Quote of the day—Joan Peterson

O.

Joan Peterson
Brady Campaign Board Member
December 16, 2010
Response to the question, “How few murders have to be committed with firearms before the push for new, more restrictive laws ends?”
[Thanks to Bob S. and others for setting her up for and catching this.

I presume she meant “zero” rather than “Oh” but I’ll give her a pass on that. I remember when some typewriters didn’t have the digits ‘1’ and ‘0’ because you were supposed to use a lower case ‘L’ and a capital ‘o’ for them. I will not give her a pass on the intent.

Zero is not possible as long as people and guns exist. No matter how lives are saved with guns, not matter how successful “gun violence prevention” programs are, no matter how many court rules there are that the right to keep in bear arms is a specific enumerated right, this Brady Campaign Board member will demand evermore restrictions on that right.

What she is saying is that guns are somehow different than other tools used to commit murders. If she were to advocate for a position like this in regard to sticks, stones, fists, or feet she would be hauled off to the loony bin. But somehow with a constitutionally protected right at issue there exists an organization that makes her a board member.

The whole lot of them are essentially politically extinct at the Federal level because more and more people are getting a clue as to just how disconnected from reality these people are. We just need to drive them into extinction at the state and local level.—Joe]

42 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Joan Peterson

  1. If she were to advocate for a position like this in regard to sticks, stones, fists, or feet she would be hauled off to the loony bin.

    Only in a sane and just world. Alas, we don’t live in one. Not only will the anti-gunners never stop, those who firmly believe we can make everything safe and everyone nice will never stop, no matter how insane their notions or actions.

  2. “…those who firmly believe we can make everything safe and everyone nice…”
    Never make the mistake of being side-tracked by their idiotic assertions. No one believes that. The crime and safety crap is just cover. A smokescreen. It’s an attempt to pull on the heartstrings of the ignorant. Their target isn’t danger or crime. The primary focus of their hatred is human individualism (productivity, creativity and self reliance) and the liberty that allows it to work. When enough people come to understand that, defeating the left will be as easy as blowing down a house of cards. “Puff”.

  3. “What she is saying is that guns are somehow different than other tools used to commit murders.”

    Well, they are. Guns have no other purpose than to kill things. You can’t ride on a gun. A gun won’t help your car to run. You can’t use a gun to clear your drains. You can’t use a gun like a screwdriver.

    You’re trying to make Joan Peterson seem silly yet it seems silly that you think guns are for other things than killing. What other purpose does a gun have? Guns are for killing things.

    Only stupid people use guns to clear ear wax out of their ear canals. Are you going to claim guns are made for that? 😉

    Other than killing things, give me one other purpose for guns…. I’m waiting.

  4. We just need to drive them into extinction at the state and local level. More and more, they provide the car and mark the route. Maybe that’s what happens when you’re fighting a basic human right?

  5. Ubu52,

    Do you not recognize the sporting purposes of firearms?

    Target shooting is a fun relaxing activity; one I believe that is also an Olympic sport.

    As for as firearms only having one purpose, well you’ve convinced me. I think I going to start using mine for other purposes.

    I have a hallway door that won’t stay open, I think a Ruger GP-100 would make an excellent door stop.
    I have a Lorcin .380 (hey stop laughing guys, it was given to me) that probably would be better at cracking walnuts then saving my life.
    A Beretta White Wing shotgun, mounted on the wall, would be an excellent piece of art.

    Of course, I also take my firearms out to the range for target practice.

  6. Ubu,

    Meet Gustav. Gustav is a 4th generation piano wire maker. Using the skills his father taught him (and who’s father taught him), Gustav painstakingly crafts some of the most beautiful piano wire known to man, used in only the best concert pianos in the world. His handiwork is known not only for the perfect pitch they produce, but also for their strength and durability.

