defense

Gun Control Debates and the 2011 Tucson Attack in the USA

Cover photo; Gabrielle Giffords speaks with a US Army officer.

Gabrielle Giffords ended her Republican Party membership in 2000 and joined the Democratic Party. After serving more than five years in the Arizona House of Representatives and State Senate, she was elected as Arizona's representative for the 8th Congressional District in 2006. During his tenure in Congress, he has been a leader on issues such as border security, energy independence, and support for military families and veterans. In 2010, she received death threats and her office was attacked because of her vote in favour of health care reform.

On 8 January 2011, Giffords and 18 others were holding a ‘Congress on Your Corner’ public meeting event in the car park of a Safeway supermarket in Casas Adobes, Arizona, near Tucson, when they were attacked at gunpoint by Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner shot Giffords in the head at close range and then opened fire randomly at other attendees at the meeting. In this tragic incident, six people lost their lives, including Chief Judge John Roll of the Arizona District Court, Gabe Zimmerman, an advisor to Representative Giffords, nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Phyllis Schneck and Dorwan Stoddard.

Armed violence in the USA continues to bleed like a wound. A tragedy occurs, the society mourns and tries to heal; but soon a new incident occurs and the wound reopens. This cycle deeply affects society. To break this cycle, gun control offers a set of regulations that aim to enhance public safety and social welfare by placing legal restrictions on the acquisition, possession, transfer and use of firearms and other weapons. In this article, we will try to understand the different perspectives involved in the gun control debate in the US, both those in favour of gun control and those in favour of individual gun ownership.

The photo shows the people who lost their lives in the attack: 1)Christina-Taylor Green 9 years old / 2) Dorothy Morris 76 years 3) Federal Judge John Roll 63 years old, 4) Phyllis Schneck 79 years old 5) Dorwan Stoddard 76 years 6) Gabe Zimmerman is a 30-year-old aide to Representative Giffords.

Jared Lee Loughner is seen at the 2010 Tucson Book Festival in March. Jared Lee Loughner (b. 10 September 1988) is an American gunman convicted of 19 counts of murder and attempted murder for the 8 January 2011 shooting in Tucson that killed and injured several people.

People who knew Jared Lee Loughner state that they observed marked changes in his personality in the years preceding the attack, a period which was also characterised by alcohol and drug use. He was suspended from Pima Community College in September 2010 because of his bizarre behaviour and the disruption he caused in classes and in the library. Following his arrest, two separate medical assessments diagnosed Loughner with paranoid schizophrenia and found him incompetent to stand trial. During his imprisonment, he was started on medication as part of his treatment. An assessment in May 2012 found that Loughner was still not fit to stand trial.

However, an assessment in August 2012 concluded that Loughner was competent to stand trial and he subsequently pleaded guilty to 19 separate charges at trial. In November 2012, he was sentenced to 140 years in federal prison in addition to life without parole.

How did unemployed Jared Loughner buy the popular and expensive Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol?

Jared Lee Loughner purchased the handgun he used in the mass shooting on 8 January 2011 approximately six weeks after his family confiscated his first firearm, a shotgun. This information is contained in the files made public by the Pima County Sheriff's Department on 27 March 2013.

According to the file, Loughner obtained the Glock 19 - 9 mm semi-automatic pistol he used in the attack on 30 November 2010 from Sportsman's Warehouse, a sporting goods store near his home in northwest Tucson (at 3945 W. Costco Drive). According to store records, Loughner requested to be served by a younger staff member during his shopping trip. Although the younger employee found the request odd, she helped him complete the sale. A manager also signed the required background check forms, as required by company policy. The gun, together with a 15-round magazine and a box of ammunition, cost a total of $559.66.

A few weeks after the incident, Loughner went to the home of his friend Anthony Kuck and showed him his newly purchased handgun. He also showed him two tattoos on his back in the shape of bullets or bullets. Although it is not known what these tattoos mean, this made Kuck uneasy and he asked Loughner to leave the house.

