The Message and Murder of a Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom
The murder last week of Meleanie Hain, “the pistol-packing soccer mom” of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, was a tragedy rich in easy irony. Killed in her home by her husband, Scott Hain, a probation officer, who shot her several times as she was in the midst of a video chat, Meleanie was unarmed when she died. Neighbors heard three children run screaming from the house, “Daddy killed Mommy!” Scott Hain killed himself shortly thereafter, in the upstairs bedroom.
Meleanie Hain’s handgun, a Glock 26 semi-automatic, was in a backpack hanging on a door, a bullet in the chamber. Neighbor Aileen Fortna remarked, "I'm shocked at the whole thing. I'm surprised she didn't defend herself."
According to the Associated Press, Lebanon County District Attorney Dave Arnold commented, "I'm a pretty big advocate for the right to possess and own firearms, so I don't look at this as something where there's an indication that stricter gun regulations are necessary. Obviously responsible gun ownership is the key to gun ownership."
Obviously.
Meleanie achieved notoriety for an incident last year in which she wore her holstered Glock in plain view to her daughter’s soccer game. This is called, in the parlance of gun rights activists, open carry. It is a term you will be hearing a lot more of in the not-too-distant future. The opposing team’s coach, Lebanon County public defender Charlie Jones, aggressively confronted Meleanie about packing heat, and then complained formally to Sheriff Michael DeLeo about her behavior. Sheriff DeLeo took the complaint seriously, very seriously, and issued a summary decision revoking her concealed carry permit (necessary to carrying her gun in her car and thus to the park) on his authority to prohibit unstable individuals from carrying guns. Carrying a gun to a kid’s soccer game, he reasoned, was just nuts—and illegal.
Turns out he was wrong.
Meleanie in the park with Glock and friends
Meleanie open-carried her gun everywhere she could, ensconced in its holster, a bullet in the chamber, ready to fire, everywhere except posted private property. It’s legal in Pennsylvania, except in Philadelphia. I guess you already know that because of recent incidents related to President Obama’s appearances in Pennsylvania.
Open carry is legal (to a confusing variety of degrees) in 43 states. Here is a map to help you sort it out.
There are only seven states that prohibit the open display of weapons: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. It may surprise you that a number of these are in the South, where gun rights are big, but that is no accident. The open carry prohibitions in these states were enacted precisely to prevent African-Americans from carrying weapons in public.
Pennsylvania has one of the more liberal open carry laws in the nation and is a hotbed of open carry activism. Meleanie Hain wasn’t your casual I’m-here-to-prove-a-point-and-disappear gun-toting soccer mom. She was a committed activist with an organization known online as opencarry.org. She challenged Sherrif DeLeo’s decision on legal grounds and succeeded in getting his order reversed. It wasn’t hard. He didn’t have a legal leg to stand on.
A very professional and well-researched 5,000 word brief filed by Meleanie’s attorney, Matthew B. Weisberg, posed the legal question like this:
“II. Question Presented
For political gain and as punishment, can Lebanon County Sheriff DeLeo revoke Hain’s permit to carry a concealed firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. §6109 without pre-seizure process or good cause to prevent, via §6106, Hain from openly carrying a firearm as she is entitled under both the United States’ and Pennsylvania’s Constitutions?
Suggested Answer: No.”
Meleanie won this round, and felt confident to go farther. Working again with Mr. Weisberg, she filed a civil suit for damages—and big bucks—against Sheriff DeLeo and the county. Ironically, this suit is still pending and Weisberg insists it will go forward.
“A symbol of personhood…”
This ruckus made Meleanie hugely popular with a certain interested group of folks—Open Carry. Open Carry exists primarily as a social networking site at opencarry.org. The goal of Open Carry as described on its website is to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent, and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood." Its motto is "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost." It seems to have about 8,000 members. The website features forums, organized by state. If you are interested, you can find your own state here. The Open Carry Pennsylvania forum was apparently one of the more popular forums. It boasts over 10,000 posts.
Some 250 of those posts were written by shefearsnothing—Meleanie Hain, who joined the group on September 20, 2008. Meleanie’s posts reflected the work of a dedicated, savvy activist. She discussed her court cases and her media appearances, about which she solicited and received detailed responses. She never ranted like some of the men. She was on a mission.
Publicly, she stated her reasons for carrying a gun matter of factly: "It's not a matter of being paranoid. People have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in their homes. They're not paranoid; they're prepared."
But it was never about smoke detectors. It was about the Second Amendment, and Meleanie was a true believer. The Open Carry crowd believes two things as fundamentals: a) carrying a gun reduces the chances of becoming a victim of a crime, and b) carrying a loaded weapon openly is a practice that must be made commonplace in the U.S.
Meleanie demonstrated her fidelity to the first notion by working on a project to survey Pennsylvania inmates about whether they would have committed the types of crimes for which they were incarcerated if everyone in society had been armed. She demonstrated her fidelity to the second principle by suing the government for a million dollars for interfering with her right to carry. Meleanie was a home day-care provider. Here husband was a probation officer. Yet they had sufficient income for some pretty fancy legal work. Online partners encouraged her to bring her case to the attention of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, which she did. Probably somewhere along the way she found some deep pockets to fund her suit. It is interesting that Mr. Weisberg is planning to press the case after her death—for the sake of the children most likely.
