Think Conceal Carry Didn’t Play a Role in the Giffords Case? Think Again.

A lot has been said about the Giffords case, both here on TTAG and elsewhere. And like most emotionally-charged cases, when all is said and done, more’s been said, than done. And while a lot of people have speculated on how Arizona’s relatively unrestrictive laws regarding carrying a weapon might have played into this tragedy, nobody’s really come forward to talk about why nobody shot the scumbag, if everybody goes around armed.

But leave it to perennial media grandstander ace reporter media opportunist Geraldo Rivera (nee: Jerry Rivers) to come up with the one story that will interest the TTAGencia, namely that there was someone nearby who was legally carrying a concealed handgun, and he played a role in the takedown of the psycho killer.

[flv]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/videos/LiveLeak.com_-_AZ_Massacre_Hero_Educates_Geraldo_on_What_a_Responsible_Gun_Owner_Does.flv[/flv]

As Rivera interviewed Joe Zamudio, one of the men responsible for subduing the crazed loon responsible for the shooting, he “said to Geraldo, “I don’t know if you were aware but I carry a weapon.”

Wow. That’s kind of a conversation changer.

Geraldo asks Joe what happened. The man replies, “I heard gunshots, I ran outside to help. You know, I was carrying a gun and I would have shot him…I, I almost did.”

“Why didn’t you,” Geraldo asked.

“They’d already had a-hold of him, and there was a lot of people around him, and I wasn’t going to cause any more collateral damage or scare anybody any further than they needed to be scared.” Joe replied. “I felt like I could hold him down and wait for police, and it wasn’t my responsibility to end his life.”

Let’s let that one sink in for a second. He had a gun. He was licensed to carry. He made a split-second evaluation of the situation. He made the right choice. No going all Sly-Rocky-Rambo on the guy. No shooting innocent bystanders. No making the situation worse. Just a responsible citizen, trying to help, and doing the right thing. And here’s the kicker. This guy is all of 24 years old. Just two years older than the whackjob that shot 20 or so people and killed 6.

So we have on the one hand, a crazy person who uses a gun to shoot people indiscriminately. On the other, a responsible citizen who not only chooses to carry a gun legally, but had the good sense NOT to use it, when doing so could have made a tragic situation even worse.

Now I’m sure that those on the left with a hard-on for gun control will see this situation as evidence of “if we banned all the guns, nothing like this could happen…after all, what good did this guy carrying a gun do?” But stop and think. Do you really believe anybody would run toward gunfire if they weren’t armed, and thought they could help?

Now, frankly, I’m not sure I would have done the same thing as Zamudio, given his situation. If I was standing there, perhaps. But I don’t believe a CHL and having a gun on me puts me in the same situation as a law enforcement official, who’s job it is to runs TO the scene to stop a crime, or a fireman who runs IN to the burning building to save lives.

But that doesn’t take away from his heroism. It’s a judgement call, and my judgement would be tempered by the proximity of my daughter to the scene, and if I seriously thought I could make things better. I’m not second-guessing Zamudio. I think he did the right thing. And my hat’s off to him for his bravery.

And God Bless him for speaking the truth publicly about his actions, conceal carry, and for being a responsible gun owner.

avatar

About Brad Kozak

Brad Kozak is an iconoclastic, curmudgeonly graphic designer/marketer/writer/musician/advertiser/conservative creative guy. In 2007, he completed a gradual transition from a conservative semi-pacifist to a proactive, armed citizen, willing to exercise his Second Amendment rights to protect his family and property. His idea of “gun control” is hitting where he aims.

69 Responses to Think Conceal Carry Didn’t Play a Role in the Giffords Case? Think Again.

  1. This kid was also featured on Dateline last night. He said he was next door buying some smokes when he heard gunshots. He ran toward the gunfire to see if he could help, with his hand on the handle of his shoulder-holstered handgun. He did not draw the weapon because, as indicated above, the shooter had already been tackled by others at the scene.

  2. avatarJadeGold says:

    Gunloons frequently tell us that guns–in situations such as this–will prevent such tragedies or, at least, mitigate them.

    In this case, it did neither.