    Now, meet Timothy. Timothy is being garroted by one of Gustav’s piano wires (Middle C, in fact). Instead of Gustav’s intent that the string be pulled to the correct tautness so that when struck, it vibrates at 261.6 Hz, it is being wrapped around Timothy’s windpipe in order to choke him to death. The outer windings of the string were intended by Gustav to provide mass to the string so it would vibrate correctly, but instead was selected by the assassin because, much like a fingerprint, the added surface area made for a non-slipping surface which dug into skin much better.

    In short, no matter what Gustav’s intent was for his wares, Timothy is screwed.

    I bring this up because one of the arguments I hear all the time about firearms is that they are “designed to kill” as if the intent of the gunsmith has anything to do with how the weapon is used. I also bring up the fact that without a cartridge, a firearm is nothing more than a bludgeon. The bullet itself makes all the difference in the world too. Cops use rubber bullets in riot situations, fired from standard guns. Actors can use blanks with no projectile.

    The logically-impaired have a hard time grasping those facts, for some odd reason. They continue to believe that any object can have the maker’s intent magically transferred to the person holding it, thus relieving the holder of any responsibility for their actions.

    It doesn’t matter that Harald Wüsthof may design his knives so that they kill as many orphans as possible if the chef holding them only uses the blades to chop garlic or saw through fat-back. If intent were transferable, our friend Timothy would be listening to a rousing rendition of Concerto for Piano no. 1 in D minor, Op. 15 from Johannes Brahms rather than having the ever loving shit choked out of him, but alas intent is non-transferable.

    (from Robb Allen http://blog.robballen.com/2008/12/01/p2899-intent-is-nontransferable.post)

    When will you realize you can’t save everyone?

  7. Guns have no other purpose than to kill things.

    False.

    The recreational target shooting field is not only already massive (between high-power shooting, IDPA, USPSA, skee, trap, steel, Cowboy Action / SASS, Boomershoot, etc. etc. etc.), but growing on a yearly basis.

    But it does not really matter whether your ignorant statement is true or not – intent is non-transferrable. Piano wires are built with the purpose of providing beautiful music to the world, but they also function rather handily at ending people’s lives.

    And, in the end, it really does not matter – your ignorance, closed mind, and lack of imagination does not somehow magically grant you the ability to restrict people’s rights on the basis of that limited mind.

    On the flip side of that coin, you say “kill things” like it is universally bad – it is not. Some things need killing – varmints eating expensive crops, deer (there is a correlation between hunting and deer-related car accidents), and armed scumbags looking to tie you and your wife up and do Lord knows what to you, for example.

    You can’t use a gun like a screwdriver.

    Apparently you never encountered a 1911, which can also be used to open a beer.

  8. Who cares? First of all, since when is hunting (which involves killing things) a problem? Second of all, regrettably, sometimes killing needs to be done. Most of these so-called anti-gun types will, when in mortal danger, attempt to call the police. At that point, if successful, they are just hiring a gunslinger to do their killing for them.

  9. Until ubu52 can provide an answer as to why she thinks she can save everyone, I am treating all of her posts as intellectual garbage.

  10. “Well, they are. Guns have no other purpose than to kill things. You can’t ride on a gun. A gun won’t help your car to run. You can’t use a gun to clear your drains. You can’t use a gun like a screwdriver.”

    Yes, but you can drive a nail into concrete, make geological measurements by sound-wave or cause a controlled avalanche that will prevent later loss of life. I could sit here an claim disarmament never got me to work on time, changed my car’s oil or replaced my water heater, but that would be equally ridiculous.

    You’re hoping that we believe every application of deadly force is murder, yet are avoiding mention of the state-sponsored threat or use of lethal force to disarm people. This audience hasn’t been conditioned to make that mental substitution.

  11. Killing is one thing. Murder is another. To say that guns are only for killing, implying murder (and you know that was your intent, ubu) is like saying free speech is only for lying, libel, slander, perversion, cheating and sedition. By that reasoning, the entire Bill of Rights is only there to help criminals escape justice.

