Beyond the Easy Irony of Murdered Gun Advocate Meleanie Hain
The murder-suicide involving Pennsylvania mother of three Meleanie Hain -- who gained national note and pro-gun fame as the result of a legal battle stemming from the revocation of her permit to carry a concealed handgun by local law enforcement after she openly carried a loaded Glock 9mm pistol to her daughter's soccer game -- is a macabre lesson in easy irony. A woman who preached the National Rifle Association gospel that guns make you safer and protect your family is shot dead by her husband in a murder-suicide, her surviving family devastated.
From news reports, Hain, who posted on the web site of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association under the name "shefearsnothing" with an accompanying graphic proclaiming "Danger: I know no fear," was a true believer: guns don't kill, people do. A corollary to this well-worn mantra is that gun ownership guarantees personal safety. The shooting in Pennsylvania belies both these pro-gun tenets. As her attorney, Matthew Weisberg, stated: "My first reaction was shock and sadness. The second was that it's the truest illustration of irony" -- a context only sharpened by the fact that the shooting occurred during Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
As an advocate who debated gun control supporters, Hain was well aware of the facts presented in opposition to her views. Yet she parried them as irrelevant to her world, in the same way that the concerns of her fellow Pennsylvania soccer moms were dismissed as the intellectual flotsam of the anti-gun mind. To this mindset, gun homicides, unintentional deaths and suicides were events that happened to other people who lacked the temperament, training or personal fortitude to own a gun. In essence, Hain, like many of her fellow pro-gun advocates, lacked an ability to think in the abstract: Her gun experience was positive and whatever negative effects others felt from firearms, the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame. Is it too bold to think that if she had survived her husband's attack by shooting him to death she would have offered his killing as proof of the effectiveness of the self-defense handgun? Based on 25 years in the gun control debate I don't think so.
Instead, she will become one of the statistics that she so readily dismissed. One of the 30,000 who die from guns each year. One of the hundreds of women shot to death by their husbands or intimate acquaintances each year. One of the hundreds of murder-suicides that occur each year. One of the tens of thousands of families destroyed by gun violence each year. Each death standing as proof that the absolute she tried to personify -- that owning a handgun will guarantee your safety -- is false.
Dennis A. Henigan: The Gun Issue Is Back in the Supreme Court: What Does It Mean?
Although the Chicago handgun ban Supreme Court case involves interesting constitutional issues, even if Chicago loses, such a ruling is unlikely to prove a serious threat to state and local gun regulation across-the-board.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Quick add on, forgot to mention in my first ever post on here. Has Josh Sugermann ever talked about gangs and/or The War on Drugs?
Pretty much everything that can be said has been said on both sides except for this:
Suppose I'm in favor of bringing back Prohibition and suppose that an executive of Jack Daniels had just been killed by a drunk driver. Would it be in bad taste if I practically gloated over the exec's death? Said that somehow working for an alcohol company, having a nice stockpile of alcohol at home, enjoying drinking alcohol, etc. somehow made him more likely to be killed by a drunk driver?
Is it a "delicious irony" if someone who loves old cars, owns a couple collector cars, tinkers with them every spare moment they have, etc. is killed in a hit and run?
Is it a "delicious irony" if someone who is fascinated by Medieval weaponry, who collects swords, spears, shields, maces, etc., who proudly displays their collection, reads up on the Middle Ages and makes themselves into a subject matter expert (the kind of person you see on The History Channel sometimes) is killed by a knife wielding home invader?
I'm new to this forum, and I'd rather not say something personnel like I'm about to, but in all seriousness how many of the anti-gun people on here have experience handling/shooting guns?
"Tell me who committed murder-suicide with a knife." - joependleton
Elderly Couple Involved In Murder-Suicide
POSTED: 8:19 am EDT October 20, 2009
NEWTON, Mass. TheBostonC
"When officials arrived, they found Jane Cooper Wyman, 86, dead from a stab wound to the neck, and her husband, William Wyman, 86, also dead from a stab wound to the neck."
Oh, yes.
Let us gaze upon the face(s) of gunloonery:
http://www
"When police raided the home of father and son Burl and John Thomas in September, they found an arsenal worthy of a small country.
One bedroom alone housed more than 30 weapons, including a live military anti-tank rocket launcher, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
Lake County authorities also found a half-pound of dynamite, blasting caps, detonator cord, 400 grams of marijuana, and 1 ½ ounces of cocaine"
Antioch, IL? Aren't these the good people TP keeps telling us about?
another bit of totally irrelevent BS
Jade practices the adage, "when you've got nothing, obfuscate.
I tried to post a reply to Shivasquestion's comment asking for links to prove some the hypcrisy on the parts of different gun grabbers. I don't see it yet, so I'm not sure it posted properly, if it's in Moderation Limbo, or if it's just plain lost.
In the even that it's LOST, here's an interesting link to evidence of a LOT of gungrabber hypocrisy:
http://www
Have a great day today and a better day tomorrow. Stay safe, and may God bless. I wish you His peace.
Dan
That site is pretty interesting.
It tells us why the Confederate flag should fly and explains why the Left hates The Lord of the Rings.
