Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

There is an old saying...

Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

You can not "almost" shoot someone. You either shoot them or you do not. You either discharge your weapon aiming at someone, or you do not. There is no "almost" here. Sorry OP but your logic is unbelievably flawed. This man walks out of a store into chaos prepared to defend lives, realizes there is no longer an immediate threat and does not fire on anyone and you think that is a negative? All this proves is that some people are capable to use a firearm for what it was meant for, self defense, and this is how self defense works. You are supposed to assess the situation. You are supposed to decide if there is an immediate threat to your life. If there is an immediate threat, you then have a legal right to defend yourself with lethal force. If there is not an immediate threat, you do not have a right to use lethal force. Seems to me this guy you are attempting to make an example of (and failing horribly at) did just what he was supposed to. So what's the problem here? If a gun owner shoots someone he is wrong and if he does not shoot someone he is wrong? You can not have it both ways.

Hello all

So cops breaking down the doors of people and shooting them to death almost every day and it turns out to be the wrong house. Those trained people? Our troops blowing a whole city off the map just to get one so-called taliban. Those trained people? Those people are trained to kill without thinking. We the people don't want to kill, but will if we have to.

If I recall the interview, Joe grabbed the wrist of the guy who had the gun. And made him drop it. Then people yelled not him that guy. So he helped hold the SOB down. If a cop would have run up the guy with the gun would have died for his good deed for sure. The last thing that moron should have done was pick the gun up. He should have kicked it away and stood on it. Holding the murder weapon after a murder 9 times out of 10 will get you killed. And he is lucky Joe did not draw on him.

Those who did not get shot were just lucky, They disarmed a guy who was out of bullets. They sure did not jump the guy while he was pumping lead.

And yes an armed society is a polite society. Where I live we have full auto, sawed off, open and concealed carry.
Whenever our state discusses gun control we show up in mass to remind them, Don't F with our freedoms.
We show up with buckets of hot tar and bags of feathers. Oh ya baby.

If you want gun control then get the F out of America. There are many countries that will welcome you.

Gun grabbers are the enemy of the American people.

You Communist boot lickers make me sick! And flying a Communist China or any foreign flag in America is treason. Ya I am talking to your Commie loving Obominator. And don't even get me started on that freedom hating Bushwhacker.

Kiss my Desert Eagle totting A$$!

Love you all, have a great day. (Yes a gun carrier can love too.)

Comming from Britain , most folks think that my opinion on gun ownership is somewhat silly, but this situation may lend my opinion some weight.
A) the shooter was disarmed, and detained by a member of the public who had no weapon on his person B) another person who DID have a gun, was moments from pulling the trigger on the man who saved the day.

