"several people were armed" - So who were they?

[chibajoe]

I see this comment made all the time with regards to the Tucson shooting, but nobody ever elaborates on it. Who, other than Joe Zamudio (who wasn't actually at the event and ran to it from a near by store) was armed?

[Ian David]

1. Armed Hero in Giffords Shooting Almost Shot the Wrong Guy

Armed Hero in Giffords Shooting Almost Shot the Wrong Guy
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Armed-Hero-in-Giffords-Shooting-Almost-Shot-the-Wrong-Guy-2941

Don't know who else was armed.

[cleanhippie]

2. Headline should read "Armed Hero Did Not Shoot Anyone".

WTF is ALMOST shot the wrong guy?

[chibajoe]

3. According to the various interviews, he ran up and saw a guy holding an empty gun

Seeing that the gun was empty, Zamudio did not draw his own gun but grabbed the guy, at which point people told him that the guy holding the gun wasn't the shooter. Although he never says it, Zamudio kind of implies that if the gun had not been empty he might have drawn his own weapon, and possibly shot the wrong person.

[cleanhippie]

4. But he didn't. He kept his cool and used good judgement.

Just like MOST CCW holders do.

[chibajoe]

5. I agree. I'd even go so far as to say that almost all CCW holders would have

probably reacted similarly (i.e. not drawn their weapon unnecessary). However, the media implication that there were others in the crowd who were also armed and did not choose to use their weapons bothers me, and I would like to know if there is any basis for this assertion, or if this is just a made up piece of BS.

[spin]

6. It is possible that there were other armed people in the crowd ...

who chose NOT to use their weapons for good reasons.

1) You are not a cop or a vigilante even if you have a license to carry a concealed weapon. You have NO duty to respond.

2) It may not be wise to pull out your concealed weapon in such a situation and start shooting. If the "hero" had done so, he would have shot an innocent man. If you are standing in a crowd pointing your weapon or shooting there is a good chance you will be shot by the police when they arrive or another armed citizen will shoot you.

3) Even if you know for sure who the bad guy is, unless you are extremely close to him, taking a shot in a crow of panicked people is probably a poor idea. Better to seek cover and wait for a clear shot or move closer to the shooter.

[RamboLiberal]

7. I haven't read one story in newsites including all the Tucson

newspapers & TV stations that mentioned any in the crowd being armed except for the one CCW holder (excluding Loughner of course).

You have any links mentioning anyone else?

I've been following this story and the discussions in this forum & DU fairly close. Now I have seen in several threaads posters talking about armed people in the crowd but they had the facts wrong and were really talking about the one CCW holder who was in Wahlgreen's when shooting started.

Maybe some on national TV have implied?

[shadowrider]

13. Being Arizona, I'm quite sure others were armed

But executed wise judgement by NOT pulling or displaying their weapons. Responsible behavior.

I'm not aware of a documented CCW holder besides the one that assisted.

[RamboLiberal]

15. I think some here overestimate how many are carrying guns

This wasn't a conservative group here - they were supporters of Giffords and probably for the most part Dems.

Now in a Tea Party or even Repub congressperson's crowd I might expect 1 or more to be carrying.

[shadowrider]

20. I disagree but we'll never, ever know n/t

[HankyDubs]

8. look

now they want brownie points for not shooting innocent people.

[slackmaster]

9. I'd settle for the media not writing ridiculous inflammatory crap like "almost shot the wrong guy"

You should take a self-defense class some time, HankyDubs. Any halfway decent instructor will explain to you the legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force, and what you are likely to be subjected to after you use it even if you were perfectly justified in doing so.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when you spew your knee-jerk, anti self-defense bile.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

11. I don't have a personal problem with you, HankyDubs

Just your behavior.

[HankyDubs]

12. that behavior being

disagreeing with you.

[slackmaster]

14. Not even close to correct

It's your habit of consistently choosing the worst conceivable interpretation of anything that anyone says in support of defensive use of firearms or of gun ownership in general, e.g. "now they want brownie points for not shooting innocent people."

That's just over the top snarkiness, and not even close to the attitude of any regular contributor to this forum.

Please don't ask for other examples, as it would not be appropriate for me to dig through past threads and build up some silly dossier. That's not how I operate, and I think you know exactly what I'm referring to.

I welcome views that differ from my own, as long as they are presented in a polite and respectful manner.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HankyDubs]

17. the real hero here

was the nice little old lady who didn't need a gun to wrestle the magazine away from the sociopath. That's the hero...not the yahoo without any training who (by his own admission) almost shot an innocent person.

[slackmaster]

19. Denying that Joe Zamudio's actions contributed to the end of the shooting is evidence of your bias

In my opinion.

