My Start for Pro-Rights

So Joan Peterson has a post up on banning dangerous things. In the comments frequent commenter Molonlabe points out that her whole premise is bullshit because gun control laws don’t lower violent crime, and allowing good people to carry guns doesn’t raise crime or violence. Again the old saw of them making claims of the “Wild West” and then in response to their nightmares violent crime goes DOWN, and the FBI reports the NICS lines are blowing up with the number of people buying guns.

Now of course Joan responds.

Hmmm- nice molon. I’m working on it and I think you are wrong.

Pretty typical Joan, no thinking, and a re-affirmation that she hasn’t changed her mind. So I dropped a line in the water and amazingly it was published.

Honest question, Joan. Is there a piece of data that could be presented to you where you WOULD change your mind?

Note I say this as a Gun Control advocate who DID change his mind when I was presented with said data.

Oddly she approved my comment, but her response tells me she didn’t read a word of it.

I don’t rule anything out. You?

I think I just explained that, didn’t I? But of course not even anything that could be claimed a satisfactory answer.

I doubled down on my question, and we’ll see where it goes, I suspect Joan didn’t answer because she knows NOT to answer.

So while we wait let me expand on my transition point from anti-gun to pro-gun. First up I would say that my first few trips to the range did NOT convert me. If anything they turned me from a Carolyn McCarthy-style anti (Ban them all, and I don’t know shit about them) to essentially a Fudd. (Ban all of them…except for these guns that I like…)

But let’s go on the basis of why I hated guns and felt something needed to be done about them. The big umbrella was that guns did more harm than good, so a ban or heavy restriction would make things BETTER. The basis for the “More harm than good” was #1 the Arthur Kellerman “Study”, I didn’t know the name of this study, or even quoted Kellerman’s finding properly. I certainly was unaware of what a HORRIBLE bit of ramshackle science it was, still I believed that if you had a gun in your house chances were VERY good you’d do something very horrible rather than anything you’d be pleased with. Of course TV and Movies also seemed to support this theory. I also believed that people who kept guns for self defense very rarely used them, essentially making them a bit on the paranoid side.

Also given that my years as an Anti were in the 90s, I also believed that so-called “Assault Weapons” were actual military weapons, and were more powerful than the more traditional hunting guns in calibers like .30-30 Win, .30-06, and .308 Win. (If any people who don’t immediately get that, reference click on any of those above links, and then compare the ballistic energy with the ubiquitous “Assault Weapon” cartridges like 5.56x45mm NATO or 7.62x39mm)

Learning to shoot took my fear away from guns, but it also got me INTERESTED with guns which got me to read the above information. Of course it went like a waterfall, when you expose one lie, you start looking for MORE lies…and when you FIND them. Well you have two choices, switch sides, or live a lie.

I suspect Joan thinks Molanlabe is wrong, and won’t answer my question because she chose the latter. She knows what she’s doing, and she knows what she campaigns for cause more harm than good, and as somebody who lost a love one to violent crime, he proposition will have MORE people feeling the same grief she did.

Joan Peterson is an evil woman, and I don’t use that term lightly. Just think of what must be wrong with such a person to live in this age, and know what she knows, and still do what she does.

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

0 Responses to My Start for Pro-Rights

  1. Linoge and I have done a lot in the correlation != causation front. I spend a decent amount of time when the FBI updates their stats as well as when the Brady’s publish a new score card. Each time it’s shown there’s no correlation to gun control and an effect on violent crime.

    Linoge has taken a different front and focused on gun ownership stats and violent crime rates.

    The facts are out there and are plentiful. I would note, I never hear anyone disputing our facts. They just respond with how it doesn’t match their “feelings” and “common sense”.

    • Jack says:

      Correlation may not equal causation.

      But correlation is a prerequisite for causation.

      That being said more guns and less crime may not prove that guns reduce crime, but it certainly raises question on how more guns can increase crime.

      • Pyrotek85 says:

        What’s funny is that they shoot themselves in the foot by not just predicting a rise in crime, but a massive bloodbath in the streets over parking spaces. Obviously when that doesn’t happen they look all the more ridiculous.

        If they took a more conservative approach their lies might at least be believable to someone who’s not into the issue. Instead, I think the more shrill they get the harder it is for them to be taken serious by anyone. They’re starting to come off like PETA and their animal rights nonsense.

        • Jack says:

          And what’s better is they don’t learn!

          They made the same perdition when Florida went to Shall Issue and have cried bloody streets over parking spaces with *every* state since.

          With Wisconsin some were reduced to saying that cheese-heads were especially violent and that this time, this time, the floodgates will open.

