Question: Could AZ's heavy RKBA contingent have helped DURING incident?

[arendt]

I have read only one story on that subject, and it demonstrated a lot of reasons why it would NOT have helped. The thread is:

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x356031

In that thread, we learned that:

"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."

------------

My reason for raising this point is to talk about a concrete example of the oft-repeated talking point that "if everyone is armed, then the violent offender will be taken out".

It seems that in this kind of situation (crowd full of innocent bystanders; people entering the scene during the action unsure of who are the bad actors) pulling a gun could be an invitation to being shot down for the wrong reasons, or it could lead to shooting the wrong person.

Might I suggest that crowd scenes are different from the "I shot the guy who was trying to rob me in a dark alley" scenario? Might I suggest that screening crowds for guns at public events is common sense in today's political climate?

When things happen in split seconds, its real easy to make a wrong decision. We are not all trained policemen. (And, even the Clint Eastwood character, in "In the Line of Fire" had a false alarm in a noisy crowded event.) Perhaps, in crowd situations, we should reconsider all this vigilante stuff.

Ducking and covering.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. If everyone has a gun... made me envision a SNL skit

Where a guy and girl are meeting for a date at a local bar.

You see each individually heading to the bar, weapon drawn, rolling and pouncing, and pointing their guns, here, there, back over there.. until they finally reach the bar and then inside...

They are standing in a corner back to back with their arms outstretched pointing their guns outwards toward all the other clientel who are of course point their own guns first at them.. the group over there.. and then the other group.. someone new walks in.. all guns point at him.. and he's squatting waving his gun around.

Sigh if EVERYONE had guns.

Nice world.

[eqfan592]

2. It does appear that in this specific situation...

...it would not have aided much, if at all, and in fact may have been detrimental (a CCW holder drawing their gun I mean).

But I also don't believe that using one very specific situation as the base line example for any policy making is reasonable, in and of itself.

And no need to duck and cover. At least in my opinion you made a fair, if not by itself conclusive, point. :)

[arendt]

3. And, I said my point applies to ONLY this kind of situation.

All I'm saying is that politicans and crowds are a VERY SPECIAL situaion, which justifies a special rule.

Its the same as no lighted flames near gasoline. Its almost literallly the same thing.

[eqfan592]

12. This was the line I took as your main point...

"Perhaps, in crowd situations, we should reconsider all this vigilante stuff."

To me, at least, it seemed like you were addressing a larger amount of situations outside of this particular one.

I will say that, at least on the face of it, keeping guns out of this specific situation would appear to make sense (assuming that some sort of actual screening is done). But I would like to point out that, even in this situation, the people that were there and carrying used their good sense. They evaluated the situation and determined a very reasonable course of action.

And remember that for the vast majority of us, it's not about "vigilante stuff." It's about personal (and sometimes mutual) defense, which is again underscored by the actions of the carriers at this event (with the exception of the shooter himself, obviously).

And a big thanks for trying to keep things civil :)

[arendt]

26. Thanks for your civil tone as well

I was trying to limit myself to this and only this situation. People are so reactive that even getting that point across has required repetition.

Again, I have no gripe with the CCW people at the event. Yes, they did the right thing. But, doesn't their common sense show that armed "good guys" are simply not the solution in crowd situations? (You already answered that. This repetition is for others.)

That's all I'm asking.

[PavePusher]

38. Firstly, no-one has ever claimed that a gun is the right solution every time.

Neither has anyone claimed that a gun carrier will stop a crime happening near them every time, or that there will always be one at every crime occurance to even try.

Secondly, just because a gun wasn't used in this situation, doesn't mean it couldn't have been. If a carrier had been closer, had a better shot angle, etc., it could have occured differently, either better or worse.

No way to tell from Monday (er, Tuesday) morning quaterbacking without a very detailed analysis of the scene.

[arendt]

46. Ah, the old "case by case" argument...

then why have any laws at all. I mean EVERYTHING is a special case.

Laughable.

[X_Digger]

52. Who's talking about law? We're talking about judgement..

If you don't know the difference..

[arendt]

61. A meaningless bit of wordplay n/t

[X_Digger]

65. If you don't know the difference between what's legal and what's prudent, I don't know what to say.

Would it have been legal for someone carrying in that crowd to shoot? Absolutely.

