PDA

View Full Version : Tragedy in Tucson



texengineer
01-12-2011, 09:30 PM
I'm sure that you've all heard about the shooting here in Tucson this week. It happened just a couple of miles from where I live, but I was in Phoenix last weekend. I was dreading a huge (misguided) uproar about our gun laws, but actually very sane and logical actions were taken. Please read the article in the link below, and let me know what you think!

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

rkbartley
01-12-2011, 10:06 PM
This is why it is sooo important to train and train often if you are going to carry a gun. Not only train on how to shoot and hit a target, but WHEN to shoot and to know the full ramifications if that action. We should NEVER rely on luck to get us through a violent situation!

I pray daily that I never have to use my weapon against another human, but also know that if it is ever needed I will be able to use it and use it properly.

rkb

NWFFT
01-13-2011, 06:30 PM
This is proof that if you are "trained" whether professionally or by self (appropriately) that you can do the right things and make quick decisions.

Eccentric
01-13-2011, 08:09 PM
Anyone who carries should constantly be working through "scenarios" in their head, wherever he/she goes or at home. Remember the OODA loop.

In the end, he did the right thing--not the "blood in the streets" everyone anticipates with concealed carriers. And.................don't talk to reporters...................

dnola
01-15-2011, 09:21 AM
Personally, I found the article to be decidedly anti-gun and in tune with most of the other media foolishness. Mr. Joe Zamudio is hardly the poster boy we need in our fight for fewer gun regulations. He strikes me as an opportunistic publicity seeker who was late to the event but sought to acquire the limelight. These people hurt our image, not enhance it. :suspicious:

The fact that he was carrying a gun was totally irrelevant to the situation and the majority of readers and viewers of his story will simply consider him to be a bad (or good) example of the gun totters in this country. This brings up the issue of unlicensed concealed carry. As most of you know, I am an avid 2nd Amendment advocate. I do not, however, support the Arizona law, the Vermont law nor the one proposed in Utah that allows anyone who legally owns a gun to carry it concealed. At some time down the road, we will regret the passage of such laws and they will backfire on the rights of the rest of us to carry.

Mr. Zamudio's claim that he grew up around guns seemed to be his validation and it is the validation of many. I also grew up around them in a very 'gun safety' atmosphere and did not realize how much I didn't know until I started training. Concealed carry training is a must but, in the states that do not require training, fewer than 50% of those that carry are trained to do so. That is bad news for us, just waiting to happen.

Jim Trueblood
01-16-2011, 12:33 PM
I just had to do a re-post on this one. If I read or see one more news story this week about the "tragedy" in Tucson, I swear I'm gonna up-chuck. Referring to the incident as a "tragedy" lets the MURDERER off the hook, and anti-gunners use the term "tragedy" to imply that we as a society are to blame. When they ask for new laws, which clearly aren't necessary, and we resist, they point to us and say to the general public, "Look, they don't want a new law to prevent another "tragedy".

I say this with all well-meaning friendliness to all Sheepdogs. NEVER allow yourself to fall into the anti-gunners trap of referring to incidents, like the recent shooting in AZ, as a "tragedy". When lives are lost by an erupting volcano, an earthquake, a tornado, famine, etc., these are indeed true tragedies. When a child is born with a fatal illness, and lives just long enough for the parents to love the child for a few years, this is a tragedy.

Shootings like the recent AZ case are the result of premeditated, HUMAN, CRIMINAL actions. For whatever reasons, and I really don't care what the reasons are, a homicidal CRIMINAL chose to kill innocent people. When we fall into the gun-grabbers trap of calling such an incident a "tragedy", they next will say "we need to pass laws to prevent a "tragedy" like this from ever happening again". HELLO, murder has always been illegal.

We all know these laws don't prevent anything, except keeping law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. This is how all the gun-grab laws of the 60s/70s got started, an attempt to prevent another "tragedy". Of course the fact that there have always been laws against shooting and killing innocent people isn't enough for the gun-haters. They have no desire to legislate against the criminal himself. Their target is and always has been the gun itself.

A tornado is neither good nor evil. It doesn't "attack" the innocent out of malice, jealousy, anger, inferiority, because it was spanked as a child, or because it wasn't spanked as a child. It doesn't even get to choose its victims. It simply exists. The aftermath of a killer-twister is a tragedy.

