Anyone else see the irony?

[Ineeda]

In our gun-obsessed nation, in a rabidly gun-obsessed state, where I'm very sure many in attendance at this event were carrying guns for "self-defense", it didn't prevent or abbreviate the massacre. So much for the argument that carrying/having a gun keeps you safe (or safer.) Just ask the 20 victims. Okay you gun advocates -- blast away.

[valerief]

1. One of the two guys who got Loughner to the ground was interviewed

yesterday. He said he was carrying a gun, always does.

Ha!

[JuniperLea]

4. It's useless unless used...

Did he say why he didn't use it? He could have saved lives... I'm sure that was his thought in packing heat in the first place.

Useless.

[valerief]

9. He said he didn't need it but he said repeatedly that he would have shot Loughner if he had to.

I can't remember who interviewed him. I think it was KO.

[NOLALady]

10. Someone suggested that he should keep it hidden,

as the police could take him out as soon as they saw his weapon. At that time the cops didn't know who was the shooter. He admitted it was good advice.

[Ineeda]

13. No, that was a guy who picked up

the shooter's gun after it was dropped. The Colonel who tackled Loughner told the guy to put it down for the reason you mention. There was a different young man who said he had a gun on him all the time and didn't use it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Yes, didn't use it - but said he almost shot the wrong guy

Check the clip. It caught my breath when I heard it. Thankfully, he was responsible. How many would have shot on sight without thinking?

I wish I remember which show it was on.

[tekisui]

5. But, did the carrying of his gun mitigate the attack in any way?

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. No, and he said he almost shot the wrong guy

When he came out of the Walgreens, he took off his safety and one of the guys who tackled the gunman was holding the gun. The crowd stopped him when he attempted to go after the wrong guy. See below.

[Ineeda]

8. Saw that. Irony much?

Keep safe w/the storm comin'. BTW, check your mail. :hi:

[valerief]

12. Will do!!!

:hi:

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. He also mistook one of the other tacklers as the gunman until

the crowd yelled that it was the wrong guy. The tackler had gotten the gun from the gunman, hence the confusion.

He said in his interview last night that he almost shot the wrong guy.

I think it was Lawrence O'Donnell, but there was so much coverage last night that I don't remember. Could have been Ed.

[valerief]

18. Lawrence had the colonel on. The other guy with the gun was the younger guy. nt

[hedgehog]

24. According to this, he was late at the scene and almost shot the

74 year old man who did get the gun away from the shooter!

"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."

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

[valerief]

27. Yep, good point! nt

[BellaLuna]

2. The shooter was taken down by physical force

not shot.. go figure.

[Mike 03]

3. I live in AZ with my sister, who carries a concealed weapon, and

she made all these brave claims about how she would have stopped this violence, but it didn't ring true because as you point out, nobody prevented this massacre.

I physically get sick when I see a gun in real life, so I am not a good person to talk about this topic, although I sometimes wish I were more brave because if everything goes to hell, I will probably wish that I did own and knew how to properly use a gun.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. I am not a gun advocate, but the argument might be

that this was a democratic crowd and democrats tend to be against guns. Therefore there were no guns there to stop the murders because it was a bunch of lily livered chicken hearted pie in the sky liberals who were there.

[kestrel91316]

11. But at least 2 of the people there HAD guns, pe the above post.

The fact remains, armed citizens had the opportunity to use them and did not. The gun lobby had best consider this small dose of reality before they go telling us how only guns can keep us safe.

[Mike 03]

7. BTW, major Kick and Rec. NT

[Mojeoux]

14. The problem with guns and crowds......

The guy with the gun, could have just as easily, accidentally killed more people in the scuffle.

[Mike 03]

15. I agree. That is why I cannot in good conscience carry a gun around.

You are right.

[valerief]

19. If everyone carried a gun everywhere...

We'd have a lower unemployment rate.

[upi402]

20. The guy who tackled him had a gun

and didn't need it. But got very defiant and made NRA type statements about how he 'would have' used it...

[Last_Stand]

22. Anybody see the irony...

that a lot of other shit kills a lot more people with more frequency every year?

This is a tired fucking argument and decades have proven that no one is going to change their mind about this.

[mrcheerful]

23. The problem with gun carrying types is they always say that if someone had a gun other then

the guy that is on a murder spree then things wouldn't be as bad because the shooter would be taken out before he got a few rounds off. Then when they are proven wrong, it becomes excuses as to why they didn't use their gun. You will never get them to admit that having a gun handy means nothing in the scope of reality, they feel safe and that is all that matters to them.

Remember before the event it is easy to say what you would do, during the event human nature takes over and self preservation rules. I'm not getting down on gun owners what I am saying is that until you find yourself in the situation talk is cheap and you can't say what you would do, remember one of the hardest things that face the military members is not freezing in their fox holes when the shit hits the fan.

[Recovered Repug]

25. So then, what do you recommend?

Should it be illegal to carry a weapon? Should the purchase and carrying a weapon be mandatory? Should the law remain as it currently is? Please give the reasoning for your answer.

[hedgehog]

29. Is a state of affairs that in which a young man identified as unstable

by those who knew him is able to legally purchase a weapon the very best we can do? That to pprtect the right to bear arms, we must tolerate the occasional mass shooting by the insane and low level drug wars in our cities? Please give the reasoning for your answer.

[Recovered Repug]

30. The short answer is no, it is not the best we can do.

In a perfect world, the mentally ill would be identified and receive the treatment needed. In a perfect world, guns wouldn't be in the hands of those who shouldn't have them - criminals, mentally ill, etc. In a perfect world, there would be more opportunities for city youth other than drug dealer or unemployed. I haven't noticed anyone arguing against working toward a perfect world. Maybe it's that Democratic thing.

However, we don't currently live in a perfect world. The mentally ill still can go undiagnosed and untreated. Those who shouldn't have guns are still able to obtain them - legally or otherwise. Unfortunately, shootings like last Saturday's will happen again. There is no law (or laws) that will completely prevent it. We simply do not live in a perfect world. What I've never understood is the argument that disarming those who won't break the law will improve things.

[Ineeda]

31. One of the main problems I see

is that gun advocates -- right-wing, left-wing, and middle of the road -- almost unanimously start shouting "No, no, no!" at the top of their lungs whenever common sense changes to gun laws are contemplated. Most Americans have no notion to disarm our populace, and rightfully so, due to Constitutional right. But instead of the knee-jerk "No, no, no, HELL no" why not look at what is possible and sensible? When a firearm's sole purpose is killing human beings, shouldn't there be reasonable and doable changes to make that just a bit harder to do? BTW, I know gun-lovers are tired of these discussions and perceive them as threats to their right to bear arms, but they are really not. Let me make myself very clear: no one wants to 'take your guns away.' We who advocate for change are tired of the discussion too. We're tired of mass murder (and I know even the most passionate gun-lover is, as well. Unless they're nuts, of course.) We're tired of the arguments that 'guns don't kill people, people do' and that only criminals or nuts will have guns, and that knives and baseball bats and poison and a f'ing corkscrew kill people, too. We know that. But those weapons don't kill or maim twenty or thirty or more people in literally seconds. Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction to ban high capacity magazines, for example? I suggest taking a step back from 'no' and everyone working together for sensible change. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and say it can't be done.

[petronius]

26. About as ironic as people wearing life preservers but still dying in a boat accident

Or the notion that a snow storm disproves global warming...

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. +1/ Imagine how many people WOULD HAVE died, had it turned into a gun battle.

Guns suck.