    Kozak is so desperate to derive some silver lining for the gunloons that he’s reduced to cheering that someone in the crowd had a gun and didn’t use it after the assailant had been subdued. Wow. Actually, based on such logic, I’m somewhat surprised Kozak didn’t take credit for maintaining a cool head during the incident. After all, Kozak has several guns and didn’t shoot Loughner after he’d been subdued.

    • avatarTTACer says:

      RF, how is this not flaming?

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      JadeGold, do you actually read what we write here, or do you just take up your pen and start writing according to The Big Book of Lefist Memes? Just askin.’ By your logic, someone who caries a gun legally can’t win. If they use it, they’re a cowboy. If they don’t, they’re useless. Ask yourself this question: If you, JadeGold, were suddenly plopped down in a similar scenario, and someone handed you a gun, but in this case you had the opportunity to prevent the loss of lives by taking the life of a deranged killer, would you? I’m betting your answer would be “NO,” and you’d come up with some sort of way to try and weasel out of the scenario. But seriously, if you had the chance to stop a massacre, and the only way to do it was to shoot the bad guy, would you do it? I put it to you, that if you have the chance to stop a killer and you do nothing, you are aiding and abetting him. And legally speaking, that makes you as guilty as the killer.

      Have a nice day.

      • avatarRobert says:

        Well, I think we need to look at the basics first. The shooter was carrying a concealed gun, and probably wouldn’t have gotten so close to the congresswoman if it wasn’t concealed, but probably would have shot people anyway unless getting close was important to him. The other people there, who weren’t carrying, had already tackled the guy before Zamudio got there. Maybe they didn’t exactly run toward the scene since they were already there, but they didn’t run away either, and they did tackle the guy. Zamudio did the right thing, but I don’t think he made any real difference since other people already had the guy. On balance, concealed carry helped the criminal, and didn’t help stop him. Sorry, I wish it were different.

        • avatarJonathan says:

          “concealed carry helped the criminal”

          I’m confused, are you saying that LEGAL concealed carry helped the shooter, or just the fact that he was carrying concealed at all, but nothing to do with the laws?

          If the former, that’s pretty dumb (was he only carrying because it was legal?), so I hope that’s not what you meant. But if the latter, what was your point?

      • avatarEban Littlebrother says:

        Absolutely. A person who sits idly by while evil people do evil things is just as guilty. If you are serious about being a positive member of society, being prepared to stop evil people is part of it.

    • avatarJustin Grimes says:

      I would imagine you would change your tune if you were in that situation and a law abiding citizen, that is legal to carry a firearm, was there and handled the situation. It would be even better if he did not have to fire a shot.

  3. avatarRuffRidr says:

    That is very interesting. The anti-gun factions are always quick to say that in an incident like this a concealed carry holder will only add to the fatality list as their stray bullets take out unintended targets. And then when the cops show up, they will surely be mistaken for the criminal and shot. However reality, as shown above, is much different.

    • avatarJadeGold says:

      Based on Ruffy’s logic, I should be commended as I was 2500 miles away and didn’t climb into my car and drive through a mall at high speeds. I also didn’t take my chainsaw and try to juggle it among small children.

      • avatarJadeGold says:

        Hmmm..so much for TTAG’s anti-flaming policy.

        The fact remains that gunloons often argue that shooting sprees like this could be prevented or short-circuited if only we had more folks carrying guns around. Well, that theory was pretty much kiboshed in AZ.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          The comments are flying fast and furious. The flame was deleted.

        • avatarAnon says:

          Yes, because one armed person not being at the scene and not getting to the scene until after the incident had been resolved obviously means that an armed citizen actually at the scene would have been equally ineffective.

          The logic is weak with this one.

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          One incident, no matter how heinous it was or how shocking it was, does not, in and of itself, disprove a theory.

        • avatarJason says:

          No, there weren’t enough. Had this guy or someone else who were carrying been standing right behind, beside, or a few feet away it’s likely that his spree would have been ended within a few seconds. Unfortunately [likely due to the liberal induced stigma of carrying] the closest armed citizen was too far away to get there.