Kuck's flatmate Derek Heintz, who had known Loughner for many years, also saw the gun and the 31-round magazine. Heintz removed some of the bullets from the magazine and Loughner entrusted him with one bullet. When Heintz asked Loughner what he planned to do with the gun and such a large capacity magazine, Loughner replied that he intended to use the gun for home defence.

However, handwritten notes found in a safe in Loughner's bedroom indicate that as early as 6 December 2010 he was planning to assassinate US Representative Gabrielle Giffords.The seized notes instructed the reader to preserve the casings and the gun lock on the grounds that they were of ‘historical significance’. This statement can be interpreted as meaning that the materials in question may be of evidentiary value in a possible investigation and should therefore be preserved. Furthermore, the content of the notes suggests that the author had a certain point of view on the events and intended to pass this point of view on to future generations.

At around 07:00 on the morning of the attack, Jared Lee Loughner attempted to procure additional ammunition. An employee of the Walmart store located at 7635 N. La Cholla Avenue later testified to authorities that Loughner exhibited unusual behaviour.

The employee stated that Loughner approached the store at a brisk pace and, when he noticed that the 9 mm ammunition was not in the display case, he requested that he check with the stockroom. Annoyed by Loughner's hasty behaviour, the staff member stated that the ammunition was out of stock without checking the warehouse.

In his testimony to the investigators, the employee stated that Loughner became visibly angry and left the store quickly. She testified, ‘He had a really angry look on his face,’ and ‘He kind of turned and walked away.’

A staff member who assisted Loughner at the customer service desk stated that he was ‘one of those unforgettable types’ and that he was in a hurry.Shortly thereafter, Loughner was able to purchase eight boxes of ammunition from another Walmart store at 8280 N. Cortaro Road for $83. Meanwhile, Loughner's first gun, a shotgun he had purchased in 2008 at the same Sportsman's Warehouse store, was locked in the trunk of a yellow car in his parents' garage. Following his suspension from Pima Community College, his family confiscated the shotgun upon a request by school administrators that if Jared Lee Loughner possessed a weapon, it be taken into custody. The shotgun was taken into custody along with another family weapon.

In addition to this file information, it is known that the magazine capacity of a standard Glock 19 pistol is 15 rounds. One of the important advantages of Glock pistols is that magazines of different capacities can be used. Thanks to this compatibility, the magazine capacity of the Glock 19 can be increased to 17, 24, 31, 33 and even more rounds by means of compatible extended magazines.

During my research into the attack in question, some sources have stated that the capacity of the extended magazines used was 32 or 33 rounds. However, the fact that 31 empty shells were found at the scene suggests that the capacity of the magazines used was 31 rounds. Therefore, in this article in Strasam, I have revised the capacity of these magazines as 31 rounds.

In some states of the USA, the process of acquiring a firearm involves minimal bureaucratic procedures. In Arizona, when an individual wishes to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer, they must first verify their identity by presenting their driver's licence. The dealer then conducts a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This check is done to determine if the buyer has any criminal record or legal restrictions that prevent them from owning a firearm. If no obstacles are found, the sale is completed and the buyer can take possession of the gun.

How did Jared Lee Loughner carry out the attack?

On 8 January 2011, at 10:10 a.m., an armed attack took place during the ‘Congress on Your Corner’ public meeting organised by Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords at the Safeway supermarket in the La Toscana Village shopping centre in Casas Adobes. The suspect arrived at the scene armed with a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with four magazines, two with 31 rounds and two with 15 rounds. While Giffords was at a table in front of the store, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner suddenly pulled out a handgun and shot Giffords in the head. There were approximately 20 to 30 people around Giffords at the time of the incident. Although the attack was recorded by a store security camera, it was not made public.

