Joan Steps in it Again

So Joan, like many anti-rights bloggers are mourning the loss of Jim Brady, the namesake of Handgun Control International’s name-change to The Brady Campaign.

I see Mr. Brady the same way as I see Gabby Giffords, somebody who was not seriously anti-gun, but married to an insane anti-freedom creep. Oddly enough after they suffered a debilitating brain injuries both became spokespeople for anti-freedom laws that had nothing to do with their injuries.

That’s my opinion, but I don’t begrudge people mourning their dead. I won’t miss him, but they seem to. I respect that. Jason “Baldr” Kilgore has a fairly too-the point epitaph here. I’ll leave the “Two Million NICS denials” bit alone for now. We all know how NICS works and the flaws of that statement.

Joan takes it a step further:

Today is the day I got the phone call telling me that my sister had been shot and killed by her estranged husband. The shooting happened on August 5th but my (at the time) brother-in-law sat in his house with two dead bodies apparently trying to decide what to do next. Shooting other human beings must be a terrible thing even for the shooter. How can one live with the idea that you have just brutally and inexplicably killed another person. He didn’t live too long actually. Several months after the shooting, he killed himself. Shootings like this one and so many other domestic shootings happen quickly in moments of anger, rage, jealousy, depression, misunderstandings and other “reasons”. When a gun is available to people in these states of mind, it is often used.

Of course the “Shooting Like This” didn’t happen quickly. Joan’s sister took a protective order out against her estranged, and abusive husband, and the shooting happened when she and her boyfriend went to serve him papers at his house.

My sister’s death will always be with me. I don’t want other families to feel this way. I can safely say that my sister would be proud of my efforts.

And what is she proposing?

It is not inconvenient to get a simple background check for a gun purchase. It takes mere minutes unless one is on the list of prohibited purchasers. Those folks should be inconvenienced. And, of course, the 5 day waiting period for gun purchases disappeared after 5 years of the Brady Law’s existence as a compromise in the original bill. One does need to ask what the hurry is when buying a gun. Sometimes my husband and I shop around for cars or mattresses or other furniture or desired items for days and weeks before we actually buy it. And then it may take a few days for delivery. A gun is designed to kill another human being. What’s the rush? And the public agrees with me ( from the linked article to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.)

What’s the hurry? Well Joan’s late brother-in-law already HAD guns, and was illegally keeping them after the restraining order was issued. He was friends with the local cops, so I suspect he wasn’t to worried about the shotgun he used being discovered. Still what about the woman who never thought about guns until somebody threatens their lives? What’s the hurry then? 5 (business) days waiting, for the gun, and often over a month waiting for the permit process is just “inconvenient” right?

Also nice of Joan to link a “Study” by her fellow Joyce foundation compatriots. Funny how Joyce people cite Joyce studies, Bloomberg People cite Bloomberg studies, and Brady people cite Brady studies. Most groups have multiple shell groups to make it appear like it is wide research, but it is about as accurate as when a candidate for office states an “internal poll” that cites they are way ahead in the race.

Also I love how she attacks the waiting period. It was abolished when the NICS system came into place. Before all background checks could ONLY be done by post mail. Technology rendered that archaic and obsolete. Actually the current NICS system is BETTER than the old one, but it’s also more convenient for gun owners, which is why they HATE it.

It was always about time to run the checks, never about a “Cooling Off Period” often cited. Also when somebody has DOZENS of guns, what exactly is making them wait going to do? You MIGHT argue that the FIRST gun might be a valid time for reflection, but still that puts people who have suddenly woken up about their self-defense, often in the gravest extremes, in danger. In those 5-7 days (longer if you can’t make it to the shop the day your gun is ready) is plenty of time for your stalker to beat you to death.

Sorry Joan, but even your best wishes wouldn’t have saved your sister’s life, and you certainly weren’t there to help her do the SMART think, like having a peace officer or registered mail serve the papers. Also do you think this was the FIRST Joan heard about her Brother-in-law being a dangerous and bad man? No, his face was all over the local news for his countless run-ins with the law, and those were NEWS reports. Didn’t she ever see her sister socially with her husband? Of course those things are never discussed. It’s not Joan’s personal responsibility to protect her family, it’s the GOVERNMENT’S job!!!

