Moms With Guns
Sarah Palin may be the most famous hockey mom with a gun, but the debate about mothers who pack lunches, diapers, kids and heat was hot well before Palin became a household name.
Back in June, the website BabyCenter -- usually devoted to the gentler arts of motherhood -- posed this question: Do you think every mother should own a gun?
"I carry a Keltec 380 (small pistol) on my hip everyday," responded a mother of two toddlers. "I feel comfortable knowing that I will be able to defend my kids and I if we are in a life-threatening situation."
Another mother -- eight months pregnant and with a young child -- declared that "our gun is the only way I could defend myself and my children should someone intend to do us harm."
And there was this disclosure from a police officer mom: "I keep a loaded 9mm in my Coach diaper bag."
Suddenly, it seemed, mothers with guns were everywhere -- including movie star moms. Mother of six Angelina Jolie was quoted in British newspapers as saying she keeps a gun at home for security, and that "if anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."
The point-blank debate about point-blank defense continued on the ResponsibilityProject.com. "The mother who keeps her gun in her diaper bag should be locked up," one reader insisted. "That's just plain irresponsible. A holster keeps your firearm at the ready, but more or less secure."
But a holster -- when worn by a mother with a loaded gun -- also makes the national news, as happened last month in Lebanon, Pennsylvania when soccer mom Meleanie Hain showed up at her 5-year-old daughter's game with her loaded Glock pistol strapped to her hip. Parents upset at the site of the gun complained to the soccer coach, who asked Ms. Hain to move to the other side of the field, away from the 4 and 5-year-olds.
The day after the incident, the director of the soccer program -- a former judge -- notified Ms. Hain that she would be banned from attending her daughter's soccer games if she continued to do so with a loaded gun. "A responsible adult would realize that such behavior has no place at a soccer game," the director wrote.
A few days later, the sheriff revoked Ms. Hain's concealed weapons permit, based on a law that denies permits to any "individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a dangerous manner to public safety."
Moms with Glocks might not rock in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, but they do protest. "I'm just a soccer mom who has always openly carried [a gun], and I've never had a problem before," said Ms. Hain. "I don't understand why this is happening to me."
Ms. Hain hired a lawyer, who pointed out that it's perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm everywhere in Pennsylvania except for Philadelphia, and that the sheriff is "basically punishing her for doing something she is permitted by law to do." Ironically, the revocation of Ms. Hain's permit to conceal now forces her to wear her gun -- which she carries for "personal safety"-- out in the open.
"Meleanie Hain is welcome to attend any of my kids' sports or social functions while openly carrying her weapon," wrote one supporter in a letter to the newspaper editor, stating that if a "maniac" attacked, "legally armed citizens are the next line of defense." But another letter writer took offense, stating "Hain says she carries her gun because her husband is a probation officer...My husband works with meat all day; should he carry a meat cleaver?"
The entire episode prompted the local newspaper to quip, "What's the difference between a pit bull and a soccer mom? In the case of Meleanie Hain, it's a loaded sidearm."
As the debate about mothers with guns continues, one woman who took part in the discussion on the ResponsibilityProject.com zeroed in with a query of her own: "Would this question even be asked if it were a father and not a mother carrying the firearm?"
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
There is nothing wrong with openly carrying a gun, but to those who do, I would recommend two precautions:
#1. Carry a gun with safety switch and have the safety on. There are many police officers and citizens who are alive today after a criminal took their gun because the perp did not know how to turn the safety off. With proper training and practice, a safety can be de-activated during the draw without any loss of time or accuracy. The M1911 is probably best suited for this.
#2 Carry a concealed backup gun. This ensures that even if someone manages to steal your primary weapon, you still have the ability to defend yourself against it. Kel-Tec P32 and Ruger LCP are excellent for this role.
Famed police officer/firearms instructor Massad Ayoob also recommends these precautions:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_9_49/ai_n6212426?tag=content;col1
Every firearms instructor I've ever been around said to never trust the safety, even if you use it. Stop acting like Sean Bean in RONIN.
I didn't say put all your trust in the safety. I just said using it as an extra layer of protection is a good idea. As I said, there are many people who have survived being disarmed because the criminal could not figure out how to turn the safety off.
"Stop acting like Sean Bean in RONIN."
LOL ...
I grew up around guns, BlackJac & I agree with you ... I've seen guns misused by my own family members (my adopted brother was convicted of attempted armed robbery) as well as others. Too many of the gunrights advocates cite lesser numbers of gun-violence fatalities; but often forget to weigh in the reality that lives are saved nowadays, due in part to medical advances & emergency procedures (that would have been another death-statistic otherwise).
Generally, I read too many romanticized views about firearms from gun-fanatic types, which tend to merely talk about the merits of possessing & using such weapons ... and not the dangers involved.
