categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

joan peterson is the face of gun control

There is always more to the story than you think.

Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership board member and President of the Northland Chapter of the (Not-Really-) Million Mom March, started her anti-rights, anti-guns weblog “Common Gunsense” (link intentionally omitted in accordance with this weblog’s terms of use) back in March of this year, and she has been reposting, with very little variation, the standard Brady Bunch talking points ever since. She used to post under her first name until 02APR, when she adopted her current moniker of “japete”, and she did not receive hardly any comments whatsoever (I bet she wishes for the return of those “good old days” of quiet, unchallenged obscurity) until her 17AUG post “Shoot First everybody!” caught Joe Huffman’s attention, whereafter I think it is fair to say that she learned how many people disagree with her blatantly anti-rights stance, and how few supporters she has (and what good company those folks have been providing her…).

One thing that has remained constant throughout, though, is Joan’s reason for being so rabidly anti-rights: her sister, Barbara Berglund, was murdered by that sister’s then-husband, Russell Lund, Jr., who used a firearm to perpetrate the crime.

On the surface, I can certainly understand how the senseless murder of a sibling can change a person’s life forever, but on the other hand, it is completely irrational to blame an inanimate object for the crime in question, just as it is completely irrational to vehemently claim that the murderer was just a normal, law-abiding person up until the point that he “snapped” and killed his wife when the evidence clearly paints a different picture:

She’s also maintained that her brother-in-law, the murderer, had “undiagnosed mental illness,” but was “he was not a criminal or had trouble with the police.” This part, however, is not true at all. He was twice arrested for shoplifting, and had been diagnosed as a kleptomaniac. He was also 3rd banana in an “airline” that turned out to be a total fraud.

The “airline” in question was an absurd fabrication, and Lund was the only one of nine people to escape its ultimate demise without any form of prosecution or criminal charges… an escape that some people feel was facilitated by his family’s considerable wealth and connections with the Minnetonka Police Department. But does a two-time-arrested (and convicted, so far as I can tell, though the specifics are lacking) shoplifter and possibly unwitting pawn in an airline that defrauded people out of millions of dollars sound like the kind of person one would describe as “not a criminal” and someone who “had [no] trouble with the police”? Not so much.

However, any attempt to discuss Russell Lund’s obvious and documented run-ins with the law was met with violent denial from Joan Peterson:

Are you still trying to get me to believe that my own brother-in-law was a criminal, Sean? Stop it!!

Does murdering Joan’s sister not make Lund a criminal? Granted, he was never convicted of the crime (mostly because he took the coward’s escape before the trial could start), but Joan certainly believes he did, as doother people who have researched the topic. Does shoplifting not make Lund a criminal?

But the real question is, “Why is Joan so adamantly opposed to the notion that her murdering ex-brother-in-law could be a criminal?”

Unfortunately for Joan, the answer is as simple as it is disgusting: she has been exploiting her sister’s murder as a broad brush with which she can paint all firearm-owners – after all, if Lund (a firearm collector, by the by) was just an average, law-abiding citizen who just up and snapped and killed his wife, why, then, any “average, law-abiding citizen” could just up and snap and kill their wives, right?!

In truth, anyone can be a murderer, just like anyone can be a rapist, arsonist, mugger, etc., but it is highly unusual for a person to simply wake up one day and kill another human being in cold blood:

The most important thing to know about this is, the person who murdered japete’s sister was not the slightly odd, but perfectly law abiding citizen that japete insists he was. This matches what I have maintained all along. Normal people do not suddenly snap and murder people. Even in domestic murder cases, where you’d expect the correlation between prior criminality and murder to be weakest,

“A tabulation of homicide cases in Kansas city [sic] found that ‘… police had responded to disturbance calls at the address of homicide victims or suspects at least once in the two years before the homicide in 90 percent of the cases, and five or more times in the 2 years before the homicide in 50 percent of the cases.'”

