Morning Joan Peterson Quote

Really busy and didn’t get a ton of sleep last night, so blogging might be a bit light today. So I’ll just go to the orchard of low-hanging fruit:

Bryan- I have conceded that point to you. I hold permit holders to a higher standard because they are carrying deadly weapons that can result in death and injury. One violent crime committed by a permit holder is one too many. You guys are supposed to be law abiding folks. That was the deal when the law was passed. And yet, in many states, people who have committed misdemeanors are allowed to carry guns. Dangerously mentally ill people get permits. They shouldn’t. The laws are too loose. We don’t need people with guns walking around in public. Prevention is better than taking a chance. You guys have not made us any safer. That is also very true. You have no proof otherwise. So we could easily go back to May Issue laws and we would be none the worse for it and we wouldn’t be taking a chance on giving out permits to people who are potentially irresponsible with guns. Permit holders shouldn’t be committing any crimes. They are supposed to be law abiding.

What’s really neat is permit holders ARE held to higher standards. Most infractions done by somebody with a carry permit result in a permanent revocation of the permit, and often felony charges that carry serious jail time. She’s “Conceding the Point” (quotes, because not really, she’s just moving the goal posts in the face of facts) because this WORKS. I really don’t think people with permits are saints or better people than those without guns or permits. Just the stakes are SO much higher, that people heed the law much more stringently.

Also isn’t it nice that Joan holds US more accountable than her own compatriots? Permit holders should be following the law at 100% while gun control activists commit crimes, and cozy up with criminals.

Meanwhile she’s complaining about people with misdemeanors or arrests with no convictions. And of course I’d love to see how we’re supposed to stop people with undiagnosed mental conditions, or conditions that are only known within a Doctor’s confidence (which is required to be broken if the Doctor is concerned about crimes or dangers). I suspect Joan wants her band of felons and lunatics to have access to our private information. Anti-freedom, not anti-gun!

And on a similar tin-ear vein:

Your article proves nothing. To even use the word positive experience with carrying a loaded gun around in public is an oxymoron. What has been positive about it? The article shows nothing new. Crime is going down all over the U.S. and it has nothing provable to do with people carrying guns. In fact, since crime is going down, you guys really don’t need your guns in public do you? Gun deaths and injuries remain about the same as they have been for the past 10 years or so. There has been no reduction in gun deaths due to people carrying guns. In fact, some of the permit holders have been shooting people in public places, accounting for some of the deaths.

So she’s repeating the boilerplate from the previous comment. Mouth open, mind closed! “Common Sense”…yeah!

Still what is interesting is that permits are WAYYY up, states with shall-issue permits, liberalized carry laws, and permit-less carry are at a record high. Gun sales, and new people joining the gun owning populous are at an all-time high….and crime is at its lowest in DECADES, even with a crappy economy and record high unemployment!

She’s right about the “Gun Death” numbers, its roughly 30,000 every year. Its been the same for decades, hell I’m amused that this number is quoted in “Runaway Jury” that’s a decade old, and it was the very same number I cited back when I was on the anti-gun side.

Obviously carry permits have nothing to do with this number, nor the number of guns in private hands, or the availability of “military-style” guns or ammunition magazines. We all know that correlation does NOT equal causation, but causation cannot exist without correlation. Hey but Joan isn’t going to be stopped by logic, reason, or rationality! She has “Common Sense”, don’t you know!

Of course there IS a correlation that more people carrying and owning guns and crime going down. It may not be a causation, but it very well could be. Certainly it isn’t HURTING, so I think I’ll err on the side of liberty and carry my damn guns.

Joan never errs on the side of liberty, because she HATES it with all her being.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Morning Joan Peterson Quote

  1. Jack says:

    This is a good example of her contempt for liberty:
    “So we could easily go back to May Issue laws and we would be none the worse for it and we wouldn’t be taking a chance on giving out permits to people who are potentially irresponsible with guns. ”

    Outright authorizing and legalizing police cronyism and corruption is not only “none the worse” but is somehow a way to shield against the “potentially irresponsible.”

    She’s not against guns; she’s against the “wrong sort” having guns. And with all her talk about “not needing” to carry guns and not taking the chance, I’m betting she’d be just fine with NYC or Boston or NJ style May Issue.