    Recreational shooting, though it accounts for the vast majority of ammunition sold in the U.S., had nothing whatsoever to do with the Founders’ intent. The second amendment protects the keeping and bearing of arms (as weapons) against crime, foreign invasion and tyranny. To acknowledge that crime, tyranny, or external threats exist at all is to make the case in favor of the second amendment.

    Peterson is utterly silly, and when you say things like this;
    “Only stupid people use guns to clear ear wax out of their ear canals. Are you going to claim guns are made for that? ;)” you are becoming silly too. What the hell kind of argument is that?

  12. Now assuming ubu decides to respond to the various other purposes, what we’ll get in return is most likely something along the lines of “Well you don’t ‘need’ to do those things”.

    Ubu ‘needs’ to believe guns are only for killing things. It’s the only way people like can maintain their world view.

  13. Some more bricks to pile onto the “Other than killing things, give me one other purpose for guns…. I’m waiting.” mound.

    People spend up many thousands of dollars building custom guns to do one other thing… Boomershoot. The same applies to a lot of other guns. I spent about $2000 on a gun I use in all my pistol matches. I did not expect the gun to ever be used to kill anything but I did kill an injured deer with it once (see below).

    I’ve expended something on the order of 100,000 rounds in my lifetime. I’ve killed three things with five shots:

    1) Two shots to kill a rattlesnake.
    2) Two shots to kill a deer badly injured after jumping in front of my wife’s Jeep which was traveling about 30 MPH at the time.
    3) One shot to kill a deer while hunting.

    So… were the other ~99,995 rounds wasted because they didn’t kill anything?

    Were those killings illegal or immoral in anyway? If not then what is the problem with some guns being effective tools to kill?

    Point one: Many guns are designed and used without any intent to ever kill anything.

    Point two: Some guns are used to kill things under lawful, moral, and even praiseworthy circumstances.

    So, ubu52, what is your point? Or were you just being a troll knowing that tired old cliché would get a rise out of us?

  14. “Killing is one thing. Murder is another. To say that guns are only for killing, implying murder (and you know that was your intent, ubu) is like saying free speech is only for lying, libel, slander, perversion, cheating and sedition.”

    No, I didn’t mean that guns are meant to murder. I meant that guns are for killing things: Animals, preditors, and people. Guns are meant to kill things. We would never have “death by firing squad” without guns. Guns are meant to kill. The military equips soldiers with guns because guns kill things.

    I realize that guns can be used for target shooting — but bow and arrow and darts are also used for target shooting and, at least in the case of darts, darts have no other real purpose. Darts are used for target shooting. The military doesn’t give darts and bows and arrows to soldiers because they are useless when it comes to killing things.

    Seriously, some of you are so blinded by your ideology that you fail to see the forest for the trees.

    Joe, some guns are not meant to kill things. That would be guns like “flare guns,” “airsoft guns,” “water guns,” but we are not talking about those kinds of guns. We are talking about guns that use metal bullets. It doesn’t really matter if you use your guns for the purpose of killing or not, that’s what the gun was made for. I could have a beautiful fantastic Volvo that I never drive around but the purpose of that car is to provide transportation whether I use it for that purpose or not.

    I’m not trying to start an argument. I just see that a lot of these putdowns are basically word games and serve no other purpose. If everyone seriously thinks that guns aren’t for killing, then we should all write the military and ask them to replace the guns with archery sets. If you think we are sending soldiers to Afghanistan for target shooting then perhaps we could give them all darts instead and save a lot of money.

  15. P.S. I killed a rattlesnake with a mop handle once. So? It was still a mop handle, even after I chopped off the snake’s head with the flat part. It’s primary purpose was to mop floors, not kill snakes.

    What’s funny is that I don’t know if I would have used a gun if I had had one. The snake was in the house.

    If anything, I’d like to see the politics removed from the definitions of “the purpose of things.” Most things have a primary purpose and to try and pretend they don’t is just asinine.