[HankyDubs]

23. your opinion is wrong

the shooter was subdued before Zamudio arrived with his gun.

[slackmaster]

27. And given your intentional misrepresentation of shadowrider's sig, I should take your word for this?

Sure.

[HankyDubs]

29. no misrepresentation

use of incorrect netnerd terminology. Are you deliberately overlooking this image, or are you simply splitting hairs to avoid addressing it?

[HankyDubs]

30. it's also not a matter of opinion

unless you are questioning what zamudia himself said...

[shadowrider]

32. I don't have a clue who you're responding to, but I DARE, I

DOUBLE DOG DARE, anyone on this board, to prove, at any time, I compared them personally, to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or anyone else. It ain't there. If they're going to claim that, they need to PROVE it.

[HankyDubs]

35. what does that image say?

Every single time that image is reproduced, it associates all gun control advocates with Stalin and Pol Pot....personally and as a group. That's the purpose of the image.

[slackmaster]

36. Baloney.

It says that gun control has been misused as a tool to subjugate people, which is a fact.

[HankyDubs]

39. salami

You're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the entire purpose of the image is to deride gun control advocates by associating them with Pol Pot.

If I were to create an image saying "Experts agree, gun rights protect freedom" and depicting the current leader of the Klan, Jared Loughner and several bat shit crazy republican gun "rights" advocates...that image would be the target of criticism...because it is unfair to gungeon posters and smears them by associating them with douchebags.

[slackmaster]

41. Feel free to create such an image. You wouldn't be the first regular on this forum to do so.

I can think of several "missing friends" who did exactly that, and were permitted to do so.

You'd just be the only one who hasn't yet been banned from DU for repeated forum rule violations.

[HankyDubs]

46. I'm not going to create a nasty picture

just to be insulting to gungeon posters and unfairly misrepresenting what they stand for.

I guess that's just my sense of fairness and decency kicking in.

"You'd just be the only one who hasn't yet been banned from DU for repeated forum rule violations"

Again, using the moderators to stifle dissent. This is apparently a very common tactic here.

[slackmaster]

47. Your land of stifled dissent is my level playing field where ideas can be shared without rancor

Some of us have managed to abide by the posting rules for several years with few or no warnings, even while expressing opinions that are not shared by many of us.

My views on gun ownership are radically libertarian compared to what you might call mainstream DU. I've often found myself accused or pushing right-wing or NRA talking points, even though I can guarantee that my thoughts are my own unless I have given credit. It's been pretty rough at times, but if you use Search you will see that a large majority of my posts are not in the "gun friendly" refuge of the Gungeon, and that they cover a fairly wide array of topics. I'm very interested in science and technology and history and law, but don't know much about economics.

I've seen a lot of people come and go over the years. It seems like anyone who constantly shows hostility toward people they disagree with, on any topic you can imagine, eventually annoys the moderators and admins to the point of being banned. Most people don't have particularly strong feelings about guns or gun ownership, but there are some who are passionate about the subject one way or another. The forum rules serve to keep discussions about the topics at hand, and off of emotional states and whatever personal animosity we may feel toward one another.

[HankyDubs]

50. off of emotional states

And comparing gun control advocates to Pol Pot is not "emotional?"

"I've often found myself accused or pushing right-wing or NRA talking points, even though I can guarantee that my thoughts are my own unless I have given credit."

You described yourself as a radical libertarian. You are indeed attaching yourself to this group and pushing its arguments. No "thoughts" exist in a complete vaccuum. I don't know really whether you push NRA talking points, but there can't be much doubt that NRA talking points are pushed by gungeon posters on a daily basis whether the poster is aware or not.

[slackmaster]

52. You need to read more carefully. I write carefully, and my words have specific meaning.

You described yourself as a radical libertarian.

No, I have never done that and would probably never do that. One component of critical thinking that some people never get right is the importance of critical listening and critical reading.

And if you intentionally misquoted me as saying that, I'd hit Alert in a heartbeat.

[HankyDubs]

53. I'd hit Alert in a heartbeat.

"if you intentionally misquoted me as saying that, I'd hit Alert in a heartbeat."

Lol, threats!

[slackmaster]

55. Not a threat, just a statement of my personal policy

Violate the rules, I hit Alert.

Don't violate the rules, and I don't.

[HankyDubs]

57. too funny

hypersensitivity.

But it's not impolite to associate gun control advocates with Pol Pot. That's just crazytalk.

My policy is...don't tattle.

[shadowrider]

40. Amazing, isn't it? I've had this poster on ignore for a few days

and haven't responded to ANY post they've put up simply because I can't see it.

Seems like a personal vendetta for some reason.

