Quote of the day–John Peterson

Wisconsin will soon become the 49th state to endanger unarmed citizens with a gun crazy concealed carry law. While normal Wisconsinites prefer having no guns around as a way of ensuring a safe secure society, immature thugs and their guns will soon get their way via the party of bullying, the GOP.

While these paranoid wing nuts insist there’s nothing safer than a load [sic] gun in the hands of an angry anti-government whiner, the public has no choice but to fight back. Raise your voice, contact the police or business owner and tell them you feel threatened for you and your family.

John Peterson
November 28, 2010
Concealed Carry Killers. And these are only the ones we know about.
[Interesting. With those “great” Wisconsin gun laws how did this happen? It seems that a law against concealing firearms in a backpack and a law against firearms in a school didn’t stop a student from doing just that.

Don’t let the anti-gun people tell you that things would be worse if it weren’t for the restrictions on firearms. Remind them that in the years 1776 through 1990 there were seven school shooting incidents. But after the creation of “Gun-Free” zones in our schools in 1990 there were 78 incidents from 1990 through 2007. References here.

And where are all those people “endangered” by the concealed carry laws in the other 48 states? What is the violence crime rate in those states compared to the violent crime rate in the states that allow people to protect themselves with the best tools available?

Peterson is just another bigot on the wrong side of history.—Joe]


18 thoughts on “Quote of the day–John Peterson

  1. Why is it that so many anti-rights bloggers cannot seem to write about gun owners without resorting to sheer anger? One can only assume that they have to substitute emotion for facts as they’ve plenty of the former and a dearth of the latter.

  2. OK, so can we all just open carry wherever we’d like?

    Oh right, she wants to keep us from doing that too. A bigot indeed.

  3. Robb,

    Your explanation is as good as any that I can come up with.


    You are getting your bigots mixed up.

    This is John Peterson not Joan Peterson. I don’t know if they are related or not.

  4. “You are getting your bigots mixed up.

    This is John Peterson not Joan Peterson. I don’t know if they are related or not.”

    *snort* That was the first thing that I thought, too. Perhaps “Johpete”?

  5. If concealed carry becomes legal in Wisconsin, wouldn’t that make John Peterson and his ilk the “anti-government whiners?” Especially since the fighting back he advocates is literally whining (Raise your voice! Tell the police you feel threatened! Who cares if you’ve actually *been* threatened or not, all that matters is how you feel!).

    I especially like the assertion that the states and media are colluding to cover up the majority of the shootings perpetrated by ccw holders. The lack of evidence is proof!

  6. Concealed carry killers, gun crazy, immature thugs, bullies, paranoid wing nuts, anti-government whiners, no choice but to fight back (against enumerated rights)…

    Nice. This reminds me of a trend among the left. When the left wins politically, it is the most wonderful example of the power and righteousness of grass roots democracy– the people rising up and speaking out for what’s right and good and fair and just. When it loses within the very same system the left is a victim of a crime, and it is democracy itself that is under attack by “bullies” and “thugs”.

  7. So, he thinks I’m crazy and paranoid and dangerous, and his first impulse is to publicly insult me? That can’t possibly make sense even to him.

  8. ubu52,

    Follow the link labeled “References here“.

    Would you like to count up the total in your Google search then do the same for the time period after the creation of the “gun-free zones” around schools? We could then compare Google search to Google search rather than Wikipedia to Wikipedia. Both methods will have flaws but it might give us a hint.

  9. Joe,

    I saw that Wikipedia list of “school related attacks.” I suspect it’s grown a lot since 2007 since, as you know, those entries are constantly being edited.

    I have no desire to count up the number of shootings. I just know it’s more than seven. 🙂

    It’s interesting to read some of the old stories in the Google news archives. It makes me remember the days when I went to school when even students carried guns to school. (Here’s a story about a shooting over cookies: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xBMrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z5wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1960,2353305&dq=school+shooting&hl=en . Ha!) And remember Brenda Ann Spencer? The girl who hated Mondays?

    It’s also amazing to see so many stories about teachers and principals shooting other teachers and principals. (Verlin Spencer was one. I’d never heard about that shooting, probably because it happened back in the 1940s. Here’s another one: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZbsxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9gAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5497,3545669&dq=school+shooting&hl=en )

  10. ubu, let’s assume the Wikipedia page is accurate. Do you not see that enacting “gun free zones” has had ZERO effect?

    I am armed while taking my kids to the park, to church, shopping at the mall, on play dates, while at the toy store or at a local play. I am around children all the time and my firearm is no more a threat or a hazard to them as is my Leatherman, a ball point pen, or my belt. You and your kind believe that by saying nobody can have guns at schools that somehow that prevents shootings. We have proof that this is not the case, yet you still cling to the fantasy of a ‘gun free zone’. When I drop my children off in the morning, I am armed, but if I step out of the car, I am now a felon even though I’ve harmed no one. And those who would harm children or others with guns are not going to be stopped by a stupid sign.

  11. Robb,

    Sure, I can see that. I can also see that prior to all these laws (GFSZ, CCW, etc.) people carried guns for self defense AND for offense. There is no proof that carrying guns for self defense had any affect on school shootings either. In fact, when kids were bringing guns to school, you actually saw more shootings over things like cookies.

  12. Sure, I can see that.

    Well, at least she can finally admit it – she is only interested in abridging people’s rights for the sake of abridging people’s rights, not actually accomplishing any kind of good or necessary improvement of public safety. Granted, we already knew this, but it is good for her to finally be honest.

    In other news, her laziness apparently abounds, so I will do the counting for her: according to that self-same Wikipedia webpage, which undoubtedly has been updated since 2007, there have been a grand total of 88 “successful” (in that someone was wounded or killed, often the shooter him/herself) school shootings (including those perpetrated by American Indians, police officers, and the National Guard) in America between 1776 and 1990 (a rate of 0.411 per year, since I know she will not bother calculating that either). Since 1990, there have been 136 “successful” school shootings (including gang-related incidents, at a rate of 6.8 per year).

    So, tell me, was the rate better or worse before the implementation of “rights-free zones”? I certainly will not claim that those “rights-free zones” are to blame for the increased rate, but criminals do prefer unarmed victims, and areas where they can work their murder without interference or resistance.

    Oh, and you know the worst incident of violence that took place at a school? Yeah, it was perpetrated with a bomb. In 1927.

  13. It wasn’t very publicized, but back in October a Wisconsin judge was trying a case where a man ran afoul of the state concealed weapons statute by carrying a knife on his belt–apparently covered by a shirttail. The judge found the law unconstitutional and agreed with a motion to dismiss on those grounds, citing the Heller and McDonald cases and violation of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. The prosecution had 20 days to appeal; I’ve looked & I can’t find anything further on the case, so it looks like they let it expire. As a result the ruling only applies in his circuit, unfortunately.

Comments are closed.