Anti Gun Crusader Pat Regan Stabbed to Death

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on June 2, 2008 at 6:01 pm
LearnAboutGuns.com > Gun Related News > Anti Gun Crusader Pat Regan Stabbed to Death

Pat Regan, who founded Mothers Against Violence was murdered with a knife today.

Pat Regan founded Mothers Against Violence after her son Danny was shot to death in 2002 (Danny has reportedly become involved in drug use, and is believed to have been killed in a drug dealing dispute.) Unfortunately, Pat Regan focused her pain and grief upon inanimate objects (guns) rather than the true cause of her son’s death (the intentional actions of a criminal). She then set out to disarm Brittan’s citizens with strict gun control laws.

I would like to express my sympathy to Pat Regan’s family. Any loss of life is tragic, but this murder is all the more saddening given the fact that she might have been able to defend herself, had she had a gun. Unfortunately, Pat Regan chose to blame guns for the death of her son and fight to disarm England’s law abiding citizens, including herself. Since only law abiding citizens obey laws, Pat was without a gun and unable to prevent her own murder, just as many women have been left defenseless in the wake of gun control.

After decades of failed gun control, it really should be apparent that criminals ignore laws — indeed that is what makes them criminals. They will ignore gun control laws just as they will ignore the laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc. Gun control laws are pointless and ineffective, serving only to leave law abiding citizens such as Pat Regan defenseless. Equally apparent is the fact that armed citizens can and do stop criminals every day, saving countless lives.

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , , , , ,


  • bk

    so sad – and this column hits the nail right on the head: in our politically correct society, we disarm the law-abiding whilst the criminal element clings to its ill-acquired weapons and uses those weapons against defenceless citizens.

    its madness

  • blam

    Though this is an old article, I've just seen it and I've got to comment.

    I'll preface my comments by saying I'm *in favour* of legal armed defence, concealed carry and so on.

    Firstly a relatively minor point: Pat Regan did not found Mothers Against Violence. That was already up and running in Manchester, Pat was involved in getting a branch up and running in her town, Leeds.

    Now the biggie… She wasn't killed by some midless, random killer, or a gun, or a knife.

    She was killed by her grandson.

    Stop and think about that for a moment.

    While I agree with ownership and carry of guns for self defence, and while I agree that gun control has been and continues to be a huge failure that has resulted in unbelievable amounts of voilence towards people who have been left defenceless, turning Pat Regan's death into a pro-gun argument is not only misleading, but really rather sick.

    I move in the same circles as Shane, her son. I've met him a few times and am friends with people who know him well. I've got far more of the details of the story of her death than have made it into the mainstream media and I can assure you that a gun would not have helped Pat. Even if she'd been a gun owner, in itself an unlikely idea; even if she'd been of stern enough resolve to shoot her own grandson; a gun would not have helped her…

    …not unless she had it on her hip, inside her own home, and acted quickly.

    She was killed by a family member with mental health problems. Not by a home intruder, not by an attacker in the street but by her grandson.

    Again, stop and think about that for a moment.

    By all means continue to push for sensible attitudes about guns and against the indefensible lobby for prohibition… but when you decide to reference someone's violent death in an attempt to bolster your argument (and it's not an argument that needs bolstering) it would be much better if you did so in a way that stood up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

    RIP Pat.

    • http://www.learnaboutguns.com The LearnAboutGuns.c

      Blam,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Regarding your factual contentions about whether Pat Regan founded that anti gun group: My statement of fact on that matter are a reprint of what I read in the news report. Whether the facts are as you say, or the newspaper says, I can't determine. Either way, that is a relatively minor point.

      As far as gun's being of use in domestic violence situations, take a look at this case: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/04/20/mass-kil
      The fact is that armed citizens can and do stop violent relatives.

      You also suggest that Pat Regan would have been unable to defend herself unless she "she had [the gun] on her hip, inside her own home, and acted quickly," as though that is an unimaginable situation. As someone who has a concealed carry permit, I often have a gun at the ready, and don't find it to be burdensome in the slightest. Neither, apparently, do the people discussed here: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-ex

      • blam

        L.A.G.,

        I don't dispute that it's possible for a person to defend themselves or others against a family member.

        Nor am I suggesting that nobody would ever be wearing a gun at home. I that case I'm suggesting that many, and possibly even most people wouldn't be wearing one at home.

        Even if most *men* would be wearing one in the home (something I'm not convinced about), considering how many women keep their gun in their purse (or being a Brit, their handbag) the chances are they'd be unarmed (in the immediate rather than the general sense) at home. Most women don't carry their purse around the house with them.