So why is Joan Peterson lying, denying lying, and then attacking people for exposing her lies? Well, personally, I think she may have a few “undiagnosed mental illness[es]” herself, but looking past that assumption, Sean hits the nail right on the head:

The gun grabbers want to paint gun owners as one short step from snapping and going on a murderous rampage. If they can convince non-gun owners that the nice guy next door who has a gun might someday kill them, they can get more votes for gun control.

And in case you needed any more convincing, this explanation is thoroughly and completely substantiated by Joan claiming she will not stop pushing for “new, more restrictive laws” until there are no murders committed with a firearm. None. Zero.

Yeah. Because that is a rational, achievable goal that obviously means she does not want to remove all firearms from the world… ’cause, y’know, she has promised she does not want to ban guns!

Nope. She just wants to reduce the number of murders committed with the assistance of firearms to zero, just like the Brady Bunch poster-country of Great Britain… oh wait. Seriously – how can a sane, mentally-balanced individual honestly believe that it is anywhere near possible to reduce the number of any kind of murder to zero? Well, I suppose if one were willing to commit the largest mass murder in recorded history, and just go ahead and kill everyone, that would reduce the number of murders in future years to zero… but there is not enough space in this post to document the problems with that plan.

As I said before, Joan Peterson is the face of modern gun control – deep-seated fear, consuming hysteria, vehement denial, complete irrationality, pointless lies, specious threats, and even potential mental illness, all wrapped up in a single person. In the end, “japete” may be the greatest single gift to the pro-rights community… and the most damaging, self-imposed curse to the anti-rights nuts.

9 comments to joan peterson is the face of gun control

  • JP

    I think only reason she gets the traffic she does is because we push it there, to go argue with her.

    I’ve tried to stay out and not encourage her, but I did cave and post a couple comments yesterday or the day before.

    She is a bright and shining example of the stupidity and hypocrisy that is the anti-gun movement.

  • [...] Peterson By JP 5.56, on December 17th, 2010 Linoge sums up her anti-gun story very [...]

  • I will say it again. The fact that this woman is dumb enough to say all of this out in the open is absolutely wonderful for us freedom lovers.

    Frankly I’m surprised Peter Hamm or Paul Helmke haven’t tried to shut her up yet, considering the damage she does to the anti-gun cause.

  • The thing is, I think that they are feeding her info. I think that the leadership thinks that she’s doing well.

  • @ JP: Quite so, and exactly like the situation with Mike Bonomo and the rest of the anti-rights webloggers. Theirs is an evolutionarily unsupportably small gene pool, and they can hardly even be bothered to come to each other’s aid – left to her own devices, Joan did not even receive 25 comments over the space of five months. Then Joe Huffman wrote a post about her, and she started getting that many comments in a single day.

    After a fashion, she is a monster of our own creation, and, frankly, I could not be prouder – if she is indicative of the average anti-rights nut, and we have no reason to believe she is not, we are in good shape indeed.

    @ mike w.: You and me both… And I would wager that just about every drug store and liquor joint near Petey and Paulie damned near empty out every time Joan posts.

    @ Sean D Sorrentino: Now that is a scary thought indeed, and even more damning of the anti-rights movement if true.

  • [...] Joan Peterson: The Face of Gun Control [...]

  • [...] joan peterson is the face of gun control [...]

  • Windy Wilson

    If her sainted brother-in-law had run her sister over with a car, would Joan Peterson be so rabidly anti-car? Considering the amount of projection that goes on in the minds of anti-self-defense/let the bigger thug run things totalitarians, I really think she would have been just as rabidly against the tool.

  • It really is rather unsettling how much Joan defends, and damned-near reveres, her murderous brother-in-law, is it not? The man was, at best, a psychologically unstable flake, and, at worst, a murderous scumbag… why does she protect him from the criticism he rightfully deserves?

    At any rate, of course she would not be anti-car – after all, guns are different, because they are different, and cars are not inherently evil like guns are. Duh.