Found this article online written by our favorite Brady Bot.
What’s interesting is the article is 99% of Joan Peterson talking about herself, and repeating information about the Norwegian massacre.
The only “substantive” section is this:
Please join me in asking elected leaders to enact sensible gun laws so we can at least begin to prevent gun injuries and deaths.
Joan A. Peterson
That’s IT! Now here’s an interesting thing. As a general rule the tactics of the Antis has been “We need to ban/restrict X because X causes *made up bullshit*”. That stuff is easily combatable, as all we need to do is respond with truth, real-life events, and statistics that both back up our side and refute the lies. This has become MUCH easier with the switch from print and broadcast media to internet used for fact-finding and news, and just the simple word-of-mouth cumulative ripple-effect that happens when people start fighting for their rights. One person wakes from their slumber, either from a personal epiphany or through the actions of others…and they tell several others, who each tell several others on their own. Pretty soon we go from passing a federal Assault Weapons ban that could be summed up by this quote:
Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons -Josh Sugarmann, executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
To the AR-15 becoming the best-selling rifle in the nation. It was simple, The forces of evil enacted a ban from lies and inaction and ignorance from the general population. With the ban pending…and eventually enacted, people suddenly got curious about what the big fuss was. So a few people decided to buy AR-15 rifles “Just for Fun” or as an investment, or simply to stick-it-to-the-man. These people took their rifles to the range, and found them to be both very fun, and very practical. They took friends. Some of their friends went out and bought rifles of their own. Many of these later generations attempted to buy rifles during the ban and saw the trivial stupidity of the restrictions on pre-ban guns, and the cosmetically different, but functionally the same ban-compliant guns. When the 10-year sunset came about the ban was lifted, and so was the chances of a similar ban ever being enacted.
Still Sugarmann’s lie has teeth. He was attacking firearms that his organization, and others, had defined as “Assault Weapons”, and magazines his organization, and others, had defined as “High Capacity”. They were lies, but they had a purpose, and they WON!
Now let’s say you’re a mush-minded sympathizer for Joan’s cherry-picked autobiography, and rendition of the Norway shooting. Let’s just imagine when she said “Please join me in asking elected leaders to enact sensible gun laws so we can at least begin to prevent gun injuries and deaths.” that sounds like a good idea to you. Then what?
Seriously. Call your senator or legislator and demand they “enact sensible gun laws”? Also how will those people clarify if asked “Such as?” or will they take it the logical way and realize its stupid demanding special permits to buy and carry guns, and maybe charging $200 for a gun-muffler doesn’t make much sense…
And we know that most people won’t even get that far. They will start looking up a phone number or an email and realize “What am I going to say?” and simply go back to their chair.
To quote the bard: “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.”
Also I link the article and give HUGE props to the Duluth News Tribune for posting the full disclosure of this “Reader’s View”
The writer is co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, is a board member for the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and is active with Protect Minnesota and with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, which uses the Duluth Model.
Oh BTW I was curious about the “Duluth Model” so I Looked it up, seems it’s similar to Joan’s article where it prattles on-and-on about stuff in a vaguely pointed way, with hopes that somewhere this pile of nothing will solve a problem. Well it will if the problem is Guilty White Liberals staying up at night worrying about the problems of the world. The Duluth Model appears to help them sleep like a baby as the world gets worse by telling them “They Made a Difference”.
Sorry I got side-tracked. Still I’m glad they won’t just publish a letter from a paid shill as if they were just a regular Joe.
There she goes again with the “civilized countries not at war.” Can’t factor in the homicide rates of those brown Mexican savages, because that would mess up the narrative.
Hey if her side, and her side alone can define what an “Assault Weapon” is or a “High Capacity Bullet Clip” is, or what laws of “Common Sense” are, why can’t they define “Civilization” and “At War”?
Hey at least they’re being open about cherry-picking their Data…if not very open about the methods.
1. There is a strong, negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm-related fatality rates. This would lead one to believe that more “gun control” is probably the wrong answer.
2. There is a strong, negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm-related crime rates. This would lead one to believe that more “gun control” is probably the wrong answer.
3. There is a strong, positive correlation between firearm ownership rates and freedom indexes, economic freedom indexes, and corruption indexes. This would lead one to believe that more “gun control” is probably the wrong answer.
4. Joan’s entire argument – that of “sensible” gun laws – continues to rely on the appeal to popularity logical fallacy – her idea of “sensible” may or may not be shared by a majority (all indications are that it is not), but even if it was, just because most people agree with her does not make her right. But I routinely contact my legislators and request more “sensible” gun legislation… something tells me, though, that if she were to read those emails, she would have a coronary…
(‘Course, the interesting thing about the Duluth Model is that it completely ignores the very real, if irregular, possibility of the woman being the abuser. Nothing like a little sexism to go along with her general anti-rights stance… And, really, “plac[ing] the accountability for abuse on the offender” would be nowhere near the problem it is if folks like “gun control” supporters were not so damned busy trying to find any and all ways to remove the blame from the offenders (and move it to inanimate objects, specifically, in the case of “gun control”). )
Meh… I couldn’t even get through the first paragraph!
I don’t even bother anymore. It’s like eating a rice cake. You keep chewing and chewing but there’s no substance or taste.
Her viewpoint still does not matter…it’s a non-starter. The proposed remedies never do anything to prevent future shootings. Her myopic identification of the instances of firearms misuse, while totally ignoring the benefits of them speaks volumes about her bias and her lack of credibility. I have grown tired of their over-used “sensible” gun laws phrase, when there is nothing sensible about them. Let’s see…unarmed people get killed, so let’s disarm more of them! Really, that passes for an intelligent thought process? Since getting dressed is a complex task, I have to ask, does she have people come and dress her in the morning or does she simply lie in state and arise in the same clothes the next day?
Well, I would wager more on the intellect and foresight of our Founding Fathers in recognizing our need for the tools of self-defense from all threats than her ramblings.