Hmm, seems that most people who post here and choose to carry a gun prefer revolvers. Personally I'm not a big fan of them. They don't a lot of rounds and the heavy double action trigger pull can throw off shots. My CCW gun is a subcompact Springfield XD-9.
M1911A1. A strip of skateboard tape to the front strap and I'm good to go.
Virginia is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. This means anyone can get one unless precluded by some other condition (convicted felon, restraining order, etc). It is also legal to "open carry" without any sort of permit whatsoever. I don't think my wife has ever fired a gun, so I make sure I have the means to defend her if neccesarry. I hope they will never be needed but I have them. On or about my person on a daily basis I carry tools. In my vehicle I carry tools such as flares, wrenches, and tire irons.
For work, I also carry a machete shovels. In my pocket I have a small pocketknife, keys, pens, and a pistol. Usually have fishing rods too. No flat tire yet, but I am PREPARED. Use my pocketknife often. Never had to use the pisol, but I am PREPARED.
Second posting--Virginia is one of about 40 states with shall issue permits/
This should be a case of local laws. No guns in children's play areas. Like no guns, knives or motorcycle helmets in bars. My main concern with gun ownership is when children or disenfranchised teens are in the house, that they be locked up.
I don't think, as (un) conventional wisdom seems to say -- that Democrats want to take away guns, or that Democrats don't own guns. That is absurd. I am a Democrat and I own several. Read through the comments, a lot of Dems here own them. Unless you do something stupid with them, they won't be taken away.
Why shouldn't I be able to bring my motorcycle helmet into a bar? I don't even drink.
"My main concern with gun ownership is when children or disenfranchised teens are in the house, that they be locked up. "
I would agree with this, except to say that a gun can also be holster on your person instead of locked up. Carrying a gun concealed in holster makes it readily accessable when needed and keeps it away from unauthorized users. With the proper retention holster, a gun can also be secured when openly carried.
now i understand why we're not getting notes kathy...you're too busy blogging!
I own and carry a .357 snub, trust me, I am NOT Republican.
Though for a long time I was of the same opinion regarding Dems and guns, I have over time come to my senses. Now I realize it is not the Demcrat populace as a whole that want to take my guns away, just the ones that seek and are elected to public office. Thus, putting them in a position to do exactly that. Who is the last Democrat in elected office at the national level that wasn't a gun grabber? And the NRA a ratings don't mean a thing nor do the publicity shots of John Kerry duck hunting. Believe it or not there is more to sport shooting than hunting. I for instance own several guns and have my entire adult life, and though I plan to hunt in the future, I have never killed anything with any of my guns. I just love plinking and target shooting.
They've banned rape, robbery, house invasion, carjacking. How successful was that?
The cliche bumper sticker is still the living truth--if guns are banned, only criminals will own guns.
If they are not banned, the possibility of a trained, armed individual as an adversary is quite sufficient to deter non-drugged criminals from victimizing anyone suspected as capable of self-defense.
My mom owned a gun, and kept it away from us until we were grown, as any sensible mother would.
My dad bought me my first gun, when I was of legal age. The militia in my family's home county has a woman chaplain and a large female membership. Nutcases? I doubt it--many are descended from volunteers who fought the British at King's Mountain. Many have grown children serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Women need guns, votes, and more and better women candidates than Palin.
Related points--look at how well Prohibition worked with booze and is currently working with drugs and with firearms in DC and Chicago (both cities have extraordinary rates of gun violence).
I don't worry about 99.99% of gun owners out there who are responsible for their guns. My grandfather had guns of all types and could use them with the precision of Tiger Woods in his Sunday red shirt. He was respectful and responsible for his guns. If a person is responsible for the use and storage of their guns then I have very few problems with them. It's the knuckleheads that leaves guns unsecured or don't bother to teach their kids to respect something that can kill or maim in a spil second that cause our problems in the country.
It was an imprudent act on the woman's behalf. Don't hate the rest of us gun-owners who enjoy target shooting and hunting. We are not all nuts frothing about our "right to bear arms"
Why was it imprudent? What ever happened to "It's legal, I want to"?
It is imprudent because children and guns are a bad mix. I am related to many police officers, who would never EVER wear a holstered weapon around their kids or other people's children. The first thing my cousin-in-law does when he comes home from his day at work (he's a state trooper) is to walk straight to his lock box and lock up his weapon. Then he kisses his kids and goes to the park.
That is prudence.
The fact that someone becomes a parent doesn't instantly transform them into something different than what they were before. They don't suddenly become more mature, wiser, smarter, or practical. if they were stupid before and thought it was cool to pack heat in public, they'll be stupid afterward and continue to believe that idea.
American people tend to have a simplistic view of life and create artificial categories that bear no connection to reality.
