Pretty much the same tribe: idiots, blood-dancers, fools, would-be nannies.
Example: Meleanie Hain was shot and killed by her husband, who then shot himself. You may remember her as the armed soccer Mom, whose permit was yanked by the local Sheriff after she open-carried to one of her children's soccer games. A few go-rounds with the courts later, her permit was returned, since she was, in fact, doing nothing illegal (in Ohio; YMMV).
I'm told -- but cannot get at primary sources -- that she had expressed concern in recent months about her husband. He was becoming violent, she told friends. (Say Uncle provides a confirming link in comments).
So, within hours, the various and sundry blood-dancers (they'd love to get a link from me) were trumpeting how this shows "guns are bad news for women," how "violent households" (who decides? Mr. Lautenberg hadn't said No here) "shouldn't have guns."
Yeah, 'cos we all know it would have been so much better if he had bludgeoned her to death with a tire iron, then used the car he got it from to gas himself in the garage.
More stringent gun laws are especially unlikely to have helped in this instance: Mr. Hain, a former prison guard, was working as a parole officer, jobs which generally entail access to guns in even the most gun-restrictive of states.
"Her gun didn't help!" the blood-dancers cry, and oh, golly, they are right. Ought we all be constantly vigilant for an argument with our spouse to escalate? People often stay in relationships too long; they kid themselves about warning signs; they don't leave and yes, they don't shoot. People are more likely to get bitten by their own dogs, too. Should we therefore get rid of pets, spouses and guns?
Consider, too, the stresses imposed on this marriage by hoplophobia: in most encounters with police and courts, you end up losing money -- even if you win. Your privacy is compromised; your address shows up in court records and probably in the news media, too. (Gee, that wouldn't be an issue for a parole officer, would it? Especially if he's sent a few baddies back to penitentary for violating the terms of their parole?) -- and all that for not breaking the law.
Here's a little thought-experiment for the Progressive blood-dancer: say this was a gay couple; say they'd shown up at their kid's soccer game holding hands, maybe even had a quick smooch, and say this offended a Concerned Parent, who had rung up the local po-lice who had busted 'em for Public Indecency or Corrupting The Morals Of The Young;* and say these folks fought it in court and won, 'cos there is no law against chaste PDAs. But it made the papers and the TV news bigtime, as you might expect. Now, if after being outed coast-to-coast and spendin' on lawyers an' such, neighbors being interviewed and expressing scorn or fear, a year later one of the couple killed the other, then offed himself, would you be tellin' us that Teh Gay kills, and ought to be outlawed? Or at least severely restricted -- I know! Maybe they otta get psych exams and be licensed?
It's like this: our personal prejudices are not Natural Law and they ought not be the laws of the land, either. Not yours, not mine, not that guy over there. Something went tragically wrong in the Hain household and if you wanna blame the guns, you'd better start with the damage done by hoplophobia.
(Could be totally unrelated, too -- maybe Mr. Hain went bugnuts for another reason, or none at all; we don't know. I'm still not gonna blame her for not shooting her husband -- and neither should you).
Update: Elsewhere and more gracefully, Breda offers an excellent farewell.
_______________________
* [SARCASM]It's what they got that Greek perv-o Socrates on, after all. [/SARCASM]
'I'm told -- but cannot get at primary sources -- that she had expressed concern in recent months about her husband.'
ReplyDeleteconsider it confirmed:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/gun-toting_mom_meleanie_hain_h.html
-SayUncle
I think I just found a quote of the day - thanks for putting this up, Roberta, and thanks for having the stomach to take on those who would try to exploit this tragedy. This was an unfortunate turn of events for all parties involved, and it is positively atrocious for people to use these deaths as political tools.
ReplyDeleteThis is not, has never been, about firearms. it has always been about mental health. No sane person takes a life and his own.
ReplyDeleteI was married for seven years to the ice princess. I was moved out of my own bedroom. I caught her having sex with neighbors and friends. Not once did I consider murder, and frankly, she needed killing. If you go over the edge that easily you need to seek professional help.
I can't believe that the media has trash talked a dead victim of domestic violence.
ReplyDeleteIs this a new low?
About par for the course.
ReplyDeleteI think... I'm not going to say anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm just gonna go ahead and cry for some poor woman I never knew.
Goddamn, I'm tired of this shit.
You know, I was honestly surprised at the comments my post received about this. I mean, it's one thing if you don't like guns, whatever. But the comments on my blog have basically been "she got what she had coming", which is appalling. It's also a good reminder as to why I don't talk about politics any more. I can't deal with all the fucking scumbags.
ReplyDeleteSaw this one coming. Months back I unfortunately read the news story comments, and--noting the surprising number of commenters who dug deep into the limbic cortex to grunt out a mixture of insult and hopeful schadenfreude--I sent a letter to the editor in response. I believe it was a tad too personal and lacking context for the print edition, so it did not appear.
ReplyDeleteThe only attempt at an actual argument thus far is the obvious point (and aren't we astoundingly stupid for not noticing) that when an attacker is creating violence and attempting to kill someone, a gun makes it more likely that, during the act of creating violence and attempting to kill, he will create violence and attempt to kill someone. It's no surprise that such tautologies--which appear in abundance in disarmer philosophy--are not particularly helpful to rational people. (My personal favorite is the study where the researchers discovered that in homes where people were likely to kill each other using guns, that they were killing each other using guns.)
It does, however, require no small amount of creativity to suggest that the absence of a gun would completely discourage a physically capable 33 year-old man from visiting violence on a sole defender who is smaller and presumably weaker. (I'm taking the liberty of assuming that the identity of the perpetrator is known.) What sort of position would I be defending, were I to suggest that swinging an axe, for example, is an insurmountably difficult feat in comparison to pointing a gun and pulling a trigger a few times?