As a matter of fact, the Denver Post reported this as a statement from the club:
Club Q is devastated by the senseless attack on our community. Our prays and thoughts are with all the victims and their families and friends. We thank the quick reactions of heroic customers that subdued the gunman and ended this hate attack.
Sounds like at least someone fought back.
Active shootings are fucking crazy, so at this point it's unknowable if anyone shot him, or he was just physically attacked. I'd suspect that we'd hear about it if his injuries involved a gunshot wound, or he might even be included in the shooting injuries by the police briefing.
This is an example of an instance of an active shooter weidling a shotgun (loaded with birdshot) being stopped and detained by a civilian with mace and balls of steel.
I wonder if mass shooters are more likely to be subdued by civilians in higher trust societies or subcultures. If you care about the people around you, you are probably more likely to intervene on their behalf even if it means you pay the price for prematurely ending the attack.
I think high trust societies don't have mass shooters at all because even the shooters find meaningful lives, and people they can trust. Like, if we go back, say, 80 years to a normal fifty-nifty suburb. A shooting or murder of any kind would be regional news. Our society already degenerated into a low trust and fully atomized society.
If we go back to the Texas A&M shooting in the 50's, people still scattered and it was the police that had to charge the clocktower.
I think what determines if people are willing to step in is less of a high-trust, but the authoritarianism or institutionalized culture. People are going to be less willing to step in if they are thinking "that's someone else's problem", "this isn't my business", or "the authorities should handle this".
That being said, I would suspect that authoritarian societies or institutionalized people are already going to be low-trust, so it would correlate well.
A lot of circumspect language talking about how the shooter was stopped. Anyone got odds on security or someone carrying shot him in under a minute?
As a matter of fact, the Denver Post reported this as a statement from the club:
Sounds like at least someone fought back.
Active shootings are fucking crazy, so at this point it's unknowable if anyone shot him, or he was just physically attacked. I'd suspect that we'd hear about it if his injuries involved a gunshot wound, or he might even be included in the shooting injuries by the police briefing.
This is an example of an instance of an active shooter weidling a shotgun (loaded with birdshot) being stopped and detained by a civilian with mace and balls of steel.
I wonder if mass shooters are more likely to be subdued by civilians in higher trust societies or subcultures. If you care about the people around you, you are probably more likely to intervene on their behalf even if it means you pay the price for prematurely ending the attack.
I think high trust societies don't have mass shooters at all because even the shooters find meaningful lives, and people they can trust. Like, if we go back, say, 80 years to a normal fifty-nifty suburb. A shooting or murder of any kind would be regional news. Our society already degenerated into a low trust and fully atomized society.
If we go back to the Texas A&M shooting in the 50's, people still scattered and it was the police that had to charge the clocktower.
I think what determines if people are willing to step in is less of a high-trust, but the authoritarianism or institutionalized culture. People are going to be less willing to step in if they are thinking "that's someone else's problem", "this isn't my business", or "the authorities should handle this".
That being said, I would suspect that authoritarian societies or institutionalized people are already going to be low-trust, so it would correlate well.
Why would you sacrifice your life to save people who don’t trust you or see any value in your life?