Would it have been prudent? From what I've heard, no.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[arendt]

5. Could I have a minute before this degenerates into name-calling, please?

I'm trying to propose something both sides can agree upon.

You are not helping.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

7. You raise good points, but..

I think you overestimate the "if everyone is armed, then the violent offender will be taken out" attitude as being more prevalent than it actually is.

There have been cases where those private citizens with arms have stopped a shooting in progress (New Life Church, 2007, iirc), but it's the statistical intersection of two rare events to have a shooting spree and have someone armed, close enough to safely take out the shooter.

I carry to protect myself and my family. I suspect most people who carry do as well. Zamudio would be the exception, not the rule, among those I know who carry. I expect if the gunman weren't pointing at me or mine, I'd be seeking cover and being a good witness.

[arendt]

8. My purpose is to propose a common sense rule

based on this incident.

I mean, AZ is the most wide open place in the country for concealed carry. The place is armed to the teeth. The crime scene was a political crowd in a crowded shopping mall. I think its a good test case for the likeliihood of both "lone nuts on a suicide run" and the accidental presence of an armed "good guy".

I think the test case shows that, for political crowds, you need a special rule.

[X_Digger]

11. I doubt any change will happen (legislatively).

It's not very smart to write a law that potentially affects so many based on a rare event.

It's not like the congresswoman could have roped off a parking lot and put up metal detectors.

[eqfan592]

15. I believe this would be the biggest stopping point to any such rule as this.

To many political events take place in areas where effective screening is just not a viable option, and without effective screening, this rule looses any potential usefulness it may have had (and could possibly do more actual harm than good).

[arendt]

32. I live in a cold climate. Most events in winter are indoors...

you just have to rule out places like shopping malls with multiple entrances and exits.

But, I think politics is, in the short run at least, going to have to change. Otherwise the hate mongers will have won.

Now you may say the opposite. But, what will happen if we continue as before and another DEMOCRAT gets shot? Is it then open season on Dems? What happens if a GOPer gets shot? Is it Civil War?

I simply don't see how we dare continue as if there isn't political climate change.

[PavePusher]

40. I disagree.

By saying we'll have to change, the hate mongers have won, by letting fear rule our actions.

What I'd like to see is, next weekend, every single Rep. and Sen. show up unannounced on a street in their home district, with only a few aids, and give the hate- and fear-mongers a huge "F***-YOU!".


You don't respond to terror by doing what terror wants.

[arendt]

50. When people refuse to allow any regulation of guns, then the terrorists are...

given a free pass.

Or we are all ducks in a shooting gallery for players on both sides who get their rocks off on killing.

[PavePusher]

54. Cite to evidence, please. n/t

[arendt]

16. The suggestion is to avoid such uncontrollable venues...

Of course, many political events already demand attendees to go thru metal detectors. I'm just asking this forum to say that that is not an infringement of their rights.

Why do you call it a "rare event"? Because this time someone used a gun? In the last two years there have been MANY violent disruptions of political meetings - shouting, threats, pushing and shoving. Politics has been allowed to degenerate. These incidents are no longer rare.

[X_Digger]

18. 'rare' being a politically-motivated attempted assassination

If you have a proposal, feel free to lay it out and we can discuss the merits or problems with it. It's hard to address vagueness with any degree of precision.

[arendt]

22. My proposal is that politicians will have to check AND gun owners...

will have to submit to checks to gain entry.

Is that acceptable?

[X_Digger]

34. Not if the venue is public, no.

I've seen state congresspeople set up booths at the county fair, in local shopping malls, at local charity events, etc.

Untenable.

Then we come to the operational aspects of this- what happens when Representative Smith goes to the grocery store? Or when they go out to dinner? Is there a great big bubble that surrounds them where guns aren't allowed?

[arendt]

36. I didn't say "public". I just said controlled.

I meant places like city halls, auditoriums, even high-school gymnasiums that have been cordoned off for the event.

I'm saying, given RKBA resistance to controlling guns, large political events in this country will have to change the same way airports changed after repeated hijackings.

I'm saying they will have to be held in controlled venues. The exact definition of a controlled venue can be worked out by lawyers.

