There is always more to the story than you think.
Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
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.