Her posts reflected her savvy as an activist. Prior to an appearance on a local TV show she enlists support for making her case. “If there are any points anyone would like me to have in my notes please post them here and I will come back and check before I finalize them on Monday,” she posts.
Orygunner answers:
“There's people that are offended by T-shirts with scriptures on them, others are offended by piercings or tattoos, and still others get upset over breastfeeding in public. Should any of those people change their harmless habits or behavior against their will because of the discomfort of others? Here, you are exercising the god-given (or inalienable) right of self-defense, as the founding fathers intended to be protected by the Second Amendment.”
That’s right. Breast feeding.
Open Carry Pennsylvania mostly lionized Meleanie for her poster gal status. At a gathering of the group loosely linked to her birthday, her compatriots presented her with a certificate of appreciation as shown in the photo below.
Μοlon labe!
Another overlay manifests itself in Open Carry forums—the attitude of the Disenfranchised Patriot—a topic I have written about previously on Open Salon. The confederate flag, screen names like “Praying for War,” and the curious Greek phrase “Molon labe!” permeate the culture. “Molon labe!” is what the Spartans were said to have screamed in the face of the Persian onslaught, as enshrined in the film 300. It means, to the Open Carry crowd, a composite of “Bring it on!,” “Come and take us!,” and “Over my dead body!” Take your pick.
When an anti-gun advocacy organization, Moms Against Guns, announced it would lobby the state of Pennsylvania for stiffer gun laws, a photo appeared in newspapers with one of the principals, an elderly woman, appearing in a tee shirt bearing the name of the organization. One Open Carry regular photoshopped the tee shirt to read “I’m not armed, rape me” to the amusement of some. He went on to add swastika buttons to the attire of the anti-gun representatives here. So you can’t say these guys don’t have a sense of humor.
Interestingly enough, when Todd Palin came to town last fall, members of this very group reversed their in-your-face attitude as displayed in close proximity to the president and left their weapons at home (or in their glove boxes). The rationale was revealed in this posting:
“I have one request of all of you.
IF there is a sign saying NO Firearm around Todd Palin or they metal detectors that the secret service has around to protect the safety of the Todd Palin.
PLEASE don’t make a big scene, follow the instructions of the Secret Service they have a very difficult job to do, don’t make it worse. IF the Secret Service ask you to secure you firearm in your vehicle just cooperate. Don’t make this event into a negative reflection on responsible gun owners or Pitcairn-Monroeville Sportsmen's Club."
Turns out the Pitcairn-Monroeville Sportsmen’s Club has a bit of an overlap with Open Carry. One of those members is “Mountain Jack" Nobles, who open-carried a handgun to an Obama rally on August 29, 2008—and was later acquitted of any wrongdoing by a jury of his peers.
Visions of Freedom
Upon receiving news of Meleanie’s death, Open Carry posts were raw and angry—at her husband, and at those who would use the occasion to mount anti-gun arguments. The tone in some of the posts was, to put it bluntly, hateful. But amidst this rancor, there were posts by those who had heard her recount serious difficulties in her marriage. The group laid plans to organize a “memorial shoot” in her memory.
You may think this sounds like Mars, but this is Main Street—coming to a mall parking lot or public park near you. We have laws on the books that go back to the days of deer rifles and squirrel guns that allow citizens to carry their weapons in public, pretty much where they please.
You have to ask yourself, are you willing to fight to change this? Because if you don’t, the new, “new normal” is going to include people with some pretty ugly political views and dispositions getting right up in your grill with their guns. And their kids, too. There is nothing stopping 17-year olds from open carry in some states.
These folks know the law. Some, like Meleanie, have faced down the law before and won, and they are just itching to carry and be challenged so they can swing their legal artillery into range.
You might think that at least some Democratic lawmakers would like to change these laws. Don’t count on it. Open carry proponents are deeply wired into the NRA. In fact, towns across America are being pressured to repeal their open carry prohibitions to accommodate our patriots.
Meleanie Hain’s death was a tragedy, whatever her political views. But she was just one of the 1,100 or so women murdered by their husbands or boyfriends each year. The folks at Open Carry have much in common with Lebanon County District Attorney Dave Arnold, who thought it—the murder—was just an issue of “responsible ownership.”
The problem with open carry is that you never know who is on the other end of that holster. It comes down to competing visions of what constitutes a civil society. To borrow from the movies, this town ain’t big enough for both visions. If you believe in the vision to live free of a lock and load mentality, you just might want to get out there and advocate for your vision, because the other guy—or gal—is at it with a vengeance, regardless of a recent murder.
Update 10/20/09: Meleanie Hain’s family requested that memorial donations be sent to the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association.


Salon.com
Comments
I hope her children find peace, and the world finds its own as well.
Rated for an indepth look at open carry though.
i don't want to live in waziristan.
As always, thank you.
