Skip to comments.Tucson shooting fires up gun debate [ He kept his weapon in pocket and tackled Loughner instead ]
Posted on 01/14/2011 7:38:22 PM PST by NoLibZone
Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes last Saturday when he heard what sounded like fireworks but quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.
He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"
Zamudio saw a young man squirming on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide.
He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.
As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter. Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Even if Zamudio hadn't been close by, there was a good chance that someone in the crowd would have been armed. About 40% of Arizona adults own guns, double the percentage in California."
So LA Times admits its a good thing to have an armed populace.
I bet knowing he had a piece allowed him to get involved and find he didn’t need it to stop the guy.
Without a weapon he may not have even tried.
Its fine. He made the right choice for the situation. After all, what was he going to do, shoot among the men struggling on the ground?
I saw him on the news and he said he’ll never fly because he can’t carry his weapon.
This is entirely reasonable. Zamudio couldn’t identify the target. Men were wrestling on the ground. He was able dominate the scene and physically subdue the assailant, without risking a tragic mistake.
This was the perfect situation to have a gun and not use it.
There are so many gun control laws on the books that only the laws governing our taxes can rival them. What will another gun law prevent? As long as the criminal aspect of our society have access, all the laws in existence will not prevent insane people from doing their worst.
The weapon gave him the boldness to act.
But his good judgment allowed him to determine he didn’t need it.
His father taught him well (and I'll bet his mom is no slouch, either).
He is very clear that gun laws and government are not the answer and has said that, among other places, on MSNBC.
Prevention is not the goal.
Dupnik had several ways to prevent this tragedy from happening.
The Sheriff could have save the 6 victims and even Jared.
He was on tv with, believe it or not, Ed Schultz. He said during the interview that he felt confident going to help because he was armed and that had it been necessary to use the gun, he would have definitely used it. Smart and savvy guy who spoke well about the right to bear arms.
I had no idea he said that.
I think the Sheriff is a complete idiot.
However, law enforcement have very few options that would have realistically prevented this situation. They can take a person behaving in a violent fashion to a hospital or mental health facility for evaluation but a persons constitutional rights extend to bizarre behavior as long as it does not pose a risk to people.
I took in many people suffering severe mental health issues or called a mobile crisis unit to respond and evaluate them. Unless they had good insurance they were usually medicated and bounced right out the door within 72 hours and “trusted” to take their own meds. There was very little follow-up by an already overtaxed mental health system.
I just say this to provide a little different take on it and not to argue. I understand the sentiments but from experience it is very simplistic to expect an officer to recognize the pre-cursors of Tucson shooting in one contact with an individual. I would be surprised if the same officer answered even two of the calls on Loughner.
I don’t know what the circumstances of those contacts were but most cops are not equipped (specialized education, training, and acting under a sound legal basis) to articulate reasons to involuntarily commit any person who does not pose an obvious threat to themselves or others.
I wish I had the answer but mental illness is a multifaceted problem and there are many Loughner’s out there that will not do anything like what he did. I knew many of them and don’t feel that it would have been appropriate to lock them up because they were strange, a little paranoid, or said stupid stuff. I would be very interested to know the interaction between him and his parents.
Out buying cigarettes? What was he thinking! Second hand smoke kills!
Seriously, this guy did a very good job. I have been in “act/react” scenarios with the FBI and making the right decision with all hell breaking loose around you and not knowing who the good guys are can be stressful. This fellow was cool headed.
My son said that when he was in a firefight in Iraq what saved him with the training. His convoy was attacked in a city and he never lost his cool.Just got out his roadmap and plotted his way out of the city—and then went back in to lead and other company to safety. The training kicks in so you don’t have to depend entirely on sorting out what you are seeing and hearing.
That’s it. When a madman walks in shooting, just disarm him with love.
>>>They always say, ‘What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this,’ “ said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. “Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person.”
Well, that does it. Let’s disarm the police, too, because of the potential of making the wrong decision.
"OMG, he ALMOST shot him!"
We are golden.
And we've got to get ourselves back to The Garden.
How I detest hippies.
Too bad Zamudio didn’t arrive to the scene earlier to manage the situation before the innocent were claimed.
I also saw him in an interview and thought he was very level headed. He was asked why he didn’t shoot and his response was actually that the older lady knocked the gun out of the shooter’s hand. Someone else hit him with a chair and knocked him down and when he got closer to help an older man had picked up the gun and was holding it.
He said he was pretty sure that they guy on the ground was the shooter but not 100% since a man standing was holding the weapon. Someone yelled at him to help hold the guy down and that is what he did.
It was clear to me that he didn’t shoot because he wasn’t 100% positive who to shoot but being armed made him confident to intervene and help.
Sounds like every gun owner I personally know. Smart, well trained and responsible.
Isn't that the argument against 'right to carry' that the gun owners won't know how to handle the situation and overreact and start shooting people?!
When you don’t have state immunity you can’t just rush into a scene where you don’t really know what’s going on. Good thing the guy used sound judgment and didn’t fire at the old guy holding the gun. Lots of other concealed carry folks would do the same thing. If he had done so he could easily have been regarded as a second gunman and things could have gotten a lot worse, needlessly.
Good for this guy. Ready, and using his head.
Trained gun owners know they aren’t police, aren’t protected like police, and don’t want to be police. we carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones. If others choose to go unarmed as we aren’t cops and don’t ‘play cops’ we aren’t looking to go around saving everyone else. We don’t look for fights and don’t become willing participants when we aren’t threatened ourselves. It’s a lot easier to get involved if you are in ‘stand you ground’ states, however.
Being a Law Abiding Citizen means nothing here.
If you're a Celebrity or a Politician, well that's a different story. I heard that Senator (Ban guns if I could)) Feinstein has a Permit and of course we can't forget that Rosie O'Donnell’s personal body guard was armed.
The theory doesn't match the reality though. He was prepared to deal with an armed bad guy. He did make the right decisions. He did make things safer.
The shooter had three more clips and 60 rounds he’d have used on more victims if he could have. The concealed carry guy almost had to be the one to act to stop further mayhem. Good for him being prepared!
When Zumudio heard the shooting, per the article, he reaches into his pocket and flipped off the safety and then ... "Zamudio saw a young man squirming on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide.
He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men."
Neither not having his own weapon available nor having been wounded himself prevented 74-year-old retired Marine colonel Bill Badger from tackling tyhe Tucson shooter.
I do wish he had been better armed that day, and I suspect he does as well. But I think he did right well. After all, he was a military pilot, used to taking immediate corrective action when things went wrong.
Ret Col. Badger and his wife Sallie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.