      • avatarWes says:

        Yes, you should be commended for not doing those things because not doing those things helps show you, and the rest of the people who don’t do those things, are responsible citizens and not nutjobs. This article is about how “if everyone can have a gun, it will be the wild west,” and 49 states and this incident continue to show that doesn’t happen, just like everyone with a car doesn’t drive it into a mall or juggle chainsaws among small children.

        Now, nutjobs CAN drive cars into malls and juggle chainsaws around small children. They could do it right now if they wanted. What laws do we need to make sure they don’t? Ban cars? Ban chainsaws? Ban juggling? Ban small children?

        • avatarJadeGold says:

          Guess what, Wes? What happened in Tucson this weekend was the Wild West. You had 18 people shot and 6 killed.

          In reality, though, the Wild West wasn’t as wild as it is today.

          But kudos on trying to make a gun massacre look like a victory against gun control.

        • avatarWes says:

          Law-abiding citizens with guns aren’t the problems. Criminals are the problem. If all guns in the world magically didn’t exist, he could have drove a car into them or juggled chainsaws near them. What laws would have stopped this non-law-abiding person from hurting someone? Killing people is already illegal, and that didn’t stop him.

  4. avatarJadeGold says:

    I see Monty wants in on the “I have a gun and didn’t wildly shoot into the crowd” kudos.

    • Just reporting what I saw the guy saying on the telly last night.

      • avatarJadeGold says:

        No, Monty, you were attempting to pretend CCW had some positive role in the tragedy.

        It didn’t.

        • avatarBambucha says:

          If I was unable to legally arm myself, I’d pull JadeGold or someone like her, in front of me. They obviously know how to magically stop bullets from penetrating human flesh.
          I know of only one way. Stop the shooter.
          I’m unsure if there is anyone who if armed, if given the situation of witnessing a shooting such as occurred, could just stand by and allow multiple victims if they could fire on the assailant without hitting others. Libs would rather have more victims so they can play the self-righteous puffer y.

  5. avatarKDB says:

    Jadegold is good at shooting off one thing. His mouth.

  6. avatarJadeGold says:

    Anon: Please check the title of this post: “Think Conceal Carry Didn’t Play a Role in the Giffords Case? Think Again.”

    Clearly, the facts are what they are–CCW played no role whatsoever. And any attempt to get excited about the fact a CCW holder didn’t start pouring lead into a crowded, chaotic and already resolved scene is misplaced.

    Maybe if the CCW holder had arrived minutes before, something might have happened. pretending that *something* would have definitely been good is just wishful thinking.

    • avatarAnon says:

      And claiming that this particular incident somehow magically “kiboshes” the notion that armed citizens can stop shooting sprees is likewise wishful thinking.

      I choose the path of wishful thinking wherein fewer people die.

      • avatarJadeGold says:

        Really? Then why do you support allowing anyone to have unfettered access to any firearm?

        • avatarAnon says:

          Who said I did?

          Why do you see the need to create strawmen to argue against? Why do you put words in other people’s mouths?

    • avatarEban Littlebrother says:

      Why would a gun-toting conservative attend an event with a liberal democrat congresscritter? If it had been Michelle Bachmann or John Beohner, the gun toters would have been in the crowd and could have been more effective in stopping the tragedy. incidentally, John Roll, the Federal Judge killed by the lunatic, was the Judge who issued the initial injunction against the Federal Government in the case of Mack v. US, which resulted in the Brady Law being ruled unconstitutional.

  7. avatarJadeGold says:

    Anon: Speaking of weak logic, your premise is somewhat faulty.

    There was one armed person at the scene. He was at the scene for the entire time of the incident. He was highly effective in shooting 18 and killing 6.

  8. avatarBrad Kozak says:

    JadeGold, my late father used to tell me, “Never argue with a zealot. You won’t convince him of anything, and you’ll only succeed in raising your own blood pressure.” Smart guy, my dad. So I won’t argue with you, but I will point out a logical fallacy in your critique of my headline. Having a concealed handgun gave one man the conviction that he could make a difference. He wasn’t on the scene when the shooting started, but he rushed to help. Had he gotten there a few minutes sooner, he may have had the opportunity to end the shooting before the killer had to pause for a reload. But the CHL holder was prudent – he could have made this situation much worse, by going in, gun blazing. But he didn’t. You refuse to see that a gun owner – ANY gun owner – could act responsibly. Yet, time and time again, that’s exactly what CHL permit holders do. They act responsibly. So follow me here. I’ll use small words, and you can read slowly…What if we changed the law so that every able-bodied citizen was encouraged to get a CHL permit and carry a firearm. Wow…since CHL holders are verifiably more responsible and act accordingly, perhaps THAT would make the world a safer place.

