Thursday, October 8, 2009

Melanie Hain: as tragedy becomes fodder for ideology and politics ... despite the facts

For a lot of people the tragedy of Melanie Hain [controversial gun-toting mom at her child's soccer game last found dead in apparent murder-suicide at the hands of her husband] represents fodder rather than tragedy.

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:

Geek–

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.

34 comments:

Hube said...

I wonder then if something similar happened to DD it wouldn't be all that big a deal. After all, who said this, again?

You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."

“You live by the gun you die by gun.” Right, Delaware Dimwit?

Mike W. said...

Good old DD and the Del Liberal crowd. They banned me again for god knows what.

I guess Cassandra was in one of her pissy moods.

The people dancing in Hain's blood are flat out despicable, which is sadly par for the course for many of them.

As you correctly point out, all of the gun control our friends at DE Liberal push for would do nothing more than disarm folks like Meleanie and wouldn't even apply to folks like her husband.

Of course if he were a CCW permit holder rather than an LEO you can be sure they'd use this as an excuse to denigrate all of us permit holders.

Delaware Watch said...

Tell me how this woman's domestic problems, however dire, justified her to OPENLY carrying a firearm to a soccer game and frighten many of the spectators present?

If, as you suggest, she carried the gun to protect herself from her abusive, gun-toting husband (and I suspect you are right about that), then tell me how she was justified in attending the soccer match and making it a potential dangerous event for the innocent spectators present. Imagine if the husband had showed up at the soccer match and she had exchanged gunfire with him. Think of the people that could have been harmed or killed as a consequence.

Having a right is not a justification for imperiling or intimidating others.

Mike W. said...

Also Steve, much of what we see from anti-gunners is "despite the facts."

Intellectual honesty does not support their cause.

What bothers me is that the gun control folks can't show even a modicum of decency, class, or respect. There's no limit to the depth's they'll go.

DD's "live by the gun die by the gun" was most definitely a shot at Hain's political views, his backpedaling in comments notwithstanding.

Mike W. said...

Tell me how this woman's domestic problems, however dire, justified her to OPENLY carrying a firearm to a soccer game and frighten many of the spectators present?

The two are not related. Not only that, but she has a right to openly carry at soccer games whether you like it or not. Her rights don't cease to exist because the exercise of them frightens hoplophobes.

She (nor anyone else) has to justify their rights to you.

She DID NOT intimidate or put in danger anyone at those games anymore than the presence of a large black man "intimidates" or "endangers" others.

She was a woman willing to stand up for her civil rights in the face of bigots and tremendous opposition. She is a good example to all of us and will be missed.

Miko said...

Statistically speaking, most people (and particularly people with young children) are better off not owning guns, without regard to whether they have a right to or not (which, of course, they do), as they're more likely to hurt themselves than fend off an intruder. This applies mainly to those who don't care enough about them to learn to use and care for them responsibly, of course. Interestingly, statistically speaking it's also true that people benefit when most people in their neighborhood own guns, as it serves as a deterrent to crime. If they were intellectually consistent, left-statists would identify this as "market failure" and pass a law requiring everyone to own a gun.

Delaware Watch said...

"She DID NOT intimidate or put in danger anyone at those games anymore than the presence of a large black man "intimidates" or "endangers" others.'

Bzzz. Wrong. Actually, her act of carrying the gun to the game is now worse because it appears that she did so to protect herself from a man who was violent enough to kill her. She put AT RISK the innocent spectators by showing up at the game, especially w/ a loaded gun. If she had fired that gun at the game to protect herself, she could have harmed or killed someone completely innocent.

You assume that exercising a right per se is to act responsibly. About that you and many other Libertarians are manifestly wrong. This woman's act makes it trippingly obvious.

Anonymous said...

She chose to play with guns...why should anyone feel sorry about she being killed by them? She got what she deserved.

Anonymous said...

And yes, she intimidated by carrying guns to a kid's soccer game!! If someone was carrying guns to my kids soccer team I would have left with my kids immediately!!!! and never come back. This woman was NUTS and I am glad she is gone forever.

