Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

Joe Zamudio had a gun himself and was prepared to defend himself and others if necessary, but decided to help take out Loughner with his bare hands.

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

Had Joe Zamudio been a statist enforcer, you can rest assured Loughner would have been shot dead.

Zamudio's responses to the criminal statist Ed Schultz's questions were so awesome that he deserves a medal just for the interview, let alone his heroic actions.



Zamudio makes it clear that had he been there when Loughner started shooting, the tragedy would have been averted... ummm rather quickly.

He actually charged into the scene of the crime in order to stop it when he heard what was going on across the street.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Good lad! He deserves a medal

reply to post by mnemeth1


uk here

didn't make it to the interview lol gonna skip to it now

this is a joke, they start with limiting your ammo in the clip, and then the pistols go, then it spirals

it is comforting to know that America will not bend over and take this, yes they want to take your guns away, but it won't happen, no way and i gotta say i admire that.

from your cold dead hands and only then...

reply to post by mnemeth1

See people, there ARE responsible citizens!

Originally posted by DeadpoolPete
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

uk here

didn't make it to the interview lol gonna skip to it now

this is a joke, they start with limiting your ammo in the clip, and then the pistols go, then it spirals

it is comforting to know that America will not bend over and take this, yes they want to take your guns away, but it won't happen, no way and i gotta say i admire that.

from your cold dead hands and only then...

edit on 12-1-2011 by DeadpoolPete because: (no reason given)

Thank you man. Gotta love it when someone over the pond knows whats up! Four thumbs up for you Pete!

And to the OP:

You know what is really disturbing? That most people in the USA wish the kid was shot dead on the spot, so will see this restraint of force as weakness rather than temperance.

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. At least a straight up admission without being pressured into it would be good enough.

If they put me on that jury I would vote Not Guilty until they PROVE this kid really did this.

People forgot what America is about. They forgot what Innocent before Guilty means. They forgot what a FAIR trial is.

I didn't.

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

See people, there ARE responsible citizens!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Nice video and excellent interview response.

Now that's a person who has just stopped Lougher from causing anymore damage.Now that is bravery at its finest. I applaud his bravery

reply to post by mnemeth1


Even if he pulled his gun, I'll bet money that he wouldn't have shot him dead.

He would have disarmed him, not killed him.

THAT is what most responsible citizens with concealed weapons permits are taught. Dead men tell no tales so you only shoot to kill if you don't want their side of the story to be heard or there is no reason for them to tell it. I'm happy that's not the case here so we can look into the mouth of madness and perhaps see what went wrong in this kid's head.

If it were someone I knew, they would have definitely blown both kneecaps and shoulders out. That way, he would be in too much pain to run or reach for a weapon or reload one. This guy deserves an award of some kind, and I hope is recognized at some point as a hero.

I just wish the people in the rest of the world realized that this man, a hero, is what exists in so many Americans, and not all of the crap they see and hear about on TV.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Actually that's not what CCW holders are taught.

They are taught that if a person's life is in danger, they should shoot to kill center mass with a rapid succession of shots.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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

Like loughner was?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Great video - thanks for posting. Yes, one person can make a difference, and this man proved it. Who knows how many more lives were saved?

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.

Of course, we can see just how great the police were at "protecting" us from random acts of violence. Given that police can only clean up the mess after the fact....

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

www.guncite.com...

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

If King's "1,000 yard" law were in effect that guy would have been arrested right along with Loughner.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by mnemeth1



Obviously deranged psychopaths with abusive families aren't included.

Of course, we can see just how great the police were at "protecting" us from random acts of violence.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti gun control, merely pointing out the irony of your comment. One guy with a gun shoots many, another guy with a gun doesn't shoot the killer and you're talking about gun owners like they're all angels.

Unfortunately, they aren't and, so long as guns are available to purchase, these kinds of incidents will occur. No, I'm not calling for gun control I'm merely saying that gun shop owners are not going to turn down a sale to someone they think might be nuts and it's clear that the controls in place don't catch guys like this and the folks who commit these kinds of crimes "seem" normal right up until they snap so the common man gun owner theory is sort of shot.

Reply to post by Crakeur

Statistically what's "common" is not going nuts.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If King's "1,000 yard" law were in effect that guy would have been arrested right along with Loughner.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

LOL

I totally agree

Laws that limit where a person can carry based on where schools and daycare centers are located are TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

In CA, it is illegal to open carry within 1000 feet of a school - well if you look at a map, that means nearly the entire area of every major city in CA is excluded.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Joe Zamudio had a gun himself and was prepared to defend himself and others if necessary, but decided to help take out Loughner with his bare hands.

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

Had Joe Zamudio been a statist enforcer, you can rest assured Loughner would have been shot dead.

Zamudio's responses to the criminal statist Ed Schultz's questions were so awesome that he deserves a medal just for the interview, let alone his heroic actions.

Zamudio makes it clear that had he been there when Loughner started shooting, the tragedy would have been averted... ummm rather quickly.

He actually charged into the scene of the crime in order to stop it when he heard what was going on across the street.

edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Nice to see that phony bum on MSNBC get his ass handed to him live and personal! Joe Zamudio for congress!

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by mnemeth1



Obviously deranged psychopaths with abusive families aren't included.

Of course, we can see just how great the police were at "protecting" us from random acts of violence.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti gun control, merely pointing out the irony of your comment. One guy with a gun shoots many, another guy with a gun doesn't shoot the killer and you're talking about gun owners like they're all angels.

Unfortunately, they aren't and, so long as guns are available to purchase, these kinds of incidents will occur. No, I'm not calling for gun control I'm merely saying that gun shop owners are not going to turn down a sale to someone they think might be nuts and it's clear that the controls in place don't catch guys like this and the folks who commit these kinds of crimes "seem" normal right up until they snap so the common man gun owner theory is sort of shot.

It is not the job of a gun shop owner to determine the mental states of all of their customers any more than it is the responsibility of hardware store owners to determine the mental state of every customer they sell a chainsaw to.

It is the PARENTS JOB to get their child help.

It is HIS FRIENDS JOB to get their friend help.

Of course, the parents in this discussion are almost NEVER mentioned. How do you live with a raving psychopath and not notice this?

Anyone?

Beuller?

I contend that his parents were abusive and didn't get him help over fear of their abuse being exposed.