Active shooter situation in assisted living.

GA, thanks for sharing, how scary! You’re correct, it is a subject we all need to think of and check the policies concerning. Sadly, there are no guarantees but it’s a wise subject to look into.
And also, you’ve been missed, especially on your gardening thread!

GardenArtist,
So good to see you again!
And thank you for that valuable information.

This kind of thing is happening so often it doesn't even rate a headline any more (sigh). I'm not trying to open a debate about gun control but the sheer number of every day people who are armed in the USA is mind boggling to an outsider like me. In my world I don't know anyone who owns a hand gun, yet it has come up in conversation that there are many middle aged ladies on this forum who do.

This is an awful thing to say, but after having my dad in a memory care facility for over two years, and visiting the building 1-3 times per week over that 2+ year period, I can see the motivation for a "mercy" killing, much like the occasional suicide pact among an elderly/ill couple. I live in central Florida, the retirement capital of the USA, and we do often have stories of elderly suicides in our area. My husband was in law enforcement and worked some of those scenes...

I'm not saying I want to kill my dad, but I am saying some of the residents there are miserable and some have been there as long as a decade. I visited yesterday for a while and the same woman is sitting in the dining room, shaking and crying out for help, just like she has for 2+ years.

Your profile says Dad is in an AL. If this is still true, the woman ur talking about needs more care than an AL can provide.

GardenArtist, first I would like to state how glad I am to see you posting here again and hope to see a lot more of your posts in coming days!

Forgive me, but I have also have a bone to pick with this one. Your post implies (at least to me) that senior living and/or public housing should be a gun free zone to reduce active shooter risks. Sorry, but that just hits a couple of my buttons around people wanting to eliminate the constitutional rights of others - in this case - either seniors or poor folk needing public housing or both. As a independent libertarian, I do not support "automatically" making anyone a second class citizen.

Just remember (1) aging does not automatically remove any of civil rights: free speech, intrusive searches, religious freedom or even self-defense; (2) all available law enforcement statistics demonstrate that gun free zones (where only criminals are armed) attract active shooters. In fact, if the "shooter" was the only "victim" then this incident doesn't qualify as an "active shooter" by the legal law enforcement definition.

While I worked to get my father's concealed carry permit pulled (as well as his drivers' license) after his dementia diagnosis, I do not support efforts to remove constitutional guaranteed rights from seniors or anyone else without due process. If the person has a mental impairment (physical or emotional) that makes them a danger to others, then use the due process methods enshrined in state law to limit those rights. When we start trying to rescind rights from "everyone" who ever had a anti-depressant medication, had a traumatic brain injury, or lived in public housing whether or not they have personally exhibited any aggressive behavior towards others, that's just unconstitutional. The compulsive mental hospital standard works because in order to involuntarily commit anyone, there must be a court hearing where a judge is presented evidence that a particular person is impaired. Protective orders require convincing a judge a particular person is a threat to someone.

As far as public housing goes, anyone convicted of a felony or under an order of protection cannot have a firearm; the law abiding citizens living in public housing deserve the same opportunity to defend themselves against the criminals as those who can afford to live outside of public housing. While an AL/MC/NH which accepts residents with impaired functioning and should rightly restrict access (by contract) to many items that are potentially dangerous (stoves, coffee pots, fireworks, knives, firearms, etc.), those facilities also must accept the responsibility to provide security and "protect" their residents. Evacuating residents to congregate in a nearby street actually makes them easier targets for an actual active shooter, particularly if the housing building was a multi-story apartment like structure.

In closing, I would just like to point out that anyone living in the United States is still 4 times more likely to be struck by lighting than being injured or killed by an active shooter, although the risk is considerably higher in states that do not support open or concealed carry. In facilities for our elderly, carbon monoxide poisoning from natural gas/propane venting failures are a much more likely cause of traumatic death, as are fires. When was the last time someone asked about the smoke or carbon monoxide detectors in your LO's facility?

The trouble with a gun policy is that the people with nefarious intent tend not to read it.

And if - first guess - this was a euthanasia-related killing/suicide, better a gun than a brick or a pillow or bleach.

But a) - it's lovely to hear from you! and b) being from a namby-pamby country that allows firearms only to drug dealers and teenage gangs, I must admit I am occasionally grateful that hiding ammunition from demented seniors with hunting rifles isn't a common problem for us.

I'm all for increased security. Two of the secure MCs that I visited was entry by appointment or calling and being buzzed in. I like that, but, most aren't that way.

Sadly, my state, NC, had a terrible tragedy a few years ago when a nursing home employee's ex-husband showed up and went ballistic. It was horrible. The wife survived by hiding in a locked room though. Some of the residents weren't so lucky.

Armed civilians have stopped multiple active shooters in this country but the media very rarely sensationalizes that so a lot of people don’t know. Also gun free zones don’t work. Because criminals don’t follow the rules. Because someone hell bent on causing mass destruction isn’t going to see the “gun free zone” and turn and walk away. Schools are gun free zones, just saying.......

law abiding citizens will follow the rules and the law. If make everything a “gun free zone” more lives will be lost because there won’t be armed citizens to help stop the threat.

