Tucson widow calls for gun control

Mavy Stoddard's husband Dory died in the Tucson shooting last year that also claimed five lives and wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords. / CBS News

(CBS News) ST. LOUIS - Mavy Stoddard and her husband, Dory, were independent voters who decided to meet their Democratic Representative, Gabby Giffords, at one of her "Congress On Your Corner" events on a Saturday morning last January 8, 2011.

They were the ninth and tenth people in line when the shooting started. Mavy thought she had heard a firecracker. Then she saw a young man with a gun raised about 20 feet away.

"My eyes lit on the shooter as he was pulling the trigger in a shooting stance," Stoddard recalled in an interview at St. Louis City Hall.

Dory, 76, a retired construction worker and church volunteer, immediately pushed her down to the sidewalk and laid on top of her.

"I thought he would shoot and run away. Instead, he walked through the crowd and shot at close range," Stoddard said.

Jared Loughner allegedly shot 19 people, 6 fatally. He held the gun to Dory's left temple and pulled the trigger.

"I felt his is body give under him. I saw the blood start dripping to the concrete," Stoddard said.

She said she knew he faced severe brain damage or death. Dory never spoke another word.

"Within 7 to 10 minutes he was gone," she said.

Mavy Stoddard had been shot in the leg three times but did not know it. One bullet was lodged in her thigh.

"I felt I died with him," Stoddard said. "I had to build a life if I was going to have one."

Stoddard came to St. Louis during the National Rifle Association's annual convention with two other Tucson shooting survivors, Patricia Maisch and Bill Badger to call for more restrictive gun laws.

Gun enthusiasts unite at NRA convention

"I'm here to advocate that we fix the illegal gun laws to where people selling them have to call and check who they're selling to," Stoddard said.

Loughner was able to purchase a semi-automatic Glock 19 pistol from a local sporting goods store, because he passed a background check. Though he has since been ruled mentally incompetent, which would have disqualified him from gun purchases, Loughner's condition had not been reported to the state or the FBI criminal records system.

Stoddard, who owns three pistols herself, wants lawmakers to close loopholes that allow ineligible individuals obtain guns or for guns to be sold, such as at gun shows or by internet sellers, without conducting background checks. Stoddard also wants the NRA to help.

"They're so afraid that guns are going to be taken from this country. They aren't. They're part of our heritage. We just don't want them put in the hands of children and the felons, and we need that checked," Stoddard said. "We need to stand shoulder to shoulder in this country and try to save our kids."

Stoddard is skeptical of the NRA's call to expand rights to carry guns, concealed and otherwise, into more public places.

"Bars? You put a drunk and a gun together, it's pretty tough. Somebody is going to get killed. You put a gun on campus with hotheaded 20-year-olds. That's danger waiting to happen," Stoddard said "Use the same common sense with guns that you use in everything else in your life. Just don't go along with the crowd like sheep following to the slaughter, because that's what it could be."

[reality_sanity]

by OIF_to_USC April 15, 2012 9:06 PM EDT
Wrong r_s. While numbers of offenders with concealed weapons permits are not cross referenced with violent criminals who use firearms,...

======


So contrary to another fabrication you admit to I was RIGHT. Secondly I did google for other sources -- found a 10 year old document that predates SYG laws -- pretty much useless to evaluate CCW permit holders or the effects of the law. If the government database held CCW information and PAST EXPIRED CCE ties for criminals one could actually with some validity speak as to the safety and effectiveness of CCW permit holders. -- Should one be jailed for the possession of a CCW under the influence, I cannot imagine even the NRA believes that a drunk with a gun is any safer than a drunk with a car.

[reality_sanity]

OIF_to_USC you cite the following sources for information on the safety and lack of criminal activity of those with CCWs (according to the Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report.)

Since these reports do not contain CCW information for the reported offender HOW DO THEY PROVIDE ANY INDICATION of the safety and lack of criminal activity by CCW holders -- THEY DO NOT. Once again MORE LIES.

Would you care to support identification of criminals that possessed CCW permits so you UNSUBSTANTIATED FABRICATION can actually be substantiated by research? It would seem this information should be required to set insurance rates for the protection of anyone who is the victim of a misused weapon in the hands of a CCW permit holder or another person if the CCW holder fails to inappropriately secure his weapon.