In the end, this is just a case of being killed by your husband. That they were gun crazy people simply gave it an easy way to play out. I wonder what she was chatting about on the Interwebs when he shot her?
I'm all for gun ownership, but you should have to pass the law enforcement tactical firearms course to carry. That's what my Dad made us do, in addition to passing the handgun carry class. At least we learned not to shoot the women with the baby.
But, The real story isn't gun ownership. It's violence against wives/ex-wives/girlfriends/ex-girl friends.
About 1/4 of all murders of women is at the hands of the man with whom they have or had a romantic relationship. Something is screwed up in our culture and in the way we respond to violence against women in the context of relationships that is causing thousands of women to be murdered this way.
Such a tragedy for her and her children.
In fact, there are tons of unbalanced folks out there who have anger issues. Do we really want all of them packing heat?
Personally, in my 46 years on this planet I've never encountered a single situation in which I needed a gun. Plus - what a hassle carrying one around. I don't even like carrying my cell phone around and I USE that on a regular basis!
...and as for the "tragedy" of this woman's death, well....I'm not so sure about that. I can't seem to muster any tears for her or her husband. Yes, it was domestic violence, but I also believe that the family's gun-nuttery was a contributing factor and maybe, just maybe the world is better off without them.
With 3 little kids in the house. And their friends, I'll presume, at various times.
Are you kidding me? I'm with Emma. Americans and guns is a serious head-bent issue.
I have no idea about this group and I'm not ever sending back all those surveys the NRA sends us, but it seems as though this group is a peaceful one who obeys the laws. They specifically pointed out not to be radical and do what was asked of them by Secret Service. It doesn't seem like they want to be disruptive in their mission.
I'm wondering where they got their motto though. A man named Wayne Hage said "A right undefended is a right waived." in conjunction with a landmark lawsuit filed against the Federal Government for taking his land in Nevada.
I came to the conclusion that gun possession would be a health hazard for both myself and others.
I also found that it takes a great deal of training to be able to properly use a gun in crisis situations such as those used as a justification for open carry.
In the heat of a crisis that boosts adrenaline levels, one's ability to adequately assess threats and make decisions is greatly reduced. One's ability to both determine whether the gun can be safely fired and accurately fire the weapon is diminished by the physical and psychological stress brought on during such a crisis. Instead of relieving this stress, brandishing a weapon reduces the user's margin of error. It escalates rather than deescalates the crisis by raising the stakes for all parties and it reduces the odds that the user will consider safer options to deescalate the crisis (like going back inside the house, calling 911, calling out for help, physically moving away from the conflict, etc.)
These open carry idiots are a danger to themselves and others because of their simplistic and paranoid attitudes about gun rights. Responsible gun ownership is indeed the issue here, but this couple proves that it we can't trust gun owners to take responsibility. Gun owners need the same kind of licensing, training, and insurance requirements faced by car owners.
I'm a bit on the conservative side and will fight for my right to own guns. Having said that, I don't think giving every nut/idiot/powder keg in the world the right to carry one 24/7/365 is a sane, rational idea. The mere thought of rubbing elbows with masses of people who are all carrying makes me want to RUN to the far reaches of society!
And to C Berg who says, "Even people who are "responsible" can fly into an insane rage, and use whatever means they have at hand to inflict harm. If they have no weapon, they will stomp out and slam the door," I ask, where the hell have you been living the last 10, 15, 20 years. Do you not watch TV, read the news? I lost a 21 year old daughter and a 4 month old granddaughter to someone in an insane rage who didn't have a gun. He didn't stomp out the door. He grabbed a knife and slit both their throats.
GUNS don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Period.
On the other hand, who knows? Maybe someone will offer you a book contract.
This will continue to divide us like so many other fractious issues. Well written and I might say an ironic end to a gun proponent's life.
Legal, responsible gun ownership isn't a panacea for the problem of violent crime. Instead, it's a way to keep some measure of control over your destiny so that you're not entirely at the mercy of a) violent people who wish to do you harm, or b) lackluster police response times. If we lived in a society where law enforcement could protect you from harm 100% of the time, I wouldn't own a gun. But the fact is that we don't live in that utopian society, and it really doesn't take much civil disturbance to overwhelm the effectiveness of a police presence - just look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Please don't caricature gun owners as paranoid gun nuts - I'm a left-leaning democrat, and I carry because I have a deep cynicism about the capacity of the municipal and state government to protect my family and I from people with bad intentions.
1. @ Emma Peel: With respect, I think you're mixing some of your arguments. While I agree with you that an unfortunate "culture of violence" exists and romanticizes guns to some degree, I think it's a logical fallacy to assume that every gun owner somehow embraces that culture. Canada, for example, actually has higher per-capita rates of gun ownership than the United States - albeit with less intentional gun violence. So while we both agree that guns ought to be regulated, it's incorrect to argue that gun ownership in and of itself creates a violent atmosphere.
2. @ Reinvented: How exactly did Meleanie Hain live by the sword? Are you suggesting that her political beliefs and decision to arm herself somehow made her deserving of her fate?