The sugarland springs mass shooter was killed by armed civilian. More lives would have lost had that civilian been unarmed. Just saying.

TNtechie,
I thought the constitution refers to the right of the people to bear arms in reference to the state's right for a well regulated militia. I don't remember it saying that we have the right to turn senior housing into the OK corral

GA - so glad to see you back, even if with this topic. Thank you for sharing. Let us know if you find out more of the story behind the incident. Hope you are well.

salutem, the well regulated militia belongs to the people, not the state, as the US Supreme Court has acknowledged. All of the first ten amendments restricted the power of governments. "Well regulated" in colonial times means "well armed" and organized, not a standing army. Try reading a little of the debate in private (at the time) letters and published articles from 1786 to 1789. Militias of private citizens arriving with their personal PRIVATELY OWNED arms to elect leaders and drill are very notable in early American history, particularly at Concord (where the British "government" marched to confiscate "arms" from the colonials), Kings Mountain (first defeat of British regulars at the hands of the untrained American militia), and New Orleans in the War of 1812 (or Second American Revolution) where the British Army and generals that had defeated Neapolitan were banished by a limited/small American "regular" federal army and a host of self armed volunteer "militia".

BTW, I do prefer the OK corral (where both sides were armed and had survivors) to the numerous executions of disarmed senior citizens performed by Russians, Chinese, Germans and some others during WWII. Ensuring senior and/or public housing residents have no opportunity to defend themselves only makes them defenseless targets (a.k.a. sitting ducks) available for an easy massacre at some lunatic's whim.

Gun control is so desperately needed. Isn't going to happen while the Republicans are in control. They are only concerned with the rights of the unborn. Once you're born, you're on your own. If we are ever to have the NRA under control, we have to get the elderly out to vote in the next election; for those unable to vote in person have them sign up for a mail in or signed up for assist which can be done for anyone with a disability. This is very important.

Thank you for posting this. What is this world coming to?

I agree with you Worried. We would have a lot more victims if it wasn't for armed civilians. The criminals don't care about the laws or the "gun free zone."

The big problem with "armed civilians" is that generally we are talking, not about trained law enforcement/military people, but well meaning amateurs with guns. It is not just about having a gun and knowing how to handle it safely.  When you are talking about an "active shooter" situation you need training in how to handle that kind of situation - the kind of extensive learning and experience that law enforcement people get.  I read that in that Aurora theater shooting, an military veteran who was present said that he could not have effectively dealt with it without risking death to innocent bystanders.  Unless you completely don't care about killing innocent people, you have a tactics/strategy problem and just knowing how to handle a gun will not answer to the problem you are facing.

The first mass shooting I remember was the University of Texas Tower Shooting back in 1966 where 17 were killed, and 31 injured. That was a half century ago, and has anything really changed?

I agree with Rovana's post. Armed civilians are not the answer unless said civilians have had extensive training. I am an excellent shot, but would be useless in an active shooter situation with all of the commotion.

Anyone remember a few months ago a young man [armed civilian] at a mall was killed when the police thought he was the active shooter?

Right now the best approach is to have metal detectors in all buildings. At least that would the first speed bump for anyone carrying a firearm wishing to do harm.

In order to get a carry permit aka be a civilian carrying a gun in public, one has to go through training And gun safety courses. And pass background checks. Are people really unaware of this? No the training isn’t extensive as military or law enforcement training but they don’t just give everyone these permits. You have to go through training.

Not true cali, many states don't require a permit for open carry, only for concealed carry and AZ doesn't require a permit for any carry. You don't know who is packing a gun here. Completely legal to be armed to the teeth as long as you are not going into posted facilities. You can even carry in a bar here as long as you don't drink.

But I believe that if you take guns away from law abiding citizens then only the criminals will be armed and then we will all be living in constant fear.

What a sad Story.

It is not a matter of gun control, it is a matter of the heart.

Evil is a matter of the heart. If you remove guns, then you will have to remove knives, Spoons, Forks, Pillows, Rope, Cars and so on... It would never end

Gun control does not change a persons heart and will to kill.
Trust me if you are ever saved by a citizen exercising their Right to Bear arms, you will be thankful they had a gun.

As said before Gun control, only arms criminals and makes everyone else vulnerable.

It is common sense, something that has been forgotten to be exercised.

I'm still relatively new here but the majority of the views expressed on gun control here lead me to believe that there is a relatively strong Republican POV on this site. Perhaps mid-western, Southern, Western POV?

I know someone who went to my church and lived with my pastor and even though he's mentally ill he got a gun and conceal carries. Some things happened and the pastor ended up having to go through legal process to get him and his girlfriend off of their property. They had to get the police involved because they wouldn't leave on their own. The guy drew his gun on the pastor in front of the police officer and the police officer told him to drop it and he did. People will lie through their teeth to get a gun. I think we need stricter screening for mental illnes.

"No weapons " signs have specific rules to be valid. Can they check people's bodies to ensure that no guns are present at every location that has a sign, no. However, if it is a legal posting and you are carrying a firearm and are involved in a situation that requires law enforcement to be involved and you have a gun, it is a whole different bag of charges and in AZ they have serious teeth.