  16. ubu52,

    Even if we were to concede your point on the “purpose for guns”, which I don’t, what is your point? Killing is not necessarily illegal or immoral. What does that assertion bring to the discussion?

  17. Ubu52,

    I killed a rattlesnake with a mop handle once.

    If someone was trying to kill you; what would you rather have – A mop handle or a firearm?

  18. Joe,

    I was responding to this: “What she is saying is that guns are somehow different than other tools used to commit murders. If she were to advocate for a position like this in regard to sticks, stones, fists, or feet she would be hauled off to the loony bin.” Guns are different. Sticks, stones, fists and feet all have other purposes, just like cars and swimming pools.

    Bob S.,

    I’d rather have a firearm. Wouldn’t you?

  19. Sticks, stones, fists and feet all have other purposes…

    Fair to say that I know of a decidedly non-zero number of pre-Bronze-Age sophonts who would vehemently disagree with you on that point.

    You are unsurprisingly, and erroneously, conflating “effective/better at” with an object’s “purpose” – the two are not equivalent. An object’s purpose is whatever I decide it to be at that moment – there may be objects that are more efficient at doing the task I am trying to accomplish, but if I am trying to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring, that is that fish’s purpose for the time.

  20. ubu52,

    Of course guns are different, just as feet are different from hands, sticks are different from stones, and cars are different from swimming pools. Guns are the most effective self defense tool known to man and the only object (other than perhaps, indirectly, property in general) that we have a constitutionally protected right to own. It is this property of being an effective tool for killing (or more properly being able to stop an in progress attack) that gives them both their defensive use and their constitutionally protected status. Individual guns are specially designed for many things other than killing. There are dozens of game created around certain types of guns and guns designed certain games that make the guns far less efficient “killing machines” than if the guns were designed primarily for killing.

    All of this makes her all better a candidate for the loony bin. And I sometimes wonder about you because you read enough to know all this yet say things like “Other than killing things, give me one other purpose for guns”. That statement, with what I know about you, is difficult reconcile without concluding you were just trolling for response from us–which you deny.

  21. Ubu52,

    I’d rather have a firearm. Wouldn’t you?

    I too would prefer having a firearm.

    Now, if a 2 legged vermin (a violent thug) was in your yard or your house; threatening violence to you or yours, what would you rather have – a mop handle or a firearm?

    Would you shoot a violent thug to save your live or that of your family?

  22. “The military doesn’t give darts and bows and arrows to soldiers because they are useless when it comes to killing things.”

    Bows and arrows are useless for killing…no shit? So bow season isn’t about hunting and killing deer? I’m pretty certain that bows and arrows have laid plenty of folks into the ground in their time.

  23. Come to think of it, Mad Jack Churchill fought in WWII, never went into battle without carrying an enormous Claymore sword, and once successfully ambushed a German patrol near L’Epinette, France with a longbow.

  24. “The military doesn’t give darts and bows and arrows to soldiers because they are useless when it comes to killing things.”

    Are you sure about that? I seem to recall a story somewhere, where the soldiers were given bows and arrows to kill people…what was it? Oh, yes! I remember! It was “Henry V”, and in that story, there was a bloody battle where English soldiers, using bows and arrows, decimated the French army, while losing only a handful of their own soldiers. It turned the tide of the English war, and the French lost a generation of their noblemen.

    Even a modern-day army would do well to be careful, if they had to fight a large number of yeoman “peasants”, armed with nothing but bows and arrows, and the training to use them well–especially if they were hiding in a mountain pass, or some other strategic location. Just because a technology is old, doesn’t mean it isn’s deadly.

  25. Joe,

    “That statement, with what I know about you, is difficult reconcile without concluding you were just trolling for response from us–which you deny.”

    I think it’s because I occasionally get tired of hearing guns compared to cars and swimming pools. On top of that, there are a lot of people who feel guns should not be regulated at all (including safety testing) which I find utterly insane. Maybe the holidays are getting to me… Who knows? 😉

    Bob S.,

    “Would you shoot a violent thug to save your live or that of your family?”

