Goeser: How gun control helped a stalker kill my husband

[Brain357]

Maybe, maybe not. I for one am not able to see into the future like you, and see the outcome before it happens.

The future huh? That was based on something else, called the past.

Yeah but you're making the claim that the guy was as good as dead even if others had a gun. I'm saying unless you can see the outcome before it happens (like you apparently) we simply don't know the outcome.

We do however see what the outcome was, when only the shooter was armed.

One person was shot and killed, then the shooter was stopped. That's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for. Nobody was going to stop him from killing that guy. More guns would just mean more people shot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Maybe, maybe not. I for one am not able to see into the future like you, and see the outcome before it happens.

The future huh? That was based on something else, called the past.

Yeah but you're making the claim that the guy was as good as dead even if others had a gun. I'm saying unless you can see the outcome before it happens (like you apparently) we simply don't know the outcome.

We do however see what the outcome was, when only the shooter was armed.

We have decades of dead bodies that were dead before they could even say stop. It's common sense, which you are lacking in this case. If I want a guy dead, like this guy did, he won't see me coming. All everyone being armed would have done is to have allowed them to kill the stalker. The other guy was always DOA when the slaked walked in from his car.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The future huh? That was based on something else, called the past.

Yeah but you're making the claim that the guy was as good as dead even if others had a gun. I'm saying unless you can see the outcome before it happens (like you apparently) we simply don't know the outcome.

We do however see what the outcome was, when only the shooter was armed.

One person was shot and killed, then the shooter was stopped. That's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for. Nobody was going to stop him from killing that guy. More guns would just mean more people shot.

It could have been more but he came to kill only one person. If someone really wants you dead like that, you are.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah...stalkers are creepy....and can be dangerous.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It takes less than a second to kill someone with a gun. How could anyone have stopped him? Would you shoot a stranger for pulling out his gun?

Let me try this again.

The shooter got off several shots. Now maybe one shot and the man was dead, I don't know. However, it's possible that had this woman, or someone else, had a gun, they may have prevented the shooter from getting off as many shots.

What's always astounding to me is, there are so many idiots in this country, that do not even want others to have the opportunity to limit the damage by having their own gun.

F
I still think it's very unlikely. Several shots are fired before anyone can really react. We allow people to have very dangerous weapons. If somebody wants to kill you they will. If people had shot at this guy we would probably just have a higher body count.

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The future huh? That was based on something else, called the past.

Yeah but you're making the claim that the guy was as good as dead even if others had a gun. I'm saying unless you can see the outcome before it happens (like you apparently) we simply don't know the outcome.

We do however see what the outcome was, when only the shooter was armed.

One person was shot and killed, then the shooter was stopped. That's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for. Nobody was going to stop him from killing that guy. More guns would just mean more people shot.

There's no point in arguing with you people, you guys seem to be able to know the outcomes, so it's pointless for people like me who are not clairvoyant to argue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let me try this again.

The shooter got off several shots. Now maybe one shot and the man was dead, I don't know. However, it's possible that had this woman, or someone else, had a gun, they may have prevented the shooter from getting off as many shots.

What's always astounding to me is, there are so many idiots in this country, that do not even want others to have the opportunity to limit the damage by having their own gun.

F
I still think it's very unlikely. Several shots are fired before anyone can really react. We allow people to have very dangerous weapons. If somebody wants to kill you they will. If people had shot at this guy we would probably just have a higher body count.

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

Protect herself? Notice that he wasn't shooting at her. Had he been she would have been just as good as dead.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah but you're making the claim that the guy was as good as dead even if others had a gun. I'm saying unless you can see the outcome before it happens (like you apparently) we simply don't know the outcome.

We do however see what the outcome was, when only the shooter was armed.

One person was shot and killed, then the shooter was stopped. That's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for. Nobody was going to stop him from killing that guy. More guns would just mean more people shot.

There's no point in arguing with you people, you guys seem to be able to know the outcomes, so it's pointless for people like me who are not clairvoyant to argue.

You don't need to see the future, you need to see the past. There's a reason we ban guns in bars. Real life isn't the John Wayne movie you are apparently living in.

 

[Brain357]

Let me try this again.

The shooter got off several shots. Now maybe one shot and the man was dead, I don't know. However, it's possible that had this woman, or someone else, had a gun, they may have prevented the shooter from getting off as many shots.

What's always astounding to me is, there are so many idiots in this country, that do not even want others to have the opportunity to limit the damage by having their own gun.

F
I still think it's very unlikely. Several shots are fired before anyone can really react. We allow people to have very dangerous weapons. If somebody wants to kill you they will. If people had shot at this guy we would probably just have a higher body count.

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

More people would have been shot for sure. How would that have been better? You can shoot your target 5 times easily before anyone can pull a gun and figure out just what is going on. Blaming gun control is just dumb, it probably kept the dead count to one.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Maybe if Tennessee had stricter gun control laws this stalker would not have had a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

That was only going to happen if he announced he was a murderer and is going to kill this guy. But clearly nobody does that so everyone has to react after the shooting. In the examples I've heard of the hero with a gun stopping the bad guy, there is still a big dead count.

It would be hard to get a full auto gun. But in the land of guns I guess we have to accept these things will happen.