Let me examine in more detail point A) . In this incident, a person who had no equipment whatsoever, save his own body, took the weapon away from the offender, and subdued the offender by covering him with the piece he had just taken from the offender. This suggests to me, that defending ones self , and others can be achieved perfectly well without the need for weapons of any sort. If an unarmed bystander, can disarm and subdue an armed assailant , then surely the carriage of weapons is not NESSACARY. Its certainly within the feild of the relevant amendment to the constitution of the U.S. and thats a really respectable document of course. But what I am saying , is that as a deterant , and as a defensive weapon, guns are not required as much as they are desired.
Guns are for killing at a distance. You have to be some sort of pathetic mewling coward to shoot a person at close range rather than doing the job with your hands, and an even bigger wuss to insist on murdering someone from a distance in the first place. Furthermore, in terms of immediate self defense, if someone comes up to me on a street and pulls a gun out and sticks it in my face, they have me at a disadvantage if I concentrate on pulling a gun of my own. I would have to clear the weapon from its holster , ensure the saftey was off, perhaps cock the weapon dependant on what sort Im carrying. Hell maybe even load the sucker if its being carried unloaded. But , if I have been trained to react correctly, I could disarm the assailant and turn his weapon against him, before he has had a chance to twitch his trigger finger, using just my body. Its faster to use your body as a weapon of defense in those circumstances, because you dont have to draw your hands, and you dont have to load them, or take the saftey off. One moment you are victim, the next you are victor. Less than a second is all it takes.
The other advantage to unarmed defense is that when your body is the weapon, you have so much more control over the potential risk you pose to others in a defense situation. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate that.
A person is walking down a busy street, surrounded by hundreds of people on all sides. Suddenly shots are fired toward that person from an unknown location, and that person takes cover down a side alley, readying thier side arm for use. They have a peek around the corner to see if they can spot the origin for the shot. They locate the shot origin point, and begin to return fire. Already , by the actions of the initial shooter, and the return fire of the besieged party, several hundred people on the street have been put at risk, and dependant on the angles involved, so have people near windows in buildings in close proximity. This is because ricochets and just plain old misses, can result in death for a bystander very easily in such situations. Now, lets rewind to the moment when the defender dived down an alley to avoid being ventilated. Assume that our plucky hero has no weapon save his or her hands. The lack of return fire will bring a sufficiently boisterous criminal out of his firing position to investigate the alley entrance. This will give a defender time, time to either choose to fight , or choose to fly, either of which is viable at this point. If flight is an option, then all well and good, a police report is filed, evidence collected at the scene, hopefully leading to an arrest. If not, then he or she has time to prepare to defend themselves. Upon entering the alley, the defender will look around for places to conceal themselves and lay in ambush, or loose detritus that might serve as an unexpected weapon, which would give them the edge , as surprise is key in martial matters. Even were no weapon to be found, a simple place to conceal the defender is all thats needed. Trash can, under some bags or empty boxes, round the edge of a door frame or in the shadowy recesses of a rear basement access would be good. The last two options are preferable , because leaving the ambush point must be quiet as possible, to delay detection till the last second, so that the defender can be on the assailant , grasping the gun arm,removing the weapon from the offender, and detaining them until official persons can take them away. Drawing the offending subject into close quaters removes the advantage of them having a gun, because the environment favours fluidity of movement, and last minuite action, rather than the linear progression of a bullet in flight. It also reduces the risk to others, because it narrows the field of fire which persons on the street are exposed to. Forcing the offender to enter an alley allows the defender to control the flow of events with more dexterity than they could if they were merely involved in a shooting match across a crowded street. Having an effective range limited to the end of thier arms and legs also reduces the risk that a defending party will be responsible for the death of a bystander, since accidentaly punching, throwing, kicking, headbutting, or kneeing a person to death is hard to do , much harder than say, letting off a round in a hot situation, and finding out later that its blown the skull out of a perfectly healthy ten year old down the street.

I found it very interesting that the article cited a couple of studies that say more guns = more violence; the complete opposite of what most gun enthusiasts on here like to say.

It certainly makes more sense.

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
"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)

Yes and I could have courted and bed and wed Pamella Anderson when running into her in a West Hollywood night club once upon a time, and so many other things I have never done but played out the possibility in my mind.

The world is in trouble when 'thought' crimes that never occur take on this kind of 'gravity' in anyone's mind.

This is a persn looking for their Warholian 15 minutes of fame by spinning a tale of what they might have done, as opposed to what they did do, which was pretty much nothing.

This is the press voracious in it's never ending quest to serve up bread and circuses.

This is in fact proof that NO gun owners are not more prepared to use it for lethal force, as the person did no such thing.

If you are against guns, you might want to state some sound reasons of your own.

Personally I do not own any guns, never have and hope I never will, but as long as the statist system and the governments employ armed henchmen to do their bidding, it is absolute wise for the citizenry to have the option to arm itself too.

I would not want to live in a world where guns exist but the only people who can lawfully posses them are government henchmen, not with as corrupt and murderous as most governments are.

That's just stupid.

The arguement of needing guns to protect yourself from your own government makes no sense to me whatsoever; unless you intend to arm yourself in the same way the government is -- tanks, heavy artilery; etc. etc. Obviously that is not ever going to happen, so what is the point?

More guns = more violence is all there is to it. You, and every nation needs to come up with some solutions to crime; like smart drug laws that treat it like an illness, and employment opportunities for everyone. I am sure that would improve everyone's safety and quality of life with no drawbacks.

People too often make the mistake of thinking that more policing or more violence is the solution to crime; when fixing some of the causes might be a better solution. At least direct more attention in that area.

reply to post by purplemer


So he "almost" shot the wrong person. He had his hand on his gun, the safety off, his adrenalin pumping, chaos all around, and he still made the RIGHT decision!

How in the hell are people like Rachel Maddow trying to spin this the other way? He didn't shoot the wrong person. He is a responsible gun owner, he did exactly the right thing under the most severe circumstances imagineable, so obviously his gun did not make the situation worse.