    How dare these uppity proles think they’re entitled to the same rights as the gentry!
    Next they’ll be demanding the franchise too.

    And yeah, one of the heads of the DNC recently complained that gun owners aren’t forbidden from voting.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yep, because her husband keeps his guns locked up and unloaded (and probably doesn’t even own ammo for them) and they’re the “Good kind” of guns, THEY’RE the GOOD gun owners…while us with our black rifles and concealable handguns and our efforts to reduce violence are the BAD ones, and probably shouldn’t have guns.

      Also interesting that the BEST she can promise is that if we surrender our rights is that things won’t get worse. (Of course this is openly ignoring all the defensive gun uses that happen in America)

      So wait I can keep my possessions and my freedoms, or I can give them up for NOTHING? That’s a pretty hard bargain she’s driving!

  2. Archer says:

    I’ll give her that nation-wide “Gun Death” statistics have remained pretty stable. However, I posit that where you have liberal ownership and “Shall-Issue” or “Constitutional Carry” laws (Vermont, Alaska, the Pacific Northwest as a whole, etc.) you have a slightly lower rate, while in places with heavily restricted ownership and “No-Issue” (Illinois [especially around Chicago], Washington D.C., etc.) or “May-Issue” that effectively equates to “No-Issue” (Southern California, New York City, etc.) you have a dramatic spike in violence and “Gun Death.”

    The average remains the same, but you get sharper, more localized statistical anomalies.

    It’s like trying to wade across a 200-foot wide river that on average is only 12 inches deep; you’ll drown when you get to that 10-foot deep section in the middle.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      You know I never looked at the stratification of “Gun Death”, and I don’t know if anybody else really has either.

      I don’t think its changed much, because gun ownership, carry laws, and the economy has NOTHING to do with it. The majority of those 30,000 “Gun Deaths” are suicides, but of the MURDERS the vast majority of those are criminal-on-criminal crime, and all of that boils down to the prohibition of drugs, and the gang culture supported by that drug money.

      The drugs being bought and sold are just as illegal as they were 50 years ago, so the numbers haven’t changed either. I think THAT’S the factor we need to look at.

      • Archer says:

        True. I keep forgetting about the suicides (which would happen with or without firearms present).

        Still, when I have time, I might go digging into the homicide/murder data (with and without firearms) and cross-reference it by location and/or local laws (or for even more fun, Brady Campaign score!). It’d be interesting to see if there’s a correlation there. Not saying there is or isn’t – that’s for the data to show – but it’d be interesting nonetheless.

        I do know that Chicago’s crime rate is routinely contrasted with comparably-sized and demographically-similar cities in Washington state, and the differences in murder rate are striking, but the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

        • Weerd Beard says:

          THEY want you to forget suicides too. 30,000 people dead in the streets from violent acts is MUCH more conclusive to get middle America to ban guns….rather than reality which is only about 13,000 people dead in the streets, and most of them drug dealers or gang enforcers shooting people who are just as shady as they are.

          I did look at crime numbers and types of crimes in various cities with and without liberal carry laws, and found that violent crime is MUCH higher in cities that restrict gun owners than ones that let anybody who can pass a background check and a basic training class carry their guns.

          If you want to generate a study and email it to me I’ll publish it with full credit.

          • Thirdpower says:

            They want you to forget about suicide unless it’s convenient for them to trot out the numbers for it and/or when they want to include suicide by firearm in ‘mental health’ like trying to restrict military personnel from owning firearms.

  3. Bob S. says:

    Don’t forget that hunting licenses are up. Participation of females in shooting sports is up.

    Based on my limited view; membership and activity at ranges is up. And I have pretty fair view of the Dallas Fort Worth activity.

    And all of it does not matter a whit – to paraphrase even if every other gun owner out there shot someone yesterday, it still doesn’t take away my right to keep and bear arms.

    Millions of women have abused kids — should Joan have to be probed and prodded as Concealed Handgun License holders are to see her grandkids, NOPE. She didn’t do anything wrong.
    Millions of men have abused kids — should her husband be required to leave the vicinity when kids are around. Oh Heck no.
    And don’t even get me started on her friend Sparky (aka Name and Numbers) and chlid pron (deliberate misspelling), cameras and computers – but never think she won’t get around to restrictive laws about everything else if she wins the fight over firearms.

    As you say, not anti-gun; anti-freedom.