So armed citizens never stop murders unless the murderer announces his intention beforehand?
As for the second paragraph, I'm still scratching my head on that one.

It takes less than a second to kill someone with a gun. How could anyone have stopped him? Would you shoot a stranger for pulling out his gun?

That is untrue. It takes time for the person to appear. In this case the person was known to the couple as a stalker. It takes time to draw and present a weapon. It takes time to aim the weapon and then to pull the trigger. In his case multiple times.
But you failed to answer my questions. Which means you know you are wrong and are desperately trying to save face.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe if Tennessee had stricter gun control laws this stalker would not have had a gun.

Because in Chicago, which does have stricter gun control laws, we never see murders like this. Right?

 

[Brain357]

So armed citizens never stop murders unless the murderer announces his intention beforehand?
As for the second paragraph, I'm still scratching my head on that one.

It takes less than a second to kill someone with a gun. How could anyone have stopped him? Would you shoot a stranger for pulling out his gun?

That is untrue. It takes time for the person to appear. In this case the person was known to the couple as a stalker. It takes time to draw and present a weapon. It takes time to aim the weapon and then to pull the trigger. In his case multiple times.
But you failed to answer my questions. Which means you know you are wrong and are desperately trying to save face.

I'm assuming this was very close range and the victim had other things to do than only watch this guy. If he knew the guy was going to shoot him I'd hope he'd have left.

Do you have examples of a citizen stopping a shooter before he has killed someone?

 

[The Rabbi]

It takes less than a second to kill someone with a gun. How could anyone have stopped him? Would you shoot a stranger for pulling out his gun?

That is untrue. It takes time for the person to appear. In this case the person was known to the couple as a stalker. It takes time to draw and present a weapon. It takes time to aim the weapon and then to pull the trigger. In his case multiple times.
But you failed to answer my questions. Which means you know you are wrong and are desperately trying to save face.

I'm assuming this was very close range and the victim had other things to do than only watch this guy. If he knew the guy was going to shoot him I'd hope he'd have left.

Do you have examples of a citizen stopping a shooter before he has killed someone?

There are tons of such examples, all over the internet.

 

[Brain357]

That is untrue. It takes time for the person to appear. In this case the person was known to the couple as a stalker. It takes time to draw and present a weapon. It takes time to aim the weapon and then to pull the trigger. In his case multiple times.
But you failed to answer my questions. Which means you know you are wrong and are desperately trying to save face.

I'm assuming this was very close range and the victim had other things to do than only watch this guy. If he knew the guy was going to shoot him I'd hope he'd have left.

Do you have examples of a citizen stopping a shooter before he has killed someone?

There are tons of such examples, all over the internet.

Then provide an example similar to this. I don't see how anyone could have stopped this guy. The only thing that would have stopped him is if he couldn't get a gun.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

F
I still think it's very unlikely. Several shots are fired before anyone can really react. We allow people to have very dangerous weapons. If somebody wants to kill you they will. If people had shot at this guy we would probably just have a higher body count.

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

Protect herself? Notice that he wasn't shooting at her. Had he been she would have been just as good as dead.

So who's gonna win the next Super Bowl ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

F
I still think it's very unlikely. Several shots are fired before anyone can really react. We allow people to have very dangerous weapons. If somebody wants to kill you they will. If people had shot at this guy we would probably just have a higher body count.

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

More people would have been shot for sure. How would that have been better? You can shoot your target 5 times easily before anyone can pull a gun and figure out just what is going on. Blaming gun control is just dumb, it probably kept the dead count to one.

Sorry, I forgot that you can see outcomes before they happen.

 

[Brain357]

Did we "allow" ? This guy wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun, and that's the whole point. We prevented the ones like this woman who already had a legal permit to carry to protect herself. Again, maybe if she had, she could have stopped this guy from say, getting off five shots, to only getting off two.
Maybe more people would have been shot, but maybe the dead man would have only been wounded.

More people would have been shot for sure. How would that have been better? You can shoot your target 5 times easily before anyone can pull a gun and figure out just what is going on. Blaming gun control is just dumb, it probably kept the dead count to one.

Sorry, I forgot that you can see outcomes before they happen.

More guns shooting=more people shot. Just common sense.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well then. I must have exposed the wicked underbelly of gun control. Why so quiet?

Why do you do this with so many of your posts?

People are not responding because you are a failure in general and they are waiting until someone who has something interesting to say chimes in. You are not compelling in any way.

To the topic....I call bullshit. Guns in bars is a stupid idea.

I am willing to bet that you do not own a firearm. Go ahead.....lie about that too.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm assuming this was very close range and the victim had other things to do than only watch this guy. If he knew the guy was going to shoot him I'd hope he'd have left.

Do you have examples of a citizen stopping a shooter before he has killed someone?

There are tons of such examples, all over the internet.

Then provide an example similar to this. I don't see how anyone could have stopped this guy. The only thing that would have stopped him is if he couldn't get a gun.

Armed Dad Protects Daughter from Her Violent Estranged Husband, Who Violated His Restraining Order - Rationality Rebooted: Stories of responsible gun use that do not fit the mainstream media's agenda

DA: Wife killed husband in self-defense - The Sun Chronicle : Local News