3. @ Voxhumana & C Berg: The argument that gun ownership should be restricted because loaded guns + volatile human nature = recipe for disaster doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Follow the logic of that argument to its conclusion and you would be obligated to ban hunting rifles and bows/arrows as well.
Anyway, great article and comments all around.
-Nikki-
It's not just as simple as saying, people kill people. Because if that's the case then why not allow everyone to have rocket launchers, biological weapons, or even nukes? After all, those things don't kill people either - people do!
And I'm guessing if Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn't have guns, the death count at Columbine wouldn't have been nearly as high.
We should take comfort in the fact that at least now, her kids will not end up with a bullet in their heads via the type of accident that has become all too commonplace in gun nut households. Too bad they had to become orphans to protect themselves.
Yes, this story is about domestic violence, and maybe her deranged husband would have used a baseball bat had the gun not been handy. But the chances of that bat killing one of the three kids by accident is slim to none compared with an idiot keeping a loaded gun in the house.
Oh, and I happen to own a .38 myself. However, the actual gun (well hidden), bullets (ditto), and key to the trigger lock (an item the open carry buffoons fear like deodorant) are in three separate locations. If my wife and I awake to someone holding a gun or knife to our throats, having a loaded pistol two feet away in the nightstand won't do any good anyway.
she kept a loaded frickin' pistol, with a round chambered, none the less, hanging on the door in her house with 3 kids and you think she was a responsible gun owner?
http://open.salon.com/blog/keeblerelves/2009/10/15/finally_an_economic_plan_we_can_believe_in
when seatbelt laws were passed my dad HATED the government telling him what to do, so he never wore them. But he had the audacity to argue that he was safer without a seat belt, because it might trap him in a burning car after an accident. Yeah, right dad.
Gun nuts are the same. They ignore the fact that you are much more likely to be killed by a friend or relative, than by a stranger creeping into your house at night or holding you up on the street.
And that fact turns the safety argument on its head. If you own a gun you INCREASE the chances that you or a family member will be injured or killed. And if you keep that gun loaded you INCREASE the chances even further.
And again, I don't consider this woman so much a victim of domestic violence as a victim of the gun culture itself. She and her husband were gun nuts and insisted on toting loaded guns with them everywhere. Gun nut, meet natural selection.
But of course children of gun nuts would NEVER accidentally shoot someone because from the time they were big enough to hold a gun their parents have trained them in gun safety!!
Oye. Every time I read about a kid shooting another kid with a gun that they thought wasn't loaded, I point it out to my kids. I want to make sure that they know that they should pretty much assume EVERY GUN IS LOADED
And, you know, I hear nuclear submarines are going cheap.
You make the good point that EVERYONE believes in gun control - it's just a matter of where they draw the line.
you have a right to bear arms that you can control who and what is shot by them, so that you are not in an inordinate risk of harming bystanders.
don't make stupid arguments and act like chuckleheads. it doesn't do your side or any of the rest of us any good.
this woman, if her husband did not have a gun, could have been just as easily killed by her with any number of common household items, or perhaps with his hands or feet. don't blame the gun, it is only a tool. you don't leave the butcher knife out where small children can get at it do you? and you hopefully don't want to ban sharp kitchen knives either.
in the end, who cares about gun violence anyway? it is a canard. I care about ALL violence, and taking away guns does not reduce violence overall, it merely reduces gun violence. the only way to make society even remotely safe is to work for justice and against massive financial inequality, to make quality education more universally available, and to make mental health care more accessible to all while working to remove the stigma from those who are treated for it.
It's situational irony: her killer was also exercising his Second Amendment rights.
How safe was she, really? She wouldn't have a chance to use her gun even if it was in her hand and not in her backpack.
Her husband was a sworn officer, and he was trusted by the government to use a gun... shows how much the government knows about who should have them.
Some people say that if this man and woman didn't have guns, her husband would just "stomp out and slam the door". I would like to call attention to the countless acts of violence committed WITHOUT the use of guns. Many countries with gun bans in effect have much higher violence using OTHER means.
I would also like to reference my own experience with guns. I've been shooting guns all my life, I carry one every day and I've never killed anyone. I've been cut off in traffic, been involved in arguments with a significant other and heck, I've been angry in my life before too. I've had a gun on me or near me and have never thought to use it in those situations. I have used a gun in self defense twice in my life, and I believe that's why I'm still here today. I've protected myself and my loved ones and no one was hurt and we ALL got to go home safely.
I think it would serve our country and communities better if we focused on the issue of domestic violence instead of rejoicing in the irony of the situation.
How ironic is it that the coaches and volunteers probably have to undergo screenings in order to be around little kids, but a nut with a gun is just fine? The sheriff was right - someone who would carry a gun to a soccer game is demonstrably insane. The fact that she was obviously living an insane family life too is just evidenced by her murder. It's just fortunate that the husband didn't take down a bunch of soccer players along with her.
Shun them, avoid them, treat them like the crazy people they are, and fight them in court! We have a right to live in peace and unarmed.
These open carry activists' reasoning and rationale is completely backwards. I am sure they won't look inward and reflect upon this, though I wish they would.
