Joan Answers Her Own Question

So in her latest post Joan Peterson asks this one:

Can we look at ourselves and say we have done all we can do to prevent senseless shootings? No. Can we at least have some national reflection on the topic without it turning into an ugly “gun grabbing” conversation? It doesn’t seem so. Can we agree that some measures will stop some shootings? I hope so. Can we converge on a road that leads to more public safety and fewer gun deaths? One would think so. Is it understood that not every law will stop every shooting?

The first question I agree with Joan, we haven’t done all we can, just our idea of a solution is different, but for both of us at least our stated end goal is the same. I absolutely want to have “Gun Death” be as small as possible, as with ALL violent crime. Joan claims the same thing, tho for obvious reasons, and we’ll talk more about them, I don’t believe she is being totally honest. This is the dichotomy of the gun debate. We both want the same thing. The antis have made claims that our side is uninterested in violent crime, and we just have a “fetish” for guns. That’s simply a straw man, and I suspect they know it.

The second question is really obvious, just look at the quote previously posted:

Britain had tightened regulations after the 1987 Hungerford massacre, which also killed 16 people, said CNN. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, as it’s known, made registration of shotguns mandatory and banned semi-automatic and pump-action weapons. Firearms amnesties after Hungerford and Dunblane netted thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.

Sorry, Joan, you PRAISE Britain and Australia for their massive seizure of legally held firearms, but you don’t want us to brand you and your compatriots as “Gun Grabbers”. Sorry, I own lots of guns, and many of these guns you don’t think I should have. You’re a gun grabber. You should either make your peace with that, or change your agenda. As for that discussion you claim to want, well I’d post some rebuttals to your post, but you won’t have me, nor many others. Also “Discussions” that get through your illogical filter tend to end with you telling them to “Shut up” and go someplace else. So quit talking about having a discussion when all you do is demand an echo-chamber.

As for public safety concerns, well here’s a good start, but it doesn’t fit your agenda, so what do you REALLY care about.

Seems your passion is being a “Gun Grabber”, not an advocate for public safety. But you hate being called that. My question to you is, why do you feel that way?

IF she was interested in a discussion she’d answer that here, but we know what will happen.