  2. bluesun says:

    Used to think she was just an idiot, but it seems that evil is the more likely reason. Not even idiots can support criminals like she does.

  3. agirlandhergun says:

    I don’t know who Joan is, but I do her thinking.

    I get a little frustrated with the gun folks who think all people who don’t want to carry are sheep and are worthless because I believe that for most folks, they are ignorant. They are working based on lies told to them and the lies kind of make sense and since most people don’t really think about it, they just accept it, they are not evil. Dangerous maybe if they vote, but not evil. However, for people like this woman you describe, she is evil. To know hat she knows and to perpetuate it and to advocate in favor of disarming the people that, it evil.

    Now, I am off to go click on those links.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/misplaced-guilt/

      Joan like many anti-Rights advocates. (She’s a local activist and lobbyist for both the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation in Minnesota )is. Like Collin Goddard she wants to ignore criminal behavior and make sure their victims are always disarmed,

      Like most anti-rights advocates, she believes in gun control because she’s paid to.

    • Jack says:

      Of note is that those in the gun control movement do their best to keep people ignorant.

      You can see it in how little they actually know about the very subject they deem so knowledgeable on they have the right to dictate to everyone else on.

      You can see it in how they don’t admit that their opinion can’t be changed.

      You can see it in how they are against teaching basic firearms safety like the Eddie Eagle program.

      That’s because the Antis depend on people being ignorant in order to support their cause.

    • There are some who have the view that everyone should carry though the view I find actually more prevalent is everyone should have the choice. The very last thing I want is someone carrying a gun who isn’t comfortable with it and not willing to use it. That’s not to say there are not people who think everyone should carry, but denying someone a right is very different ball game.

      Joan and others often rely on feelings followed by projection. While that example isn’t from Joan, you will spot the pattern anywhere. Their arguments are exactly that, a pattern.

      I understand the need to engage Joan from the standpoint she is a major figure head of one of the biggest Criminal Occupational Hazard Reduction organizations left. Though it should be pointed out it appears to possibly be in it’s death throws. The problem with arguing with Joan though is her mental defect.

  4. George says:

    Weer’d, you know I love you. But why oh why do you keep feeding the troll? ๐Ÿ™‚

    Any conversation with JP:

    JP: Guns are bad and only kill people.
    Gunniverse (GV): We disagree.
    JP: I think they are.
    GV: No, seriously, look at this evidence.
    JP: You are all mean and rude. I won’t listen to anyone who is mean and rude, or consider any evidence that is mean and rude.
    GV: WTF????

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Because this particular Anti-Rights cultist is a highly involved, and vetted representative of both the Brady Campaign (Board of Directors, and Minnesota President of their Million Mom March Chapter) and of the Joyce Foundation (Communications Director of Protect Minnesota).

      She’s no Mike B or Jadegold, she’s a Paul Helmke or a Josh Sugarmann, or Ladd Everette. That’s a MIGHTY big target.

      • George says:

        I hear ya. Oddly enough, her arguments are no more evolved… ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Weerd Beard says:

          Well that’s also part of my goals. While I don’t FEED trolls like them anymore, I also can’t look away (it’s like a train wreck, or a dog squatting to take a shit, you can’t look away!) so I can always show how similar they are to these anti-social degenerates in the Troll Farm.

          Key point, NOBODY in their right mind should want to associate with anti-gun people, and those who do are all troubled, anti-social, and often violent.

    • Cargosquid says:

      Because it’s fun?

      Also, the replies to her nonsense, brings out…more nonsense…which we then point out to those on the fence. I’ve used her site as a means to get people OFF the fence and onto our side.

      They just read the gunny comments…and go….”Oh. That makes sense.”
      They read her comments and have told me, “Is she for real? Because she needs help.”

  5. I saw your comment got posted and was probably as surprised as you were.

    I often debate with Joan – I try to stick to arguing around facts but even then she doesn’t publish much. Given that she’s local (though she’s 2.5 hours north of me) – she shows up at the same legislative meetings that I’m at – so feels like I need to engage with her – particularly just to set her straight.

    I can’t tell you how many times she’s misquoted state law, local law, federal law, the facts of a case, and so on.

  6. Roadkill says:

    I’m a bit tired of debating these days. Tired of being effectively called a murderer in-waiting. After reading about a 25 year old female CCWerm disarmed by campus law, to be raped by a man who would go on to murder and rape others… I’m not going to be so nice anymore. This Joan chick is just a verminous pro-rape pro-murder scum. I imagine she would read about that poor woman and cackle gleefully as she reached down her pants to rub one out. After all, why? Other than a perverse gratification to see others suffer or because she herself suffered and wants everyone else to feel the same? Me being an ass about it isn’t so much now. But what happens if the pro-murder/rape crowd ever get their way and push us into a civil war? Will we be anywhere near as nice afterward if we come out on top and remember the vermin that helped push things into such a mess? Feh, at least for now we’re winning. But I don’t feel like being gracious about that anymore.