    In my house, yes, if I owned a gun and I didn’t know him. In my yard? The yard I share with 50+ other families? No. He’d have to come inside my house before I would even begin to think about it.

    Would you shoot a thug in your yard if you shared your yard with 50+ apartments?

  26. Alpheus, it was deadly then, there’s nothing that’s changed about human anatomy that wouldn’t make it deadly today. Add in modern materials and the added technology of compound bows….

    Oh another interesting twist, if my sources are correct, soft ballistic armor is actually designed to dissipate the blunt-force trauma that is handgun bullets and shotgun slugs and pellets (These rounds actually “Crush” their way through tissues, rather than pierce like rifle rounds) this means knives go right through ballistic armor. Also means that broadhead arrows with their razor-sharp edges are “Armor Piercing missiles”

    Will SOMEBODY think of the childrenz???

  27. Ubu52,

    n my house, yes, if I owned a gun and I didn’t know him.

    So even if we agree with you that a firearm is only designed to kill; that can be a good thing depending on who’s hands it is in, right?

    In my yard? The yard I share with 50+ other families? No. He’d have to come inside my house before I would even begin to think about it.

    Most people, I think even you, know when to shoot or when not too. Current statistics bear that out, wouldn’t you agree?

    If you could shoot safely to save your family, most people wouldn’t have a problem shooting no matter where they are. Note the key words.

    Or are you saying that people only have a right to use firearms to save their lives inside their homes?

    Would you shoot a thug in your yard if you shared your yard with 50+ apartments?

  28. “Oh another interesting twist, if my sources are correct, soft ballistic armor is actually designed to dissipate the blunt-force trauma that is handgun bullets and shotgun slugs and pellets (These rounds actually “Crush” their way through tissues, rather than pierce like rifle rounds) this means knives go right through ballistic armor. Also means that broadhead arrows with their razor-sharp edges are “Armor Piercing missiles”

    Will SOMEBODY think of the childrenz???”

    Because (cue theme from Jaws) anyone can go into the woods, find a suitable branch, and make a suitable one for themselves. And there really is nothing anyone can do about that. Not that they should.

  29. ubu52,

    You are absolutely correct about guns, swimming pools, and cars. They are not the same and probably really shouldn’t be compared. Ownership of swimming pools and cars are not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights and State Governments (and perhaps the Feds) could ban them with a simple majority vote. Ownership of guns is protected and just like religion the government has no business interfering with them until they are used to infringe upon the rights of others.

  30. “Ownership of guns is protected and just like religion the government has no business interfering with them until they are used to infringe upon the rights of others.”

    OWNERSHIP may be protected but guns themselves should be regulated for safety just like other consumer goods are.

  31. Guess what, Ubu, THEY ARE! Obviously you thought you above statement was true. Knowing now that its false are you ready to join us in the good fight?

  32. “Guess what, Ubu, THEY ARE! are you ready to join us in the good fight?”

    This makes no sense. What are you talking about? “THEY ARE!” You mean guns are regulated for safety? I know that — but that wasn’t always the case. “Knowing now that its false” — what are you talking about? Knowing what is false?

    “Obviously you thought you above statement was true.” Huh? This isn’t even in proper English. What do you mean?

  33. Maybe you should rephrase your comment. I was responding to:
    “guns themselves should be regulated for safety just like other consumer goods are.”

    You responded:
    “You mean guns are regulated for safety? I know that — but that wasn’t always the case.”

    Which seems to directly contradict your first statement. I suspect you are simply a troll moving the goal posts, but I’ll allow you to re-state your assertion in a clear argument, rather than recycled talking points and maybe we’ll have someplace to go from here.

  34. Most consumer goods are regulated for the quality of manufacture and safety – not where or how you can carry them around in public. The only two things that are currently (and unconstitutionally) restricted in public deployment are guns and blades. These are two entirely different matters.

Comments are closed.