Weapons taken from Jared Lee Loughner in the photo; knife, four magazines, Glock 19

Loughner began firing randomly into the crowd. A member of staff at a nearby business stated that he heard ‘15 to 20 shots’. When Loughner paused to reload his gun, he dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket, which was picked up by eyewitness Patricia Maisch. Another eyewitness, Roger Salzgeber, tried to neutralise the attacker by hitting him on the head with a folding chair and was injured in the elbow. Salzgeber's injury was the 14th injury in the incident. After Loughner fell to the ground, 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who had also been shot, Maisch, Salzgeber and eyewitness Joseph Zamudio tried to overpower him. Joe Zamudio, who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), arrived at the scene after the shooting had stopped and did not use his firearm. As a result of the crime scene investigation, 31 empty casings were found by the investigators.

The first emergency call to the scene was made at 10:11 pm. While waiting for first responders to arrive, Gabrielle Giffords‘ intern, Daniel Hernández Jr. applied pressure to the gunshot wound to Giffords’ head, keeping her airway open and preventing a possible asphyxiation. This quick and effective intervention by Hernández and paramedic Aaron Rogers, who was present at the scene, played a critical role in Giffords' survival.

Likewise, the couple David Bowman, a doctor, and Nancy Bowman, a nurse, who were at the scene and happened to be shopping, immediately began triage and attended to the injured. They paid particular attention to nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green. Law enforcement officers arrived at the scene at 10:15 and paramedics at 10:16.

According to witness statements, during the arrest of the assailant, it was observed that he tried to throw a small bag containing cash and identification. Following the incident, the roads around the shopping centre were closed to traffic for a long time in order to ensure a proper investigation. A detailed investigation was initiated by the crime scene investigation teams and a security lane was set up in the area. This caused many businesses in the shopping centre to remain closed over the weekend. A week after the incident, the Safeway store reopened and a temporary memorial was placed in front of the store.

Five people died at the scene, including Chief Judge John Roll and Gabe Zimmerman, Gabrielle Giffords' social services director. The injured were immediately transported to University Medical Centre in Tucson. Sadly, nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

In this tragic incident, the media coverage of Joe Zamudio's experiences during the armed attack is striking and an examination of this issue will be useful in understanding the different dimensions of the incident.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Armed Civilian Intervention: The Case of Joe Zamudio

Before Joe Zamudio's intervention can be considered as evidence of the benefits of arming, the full details of the incident need to be analysed. In an interview with Fox and Friends, Zamudio described the moment of the incident as follows: ‘I came out of the store, the safety was off, I was ready, I had my hand on my gun. It was in my jacket pocket. That's how I turned the corner.’ Zamudio emphasised that he had his hand around his gun, ready to press the trigger. As he rounded the corner, he saw a person with a gun. ‘And at first I thought he was the shooter. I told him, ‘Let go, let go!’’ Zamudio recalled.

However, the person in question was not the shooter, but a meeting participant who had tried to take the gun from the assailant and had succeeded in doing so. The interviewer, noting a possible mistake by Zamudio, commented: ‘If you had shot that man, there could have been serious consequences’.

Zamudio's testimony emphasises the sudden and rapid development of the incident. He describes the moment of the incident as follows:

‘I was very lucky. To be honest, everything happened in a few seconds. Between the time I walked through the door and the time I jumped on [the perpetrator] and neutralised him, it was maybe two seconds, three at the most. In such a short period of time, I had to make one important decision after another... I was really lucky.’

When asked about Zamudio's competence in the use of weapons, he made the following statement:

‘I grew up around guns because of my father's influence. I am therefore confident in the use of weapons, but I have neither military service nor any professional weapons training. At the time of the incident, I acted purely on instinct.’

These statements emphasise the gravity of the incident and the accidental nature of Zamudio's role, while at the same time underlining his experience with weapons. The repetition of the phrase ‘I was lucky’ emphasises how fast the event unfolded and how fragile control was. The statement ‘I acted instinctively’ claims that although he had no professional training, his familiarity with weapons helped him make the right decisions at the time of the incident.

