Interesting article in the LA Times about armed bystander at the Gifford event

[MillCreek]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115,0,7713862.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed:%20latimes/news/nationworld/nation%20(L.A.%20Times%20-%20National%20News)&utm_source=feedburner


I did not see this elsewhere on the site. Not a bad article, in my view.

[Perd Hapley]

The fact that Zamudio was carrying a gun, and his split-second decision to keep it in his pocket, has come to encapsulate the complexity of the national gun debate.

Indeed it does. A police officer arriving on the scene would have faced the exact same choice as Zamudio. Zamudio, with no formal training, performed as well as any police officer could have. Case closed.

[longeyes]

Frankly I doubt that most such encounters present the ambiguities that the L.A. Times thrives on, especially if you are at the scene when the threat arises.

[MillCreek]

You know, though, that would be right up there on my list of my worst nightmares: to be in that sort of situation and take action against the wrong person.  That would be pretty hard to deal with.

[grampster]

Plus, the armed good samaritan runs the risk of being shot by LE by mistake.  Young man made a very good decision under the circumstances.

[Monkeyleg]

Rule #4: know your target and what's beyond it.

It's almost funny that the anti's can only argue hypothetical "what-if's", because the circumstances don't fit their positions.