Rigel Kent said...

Delaware Watch said: Bzzz. Wrong. Actually, her act of carrying the gun to the game is now worse because it appears that she did so to protect herself from a man who was violent enough to kill her. She put AT RISK the innocent spectators by showing up at the game, especially w/ a loaded gun. If she had fired that gun at the game to protect herself, she could have harmed or killed someone completely innocent.

Bzzz wrong. Ever heard of blaming the victim? 'Cause you're doing an excellent job of it. If her husband had shown up and attacked her he would have been responsible for putting those people at risk, not her. The attacker is morally responsible for any damage resulting from an attack, not the defender.

Delaware Watch continues:You assume that exercising a right per se is to act responsibly. About that you and many other Libertarians are manifestly wrong. This woman's act makes it trippingly obvious.

I don't know what Mike W. assumes, but I believe she acted responsibly because absolutely no one was harmed when she took the gun to the game. You seem to assume simply having a gun is irresponsible, it is not. Responsibility, or lack thereof, is shown in how the gun is handled and what the results are of having it. You can spout hypotheticals about what might have happened and what harm could have occurred until the cows come home, but the fact remains no one was harmed at the game. And the murder/suicide was due to ill intent, not irresponsibility.

Anonymous said...

Mike The Racist wrote "She DID NOT intimidate or put in danger anyone at those games anymore than the presence of a large black man "intimidates" or "endangers" others."

And then he wonders why his gun-loving, thread-hijacking, racist commentary was banned again from Delaware Liberal.

anonone

Anonymous said...

Here's what I do know...about a year when she showed up at a kid's soccer game she was in a no-lose position:

Once somebody objected to it (the sherriff in this case) she could play the old constitutional rights card. If no one objected to it, she would gotten exactly what she wanted anyway.

But it's easier to just put down sensible/non-insane people as bottom-feeders b/c they speak truth. If this gets through to no one I don't know what will.

Anonymous said...

Ms Hain's openly carrying a gun didn't protect her life; but rahter it only served to intimidate others and that is the purpose of those openly carrying.

She won't be intimidating anyone else, but it is still a very tragic situation especially because children witnessed it and will grow up without both parents.

Mike said...

Delaware Watch -- very respectfully, I'd like you to consider:

Does a police officer with a gun create a "potential dangerous event for the innocent spectators"? While I question her judgment for open carry at such an event (that's what her permit for concealed carry is for) I don't think that the mere fact that she has a gun makes anything more or less dangerous. There were probably dozens of potentially dangerous events in the form of automobiles in the parking lot of that sports park, right?

You also seem to suggest she should stay at home because another party is intimidating and threatening her. Isn't that perhaps a great argument for her right to protect herself and her freedoms?

Just some food for thought.

Mike W. said...

As usual Anonone fails to grasp my point about the large black man. My point was that a large black man is not inherently intimidating and would not endanger others by his presence alone.

I merely used it as a parallel to illustrate the shortcomings of those claiming that Hain's actions were threatening or a danger to others. The fact that he labels me "racist" and cannot see past the use of the words "large black man" shows that he lacks the capacity to understand the argument as a whole.

Anon - I've open carried before, and it has nothing to do with intimidating others. The last thing I want is a confrontation with others, but that doesn't mean I should refrain from exercising my rights because other people have an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

If you're intimidated by a piece of metal and plastic secured in a holster that is your problem not mine.

Delaware Watch (Dana?) - So you are blaming Ms. Hain, the victim, based upon your own hypothetical situation? Real classy! Regardless of where she was carrying, be it a soccer game, to dinner, or to the grocery store, if her husband showed up and tried to harm her it would be HIS fault not hers.

Anonymous said...

If you lived in this town, you would understand wanting to carry a firearm with you. All these d-bags coming in from NY because of Lebanon's wonderful low-income housing(which is plentiful)and amazing ghettos. I moved away about two years ago to a nicer city and am amazed how ugly it gets year after year when I go back there.

