"It’s just natural to want to shoot someone when you don’t agree with them or have a beef or you’re drunk and can’t quite think straight. It’s just natural to allow 30,000 victims of gun violence to occur every year in the U.S. We should just accept the natural order of things then." *
-Joan Peterson - Brady Campaign Board Member and anti-gun bigot
I will not link to Joan's blog, however I will link you to Weer'd's post.
Perhaps anti-gunners would want to shoot someone over a disagreement or because they've had a few drinks. I on the other hand prefer to act like a reasonable adult who can control his emotions. Thankfully most people aren't wired like that. If you are then I'm glad you're anti-gun and I hope you don't ever decide to own one. I honestly do believe that some people lack the mental and emotional self-control to own a gun, but that's another post entirely.
I mentioned on Twitter the other day that my roomie and I sometimes get into heated political discussion while I'm armed, yet somehow my gun doesn't jump from the holster and start firing. If I'm home and not drinking it's a safe bet I'm armed. I've gotten into disagreements while armed. Hell, I once had a very angry, very emotionally unhinged man get up in my face while I was armed. Was I angry to have some guy much bigger than me chin to chin screaming in my face for no good reason? Sure, but that's not a reason to want to shoot someone.
We already have a group of people who think it's perfectly natural and acceptable to use deadly force to kill those who they disagree with or who "disrespect" them. They're called violent criminals. That's a cultural problem not a gun problem.
Sigh. As Uncle routinely asks, why are anti-gunners so violent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
See, this is why I have a hard time accepting that the anti-gunners who say these things actually believe what they're spouting. To call someone you don't even know so violently unpredictable that they need to be rendered preemptively harmless, is to insult them. It's really, seriously insulting. If you truly believe that anybody with a gun might go off on a wild killing spree at any moment, do you give them that kind of gratuitous insult? I wouldn't, and I don't think they would either. Which tells me they don't really believe what they're saying. Which tells me they're lying.
Maybe it's still an insult to call someone a liar, even after you've logically uncovered the lie. But that's okay: They're unarmed! 8^)
Joel, that's why they think they know better than you do. They really DO believe what they're saying for the same reason that was pointed out: their brains are wired differently. A crazy person doesn't know he's crazy (she, in this case). To her, it's not a lie. It's an incontrovertible truth. To them, it's YOU who is in denial and lying.
IMO, the quote is taken out of context, and those are not her words, per se. They are the words that she is attributing to imaginary "gun guys on my blog" -- she is writing in a sarcastic sense. Full quote:
Sometimes I think I've heard it all since being involved in the movement to prevent gun injuries and deaths. I should know better. There are some pretty inane arguments offered by the gun guys on my blog. Elected officials are not immune from inane comments either. Here is one such example from the Fargo, N.D. City Council. So now gun rights are "natural"? What exactly does that mean? Trees, grass, flowers, clouds, etc. are natural and part of nature. That's where the word comes from. But guns? Why not? It's just natural to want to shoot someone when you don't agree with them or have a beef or you're drunk and can't quite think straight. It's just natural to allow 30,000 victims of gun violence to occur every year in the U.S. We should just accept the natural order of things then. We should just accept that it's natural to carry guns around in public places.
Post a Comment