Mike W. quotes one:
"Her "constitutional right" put her six feet under....Why should we have respect? I have no respect for people who don't realize the danger of bringing a loaded gun to a kids' ball game. i have no respect for people who think they can get attention by pulling ridiculous stunts. I have no respect for people who think they have the right to intimidate others with threats of violence. By packing heat, you're implicitly saying "treat me with the respect I feel I deserve or I'll blow your brains out." People like that deserve no respect."
Another appears in the local blogosphere:
This was an Anon at Delawareliberal:
When this story first came out about the mom who openly wore a gun to a youth soccer game, the wingnuts went all out defending her. Well, we already had the conversation about open carry, so I don’t want to start that all over again.
My question today for the wingnuts is:
How come you couldn’t smell the crazy on this woman, and we (and the local sheriff) could?
To be fair, Liberalgeek challenged this interpretation, and Anon backed off--a little, maybe, sort of:
LG: Hmmm. What is unclear in the report about the gun-toting Mom is whether she was the murder victim or the suicider.
Probably best to hold your fire on “crazy” until all (or at least some) of the facts are in.
Anon: Agreed after a second reading of the story. I still like my question though. I thought she was crazy for bringing a gun to the soccer game and suing the sheriff.
More intriguing, and oh-so-carefully phrased (and defended) was Delawaredem's assertion in the original post that You live by the gun, you die by the gun..
In response to Liberalgeek's challenge of Anon, DD quipped back:
I was not commenting on the woman’s political views. My only statement is “you live by the gun you die by gun.” Whether she took her own life or was killed by a gun, or whether she was crazy or not, my statement seems to be pretty true.
What sort of reasonable inference could one draw from this particular statement [resting assured that no matter what inference I draw it will be ridiculed as a straw man]?
It seems to be a statement that owning guns is an inherently unwise thing to do, regardless of your reasons, regardless of your rights. [I'm sure DD will show up at some point to correct me on this.]
What's unfortunate, as Liberalgeek cautioned, is that the story is much more complicated and much more tragic than early reports would have indicated.
First, her husband was a parole officer--a gun-wielding law enforcement officer. Had Melanie divested herself of her own firearms she still would not have been living in a house free of them. Does you live by the gun, you die by the gun also apply to law enforcement officers?
Second, it seems that Melanie had been living in a domestic abuse situation for some time, and that protecting herself [and possibly her children] was one of the reasons she became interested in firearms in the first place. Like far too many women in this situation, she could not be convinced by friends to leave the bastard--an often fatal decision on the woman's part no matter whether she is armed or not. Instead, she chose to try to protect herself and she failed.
Doesn't sound crazy to me, or even like an object point for or against gun control.
It sounds like a tragedy that not even the most stringent gun control laws under consideration today could have prevented ... because her abuser was a law enforcement officer.
No, having a firearms does not appear to have been sufficient to save Melanie Hain, but there is also absolutely no evidence that having one contributed to her death.
But complicated narratives are just too ... complicated ... for the people interested in characterizing gun-owners [or any political opponent, for that matter] as crazy or implicitly saying "treat me with the respect I feel I deserve or I'll blow your brains out."
As for that live by the gun, die by the gun BS, try telling that to the 74-year-old Lewes man who, about two weeks ago, used both a machete (!) and his handgun to defend himself successfully against two forty-something thugs breaking into his house.