Sunday, March 29, 2015

Gun Rights Activist Nikki Goeser


"I'll never know if I coulda stopped my stalker from killing my husband."

That's not very honest of Nikki.  Better would have been to admit that in all probability, she couldn't have stopped the killer even if she'd been armed at the time.  The fact is when a sick person pulls out a gun and kills another, it's nearly impossible to stop them in time.  You'd have to be in the exact right place at the exact right time, and even then it might be too late.

No, allowing guns in bars would not help, it would hurt.

19 comments:

  1. "I'll never know if I coulda stopped my stalker from killing my husband."

    What's dishonest about what she said? She didn't say she absolutely would have saved her husband's life- she said she was denied the best chance. So her words weren't as pessimistic of her chances to your likening, so that makes her dishonest, huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It certainly qualifies for Kurt's type of honesty - yours to apparently.

      Delete
    2. It certainly qualifies for Kurt's type of honesty - yours to apparently.

      Best kind there is, in my humble opinion.

      Delete
    3. Another question is, addressing your claim of being in the right place at the right time, if you don't have the right tool what's the point? You claim that the risk of armed defense won't stop anything how do you think a little sign or lack of government permission would help?

      Delete
    4. Mike, it's so unlikely that having a gun and being in exactly the right place at exactly the right time will save the day that the downside of owning and carrying guns far outweighs the benefits.

      Delete
    5. I think my comment may have been deleted, but I have to disagree on the guns doing more harm than good, I have spoken with rapists, murderers and other criminals who openly admit they won't go after people who look like they can handle themselves or may be armed. And while I know this is all anecdotal personal exeprerience based information it has shaped the way I see things. When you make it so the only way to use an item is illegal it will appear that the item does more harm than good, but if you allow legal use of it it will tip the scales in the other direction. Much like drugs for example, cocaine and heroine are illegal but there are darivatives used in medications. Penalize the wrong use by all means but don't criminalize or deny the options of the legal and right use.

      Delete
    6. "When you make it so the only way to use an item is illegal it will appear that the item does more harm than good, but if you allow legal use of it it will tip the scales in the other direction. "

      Wake up Mike. Guns are not only legal in the US, they are very prevalent. Unless you subscribe to one of the really extreme DGU estimates, you cannot claim the guns do more good than harm. The numbers simply are not there.

      Delete
    7. I'm wide awake mike, and while guns themselves are legal, and fortunately prevalent the ability to carry outside the home is less so, though fortunately that's improving. The illustration I was trying to make is the fact that the laws you want stack the deck in your favor and then you use it to justify the laws, if carrying is illegal or highly restricted, any DGU involving that person is automatically criminal

      Delete
  2. Well Mike, today you posted stories of two quite similar people. Both have been tragically affected by gun violence, and both have gone on to advocate in their own way.

    "Goeser works as an assistant to state Rep. Curtis Halford, a Republican from Dyer, Tenn., and she is facing an uphill battle in convincing voters that the 339,000 Tennesseans who have permits to carry handguns are promoting safety by bringing firearms into restaurants and bars."

    Which appears to have passed.

    Ms. Harper on the other hand is advocating for laws which really have no effect on laws regarding those with carry permits, and while she is perfectly free to voice her opinion, she also throws in a plug for donations.

    "CeaseFirePA is fighting this type of crazy and dangerous rhetoric but they need your help. Can you make a donation of $25, $50, or $100 so they have the resources to combat this type of extremism?"

    http://www.ceasefirepa.org/ceasefirepa-news/hes-no-rosa-parks/

    Ms. Harpers son's killer has not been charged and from what I've found, the police believe that his killer is presently already in prison serving time for other offences, and no one is willing to step up and talk to the police about it.
    I have read in other articles that she is also advocating against the issue of black on black violence and the role that parents can take in preventing it, which I find laudable. However, suggesting that people lawfully carrying firearms in accordance with state law and forcing cities to comply with state law are a danger is off target. (pun intended)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goeser's foolishness is that a good guy with a gun cannot prevent what happened to her husband. To even consider anything else is dishonest.

      Delete
    2. . . . foolishness is that a good guy with a gun cannot prevent what happened to her husband.

      It is indeed foolish to believe that a good guy with a gun cannot prevent a murder.

      To even consider anything else is dishonest.

      One cannot be "dishonest" by virtue of what one "considers," Mikeb.

      Delete
    3. So if the moral fact that murder is wrong and illegal doesn't stop someone, and the potential of armed response to murder/attempted murder is wrong, what one earth makes you think the government saying you can't have that little inanimate object would stop it?

      Delete
    4. By the way, Mikeb, given your bizarre apparent contention that armed resistance against armed would-be killers can never, ever work, do incidents like this cause some cognitive dissonance problems for you?

      Delete
    5. Sorry Kurt, I wasn't clear in that last comment. But, if you had a bit more honesty and tried to argue fairly, you would have considered my contention in the earlier comment - the gun owner would have to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. It would be extremely rare that being armed would help. This woman's husband's murder is an example, and an even better one is the Reagan shooting.

      Delete
    6. "she also throws in a plug for donations."
      Like pro gunners don't do the same thing? I don't see the complaint in raising money for a cause, any cause. By that logic the NRA is as bad as it gets, since they raise more money than any in regards to the gun issue.

      Delete
    7. "Like pro gunners don't do the same thing?"

      There's nothing wrong with either side raising money. My money goes to a state level advocacy group which has been very successful representing my views to legislators. Ms. Goeser has done much the same thing working directly with a legislator to push for issues she feels important and has been successful.
      As I commented earlier, Ms. Harper has also advocated on issues are likely much more germane to the loss of her son than that of permit holders being able to carry in bars.
      Considering that no one has even been charged with her son's murder, it sounds like the "don't snitch" philosophy is well entrenched still.

      Delete
    8. "Ms. Harper on the other hand is advocating for laws which really have no effect on laws regarding those with carry permits, and while she is perfectly free to voice her opinion, she also throws in a plug for donations."

      That sounded like a complaint to me. First you say what she is doing is useless, and then by the way, she plugs for donations, like she shouldn't? Then add your own plea for donations.

      Delete
  3. MIkeb, Ms. Goeser does not know whether or not she could have stopped her stalker--and neither do you. In claiming categorically that you do "know" that she could not have (and apparently you believe that she "knows" that, too, since you are calling her "not very honest," rather than mistaken), it is you who are being dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kurt, you know I don't like it when you mischaracterize what I say. I didn't say I know she couldn't have stopped the crime. I said "Better would have been to admit that in all probability, she couldn't have stopped the killer."

      Delete