Interesting NYT Article

**Redvole** · January 21st, 2011, 03:15 PM

Hold off on the knee-jerk responding...this is actually an interesting article. I am posting it because it is important to have an expert-level understanding of the opposition. This article is going to form the basis of one of the arguments for tighter control.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...nger/?emc=eta1

**Spishack357** · January 21st, 2011, 03:32 PM

Yes, you are correct, if I was a left leaning liberal, I would eat this stuff up.

I took a few things from it...mostly lies and contorted information...

It comes down to personal responsibility, if you don't definitively know who the shooter is...don't shoot... The author would have you believe that every single person at that rally would have been shot by some other innocent had more people been carrying. Granted, if you fly off the handle in a time of crisis, carrying a gun might not be the best thing for you to do...but that is your choice, not the .govs and certainly not this d bag journalist...

I also didn't like how he referred to carrying a gun as "packing heat"...

I do agree with the OP that learning more about the other side is a good thing for our side...

**falcn** · January 21st, 2011, 03:38 PM

Well there really WASN'T an armed person ON-SCENE - the kid they are talking about, Joseph Zamudio, did not witness the shootings. When he got to the sight the shooter was already being subdued. So he rightly decided not to use his firearm.

What other armed individuals were there that were actually on-scene?

I think the Penn study they reference was already discounted as being a flawed piece of investigation due to their methodology. I can't find the link to the actual study or its title - the link in the article is a link to a news release about the "study".

I don't think they separated the criminals in the victim pool - people who would have been shot by "rivals" regardless of being armed.

**donm** · January 21st, 2011, 04:18 PM

I've never heard a credible report that anyone else had a firearm at the scene -- the second "armed" individual you hear about was the guy who picked up the shooter's empty, slide-locked Glock.

As for the armed citizen, he acted like I'd expect a police officer arriving late to the scene to react, though the cop would obviously not have given the "free-form" interview with the press that has provided those misleading sound bites for the antis. He assessed the scene and never presented his firearm. You don't want to be holding a gun when the cavalry arrives.

The Penn study was ludicrous. They made no attempt to determine who was legally armed, and it was clear that most of the "armed victims" were criminals shot by other criminals. Of course they're more likely to be shot than a random person on the street. But I'm sure the people who wrote it got an A+ (or tenure) since it came to the "right" conclusion.