Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[2aguy]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

 

[2aguy]

John R. Lott Can’t Defend Himself

You probably don’t know who John Lott is, but he has been written about a lot recently. To make a long story short, John R. Lott Jr. is an unabashed gun advocate...

blah blah blah...

I guess he should be bashed instead of unabashed to the fair minded reader? He doesn't need to defend himself from hate filled agenda driven morons.

Survey on gun ownership Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that, for the first time in their surveys, the majority of Americans oppose more gun control. Gallup and CNN polls tell a similar story. Opposition to gun control has been increasing over at least the last couple of decades.

Gun control groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to convince Americans that gun control is the answer. In 2013, gun owners’ groups — including the NRA — spent less than one seventh as much on television advertisements. This year looks to be even more lopsided, thanks to the unrelenting efforts of individuals such as Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Gabriel Giffords.

Perceptions have changed dramatically, with most people now believing the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis. Gallup recently asked Americans if they thought residents are safer with a gun in the home. People answered “Yes” by a margin of 63 to 30 percent. In 2000, Americans gave just the opposite answer by a margin of 51 to 35 percent. In 2013,Sixty percent of gun owners listed “Personal Safety/Protection” as the reason for owning a gun.

Academic research aligns with current public opinion. If you have a gun in the home, that gun is far more likely to prevent murder than it is to be used in an accidental shooting or to kill a loved one. . . .

Blah, blah, blah...the man you vehemently defend already revealed his character...

Lott's book received glowing praise from one Mary Rosh...who is Mary Rosh?

Why it is none other than JOHN LOTT impersonating one Mary Rosh...

A most respectable thing to do, don't you THINK Weasel brain??

But now you have also revealed YOUR character... something we are taught, or NOT taught as children...

YES, JOHN LOTT AGAIN....If you are an econometrician — a person who evaluates the real world using complex statistical models — there are two basic ways you can go about your job:

• You can do your best to figure out which statistical model does the best job of mirroring the real world, and then plug in your data and see what pops out. We will call this methodology tolerably honest.
  
  
• You can plug in your data first, and then tweak your model until it provides the results you want. We will call this methodology dishonest bullshit.

The alert reader has probably guessed that I am talking here about the latest sad chapter in the John Lott saga, and indeed I am. The indefatigable Tim Lambert is on the case, and assuming I have been able to put the timeline together correctly, here's what's happened:

1. Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.
   
   
2. Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.
   
   
3. After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?
   
   
4. Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."
   
   
5. When Tim discovered that Lott had surreptitiously changed his model, he emailed Lott. No response.
   
   
6. It turns out Lott was busy covering his tracks. How? By quietly removing the corrected table from his website and replacing it with a new corrected table. This one uses Model 2 but has the old, incorrect data.
   
   
7. Here's where you have to pay attention. Why would Lott do this?
   
   Answer: this new table claims to be "corrected: April 18, 2003," and it turns out that Lott is trying to pretend that this was the original table he had posted all those months ago. That way, he could claim that he had never changed his model at all. Model 2 is the one he's been using all along!
   
   
8. Unfortunately, when Lott changed the revision date on the document to make it look like it had been created on 4/18/03, he changed it to 1/18/04 instead. What's more, Lott apparently doesn't know that you can check the create date of PDF documents anyway, and this one was created on 9/2/03. That is, it was created in September, not April.

Basically, Lott wants to pretend that Model 2 is the one he's always used. That way, when he corrects the data errors, his results still hold up. Unfortunately for Lott, his attempts to rewrite history were as clumsy as they were dishonest. His original table did use Model 1, his results do go away when the corrected data is plugged in, and he did respond to this by furtively devising a new model that would continue to give him the results he wanted.

If you're not sure you understand what's going on here, reread the timeline. Reread it five or six times. Eventually it will all become clear.

And a note to Glenn Reynolds, who has said he is "not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the statistical questions": my timeline deliberately avoids discussing the validity of the competing econometric models, which I'm not competent to judge either. Rather, it simply shows how Lott works, something that anyone is competent to judge. He's a liar and a cheat, and merely being "quite reluctant" to rely on him is far too weak a response.

The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.

I don't have time to get the link but the two idiots attacking lott lied........they used the wrong data....got the wrong results, then blamed Lott.......

 

[Bfgrn]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

 

[Iceweasel]

The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.

LOL, the retard doubles down.

Post the facts that contradict Lott's study, not some mealy mouth bullshit.

 

[Bfgrn]

The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.