Your post is scary. I am feeling that sitting on the fence re: this issue just isn't going to be an option for those of us who want stricter gun laws. Thanks for an excellent and thorough investigative post.
I don't understand the point of this post. The kicker is obviously the fact that this woman was shot and killed by her own husband with her own gun - but what does that have to do with her open carry advocacy, or with gun rights advocates in general?
I openly acknowledge that probably the majority of gun rights activists are absolute nutters and possibly dangerous. Despite the fact that I own, use, and carry a variety of guns, and I believe law-abiding citizens should have that right, I have conscientiously refused to support politicized and irrational organizations like the NRA and other gun lobbyists. At the same time, many liberal people's hysterical and irrational fear of guns (so afraid that they refuse to touch them even with careful supervision and instruction, or even be in the same building with them) is counterproductive to their goal, which is to decrease violent crime.
Do I think it's smart to openly carry a gun to a children's soccer game? No, not really, in part because our culture is acclimated to fear guns, in part because there is simply no reason to do it. Did she break any laws? Nope.
She ended up getting shot with her own gun - which is truly a tragedy for her and her family, and could have possibly been prevented had she taken more care to secure her pistol when she was in her house (though it's hard to imagine her husband couldn't have found some other way to kill her).
I just don't see what the actual purpose of this post is. Are you decrying gun lobbyists? Decrying open carry laws? Decrying guns in general? I really have no idea.
I doubt the families of the tens of thousands of people killed each year by guns in the U.S. consider discussions of gun violence to be a "canard".
And you suggest that this woman "could" have been killed just as easily in some other way. I agree that her husband COULD have killed her with his hands or a knife, but certainly not as easily! And she would have had a chance to fight back.
And as I pointed out earlier, if Dylan Klebold and Eric harris had been armed with knives, I doubt the death toll at Columbine would have been as high.
I would just like to add that, as a transgender man, I do feel it is prudent to (legally) carry a concealed firearm, given that the rates of random violence against trans folks is exponentially higher than against the general population. Some people see this as "overkill" but I view a firearm as the last tool in a self-defense toolkit that includes a variety of other techniques that are primarily non-violent. One of my biggest beefs with the pro-gun crowd is that I doubt many of them would bother to pursue non-violent personal defense measures if they were carrying a gun - better to shoot first, ask questions later, as it were.
There were definitely a couple people in my carry permit certification course who are probably as likely to shoot a 14-year-old kid demanding their wallet on the street as they are someone who is actually a mortal threat to them. I sure don't feel any safer knowing that people like this are among the ones packing heat in everyday goings-on.
Of course this real-life situation isn't hilarious, it's deeply tragic.
But the American truth inside this situation is that these people had every right to own these guns, and to brandish them casually wherever they went. They had the right to turn guns into the driving force in their lives. And they had the right to be stupid.
It seems to me that stupidity is a civil right, and a big part of the price we pay for living in a free society is that we are under constant threat from stupid actions.
God bless this poor, stupid, gun loving couple and may they find peace on the other side.
""Meleanie Hain’s handgun, a Glock 26 semi-automatic, was in a backpack hanging on a door, a bullet in the chamber."
With 3 little kids in the house. And their friends, I'll presume, at various times."
IT'S WORSE! She was a home childcare provider. I wonder if the parents who left their children in her care knew that she kept a loaded (round chambered!) weapon in her backpack? Im sure they thought she was a responsible gun owner. We have a large numbers of citizens who live in contrived fear based on the feeling that 'others' (ahem) and the government are going to take over. Oddly enough these are people who support the 'Patriot Act's' most egregious offenses. Bleeds it leads mentality of our media adds credence to such perceptions.
Words cannot express how this murder-suicide pleases me.
"Meleanie was a home day-care provider. Here husband was a probation officer. Yet they had sufficient income for some pretty fancy legal work. (thru a pro-gun backer)
sorry- i just had to say it again. i can barely believe it.
And in the end, the the only ones who lose in this whole stupid thing are the kids. Sad.
look, i cant give a reasonable answer to a story as utterly asinine and gross as this one.
so her kids watched her husband kill her. lets get that lawyer on the monetary damages!
gross gross gross.
a memorial shoot. how tender.
do you want to ban swimming pools, too? they kill more kids than guns by far. this woman had the gun in the same room as her, she was not killed with her own gun. she was killed by her husband, who may or may not have been deranged, or enraged, or who knows?
many people are violent, and if you take away one means of violence, they will find another outlet, that is perhaps less healthy for those around them. for example suicide - guns don't cause suicides, taking them away doesn't reduce the overall number of suicides. Japan has practically no guns in private hands, but a pretty high suicide rate. their preferred method these days? mixing cleaning chemicals to make a toxic chlorine cloud. said cloud of poison gas is very effective for killing yourself, but also seeps into the neighboring apartments endangering everyone else around.
you that want to ban the guns need to really think about what it is you are wishing for.
domestic violence is not going to go away because there are no guns.