        The point of that post was not to say that armed defence of the home was unrealistic, or that nobody could defend themselves in a similar situation; rather my point was to say that in this specific case it's highly unlikely that she'd have so much as drawn a gun, let alone shoot at her grandson (and I know not all instances of a firearm being used in self defence go as far as squeezing the trigger) and that the situation around the murder wouldn't have lead to that anyway – taking the reasonable assumption that most women who aren't gun-nuts (used as a term of endearment) won't be wearing their gun on their body, especially not at home.

        As for the veracity of the statement that Pat Regan founded Mothers Against Violence, the briefest bits of fact-checking show that up.
        http://www.mothersagainstviolence.org.uk/history
        Founded in Manchester in 1999.

        According to all the news reports I've ever seen on this – her involvement with MAV began in response to the murder of her son, Danny, which happened in 2002.

        The Telegraph article you got the information from got it wrong too, apparently not bothering to check the History section on the MAV website and seeing that the organisation pre-dated Danny's murder by at 2 to 3 years.

        I'd have thought someone involved in the gun debate would be a bit sharper on fact-checking news reports before recounting them – the media is known to twist the truth or simply write whatever sounds best in the name of selling a few more copies or getting a few more viewers. Often it's the gun-owner who suffers from it, we shouldn't be so quick to take them at their word when it seems something backs up the pro-gun argument.

        Fact checking is just good journalism. 😉

        Oh and in short…

        …the example of the woman who shot her husband doesn't come close to being an equivalent situation to this. He was dumb enough to load a gun while stating who each bullet was for, giving her ample opportunity to assess the situation and choose her course of action. This isn't "nutjob kills family and self"… this isn't "explains what's going to happen and give the victim time to react"… this is "sudden and unexpected explosion of violence from one person against another person with nobody else around". Completely different.

        It doesn't make a case for gun control any more than do Columbine, Dunblaine or any number of domestic and street situations where guns have been used by criminals… but arguing the pro-gun case sloppily does nobody any favours. The pro gun case is solid without needing to grasp at situations that don't really fit and ironies like "anti-violence campaigner killed violently" and doing so only makes our position look weak.

        • http://www.learnaboutguns.com The LearnAboutGuns.c

          Blam,

          I find it sexist for you to suggest that women are unwilling to keep a gun close at hand for self defense. Take a look through the many self defense cases I've written about – both inside an outside the home – and you'll see plenty of armed women. Moreover, even if women aren't currently interested in carrying for self defense, it doesn't follow that they can't be persuaded to do so in the future. Indeed, that sort of persuasion though real-life examples and is what this website is all about.

          You also suggest that the other self defense gun use I discussed is a poor analogy to Pat Regan. I disagree. It takes just seconds to draw and fire a gun in self defense, and the facts seem to suggest that Pat would have or should have anticipated a risk of violence from her grandson, who it appears had a history of mental issues.

          As far as the specific details of Pat Regan's involvement with Mother Against Violence: Firstly, I find it reasonable to rely upon the reports of one of the UK's largest newspapers. More importantly, that small detail doesn't really matter. The point of this article is to discuss the folly of the UK's gun control law, and those who pushed it upon the UK's law abiding citizens – not to create a biography for Pat Regan.

          • Learn About Life

            Blam is right in her account and L.A.G am sorry to say but you appear to lack the skill to admit error. Be factual, admit if you get something wrong, as appose to trying to justify inaccuracy, and/or belittling it; humans make mistakes fact!

            UK and USA perspectives and attitudes towards guns are very different. Remember the UK is an extremly small place in comparison to the USA (land mass and population wise). The last thing the UK needs is hoards of people carring guns around on the 'fear' of what might/could be/happen. I have experience of living in the UK and USA so fully comprehend the 'pro-gun' mentallity that is prevelant in the USA, however such a stance attached to UK senarios simply does not work.

            In relation to Pat Regan, it was far from the failure of having a gun that resulted in her death; although you may disagree with me L.A.G, having a gun does not actually solve ever violent related death/situation. I would argue that dealing with the 'triggers' of violence, if a far better way foward than resorting to pulling one, a 'trigger' that is.

            Peace

  • Trigger Control

    The citizens of this great nation cannot project the weakminded perspective of gun control on the population. The criminal intent for gun use is strictly hinged to destruction, mayhem, violence, and the illegal increase in abundance. The law abiding citizen intent for gun use is strictly hinged to freedom, liberty, safety, and security. Is not trigger violence an indirect consequence of trigger control, and trigger control a direct consequence of trigger violence?

  • inuneson

    nice.