Ok Then…

So Joan Peterson is now quoting me from this post where I discuss victims of violent crime who had their lives saved with personal firearms, and how that pretains to the message behind the candlelight vigil we held. You won’t find a single story where a candle saved a life (but candles are a leading cause of house fires, so they can take lives) but there are MANY stories like these that show that guns save lives every day. Also she linked Jennifer’s post on this horrific violent crime.

I’m quite pleased that Joan is doing this. One of the most compelling reason to buy a gun myself was when I realized that guns save far more lives than they take. I’m Glad Joan is not only linking me, but quoting me on her blog which previously would never acknowledge such events. Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.

I’m not sure that’s what Joan intended to say…but that sure is what she DID say! She closes with this.

So there you have it dear readers. These are the people who read my blog and then go and comment on other people’s blogs. These are the people who the NRA represents. These are the people who think they can threaten, demean, name-call, abuse, belittle, and mock. During and after the candlelight vigils to honor victims of gun violence, the gun rights extremists ramped up their rhetoric. Victims make them nervous. They don’t like victims….It’s odd that they don’t see how failure to do something has resulted in more victims. And then, cynically, they try to find their own victims. The truth is that there are too many victims and they know it. So to the pro gun bloggers who find it amusing to mock victims and survivors of gun violence, your words are here for all to see and they aren’t pretty.

Now two interesting points, first Joan claims people have made THREATS against her and other anti-rights activists. That’s a lie, and a rather cruel one. She should be ashamed. 2nd She says we “don’t like victims”…and then says we “cynically try to find our own victims”. Excuse me? First up who’s claiming ownership over victims of violent crime? That’s a very bizarre and unhealthy statement. And then claiming “cynicism” about the citations of ACTUAL victims of ACTUAL violent crimes? Who’s disrespecting victims now?

Joan is claiming certain victims as “her own” and other victims as not only the result of cynicism, but her words “Try to Find” when their names and stories are all there for everybody to see, claims that they are in themselves somehow invalid.

And this is where we get the term “Blood Dancing”, they only respect the lives lost that are useful to them. Also you’ll note that while Joan takes offense to me pointing out that she invokes the name of her dead sister for any number of irrelevant laws that played ZERO part in her sister’s death, but she makes no effort to refute it.

There were no “High Capacity Magazines” at the scene of her sister’s murder, but you have invoked Barbara’s name for magazine bans.

There were no “Assault Weapons” at the scene of her sister’s murder, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for “Assault Weapons” bans.

Conceal Carry was illegal in the state of Minnesota at the time of the murder, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for restrictions on Conceal carry.

None of the weapons found at the scene were bought through private sale, nor were any legally posessed because Russell Lund was the subject to a restraining order, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for the private sale of firearms, and universal background checks.

She has also claimed that Russell Lund was not a criminal until he pulled the trigger murdering her sister and her friend, but Mr. Lund was in and out of court, and in and out of mental facilities, as well as a known abusive man with a harsh temper.

She won’t refute these facts because they are true.

She claims that our agenda will result in more victims, but there is NO data supporting that, but with record gun sales and conceal carry permit issuance, violent crime is at an all-time low.

So look at what’s been said, what’s been done, and the cold-hard facts, and ask yourself, who’s shown the most respect, and who is doing the most to STOP this problem.

There are indeed too many victims, I’ve made my case, you decide.

Also Joan felt some need to also inflict her ugliness on the lovely Jennifer. Jennifer is a tough lady, and she doesn’t need me to watch her back. Her rebuttal is right here, you should read that too!

Be safe out there, and if you care about results, carry your guns!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Ok Then…

  1. ddbaxte says:

    Knowing how people in general are, especially when they can enjoy anonymity on the Internet, I don’t think it’s necessarily untrue that she receives threats.

    Of course many on our side also receive threats and violence wished upon us from time to time as well.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      I’m sure she does, but I’m also sure she (deliberately or otherwise) misinterprets regular comments as threatening too.

  2. Lila says:

    I commented on Jennifer’s post but I thought I would here too. Joan makes me sad. Her blind crusade has closed her eyes to a whole world of real people who have fought the same fight and come out stronger. I think if she ever truly connected with any of us she would be truly shocked to discover how much we actually empathize with her loss. She had a cruddy thing happen and one that will always be with her but rather than blame the person she blamed the object and is so buried in that hatred that she can’t see that we are a group full of love, of support, of sympathy, of community. We want to empower, we want to lift up those who hurt, we want to prevent others from feeling pain. As much fun as we have shooting it honestly isn’t all about the object for us but about the people behind it. I truly hope that one day she sees that.

  3. E-mag says:

    The other thing I have never understood about her sisters murder. She went over to his house WHILE she had a restraining order against him. If I thought someone was dangerous enough to have a restraining order I would never go to his house even with a friend. I know there will be no answer from Joann on this so I have never asked.

  4. Cargosquid says:

    Two words for her.

    De Lusional.
    and
    De Nial.

    Notice how she has this capacity to completely ignore what we ACTUALLY said in the candle posts and to completely ignore the stories of self-protection and victimhood by pro-gun people. Not deny it. Not state that its all a lie. Just…..ignores it and never acknowledges it.

    She and Baldr have totally lost it. She really thinks that posting those excerpts helps her. Actually, both are in that river in Egypt: “But the pro-gun extremists, feeling cornered by the attention that shootings and victims are getting from this nationwide event, are lashing out now with profane and horrible responses. The deaths of innocents are inconvenient to their “more guns in more places” argument.”