LOL, the retard doubles down.

Post the facts that contradict Lott's study, not some mealy mouth bullshit.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf

 

[2aguy]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

You are a real fool......everything in this article supports the opposite of what you are trying to say........He didn't fuck up the whole take down he looked at the situation and didn't start shooting so that he could finally get to kill someone....as all you anti gunners claim about people who carry.....he saw the situation was under control....and didn't shoot....moron.......you are the real pea brain.....

 

[2aguy]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Yeah...that story about the woman is not confirmed as being true.....and the only reason they were able to tackle the shooter...after he shot those people...was he did it from in a crowd....too close to the people he was shooting so they were able to get him quickly....that didn't happen on the Long Island Commuter train shooting.....they were on a crowded train...and he fired and reloaded and they only tackled him when he ran out of bullets........

 

[2aguy]

Here is John Lott actually addressing attacks against him.....in his own words.....

Response to Malkin s Op-ed


It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.

2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects. Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone.

He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records.

* Unlike many academics, I have never asked for government support for my research. Nothing different or unusual was done in this case. While we still have the tax forms that we filed that show we made large expenditures on research assistants that year, my wife keeps our financial documents for the three years required by the IRS. I have provided my tax records from that year to several professors. Among them is a tax expert, Professor Joe Olson, at Hamline University in Minnesota, and he can verify this information. I have checked with the bank that we had an account with, but they only keep records five years back. Since wild claims have been made about the costs of the survey, some notion of its scope would be useful. The survey was structured so that over 90 percent of those questioned would only have to answer three short questions and those were usually completed in under 30 seconds. Less than one percent of those surveyed would actually answer as many as seven questions and even in that case the survey only took about two minutes. The appendix in The Bias Against Guns provides a description of the survey when it was replicated.
He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

* I have hired lots of student RAs over the years. Since I have been at AEI in the last couple of years I have had around 25 people work for me on various projects. The students in question worked for me during the very beginning of 1997. While I can usually reconstruct who has worked for me, it requires that I have that material written down. The information on these students was lost in the hard disk crash and given that I had lost data for other projects such as three revise-and-resubmits that I had at the Journal of Political Economy it was not a particularly high priority.
I don’t have the original CD with telephone numbers from across the country that was used to obtain telephone numbers, but I have kept one that I obtained later in 1997 when I was considering redoing the survey and I still have that available.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.

3) I have statements from two people who took the survey and other confirmatory evidence. As to the written material, being asked for written material six years after the survey is a long time. After the survey was done, the material was kept on my computer. In addition, I have moved three times (Chicago to Yale to Pennsylvania to AEI) as well as changed offices at Chicago and Yale since the summer of 1997. Yet, besides the statements from the academics who can verify the hard disk crash as well as the statement of those who participated in the survey, I do have statements David Mustard, who I had talked to numerous times about doing the survey with me during 1996 and who remembers after that us talking about the survey after it was completed. He is “fairly confident” that those conversations took place during 1997. John Whitley and Geoff Huck also have some recollections. Russell Roberts, now a professor at George Mason, was someone else that I talked to about the survey, but he simply can’t remember one way of the other. I didn’t talk to people other than co-authors about the survey and the research that I was doing on guns generally. This is because of the often great hostility to my gun work and also because I didn’t want to give those who disliked me a heads-up on what I was doing. I did have the questions from the survey and they were reused in the replicated survey in 2002.

After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.

4) David Gross is the only person who Malkin mentions and she doubts his statements. Gross, a former city prosecutor, does have strong feelings on guns, but that is one reason why he remembers talking to me about the survey when I gave a talk in Minnesota a couple of years after the survey. There was no other gun survey on the questions that I asked during 1997. And another survey that was given close in time, during the beginning of 1996, was dramatically different from mine (e.g., the 1996 survey was done by a polling firm (not by students), was very long with at least 32 open ended questions (not something that could be done in a few minutes), involved Harvard (not Chicago), did not ask about brandishing, etc.). What Gross remembers indicates that it could only have been my survey.

Malkin also selectively quotes Lindgren. Lindgren told the Washington Times that, “I interviewed [Mr. Gross] at length and found him credible.” Mr. Gross has also responded to later statements made by Lindgren.