The Arizona Daily Star's interview with Zamudio reveals two important additional details about the incident. First, when Zamudio spotted the perpetrator, he ‘grabbed him by the arm and pushed him against the wall’ before realising that he was not the real shooter. Second, Zamudio did not draw his own weapon ‘to avoid being mistaken for a second gunman.’

This information suggests that the incident took on a much more dangerous dimension than previously reported. Zamudio unsecured his gun and prepared to fire, believing that the killer still had his gun in his hand. He had to decide within seconds whether to shoot or not. He was sure enough of the identity of the perpetrator to pin him against the wall. But he still didn't use his gun. He came close to killing an innocent man. In his own words, he was ‘very lucky.’

Responding to the scene of an armed attack, even with the intention of helping, brings with it the risk of targeting the wrong person due to the chaotic nature of the scene, high stress levels and poor situational awareness. Similarly, drawing your weapon, or even having your weapon visible, may cause you to be perceived as a second attacker by other similarly positioned armed people at the scene and thus become a target. Such a misunderstanding could result in your death or injury, as well as the death or injury of other armed persons in a similar position to you, or even fatal harm to each other on both sides. Even if this does not lead to direct conflict, it can lead to confusion and ultimately harm to innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the question ‘Can good guys with guns shoot other good guys with guns?’. This is highly dependent on the specific circumstances of the case and the level of situational awareness of individuals. In this particular shooting, there were two people carrying guns: Jared Lee Loughner and Joe Zamudio. However, when we assume that more people were armed in the chaotic environment at the time of the attack, it becomes clearer how likely it is for individuals to misidentify each other and make erroneous judgements.

Responding to armed incidents is inherently characterised by high risk and complexity. In particular, the possibility that civilians intervening in good faith may be mistakenly perceived as aggressors by both other civilians and security forces poses a serious security risk. The scenarios idealised by individual armament advocates do not correspond to the grim reality. Given the challenging, dynamic and high-stress nature of a real conflict environment, making the right judgements and implementing an effective response is much more difficult and can have serious consequences.

When examining self-defence scenarios, we often come across a fiction in which an individual encounters an aggressor under idealised conditions and can easily take control of the situation by using a firearm. In these scenarios, it is assumed that if the individual is attacked at home, at work, in a public place or in any other location, he/she will quickly draw his/her firearm to neutralise the attacker and will not be harmed. However, these simplified accounts ignore how complex, challenging and unpredictable a real conflict environment can be. Such scenarios are often based on unrealistic assumptions.

Even if a basic assumption is that the attacker is a single individual, the possibility that this individual may have a more sophisticated motivation for armed attack and the means to gain the upper hand through a sudden attack with a firearm is ignored. Even if it is assumed that the attacker is a single person, the possibility that this person may be more determined, more prepared and more capable of gaining an advantage through a sudden attack with a firearm is overlooked. This can significantly reduce the defender's chances of using his or her weapon and responding effectively. As a result, even if there is only one attacker, the advantages that this attacker may have makes it unrealistic to expect the easy and smooth outcome that self-defence scenarios envisage.

Secondly, the defender is assumed to be able to maintain composure and aim and fire flawlessly even under conditions of high stress. In times of mortal danger, i.e. when an individual faces a life-threatening situation, one of the body's immediate reactions is the release of adrenaline and an increase in stress hormones (such as cortisol). Although these physiological changes are designed to increase the chances of survival in the short term, they can have significant and often negative effects on cognitive and physical abilities. Known as the ‘Fight or Flight’ response, this causes the individual to experience a sudden burst of energy, sharpening their senses and speeding up their reflexes. However, this heightened state of arousal can also have unintended consequences.

One of the main problems caused by adrenaline and stress is hand tremor. As a result of increased tension in the muscles and overstimulation of the nervous system, involuntary tremors occur in the hands. This tremor makes it difficult to aim and hold the target, especially in situations requiring fine motor skills, for example when using a firearm. A precise trigger pull or an accurate aiming line is made more difficult by this tremor.