Meleanie was not crazy, actually the opposite. Every interaction I had with her was very pleasant and she even offered to take me to the gun range shooting and show me the proper way to handle a handgun. While I disagree with her open carrying to her daughter's soccer game (that's what her CCW is for), she was well within her rights. She will be missed.

2Aer said...

I'd like to clear something up for those out there who refer to the "CCW Permit". In Pennsylvania, we are not issues CCW permits. We are issues License to Carry Firearms. This may be semantics, but it is valid to the extent that it is not a permit to carry concealed, it is a license to carry. Period. No mention of concealment anywhere on the license or application. Yes it is required you have your LTCF to carry concealed, but it is also required to have your LTCF to carry during a declared state of emergency, within 1000ft of school property, in a car or any number of other otherwise restricted situations.

That said, I think all of the "Anonymous" people who are too scared to stand behind their names are so full of bunk it's not even funny. You people are somehow trying to tie open carry to an act of domestic violence. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? I hope you never have to experience tragedy on the level that her family and we, her friends, have experienced.

I live about 20 miles from Lebanon in PA Dutch Country, and I OC every day. Are you suggesting I deserve to be shot for carrying a firearm? I know of hundreds of other people across the state who OC as their main mode of carry. Are you making threats to all of them as well, saying we "have it coming"? You people make me sick, a woman is murdered, an officer is dead, and 3 young children are orphaned, and all you care about is who carried protection where, a year ago. Grow up, get a brain, and try something before you decide to hate it.

Chainsaw said...

While you weenies wring your hands and spew your, "What if 's", I will say this....
If it is to be, "Live by the gun, Die by the gun", then damn it, so be it!
WTF are you scared of...your own shadows?
Leaving your monitors?
God, go get some cajones.

Kim B. said...

2Aer - excellent point. Exercising your right to carry a weapon, with a license and an education in gun safety, in no way means that you deserve to be killed.

By that logic, owning a car, a 6000 lb piece of metal responsible for the deaths of about 43,000 people a year, (generally about 10,000 more than gun fatalities) means that you deserve to be hit by one.

It's unfortunate that Melanie Hain's death is even being connected to the soccer game incident when the two are unrelated. She was the victim of domestic violence. Period. This is not an issue of gun control - her husband would have had access to weapons no matter what condition the second amendment was in - this is an issue of domestic abuse. Saying that she "deserved" to be shot by her husband in her own home while she was unarmed and unawares is something akin to saying that rape victims are "asking for it." One in three or four women in our country experience domestic abuse in their lifetime; justifying Ms. Hain's very tragic death in any way just perpetuates what is already a massive problem in the United States. If she thought the system were protecting her (and her children) from abuse, she may not have felt the need to carry a weapon.
I've been there. After I left an abusive situation, I found out the hard way that there is very little the law can do to protect you from further abuse after you get yourself out- I spotted the aforementioned ex-boyfriend letting himself into my house after breaking the lock. He'd been planning to wait for me to come home alone. The only thing that stopped the harassment in my case was very openly carrying a taser. I'm not condoning it, but I am saying that I wished we lived in a society where women do not feel like they have to arm themselves as a last resort.

Anonymous said...

You can carry a gun without threatening/intimidate other people. she obviously wanted to intimidate. We have a gun to protect ourselves but we do not have to show it at soccer games. this woman was nuts and no one should try to defend her. Feel sorry for her children, but not for her. I hope she now RIP.

rc said...

If I open carry it is to make a statement.

I will protect my life and the life of my loved ones at all costs.

If attacked I will not wait on someone to call 911.

If that intimidates or threatens a would be attacker fine. Hopefully I will not be seen as easy prey and never have to fire it.

As chainsaw said, get some cajones!

All this talk about intimidation and threatening behavior only demonstrates the impact Political correctness has had on this country. rc

Anonymous said...

Live by the sword, die by the sword

rc said...

Better to die, sword in hand, standing for something, than to die meekly laying down for fear of standing against that which would
take away ones right to stand.