I have also had a second person who participated interviewed by Jeff Parker, the former associate dean at the George Mason University Law School. Parker interviewed both James Hamilton as well as Hamilton's sister, who claims that James told her about the interview when it occurred, and he can verify this information.
Lindgren claimed that Gross had instead answered a quite different survey done by Hemenway at Harvard, but when Hemenway finally released the data from both his 1996 and 1999 surveys and the age and other information about Gross and Hamilton do not match any subject interviewed in either survey.
Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet.
* When Julian Sanchez asked about the similarities between my writings and those posted under this Internet chat room pseudonym during this past January I did admit it immediately. (Sanchez had put up a post on his blog site asking for help in identifying someone who was cutting and pasting many of my responses from other places in chat room discussions. Because a dynamic IP address was being used, Sanchez could only identify the posting as coming from someone in southeastern Pennsylvania. When I found that he was asking for help in identifying the poster I admitted that I was using the pseudonym.) I had originally used my own name in chat rooms but switched after receiving threatening and obnoxious telephone calls from other Internet posters. Ninety some percent of the posters in the chatroom were pretty clearly using pseudonyms. The fictitious name was from a family e-mail account we had set up for our children based on their names (see latter discussion), on a couple of occasions I used the female persona implied by the name in the chat rooms to try to get people to think about how people who are smaller and weaker physically can defend themselves. Virtually all the posting were on factual issues involving guns and the empirical debates surrounding them. All that information was completely accurate.
"Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had."

*This was a family email account and I was not the only person who posted using this account.
She/he also penned an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.)

*The e-mail account was set up by my wife for my four sons (Maxim, Ryan, Roger, and Sherwin in birth order) and involves the first two letters of each of their names in order of their birth. Maxim wrote several reviews on Amazon.com using that e-mail account and signed in using [email protected], not “Mary Rosh.” His posting included not only a review of my book, but also reviews of computer games such as Caesars III.


For whatever it is worth, a recent glich at Amazon.com revealed that it is quite common practice for authors to actually write positive anonymous reviews of their own books. The New York Times story on this revelation was actually quite sympathetic, which contrasts with the attack that the New York Times had on me when it also incorrectly claimed that I had written the review of my book.
Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.

*It would have been helpful if Malkin had actually read the text of what I wrote.
Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, "Arming America." But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

*The January 23rd story in the Washington Times could not accurately be described as a negative story. Professor Dan Polsby is quoted as saying that I was “vindicated.” Even Lindgren, a critic whose academic work I have criticized in the past (Journal of Law and Politics, Winter 2001), is characterized by the Times as believing that “ the question appears to have been at least partially resolved . . . “ and he did say that David Gross was a credible witness.
In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old survey's existence.

*She never asked me any questions about whether the old survey was done.
The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is "a bunch to do about nothing."

*This quote is totally taken out of context. Some people had accused me of violating federal regulations regarding federal approval for human experiments while I was at Chicago. Malkin’s telephone call focused on that claim, and that is what my quote referred to.
I wish I could agree.



I spent years replacing the data lost in the hard disk crash. The county level crime data was replaced and given out to academics at dozens of universities so that they could replicate every single regression in More Guns, Less Crime. I have also made the data for my other book The Bias Against Guns available at http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/login.cgi . The data for my other reserach has also been made available. The survey was also replicated and obtained similar results to the first survey and the new data has been made available since the beginning of the year. When asked I have even made my data available before the research was published. I don't think that there are any academics who have had a better record then I have in making my data available to other researchers. For an example of just on of my recent critics who has refused to share his data see here . I have provided Malkin with the information noted here, but she has never replied to e-mails that I have sent her.

 

[2aguy]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Never, ever trust an anti gunner reporter, or an anti gunner who quotes them....here is what actually happened with the old lady and the shooter....she was laying on the ground, helpless, when the other guys tackled the guy.....as he was on the ground she joined in...otherwise she would have been killed like the other people....

Tucson Shooting Patricia Maisch Describes Stopping Gunman Jared Loughner From Reloading - ABC News

" knew right away it was a gun... I heard a continuation of shots," Maisch told a news conference today.

Maisch, who has a crown of snow-white hair, was standing towards the back of the line to greet and snap a photo with Giffords at the "Congress in Your Corner" event at a Safeway grocery store.

Speaking to the press today, Maisch recalled how she stopped Loughner as he tried to reload his Glock 9 mm weapon.

"I could see him coming. [He] shot the lady next to me," Maisch said.

As he was shooting, she said, she was expecting to be hit and she wondered what it would feel like.

There was "lots of blood and confusion," she said.