Another important effect is difficulty focussing. Under stress, the brain can suppress all other cognitive processes to focus on the threat and ensure survival. This can lead to distraction, lack of concentration and clouded thinking. It becomes difficult to make critical decisions and choose the right responses needed to eliminate the threat. The ability to focus on the target and to recognise other important elements in the environment is reduced. Most importantly, the brain's perception of time and movement is impaired. Stress and adrenaline can affect how the brain perceives time and movement. There may be a perception that time is passing faster or slower, which impairs the timing and co-ordination of movements.

For example, the timing required to move towards a goal or avoid an obstacle can be perceived erroneously when under stress, which can lead to wrong decisions or unsuccessful movements. This so-called ‘time compression’ can cause the individual to perceive events faster than they actually happen and thus to feel as if the reaction time is shortened. This is especially critical in situations requiring rapid response and directly affects visual-motor coordination. Combined, these impairments severely impair visuomotor coordination and thus accuracy in target identification. The link between visual information and motor response is weakened, which reduces the accuracy and efficiency of aiming, firing or any physical response. As a result, although the physiological responses that occur in a moment of mortal danger are intended to increase the individual's chances of survival, they can actually negatively affect performance, making the situation even more dangerous.

Images frequently seen on social media show that US police officers miss their targets during armed confrontations, despite firing handguns at close range. This contrasts sharply with situations in which some police officers successfully hit their targets and even make fatal shots. Underlying this difference is the control of stress and the adrenaline response. Adrenaline is a hormone that prepares the body for the ‘Fight or Flight’ response in times of danger. Under the right conditions, this hormone can provide the individual with increased strength, speed and focus. However, when adrenaline rises uncontrollably, it can have negative effects on cognitive and physical abilities. This control can enhance the ability to maintain composure, make good judgements and focus on the goal.

For example, when faced with sudden danger, a police officer can react quickly and effectively by utilising the effects of adrenaline at the right time through trained reflexes and mental preparation. This can enable him/her to accurately identify his/her target, take aim and make an accurate shot. However, when adrenaline starts to control the individual, i.e. when the person panics or becomes over-excited, the situation is reversed. Uncontrolled release of adrenaline can lead to hand trembling, difficulty focusing, impaired perception of time and distance, and even loss of the ability to think logically. This can lead to missed objectives, poor judgement and harm to oneself or others. In high stress situations, such as armed conflict, it is vital to be able to manage the effect of adrenaline. Proper training, constant practice and stress management skills can help an individual to react more effectively and safely in such situations.

Understanding when adrenaline is an advantage and when it is a disadvantage and being able to control it is an important factor for survival. Given the continuous and intensive training programmes, stress management protocols and periodic competency assessments that police organisations implement, it is evident that it is a significantly challenging and lengthy process for an ordinary civilian to achieve a similar level of performance. This highlights the importance of not only motor skills, but also cognitive and psychological preparation.

Thirdly, it is assumed that there are no innocent bystanders at the scene who might be accidentally shot. Especially in crowded environments or residential areas, the risk of ‘friendly fire’ is very high and can lead to tragic consequences. Fourth and finally, the possibility that the attacker may retaliate or attack again after fleeing the scene is ignored. An attacker who cannot be neutralised or is wounded may become even more dangerous and seek revenge.

The presence of even a single armed individual can significantly increase confusion and chaos at the scene, increasing the likelihood of harm to innocent civilians. Attempts by individuals without professional training and experience to neutralise an armed assailant can have unpredictable and potentially fatal consequences. It is therefore vital that priority is given to security forces authorised and specially trained to respond to armed incidents, and that civilians exercise the utmost care and caution in such situations.

Conclusion

The 2011 Tucson attack and the debates that followed are of great importance to analyse in depth. This tragic event clearly demonstrates that the common belief that ‘the good guy's gun always stops the bad guy’ needs to be examined in more detail, but it also emphasises that the ‘good guy with a gun’ narrative is not a valid solution in all circumstances and that the potential dangers and negative consequences inherent in armed interventions need to be carefully assessed.