----------

I do not know where you get this "bubble" stuff.

I have completely limited my statements to political events with large crowds and/or completely uncontrolled access. (I am saying completely uncontrolled access is untenable anymore. How that is dealt with, operationally, is TBD.) I said nothing about a bubble. My suggestion is as much for the safety of the crowd as of the politicians. I mean politicians could easily get bodyguards, body armor, armored lecturns, etc. Attendees, not so much.

[X_Digger]

37. You didn't specify non-public, before now..

Looking at your proposal, I think it's a bit of security theater.

If you control the venue, then you end up just moving the dedicated shooter to catch the congressperson in a position like Sirhan Sirhan did to RFK.

[PavePusher]

41. No. Sorry, meeting the public is one of the duties and risks of the job.

The government is not above the people.

If the elected office holders fear the people that much, they can resign, or consider exercising their own Civil Right to be armed. They may not restrict the Rights of those they work for.

[arendt]

45. This is pure ideology.

The risk is well-known. All avenues to deal with it at the shooter end are rejected. I propose to deal with it by letting the politician protect him/herself. And all you can scream about is YOUR RIGHTS.

Well, what about your right to carry a gun onto an airplane? I don't see you screaming that that is another infringement. Your rights are constrained in a specific situation because the value of the asset and lives threatened is very high. Same for a national politician. We have fewer of them than jet airliners. Are they to receive less protection than an airplane?

There is a large portion of the country that prefers to be screened at a PUBLIC EVENT for their own and the speaker's safety. To say this is out of bounds is flat out ideological.

[PavePusher]

55. Airplanes are private property.

The airlines can have any rules they want.

By the way, handguns are not particularly dangerous on planes. It's just a nice movie myth, and I have 20+ years of military aviation maintenance to back that up.

In a public place, a pol may not restrict my rights. If they wish to only appear in private venues, where they can any rules the owners will allow, that is, of course, their choice. A very telling one.

[arendt]

59. You call yourself a Democrat? I think not. This is pure libertarianism.

You put private property and contract law above the government.

Of course, guns are never the problem. Only politicians. Its surprising you have yet to call me a "gun grabber" for daring to suggest that there is any public place that guns do not belong.

[PavePusher]

63. "You put private property and contract law above the government."

And you? You seem to imply that the government may take away my private property any time it wants to. I find that rather disturbing and hope you were somehow unclear or that I have misunderstood something.

[eqfan592]

19. If you could get the politicians to avoid events such as this...

..then your rule may work. As it stands, I don't see that being likely.

[arendt]

24. Elsewhere in this thread, someone said such a law would never pass...

But, I suppose its OK to make being a politician an audition for a Darwin Award.

I mean, foolish politicos who think they have the right to make a speech without armed bodyguards and metal detectors will soon be eliminated from the American gene pool. (snark)

[eqfan592]

29. Given that such assassination attempts are (thankfully!) rare...

...even in the political climate that has existed for the last 5 years, and even with the continuing upswing in firearms ownership rates, I would hardly say that giving a speech without armed bodyguards and metal detectors would make anybody a candidate for a Darwin Award. ;)

[PavePusher]

39. "Armed to the teeth" is still a relative term.

Compared to Maryland or Illinois, maybe. But people who carry guns daily are still a very small percentage of the populationProbably well under 3%. I'd bet even less than that. So your premise, which seems to imply that everyone is armed all the time, is quite false.

By the way, what "special rule" do you propose? For the record, two years ago, I stood less then 10 feet from the Congresswoman, with an openly carried 1911, ironically at a Safeway on the opposite (east) side of town. What was I doing wrong?

[arendt]

47. Have you read this thread? I specifically said "crowd situation".

How many people were at your Safeway at any one moment?

And WTF did you need to open carry in front of a Congressperson. Just what kind of intimidation are you into?

[PavePusher]

53. I will repeat myself: I was at an identical function, i.e. a crowd.

Secondly, I open carry about 95% of the time, due to it being more comfortable here when you can fry eggs on the hood of a dead car. Peaceful exercise of a Civil Right is not intimidation.

Lastly, I didn't origonally know she was going to be there. I stopped to do some incidental shopping on my way home and walked by them on my way in. I stopped by on the way back to my car. My hands were full of shopping bags, so I was patently non-threatening (but see 32 anyway). I was too late to ask her any questions, but I spoke with her aide for a few minutes.