[HankyDubs]

45. oh, I've got a personal vendetta

Against irresponsible persons who put their desire to own lots of guns and ammo above the desire of other people to live in communities that aren't war zones.

[slackmaster]

48. That looks to me like a False Dilemma, comparing two hyperbolic fantasies

I think it's possible to allow people to own guns and ammunition without creating an unsafe community.

Kind of like the community in which I live.

[HankyDubs]

54. i'll have to defer to you when it comes to hyperbole and false dilemmas

Considering you are the expert, hyperbolically presenting the false dilemma that we can only choose between an anti-control viewpoint and Pol Pot.

[YllwFvr]

68. another old lady hero

the woman who attacked the gunman with her purse during the PTA meeting. Wait, no she was a dumbass. She's lucky she wasnt shot. She ALMOST got shot

[slackmaster]

18. shadowrider's sig is a quote of something Benjamin Franklin wrote

HankyDubs wrote ...comparing me to Pol Pot and Stalin?



I will be snarky, when confronted with over-the-top stupid statements here...such as calling this man a "hero" because he DIDNT shoot innocent people.

You're missing the point, and I suspect you are doing so intentionally. But just in case you are sincerely confused, I'll explain it to you once in plain English:

Joe Zamudio is a hero because he had the courage to run into a situation with an active shooter, and work to help detain him. He put himself at risk in order to save others, when he could far more easily have stayed where he was and taken cover, or run away. Nobody is saying he's the only hero in the event, but his actions were heroic.

That's why Joe Zamudio is a hero. The bullshit notion that "almost shot the wrong guy" is somehow newsworthy is biased spin by someone who doesn't approve of and likely doesn't understand the use of deadly force for self-defense. The topic was brought up by people opposed to concealed carry, not by people who support it.

[HankyDubs]

22. ben franklin

wrote about Pol Pot and Stalin? That's a neat trick. What a clever fella!

[slackmaster]

26. shadowrider's sig says "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch....

...Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin"

The quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. I don't understand what that has to do with Pol Pot or Stalin, or with you. I've read a lot of shadowrider's posts, and that's the only sig I can recall seeing on them.

Please explain what you mean. I'm genuinely curious now.

ETA I just did View All on a few lengthy threads in this forum, and couldn't find the strings "Pol Pot" or "Stalin" in any of them. Apparently NOBODY in the Guns forum uses a sig that mentions either of those people, contrary to your statement in reply #16.

Is there some kind of parallel universe DU Guns Forum where everyone wears a goatee and compares HankyDubs to Pol Pot and Stalin?

Do we wear personal Agonizers, and get promoted by murdering our superior officers?

[HankyDubs]

28. oh i see the problem

I used the wrong terminology. My net savviness is not great.

I was referring to the image underneath his posts. The image that says "The experts agree" and then shows images of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and finishes "gun control works." This image does suggest that gun control advocates are in league with or similar to Pol Pot and Stalin.

This image, which many posters on the gungeon use...is a deliberate distortion and it is insulting/offensive to compare me to Stalin and Mao. Far more insulting than anything I have ever posted here.

Agree or disagree?

[slackmaster]

31. And now I see the real problem

You think it's all about you.

This image, which many posters on the gungeon use...is a deliberate distortion and it is insulting/offensive to compare me to Stalin and Mao.

If you honestly feel that someone's post doesn't adhere to the basic forum rules or to the community standards for the forum, you can always hit the Alert button.

[HankyDubs]

33. no, you don't see

It's not about me at all. This image is used to smear ALL gun control advocates. I'll ask again...in your opinion...is this polite and/or respectful? Please answer that question.

"you can always hit the Alert button"

Nah. I'm not in the habit of tattle-tailing to stifle dissent, though the toughguy gungeon posters love to stifle dissent in this manner.

[slackmaster]

34. I have no problem with using the Alert button, and will continue to do so

It's not about me at all. This image is used to smear ALL gun control advocates.

I think someone's feeling a little persecuted today.

It's not about all gun control advocates. I think everyone on this forum, including me, is OK with at least some gun control. I have a problem with gun control being used to suppress personal freedom, with nothing positive given back in return for taking away our choices. That's one way authoritarians like Pol Pot and Stalin got themselves into positions of absolute power. It's historical fact.

Violate the posting rules and forum standards at your own risk.

[HankyDubs]

37. you didn't answer my question

Is it polite or respectful to associate all gun contol advocates with Pol Pot and Stalin?

"It's not about all gun control advocates. I think everyone on this forum is OK with at least some gun control. I have a problem with gun control being used to suppress personal freedom, with nothing positive given back in return for taking away our choices. That's one way authoritarians like Pol Pot and Stalin got themselves into positions of absolute power."

