How to be Paranoid and Afraid on Halloween

Joan Peterson, Brady Board member extraordonaire, meets Hickok45, and hilarity ensues. These people would have made fantastic Puritans, wouldn’t they? Remember not to be so afraid and paranoid, and to ask parents whether there’s a gun in the home when you take the kids trick or treating. Also, don’t carve pumpkins with guns! Heavens no!

UPDATE: Joe Huffman seems to agree with Joan Peterson that carving pumpkins with guns isn’t necessarily the best way to celebrate Halloween.

21 thoughts on “How to be Paranoid and Afraid on Halloween”

  1. I think someone should send Hickock45 Joan Petersons’ bell to replace the gong he has on the top of his hill.

      1. Just saying… a butane torch, 20 minutes worth of work should about do it. Use it for target practice, throw some NRA and Gadsden flag stickers on it, (take pictures) then send it back…. ;)

    1. By her logic, it would also be acceptible to ban bathtubs if a child drowns in one, and ban stoves/candles if a child dies in a house fire that is caused by misuse of one of those items.

      People like her do not understand the application of logic. She is extremely simple-minded and predatory scum (Ladd, Horowitz, Goddard) pray on that weakness. It’s actually kind of sad.

      What amazed me about her whole article is that 99% of it boiled down to the four basic safety rules. But if she preached the 4 rules, then she would be admitting that gun ownership can be safe.

      1. Japete has further simplified Cooper’s 4 rules down to one even easier to remember rule for gun safety:

        1) No.

  2. Of course, in a lot of Cities with the Political Elites that Joan Peterson supports, it’s perfectly OKAY for Teenage Thugs to beat the Crap out of Young Kids and steal their Candy. But I guess Joan thinks that Pumpkin Shooting is MUCH worse than putting a 10 year old kid on Life Support.

  3. Considering that some non-trivial number (I’m too lazy to look up whatever the most recent yearly total is)of toddlers drown every year in those ubiquitous five gallon buckets that are for sale at EVERY home improvement store, shouldn’t she advocate asking if the home has one of those buckets when out trick-or-treating with her little ones? After all, it is a big enough risk for the makers to paint a drawing of a toddler falling into the bucket on the side of every bucket, and a larger number of toddlers drown in those buckets every year than are killed by someone using a gun. Also, one of the traditional and wide spread games of that holiday is “bobbing for apples”, which involves putting one’s head in the bucket in imitation of the drowning child?
    And if she says anything about buckets having some other use, ask, “how can you say a child’s life is worth less than a $4.00 plastic bucket made in China?”

  4. No, they would have made lousy Puritans — because they would have refused to carry guns to church. From Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Boston: William White, 1853), 1:190:

    Because of the danger of Indian attack, and because much of the population was neglecting to carry guns, every person above eighteen years of age (except magistrates and elders of the churches) were ordered to “come to the publike assemblies with their muskets, or other peeces fit for servise, furnished with match, powder, & bullets, upon paine of 12d. for every default”. And no person shall travel above one mile from his dwelling house, except in places wheare other houses are neare together, without some armes, upon paine of 12d. for every default”.

  5. I made comments, but so far none have been posted, even though they comply with her “rules”. Non-confrontational, speaking from personal experience, and relevant to the “conversation”, but rejected nonetheless.

    I shouldn’t be surprised by any of this, though.

    1. Nope, not the way we do. The antis have their own beloved version of “Reasoned Discourse (TM)” that they follow. Anything that makes sense or that they can’t argue is rejected. Or that they find offensive (pretty much anything from our side).

  6. Based on the “definitions” of a gun that she posted not only is a gun not a “tool” but is is also not for killing someone! SO, again, she contradicts herself!

    I have so given up even trying to post there. No matter what irrefutable pro gun stuff you post, no matter how polite, she either snarkily dismisses it or doesn’t post it.

    1. She lives in her own world. You can’t have a meaningful debate with someone who thinks they are entitled to their own facts.

  7. What is it that’s said? You can educate the ignorant… but the stupid should be forgotten?

Comments are closed.