Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

So let me get this straight...

An armed assalaint was takin down by three others WITHOUT the use of guns...

And this is supposed to prove that gun rights are good?

Let me repeat this for you...

3 UNARMED (wether they had weapons or not is not relevant, they never used them) took down 1 ARMED assalaint.

Originally posted by peck420
So let me get this straight...

An armed assalaint was takin down by three others WITHOUT the use of guns...

And this is supposed to prove that gun rights are good?

Let me repeat this for you...

3 UNARMED (wether they had weapons or not is not relevant, they never used them) took down 1 ARMED assalaint.

It was when he was reloading if he managed to reload im certain he would of got gunned down by joe z or one of the others but somebody snatched the magazine when he was reloading

This event was sad and tragic as every event of this nature is. Innocent people end up getting shot and killed. Whatever Loughner's motivations for doing what he did may be the fact is we got people who were murdered and we can't loose sight of that. The man was brave for running into a situation to help others and that's the important thing. He held his own in the interview and spoke his mind about the situation. And I agree, banning guns won't solve the problem because criminals will always find a way to get them.

Originally posted by peck420
So let me get this straight...

An armed assalaint was takin down by three others WITHOUT the use of guns...

And this is supposed to prove that gun rights are good?

Let me repeat this for you...

3 UNARMED (wether they had weapons or not is not relevant, they never used them) took down 1 ARMED assalaint.

It clearly demonstrates that the tragedy could have been mitigated if more people were armed.

If Joe Zamudio had been standing in the audience at the moment the shooting started, the most likely outcome is that there would be far fewer than 18 wounded and 6 dead.

Zamudio had the confidence to charge into an area where he knew people were being killed in an effort to stop what was occurring.

Zamudio (as far as I can tell) was the first man on the scene with a gun who could respond in kind against the use of aggressive force.

As Dr. John Lott says in this recent interview with the National Review:

Letting civilians have permitted concealed handguns limits the damage from attacks. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.

Citizens should NEVER have to face a wild homicidal maniac with their bare hands in this country.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We don't have innocent until proven guilty anymore, not in the media or public's mind! They are 100% dead set on guilty, even though none of them were there, and there is no video evidence for us to review that proves it.

We are all assuming it was him because thats what is being said. We don't even know. We have no evidence.
But everyone will vote GUILTY instantly.

Sorry but I need evidence before I am gonna vote guilty.

I do respect proper justice being carried out and I do oppose vigilante logic.Which, in fact, is being embraced by many opponents of gun control. Remember that picture from a protest rally? The slogan was "We came unarmed.... This time."

In this case, admit it, it's not even the proverbial "smoking gun" which came to mean irrefutable evidence sufficient to send somebody to death row, it was a gun still in the process of being fired. I do like proper judicial process and hope that guy gets his day in court. However, your doubts if his guilt, just for once, seem outrageously facetious.

Originally posted by Above_Beyond
Do you think it's possible that this entire scenario was set up to clamp down on gun rights?

Just a shot in the dark, but curious as to what the rest of you think..

It may not have bee a set up ,but an opportunity yes,a big one for tptb,just listen to the first part of the video the op posted.I believe they're coming through the back door.

reply to post by mnemeth1


if guns are for the protection of the people, why then turn a blind eye to the gangs and their wars against each other, the peddlers selling crack to children in the streets, or muggers down an alley waiting to prey, all those criminals running around at large, those of which these guns are all owned as cause in protection and defence in keeping. where is the safety as protection against all these law breaking scum that your guns can save as deterant toward a better life for self or others. no use hiding in your pants while running the other way.

good to see a few heroes still left though.

reply to post by mnemeth1


They notion that this "could" have been avoid is, unfortunately, nothing more than hearsay.

It could be argued both ways.

The facts of this incident are that 3 unarmed citizens took down one armed gunman.

As I stated previously, the fact that one of the citizens was armed is moot, as he never drew his weapon.

But, to blindly state that "see, if we were all armed, blah, blah, blah" is just blindly following preached dogma.

I would like pure (as pure as it can get anyways) evidence that having a highly armed populace is beneficial for violent cirme.

One poster in a sepearte thread listed a city by the name of Keenawa, GA (need to chck spelling) that is highly armed and boasts "a very low crime rate"...which to me, is almost funny...a town with a population around 30,000 has the same rate of crime that the city I live in has (population just over 1,000,000). This goes against most of what is fed to me via media and education about guns, and crime as a whole. Ie: cities have higher crime, guns prevent violence, etc.

Btw, I am very much on the fence about gun control, I have seen eveidence in both camps that is very compelling, so I am just looking fo rmore information.

Edit to add:

Town in other thread was Kennesaw, GA.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well, if it wouldn't be so easy for nutjobs to get guns, he wouldn't have had to use his bare hands to take him down...stupid argument of yours imo.

No he wouldn't have to use his bare hands. With a good large knife he could have gotten three or four people with ease. If he was intent on mass damage he could make a bomb out of stuff at Wal Mart. He could have done what the terrorist did at UNC. He could take a large SUV and drive it in to the crowd. Then again he could have just bought a gun on the black market.

Prohibition doesn't stop crime from happening. Of course if the schools, military, police, or his family had tried to get him help things might have been different.

reply to post by muzzleflash


My High School in Los Alimitos California had a competitive shooting team in the 80's when I attended. Kids in the middle of California would show up to school WITH guns, and nobody got shot, ever.