and the comparison to columbine? pretty weak. those kids shouldn't have had guns anyway... and if someone in that school, even a security guard or three had been armed, it would have made it a hell of a lot easier to stop them. You might notice that the vast majority of shooting spree's happen in places where ordinary people are not allowed to bring guns. I don't think maybe that EVERYONE should have a gun in these places, but I haven't seen an argument yet about how a "gun free school zone" gives anyone any sort of protection. it just gives predators a place full of people who are less likely to be armed and able to fight back. if you can find me a good argument for why "gun free school zones" are a good idea and how they actually stop criminals from committing criminal acts, I would love to hear it.
those of you who are happy that this woman was shot and killed by her own husband can all go fuck yourselves. you are sick bastards. she had a differing political opinion than you, but does that make her life less valuable? it's not as if she was a racist, violence inciting turd like rush limbaugh for god's sake... she was speaking up, though proper and legal means, for what she thought was right. I think open carry is crazy, but it is legal. if you don't like it, get the law changed...
Yes.
David Ehrenstein: I have never deleted a comment but you tempt me. Please, consider what you are saying. This isn't a comment thread at a daily newspaper or AOL. Don't be a hater.
And I'm not "happy" that that woman died, I'm just not surprised or sad. Each of us makes tons of decisions in our lives that affect our safety...
Things that decrease your chances of dying:
wear seat belts
observe traffic laws
live in a safe neighborhood
Things that increase your chances of dying:
Skydiving
Riding a motorcycle
Drinking and driving
Carrying a gun around with you
Being married to someone who carries a gun around with them
She engaged in a behavior (gun nuttery) that increased her chances of being killed, and she got killed. Most gun nuts don't end up getting shot, but she did. Same with MOST motorcycle riders don't end up getting killed in a motorcycle accident, but some do.
I don't ride a motorcycle, so my chances of dying in a motorcycle accident are significantly less than someone who does.
I'm not married to a gun nut, so the chances that I will be shot by my spouse are less than someone who IS married to a gun nut.
Each person has to evaluate the risks in their activities and decide accordingly. I used to hang glide, and I did so knowing that that activity increased my chances of death.
It actually is simple, made unnecessarily complex. Sometimes there need to be rules that people follow. I'm all for everyone having a say but some things are simply banned: I can't drive over the person who annoyed me in the supermarket queue, I can't show up naked in my office, I can't walk out of a shop with something I can't afford to pay for, and I cannot own a gun. Pass legislation, ride through the screaming hysteria, move on. The great good of the population is at stake.
* People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).
Yes, that was my reaction also.
I have carried a gun for ten years and have a concealed handgun license. I think "open carry" is a wacky idea. But it's not clear to me what the woman's advocacy of open carry has to do with being shot in her own home by her husband.
Don't be a doormat.
I live in TN. I carry, but no one sees it. My gun isn't meant to be a threat to anyone. I mean no harm to anyone not trying to harm me.
"Gun or no gun, that man was insane and would have killed her by any means at his disposal."
We simply can't know that. A gun makes killing easier - you pull a trigger, you can do it from a distance and the victim is disabled quickly with little chance of retaliation.
With a knife for example, you have to get close, one stab doesn't do it, the victim will fight back, you'll get blood all over you.
It's simplistic to say he would have simply killed her by some other means.
...to prove this point, here's a thought exercise...suppose that you run into a psycho that wants to kill you. Would you prefer they have a gun or a knife or a blunt object?
personally, I'd like the opportunity to fight back and perhaps take the weapon away from my attacker, or even to run. A knife or blunt object gives me that chance, but a gun doesn't.
I'm not scared by the idea of someone carrying a gun. I'm more scared when I think of the psychological profile of the person that would feel the need to carry a gun.
I'm guessing they fall into a few categories:
1) those who fantasize about being the hero. One day they'll be at McDonald's and someone will try to rob the place and they'll go all Dirty Harry on the perp, etc. Unfortunately, I'm guessing they're just as likely to kill innocent bystanders as the robber.
2) pansy/scaredy-cats - they are ruled by fear and scared silly that someday they are going to be a victim of violent crime and so they feel safer carrying a gun. kind of silly, and mostly harmless I guess, but I suspect that if they ever are victimized the chances are 50% at best that the gun is going to help them.
3) Those who are insecure and want to feel tough. They like imagining that people think they're a badass because they carry a gun. this probably includes a lot of the open carry nuts.
4) Those who feel like they need to make a point. they imagine our gun rights are being taken away and so they want to push the limits. whatever. I think they're misguided, but I suspect they're mostly harmless.
5) people who actually need to carry a gun because they live in a tough neighborhood or there's someone out to get them, etc. Note that probably only 1% of all gun carriers fall into this category, but I bet if you ask those who carry guns, 80% of them will claim to be in this category.
6) criminals.
Besides, there is a powerful political angle: The gun crowd is all upset about Obama (thanks to the far-right NRA) and afraid of the 2nd Amendment. It would behoove them to note that there are a pile of other amendments that are far more important than whether or not we need killer toys in our homes. The Military Commissions Act of October 06 should have had the whole country standing in Washington, but the death of Habeas Corpus just happened without a real peep. Thanks.