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

18 Responses to Joan Steps in it Again

  1. Cargosquid says:

    Well said.

  2. Bob S. says:

    Let’s not forget one of my favorites; not even the CDC was able to find sufficient proof that background checks or any other law would reduce violence

    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

    Summary

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    So, instead of focusing on preventing domestic violence, instead of focusing on improving the mental health system, instead of focusing on conflict resolution skills or even police corruption as you point out; Joan wants to keep trying failed policies over and over again.

    Makes me wonder if her goal is to reduce violence or just control people.

    • Jack/OH says:

      Control people, Bob. Plus, self-therapy via politics, God knows what-all. The city where I work is on pace to having an 80% reduction in homicides (from about 50/100,000 in the 1990s to 10/100,000). I’m confident the anti-gunners have no clue how that happened, because they just plain live in some alternate reality.

  3. The Jack says:

    http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2014/08/brady-bill-namesake-james-brady-dies-at-age-73.html

    A bit of history on the Brady Bill. And how the whole “waiting period” scam was sold off.

  4. TS says:

    It takes 5 min to do a background check IF you are standing in front of an FFL. The expressly don’t want a system where someone can run checks on themselves and prove to the seller they are not prohibited. They don’t want add the FFL visit so badly, that they’d rather keep the status quo, then concede this level of convenience. With all the barking they do about background checks, this tells us how important record keeping is to their plan. They act like the Brady bill has saved millions of lives, so how many millions more will they let die as they hold out for paperwork that they can track sales with?

  5. Bubblehead Les says:

    So Joan walks into a Bar, and orders a Martini. The Bartender asks for her I. D., runs it through a Police Background Check Machine (just to make sure she is of Legal Age and there are no Court Orders preventing her from purchasing an Alcoholic Beverage). It comes back clean, he tells her that will be $10. She hands over the cash, and the Bartender tells her to come back in 5 days to get it. Joan say “FIVE DAYS TO WAIT FOR A DRINK!? And I’m Legally allowed to Buy one!? WTF!?” The Bartender says “Well, Joan, since it’s a Proven Fact that THREE times as many people are killed due to Drunk Driving than are Killed by Firearms, shouldn’t we just make sure that No One will ABUSE the System and go out to their Car Drunk? After all, you MIGHT Kill someone by Drinking then Driving, even though MILLIONS of Drivers never Drink enough to be Drunk behind the Wheel. Oh, and it’s a FIVE Day Waiting Period for EACH Drink, so, you better order a Double from now on.”

    Hey, I’m just using HER ILLOGIC to address a Danger that is THREE TIMES GREATER THAN FIREARMS VIOLENCE, i.e., DRUNK DRIVING.

    Think she’d go for it?

    • Archer says:

      Don’t forget, “Please fill out this form, and do it carefully; it’s a federal felony if any of your answers aren’t 100% accurate. If you want to enjoy your beverage off-premises, you’ll need to submit more paperwork, pay a few hundred dollars in more fees, and provide a ‘good cause’ reason for needing to take it with you, which they may or may not allow, but you won’t get your fees back either way.”

      Oh, and if she’s in Oregon, “That’ll be $10 for the drink, plus another $10 for the State Police to run your background check. They don’t trust the Feds to run the checks without State Police oversight/intervention.”

      No, I don’t think she’d go for this. She uses her car, and likely enjoys a drink now and then. The second she’s personally, adversely affected, she’d drop her support like a hot rock.

    • TS says:

      Continuing with Bubblehead Les’ theme:

      Joan says, “screw this, I’ll go home and make my own martini!” So she goes home where she finds her neighbors visiting her husband. “Boy, what I lousy week I had. First a judge calls DC’s carry ban unconstitutional, then Missouri voters make my ‘most people support gun control’ line look like nonsense… I could use a stiff drink. Who wants one?”

