Press "Enter" to skip to content

Britton Hosts Second School Shooting in South Dakota History

Until yesterday, there had been only one school shooting in South Dakota history. Donald Kurtz, age 17, died from a gunshot wound fired by a classmate from a rifle they were using for sound effects in a school play at Delmont High School in 1961.

52 years later, South Dakota gets its second school shooting:

Dusty Groom, 18, of rural Lake City, faces misdemeanor charges of reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of a firearm on school property and false reporting to authorities, according to a news release from [Marshall County Sheriff Dale] Elsen.

Groom was showing other boys what he thought was an unloaded a .22 caliber handgun when it went off and hit another teenager in the head about 4 p.m. Wednesday. The sheriff's office received a call from the Britton hospital emergency room about the shooting about 4:25 p.m., according to the release [Scott Waltman, "Britton-Hecla Student Could Be Released from Hospital after Shooting," Aberdeen American-News, 2013.05.02].

We now have two instances of students harmed by gunfire in South Dakota schools. In neither of those incidents would the armed teachers and janitors envisioned by our fantasy-based school gunslinger law have made any positive difference. If anything, having more adults bring guns to school only encourages kids to think bringing guns to school is o.k.... and that's what has caused every school school shooting in South Dakota history.

In other news, adults sought significantly fewer concealed weapons permits in South Dakota in April than they did in March... but that may be because darn near everyone who wants to pack is already packing.

14 Comments

  1. Rorschach 2013.05.03

    In other news, I got mine.

  2. mc 2013.05.03

    Just because someone has a conceled firearm permit doesn't mean they are carrying a gun 24/7/365.

    Carrying a gun with no ammo isn't much protection. you are better off with a sling shot and some hard candy.

  3. grudznick 2013.05.03

    Mr. Pay, we all know the arts are a dead end. Please stop banging that tambourine in a rhythmic yet inartistic manner. You are more of the smash-a-guitar-on-somebody's-head style.

  4. duggersd 2013.05.04

    Another straw dawg. The Corimeister seems to believe the armed teachers idea is to prevent this type of incident. The idea behind allowing some teachers to be armed is to minimize the damaged caused by a person who comes into a school with the idea of shooting people. This was an accident. Trying to correlate the two situations makes no sense at all.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.04

    What? Dugger, prevention was among the central arguments offered by the proponents of HB 1087. They said that gun-free zones attract shooters, thus armed zones repel shooters.

    My empirical point here is that not one of the school shootings in South Dakota's history justifies the fearful response represented by HB 1087. The things that have actually happened in South Dakota that we should actually be worried about would not have been affected or made better by armed teachers. HB 1087 actually increases the danger of similar accidents occurring, because it reinforces our dangerous gun culture.

  6. duggersd 2013.05.04

    Cory, you know good and well this is not what HB1087 was for. It would be helpful to compare apples to apples. You have no empirical evidence. And in this incident, an unarmed teacher could have prevented this had the teacher seen what was going on. Sandy Hook was also something that nobody predicted, yet an armed guard of some sort or teacher could have stopped the carnage before so many were killed. And HB 1087 does not increase a similar incident. And that does not reinforce a "dangerous" gun culture. It would reinforce a safe gun culture.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.04

    I do know that, Dugger. HB 1087 was intended to address a practical threat that does not exist in South Dakota. What few shootings we have ever had are left unaddressed and potentially made worse. Saying that bringing guns to school reinforces a safe gun culture is akin to saying that bringing beer to school would reinforce a safe alcohol culture.

  8. MC 2013.05.04

    Would it, Cory?

    As I see it, there are two main issues at play. The proper way to handle a firearm and a lack of respect for life.

    The first part we all can address. It is a pretty established fact that kids will emulate adults. If they see us carrying a firearm safely. They will start to copy us. We need to teach them that guns are not toys. We should not hide them, because kids will find them. We must become the teachers to our children.

    The Respect for life means going to Church or something like it. (ok yeah I know). I'm not going any further, because I pretty much know what you're going to say and you know pretty much know what I am going to say. I'll stop here.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.05

    Yes, it would, MC. Respect for firearms must co-exist with respect for life, for civil society, and for peaceful conflict resolution. Respect for firearms should also include showing kids that guns are appropriate in some settings and not in others. It is important to model good gun handling. But it is just as important to show kids that sometimes (what am I saying? most times) you put the gun down, leave it alone, and go about your business unarmed and not on red alert.

    But sure, I suppose if kids see me drinking a beer safely at my teacher's desk, they'll learn to drink safely too, right?

  10. MC 2013.05.05

    First , Alcohol + Firearms = good example of a (really) bad idea.

    If kids see adults drinking wine at a dinner party, or cocktails in a social setting, hopefully they will learn the time and place to consume such beverages.

    If kids are exposed to firearms, shown their power, and even experience firing them (in controlled environment) they will be less likely to handle them improperly. You are correct; generally a classroom is not the best place for a firearm, unless it is a part of a lesson. The classroom is not the best place for a bottle of French wine, unless you’re talking about the French wine industry.
    Will an armed teacher stop every school shooting? No it won’t. Like seat belts; they do not prevent accidents, only limit the damage.

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.05.05

    ...but seat belts don't create an increased risk of damage of the magnitude of accidental firearm discharge plus the anti-social message of fear conveyed by those weapons each day.

    I simply won't bring a bottle of French wine to my classroom. We can talk about it; we can look at pictures. But we have rules prohibiting alcohol on campus for a reason.

    We can teach kids all they need to know about firearms in their proper controlled environments: the shooting range, the well-supervised hunting party, and Dad/Mom's workshop where they can learn to safely disassemble, clean, reassemble, and store those weapons.

Comments are closed.