Matthew26:52 said...

rc, chainsaw, what in God's name are you "standing for"? Seriously what godforsaken "cause" is there to fight for in this country? Are you standing up for the cause of gun owners to own guns? rc - are you saying that your "right to stand" is contingent on your holding a gun? My thoughts, words and my life - that's what I stand up with and that's what I stand up for. If you need anything more than these to keep you standing, then sit the f*** down because you're nothing. Chainsaw - I have cajones. I am a teacher at a Pennsylvania high school where there was a shooting incident. Because of this real threat, we are constantly working on lockdown drills. Instead of only teaching, we now hear lectures on miltary words like "acceptable loss" at beginning of the year orientations. It is an unpublished and unpublicized (yet spoken amongst many teachers) notion that the teachers will be putting themselves in front of bullets to protect the kids if a God-fobidden situation does occur. We aren't saints, but as adults we know that we are the first in line to go. Don't talk to me about cajones. rc, chainsaw, I can hear your thoughts - "well if that's what you got to worry about in this world, then that's all the more reason to own a gun." You put yourself in my shoes, having to acknowledge the REALITY of a 17 year old with an assault rifle walking around your school, and you immediately start FANTASIZING about arming yourself. You probably picture yourselves running through the hallways, in your wife-beaters and John Deere hats, dodging bullets and giving him one right between the eyes. F***ing Lethal Weapon and Clint F***ing Eastwood. Seriously, cajones? Do you think it happens the way it does in the movies? Do you think you intimidate would-be attackers? Do you think a crazy person with a gun gives a f*** about his own life? What possible threat can you put on someone who already has nothing to lose? Do you two feel the same way? Do you have nothing to lose? Is that why you open carry to intimidate a would-be attacker - getting ready for a high noon shootout? How often do you live with the possible threat of gun violence? In the most violent sections of the most violent cities, the few law-abiding citizens who are unfortunate enough to live there are constantly trying to ban guns. They hear shots outside their windows every night and they know the only logical way to get them to stop is by trying to get rid of the guns (whether they're legally or illegally bought). As a teacher, I'm not nearly living under the same constant threat of gun violence, but I can guaranf***ingtee that it'll happen to me before it happens to either of you. If God forbid I am in that situation, I will use my thoughts, words, and my life, if necessary, to try to save others. True, I'll most likely be dead, possibly along with others, but I'll be dead because people like you argued for that gunman's right to own ridiculous artillery... all because you get your kicks at a shooting range, pretending to pick off the bad guys. I'd die with my cajones and without a gun.

rc said...

Matthew26:52 said...

This is where I should have stopped reading:

"Seriously what godforsaken "cause" is there to fight for in this country?"

Just one example:

Late one night in the boonies in Mississippi as my wife and I were traveling cross country at a red light a car full of drunk red necks
pulled up next to us.

They started ragging us and then started making comments re raping my wife. I had a gun with me. Just not accessible.

Things quickly looked like it was more than talk. Fortunately I was able to out run and lose them.

Had we been unable to outrun them then I would have been left defending my wife against a car load of red necks.

I would have preferred access to my gun and YES I believe my wifes safety is worth fighting for.

You say:

"are you saying that your "right to stand" is contingent on your holding a gun."

No I am not. The constitution guarantees me certain rights. The gun is some insurance that they can not be taken away. Thus the second amendment.


You say:
You probably picture yourselves running through the hallways, in your wife-beaters and John Deere hats, dodging bullets and giving him one right between the eyes. F***ing Lethal Weapon and Clint F***ing Eastwood.

You obviously do not know me or Chainsaw. Chainsaw wrote he carries a "knife" and mostly as a tool.

I wrote, "IF I open carry......."

I do not wear wife beaters nor a John Deere cap.


You write:
Do you think it happens the way it does in the movies?

No I don't. I know how it happens in real life.

You write:
How often do you live with the possible threat of gun violence?

Not often. Most of the people I associate with are carrying or assumed to be carrying. This keeps violence of any kind to a minimum.

you say:
but I can guaranf***ingtee that it'll happen to me before it happens to either of you.

No you can not say that. To do so is to make an assumption that you can in no way proof.

