Concealed Carry and the Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

[billay]

 

Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

By TIMOTHY EGAN

 

Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.

 

PHOENIX — To many gun owners, the question of whether to arm even more people in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns is as calcified as a Sonoran Desert petroglyph. It’s written in stone, among the fiercest of firearms advocates, that more guns equals fewer deaths.

 

But before the Tucson tragedy fades into tired talking points, it’s worth dissecting the crime scene once more to see how this idea fared in actual battle.

 

First, one bit of throat-clearing: I’m a third-generation Westerner, and grew up around guns, hunters of all possible fauna, and Second Amendment enthusiasts who wore camouflage nine months out of the year. Generally, I don’t have a problem with any of that.

 

Back to Tucson. On the day of the shooting, a young man named Joseph Zamudio was leaving a drugstore when he saw the chaos at the Safeway parking lot. Zamudio was armed, carrying his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Heroically, he rushed to the scene, fingering his weapon, ready to fire.

 

Suppose, in the few seconds of confusion during the shootings, an armed bystander had fired at the wrong man.

Now, in the view of the more-guns proponents, Zamudio might have been able to prevent any carnage, or maybe even gotten off a shot before someone was killed.

 

“When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim,” said Arizona state representative Jack Harper, after a gunman had claimed 19 victims.

 

“I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson,” said an Arizona Congressman, Rep. Trent Franks, implying like Harper that if only someone had been armed at the scene, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to unload his rapid-fire Glock on innocent people.

 

In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.

 

He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

 

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.

 

It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.

 

I don’t think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That’s never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress. Yes, Congress. The Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has proposed a bill to allow fellow members to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.

 

Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work. By his reasoning, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons.

 

At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault — just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer.

 

Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

 

Arizona, where people can carry guns into bars and almost anyone can get a concealed weapons permit, is one of the top 10 states for gun ownership and death rates by firearms. And in the wake of the shootings, some lawmakers want to flood public areas with even more lethal weapons.

 

Tuesday of this week was the first day of classes at Arizona State University, and William Jenkins, who teaches photography at the school, did not bring his weapon to campus. For the moment, it’s still illegal for professors to pack heat while they talk Dante and quantum physics.

 

But that may soon change. Arizona legislators have been pushing a plan to allow college faculty and students to carry concealed weapons at school.

 

“That’s insane,” Jenkins told me. “On Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I can’t imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem.”

 

He’s right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

[yo mama]

The solution to gun violence is not more guns. But the 2nd Amendment is what it is.

[SEC=UGA]

He makes some valid points.

 

Kennesaw, GA, every person within the city limits is supposed to own a firearm for home protection... 6 murders in the past 20 years.

 

Chicago, which has one of the strongest anti-gun lwas in the nation has historically had one of the highest murder rates in the country.

 

New JErsey has some of the toughest handgun laws in the nation, yet Camden is often the murder capital of the nation.

 

New York has very strict handgun ownership laws, bunch of people get killed there.

 

You can do fun things with statistics.

 

Every person should not be carrying around a firearm. In some circumstances, as the author points out, they can become a liabiltiy to the person legally carrying it should they not have the proper training in how to use or the will to use it.

[bpwallace49]

I own several guns and I am a hunter.

 

That being said, I never feel the need to walk around town carrying a firearm. I just dont see the point. Also I dont understand why people feel the need to strap on a gun for walking around the house in case a pushy solictor comes by.

 

Unless you live next door to rabid bears or mountain lions, I just dont get it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

He makes some valid points.

 

Kennesaw, GA, every person within the city limits is supposed to own a firearm for home protection... 6 murders in the past 20 years.

 

Chicago, which has one of the strongest anti-gun lwas in the nation has historically had one of the highest murder rates in the country.

 

New JErsey has some of the toughest handgun laws in the nation, yet Camden is often the murder capital of the nation.

 

New York has very strict handgun ownership laws, bunch of people get killed there.