    Chew on that one. That logic makes every bit as much sense (if not a lot more so) than your “the only good gun owner is an EX-gun owner, incarcerated for owning a gun” idea.

    • avatarJadeGold says:

      Of course, you’re probably in constant contact with your late dad since you profess a capacity to read my mind.

      The facts are what they are: the CHL holder who was present at the scene during the entire incident shot 18 people and killed 6 of them. How’s that for reponsibility? The fact this CHL holder was able to get a gun and commit an act of domestic terrorism was because folks like you make it ridiculously easy for anyone to get a gun.

      Even if they can’t get into the army or take algebra at the local CC.

      • avatarEban Littlebrother says:

        The gun control act of 1964 makes it illegal for a person who is legally insane to purchase a firearm. Mr. Loughner was insane, and would have had paperwork proving it if the Sheriff of Pima County had done his job in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 when he was getting reports about this kid instead of wondering why every Sheriff in Arizona except him is a national celebrity (Joe and Mack, for example). Now that he has his moment in the sun, why is he doing every morning show in New York instead of investigating a murder or 6?

      • avatarBrian Brady says:

        “Even if they can’t get into the army or take algebra at the local CC.”

        I just knew the elitism was there somewhere. I just had the be patient and read the whole thread.

    • avatarWes says:

      My state doesn’t require a permit to open-carry a gun in public. Why should it require a permit to conceal-carry a gun in public?

    • avatarRobert says:

      Zamudio clearly did the right thing, but I think a lot of people wouldn’t have had the good judgment that he did. If everyone had a CHL permit, that would mean that a lot of people whose judgment isn’t quite so great would have one. Let’s face it, “everyone” covers a lot of ground.

  9. avatarRabbi says:

    Funny how the anti loons forget that 1.5-2.5 million crimes are year are stopped by law-abiding citizens with guns.

    “If they use it, they’re a cowboy. If they don’t, they’re useless.” So right Brad. More proof the loons ignore all logic, including their own.

    • avatarJadeGold says:

      I actually debunked this elsewhere on this site. As I previously mentioned, if we don’t address Kleck’s very faulty methodology, his own numbers don’t add up.

      For example, Kleck states that in 8% of all DGUs, the gun is fired and an assailant is wounded. Kleck also states 15% of all GSWs are fatal. Let’s go to the calculator:

      1.5M DGUs/yr x .08 assailant shot x .15 fatal wounds = 18000 justifiable homicides/yr.

      or

      2.5M DGUs/yr x .08 assailant shot x .15 fatal wounds = 30000 justifiable homicides/yr.

      Since we know from FBI UCRs that the justifiable homicides (from all causes) rarely exceeds 250/year in the US–the DGU figures are baloney.

      • avatarBrad Kozak says:

        You’ve “debunked this elsewhere on this site”? Really? JadeGold, we have two kinds of people that comment on this site. Those that present well-reasoned, thoughtful comments, and those that use their comments to regurgitate Leftist memes. The former group presents facts, uses logic, and makes salient points. The later group relies on dogma, clichés, and discredited statements, repeating them so often they almost sound like the truth.

        You, undoubtedly, fit into the later group.

        Want a concrete example? (That’s what we do here on the well-reasoned side.) You make a point of insisting that the perp had a CHL. Wrong. This moron did NOT hold a valid concealed handgun license. That’s why, last November, he had to submit to an FBI background check. If you have a CHL, you’ve ALREADY passed an FBI check. Lest you think those background checks are window-dressing, I have a friend who told me that he’d taken the CHL course, but decided he didn’t want to conceal carry, after submitting his info for the permit. After a period of time, the FBI contacted him, keen to find out why he would go to the trouble of submitting his application, but then not follow through.