This is just one of many erroneous and illogical assumptions you have made in your post.

That fact and the fact that you are a teacher scares me more than a gun. rc

Matthew26:52 said...

RC - So if you had access, you would have pulled your gun on the rednecks? If not, what would you have done with it? I'm not being rhetorical. I do want to know.

It was not my intention to "prove" anything with my statement about my increased likelihood of being around a crazy person with a gun as a teacher. Nor was it logical; I was addressing a point about an illogical assumption with something proportionately illogical.

Your original illogical point is that the fact that "danger" can happen at any moment somehow justifies your carrying a gun. In response, I was trying to say (passionately, and in frustration - temporarily barring logic) that , if carrying a gun was justified, my situation (three times a year, an entire school - teachers AND children - has to train for the possibility of gun violence) would more than likely qualify more than yours. Of course that isn't logical, because we're talking abuot a likelihood. The very words "likelihood" and "probability" presuppose that nothing is definite, and therefore cannot be considered exactly logical.

While we're on the topic of logic, please explain to me how your being around people with guns decreases the likelihood of gun violence? How well do you know these people? How well did Meleanie Hain think she knew her husband? I've seen many pictures of her on the PAFOA web, and they were all of her and other people brandishing their weapons. I'm not about to try and prove that being around guns increases the likelihood of gun violence (you're too smart for me rc - you'd be all over that), but I can logically disprove your point about feeling safer.

Here it is: Saying that you are safer around people with guns is saying that you have the ability to know, at any time, their mental status or intentions. Sorry rc - but that's pretty illogical. Now, I know that the same can be said for anyone at anytime... "if that guy wanted to, he could kill me with his spoon or his bare hands..." Somehow you believe that a "mutually assured destruction" understanding amongst other people with guns keeps you safer. Do you know what "mutually assured destruction" is? If not, look up the words on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism_and_challengable_assumptions

To address your point about what I said about this country: My cause is the people, not the government, not ideaologies easily defined and reduced to "democratic/liberal" or "republican/conservative." I believe that our country is in the hands of a wealthy, corporate one percent that has bought the government, dems and the G.O.P - Obama and Bush. I feel like loyalty to my country would essentially mean loyalty to the DOW Jones. If there will be a cause worth fighting for in this country, it will be a people's fight for government transparency and new ethical laws that corporations must follow. I stand for your wife, mine too. But I can't be Batman, and neither can you. I can hope, pray, and argue for change that MIGHT increase the general population's prosperity and quality of life which MIGHT decrease the likelihood of rednecks looking for rape victims. There will always be crime, and there will always be evil. But there will always education and enlightenment also. Education and enlightenment to not be criminals and evil-doers. Education and enlightenment to stop criminals and evil-doers. I'm not just talking - I'm doing, every day in the classroom. Right now my students are studying "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau, "I Have a Dream," "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," and "Non-Violent Resistance" all by MLK. Don't worry. I'm not illogical with them. I don't have to make any passionate points with them as I did on this blog. I make sure they understand the diction and the sentiment of the works, and then I encourage empirical debate. They are encouraged to disagree. Hopefully, such engagement with learning might influence your wife's life down the road.

Matthew26:52 said...

P.S. rc - thanks for the hot tip to stay out of the boonies in Mississippi.

rc said...

Matthew 26:52
I would have had the gun at the ready to use.

I would not have brandished it unless I had full intention of using it at which time I would give one warning (time permitting)and then defended my wife and myself.

In Florida that is legal.

You say:
Your original illogical point is that the fact that "danger" can happen at any moment somehow justifies your carrying a gun.


I do not consider that illogical. I consider it being prepared for unforeseen contingencies. It is like carrying jumper cables in your car. Hopefully you won't need them. But if you do, you have them.

You say:
if carrying a gun was justified, my situation ......... would more than likely qualify more than yours.

Again you make an assumption. I am not in your situation, you are not in mine. I can not determine what you need to do for yourself in your situation.

You say:
presuppose that nothing is definite, and therefore cannot be considered exactly logical.