Actually, Stalin and Pol Pot used firearms to suppress freedom by shooting dissenters in the head. That was one of their most effective techniques. Many armed persons fought against Stalin and Pol Pot. Pretending that gun control was the means by which these men gained power is bunk.

I'm not supressing your freedom in the least. Hyperbolic blubbering about freedom doesn't add credence to your arguments.

[slackmaster]

38. It's a bullshit question because it's based on a flawed premise

Is it polite or respectful to associate all gun contol advocates with Pol Pot and Stalin?

Irrelevant, because nobody here has actually done that.

I'm a gun control advocate myself. I just advocate less strict gun control than you do. I don't find the image insulting at all. It's just a warning from history.

[shadowrider]

42. I haven't associated anyone with anything

Only making public documented historical fact what happens to populations when strict gun control is enacted.

[HankyDubs]

44. Such stanking BS

"Only making public documented historical fact what happens to populations when strict gun control is enacted."

You are associating all gun control advocates with "what happens to populations when strict gun control is enacted." That's the whole point.

[HankyDubs]

43. The premise is valid

The association is staring you in the face. Your refusal to recognize this is evidence of a double standard.

If, as I pointed out to whatshisface, I created an image that associated gun "rights" advocates with Jared Loughner, the Grand jerkwad of the KKK and the Hutaree militia...then you'd complain and alert.

"I'm a gun control advocate myself."

Except you really aren't. Using this argument I could claim that I'm a gun rights advocate because I don't want all guns to be taken away from citizens. Bunk.

[slackmaster]

49. Why say it in one post when you can do it in three?

If, as I pointed out to whatshisface, I created an image that associated gun "rights" advocates with Jared Loughner, the Grand jerkwad of the KKK and the Hutaree militia...then you'd complain and alert.

I triple-dog-dare you to try me.

I don't see how what you describe would be a violation of the forum rules, as long as it doesn't call out any individual members of this forum.

[HankyDubs]

51. are you 12?

I quadruple dog dare you!

[HankyDubs]

25. but thanks

for offering such a completely bogus and ridiculous defense of the sig and demonstrating that you do not care about "politeness" in the least.

[MichaelHarris]

58. name the

two other heros without guns. Don't google them, Who were they? we know who your "hero" is. The guy who grabbed the wrong guy.

[slackmaster]

60. You need to read more carefully. I write carefully, and my words have specific meaning.

I didn't say Joe Zamudio was my hero. I said he was a hero, and that his actions were heroic.

In a conversation about Joe Zamudio, which began at reply #1, I think it was reasonable of me to make those statements.

[MichaelHarris]

63. did

you google the ladies name yet who grabbed the magazine yet? you guys don't talk about her much, weird huh.

[X_Digger]

64. Did

you find the police report of the AK-totin man, yet?

[slackmaster]

66. That's not the subject of this thread, or of the sub-thread in which the conversation fermented

If you want to post that as an original thread as your own, I think it would be a good topic.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. Ginger Littleton is my hero

Her heroics gave me the inspiration ,strength , and courage I needed to put down my gun ,
and start carrying my balls in my purse instead .

[Hoopla Phil]

21. I'm sure you're not going to "crybaby tactics". Just like when you berated

the pro gun folks for calling names saying how you never do that. Followed very quickly by. . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=364314&mesg_id=364746
LMAO!!!
How typical.

[HankyDubs]

24. hey

I never said that I don't call names!

[MichaelHarris]

56. actually

the media didn't say it, the pseudo hero said it. Nice try!

[slackmaster]

59. What he actually said was distored by the media into "almost shot the wrong guy"

I do not believe he ever said those exact words.

ETA here is part of an interview with Joe Zamudio from the New York Daily News:

"I was ready to end his life," Joe Zamudio said. "I had my hand on the butt of my gun. If they hadn't grabbed him and he was still moving, I would have shot him."

Without hesitation?

"Damn right," said Zamudio. "This is my country, this is my town."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/11/2011-01-11_if_they_hadnt_grabbed_him__i_would_have_shot_him.html#ixzz1Biq17Ljv

So, he never even actually drew his gun from its holster. Being ready and willing to do something, then deciding not to, is not really the same thing as almost doing it.

But the nuance is lost on some people, intentionally I think.

[MichaelHarris]

61. LOL!

"almost shot the wrong guy" compared to "I was ready to end his life," "I was ready to end his life," Hahahhaha tell me the difference.

[slackmaster]

62. In spite of our differences I've always thought of you as an articulate, educated man, MichaelHarris

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

[Tejas]

65. ***crickets***

chirp!


Good question you posed. Some complain "where were all of your heroes with their BIG guns!" or some similar nonsense like that.