        In my own experience, I can tell you that the FBI did a much more thorough check on me than I’d expected. And I’m nobody’s idea of a troublemaker. My record is clean as a whistle.

        You see, Jade (may I call you Jade?), there’s a difference between a CHL (in any state that issues them) and an FBI background check. They are two different things. Yet you use your ignorance on the topic to indite every CHL holder in the country.

        You also conveniently overlook the facts of mental illness. Let’s take this out of the realm of guns for a second. Let’s say some nutjob decides to set off a bomb at a public event. Or mail letter bombs to people he finds offend him. By your logic, we should ban fertilizer and any other materials to make a bomb. But then there’s the question of intent. What if we could stop the guy before he hurts someone. I thought Minority Report had a thought-provoking premise, but it would never work. The ACLU would see to that. You simply couldn’t give the government permission to arrest, try and convict someone for what they might do some time in the future. And if you wait until they do, it’s too late.

        The problem here isn’t guns. It’s mental illness. This clown could have done the same kind of damage with a ’95 Ford F-150, driving it into the crowd, no gun needed. If you’ll recall, that sort of thing has happened, too. So what’s next…you wanna ban cars?

        • avatarJadeGold says:

          We can always tell when a gunloon’s argument begins to fail–he starts to get very defensive about semantics. In AZ, anybody over the age of 21 can carry concealed without a permit. Thus, my point is well-taken–the person carrying concealed during the entire incident was the person who shot 18 and killed 6.

          You also neglect to note, though it didn’t apply in this instance, that anyone can purchase a firearm without any background check whatsoever.

          Yes, Loughner might have used a bomb like NRA member Tim McVeigh. He may have used a car or a sharp pointy stick. But he didn’t. He used a gun which was as easy to obtain as buying a loaf of Wonder bread.

          Yeah, it is about mental illness. But pretending it’s not about guns is ludicrous. When you and your NRA masters attack any law that might it just a bit more difficult for criminals, kooks, substance abusers, etc. to get unfettered access to any gun they please—your feigned indignation is unbecoming.

        • avatarBrad Kozak says:

          Jade,

          Part of price we pay for being able to defend ourselves against anyone (including our own government, should it run amuck [see post-Katrina New Orleans]) is that bad people do bad things, and sometimes (not always) they use guns to do so. Banning guns will not change this. If this worked, countries like Australia would be crime-free. Along the same train of thought, in order to live free and not suffer living in a police state where we can be arrested for what we think, rather than what we do, we have to live with the reality that we can’t stop mentally-ill people from going postal before they go off their nuts. It’s as simple as that. Banning guns wouldn’t have stopped this idiot. He wanted to hurt people to prove his insane point. Gun or no gun, he would have done something – bomb, automobile attack – something.

        • avatarRobert says:

          You’re not saying that you think that the FBI checks should be required, are you? Remember that in Arizona you don’t need a CHL permit to carry.

  10. avatarMartin says:

    The problem was that there were no law abiding, CHL holders, carrying their guns in the area. There was only one in the proximity and he arrived too late at the scene…

    • Martin, Does that sound likely to you? In Arizona, in a large crowd, no one had a gun?

      I’d say there were several of them. I figure one of two things happened. 1. The guys with guns were so frightened by the shooting that they hit the deck and shook uncontrollably till it was over. Or 2, the guys with guns in the crowd couldn’t react quickly enough to make a difference and prudently decided to keep the fact that they were armed to themselves.

      Either way, lawful gun owners, unless they’re perfectly positioned, cannot stop these shootings, unlike what you guys keep saying.

      • avatarMartin says:

        Mike:
        You do not know if there were others carrying guns…then you build your argument and your own version of reality (“..shook uncontrollably..” who did that?) based on your fantasy, use facts please.

  11. avatarRyan says:

    apparently someone already did

  12. avatarKen says:

    What part of “Never argue with a zealot” doesn’t anyone understand. Yesterday it was all about the fault of the Tea Party, Sara Palin, Republicans, etc. (See Sara’s comments). Now when it turns out that the shooter was a left wing loon, the argument is changed to “guns are bad, no one should have them” (or at least no one but criminals). I have exhibited a gun twice – once to stop a guy from a young lady around in a parking lot and once when a biker menaced me with a chain when I was stopped in traffic. No one shot on either occasion, but a young lady and I were saved from further abuse. But no matter how responsible the gun owner, no matter what he does or doesn’t do, you will not change the mind of zealot, unless sometime perhaps, you save his or her ass. And even then, probably not.