[reality_sanity]

That should have been ... fails to appropriately secure his weapon.

[OIF_to_USC]

Wrong r_s. While numbers of offenders with concealed weapons permits are not cross referenced with violent criminals who use firearms, the NIJ/BJS has published commissioned research papers showing that licensees are safer and more responsible with weapons than law enforcement officers. As academy instructors, this study was brought to our attention and we passed that information on to our students. NIJ/BJS publishes reams of different studies -- in addition to their stats involving crime categories that most people are familiar with. You can Google DOJ, NIJ/BJS, the most accurate source to be found, and find studies that address almost any issue.


Now, what criminals with concealed carry permits are you referring too? If a CCW licensee becomes a felon, then that person loses his/her license and cannot even own or purchase weapons since they would get red flagged in the NCIC data base.

[OIF_to_USC]

Jared Loughner was already well known by law enforcement officers in the Tucson area. Loughner had already been involved in threatening conduct toward others, as well as marijuana use and possession. Each time the police just blew it off and sent this "lit fuse" on his way. If Loughner had been arrested ... just once ... he would have had to have undergone a mandatory mental health assessment that would have given him a diagnoses of severe schizophrenia, further aggravated by incessant pot smoking. That diagnoses alone would have flagged Loughner in the NCIC data base during the National Instant Background Check when he tried to purchase a weapon and the sale would have been "denied." That is not to say that he wouldn't have stolen a gun and still committed the murders and maiming, but certainly, everything else would have at least slowed him down. If you want to blame anybody, then blame the police and the mental health communities for not doing their jobs, not the NRA and the American people.

[OIF_to_USC]

sandiegopete, I read the Home Protection; Use of Deadly Force; Presumption of Fear of Death or Great Bodily Harm. It would be a far stretch for anybody to shoot a plain clothes officer while in the commission of his/her duties. Besides, we were trained to not assume that our actions couldn't be misinterpreted by even other officers. Officers have to identify themselves during a questioning or arrest, and almost never work alone when apprehending and restraining someone. In fact, officers who draw their weapons must "loudly and repeatedly" identify themselves as law enforcement. There is a lot of the contrary on TV, but not in reality.

[sandiegopete]

I knew it. The NRA supporters are crawling out of the woodwork again claiming the only way order in our society can be preserved is for every citizen to harm himself or herself and settle disputes with a gun. These NRA supporters seem to have a deep seated hatred of sworn uniformed law enforcement personnel. They believe that the citzen-vigilante is the most effective means of keeping the public order. Their main goal is to cut back on uniformed police presence and shift keeping local order to untrained vigilantes who can shoot to kill at will.

The NRA and its supporters are best portrayed in the film "The Ox Bow Incident" by the character Major Tetley.

[MontanaLibertarian]

Kindly show me anywhere at all that the NRA has encouraged everyone to go armed. They don't. They do believe all non-felons and sane people have that right, but they recognize many will choose not to exercise it.

The NRA has been a great supporter of law enforcement since its inception and has developed and furnished much of what is now accepted as standard law enforcement firearms training.

If you live by such fantastic stereotypes I pity you.

[OIF_to_USC]

@sandiegopete, you're blowing clouds of blue smoke. The only people crawling out of the woodwork are Michael Bloomberg and his paid MAIG supporters, the Joyce Foundation's oddly named Violence Policy Center, and the increasingly unpopular Brady Bunch with their magic numbers.


Speaking as a 17 year veteran of law enforcement before becoming an educator, NRA has always been a friend of law enforcement. In fact, a sizable number of NRA members are law enforcement officers and administrators. We support them and they support us and the American people who make up the NRA.


Citizen vigilante??!! Where did you pull that one out of? Are you referring to the "10 million+" law abiding citizens in America with concealed carry permits and the untold millions more who carry weapons in their vehicles when they travel? They are actually the safest, most law abiding, and most responsible segment of American society -- more than even the American law enforcement community, according to the Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Obviously you did not know that - now you do. No need to thank me.

[strikerF2]

Like someone who is insane or a criminal would give a crapola about another law.This woman needs some counseling herself.