 

You can do fun things with statistics.

 

Every person should not be carrying around a firearm. In some circumstances, as the author points out, they can become a liabiltiy to the person legally carrying it should they not have the proper training in how to use or the will to use it.

jebuss more than half the population should not be aloud to have kids but we should let everyone have a gun.

[SEC=UGA]

jebuss more than half the population should not be aloud to have kids but we should let everyone have a gun.

 

Yuk, I should have clarified this better, I guess. My idea with regard to gun ownership is on par with my opinion of who should be allowed to vote, is that restrictive enough for you?

 

Read the second to last sentence of my response again. And the first sentence.

 

In the middle I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are other "facts" that run contra to some of his "facts".

Edited January 21, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Square]

You can do fun things with statistics.

sta·tis·tics (used with a pl. verb) Numerical data.

Chicago, which has one of the strongest anti-gun lwas in the nation has historically had one of the highest murder rates in the country.

 

New JErsey has some of the toughest handgun laws in the nation, yet Camden is often the murder capital of the nation.

 

New York has very strict handgun ownership laws, bunch of people get killed there.

 

I don't know if you can call those statistics without... you know, numbers and actual data. Statistics might not mean what you think it means.

 

 

I'm just f-ing with you.

 

Overall though, I have a similar line of thinking as the author. Most people wouldn't do anything to really "help" even if they were armed. And there are a lot of ways they could make things worse in a firefight. I barely trust cops with guns (Criminal Justice majors at my school were mainly morans and meatheads).

[sundaynfl]

What a crock of crap! The article is titled the "myth' of the hero gunslinger; when in fact the guy came to help and did the right thing and made the right choice not to shoot, just like a cop would have! Almost shot?? That's like me saying: "I almost shot a lot of hunters, because I was walking around the woods with a loaded gun!" I believe most states require training for a concealed weapons permit... at least Colorado does. The guy did not draw his weapon and made the right choice; had the guy not been tackled and was able to reload, the concealed weapon holder would have probably saved a lot of people! Here's his interview:

 

Link

 

And where are all these other people that were packing heat????

[DMD]

So the author takes away from the ARI situation not what happened, but what could have theoretically happened if the legal gun carrying man had shot the wrong person even though he did not. Even though he like any rational person surveyed the scene and made a judgment call to not shoot anyone without knowing for sure. Had he been there in the audience and seen the shooter kill the congresswoman, then I would lay down my money that he would have been able to act in time to save a nine year old girl from being murdered. The legally carrying gun owner did everything society would have wanted him to do in that situation and the guy did not seem like a mensa candidate either. But the author wants to conjure up what could have happened if he acted in a different way than he did. Really? Why stop there - why not pretend the second gunman shot at him and missed but all the bullets ricocheted into a playground killing special needs children. The premise of an article is on something that in no way happened and that has not happened. That has to be the oddest intro to a anti-gun piece I have ever seen.

 

Suppose, in the few seconds of confusion during the shootings, an armed bystander had fired at the wrong man.

 

Ridiculous.

[yo mama]

So the author takes away from the ARI situation not what happened, but what could have theoretically happened if the legal gun carrying man had shot the wrong person even though he did not. Even though he like any rational person surveyed the scene and made a judgment call to not shoot anyone without knowing for sure. Had he been there in the audience and seen the shooter kill the congresswoman, then I would lay down my money that he would have been able to act in time to save a nine year old girl from being murdered. The legally carrying gun owner did everything society would have wanted him to do in that situation and the guy did not seem like a mensa candidate either. But the author wants to conjure up what could have happened if he acted in a different way than he did. Really? Why stop there - why not pretend the second gunman shot at him and missed but all the bullets ricocheted into a playground killing special needs children. The premise of an article is on something that in no way happened and that has not happened. That has to be the oddest intro to a anti-gun piece I have ever seen.

 

 

 

Ridiculous.