She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

Maisch said Badger and Sulzgeber both sat on the gunman while she held his ankles down. Police said that Zimudie helped by hanging on to Loughner's legs.

Sulzgeber was reportedly standing with his wife, third in line to meet with Giffords, while Zimudie was in the nearby Walgreens and came running out once he heard the shooting.

"I thought I would be shot. I am thankful for those two brave men," Maisch said. "I am not a hero. The other guys are. I just assisted getting the clip."



So........just plain dumb luck that she was right there when he was tackled...because he fired from inside a crowd.................and if those guys had run....he could very well have executed her......because she just laid down in front of him..................

 

[Bfgrn]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

You are a real fool......everything in this article supports the opposite of what you are trying to say........He didn't fuck up the whole take down he looked at the situation and didn't start shooting so that he could finally get to kill someone....as all you anti gunners claim about people who carry.....he saw the situation was under control....and didn't shoot....moron.......you are the real pea brain.....

Hello? Is there anyone home? He grabbed a GOOD GUY and shoved him into a wall...he could have fucked up the take-down of the REAL shooter. I don't question his courage, his intent or that he was trying to help.

But we are dealing with REAL LIFE situations, not the fairy tale scenarios you have infested this thread with

First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

I know in you tiny little right wing brain good guys wear white, and bad guys wear black. It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy...

 

[Bfgrn]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Never, ever trust an anti gunner reporter, or an anti gunner who quotes them....here is what actually happened with the old lady and the shooter....she was laying on the ground, helpless, when the other guys tackled the guy.....as he was on the ground she joined in...otherwise she would have been killed like the other people....

Tucson Shooting Patricia Maisch Describes Stopping Gunman Jared Loughner From Reloading - ABC News

" knew right away it was a gun... I heard a continuation of shots," Maisch told a news conference today.

Maisch, who has a crown of snow-white hair, was standing towards the back of the line to greet and snap a photo with Giffords at the "Congress in Your Corner" event at a Safeway grocery store.

Speaking to the press today, Maisch recalled how she stopped Loughner as he tried to reload his Glock 9 mm weapon.

"I could see him coming. [He] shot the lady next to me," Maisch said.

As he was shooting, she said, she was expecting to be hit and she wondered what it would feel like.

There was "lots of blood and confusion," she said.

She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

Maisch said Badger and Sulzgeber both sat on the gunman while she held his ankles down. Police said that Zimudie helped by hanging on to Loughner's legs.

Sulzgeber was reportedly standing with his wife, third in line to meet with Giffords, while Zimudie was in the nearby Walgreens and came running out once he heard the shooting.

"I thought I would be shot. I am thankful for those two brave men," Maisch said. "I am not a hero. The other guys are. I just assisted getting the clip."



So........just plain dumb luck that she was right there when he was tackled...because he fired from inside a crowd.................and if those guys had run....he could very well have executed her......because she just laid down in front of him..................

They were ALL heroes asshole, including the guy with the gun.

 

[2aguy]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.

Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....

No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

You are a real fool......everything in this article supports the opposite of what you are trying to say........He didn't fuck up the whole take down he looked at the situation and didn't start shooting so that he could finally get to kill someone....as all you anti gunners claim about people who carry.....he saw the situation was under control....and didn't shoot....moron.......you are the real pea brain.....

Hello? Is there anyone home? He grabbed a GOOD GUY and shoved him into a wall...he could have fucked up the take-down of the REAL shooter. I don't question his courage, his intent or that he was trying to help.

But we are dealing with REAL LIFE situations, not the fairy tale scenarios you have infested this thread with

First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

I know in you tiny little right wing brain good guys wear white, and bad guys wear black. It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy...

Fucking moron...he saw a guy with a gun and took him under control in the middle of a mass shooting............and didn't fire a shot... because he saw the situation was under control...moron.....

It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy.

But he didn't shoot the bad guy you moron.....

 

[2aguy]

And again moron from your own post....

First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter.

And then he didn't shoot him but stayed calm and took care of his immediate situation...moron....

 

[2aguy]

Again.....law abiding, honest citizens are not blood thirsty killers looking to "Pop caps" in any one they can....your very own post shows how this guy in an intense situation did the right thing......

 

[Vandalshandle]

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

I get very weary of correcting you...
Background checks restrict the rights of the law abiding every bit as much a s prior restraint restricts the rights of the free press.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

This is a lie,
Every person who bought a gun from a gun dealer at an AZ gun show had a background check ran on him.

 

[ChrisL]

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?