Ok this right here is VERY impressive showing exactly how messed up the anti-rights people view the world. From Joan Peterson who works for the Joyce Foundation, as well as the Brady Campaign. For a little background, as I’m not going to copy the entire back-and-forth. Joan, among other things in her increasingly disjointed screeds, was speaking out against campus carry. The pro-rights people pointed out that there have been spree shooting events diffused by armed citizens like in Appalachian Law School, and Pearl High School. After a little argument framing Joan claims the guns didn’t help the situation and doubles-down with this:
Sure I can. They were not stopped before they happened. That is what you guys are always telling me you need your guns for on campuses. It didn’t work in these cases….We’ve gone over this ad nauseous. When you guys stop saying you need your guns to defend yourself and others in public then we can talk.
There it is. First for those not familiar with the cases, both incidents happened in “Gun Free Zones” and because of that the lawfully armed people had to retreat from the event and then RETURN with their firearm (Which BTW is still a violation of the rule, even if you’re grabbing a gun to stop a killer) so the Killer was unopposed for a length of time, and people were killed, but like most spree shootings, as soon as armed resistance arrives (be it in the form of Police, or a civilian with a firearm) the shooting is stopped…in both of these cases without a shot being fired by the lawfully armed citizen.
Now to Joan this shows the failure of civilian carry…well because she refuses to see civilian carry as ANYTHING BUT a failure. What she wants is what probably DOES happen all over the nation. Somebody thinks about killing some classmates or coworkers, and thinks twice about it because they don’t want to be shot. We’ll never hear about it in the news because Psychics aren’t real (tho it wouldn’t surprise me if Joan has had her palms read a time-or-two).
One must ask, how many spree shootings have there been in Utah since they legalized campus carry? How many spree shootings in the Universities that don’t restrict campus carry?
Now let’s look at the usual double-standard of the antis. The two big ones, Columbine, and Virginia tech. Both situations unarmed students were forced to hide and play dead as they were shot like fish in a barrel. Meanwhile outside the armed police planned their methods to diffuse the situation.
Dozens of people were shot and killed, and armed police were mere feet away. This is obviously a failure of armed Police, right?
You see we need to stop saying we need guns to protect ourselves, says this Board Member of the Brady Campaign, and Spokesperson for the Joyce Foundation. She is obviously mentally ill, there’s nothing more charitable I can say about somebody so bent in their world view.
Is this who we should listen to? Also note that she’s an employee of BOTH the major gun control groups in America, she could be dismissed at any time, but is not. You see those who support these various gun control groups see this as rational behavior.
Remember that, and be safe, and carry your guns!
And when a gun owner successfully defuses a situation before any shooting happens, the antis claim it wasn’t a valid Defensive Gun Use since no one died.
It is almost as if they don’t want to admit that firearms can and do save lives.
Or there’s a certain drug-dealer and junkie turned Anti-Gun activist and UN worker who claims that most of the Defensive gun uses are in fact murder where the malice was covered up by the deviant nature of the the gun owners, and what must be blatant incompetence on behalf of law enforcement. (And I guess I can’t blame him as it appears he never did time for his very serious and wide-reaching crimes)
Occam’s Razor makes great sense if you’re a sane person. If you support gun control out of anything but pure ignorance you are NOT a sane person.
“When you guys stop saying you need your guns to defend yourself and others in public, then we can talk.” So if some Goblins broke into her house, she would tell her gun owning Husband to call 911 and wait for the SWAT Team? Yeah, right.
Wouldn’t matter anyway, I suspect all he has are Fudd guns, and the ammo is locked separately. The Police will take quality digital photos of their corpses and MAYBE find the intruder.
That comment of hers especially amuses me. Essentially she’s saying that once we give up our right to bear arms, then and only then we can join her
diatribe“discussion” about the right to bear arms.Weer’d,
I sometimes engage her on issues, and occasionally don’t get “approved,” as happened the other day on this thread. Since you’re on the topic, would you mind if I posted it here?
Please do! Also I like how she’s all alone on a sinking ship, but somehow she gets to control the debate.
Cool beans! Thanks! I really need to start my own blog, but currently lack the time (work, school, family; you know how it goes).
For perspective, insert this as the 9th comment, after “gregorycamp” and before “Heather”‘s first.
Learning CPR and carrying a defensive firearm is a valid comparison. A Good Samaritan that tries to administer CPR without being properly trained for it stands a better-than-fair chance of causing more harm than good, and could just as effectively kill the person they’re trying to help. Did you know that chest compressions on an already-beating heart can stop it? (Seriously, Google-search “CPR Corollary”)
Permit-holders aren’t trying to or going to “impose their fear and paranoia” on anyone. It’s concealed carry. The whole idea is that nobody else can tell if a person is carrying or not. I could say the same for “gun control” advocates imposing their fear and paranoia (of specifically-shaped inanimate objects) on everyone else, and never mind about everyone else’s rights. And Gregory is quite correct; those rights exist regardless of the Constitution, regardless of the Bill of Rights, and regardless of majority opinion.
I don’t support an 18-year-old’s right to carry a concealed weapon. If the law says you have to be over 21 to purchase it, it’s a reasonable, common sense conclusion to say you have to be over 21 to carry it.
Finally, and with all due respect, the rest of your arguments are circular. There’s no supporting evidence, because it’s never been tried – but we can’t try it, because there’s no supporting evidence. These same arguments kept Europeans on their side of the Atlantic for centuries, until one man was brave enough to try it (Happy Belated Columbus Day). We’ve tried it in all other aspects of everyday life. What happened? No road-rage-fueled shootouts, no turf wars over parking spaces, no “blood in the streets.” We have the evidence, but at worst it shows there’s no major correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates. At best, there’s a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime (e.g. “More guns = less crime”). Please take a moment and read it.
May Peace favor you.
Odd that she’s approved other comments on that thread but not this one. Funny how this somehow violates here “Common Sense” moderation policy.
Yep its all people making threats and calling her bad words….or maybe she moderates comments that make too good a point that make her platform rather shaky.
That’s why I don’t bother commenting over at moderated anti-rights blogs anymore. Why spend good time writing a thoughtful comment when you know it will most likely be shitcanned.
BTW whenever we have a post about Joan, or are discussing an issue she’s deleting comments over, feel free to copy and paste here. Just make sure its on topic, and I have no issues with it.
Late to the party here, but there’s another aspect missing here.
I carry a firearm to protect *me*. I have zero desire or intent to intervene in police or protection activities. If I have to use my firearm, it will be for my defense only.
We’re all here in the same environment with the same choices. If you want to go through life unarmed and happen to get assaulted, that’s life. If you somehow think I, as a random passerby, will come to your assistance, you are mistaken. You should have thought about your need long ago and decided to continue on unarmed, or seek training and the method to defend YOURself.
I’m not going to worry much about you being a victim. Maybe I’ll help out if I have some free time.
Yep Me, my family, My Friends. Any body else befitting from my carry gun is collateral windfall.
Tho I would argue that by killing violent criminals you remove one monster from the populous, and you send a message about the “Victim Pool” to similar monsters.
Pingback: Preventing A Mass Shooting? • Where Angels Fear To Tread
Pingback: Joan and the Anti-Rights Conundrum | Weer'd World
Pingback: When in Doubt, Lie | Weer'd World