[Larry1355]

Let's go back to the college he was removed from earlier. They had him expelled and sent the police to his house to do this. They knew there was something wrong with him then and did nothing. Does this sound familiar? That's why the school had to pay out to the victims and their families. No one wants to loose a loved one but, if there is a problem with the mental stability of someone there needs to be an investigation of that person. It's happennig far too much now...check them out and do it right. Both cases are too alike in many ways.

[MontanaLibertarian]

It's perfectly obvious we have two diametrically opposed points of view here:

1. Some among us trust that the government could enact additional controls on weapons that would be (a)not intrusive on the right to keep and bear arms by ordinary individuals and (b)effective in stemming violence committed by armed criminals or the crazed.

2. Some among us believe that the government would screw things up rather worse than improving the situation and that some in government would use the effort to advance an agenda aimed at eliminating the private ownership of guns.

If you will look up the statements made by Senators Diane Feinstein, D California and Charles Schumer, D New York, you will see that the fear of private agendas I mentioned is very well founded.

If you will consider the bad unintended consequences of the vast bulk of government initiatives on the federal level, you will see that anticipating the government to screw up is also a well founded conviction. Just a few examples among the host that could be offered:

The US Department of Education is founded in 1980, aimed at making educational excellence universal in the nation. Thirty plus years later the feds have spent many billions of dollars, issued more regulations than anyone could count, and our schools and the performance of our children and schools has declined in an alarming fashion.

The US Department of Energy is founded in 1977, with the clear goal of drastically reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Thirty plus years later I think you can all do the math: many billions spent, many regulations written, many boondoggles caused (think Solynrda, think ethanol subsides and usage mandates -there's a long list).

It's pretty clear, those with the point of view outlined in (2) above have the evidence on their side.

[mari1963]

God bless this nice lady. My sympathy goes out to her.

[strikerF2]

Maybe we should ban cars,more people are killed by cars than guns,some are drunk drivers,some fall to sleep and some are illegals,so we should ban all cars and go back to travel by railroad and buses?

[jmn122736]

by David_Tampa April 15, 2012 1:46 AM EDT
Five people carrying at the site of the shooting probably would have saved lives.


David, consider this scenario: Everyone in the crowd at the meeting had a gun and the first person, Loughner, shoots someone. A second person shoots Loughner, then a third person, someone who didn't see Loughner fire the first shot, then shoots this person who triggers a circle of gunfire where everyone in the crowd is shooting someone else whom they assume to be the aggressor, Resulting in Utter chaos.
This scenario is not just possible it is extremely likely

Saying that anyone and everyone should be allowed to carry a gun anywhere they choose is like saying that everyone should be allowed to drive their cars at 100 MPH in downtown New York..

BTW, I own and sometimes carry a pistol I also own a shotgun and two rifles, I have hunted game all my life. But I never carry my pistol in heavily used public areas.

I have never belonged to nor supported the IRA because They champion causes that have been extremely harmful to America, If not for the heavy support of the IRA, Bush would never have become president in 2000 and the country, almost certainly, would not be in the terrible shape it is in today.

And to gruven13777100: Were it not for the true Liberals of this country you would not have the "LIBERTY" you enjoy today.
I have little to no respect for those who continuously try to make "Liberal" a bad word.

[jmn122736]

mecanik-2009 Your statement is very misleading.

I Don't know about the "proven" part, but I will accept as fact that a police officer arriving at the scene of a crime is more likely to shoot the wrong person then a person who was at the scene and witnessed the initial crime, but that is because almost everyone at the scene is generally NOT armed. In my scenario there is a crowd and everyone has a gun. And in that situation, this is not just a possibility, but an extremely likely one

[strikerF2]

Crime only went up 360% when England decided to ban handguns.Seems the criminals felt free to attack and rob anyone.

[brsinai]

What would have happened if just one person in the audience would have had a legal license to carry a weapon and had one available the moment Loughner started shooting? Criminals will always have access to guns, legal or not, and it is difficult to imagine any laws that would prohibit citizenry from being able to defend themselves from others will evil intent. Wishing away criminal behavior through stricter gun control laws is just wishing to live in LaLa land.