There is something going on here, but its not the guns (necessarily). Perhaps its CIA op's. media imagery or prescription anti-psychotics. I have no idea. But It's not "guns" all by themselves causing these horrific killing spree's.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
There is something going on here, but its not the guns (necessarily).

This is something I think everybody can agree on.

What happened between 1980ish to 1992ish that caused such a sharp and sudden rise of violence as a whole. And, not just in America, this pattern is mirrored in Canada, some of Europe, some of Asia...what the hell changed?

reply to post by TedHodgson


He definently used his head and is an honorable man. We have a lot of those types in America and it is such a relief to see them in the news from time to time among all the trash and mess!

reply to post by peck420


As Dr. Lott says, statistically the number of people killed is related to how fast an armed individual can respond to the scene.

More armed citizens provides a higher chance that someone with a gun can respond and stop the killer before he does further damage.

This is not hearsay, this is statistical evidence.

No citizens should have to face a crazed gunman unarmed.

It is a crime against humanity for government to force citizens into unarmed combat against wild crazed gunmen.

reply to post by mnemeth1


So what.

Statisticaly speaking, Canada is far safer than the United States.

We have gun control.

Like I said there is compelling evidence for both sides, all studied to death by parties that have vested interests.

None of which seems to be getting anywhere or solving anything. I would like (I know not really possible) to see a study done by someone that is not pro or anti gun.

PS: Is there a link to his actual study, or just the conversation?

Edit to add:

Found the links to his website with his studies.

reply to post by peck420


No, there is no "evidence from both sides"

There is only the clear blatant fact that eliminating gun laws does not increase violent crime rates.

There is only the clear blatant fact that forcing innocent civilians into unarmed combat against armed aggressors is a crime against humanity.

There is only the clear blatant fact that using the violent power of government to prevent perfectly innocent civilians from defending themselves with the use of arms is a moral abomination.

You will not be able to provide me with any evidence to the contrary, so I will not even bother asking for it.

reply to post by peck420


There is a lot of information and disinformation about guns. Dr. Lott was actually an anti-gun proponet untill he spent a few years researching the use of guns. He turned in to a pro-gun advocate.

The thing is that we have seen that in cultures where violence is entrenched, banning guns does no good. Look at nearly all of South America. Better yet look at England. They banned handguns and it ended up doing no real good. The murder rate went up, home invasions went up, and they ended up banning (or pondering banning) certain types of knives. Knife attacks soared, police were caught selling confiscated guns to criminals, and the whole mess kept right on.

In the past the IRA didn't worry about guns being restricted. They became some of the top gun smugglers in the world. They also took to building bombs.

Look at Mexico where the lack of guns for resistance has made the drug cartels unbelievably bold. They aproached Don Alejandro Gara and told him to turn over his ranch or die. When they came back to take it he died fighting them with small rifles. The fact that the average Mexican can not get a gun has made people sitting ducks. It has also enboldened the cartels to make these demands.

One blogger had this to say about Don Alejo Garza,

In a microcosm, Don Alejo was fighting the same fight that men of honor throughout the ages and in different lands have fought: freedom from aggression, defense against tyranny, light versus darkness.

I think that applies to every armed citizen that uses a gun to defend the innocent.

reply to post by MikeNice81


So is this really a good response to the problem?...Not, how do we get better, but look who is worse?

What about countries that have gun countrol and less crime?

Seperate note:

If the problem is the culture of violence, than how do we stem that culture?

What would have to change in the US for there to be less violent crime (forget the pro/anti gun bit for a sec)?

Is the problem related to a citizens perception (or reality) of government? The examples you have cited all had or have corrupt/negligent governments.

S. Africa and Mexico...self explanatory.

Ireland (during IRA's most violent) was trying to expel a foreign government.

I don't know if there is much relation to that though...both US and Canada have seen falling crime rates (total) while seeing an increase in government dissent.

This an issue with very muddy waters, but blanket statements like "gun control makes things worse" are blatant lies told to further personal agendas (not posted by you btw). This is a large grey area with both gun controlled and gun unrestricted countries in both ends of the spectrum.

reply to post by peck420


To address the culture of violence, one must address its source.

That source is government.

At the root of everything government does is a weapon.

For starters, we can remove the government guns from the drug war.

That would wipe out the street gangs.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by peck420

 

As Dr. Lott says, statistically the number of people killed is related to how fast an armed individual can respond to the scene.

More armed citizens provides a higher chance that someone with a gun can respond and stop the killer before he does further damage.

This is not hearsay, this is statistical evidence.

No citizens should have to face a crazed gunman unarmed.

If there is an outstanding case of statistical bias, here it is.

The chances of a crazed person becoming a crazed gunman strongly correlate with the facility of obtaining a firearm by said person, plain and simple. What you are saying is equivalent to this: in a crowd where 100% people have herpes, the chances of herpes transmission are zero.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Private citizens with guns are a thousand times more restrained in their use than the police.

Like loughner was?

Civilian CCW holders that engage in defensive shooting as compared to police defensive shootings.

Because obviously we all know that police only shoot people when lives are in danger

Obviously deranged psychopaths with abusive families aren't included.

Sidenote: Seeing this tragedy continue to be exploited for a political issue punchline..."Statist police" yada yada made me throw up a little in my mouth..

Onto logic..

You said "deranged psychopaths with abusive families aren't included" in your comparison?

Why not? Serioussly...Did not Loughner purchase his gun abiding by the same law that arms your "civilians"? The same Walmart that has armed countless others? To cover your eyes and ears and pretend the shooter didn't buy his gun in the same manner as the other guy seems...inane and illogical.