  4. I enjoy countering her emotional BS with facts – which she then ignores 🙂

    Thanks for the mention!

  5. Bubblehead Les says:

    Joanie, Joanie, Joanie. Has she ever considered how many “Crimes” are declared “Misdemeanors”? I’m willing to bet that about 5% of the U.S. Population has a “Misdemeanor” on their Record. That includes everything from a Bar Fight while in the Navy back in ‘Nam, from not paying one’s Taxes on Time, to OCCUPYING MY PARKS SO I CAN’T EAT LUNCH OUTSIDE AN OFFICE DOWNTOWN!

    But let’s give her the Benefit of a Feeble Mind who can’t do Basic Math. Let’s just say she gets her way, and those “Evil CHP People can’t have their Permit anymore because of a Misdemeanor.” That leaves 95% of those Adults in the U.S with Clean Records the Right to have a CHP. Let’s keep it simple, and say 250 Million People over the age of 21 can Legally have a CHP under her “Edict.” That leaves 237.5 Million People who, if they chose to do so, could be carrying under HER OWN RULES!

    Minus those Stuck Behind Enemy Lines, of Course.

    So the only thing she has left, UNDER HER OWN RULES, would be to declare 237.5 Million People Insane.

    So, by HER OWN LOGIC, She reveals to the World that anyone who doesn’t think like her should be Declared Insane, because how else does one keep a CHP out of the hands of those who are Legally eligible? She’s already wants to Ban those who are convicted of Misdemeanors, and the Law already keeps them out of the Hands of Convicted Felons, so that only leaves the Insane People who are Roaming the Streets w/o being Caught.

    There’s a Professional Term used in Psychiatry for those who think they are the ONLY ONES who are Sane. They are called “Nutjobs.”

    And THAT’S why Joanie and her Kind really are Very Dangerous. They are willing to go to ANY Lengths to get rid of Firearms. Most of them just don’t have the Guts to try something Violent against Gun Owners.


  6. Greg Camp says:

    Note the bravery of Joan and Dog Gone and Laci and Jason Kilgore and Everitt Ladd. They all gather on a site where comments are moderated. Whenever their side risks losing the argument (daily), they can refuse to post the comment. They can dismiss whatever their opponents are saying without airing those views. They don’t often show up anywhere that a fair fight is happening. The same thing goes on with talk shows. Alex Wagner brings in a group of gun banners and one lone defender and then she does her best to bend the conversation her way.

    They can’t win a fair fight, and they struggle to place when the fight’s fixed.

    • Tom says:

      It’s pretty easy to trip up doggone and Laci using their words against them. I got Laci turned around last year in a discussion about non-gun self-defense. He was bragging about how he could “handle” himself and that real men didn’t need a gun. I drew him out to reveal that his self-defense experience was part of the occupying forces in Northern Ireland. He didn’t have a gun, but he had a shield, a helmet, a baton and oh, maybe 100 fellow soldiers behind him.

      And poor doggone. I got her to argue that people who made more money were more justified in carrying a gun, and that if you didn’t make a certain amount, you should be unarmed.

      Arguing with them is mildly amusing, and something to do if you have nothing else going on. It’s light practice for arguing with people that are actually smart.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Also both Laci and Dog Gone brag about having carry permits , but want to take our permits away. Joan brags about her husband owning guns, and how she knows how to hunt, but wants to take away the guns we want to own (but isn’t very interested in discussing why her guns are OK and ours aren’t). Mike Bonomo lived a life of crime and is 100% unapologetic about it, but wants to treat everybody who DIDN’T profit from illegal behaviors (and at least indirectly were involved in wrongful deaths) like the worst criminals.

        They are losers with dreams of becoming aristocracy in a nation that deplores aristocrats. On top of that they’re hypocrites that think they deserve our respect.

        • Rob Halvorson says:

          Wait, they have carry permits? Can you send a link to that?

          The thing that makes me crazy about Joan is that she wants more laws but she has not respect for the current ones or for due process. An arrest is the same as a conviction, being questioned is the same as an arrest, being on a list is the same as a conviction. We don’t need to waste time trying Zimmerman because he “profiled” Trayvon and he’s guilty. Yet we don’t need to investigate the ATF because they wouldn’t do anything wrong and they hate gun owners.

Leave a Reply

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