Gun Control freaks will do and say anything. The facts speak for themselves! Both guys are heroes! Both guys were willing and able to jump in and disarm the suspect and put their own lives in danger. Both guys made very appropriate moves in the face of considerable stress and adrenalin. One guy had a gun, and one did not, and the guy who had the gun was mature and intelligent enough to not shoot anyone until he knew for sure.

What is the difference between this guy "almost" shooting the wrong guy and a cop doing the same thing?

Ridiculous story.

The OPs mistake is thinking that government can do a better job protecting people than people can do themselves. Where were the cops? They're never around when you need them. Perhaps they were busy, illegally swat teaming some innocent persons home and murdering their children and pets.

Yeah, you'd be much safer if everyone was disarmed except the government. Certainly, Chairman Mao knew the benefits of gun control.
Well, I have news for you communists and fascists: "From my cold, dead hands" is not just a catch phrase. It's a promise.

reply to post by TrueBrit


The people waited untill he had fired more than thirty shots in to the crowd and started to reload. They did not aprehend him during the shooting. Therefore they were not stopping an active shooter. They were attacking a man holding a 1.5 pound club. Definitely different than confronting an active shooter. Do you honestly think this unarmed people could have stopped him before he shot 20 people?

Saying that people stopped a man with an unloaded gun proves guns are unnecessary is a complete lack of intelectual honesty.

Let me let you in on something that the British Home Office said years ago. When a robbery lead to violent assault, people resisting with guns were injured 6% of the time. People that did nothing were injured four times more often. People that used other means of resistance were injured at least 40% of the time.

Even the British government recognized that guns help prevent injury and death. I'm still amazed that The British government stripped guns from their citizens despite their own findings.

Here is something interesting to remember when thinking about crime in England.

[T]he BCS did not record ‘various categories of violent crime’, including
murder and rape, retail crime, drug-taking, or offences in which the
victims were aged below 16. The most reliable measure of crime is that
which is reported to the police. We're facing over a million violent crimes
a year for the first time in history.497

“Row over figures as crime drops 5%,” David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, The Guardian, July 22,
2004.

Still the government keeps going back to the survey method. Every time the government transitions to using police reported crime the numbers jump considerably. Basically the government is being dishonest with it self and the citizens.

The 1998 changes to the Home Office Counting Rules had a very significant impact on violent crime; the numbers of such crimes recorded by the police increased by 83 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes …
The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), introduced in April 2002, again resulted in increased recording of violent crimes particularly for less serious violent offences.498

"Crime in England and Wales 2005/06," British Home Office, July 2006

According to an article published by The Times in 2007 the "gun crime" rate had doubled in the decade after the gun confiscation. A survey done by YouGov in the same year found that 67% of respondenets felt that their neighborhood was less safe than five years earlier because of knife and gun crime. Also, according to Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003, there is no evidence that stricter gun laws in England and Wales lead to a reduction in the criminals ability to get there hands on restricted weapons.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to listen when the British tell us about gun control. The honest answer is that it has not helped their country. In fact many of the citizens feel less safe than before the ban and confiscation took place.

Who was this person who picked up the shooting weapon? With all the attention devoted to this event you'd think the person would have somehow been interviewed or identified.

What bothers me about this is he goes on so much about how he would have shot the shooter toward the end of his interview, then why did he Not shoot the man holding the gun if at first he thought he was the shooter. What I am trying to get at as in all of these type of assasinations the shooter ends up dead. Was he suppose to kill Jarad but could carry that out because others had interferred. Did he have foreknowledge, and didn't shoot the man with the gun because he knew he wasn't the shooter. He had nothing to do with saving the day. The people that took him down were the heros so why is he getting all the publiscity. In one interview he left out the man holding the gun completely and just went on and on about how he would not have hesitated to shoot the killler.
I hope someone get my point. In other words was he suppose to be the Jack Ruby in this. I don't mean to put the man down its just that the story doesn't sound straight.

reply to post by coolottie


There is no conspiracy in his failure to shoot. He looked and saw that the gentleman was not shooting so he decided not to shoot. That is the proper legal way to handle it. If the man was not firing and was not actively threatening lives shooting him would have been murder.

The guy was extremely responsible in his use of force. That is all there is here.

Originally posted by purplemer
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.