    I don’t think I have the words to describe how out of touch with reality that they seem to be.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      She has taken ignoring reality to new heights (or lows?). At first, I seriously thought she was trolling us because it just seemed, I don’t know, fake? I couldn’t believe the way she would misinterpret obvious facts or twist logic, but I now know she’s for real. I stand in awe when I read her posts, I feel like I’m watching an artist or something.

  5. Jack says:

    Thanks Weerd.

    I was trying to talk about the importance of Self defense in terms of firearms rights but you hit that one out of the park

    Self Defense is huge. And having it gives us a lot of figurative ammunition against the Anti’s. We can freely state that there are more people owning and carrying guns and that crime has not gone up. We can say that sure, X does have the purpose of killing, and that there are situations where killing is the moral choice.

    We can point to how we want a situation where a law abiding citizen can get a firearm and carry that firearm and the state Shall be forced to accommodate their wish.

    They defend May issue, where the police has the choice to deny a right to otherwise qualified applicants for any reason they want, but endorse said right for their cronies and friends.

    We’ve got to where in most of the US the common citizen can go about their day armed, if they so wish, and use said arm to defend themselves. No being part of the “special class” or needing to “know a guy”. Any law-abiding citizen. 41 States, 70% of the population. And over the years that we’ve built up to this there hasn’t been blood in the streets.

    How does one refute that? As CargoSquid said: Delusion and Denial.

    Joan has lied repeatedly to peruse an agenda where people will be rendered helpless, told it’s for their own good, and then exploited for profit politically when they’re subsequently victimized due to being disarmed.

  6. wfgodbold says:

    I like this bit: “These are the people who read my blog and then go and comment on other people’s blogs.”

    It looks like she’s implying that pro-gun people are too cowardly to comment on her posts and run off to make fun of her elsewhere; the whole reason we make fun of her elsewhere is that she invokes reasoned discourse and moderates comments she doesn’t like out of existence.

  7. Gerald says:

    Sounds like Joan has an old fashioned case of The Green Eyed Monster. She doesn’t give a rats ass about victims. She’s mad because her and her cohorts no longer have a monopoly on the “victim card”.

  8. “It’s odd that they don’t see how failure to do something has resulted in more victims.”

    Irony, thy name is Joan.

  9. Pingback: Morning Read | Weer'd World

  10. George says:

    She summarizes her position in her last sentence:

    No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post.

    Joan, I’m not mocking you. I’m calling you out. You would deny the weak the ability to defend themselves from the strong. Whether it is your intention or not, you get people killed. That’s evil and immoral.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      “Whether it is your intention or not, you get people killed.”

      Unless it’s intended it doesn’t matter to her. Just like gun deaths matter because guns are designed as weapons, but deaths from improvised weapons don’t because that wasn’t their intended purpose. There actually is some consistency in her thinking, convoluted though it is.

      She could really learn a lot from the proverb “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

  11. Pat says:

    Joan’s sister Barbara…adaptable to ANY firearm regulation, anytime, anyplace.

    Shameful to treat ones dead sibling as a pawn.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I was discussing this with my wife. She had a brain tumor removed over a year ago. We’ll be watching her head closely pretty much forever, as on a long enough timeline the Tumor will grow back, and will eventually turn into cancer. (Hopefully that timeline is long enough that she’ll be an old fart, or die of old age…or there will be a target drug that will fix everything slick-as-owl-shit). But for the argument I suggested a scenario where I’m a widower after cancer claimed her.

      To do what Joan is doing would be like me campaigning to ban cigarets, or 2nd Hand smoke. Of course anybody who KNOWS my wife knows she doesn’t smoke and doesn’t much care for it, and generally avoids 2nd Hand smoke.

      I’d never do such a thing because not only is it horribly dishonest, but its also horribly disrespectful to a dead loved one.

      Why Joan would engage in such behavior is beyond me, and frankly any scenarios that play out in my head do NOT paint her in a good light.

  12. Pingback: tellin’ riddles in the dark | walls of the city

  13. greenmeanie says:

    I just LOVE her pat reply when she can’t answer a question that she’ll ACTUALLY post!

    “Previously asked and answered.”

    Oh yeah! Then WHERE!!??

  14. Bubblehead Les says:

    She’s a Self-Rightous Hoplophobic Obsessive who somehow can’t come to terms that all Firearms are just Tools. She’s Imbued them with some Strange, Mystical God-like Ability to Magically Appear and Snuff out Life on the Planet unless Totally Banned, and no one can EVER make Another One EVER!

    She’s the Internet Version of the Nut Job walking down the street holding up a “The End is Near!” sign.

    Actually, I know it’s kinda fun to mess with her Head, but I’ve come to the point that maybe we should just let her sit in the Corner Booth wearing her Tin Hat with her Anti-Gun Buddies at the Coffee Shop and talk about how great they are.

  15. Pingback: An Open Response to Joan Peterson | The Minuteman

  16. perlhaqr says:

    Joan’s right about one thing. I don’t like victims. I don’t like them at all. That’s why I advocate things intended to make sure there are fewer of them. I would, in fact, prefer that there were no more victims at all.

    And then there’s people like Joan, who would be lost without them. Joan’s entire purpose in life demands more victims.

  17. Pingback: “Gun Death” Stabbing | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *