Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

www.rawstory.com

The tragedy could have been even worse had an armed bystander not thought twice before shooting the hero that disarmed Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter.

"I carry a gun so I was -- I felt like I was a little bit more prepared to do some good and than maybe somebody else would have been," Joe Zamudio told MSNBC's Ed Schultz Monday.

"As I came out of the door of the Walgreens, sir, I saw several individuals wrestling with him and I came running. I was already at a full sprint and you know, there's no time to think about anything," he explained.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement. This guy could have shot the guy that disarmed Jared Loughner
"I carry a gun so I was -- I felt like I was a little bit more prepared to do some good and then maybe somebody else would had been," Joe Zamudio told MSNBC's Ed Schultz Monday.
so for all you peeps out there saying that guns are a good thing and keep us safe. Bare this im mind, guns make it too easy to kill people.
The shooter was disarmed without the use of a wepon and the guy the disarmed him was nearly shot but a good citizen legaly carrying his wepon.
Guns do not make peace. They make war zones...

kx

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't understand why guns have to be carried around like we're in the old west? Why can't we just keep them in our homes in case someone breaks in?

Originally posted by purplemer

Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement. This guy could have shot the guy that disarmed Jared Loughner

Could have done, but didn't. He showed great maturity, restraint and presence of mind to carry out a split second risk assesment before letting loose with a weapon.

If anything, it is one of example of how not all gunowners are the trigger happy irresponsible people that they are made out to be.

CX.

Originally posted by purplemer
Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement.

No it isn't. They still got the guy without having to shoot him, even though they were carrying.

And he didn't shoot anyone else, either. Like the poster above me said, he showed restraint and maturity. Not unlike millions of other legal American gun owners, who possess their weapons and even carry them concealed in public every single day.

reply to post by CX


No the fact that he had a gun meant an innocent nearly died...

kx

Originally posted by purplemer

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

www.rawstory.com

The tragedy could have been even worse had an armed bystander not thought twice before shooting the hero that disarmed Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter.

"I carry a gun so I was -- I felt like I was a little bit more prepared to do some good and than maybe somebody else would have been," Joe Zamudio told MSNBC's Ed Schultz Monday.

"As I came out of the door of the Walgreens, sir, I saw several individuals wrestling with him and I came running. I was already at a full sprint and you know, there's no time to think about anything," he explained.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Green on Green fire is a big problem in warzones as well. If trained soldiers routinely shoot one another in firefights, then armed and untrained people would- especially when confronted with a highly unusual and highly shocking act of violence. Friendly fire is purposefully underreported in the media- which is partly to blame for the ridiculous assertion that more guns would stave off violence.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by CX

 

No the fact that he had a gun meant an innocent nearly died...

kx

Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. I have almost pulled my fire arm on a few occasions but did not. I used my head, as did this person. COPs almost shoot people everyday that have done no wrong.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

ofc almost counts for something. Almosts eventualy lead to results...

kx

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

ofc almost counts for something. Almosts eventualy lead to results...

kx

You know how many times we've almost had a nuclear war?

How many times did you almost have a car accident?

Gun rights aren't going to destroyed due to an almost, sorry,

I do see your point though and it's something that almost happens many more times than it actually does.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


This isn't a gun rights issue, it's a common sense issue. Would more people carrying deadly weapons lead to a safer environment? No, almost certainly not. If you want to create a perpetual warzone, then let's everybody carry guns on us and see where that leads.

In practically every school of thought, people in modern societies have become more and more removed from each other; more distrustful. In this environment, a fully armed to bear populace would be a recipe for anarchy and violence.

Uh oh! Looks like the left are now starting to work off of PreCrime! I wonder how many time Barack almost had a good idea? Wonder how many times Harry Reid almost did the correct thing?

It is interesting that the tragedy of Az occurred just before the repeal of that Obama Health Bill with the resulting absence of the Congresswoman amongst many other questionable coincidences. Could this have something to do with another conspiracy much like the questionable JFK, 9/11 and/ or Diana issue? I do feel particularly bad for our own countries if each of those tragedies were results of political issues directed by our governments.

Originally posted by Randall07
I don't understand why guns have to be carried around like we're in the old west? Why can't we just keep them in our homes in case someone breaks in?

do you really want the only people with guns to be guys like the AZ shooter or the Virginia tech shooter. give me a break.

reply to post by purplemer


Ya the key word is almost.

I almost # myself too but I didn't.

Like he said I saw them wrestling on the ground. He made the decision to keep the bullet in the gun than to make a decision to shoot thinking who was going to get hit.

This is like the third or fourth thread on this topic. If you wish to contribute something to the discussion look those up.

reply to post by purplemer


I don't see what the "big deal" is. Why are we worrying about what could have happened? Let's focus on what actually happened. The man did not shoot him, even though he could have. Do you know how many people in America carry guns around with them every day and DO NOT shoot people? I don't see why this is a problem. This man did the right thing by practicing his self control.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


LMAO, well said. This is not Minority Report folks. Let's punish and criticize people that actually COMMIT crimes. Not people that were ABOUT TO commit a crime.

Well I *almost* pull over and beat up stupid drivers everyday. I also *almost* tell my employer I quit when they do asinine things over and over. *Almost* doing something doesn't mean diddly.

reply to post by glome


To me it's a self-defense issue. I've been assaulted, robbed and my wife was nearly mugged in her own front yard,
I'm rather small and disabled. I can neither run from a fight nor win one. So, according to you if I or my wife or kids are attacked I have to wait for the police (so they can write up a nice report)?
No thanks, A cane isn;t much of a weapon. I think I'll keep carrying my Ruger.
Common sense tells me I will be mugged or assaulted again sometime in the future.
In fact, the odds are heavily in favor of that.