Joan Pens A Winner

I won’t lie, I’m super disappointed when Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and Joyce-Funded Protect Minnesota puts up a blog post and it’s just another incoherent “look at what bad things have been done with guns this week!” post. Yep, Joan, people do bad things with guns, people do bad things with everything, but you care only about guns, and frankly posting 10 news stories that are completely dissimilar with the exception of the presence of a firearm doesn’t really tell a story, or make an argument for me to rebut.

This kinda sucks for me because it’s not like anti-gunners are particularly active! Joan MAYBE pens 4 blog posts a month, and the few others have retreated to places like twitter and pinterest as their sole activities to banning our guns.

So yeah when one of her posts actually follows a narrative, I get a little excited! Let’s have a look!

As I am listening to the speech Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making to Congress I keep thinking about how political agendas of all kinds get in the way of progress towards peace, public safety, sensitive arms negotiations and international relations. Most civilized democratized countries want peace and public safety. Some have been more vocal, more concerned and more committed than others. Since my concern here is gun safety I want to address that, in particular, in the context of political agendas.

Ok first up “democratized” is a real word? Just seems like she’s really leading into her hand-stands with that one, but the real take-away from that above quote is that A) We all know how she REALLY feels about public safety, and we’ll talk about that a bit more later, and B) Joan herself has quite the political agenda!

We can have differences of opinion about the role of guns in our society but it is widely accepted that we need background checks on all gun sales to save some of the lives lost to firearms injuries.

“Widely accepted” by gun control advocates. Still there’s a reason why this has been tried so extensively on the Federal level and never gotten close to passing, and has only succeeded on the local levels with states that are SEVERELY anti-gun. Even Washington State’s ban on private transfers cost Michael Bloomberg and his cohorts a fortune, and they needed to do it so under the radar the law has become unenforceable and required extensive revision because it also made it illegal for private security to take possession of their sidearms at the start of their shifts, or return them to the armory at the end, or even for police academies to train the next class of police officers how to safely operate and use a firearm.

Still Joan MUST believe that EVERYBODY wants what she wants, because without that, she can’t have this bugbear:

And in America the issue of gun safety is based almost solely on political motivations and influenced by outside private interest groups rather than on actual public safety as it is in most other democratized countries not at war.

Yep, ALL politics, that’s the ONLY reason why we still have that pesky Second Amendment, and those creepy OTHER people are allowed to buy guns, carry guns, and shoot guns! Funny, Joan is an influential member in TWO anti-rights lobby groups…yeah we’re not there yet, but keep that in mind. Last on this one is the whopper “actual public safety as it is in most other democratized countries not at war.” Note that first we have the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy, in that any nation with a Democracy, or “has been democratized” (Jesus, do people actually TALK like this?) and has horrible violent crime she can point that they aren’t a TRUE DEMOCRACY, or maybe that they’re at war. You know, like Mexico, a Constitutional Republic, with a Democratically elected President…you know, like us, that is TOTALLY awash in violent crime. Joan might deflect that A) Mexico is “At War” with the drug cartels, or B) That it isn’t REALLY a Democracy, or C) She’ll note she forgot to add in that “High Income” bullshit.

Of course the US has a War on Drugs too, we’re also in a War on Terror, so are most nations….but those don’t count because REASONS!

Also “Public Safety” means “People Not Getting Shot Very Often”. So places like Scotland (speaking of true Scotsmen) where the violent crime rate and what we in the US call “Murder” and what the people of the UK call “Homicides of Interest”, as most gang-related murders go unsolved, and an unsolved murder in the UK can’t be counted as a “murder”, the number of people dying of gunshot wounds is pretty small. Yeah their suicide rate, is about the same as ours, and the number of people being stabbed, kicked, stomped, and clubbed to death are VASTLY higher than ours, that’s “Safe”. But a place like North Dakota where there is VERY low murder, and even those aren’t often done with guns…but when people get depressed they shoot themselves with guns UNSAFE DANGER ZONE!!!!11!!!

Gee, why would somebody have such a convoluted view of public safety…perhaps it’s because she wants to ban guns, and is politically motivated to paint a picture that supports that agenda, even if that picture isn’t true….

But let’s say that we do, collectively, care about public health and safety. Now how do we come together to make it happen without the politics?

I don’t think any American public leader or any gun lobby leader or NRA member, for that matter, want citizens to lose their lives to gunshot injuries. But over and over they have rejected proposals to stop the senseless loss of life. In fact, in states all over American and now in Congress, attempts are being made to loosen gun laws that would make it easier for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them. Proposed laws would allow those with no permits, no background checks and no training to buy and carry guns. That means felons, domestic abusers and adjudicated mentally ill people with guns.