No panic in the streets, but thanks for the veiled accusations. What kind of bull-shit are you into?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

64. And the penis reference.

A bit late in the game, but I figured you'd get around to it eventually.

I'll take that as your final rebutal, because if you're down to that, your are at the bottom of a very deep, dark well, and I can not help you.


Good night to you and a pleasant repose.

[shadowrider]

9. Are you suggesting trained policemen don't make mistakes like

shooting the wrong guy?

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110110/NEWS01/110110035/1002/rss

[arendt]

10. Not at all. That is 180 degrees from the point I was trying to make.

I'm saying EVEN police make mistakes. So, what would you expect from amatuers? Chaos. Mayhem.

[eqfan592]

13. But we didn't get chaos and mayhem...

...even in this case, at least not caused by the amateurs, as you put it. I'm not saying that your idea is totally without merit, only reminding you that even in your primary example case, the CCW holders made the smart call.

[arendt]

20. You are saying the situation is the best we could hope for?

It was all just part of being an American?

Just as you say my idea is "totally without merit", I say CCW is totally without merit in a crowd situation.)

WTF is wrong with gun checks at a political event in this country full of unmedicated nutcases with easy access to semi-autos?

[X_Digger]

23. Now you're getting more specific..

Please outline your proposal. Are you angling toward a 'gun free zone' around politicians a la Rep King (R)-NY?

[arendt]

28. I'm unfamilar w Rep. King's situation, as RKBA is not an issue of mine

I'm saying that it should be possible for a politician to have an event with metal detectors or other screening methods. That licensed owners should be required to leave their weapon at the door to enter such an event.

And that some group like the NRA shouldn't try to get such a common sense law declared unconstitutional.

[X_Digger]

35. See response #34. n/t

[eqfan592]

27. I never said your idea was totally without merit.

In fact, I specifically said that I WASN'T saying your idea is totally without merit. Please go back and re-read my post. :)

Also, if you intend to stand by your idea that CCW is totally without merit in a crowd situation, I will simply have to point out that at least one incident that would debunk that thought has been mentioned in this very thread. I'm not saying, mind you, that I think CCW's are the end all and be all answer to shootings in a crowd, only that there's evidence evidence showing that law abiding people carrying in crimes HAVE helped to prevent them. In fact, I'd wager to say that there are more incidents of that happening than of law abiding gun carriers hitting innocent by standards while trying to stop a criminal in a crowd, though for that I don't have the direct evidence at this time.

And like I said, I don't have a problem with a gun check at a political event so much as that I don't think it's going to be logistically viable for most political events.

[arendt]

30. Oops. Sorry. I misread. My bad.

Please point me to the debunking incident in this thread, and I will see if I can comment.

[eqfan592]

31. It's in post #7.

The New Life Church incident. And no worries :)

Going out with the wife now, so I'll reply to anything you post back in a few hours or so. Take care, and thanks for remaining civil! :D

[arendt]

33. Thanks. But, I think that was different.

Everyone knew everyone in the congregation there.

The "fog of war" was not there. It was simply a question of responding. Yes, accuracy was called for; but I doubt the "backdrop" of innocents was as deep or as mobile as in AZ.

Again, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you. Have a nice dinner. I have to go home and settle in for the next "blizzard of the century/snowpocalypse".

[shadowrider]

14. And I agree with you

RULE: Always be sure of your target and what is beyond

Maybe firearms WEREN'T pulled because the shooter was difficult to identify in a crowd and with many people around, the chances of hitting an innocent bystander is exponentially raised. I know I wouldn't have pulled my weapon.

[eqfan592]

17. Agreed. (nt)

[arendt]

21. Right. Thanks for agreeing w my premise. Now, what about...

my proposal?

Would you object to gun checks at political rallies?

[shadowrider]

25. I'd have to think about that.

What if you do, and when it's checked, the "authorities" want your name, address and other personal info to check and see if you're wanted anywhere for anything. What if they keep your weapon to take it back and see ballistically if it's been used in a crime and you have to reclaim it at the police station.

If all they did was give you a claim check and you got your weapon back upon leaving, I'd have to think about that.