  7. Linoge says:

    Barron beat me to much of what I was going to say, but I do want to stress one point for the record – never once has a “gun control” extremist told me that my numbers or my conclusions on my “graphics matter” series are incorrect. Oh, sure, they have screamed and yammered about how those statistics do not fit into their world views and thus must be biased somehow (but never expressly detailed where or what that bias is), and they have pointed out how weak of a case I make (a point I admit myself, but I am not the idiot trying to claim “more guns = more deaths/crimes”), but never have they attempted to address the underlying numbers or the very short, very large statistical hoops I jumped through.

    In fact, the Brady Bunch actually attempted to misrepresent one of my graphics as an indication that the Brady Bill worked (when my images show no such thing).

    Whether they are willing to openly admit it or not, the anti-rights cultists simply cannot debate facts any more, because what they were debating in the past were not facts; they were cherry-picked “studies” like that Kellerman disaster that they were able to pass off as “facts”, and since, 10-20 years ago, no one had any way of fact-checking them, everyone took them at their words. Now that those anti-rights cultists no longer control the signal and are faced with the dim prospect of having their lies and misdirections exposed for the world to see, the only tactics left to them are outright lying, obfuscation, and playing the “victim card” as fast and as furiously as possible.

    Their cause is dying and they know it, but damn the death throes are shameful.

  8. Newbius says:

    Weer’d,

    I have grown tired of spending the time refuting their lies. My reach on the internet is not vast, and the time spent crafting a response is less effective than a similar amount of time spent taking a non-gunnie friend to the range for the first time. The friend knows me as a person first, and is willing to at least trust that I am not crazy. When they find out that shooting guns is *fun*, we win over another person.

    At the very least, some education happens. I’ll take experiential knowledge over head knowledge in this argument, at least with those on the fence. Every person we can take from ignorance (factual, not willful) to enlightenment bolsters our side, even if they do not become advocates.

  9. Cargosquid says:

    Btw…you guys know that she reads this site, right? Because I’ve seen things that I’ve written in comments repeated on her blog.

    Hi Joan.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      She DOES read this site, she’s quoted me a few times…and somehow thinks I live in Pennsylvania. But at this point I get far too much traffic to follow her movements here exactly. I’m sure she skimmed this post at least once because of the trackback.

      Still back in the day I could watch each person and see what they’re peeking at. “awww shit! I just got a visitor from the UN offices in Rome!!” Now I don’t bother…sometimes I catch somebody when they’re looking, but mostly no.

  10. Cargosquid says:

    She can hold two contradictory thoughts in her head at the same time! Amazing. But now we have her down as actually advocating for a gun and ammo ban. And so I wrote my comment. And then I read AFTER that, that she won’t be answering questions because she’s ONLY blogging and not making policy. She’s talking about broad issues not minutiae. After, of course, advocating for the banning of said “minutiae.”

    “I am not writing a pro gun blog. I am writing a blog advocating for reasonable and common sense gun laws and a gun culture that recognizes that such laws will not confiscate guns or take away rights.”
    “All I know is that we need a reasonable ban on some guns and some ammunition and we need it to be effective…”

    A ban on SOME guns and SOME ammunition……
    but you don’t want to confiscate or ban guns.
    In what way can you say both things and NOT be contradicting yourself?
    Let’s say that your “commonsense” laws are passed. What’s an example of those? You specifically mention some guns and some ammo that should be banned. What guns and ammo are unacceptable? Maybe we can come to a compromise.

    So I added: Never mind. Just read that you won’t be answering questions.
    Of course, I should have expected that. YOU never answer questions concerning common sense. You expect use to make all the concessions. You are the one that “got into minutiae” when you advocated bans on SOME guns and ammo. So tell us, since YOU brought it up, which ones?
    For once, I’d like you to actually provide examples of what you think is common sense, seeing as how you advocate for the banning of guns and ammo now.

    I don’t think either one is getting published.

  11. Cargosquid says:

    Maybe we need to contact the Brady Campaign and directly ask THEM what ammo and guns should be banned, since its being advocated as a “commonsense” policy by Joan Petersen.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      What’s great is they know not to admit their end goal. There’s a reason why they aren’t called “Handgun Control” anymore.

      They haven’t changed their minds, just their tactics.

  12. Rich says:

    Linoge said:

    “…playing the โ€œvictim cardโ€ as fast and as furiously as possible…”

    Well played sir.

    Rich

Leave a Reply

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