Dude. Hypothesizing about what "could happen" is exactly what gun advocates do every time they argue that horrible situations can be averted if only good citizens are allowed to walk around more freely with concealed and carried firearms. At best, its something both sides of this debate are guilty of.

 

Besides, I didn't really think the author was criticizing the gun owner for doing anything wrong. The main point was just that the existence of a good citizen having a concealed firearm in this particular situation didn't really make a difference one way or the other. And apparently the author believes there are least two studies that illustrate that point on a broader level.

Edited January 21, 2011 by yo mama

[Caveman_Nick]

I own several guns and I am a hunter.

 

That being said, I never feel the need to walk around town carrying a firearm. I just dont see the point. Also I dont understand why people feel the need to strap on a gun for walking around the house in case a pushy solictor comes by.

 

Unless you live next door to rabid bears or mountain lions, I just dont get it.

 

 

I never feel the need to carry a firearm either. I just don't think it should be illegal to do so.

[Ursa Majoris]

So the author takes away from the ARI situation not what happened, but what could have theoretically happened if the legal gun carrying man had shot the wrong person even though he did not. Even though he like any rational person surveyed the scene and made a judgment call to not shoot anyone without knowing for sure.

 

This

 

Dude. Hypothesizing about what "could happen" is exactly what gun advocates do every time they argue that horrible situations can be averted if only good citizens are allowed to walk around more freely with concealed and carried firearms. At best, its something both sides of this debate are guilty of.

 

But this too.

[bpwallace49]

I never feel the need to carry a firearm either. I just don't think it should be illegal to do so.

 

I have also been trained to use firearms, and if someone wants to walk around like Wyatt Earp around his house coughperchcough then I dont think a training certification is too much to ask for.

[westvirginia]

Billay, we're all aware you are ascairt of guns. So don't own one. But this is ridiculous, for reasons made clear by DMD and sundaynfl above.

 

Yo, there are statistics that show an armed society is a polite society. John Lott is the gold standard in this regard. His book is the gold standard in research, and even weigie has admitted his credentials are impressive (U of Chicago Econ prof somethingorother). No one has to make up any scenario - the fact that this guy made a good decision in a shoot/don't shoot scenario is probably better evidence for our side than the anti-gun side. Gasp! An armed citizen making the decision NOT to shoot? Why, this could fly in the face of our characterizations of those "gun-nuts" as itchy, trigger-finger crazies! I must spin this!"

[Furd]

I don't want any other f*cker to carry a gun. Just me - no one else.

 

As I see it, 95% or more (including cops) of those who carry are not properly trained for it. And 98.5 percent of those who carry have absloutely no idea what will happen if faced with a situation in which they might use it.

 

Getting a "certification" typically means that you can answer a few questions about gun safety and gun laws, demonstrate proficiency in handling it and show the instructor that you can hit the broad side of the barn at 7 yards..

 

You "more guns are good" guys" are crazy.

[bpwallace49]

I don't want any other f*cker to carry a gun. Just me - no one else.

 

As I see it, 95% or more (including cops) of those who carry are not properly trained for it. And 98.5 percent of those who carry have absloutely no idea what will happen if faced with a situation in which they might use it.

 

Getting a "certification" typically means that you can answer a few questions about gun safety and gun laws, demonstrate proficiency in handling it and show the instructor that you can hit the broad side of the barn at 7 yards..

 

You "more guns are good" guys" are crazy.

 

I find is kinda odd that we require more stringent certification for driving a car than we do for gun ownership/safety.

 

Considering all the stories we see about people that walk into water fountains in malls becasue they were texting, it makes me feel extremely UNsafe thinking if they are also carrying a gun.

 

I know how to handle firearms and grew up respecting their power and potential for misuse. I am not worried about my ability to carry a gun if needed. I am much more worried about all the other morans that also could be carrying guns.

[Ursa Majoris]

I find is kinda odd that we require more stringent certification for driving a car than we do for gun ownership/safety.

