Man with guns, bombs, apparently killed himself instead of attacking Glenwood Caverns

So scary!

Good thing it didn't happen. Sadly it's a new reality we have to adjust to, and I find myself planning exits at events(concerts, amusement parks, etc.)

It’s always been a good practice, and continues to be. But in the past it was in case of fire. Now it’s in case of gun fire as well.
The other night I saw a blip and a photo on the news about them finding a well-armed guy dead near a Colorado amusement park, details at 11, and all I could think about was that the place seems a tad beleaguered lately. What’s next for them?

As for the gunman at Glenwood Caverns, I'm happy he had a change of heart and realized he didn't want to kill. I am sad he took his own life. Unaliveing yourself is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. People who have suicidal thoughts can find help, and live a happy life after getting treatment. Many people have felt hopeless and desperate for relief. Many people have found their way out of that rut too.

One really good thing my former employer Walmart did was give employees yearly training about surviving a mass shooting. Just from memory...

-----

Always have an escape route planned out in the back of your mind, before an active shooting incident occurs.

There is a difference between the sound or gunfire and the sound of a box falling or something else that sounds similar. Use good judgement.

If you see something suspicious, call management on the radio or call 911.

If you can't find an escape route, hide. Put as many barriers between you and the gunman. One of the best things to do is find a room, turn off the lights and lock the door. If the door does not lock, move something heavy in front of the door if possible.

Silence your cell phone.

If you need to use force, use force, and fight dirty.

Follow police's orders. They might not know who the gunman is. If they say put your hands on your head, do it. If they say lay on the ground, do it.

-----

I think it's a good thing to educate people about this, but I also think it's very sad we have to. It could cause worrying that is not necessary, which could lead to people being irrational, but still, it could also save a life IF someone is unlucky enough to find themselves in a situation like this.

Also, why can society not understand that we need a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who may do something like this. I think a mental evaluation should be required before one is allowed to purchase a gun, especially a mass murdering gun. Maybe we can use technology to make guns not work if they are not registered to the user, like a fingerprint, or an RFID chip in the hand, or face recognition somewhere on the gun that allows the gun to be used. I mean, we can carry a computer in our pockets that has tech that allows only the user to open it. Why not guns?

I know it's a hot topic, but the way we are doing things right now is not working. Americans are getting dumber and dumber, and now we are all required to carry guns so bad guys don't shoot us while we are taking a stroll through the park? Everyone needs to look like Rambo when they go the the grocery store? The gun industry is getting even richer, while children are getting shot in the schools. It's not working.

Love the advice to fight dirty. No Marquess of Queensberry rules. Duh. ;)

LostKause:

Always have an escape route planned out in the back of your mind, before an active shooting incident occurs.

If you can't find an escape route, hide.

If you need to use force, use force, and fight dirty.

Run-Hide-Fight (in that order) is the policy at my place, and I have to imagine it is pretty standard just about everywhere now.

Follow police's orders.

This is good advice no matter the situation.

I think it's a good thing to educate people about this, but I also think it's very sad we have to. It could cause worrying that is not necessary, which could lead to people being irrational, but still, it could also save a life IF someone is unlucky enough to find themselves in a situation like this.

A few weeks ago, my daughter's middle school had an inadvertent active shooter alarm. It wasn't a drill, nor was it a real event, but because it was unexpected and the communication was poor, many teachers and students thought it was a real event. It was a very traumatizing experience that left many students crying and teachers rattled, and it makes you question the wisdom of active shooter drills. I get why we do it, but I'd almost rather have only the adults in charge know what to do and allow the students to be blissfully unaware. Apparently, the alarm was not that difficult to trigger.

Also, why can society not understand that we need a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who may do something like this. I think a mental evaluation should be required before one is allowed to purchase a gun, especially a mass murdering gun.

That's the rub: if all the dangerous and deranged people had tattoos on their foreheads, we could point at them and say "no gun for you," but that's not the case, so it is always going to be difficult to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys while permitting law-abiding citizens to own them.

Maybe we can use technology to make guns not work if they are not registered to the user, like a fingerprint, or an RFID chip in the hand, or face recognition somewhere on the gun that allows the gun to be used. I mean, we can carry a computer in our pockets that has tech that allows only the user to open it. Why not guns?

The technology already exists.

Also, all semi-automatic guns have the potential to be "mass murdering guns." An assault weapons ban would not have stopped the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

Can you take guns into all parks ?

