"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.
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.
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.
Out buying cigarettes? What was he thinking! Second hand smoke kills!
Sarcasm off
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.
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!"
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.
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!