I'd dispute that. Here in Minnesota you can pass your driving test on a closed course.

[bpwallace49]

I'd dispute that. Here in Minnesota you can pass your driving test on a closed course.

 

and what test do you have to pass to demonstrate your ability to safety operate a firearm in Minnesota?

[westvirginia]

To carry in public? You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

And ursa's right, driving tests are jokes, and I'd bet you could do a lot more damage on a crowded street during rush hour with a car than a gun. IMO, the two don't really compare though.

 

and what test do you have to pass to demonstrate your ability to safety operate a firearm in Minnesota?

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

Never bought into the "If everybody is armed, people think twice" mentiality. I live in Arizona and the gun laws are insane, and they are based on an NRA fueled propaganda machine that uses this kind of logic.

 

I remember about a year ago I was reading the newspaper and on the same week that Arizona passed a law that allowed you to carry a concealed firearm without a permit into a bar, they outlawed Sparklers.... When I was a kid I asked my dad why we never went hunting with any of my uncles and he told me because while they are out hunting, they are also drinking, and you should never handle a firearm while drinking. That's when it hit me, Arizona had gone off the deep-end.

 

What we need to do is apply a little common sense to our gun laws. Exclude the card carrying right wing NRA extremists (not all NRA members are extremists, or right wing) and the left wing loonies that want all guns outlawed, and come up with something that makes sense.

 

Even if everyone in that parking lot was armed, it still would not of prevented what happened, the guy was a loon, and he walked right up and fired. What would of made a difference would of been a saner set of gun laws. Something as simple as not allowing a 30 round clip would of made a major difference.

 

This guy got off 31 rounds hitting 19 people, some of them more than once. So his accuracy (or luck) was pretty damm good. What stopped it was people jumping him when he tried to reload. If he would of had a normal clip it would of probably made a big difference in the amount of people killed and wounded. He would of still got Giffords, but not all the others.

 

And before someone jumps in and says that if that 30 round clip was illegal he would of still gotten one on the street look at the facts. Up to the point of shooting this guy did everything by the book. Went to a gunshop and bought the gun and clip. Went to Walmart and bought the ammo. Carried in in a concealed manner. All legal activities. He wasn't a criminal, he wasn't a gangbanger, he showed nothing that would indicate he would of even know how to purchase something illegally.

[Perchoutofwater]

I own several guns and I am a hunter.

 

That being said, I never feel the need to walk around town carrying a firearm. I just dont see the point. Also I dont understand why people feel the need to strap on a gun for walking around the house in case a pushy solictor comes by.

 

Unless you live next door to rabid bears or mountain lions, I just dont get it.

 

 

You work at a country club, so you probably don't have to worry too much about it, unless you really piss off the head of the mint julep committee. Some of us work around a lot rougher individuals. I've had a stranger come into my house and I did pull my gun on him. I didn't s shoot him. I assessed the situation much like the guy in Arizona did, and holstered my weapon when I realized it was a mentally challenged individual. Most people that have a concealed handgun license are probably better trained than your average cop. I know my aim is definitely better than most cops because I'll fire more practice rounds in a month than the average cop does all year. Additionally there are tactical classes that people can take. I'd say about 40% of the guys I know that have a CHL have taken at least one tactical (practical) class. As a matter of fact the fastest growing fire arms competitions aren't skeet, trap, silhouette, but tactical (practical) competitions.

[Perchoutofwater]

Never bought into the "If everybody is armed, people think twice" mentiality. I live in Arizona and the gun laws are insane, and they are based on an NRA fueled propaganda machine that uses this kind of logic.

 

I remember about a year ago I was reading the newspaper and on the same week that Arizona passed a law that allowed you to carry a concealed firearm without a permit into a bar, they outlawed Sparklers.... When I was a kid I asked my dad why we never went hunting with any of my uncles and he told me because while they are out hunting, they are also drinking, and you should never handle a firearm while drinking. That's when it hit me, Arizona had gone off the deep-end.