Bakeman31092:

Also, all semi-automatic guns have the potential to be "mass murdering guns." An assault weapons ban would not have stopped the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

I don't think you're making a statement either way, but that category of weapons is only necessary to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why I find it so odd that we as a society are OK with their general distribution. I mean, advocates are always talking about responsibility and safety, so I assume they're not in the category of "see and spray" defense.

^^No, it's not permitted to bring guns into amusement parks. Security measures vary though.

This guy didn't enter the park via the regular guest route.

LostKause:

I think it's a good thing to educate people about this, but I also think it's very sad we have to.

My wife is an elementary school assistant principal and recently went through training for tactical medical kits that her district purchased. Because, you know, that's where we are. It's easier to train people to react than do anything that might have just a glimmer of a chance of stopping a shooting in advance.

Jeff:

I don't think you're making a statement either way, but that category of weapons is only necessary to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why I find it so odd that we as a society are OK with their general distribution. I mean, advocates are always talking about responsibility and safety, so I assume they're not in the category of "see and spray" defense.

The obvious advantages a supposed "assault weapon" has over a semi-automatic handgun (as used in the VT shooting) are more ammo and higher accuracy. It's why they are hugely popular for home defense. I don't own a semi-automatic rifle, but I understand why they are sought after (and certainly wouldn't mind owning one myself). As you said, most responsible gun owners don't subscribe to a "see and spray" defense regardless of weapon choice, but I can't fault anyone for wanting greater accuracy and more bullets if faced with a deadly threat. I also buy into the idea that law abiding folk should have a level playing field in such a situation. Outlawing more effective weapons just gives criminals the upper hand (see Columbine, which occurred during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban).

I know we don't agree, and there's no point in trying to litigate it again, but that logic feels like devolving back to the middle ages, just with deadlier weapons. It makes zero sense to me. Humans as a species keep gaining knowledge, yet we hang on to barbaric tendencies.

I know it makes no sense to you, but I also recall you (rightly) criticizing those who cling to ideologies. A world without violent people is an ideology I don't believe can or will ever exist, and as long as that is the truth, law abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

Funny you mention the middle ages, when humans were less knowledgeable, less civilized, and still violent...just with swords and arrows and catapults. I wonder if ruling bodies debated bow accuracy and quiver capacity back then...

I don't agree. It's not an ideology, I'm likely just naive in thinking that we're better than this.

And yes, you point out the absurdity of weapon effectiveness. It's exactly why trying to apply the Second Amendment logic from a time when you had to manually pack powder into a gun, to today when you can unleash a dozen rounds in a few seconds, completely illogical.

I think that the argument that the second amendment was written in the time of manually-packed muskets and therefore doesn’t hold true today is the illogical one. The second amendment was written to enable citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government who, I might add, oversaw an army that used muskets as well. Restricting citizens to firearms with the bare minimum of capability goes against what I understand the intent of the second amendment to be.

I don’t own a gun and have no desire to ever own one, so I’m not going to apply for a marketing job for AR-15s, but I don’t support restricting people from owning them.

I do, however, support stringent background checks and safety measures that keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. I still don’t think that will prevent all issues, but it’s a start.

I think most gun control measures are silly based on the observation that few of them would have prevented a majority of incidents. And some that would or could have, tend to err too far on the infringement side of things.

On the other hand, I've also historically found the "protect us from a tyrannical government" argument equally silly, at least until the last few years, when we've seen some truly diabolical actions on behalf of a extremist minority group of government actors hell-bent on marching the US into a white nationalist fascist theocracy. Suddenly it does not seem entirely far-fetched that we might need that "well regulated Militia".

1. The "stand up against the government" argument is absolutely silly in context. The government has tanks and airplanes, so good luck fending those off with an AR-15. I mean, local police departments have what are essentially tanks now.
2. The founders wrote about a standing militia as being necessary instead of a professional, full-time army (I think that was one of Hamilton's Federalist Papers, but don't quote me). That ship has sailed, and we have the largest professional military in history, bigger than the next several nations combined.
3. Even with the militia, contextually, they were worried about European nations wanting to invade, native Americans and Black slave uprisings. The last parts were hardly righteous causes.
4. Furthermore, the only time US democracy was really at risk was just a few years ago... by people with guns urged by a fascist leader no less.