Oh the horror! I can dive in now, but she then dives into “Support” by citing this article by a fellow anti-gun lobbyist, who, like Joan has political motivations:

Let’s say your neighbor Bob wants a gun or applies for a concealed weapons license. He has to pass a background check before he can get either. Everything checks out, so now he’s a “good guy with a gun.” One day, Bob commits a crime. Previously, since Bob now has a record, he can’t buy more guns. However, under the new law, his concealed weapons license allows him to bypass that background check, allowing him to buy more dangerous weapons. It seems some of our lawmakers forgot that every “bad guy” was once a “good guy.”

Yeah, she misses the step where Bob gets CAUGHT committing the crime, and being tried and convicted in a court of law, which part of that would entail his permit being revoked, and his firearms needing to be disposed of. Of course I could see “Bob” stashing his guns and permit BEFORE the trial, and simply not cooperating with the court so that he could keep his guns and permit….it would be a crime to do so…hey but so would buying the gun on the street from a criminal who stole it, or stealing it yourself?

Also this scenario assumes that “Bob’s” crime was something serious…not skin diving for lobsters in the state of Maine, or raking pine straw on somebody’s property without permission in North Carolina, or what I used to do CONSTANTLY as a kid, collect Seagull feathers on the beach! And that there is really such thing as a “Virgin Killer”.

Lots of hand-wringing but not a lot of reality…but she continues!

It’s time that we all start taking responsibility for the presence of gun violence in our society. Studies show this public health risk doesn’t discriminate. Gun violence is not just limited to urban areas. In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities. It doesn’t stop with the horrific shootings in our schools. Even one school shooting is too many, but the truth remains that kids are more at risk from gun violence at home than in school. We are facing a systemic problem that at times seems overwhelming.

Ummm NO NO NO! Violent crime happens everywhere, but only at an incidental level outside of urban areas. Even in major cities the majority of the city is very safe, and violent crime is isolated to epidemic levels in the gang-controlled neighborhoods. And violent crime is going DOWN in this country. Evidence:

The United States is becoming safer, with crime levels dropping nearly every year. Between 1991 and 2013, the U.S. violent crime rate has fallen by nearly 52%. Since 2009, the nation’s violent crime rate has declined from 429.4 to 367.9 incidents per 100,000 people, a decrease of 14.3%.

While the prevalence of violent crime — which includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — has declined in many of the nation’s metropolitan areas, in some regions it has increased. In Monroe, Michigan, the violent crime rate grew by nearly 160% — from 222.1 cases per 100,000 people in 2009 to 575.5 in 2013. Based on figures published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), these are the metropolitan areas with the greatest increases in the violent crime rate.

You know, like the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she said. More!

Shootings and murders in New York City have increased this year compared to last, and police officials are blaming marijuana.

While overall crime is down 11 percent this year, there were 54 murders and 170 shootings in New York City during January and February, according to new statistics reported by NY1. That’s compared to 45 murders and 151 shootings at the same point last year.

The 20 percent increase in murders comes despite a record-setting 12-day streak in which the city did not experience a homicide at all. It also comes amid a tumultuous period in the city following the Dec. 20 murder of two police officers in Brooklyn. Police openly criticized mayor Bill de Blasio, claiming that his rhetoric created a hostile environment for police.

So we have a word for what Joan and Ms. Smith are alluding to. A LIE! It’s not like they’re citing some bunk poll, or some odd metadata study where it shows violent crime RISING or something (that’s what Joan does when she opines that gun owners want more gun control laws) this is just made-up-on-the-spot hokum!

Why on EARTH would Ms. Smith pen such a whopper? Why would Joan Peterson simply quote it without looking into this fantastical claim that not only flies in the face of what groups like the FBI are reporting, but in general observation. I mean if I hear about a double-murder in the news I don’t think “Oh that must be in Paxton Mass!” (BTW I literally just looked at the map to find a sleepy small town) or even my own town which is many times bigger. Nope, I’m going to be waiting for Worcester, Springfield, or Boston…and it’ll probably be Boston, and we call Mattapan “Murderpan” for a reason. Substitute your own state here. You not only know where the bad towns are in your state, but you probably also know the bad NEIGHBORHOODS there.

Yet here is this lie, published as truth! WHY? My Goodness, Joan did talk a LOT about “Political Motivations” and “Outside Influences” getting in the way of public safety. Gee you know, like a lobbyist pushing for stricter gun laws in a nation that is both relaxing its gun laws AND having a falling crime rate…in a recession none-the-less!

Our gun laws are relaxing! When I started this blog you could only get a carry permit in 48 States, now it’s 50 and DC has issued permits to residents. Hell even the state of Massachusetts has relaxed it’s laws slightly, and there are less towns that refuse to issue permits to lawful residents. We also have more permits being issued than ever before in every state, and more people owning and shooting guns.