We can not definitively say whenthe caldera in Yellowstone will erupt. The data suggest the probability is high. Therefor it would be quite logical to continue to monitor the situation as to ways ameliorate the consequences should the possibility become an actuality.

You say:
While we're on the topic of logic, please explain to me how your being around people with guns decreases the likelihood of gun violence?

Because most sane persons are not likely to attack a person that may be armed.

you say:
Somehow you believe that a "mutually assured destruction" understanding amongst other people with guns keeps you safer.

When we dropped the atom bomb on Japan we knew they did not have the ability to retaliate in kind.

During the Cuban missile crises both sides had the ability. It forced a solution other than nuking each other.

Re: your comments about the country.
What role did guns play in the liberation of our country?

You say:
There will always be crime, and there will always be evil. But there will always education and enlightenment also.

You are correct. However until such time as the cosmic enlightenment occurs leading to Kum by ya, I will continue to embrace reality, there is crime and evil in this world.

It preys on the weak and the vulnerable. One way of empowering people is to teach them not to be victims.

You say:
Hopefully, such engagement with learning might influence your wife's life down the road.

Learning has influenced my wifes life down the road. I will not be caught again in a situation where I will be unable to protect her if I can help it.

But just for the hell of it lets engage in a little mental masturbation.

You are alone on the street at night
with no way to protect yourself and are attacked by an armed mugger.

I come along with a gun and considering it my civic duty come to your aid.

I am alone on the street at night with no way to protect myself and am attacked by an armed mugger.

You come along, and I hope also consider it your civic duty to come to my aid. How will you do it? Sing Kum by ya to the attacker?

Call 911 who with any luck will send somebody in time to call an ambulance or order a body bag?

No thank you.

I have no need nor desire to convince you or anybody else to carry a gun. Do as you choose.

But do not judge me unless you have walked in my shoes.

AS an added thought, since you do not like guns. Would a whip be ok?

John2:15
And when he had made a whip of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; John2:15

Matthew26:52 said...

Yeah sure. Give me a whip. Legalize whips. They're a hell of a lot easier to defend than a bullet.

Crime and evil don't prey on the weak and vulnerable. Crime and evil come from desperation. Desperate people will prey on anyone - weak or strong. And if you think that an armed mugger will run away because you've got a gun, well that's just stupid. Oh wait I remember - mutual assured destruction, right? He'd see that you have a gun and you'd see that he has a gun and you would both say, "Hey let's be like the Cuban Missile Crisis and not do anything O.K.?" What would actually happen is two people with implements of destruction would destroy each other, because that's what they're made for. I know someday my car's going to need my jumper cable. Are you saying the same about your gun? At shooting ranges, are you practicing with this in mind? Scorcese's Taxi was about a madman. He was just as desperate and unhealthy as the world around him that he was trying to fight. When he looked in the mirror and said, "Are you talking to me," (and don't lie - as sure as I'm singing Kum bi ya - you're doing something like that in the mirror) he was desperately clinging to an alternate reality where he was in control and not afraid. You are just like him. You aren't embracing "reality"; you're embracing your own invented reality. The reality is rc, no one is coming to get you.

You and I are the same in that we've both been deeply affected by a close encounter with a violent situation. We just react differently. You think you're in control. I know I'm not. If I developed a contingency plan like you, I believe that I would be creating a safety blanket, an alternate world where I feel like I can control things. Your gun is like an imaginary friend that protects you from the imaginary monsters coming out of your closet. True - it feels real when you shoot it at targets, but it's not actually real - it doesn't truly fulfill it's purpose - until you've shot someone with it. Until then, your gun is a placebo pill.

The thing that gets me is that if the people who own guns for protection would spend the same amount of time and energy on getting the guns out of the hands of "muggers" as they do on keeping it legal to own any kind of gun, there wouldn't be as urgent a need for protection. Maybe this is what gun owners are afraid of. What will they do without their security blankets?

Dude - do everyone a favor and stop "mentally masterbating." That's f***ing gross."

Oh yeah - what the hell is your point about guns and how this country was formed?