My friends, when someone you're speaking with refers to a spree shooting/killing event as a "tragedy", with a puzzled look on your face ask them, "Tragedy? Are you referring to the CRIMINAL SHOOTING that took place?" As far as the AZ incident is concerned, I can't help but wonder how many less people would've been shot if just one law-abiding citizen cut the CRIMINAL MADMAN down in his tracks. My heart especially goes out to the families of those killed. But I will never call their deaths a "tragedy". They died at the hands of a CRIMINAL MADMAN. I call that.....MURDER!

Peace Through Strength,
Jim :usa:

As far as this particular article goes, for me, it wasn't exactly what I'd call pro armed self-defense. I definitely detected an after taste of anti-gun flavor after reading it.

Getting involved in a shooting where you yourself, or a loved one, isn't under any immediate threat is risky at best. You may lose the protection of "self-defense" under the law, and if you shoot an innocent person I can assure you a grand jury will judge you harshly. THINK to yourself, Am I defending or attacking? If you go on the offensive AND shoot an innocent person just because he was holding a gun, you'll be looking at a long, legal nightmare ahead of you.

Remember, there are plainclothes police officers and federal agents walking our streets everyday. On top of that there are undercover officers and agents out there who may "look" like serious badguys. Wanna guess what'll happen to you if you shoot and kill one of them? In a nutshell, indictment, trial, prison, and oh-yeah, ruined life.

If you carry a firearm for self-defense there's no such thing as too much training, especially knowing exactly what the self-defense statute in your home state says. I personally am in favor of the firearms laws in Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont that view the 2nd Amendment as a constitutional right that the state has no business messing with. That said, I would never encourage anyone to carry a firearm without attending at least one professional training course that not only teaches how but WHEN to shoot.

Police officers and Federal Agents are EXPECTED to take offensive action. They are sworn to protect the community as a whole. Armed civilians are not protected under the same, broad, legal umbrella that protects Law Enforcement Officers. If a chance to escape safely presents itself and you don't take it, a grand jury will want to hear your answer as to why you didn't take it. If you choose to put a bullet into a human being, you better be right lawfully and legally.

When carrying a firearm be CHOOSY where you go, what time you go, and what you get involved in. Most of all, practice thinking your way out of a scenario using awareness & avoidance. When practicing scenarios in your head or at the range, think hard, Am I defending or attacking?

Good Luck,
Jim

Rossi
01-17-2011, 05:27 PM
Personally, I found the article to be decidedly anti-gun and in tune with most of the other media foolishness. Mr. Joe Zamudio is hardly the poster boy we need in our fight for fewer gun regulations. He strikes me as an opportunistic publicity seeker who was late to the event but sought to acquire the limelight. These people hurt our image, not enhance it. :suspicious:

The fact that he was carrying a gun was totally irrelevant to the situation and the majority of readers and viewers of his story will simply consider him to be a bad (or good) example of the gun totters in this country. This brings up the issue of unlicensed concealed carry. As most of you know, I am an avid 2nd Amendment advocate. I do not, however, support the Arizona law, the Vermont law nor the one proposed in Utah that allows anyone who legally owns a gun to carry it concealed. At some time down the road, we will regret the passage of such laws and they will backfire on the rights of the rest of us to carry.

Mr. Zamudio's claim that he grew up around guns seemed to be his validation and it is the validation of many. I also grew up around them in a very 'gun safety' atmosphere and did not realize how much I didn't know until I started training. Concealed carry training is a must but, in the states that do not require training, fewer than 50% of those that carry are trained to do so. That is bad news for us, just waiting to happen.

I tend to agree. Some early interesting comments, but then the rest was about how untrained the citizen was and how lucky everyone on the planet was that he decided not to shoot.

It's stuff like this that confirms my placement of priorities when helping others. The late-comer is always the least informed but generally in the best position to do something..... a real dangerous mix.

Rossi

Rossi
01-18-2011, 04:03 PM
....a bit more on this subject and the articale.... Mas Ayoob weighs in on the issue, and references John Lott's thoughts on this armed citizen. See details at:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

Rossi

Eccentric
01-19-2011, 08:11 AM
....a bit more on this subject and the articale.... Mas Ayoob weighs in on the issue, and references John Lott's thoughts on this armed citizen. See details at:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

Rossi

I, too, have been very irritated by all the media's inattention to the "three hundred pound gorilla" in the room--why nobody is talking about changing the situation whereby dangerously whacked people are freely walking around with the ability to create havoc in society. This started when it was deemed inappropriate or tramped on the civil rights of whackos and the state mental hospitals were emptied.

In nature, abherent individuals are forced out of the circle. We embrace ours, they reproduce, and society at large pays the very high price. Protect the one at the peril of the many? Now that's nuts..........