      Her guests give each other a sideways glance. “Um, Joan, it’s illegal to serve alcohol without the proper age verification.”

      “Nonsense, Mary, I’ve known you since we were both in high school, but fine, show me your ID.”

      “Joan, that’s still a federal felony! ONLY a licensed alcohol server is qualified to check an ID. We’re going to have to go to the bar down the street. There’s lots of bars around, it’s not a big deal.”

      “Oh, for Pete’s sake! Whatever, let’s go.”

      The bartender says, “back again, I see. What can I get you ladies?”

      “Just an ID check. I made this drink for my friend here.”

      “Ok, no problem. Looks like she’s over 21… That’ll be $15 and I’m afraid I’m going to have to hold onto that drink for 5 days before your friend can have it. The law is the law.”

      “What??? That’s more than if I just bought the drink here!”

      “Hey, the courts have ruled small fees amount to a reasonable restriction. Be thankful MADD was able to take on the big bad booze lobby with all their buying off of congress and all. Justice won, and countless lives are saved.”

      • Weerd Beard says:

        That’s HILARIOUS!

        Also if you’ve been reading her site, she’s taking a vacation to South Dakota, and Wyoming, and felt OBLIGATED to write a post about how lax the gun laws are there (but THE PEOPLE want stricter laws! So says the Joyce Foundation who’s paying for the trip, and Bloomberg who she dreams of cashing checks from!) and the violent crime rate is very small, but note that she found some headlines from those states where good innocent people got hypnotized by evil “Assault Weapons” (definition, a gun that shoots a bullet) and killed people! BAN ALL GUNS!!11!!

        Yeah, she’ll be hitting the sauce on that trip!

  6. Jack/OH says:

    Joan: “When a gun is available to people in these states of mind [anger, rage, etc.], it is OFTEN used” (my emphasis). No, it isn’t. Plenty of Americans get PO-ed daily by someone, and they never get close to forming criminal intent and reaching for a gun, a knife, or any expedient weapon.

  7. “Of course the “Shooting Like This” didn’t happen quickly. Joan’s sister took a protective order out against her estranged, and abusive husband, and the shooting happened when she and her boyfriend went to serve him papers at his house.”

    No, they had been separated for a while. They were in settlement talks and he shot and killed them. Apparently they had several talks, witnessed by others, which were described as “amicable.” He offered her $4million and she continued to seek additional records trying to prove that he was worth lots more. He complained that she was “divorcing [her husband’s] father, not [her husband]” The whole story is in “Greed, Rage, and Love Gone Wrong: Murder in Minnesota” by Bruce Rubenstein.

    It’s an interesting story of a rich man with an entitlement complex and a woman who doesn’t come across as a sympathetic victim.

    http://www.amazon.com/Greed-Rage-Love-Gone-Wrong/dp/0816643385/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407606023&sr=1-1&keywords=greed+rage+and+love+gone+wrong

    • And it wasn’t a shotgun, it was described in the book as a “stainless steel revolver.” It was turned over to the police in a plastic bag, still bloody, by the killer’s lawyer.

      You’re right about Joan and her “waiting period” foolishness. The killer was a gun collector. He used a revolver, shot his wife, wounded the boyfriend twice, and had to reload before shooting him in the head through his hand and “his tightly closed eye.”

  8. Jack/OH says:

    Joan’s sister acted as her own process server with her boyfriend in tow? Whew! I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t there some duty placed on the person seeking a protective order to avoid acting so as to provoke the very behavior you’re seeking to discourage?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone else remember when the CDC quarantined people attempting to enter the country with contagious diseases, instead of using its resources to harass gun owners?

  10. Pingback: Episode 1 | Gun Blog Variety Cast

  11. Old NFO says:

    Ah yes, the restraining order ‘should’ have stopped him… right… And criminals DON’T obey laws, when will Joan get that through her thick skull???

  12. Pingback: Again Anti-Freedom! | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.