Also, you say, "Because most sane persons are not likely to attack a person that may be armed," in response to my questioning your logic about being surrounded by guns. WHAT?!?!? Like I said, how do you know your friends are sane or will stay sane? Or you for that matter? Christ! You people are "mentally masterbating" about muggers! That's f***ing sanity?

You say, "I have no need nor desire to convince you or anybody else to carry a gun. Do as you choose." This implies that you will do as you choose, right? Your choice is also affecting others. Your choice to fight for this cause is also making it possible for the "bad guys" to have guns too. Your choice is also making it easier for someone else to get shot and killed.

Mike W. said...

The reality is rc, no one is coming to get you.

Says who? So in reality you and RC have both been victims of violent crime. He's decided to take proactive steps to be responsible for his own safety and you've decided that either.

1. It won't happen to you
2. If it does happen there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

What exactly is unrealistic about his approach? What bothers you so much about his choosing a different approach than you? If you don't want to carry a gun then don't, but don't don't deny him the choice to choose a different path.

How am I, as a law-abiding citizen who is not in Law Enforcement supposed to "get guns out of the hands of muggers?"

As for a gun being a placebo unless you shoot someone. Wrong. If the presence of his gun stops an attack without him firing a shot then it worked as intended without him having to shoot anyone.

rc said...

Mathew (I'll leave the biblical references off since it appears that you pick and choose what suits you and "Thou shalt not judge" does not appear to suit you)

"Yeah sure. Give me a whip. Legalize whips. They're a hell of a lot easier to defend than a bullet."

Whips are already legal in Florida

You say:

"Crime and evil don't prey on the weak and vulnerable."

I say if you truly believe that then you are truly naive.

You say:
"Oh yeah - what the hell is your point about guns and how this country was formed?"

My response would be as teacher you may wish to bone up on the American Revolution and the second amendment.

Now to date I have attempted to engage in rational debate with you.

However I'm afraid that can't continue as, judging from your posts it would "appear" that you are becoming increasingly unstable.

You have called me everything from
a wearer of wife beater t-shirts and John Deere caps to a fictional Taxi Driver afraid of what might be in my closet.

That sort of argument does nothing to facilitate civilized debate.

In a previous post you referred to it as passion.

It comes across a discriminatory stereotyping.

You say:
"This implies that you will do as you choose, right?"

You are correct. That's the wonderful thing about America, you and I have not yet lost all our rights to make choices.

However do the de-evolution of your posts into nonsensical ranting and raving I will restate what I said in a previous post:

The fact that you are teaching children scares me more than any gun.

There is no way you can separate the vitriol you exhibit here from your daily life and convince me you can walk into a class room and allow a rational debate to occur.

It is quite obvious that no opinion but your own will suffice.

Therefor I will leave you to it.

Shirley Vandever said...

It is quite obvious that no opinion but your own will suffice.

Therefor I will leave you to it.


Amen, rc.

Anonymous said...

YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK SICK PEOPLE< MELANIE HAIN WAS KILLED BY A DERANGED HUSBAND NOT BY HER GUNS...YOU PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN YOU ALL ARE IN HELL. GOD BLESS YOU IDIOTS

marshalldylan04 said...

Everyone seems to have an interpretation of the facts; and that interpretation is based on their party affiliation, not the reality of what happened. Here is my view. I have several guns. I love to go target shooting. Never, not once in all my years have I been so frightened that I felt I should be carrying a loaded weapon. Never. I’ve lived in Chicago, Ft. Worth, Grand Rapids, and Lincoln, Nebraska. After moving to Wisconsin I was a bit surprised to find that I no longer needed a firearm owners permit. Nor was I required to register my guns. I keep my guns in a locked case, and I transport them in a locked case. I’ve never carried an loaded weapon to any of my children’s activities. And here is the bottom line and I’ll say it loud: Judging by her persistent actions and behavior, Melanie Hain was not right in the head. We all have rights. We all have RESPONSIBILITIES. My responsibility is to make damn sure no one in my household gets shot with one of my guns. There will be NO VICTIMS in my house. Now… what political party do I belong to?