland massacre.
I was home the day that shooting happened. There was plenty of CNN coverage.
Maryland bans most semi-automatic long guns (like the weapon used in the Parkland massacre). As even conservative Senator Rubio suggested during the Parkland town hall event, restricting assault-type weapons won’t necessarily reduce the number of school shootings, but it may reduce their lethality when they do occur. Great Mills was thankfully a far less lethal incident than Parkland.
Any time such an event occurs, it does demonstrate that some preventative or mitigating measures were ineffective. By the same token, every death in a car accident demonstrates the limits of automobile safety measures (seat belts, air bags, speed limits.)
But honestly, don’t we have school shooting fatigue at this point? It happens about once a week. Unless the shooter puts up big casualty numbers, it’s just another shooting…thoughts/prayers bye.
I will say this, though. This is a guy who went gunning for a girl he loved/hated/was rejected by/whatever. That’s a thing we see a lot, men who kill their ex-girlfriends. What disgusts me about this is the language Time used: http://time.com/5211363/maryland-high-school-shooting-austin-rollins-lovesick/ He was not a “lovesick teen”. He was the (attempted) murderer of an innocent girl.
I’m also glad to see that an armed police officer, trained to protect the school, actually did his job this time. Bravo to him.
The gun he used was legally owned. By his father. Who should face charges if he left it where this kid could get it.
Edited to add: But he likely won’t face charges because Maryland law apparently only punishes people who leave guns where kids under 16 can get them. The shooter was 17.