Licensed guns and legal abortions: I try not to need them, but I would like those options available, and I would strongly defend others' rights to access them as well...
No, they don't "hate us for our freedom," because we don't have much of that any more. Or for our wealth; 'nuff said. Or for our occasional conceit and indifference; that used to be accepted as a cute American cultural feature, kind of like the way Britons boil steaks and Parisians hate Frenchmen who don't live in Paris.
The world hates us because they hate us. Period. And now that Americans are aware of this, we feel very paranoid. That paranoia is completely justifiable, because they ARE all out to get us.
One response to that is gun ownership. Those guns are not often used, except to shoot our own family members, but the mere ownership and personal holding of those guns comforts us.
For me, it's simply realizing that if I were stupid enough to go to another country, I'd be a rapidly cooling corpse within a day or so. Yes, even to Canada. There is nothing in any other country that would make me risk my life by going there. And all of these moronic travel posters here on Open Salon and in other forums are like junkies shooting up with needles they find on the ground; they probably don't care that they're committing suicide, they NEED their fix.
Hope this clears things up for you.
I find it ironic that so many people are concerned by the open carry more than the concealed carry. I think I would prefer to know who has a gun than wonder who does.
And for the people who think it is stupid to carry protection on your person, I wonder if you advocate your wife or daughter to have pepper spray on them for protection. Many do. So if you are in favor of that, but not guns, then I guess it's just the degree of protection that you care about?
Yes, guns kill people. So do cars, pools, knives, railroad ties, and any number of things that you couldn't even imagine. So you make people take classes before they can drive, you lock up your pool, you keep knives away from kids - all in an attempt to give yourselves a false sense of security. The bottom line is that we don't have any security because no one can control someone else. Stop thinking you can control the world and make it a peaceful and loving place. You can't. You can only hope to make your home a peaceful and loving place, and you have to live with the fact that at any moment an outside source can change that, either with a gun, car, knife, or anything else.
The world hates us because we're evil. Period.
Even as I post we -- or our "allies" -- are bombing powerless peasants in some third world country. Naturally you have your work cut out for you reading all manner of news sources to find out about this as our famously "free press" ignores it. As a result blinkered millions think 9/11 was "unprovoked."
AS IF!!!!!!
(And now for the ritual qualification -- always necessary when one is telling the truth) No I don't think the 9/11 attacks were justified in any way shape or form. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Have nice day, Kyle D.
The purpose of cars and swimming pools isn't to kill people. The purpose of handguns IS to kill people. In theory one could argue that handguns are meant to intimidate people with the threat of death, but mechanically they are meant to shoot bullets at people for the purpose of injuring or killing them.
When people rob convenience stores, or carjack a car, or get mad and kill their wife - they typically use a gun, not a swimming pool or a car. See the difference?
And again, I'll reiterate that I am not in favor of outlawing guns. I just find it funny that gunowners deny the fact that owning a gun increases the chances they and those in their households will die a violent death. Owning guns makes you LESS SAFE, not MORE SAFE. Statistics and studies bear this out.
But yet, while a motorcylcle rider will gladly acknowledge that riding a motorcycle increases his/her chances of death, gun owners prefer to stick their heads in the sand and believe that having guns around makes them safer, when that simply is not true.
I'd have a lot more respect for gun owners who just say, yeah - I know having guns around is dangerous but our family likes guns enough to accept that additional risk.
* People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).
I guess I'm one of those "liberals" who falls into the "they" of that sentence, because I hate it that handguns can be owned by individuals. Would end it in a moment. Do not care in the least what the 2nd amendment says.
But I would not say my goal is to decrease violent crime (although that would be a nice side-effect, if you look at stats from other countries.) My goal is to not be shot by the kind of people who shout obscenities at strangers in traffic or scream at the clerks in the checkout line at KMart.
I always wonder if gun people live in some sort of rural place where they don't see other people. I live in a high-density neighborhood and commute on crowded trains to a very high-density downtown to work. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that I share breathing space with at least a few psychologically unstable people every day. I have no interest in spending my days with a hand on a holster just in case one of them snaps. Self-defense is not a hobby I want to take up. I'm a middle-aged mom with a hand-eye coordination issue. I'm supposed to take up shooting lessons in order to enjoy this Brave New World of self-protection? It's anti-community, anti-peace, and it's not the world I want my kids to grow up in. I want my kids to know a world of laws, and order, and a shared set of values and rules we can all agree to and each of us are equally protected, even those of us who aren't sharpshooters.
And you know what? That is the world they live in. I've been living in urban areas for a long time and no one in my family has ever been the victim of anything more exciting than a forgotten bike stolen from our yard. I'm not saying violent crime never happens, but I am saying that going in the direction of every man for himself is NOT a solution.
Fins, contrary to what many seem to believe, there are intelligent, mentally stable, people who choose to own guns. There is no reason to believe that my household is less safe now than it was two years ago. My "child" is 19 years old, my husband is an extremely responsible gun owner, and we have a big ass dog that barks at anything. Now if someone were to break in in spite of said dog and/or knowing we are home, that could be a problem for that someone.