I agree that guns make it too easy to kill people, but even with a gun in your hand and a situation where it is sensible to use it, many people will still refuse to shoot. The idea (never mind the act) of seriously injuring another person (never mind killing them) is incredibly repulsive and traumatic for most. If someone claims without hesitation that they could purposefully kill and yet they haven't, then you can give them a slap in the face from me.

Opportunity and capability is not enough, and unless you are severely disabled then you possess both anyway, with or without a gun. What is necessary is intent and thankfully, it is something that the vast majority of people lack. Violent movies, video games, other conditioning and actual violence of course, eat away at this natural resistance to violence/killing, but that's for another thread.

Just because here a situation may have been made worse by a civilian with a legally-owned firearm, that isn't to say that on another day, a similar situation will occur and a similar maniac will be stopped by a civilian with a legally-owned firearm.

It isn’t a death knell for the pro-gun movement at all, but I hope that it is a death knell for the idea that you need a gun to defend yourself effectively.

He could have shot the innocent, but he didn't. The only thing him having a gun DID do, was secure the safety of everyone in the area in case Jared was able to get the gun back, or had another on him.

reply to post by getreadyalready

It was in terms of health and saftey a near miss and a near miss is of statistical importance. You get a certain amount of near misses before an accident occurs. so yes it is dangerous... like playing with fire...

kx

reply to post by purplemer


If you lok at statistics from across the country CCH and CCW permit holders are 8 times less likely than the general public to be arrested for any violent crime. Also civilians using guns for protection shoot an innocent person about 2% of the time. Cops do it 11% of the time. A study of firearm discharges by LA police in the 1990s found that at least 70% of them were against procedure, or illegal. A study of shootings by Chicago police in the 70s showed that 14% of the shootings were actually man slaughter. To me that says it is safer to have somebody with a CCW or CCH permit in the neighborhood than a cop.

If you do further research you find that for every death, suicide, or injury caused by a gun, ten lives are saved. When rape or sexual assault is attempted against a woman it is only successful 3% of the time, if she resists with a gun. That is compared to about 32% for other forms of resistance. According to the British Home Office only 6% of violent robbery victims that resisted with a gun were injured. The number was more than 400% higher for those that did not resist.

Most importantly in 1995 the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that guns were used 2.5 million times a year in self defense. 92% of the time the defender only has to brandish their weapon to stop a criminal. It proves to me that we have a lot of "almost" moments where not a single shot is fired. It doesnt change the fact that the same study found guns were used to protect life 60 times more often than to take life.

Instead of worrying about the evil gun maybe people should worry about the reasons crime happens to begin with. Here is a hint, it has nothing to do with a metal inanimate object.

I have to ask how in the world do you know we only get "so many near misses?" How many do we get before something happens? Does it vary depending on the near miss we're talking about or are all near misses cumalitive? If I had two near misses in my car and one at the doctor's office does that mean my next near miss will actually result in a hit? Because the guy in AZ used up a near miss is that one less I get?

It is called the law of averages things will happen. The chances of you getting injured or killed by your medical care givers are higher than you being killed or injured by a CCH permit holder using their gun.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

It was in terms of health and saftey a near miss and a near miss is of statistical importance. You get a certain amount of near misses before an accident occurs. so yes it is dangerous... like playing with fire...

kx

Absolutely not. There was no "near miss". The finger never depressed the trigger, the bullet never left the gun. A gun was drawn (rightly so under the circumnstances), end of story.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

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.

you are missing the point. things nearly got a lot worse and whatt stopped it getting worse is a game of chance.

If you nearly have a car accident and you have any sense you re-asses your driving methods...
another way...

Fact: the more near miss nuclear wars we avoid... the less likely we are to have a nuclear war. I am soz but i see a lot of very flawed logic in some of the posts here...

reply to post by MikeNice81

It is called the law of averages things will happen. The chances of you getting injured or killed by your medical care givers are higher than you being killed or injured by a CCH permit holder using their gun.

Another flawed argument. Both of the above risks cause a percentage of mortality. One is needed to heal and the other to maime. so if you remove the percentage caused by those people that a CCH permits and the guns. Then mortality rates will drop...

kx

reply to post by purplemer


There was no near miss as the man did not discharge his weapon.

Your argument is as nonsensical and dishonest as they come, by trying to base a case on a hypothetical that did not happen.

It's hard to imagine any one would favor gun control if the argument for it has to be put forth in such a rediculous and dishonest fashion.