Truly, a scholarly site.
but the referenced article is spot on--which goes to demonstrate the extremely low caliber of the people you support greenrocks
her husband was a police officer.
I'm not making an argument, so none of the medieval logic applies -- even though it will rain down like leaves.
I'm expressing only my opinion, so none of what some people call facts or extenuating circumstances apply -- although the bizarre excuses for hideous crimes will still appear.
I don't need to hear from the usual suspects -- although as usual the usual suspects will say the usual suspect things, and as usual suspiciously follow me to whatever thread I go to next. The usual suspects must miss no chance to post something usual and suspect in response to what I say.
The claims made by certain groups on this thread are some of the emptiest I've ever in years of seeing their barren, amoral claims.
I'd call it shameful but in those people no capacity to recognize the shame of it exists.
if all this is a waste of your time you can always go away....wh
for a man not making an argument--you are posting a tremendous number of posts. Was this woman's death a tragedy--a
He writes a lot for saying so little.
You sure do like to write a lot of words telling us what bad people we are.
Declaring your outright refusal to consider the possibility that your position is based upon incorrect information does not lend credence to your claims, nor does your usage of "ad hominem" or "poisoning the well" attacks. Rather, it suggests that your position is not credible, and that your claims should be disregarded as lacking credibility.
his position that there is not a right to be armed never has been credible
Are you getting . . . eventually, to a point, SewaneeLeftist, or was this just an attempt at getting into the Guinness Book of World Records for most appearances of the word "usual" in one paragraph?
"Each death standing as proof that the absolute she tried to personify -- that owning a handgun will guarantee your safety -- is false." Josh Sugarmann
You left out one minor detail Josh. You can't defend yourself with a gun by remote control. It has to be in your hands.
"Meleanie Hain's loaded pistol -- with a bullet ready in the chamber -- was in a backpack hanging from the front door." - from the report here on Huffpo.
Doesn't sound like "carrying" is much use, then, unless your finger's always on the trigger.
That's not necessary, but it does need to be holstered on your body or within easy reach. If there is any lesson from this, is that your carry methods for outside the home should be used in the home as well. And no, not just for women with killer husbands. In the event of a home invasion, you will also want your gun close by.
One thing everyone seems to be missing.. Even if she never owned a gun her husband still would have. It was issued to him by his job and that's the one he used to murder Meleanie. There is no Irony here, this is the tragic story of a woman unable to protect herself because he knew when to strike. I know darn well that if she was able to protect herself she would have and we'd be talking about a brave woman that saved herself from domestic violence. Now that's irony.
very true
"Each death standing as proof that the absolute she tried to personify -- that owning a handgun will guarantee your safety -- is false."
According to Josh Sugarmann. According to the FBI, it is perfectly true 80,000 times a year (219 times a day).
http://www
From your source: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury".
So, according to the FBI, it is perfectly false 16,000 times a year (44 times a day).
Not much of a guarantee, now, is it?
but certainly a better guarantee than the complete civilian disarmament Joshie is trying for
"From your source: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury".
So, according to the FBI, it is perfectly false 16,000 times a year (44 times a day)."
You assume that 20% suffering an injury means that the the crime was not thwarted and that the results were worse than if the crime had been allowed to progress without resistance. That is not what the stat is saying.
"A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury".
Why did you leave out the part that said one half of the victims who defended themselves without a weapon or with a weapon other than a firearm, suffered an injury?
I, my wife or my kids will happily trade armed , possibly injured but ALIVE , for unarmed , almost certainly injured , at the least traumatized and most likely DEAD anytime !
C. Women and Guns
* At least 17 million women own firearms in the United States.105 And according to the National Research Opinion Center, 44 percent of adult women either own or have access to firearms.1
* As many as 561 times a day, women use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault.10
* In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm.10
* A man can kill a woman with whatever he has at hand, but she can usually only resist him successfully with a gun. Don Kates, a civil rights attorney who specializes in firearms issues, cites a Detroit study showing that three-quarters of wives who killed their spouses were not even charged, since prosecutors found their acts necessary to protect their lives or their children's lives.109
"From your source: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury".
Suffering an injury is not the same as being dead, now is it?
None of my posts have come through on this thread for some while. My only point: the argument that because the issued gun was used for the murder, all the other guns were irrelevant is the weakest of all the many weak arguments I've ever seen on this subject.
And you base that claim on what?
It remains as illogical as when you first made it. All the other guns made no differnce since the killer only needed one. And that one he had was issued by the state.
I'll respond once, although I think the argument is beneath contempt. Do the other guns not work because he chose that one? Do you think he wouldn't have chosen one of the other guns if he hadn't had the issued one -- he could only murder with that one? Do you think he chose the revolver BECAUSE that was the one he had been issued? Do you think if somehow the revolver had failed to kill his wife, for whatever reason, he wouldn't have chosen another gun to finish the job? Do you think he said to himself, "well, if I use my service revolver, no one will be able to claim that we need gun control because I used the gun issued to me?" Astonishingly empty, even for this group.