  13. avatarJerry says:

    I respect the rights of all to have their own opinions and speak their mind, but this really is turning into a bitch-fight. Very non-productive, IMNHO

  14. avatarGerald says:

    I can’t believe people still try to engage Jadegold in anything resembling a conversation. Keep in mind that Jadegold also believes you can convert a semi-auto gun into a machine gun by filing down the firing pin and also claimed Chicago had a population of 9 million in order to prove that Chicago didn’t have a crime rate higher than the rest of the state of Illinois.

  15. avatarStonelotus says:

    He may have used a car or a sharp pointy stick. But he didn’t. He used a gun which was as easy to obtain as buying a loaf of Wonder bread.
    So when you take away all the guns and there is nothing left but cars and pointy sticks will you be taking those away too?

    • avatarjuslen says:

      Sorry, they made drugs illegal and that sure as hell didn’t reduce gang violence or drug addictions. Making guns illegal means you create an illegal market for selling guns. Do you think Mexicans would smuggle coke over the border if cocaine was made legal? Of course not. So why would you think gangs and cartels would stop smuggling guns into this country if all guns were made illegal. Do you really think the only way this kid could get a hold of a gun is if it was legal to own a gun? Do prostitution abuse rates go down if you make prostitution illegal? Do people stop gambling if you make gambling illegal?

      Gun ownership is also a very different story. Guns serve two purposes.. offense or defense. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, serve only one purpose to provide people with a need or a want.

      Can you protect yourself from drug addiction by taking drugs? Can you protect yourself from STD’s by having sex with prostitutes? Can you save money by gambling?

      Can you protect yourself from someone who has a gun with a gun? YES

  16. avatarTony says:

    its nice to know this legal weapons permit holder would do what most permit holders would do and would have done. i wish there were more permit holders and weapons carriers nationwide that could assist in situations like this. if one would have been present at the shooting when it occured, mabey things would have ended differently.

  17. avatarRob says:

    I wonder if the fact that it was a Democrat’s rally had anything to do with the fact that none of the rally members had a concealed weapon.

    Likewise, I wonder if the nutjob would have attempted the same at a Tea Party or Republican rally where there is sure to be a number of concealed (and open carry) weapons in the crowd.

  18. avatarxtraloud says:

    Jade, if I may also call you that, I live in Texas and it is on all of the local news stations that our Senators and Congressmen are CCL holders and carrying their weapons into the Capitol building.

    The few interviewed expressed their concern for their own safety first and others safety secondly.

    The sources are not doing a breakdown of Demo vs Repubs, but you can bet your left mouth hand that they are from both sides of the isle.

    What say you ?

  19. avatarRR says:

    District of Columbia, no guns allowed period.. Yet has the highest gun crime rate in the nation. Why? because criminals don’t follow the law. And Leftist Memes, would rather see us defenseless..

    • avatarRR says:

      People are like oil they seek their own level…
      …. Those who give their lives to protect the constitution for all..
      … Those who choose to change, distort, or even ignore, the constitution to control others…

  20. avatarPaul Reuschel says:

    Re: “Do you really believe anybody would run toward gunfire if they weren’t armed, and thought they could help?”

    Apparently the folks who weren’t armed ran faster toward the shooter, since they got there first.

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Nope. Faulty logic. The guy with the gun was inside a store buying cigarettes. When he heard the gunshots, he ran out to try and help. The other people were in the crowd already. They were just waiting for him to reload, apparently.

  21. avatarMike Proly says:

    Since you don’t need a concealed carry permit in Arizona to carry a concealed weapon if you are over 21, the shooter was carrying his gun legally.

    So yes, the state concealed carry laws had a huge effect. They allowed a nutjob to get a gun, hide it, take it to a grocery store and mow down people at will.

    Congrats, Arizona.

