Misplaced Heroism

As usual, I was trying to choose from among three columns I had written for this week, when another topic screamed for attention. That topic is the main news story of the past two weeks, the assassination attempt and murder that took place in Arizona. You might think my title is strange, but bear with me and it will make sense.

I want to focus on just one very positive aspect of the incident that, as far as I can determine, has not been addressed in all the media coverage. There were two armed individuals at that shopping center.

Jared Loughner, the accused murderer was armed with a weapon that he not only shouldn’t have had, but that was also equipped with a 30-round clip. He used his weapon to murder six people, wound thirteen more, and unleash a perfect storm of anti-gun rhetoric from all corners of the country.

The other armed individual was Joe Zamudio, a man who possesses and carries a pistol with him legally. He was in a Walgreen store at the time of the shooting, and came out of the store to see the struggle to subdue the gunman already in progress.

Mr. Zamudio admitted that he had his hand on the butt of his pistol, and saw a person with gun in hand. However, before drawing his gun, Joe ran over and disarmed the person forcibly. He only learned later that the person he disarmed had just taken the gun from Mr. Loughner. Then, when Mr. Zamudio learned who the real villain was, he used his considerable weight to pin him to the ground until the police arrived.

What we have here is a perfect example of the difference between illegal (Loughner) and legal (Zamudio) gun holders. The one acted impulsively and criminally, while the other acted logically and legally.

I refer to Mr. Loughner’s gun as “illegal” because he should not have been able to purchase it in Arizona or any other state. He was a known drug user and exhibited the type of behavior that should have set off alarms during the federal checks when he bought his first gun, a shotgun, and later the Glock 40mm that he used in the shootings.

In this case, the lack of communication was between the military and the ATF, which is even worse, since both are federal branches of Homeland Security.

Nearly ten years after 9/11 we still do not have open lines of communication between our local, state and federal agencies. And we are so handcuffed by political correctness that we don’t report or record suspect behavior for follow up action.

Mr. Zamudio was asked in an interview whether or not he would have used his gun. He answered—and this is critical—that, “Yes, I would have shot him. I would have shot the man holding the gun.” Had he not been a trained and responsible gun owner, he probably would have shot the innocent person who had just disarmed the shooter.

Mr. Zamudio is being lauded as a hero, but I think the credit he deserves is misplaced. Yes, he did help to detain the assailant, but he arrived after Jared Loughner had already been disarmed. His true heroism is in the fact that he exercised restraint and disarmed the gun holder, rather than shooting. That is what I believe was heroic on his part. It took a lot of courage to do that.

I’m going to go a step further and state that I believe Mr. Zamudio is a living, walking advertisement for 2nd Amendment gun rights. No law passed by state or federal government is going to prevent people like Jared Lee Loughner from obtaining and using firearms, but it might prevent a Joe Zamudio from intervening in protecting himself and others around him.

I wish the fools who are trying to find someone else to share the blame in this tragic and senseless massacre, and who now want to use it to promote their anti-gun agenda, would wake up to the reality. A responsible armed citizen is no threat to anyone except those who would harm him or someone close to him—or her, for that matter. Women have 2nd Amendment rights as well as men, and should exercise them.