 

What we need to do is apply a little common sense to our gun laws. Exclude the card carrying right wing NRA extremists (not all NRA members are extremists, or right wing) and the left wing loonies that want all guns outlawed, and come up with something that makes sense.

 

Even if everyone in that parking lot was armed, it still would not of prevented what happened, the guy was a loon, and he walked right up and fired. What would of made a difference would of been a saner set of gun laws. Something as simple as not allowing a 30 round clip would of made a major difference.

 

This guy got off 31 rounds hitting 19 people, some of them more than once. So his accuracy (or luck) was pretty damm good. What stopped it was people jumping him when he tried to reload. If he would of had a normal clip it would of probably made a big difference in the amount of people killed and wounded. He would of still got Giffords, but not all the others.

 

And before someone jumps in and says that if that 30 round clip was illegal he would of still gotten one on the street look at the facts. Up to the point of shooting this guy did everything by the book. Went to a gunshop and bought the gun and clip. Went to Walmart and bought the ammo. Carried in in a concealed manner. All legal activities. He wasn't a criminal, he wasn't a gangbanger, he showed nothing that would indicate he would of even know how to purchase something illegally.

 

If the guy standing next to him had a firearm, I'm guessing he probably wouldn't have gotten off more than a couple of shots, and the magazine issue that you and so many of your frightened friends are worried about wouldn't have even come into play as he wouldn't have even come close to emptying half of a standard magazine, much less the extended magazine.

 

I'll admit I don't know about the CHL laws in Arizona other than that they recognize my Texas CHL. I will say this, here you have to take an 8 hour class on laws and restrictions, prove yourself safe and proficient at the range, and go through a much more thorough background check than you do when you purchase a gun. Additionally you typically have to wait 3-6 months to get your license after you've taken the class and done the range work. Of course this really isn't a waiting period, it's just that so many people are applying they take forever to process the paper work.

 

You say the guy was accurate or lucky, but that percentage of hits is terrible. I'd be embarrassed if I only hit 62% of what I was aiming at. You also say that he did everything right. Only problem is we know the police knew all about this guy, and had several calls on him. Maybe of the legal system and that idiot Sheriff actually enforced the current laws rather than politically grandstanding, he would not have gotten the gun. I'd much rather the current laws be enforced than have more restrictions placed on me when law enforcement fails to enforce the law.

[Duchess Jack]

If the guy standing next to him had a firearm, I'm guessing he probably wouldn't have gotten off more than a couple of shots

or he might have paniced or others around him might have paniced and he might have shot somebody he didn't intend to shoot, seeing as how Arizona takes gun ownership so lightly.

 

You say the guy was accurate or lucky, but that percentage of hits is terrible. I'd be embarrassed if I only hit 62% of what I was aiming at.

so is it safe to say that somebody who pulls a gun and aims at one person might have less a percent chance to hit than the 62% accuracy the guy had shooting into a group of people? If those shots were made within a paniced crowed - how likely would they be to hit somebody else? Would you accept one of your children dying because some inexperienced shooter thought he was John Wayne?

Edited January 22, 2011 by Duchess Jack

[Caveman_Nick]

I have also been trained to use firearms, and if someone wants to walk around like Wyatt Earp around his house coughperchcough then I dont think a training certification is too much to ask for.

 

So have I, and I am also a NRA certified instructor. I've never held that training is too much to ask for.

 

So we agree: Proper training and a background check should be all that's required for a license to carry a firearm? No other BS involved?

[Yukon Cornelius]

. Maybe of the legal system and that idiot Sheriff actually enforced the current laws rather than politically grandstanding, he would not have gotten the gun. I'd much rather the current laws be enforced than have more restrictions placed on me when law enforcement fails to enforce the law.

he would have got the gun anyway there is no waiting period there.