    • avatarRG says:

      If the concealed carry law ALLOWED the “nutjob to get a gun, hide it, take it to a grocery store and mow down people at will.”, why did the law against murder not PREVENT him from killing? I haven’t checked the books lately, but I believe there IS a law against murdering people.

      Yes, he was carrying his weapon legally. Just like I, and millions more, do every day. Do you really believe the lack of a concealed carry law would prevent a nutjob, intent on murder, from illegally concealing his weapon? Seriously?

      • avatarRR says:

        TOUCHE’ but be careful you are going to confuse him, (them) with your logic… After All.. empty vessels make the most noise….

  22. avatarYa I carry says:

    Hey Jade Gold,
    If I see a attacker stabbing you on a steet corner, I could pull my gun and try to save you…..but since you dont like guns or people that carry them or my 2nd ammendment rights …………well I think I might just turn my head and walk on by…..after all gun are bad aint they……Actaully I would try to save you…..just as I carry to protect myself and my family…….I have already had a guy pull a knife on me at a gas station……I pulled my gun…..he dropped knife……I didnt shoot him…..my gun saved me……nuff said

  23. avatarKag says:

    I have a CHL and I carry a .45 when I go somewhere alone. I can honestly tell you that I probably would not have been carrying my gun in that situation, since I would be in a crowd in broad daylight. This does not mean that my CHL is useless. It is not my obligation to protect a crowd from a psycho. CHL holders are not cops. They are not responsible for everyone around them, and are not legally required to be. Actually, I can get in a lot of legal trouble for pulling my weapon an trying to help. I carry to increase my chances of protecting myself and my children from assault, kidnapping and other horrors. That is all a CHL is for: SELF protection.
    To go on about whether a CHL is effective in this situation or not is pointless for that reason. Would most armed CHL holders have reacted and tried to save the people in the crowd? Yes, because most would feel that they should. But if they cannot safely fire their weapon, or if they feel that they would be in serious trouble for doing so, it definitely should not be held against them. Aiding and abetting? Are you serious?

  24. avatarKag says:

    Some of these comments are ridiculous! Some of you are saying that people should not carry guns, yet you are holding those that do responsible for NOT saving the crowd in this mass shooting! I think you are confusing CHL holders for cops. Let’s clear this up: CHLs are obtained and granted for SELF protection. They do not make the holder some kind of vigilante that goes around dispensing justice where needed. Shooting in self defense is usually only justified when the holder themselves are mortally threatened. You are somehow under the impression that individuals who posses a CHL are there to protect EVERYONE. Nope. So don’t blame us, and don’t say our licenses are useless. They are for ourselves and families’ protection ONLY.

  25. avatarmike wandrick says:

    mentally disabled persons should be allowed to defend themselves, but if the have a gun it could be one with the barrel bent 180degrees so the last thing they see is the muzzel end of the barrel and a burst of fire.

  26. avatarmike wandrick says:

    has anyone shot the xd(m) 9mm recentl. How did it go?

  27. avatarmike wandrick says:

    Has anyone shot the XD(M) 9mm lately. How did it go.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      I’ve shot about 10k rounds through the gun. It’s going great. No FTFs, FTEs and plenty of wounded paper.

  28. avatarSaltporkdoc says:

    Something which gets lost in the CCW or Concealed Weapons permit debate are those like me. I am a former military (NOT retired) and former Police Officer (also NOT retired). I have 14 yrs street patrol duty experience. I have a contract on my head from a street gang, but because I did NOT retire as a police officer I had to apply for a Concealed Carry Permit. While I do not necessarily regret having to do so, I do wonder what happened in that split second from being a highly trained and respected police officer to civilian that suddenly relegated me to being a maniacal raging, untrustworthy, irresponsible, indiscrete, serial killer?
    Would I, armed, run to the sound of the guns again? Well, did firehorses ever quit getting agitated when the fire bell rang? Only when they changed the bells to tickertapes or so I’m told.
    How is this germane? Because, as a police officer in my state, there were no gun free zones for me! Now, I cannot visit my doctor (who belongs to the same gun club I do) without securing my firearm in my car. He cannot carry in his own office!
    Schizophrenia in the form of “feel good” “look what I did for you, now vote for me” anti Seond Amendment laws!
    Dumb!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.