Why is that you don't mention that they were separated and that she had sought an order o protection against her husband? An order of protection which might have saved her life since it would have disarmed him of his commonwealth issued firearm as a parole officer that he used to commit this horrific act. I really don't about more gun laws because we have existing ones that would have stopped this, it is called the Lautenberg Amendment and requires those that are the subject of a restraining order or order of protection to surrender their firearms. Maybe if the local law enforcement had acted and he had been disarmed this tragedy could have been averted.
The thing that really does matter is that two children are without their mom now, because the local law enforcement had warning that something could happen and didn't act. Not whose agenda it serves. So put the blame on where it belongs.
Very valid points--however Sugarmann would rather blame the firearm(s) involved than on the criminal activity
No. You're not a very analytical reader. This woman believed that owning a handgun was the ultimate in personal safety!
Well obviously it wasn't!!
Many of the pro-gun posters on these threads have stated that law enforcement would prefer it if people armed themselves, in the interest of self-protection. Do you suppose that the victim's right-to-carry publicity could have influenced the authorities not to intervene, since she seemed able to take care of herself?
They intervened, and revoked her permit. She obviously felt above the law. What you resist you get.
Or maybe the police didn't pay enough attention to her killer husband because they didn't agree with her agenda and were not willing to investigate on of their own
Who knows? But the key point here is that she's a victim, not an offender. Man gun controllers just love to trample on a victim's grave. What compassion.
"Do you suppose that the victim's right-to-carry publicity could have influenced the authorities not to intervene, since she seemed able to take care of herself?"
It shouldn't, but the police are under no legal obligation to protect individuals anyway.
http://www
"In a recent poll, more than eighty-five percent of our 1352 members favored Right-to-C
" 'I'm detecting that I'm eating a lot of crow on this issue,' Harris County District Attorney John Holmes recently professed. Holmes's jurisdiction, the third most populous county in the United States, includes Houston. Holmes was one of many who predicted that 'blood would run in the streets' when the Texas concealed-carry law came into effect 14 months ago. It hasn't happened. In fact, with 112,000 new concealed-carry permits issued, there have been all of 57 'incidents' recorded among licensees, mostly, according to The Texas Lawyer, involving possessing while intoxicated or failing to conceal the weapon. Eating crow is 'not necessarily something I like to do,' Holmes told The Texas Lawyer, 'but I'm doing it on this.' ", from 'THE CLOSED AMERICAN MIND: From the Hip', by Daniel J. Poslby in the 24Mar97 issue of the National Review.
"The Executive Board of the St. Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA), representing over 1300 commissioned officers employed by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, has voted to support the passage of the April 6, 1999 Right-to-Carry referendum
She was considering filing a TRO/SAO, but had not done so yet. The husband was still living at home, it appears.
Well the Gun Control movement is certainly familiar with Irony:
Gun Control politician Ted Kennedy: Bodyguard was arrested trying to bring an arsenal of guns into the capitol building. Arsenal included an actual machine gun (not a semi-auto "assault weapon" the gun controllers are always trying to confuse the public about)
Gun Control politician Dianne Feinstein: Admitted carrying concealed handgun at a point in her career. Same with Handgun ban advocate Dennis Kucinich.
Gun control advocate Barbara Graham, who founded the "Million Mom March": sentenced to 10 years to life for shooting and paralyzing an innocent 23-year-old man she blamed for killing her 19-year-old son
Links?
Prove it.
All 3 incidents have been in the news--shiva--you have not been paying attention
Sigh... they were rather well publicized in the news.
Common knowledge for people who pay attention.
Google. is your friend.
And to add to your list -
Gun Control advocate Josh Sugarmann: Holds an FFL, yet operates no gun store. But campaigned against so-called "kitchen table dealers" because they held an FFL, but operated no gun store.
Poor kids - my thoughts are with them.
The fact is that if the family had been anti-gun then they'd probably be still in one piece. Unless, of course, they decided to kill each other with knives.
If the family had been "anti gun" it would have made no difference. The husband would still have his service pistol assigned to him for his job, and he would still have used it to murder his wife.
The only thing that would have made a difference is if cops were not allowed to carry guns. Is that what you want?
Well, if they had been anti-gun the husband probably wouldn't be a cop as he clearly needs a gun for that. The only good thing about them having all those guns in the house is that they were well protected against outside criminals. I mean, with guns all over the place even the kids could have defended themselves against intruders!
Guns work better for murder-suicide perps because they are too gutless to use a knife on themselves.
And you know all murder- suicide perps do you? No you don't. I think depression medication is by far killing more people than guns or knives ever will. The only thing worse might be a nuclear bomb.
And Chris Benoit used what?
"Guns work better for murder-suicide perps because they are too gutless to use a knife on themselves
Interesting point Joe. Murder-suicides oftentimes involve multiple weapons, with a non firearm used in the heat of passion to commit the initial murder (knives or heavy blunt instruments or even strangulation), followed by the use of a firearm to commit suicide.
once again...fo
http://www
Pretty cool link, if you're 12.
It does establish that someone reasonably skilled with a longbow is a match for modern riflemen
when did you turn 12.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