The reason I brought up other things that kill people was because of the "mentally unstable" comments. Mentally unstable people drives cars, leave their swimming pools unlocked, and do any number of unstable things that can cause trouble to someone else. No one is really safe anywhere.
I think it's sad that anyone can buy a gun without having to take a class on how to use it responsibly. Maybe those are the laws that should be changed.
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2500000 times – more than 6500 people a day.
More complete descriptions of this statement usually include something to the effect of, “92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.”
None of these references state what percentage of this 92% involves brandishing the weapon.
Further, gun advocates state: “Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they ‘almost certainly’ saved their lives by doing so.”
Advocates do not state how many of these respondents were “saved” by merely brandishing their gun or how they knew the action “almost certainly” saved their lives.
Advocates of the statistic state that it is a peer-reviewed Department of Justice statistic. But curiously, the first 60 Google citations of this workhorse of a statistic do not include a direct-source DOJ reference.
Sounds like a job for factcheck.org.
Examples:
My brother-in-law got in a road rage situation with a guy who ultimately followed him to a 7-11 and brandished a gun. My BIL thought he was rid of the guy and was stopping for coffee but, when he saw the guy pull in behind him he approached the car to say - hey, enough - let's get over this already. He was quite surprised when the guy whipped out a gun. I'm guessing, if asked, that guy would say that he brandished the gun to "defend himself" - even though my BIL was not intending to harm him.
Once in L.A. a homeless person sort-of-accosted me while I was in my car. He wouldn't let me pull out of my parking spot unless I paid him money and threatened to "rip my fucking mirror off" if I didn't give him money. When he was distracted for a second I was able to take off. I'm guessing if the same thing happened to someone with a gun in the car they would use it to scare the guy away and later report that it "saved their life". Ha!
Kyle,
and while I feel bad for folks like you who - for one reason or another, whether it be an unsafe neighborhood or whatever, are scared, even in their own home, I still say - according to the statistics, owning guns makes you LESS SAFE, not more safe.
Sure, you're an experienced gun owner and you've taken the safety classes. But so was the woman who is the subject of this post.
And let's not forget the other story that came out this week about the guy who accidentally shot and killed his fiance in their own home because he mistook her for an intruder.
And again - nothing wrong with guns, i just find it funny that gun owners choose not to acknowledge the statistics and instead insist that it's just those OTHER gun owners who are at risk.
You have the mistaken idea that I am sitting in my house afraid. Truth be told, I'm not even sitting in my house as I had to travel across the state I live in to be with my mom who just had surgery. I couldn't bring my gun on the trip with me because I do not have a concealed carry permit, and since I am a responsible gun owner, my gun is home.
I don't listen to the stats on guns in houses (and let me reiterate that we did not have them in the house when our son was growing up - that's a whole different set of issues), any more than I listen to stats on flying in planes, driving in cars, riding motorcycles, snowmobiles, or anything else. You can't make other people be responsible and you can't take away my rights to have guns (I don't mean you personally) any more than you can take away my rights to drive a car because someone else is irresponsible and kills someone with their car.
And remember, I'm the one who said that people should be required to take classes before buying a gun, just like drivers do.
Being a former soccer mom I can say that it is really stupid to bring a gun to an outdoor kid's sport. After freezing my butt off many a Saturday in miserable wet conditions, I don't know what I would have done if I had a weapon, but it wouldn't have been pretty.
Those poor children.
Violence is the issue, of course, and this goes both ways. Both camps should take a closer look at the problem of violence in our country. Instead one advocates we get rid of the gun, an impossibility at best, and the other advocates we all go armed, giving an opportunity for violence to continue. But in the meantime, no one has a workable solution.
As for those of you who find this amusing or say 'good riddance.' Sick, sad, pathetic, pissy, and counter-productive.
to me, there is something really strange about the American love of guns. I don't know the answer, but the real issue is that I have just as much right not to be intimated by somebody carrying around an instant killing weapon as they have to carry it, and unfortunately, if I argue, they're prepared to hurt or kill me. At very least, I will be shouted down, with talk of amendments and protection and hobbies, and what have you. So they walk away in triumph that they've defeated me, and I seethe with frustration that I can't get any respect for my point of view.
Good thing I don't have a gun.
I was born in Harlem, grew up in a poor part of Queens and spent a lot of time in the South Bronx. while there were guns and there were shootings, there was also a community consensus that it was wrong to walk around with a gun, that too many innocents were killed or hurt because of those who had easy access to them. It didn't stop it from happening. but at least, there were points of agreement about what a civil community could look like, and sometimes we got there. There was at least a large part of the community that knew it wasn't right. It just seemed like common sense. no longer so common, now.
I really don't know how to express this to people who want to carry their guns in public. yet another divide in America.
Then, with all due respect, you are misunderstanding the concept of statistics.
If I'm a smoker, for example, I have a much higher chance, statistically speaking, of contracting lung cancer. It doesn't mean that I will. It just means that smokers, as a group, have much higher rates of lung cancer. So, to use a gun-related metaphor, smokers are playing Russian Roulette with their health.
And gun owners are more likely, statistically speaking, to be killed by guns.