If it wasn't guns it would be something, as Smeshque said, it's a matter of the heart if someone is set on killing.

Mass killings happen in countries with strict gun control laws and less guns on the streets. Instead of guns. They use cars, knives, bombs, even fire......if someone is really intent on causing mass casualties, they will find a way.

Tacy 022 the guy I talked about in my post is from Detroit and was a drug dealer there about 30 years ago.

My dad use to say, "guns don't kill people. People kill people." If someone wants to do a massive killing they will find a way. It is just human nature...sad but true!

We live in a country where you can go to Walmart and buy a shot gun along with a gallon of milk, but you can't buy a Eminem cd! Doesn't make any sense!!!

Something does need to be done with gun control but I still think people should have the right to own a gun with a permit. Will someone with a permit save lives? Maybe or maybe not! Can that same person go on a massive killing spree, prehaps! I don't think there is just one answer to this problem. And I don't think anyone is closer to solving the problem today than they were a year ago!

Evil always finds a way! I would have to agree with Smeshque and Isthisrealyreal. "Its a matter of the heart..."

Just my 2 cents!

One firearm maker had an excellent idea when it came to gun safety. They designed a handgun that wouldn't fire unless the person was wearing an id bracelet that was for that handgun only [probably an infra-red light code between the gun and bracelet].

Thus, children finding such a gun in the house could never hurt themselves or a playmate, as they wouldn't be able to use said modern technology firearm without the bracelet.

And if police used such a gun, there wouldn't be any worry of a criminal wrestling that gun away from the officer and using said gun on the officer. The gun wouldn't fire.

For some reason, the National Rifle Association did not like the above gun. So that firearm never became popular.

There would still be a huge danger if an ARMED criminal wrestled the gun away from the officer. It would leave the officer unarmed. And the criminal would still be armed.

Obviously, this is a gun control issue. the problem is that the majority of the views expressed here are those of Republicans who just happen to be of a particular religious persuasion; there is no reasoning with them. We Democrats simply have to be as respectful of the Supreme Court ruling on guns as they are of Roe vs. Wade. No negotiating, no attempts to reason if we want to live in a safe world

I popped in on this thread at about 27 posts. I had a feeling it would turn into a gun control conversation - and guess what - it has. I thought about posting but decided against it as gun control “conversations” tend to become a conversation that no one listens to with an open mind. So, why bother?

Yet, here I am. Why bother? Cause salutem - you’re making me nutz.

I am am not a fan of stereotypes. Particularly, ignorant stereotypes. But - then again, aren’t all stereotypes ignorant?

So salutem, for the record...

I am a 57 year old, Caucasian woman. I was born and raised in Portland, Oregon - a city and state well known for its liberal majority and point of view. Currently, I live with my husband and severely disabled adult son in a burb just outside of Portland.

I am a college educated, retired professional with a career history as a retail executive, a Human Resource Director and a corporate trainer.

I would classify myself as “spiritual” not religious. I can not recall the last time I was in a church. I have more friends among the LGBTQ community than I do “straight” ones.

I rarely drink alcohol due to being on pain medication. One drink and I fall asleep. I’m afraid my days of a skirt twirling, dress up over my head, party girl are over. But, I did have them, thats for sure. I still do partake in a little marijuana from time to time.

I recycle as much as possible and eat organic whenever I can. I am multi pierced and sport several large tattoos. And, no - not your stereotypical, prison or neo-nazi tattoos. Beautiful tattoos done by my gay tattoo artist with organic ink. My tattoo guy openly boasts and advertises having the first all organic, queer owned tattoo salon in
Portland.

I do not support hunting in general but I do understand the need to “thin the herd” when the ecological balance becomes skewed.

But yes, I do have a few conservative leanings. I believe in the death penalty, the right to own a gun and that one should never wear white after Labor Day and prior to Memorial Day.

I also believe that government should be as minimally invasive in its citizens lives as possible. Yet, it seems to me that our government - “both sides of the isle” tend to be hypocritical in its cherry-picking of interpretation when it comes to the laws and rights that govern its citizens. I mean, if I can’t be trusted with “the right to choose” that which is right for me morally, ethically, physically and mentally - how on earth can I be trusted to own a gun? And vice-versa?

I own two guns. A .38 revolver and a semi-automatic 9mm. My husband also owns two guns. We each keep a loaded weapon in the drawers of
our bedside tables. My other gun is kept - loaded - in a safe spot near our front door... I’m home alone a lot.

So, salutem - I do wish you’d stop making stereotypes and assigning political affiliations to your argument against gun ownership by private citizens. It only serves to weaken your stance by making you sound like a rhetoric spewing fanatic.

I'm Jewish, live in NYC, would never keep a gun in my home because my kids would never allow my grandchildren to visit.

But I'm not not an ideologue anti gun advocate. I don't see this as a black and white issue. There is more debate to be had about mental health issues; those issues have so much more effect upon shootings than any other factor, imo.