AND VIOLENT CRIME IS GOING DOWN!111!!!! MURDER IS GOING DOWN!!!11!!!!

As a matter of fact, the places that are the LEAST safe, are the places that have the most “Common Sense Gun Laws” according to Joan. Her motivations are POLITICAL, not for ANY concern for public safety.

Anyone can have a moment of anger, despair, depression, conflict over money or a relationship and suddenly a law abiding friend or relative can become a “bad guy” with a gun. It happens all the time. I know that from personal experience.

We KNOW Joan’s “Personal Experience”, her Sister was in a long-term abusive marriage with a mentally ill, convicted felon. Joan watched this relationship go on and did nothing. Finally her sister decided to divorce the asshole, and Joan did nothing, and when the nut killer her sister, her sister’s boyfriend, and then himself….she decided to start ringing a bell!

I am truly sorry for Joan’s loss, as well as her family, and the family of the boyfriend who was killed. Still I don’t see how Joan exercised any sane judgement in her personal tragedy, nor does it make much sense why she has chosen to blame the GUN her sister was shot with, rather than the monster who HAD that gun. That monster she KNEW personally, and KNEW was harming her sister WITHOUT guns for years before he finally murdered her.

The murder of Joan’s sister had as much to do with guns, as the death of Mary Jo Kopechne had to do with the General Motors Corporation.

The politics of guns keep our leaders from doing what they must know is right for public safety.

She’s really talking about herself here…

The gun lobby plain and simply does not like any regulations on guns. Maybe if their own Uncle Rob shot someone in a moment of anger, they would think about it twice. Maybe if cousin Tom shot himself in a moment of despair with a gun left out by Uncle Rob, they would think twice. Maybe if cousins Sheila and Brian left their loaded gun in a closet and their 4 year old found it and shot his sister, they would think twice about our national epidemic of gun violence. Why can’t they think this way when the rest of us suffer the loss of loved ones to bullets every day in large numbers? No empathy? Lack of understanding that a few simple measures could save lives?

Or what if my Friend Robb DEFENDED his life with a firearm, and could have been killed otherwise before I ever met him…. She TALKS empathy, but what she’s demanding is emotional slavery to her cause. She wrings her hands about hypothetical scenarios, and incidental events, and demand we have empathy…but has no empathy for people who’s lives were SAVED because guns are legal in this country. And frankly didn’t have any empathy for her sister until she was killed…and even then Joan is known to US ONLY because she is on the Board of Directors of the Brady Campaign, and she ONLY got that position because her sister was shot.

Maybe it isn’t even empathy, but political motivations.

Isn’t this all cynical and disturbing? The awful thing is it happens to be true. Public safety means saving lives and passing laws to do so. It happens with cars, cigarette smoking, children’s toys, pet food, etc. Why not with guns? Good question. Because the gun lobby

Or because you are full of shit, and living in an alternate reality! Again: GUN OWNERSHIP UP, GUN RESTRICTIONS DOWN, CRIME DOWN, MURDER DOWN!!! Calling for more gun laws at this point is like taking up smoking to cure cancer!

That brings me to what’s happening in many states as the result of the gun lobby’s lapdogs. As expected, the gun extremists are pushing their agenda again in the Minnesota House of Representatives. This Washington Post article highlights what’s going on in the states. They must not have known about what’s going on in Minnesota. But I digress. From the article:

…These states have ceded their responsibility to keep their citizens safe from firearms injuries and deaths to the corporate gun lobby- New Hampshire, West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, and Indiana. Others have already allowed people to carry guns with no permit, training or background checks- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and Vermont. So there we have it. Moving right along…..

She’s talking about the states currently working to remove their carry permit requirements and go “Constitutional Carry”. Joan notes that other states have done this…she strangely doesn’t note the horrible increase in violent crime, accidental death, and general mayhem from that, but implies that somehow dumping a pointless permit system is a bad idea.

Because she hates guns, again her motives are banning guns, NOT public safety.

She then goes on for a while about Minnesota wanting to put a right to keep and bear arms amendment to their State Constitution. I don’t know anything about this, so I won’t comment except that Joan is a proven liar, and any law she hates must be a good idea. For my readers in The Land of 10,000 Lakes, feel free to give me some details on this one, I’d love to see what it’s all about.

She closes with this:

Where are we? We are at a point when the far right and the extremists have taken over. They are trying to pass unreasonable laws that will make us even less safe than we are now. If it wasn’t so serious it would laughable. I’m not laughing nor are the many victims and survivors of gun violence. This is serious business to be determined by serious people. The laws should not be written by a single interest influential lobby group whose main concern is selling weapons that kill people. Where is common sense?

We are safer, and ergo the laws being passed are VERY sane. This lie was of course written by a single-interest lobbyist with the common sense of an anvil.

Man that was a good one!