As you know I follow Joan Peterson’s blog quite religiously. She’s a Board Member for the Brady Campaign, and a spokesperson for the Joyce Foundation. She’s not only a supporter of gun control, but is personally supported by the gun control movement in its entirety.
The fact that she’s batshit insane, as well as 100% without class, and yet still speaks directly for those who lobby to curtail our rights shows exactly what these organizations are all about.
So she wrote a standard-issue boiler-plate post for the anniversary of the Virginia Tech Massacre. Blah I skimmed it, her posts are pretty boring as its just the standard political rhetoric playbook. I like to check out the comments when Joan stops her restrained repetition of her organizations playbooks, and starts talking from her black heart.
But this post had no comments…why? Well I found out why:
..didn’t allow comments today unless sympathetic about VT victims. Some gun guys made derogatory comments anyway and most have made none
Now if you’ve followed her blog “sympathetic” meaning “Agree with her”. Of course her post is NOT remembering the victims, but using their blood to push political points that have no relevance to this case. “Assault Weapons Bans”…VT was done with a pair of pistols. “Assault Clip Bans”…the VT guns were loaded with ban-compliant magazines that held 10 rounds. “Gunshow Loophole”…the guns used were bought from an FFL and the killer submitted to both background checks. He also bought both guns a month apart because Virginia used to have a one-gun-a-month law. VT was also a “Gun Free Zone”, and needless to say murder was illegal, as was chaining the doors shut.
Its her blog, and she can run it how she wishes, but it strikes me as particularly classess to claim that her narrow views speak for all those effected by the criminal act. Of course she doesn’t, but she’d prefer it appear that way.
Another point she brings up is people calling Collin Goddard a coward. Collin was a student who when shots started flying in VT he called 911 and hid under his desk. He was shot for his efforts, and now he and his father work for the Brady Campaign to maintain that exact status quo. Mr. Goddard was 100% helpless, and he wants all others to be just as helpless at all times. I don’t know if that’s cowardly, but it is just plain selfish, especially since he’s drawing a paycheck for taking this stance.
Still Collin Goddard’s story reminds me of home security commercials.
Of course things need to be all rosy in commercials, its the same silly reality where people with perfect skin put on face cream to improve their skin. Yeah, that’s how that works.
Still watch this video, creepy stalker breaks into the house. Girl runs and hides. Of course Brinks shows the stalker running off, so we at home know she’s safe, but she has no idea, she’s hiding.
Think about if you’re in her shoes. The alarm is blaring. I have an alarm, its loud and scares the crap out of you when you don’t expect it….still its just noise, if that was effective cops wouldn’t carry guns, they’d just blare the sirens on their cruisers and sit in the cars warm and dry and eat donuts.
So you have your hiding spot, and the alarm is going. The security tech calls and you tell them to send help…now what?
If the intruder ran, you just need to file a police report, and secure the breech point…but what if they’re still in the house?
Also what if you’re not the only people in the house? Do you have family? Hiding just isn’t enough.
Now remember that the Police were outside the building when Colin Goddard was shot while hiding.
Sorry, I’m not going to go out that way, and I don’t have any good will to others who don’t respect my wishes.
If by “outside the building” you mean “on the other side of campus” then you would be right (PDF warning, look at page 7). He was shot the before they got to Norris Hall. In fact, he was still on the phone with the dispatcher when he was shot, and another student had to (quietly) finish telling the dispatcher what was going on while hoping the killer didn’t hear her.
The killer came back and shot him twice more at about the same time the first police officers arrived at the building.
The rest is correct, and spot on. Sorry for the little rant – the point you’re trying to make with that sentence is correct, it just happened to hit one of my buttons, hard.
And, you know, if he had time to get under his desk and dial 911, he would have had time to draw a gun and point it towards the door, instead.
No worries, thanks for the information!
Something I’ve always wondered- what do you think would have happened if another student secretly carried, pulled his weapon and shot Cho dead after say he had killed 2 or 3 in Norris? Do you think the MSM and VT would have hailed him as a hero or would he have been lashed in the media for taking the law into his own hands as well as expelled from VT thus ruining their career.
I base this on the fact that we are talking about a senior or maybe a junior being able to carry as the age was 21. Or even worse- there was doctoral level work being done in Norris by individuals working on their PhD projects- would they have ejected someone who was literally months away from their doctorate?
My personal feeling is if someone had indeed shot that psycho that he or she would have been excoriated in the media and not hailed as the hero they would have been
Well first up they can’t be a hero, because by stopping a massacre no massacre ever occurred. Cho would have just been a misunderstood “youth” who just had that gun to scare people and earn respect. Because the criminal ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt from the anti-crowd, and anybody under age 49 is a “Youth”.
Just look at Jean Assam at the New Life Church. That was sure to be a massacre, but she capped the asshole before he got off more than a few shots.
Of course she wasn’t a private citizen with a CCW permit in the eyes of the media, she was an ex-cop with that Law Enforcement secret ninja training.
Also the shooter killed himself (after being wounded of course) so she didn’t kill him, heck if she hadn’t been there he might have capped himself anyway.
And of course by preventing a massacre, no massacre occurred, so there’s nothing to report.
Meanwhile Joe Zamudio had a lawfully held gun at the Tuscon shooting, and because the innocents were struggling with the killer he wasn’t sure what was going on so he never unholstered his weapon…this was portrayed as him ALMOST shooting the wrong person.
You see, the media will invent what ever reality it prefers.
I’ve actually seen that argument used, too. In a discussion at the Roanoke Times I mentioned a Nevada bar shooting where the attacker was stopped by a legal concealed carrier. One of the ever-present anti’s there actually said “You don’t know that he was going to keep shooting!” and tried to base that on the claim that he had already killed the people he had a prior feud with, so “there was no reason for him to kill anyone else.”
This, despite the fact that I had specifically pointed out that the attacker was shot while reloading.
You will always hear antis second-guessing the obvious actions of the violent and deranged. This is the basis of the “Give them what they want” reaction. Obviously the violent mugger JUST wants your wallet, and if you give it up without protest you can trust the social contract you just made that no further harm would come to you.
If you shoot a mugger with a weapon, in the antis eyes that’s murder, because all he wanted was your wallet, and would have never actually used the weapon. So you just shot somebody over the monetary value in your wallet.
Of course not that I see anything wrong with that, as people mug and rob because they can be successful at it. A few muggers, robbers, and rapists getting shot in every major city shows the risk might be a bit too high for the payoff.
Oh and of course if this attack falls under statistical boundaries, then the person with the lawfully held gun is a racist because they TOTALLY shot the weapon-wielding attacker because of their skin color, not that whole “Weapon” or “Attack” part.
Why would someone who has suffered the consequences of having no choice but to be a victim, and no way to defend himself, force other people to be likewise choice-less and defenseless?
Why would the anti-rights cultists use an obvious failure of a “gun free zone” (and obvious “success” of a “victim disarmament zone”) as a reason to enact more of them?
And it goes without saying that thanks to Joan’s Reasoned Discourse, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not people made “derogatory comments” or not – she could be, and probably is, making that up entirely, simply as a means to unjustly demonize firearm owners… but we will never know. Convenient, that.
Pingback: Anti-Gun Plastic Relaity | Weer'd World