[PavePusher]

43. I'd accept that IF....

the sponsering organisations was then held responsible for any and all damage or injury that might happen to me there, without recourse.

After all, they say it's safe, right?

[arendt]

48. I said not pulling any legalistic crap like this...

You really are the first hot-head I have encountered in this thread.

Nothing is good enough to satisfy your precious right to sue everyone.

Tell me why, in addition to feeling a need to brandish guns in front of Congresspeople, you also feel the need to threaten everyone with legal action.

I'm getting the feeling you're just a garden-variety bully hiding behind a lot of rhetoric.

[PavePusher]

57. I did not brandish nor did I threaten anything.

You are making things up out of whole cloth.

[arendt]

60. The very act of wearing it is brandishing it.

You are a total ideologue and too far gone to see it.

Honestly, what the hell are you thinking to wear a gun to talk to a Congressperson? Do you think they do not understand the second ammendment? Do you want them to praise you for your beligerent display?

[PavePusher]

62. You need to look up the definition of "brandishing".

Here, I'll give you some help: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish

Wearing a pistol, in a retention holster, on the belt, is not brandishing. So sayeth the dictionary, so sayeth the courts.


Also did you miss the point were I said I did not origonally know they were there? I did not go to that location to purposely button-hole the Congreswoman. However, in some states, (Arizona being one) we don't have to wear a burkha over our Civil Rights, and we are able to have civil conversations with people who publicly exercise that Civil Right.


Now I will ask you a question: Are you done making unfounded insinuations and accusations about me, or do you have anything else you need to vent about?

[arendt]

66. Its no accusation to say you are an ideological purist who interprets...

every word through a legalistic mindset that allows no nuance or shade of meaning against your ideology into a conversation. Its the simple truth.

In the case of brandishing, you deny the patent fact that MANY Americans find the mere display of firearms in public (by a civilian in ordinary circumstances) to be a provocative act. I am certainly one of those, especially in the presence of elected officials. If you walked up to me with a gun in a holster in the middle of a shopping mall, I would rapidly walk in the other direction. It is a matter of one second for you to pull that gun, and quite frankly that is a chance I would not take.

If you are so ideological blindered as to not see how provocative your behavior was, I am certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

I live in a part of the country that has a different set of rules. Where I come from your behavior simply does not happen; and if it did, it would be provocative. You can chop dictionary definitions all you want about that.

BTW, you are still the only person I have encountered in this forum who is an outright ideologue. That great big chip on your shoulder is your ID.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. I have epaulettes

But everybody just calls them " chingasos" .
There is little difference in being freaked out at the site of a gun or hurting oneself in a panic to escape the wrath of a 1/10 gram insect hanging from the tiniest of strings . But some people will just do that .

[PavePusher]

42. And if you can point to a few incidents of lawful firearms use...

where that has been the case, you'd have a point. But Citizens using firearms in defense have an amazingly good track record. Generally far, far better than police.

[arendt]

49. This is off topic. Your broad generalization is totally irrelevant to...

the precise situation I have laid out.

Take your talking points somewhere else.

[PavePusher]

56. It's very relevent...

in that you have proposed something that is possible, but demonstrateably highly unlikely.

Your talking points are talkable, but not particularly strong.

[MichaelHarris]

44. Zamudio

has more stories that Aesop has fables.

[Katya Mullethov]

68. Does he now ?

Is he just ....you know , "makin' shit up" ?

[Flyboy_451]

51. couple of points...

I don't think I have ever heard proponents of CCW advocate that EVERYONE be armed or that the outcome will always be that the perpetrator is shot. I think this is a fallacy that opponents of CCW like to perpetuate.

You asked if it COULD have helped. The answer is that it certainly could have given the correct variables to include such things as the positioning of the CCW holder in relation to the shooter, crowd density and a myriad of other factors that play into the decision of whether or not to engage the shooter. In this particular incident, it apparently had no benefit due to an unknown number of variables. One of the most overlooked aspects of such statements and questions about these situations is that the CCW holder has no obligation to intercede. The only thing that CCW permits affect is the ability to resist. Without a legal means to resist, there are few options. Engaging will not always be a good option, but it should not be removed from the equation because of this.

Jw