Previous post
Next post
Prominent British anti-gun activist Pat Regan was found dead in her home, having been stabbed to death, allegedly by her grandson. This is just such a tragedy… why, if only she’d had some way of defending herself!!
The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death.
Mrs Regan, 53, was discovered at the property on Marlborough Grange in the Hyde Park area of Leeds on Sunday.
The mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot dead in 2002.
…
Mrs Regan set up a Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny, 25, was shot at his home in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside in December 2002. His killer has not been found.
She had met government officials to discuss how to tackle the problems of guns and gang-related crime.
I thought that crime would disappear if guns were outlawed, though! Well, I guess this just goes to show us that what we really need to do is outlaw ALL weapons. Here’s a list to start us off:
And really, this is just a partial list. Feel free to add your own suggestions to possible weapons. There are so many things that people can use to murder people, that the only really and truly way to have a perfect, safe utopia is to outlaw anything that a bad guy can use as a weapon. I mean, it only makes sense, because if the government outlaws it, then everyone will immediately stop using it. Banning weapons means that all crime will come to a halt!!
Now, does anyone think that this logic makes any sense whatsoever?
No?
Then explain to me how banning guns makes sense, as it’s exactly the same thing.
I really don’t understand the logic behind “gun control”. Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens… and leaves them in the hands of criminals, who won’t care about breaking the law. They’ll love it, having a world of defenseless victims at their mercy.
Take me for example, or this woman — a grandmother. Being unarmed means that you are always a potential victim, especially being a woman. No matter how much I may fight or struggle, a man will ultimately win in a battle of brute force. Having a gun means that I can fight back, defend myself, and keep myself safe. If this woman had possessed a gun, she could’ve shot the person who killed her and still be alive today. Now, this does not mean that owning a gun means that you’ll never be robbed or raped or murdered, but it does give you a much better chance at survival than if you were simply unarmed. And don’t anyone say that mase or pepper spray can do the same thing. It can’t, and that’s the stupidest comparison anyone could possibly make.
This woman’s death is an example of why law-abiding citizens need guns. Of course, I wouldn’t force anyone to own one, but I sure as hell won’t let them tell me I can’t have one, either. It’s not my problem if you can’t understand the benefits of being able to defend yourself if anyone ever attacks you, breaks into your house, or tries to hurt you somehow.
This is why (and this especially goes out to all you liberals out there) guns are a good thing. Guns are our friends. If you’re a gun owner, you have a very good chance of keeping senseless tragedies like this from happening.
Hat Tip: Moonbattery
WayneB says: Liberals need crime, especially violent crime, to flourish in order to stir up fear so that they can pass laws and regulations taking away MORE of your methods of defending yourself. Britain is already either considering legislating the length and type of knives that a person can own. As the weapons used go back down the scale of technology, they call for those to be regulated or banned. And if Guns are still found somewhere, why, they can always blame the United States!
WayneB says: Britain is already either considering legislating the length and type of knives that a person can own.
Darn it. Was supposed to be:
Britain is already either considering legislating the length and type of knives that a person can own, or has already done so.
Shannon in AZ says: Even if the grandmother had been a gun advocate and owned a gun, she’d probably have ended up this way anyway. But for 99.99% of the situations, owning a gun would have helped tremendously.
CaptDMO says: Bernedet Peters summed up the unintended consequences position
of the knee-jerk immediate gratification syndrome prominent amongst Disciples Of Chicken Little quite succinctly in “The Jerk”.
I don’t care about losing the money, I care about losing all the stuuuff!
Hey! It’s a way of life.
In this case, sadly, not so much.
CaptDMO says: *sigh*
“Bernadette Peters summed up……”
Don’t forget the use of a rock as a deadly weapon. My last rant was about a lady in Ohio who was beaten with a rock, robbed, and left for dead in a public park at 1:30 in the afternoon.
I left a note elsewhere. It was an expression of hilarity at the “payback”. God made man, Col. Colt made him equal.
hiraethin says: Frankly, the argument that outlawing gun possession won’t eliminate gun-related crime could be viewed in a different light: that the absence of a gun does not make a person helpless.
As an aside, there is some merit to the claim that outlawing gun possession *reduces* (not eliminates) gun-related crime; reducing the amount of guns available to be stolen as a matter of economics makes it more difficult and more expensive for criminals to obtain guns. It’s an incremental thing, and frankly I don’t think it’s an especially good argument either for outlawing guns or legally protecting gun ownership. Especially since noticeably reducing gun numbers in North America would require effective coordinated action throughout the mainland United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Back to my main point: it’s not the weapon that makes the person dangerous, it’s the person. Right? Guns don’t, blah blah. In the case of the late Pat Regan, had she been willing to use violence to defend herself, with or without a firearm, she might have driven off, escaped from, or disabled her killer. She might have failed, too, but I’d rather die fighting than docile.
Merinas van der Lubbe says: Liberals *totally* live in a dream world.
This friend of mine works at a local manufacturer and there’s a loony leftie mechanical engineer there who commented, after hearing of a workplace shooting somewhere, that “that could never happen here, because we have a rule against bringing guns to work”.
I mean, really. They live in an alternate universe.
(Who dredged up this blog post, anyway? It’s older than God, and now somebody’s handing it around? Maybe there’s hope for MY ravings, yet!)
13 Comments