I think grouping all "American people" is overly "simplistic" and is a classic example of an attempt to "create artificial categories that bear no connection to reality."
: "Would this question even be asked if it were a father and not a mother carrying the firearm?
Yes, it would. Perhaps people shouldn't be taking babies into areas they feel are so unsafe that they need to carry a gun to protect themselves.
What if she just wanted to carry it?
Yeah,
Banning something is always the way to go.
LIke banning books or censoring speech. Abstinence only sex education, and a while we are at it - lets ban recreational drug use(alcohol and cigarettes don't count).
Hey I don't own gun but I understand especially how a woman would like "carry" given their natural concerns regarding their personal safety. Training is of course the key.
Now if we could just ban stupidity...bad idea nobody would run for office.
Guns should be banned period, except for hunting and only during that season. Owning a gun and shooting a person are two positions. I was lawfully afforded the right to carry a gun several years ago. And when that right ceased, I no longer had the desire to carry one. Reason, they do not make you feel any safer, and secondly, they cause more harm than good. Innately, we have the capacity to handle attackers without the use of guns.. I recall being approached in a parking lot of a shopping mall by an individual who concealed what appeared to be a gun in his pocket. Granted I had my weapon on me at the time, but did not think to grab it. However, when I saw that he did not have a gun, after he grabbed my new leather skirt and purse from my hand, the power within me went to grab him and kick his a$$. And I almost did, but he outran me when I chased him down on foot. But in the after thought, I never thought only if I had my gun out. Thankfully, I didn''t because anytime you use deadly force against someone, there is a grandjury inquiry and sometimes, it might not go your way.
Votingisreform--of course you know your ban'em all stance is completely unconstitutional as well as a related counter--the right to self defense is also protected by a combination of the 2nd and ninth amendments, and since the right of selfdefense protects the logical extension that it is effective--the tools with which to defend your life are protected and that includes firearms.
You can move to England. Guns are banned there. Of course, you will have to be careful of their knife crime.
Luckily my rights trump your emotionalism. Also. i'd LOVE to see your statistics to substantiate your unfounded claim that "[guns] cause more harm than good." You'll lose that one every time.
Here are some statistics too:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1023-mccain-on-life.html
Tell all of the women who are victims of rape (the living ones, at any rate) that they had the "power within" them the whole time and just didn't use it. Please.
"Do this because of my experience!" C'mon now. That's stupid no matter the subject.
Just remember this 'Guns Don't Kill With Out Someone to Pull the Trigger'. I am a two time Mother who carries little .380 in my purse every day, not only for my protection but for my children too! I may live in a small town but it is something that makes sure I will be able to protect myself regardless! I am a formerly in the Army Military Police and know what can happen! My Husband was a Police Officer! Call me out by my three year old has already had the privilege of shooting! It is something that we grew up with and agree upon! Don't criticize something our four fathers wrote into our Constitution! It is there for a reason!
Our forefathers foresaw the need of the people to physically remove an obstinate leader who decided to be a Napoleon. The second amendment is to forcibly remove bad government. But as time went on, the govt. developed Apache helicopters with Gatling guns and night vision guided missiles, you have a single shot rifle.
If you don't want to carry a gun, you don't have too. But never try to prevent others from doing so to defend their lives and families. The guns is the most effective tool for self defense in the world, and it's effective use against violent criminals cannot be overstated.
Most anti gun groups do NOT want to deny anyone the right to own and or carry a firearm. Like most things the Right wing NRA loves do distort that fact. Like 2TimeColoMom, I was a cop once, only a civilian cop like her husband. But that is where we part. Over the past several years the gun debate has been distorted. They do not want to take away your hunting rifles and your shotguns. Nor your handguns. But why in hell do you need an AK-47?? It was designed to done thing...KILL PEOPLE and not rabbits. I only need to remind you of the 19 year old who took his step fathers un-locked AK-47 style rifle with a 30 round clip into the Van Maur store in Omaha, NE 20 days before Christmas in 2007 and kill 9 people including himself and wounding many others. Lets suppose 2TimeColoMom was there with her kids and her "peashooter" WHO do you think will lose in this scenario? Where is mom's focus? Her kids of course. Where is the 19 yo's focus? to kill as many as he can. Does the right to carry help her?
Does the 19 yo's right to posses a military assault rifle help her? You be the judge.
As a mother and grandmother, who is self employed and lives in a rural area, I always carry a S & W 38. I travel a lot and am in areas where cell phones do not work and a gun is protection not only from two legged pretators but also the four legged ones, you might encounter. If everyone carried then you would see crime go down as no one wants to be shot and criminals will think twice before attacting someone they know is armed or breaking into their home. My 90 year old Mother in law always has her 22 in her pocket. Guns are safe to carry, ever heard of one going off in your purse or pocket? Children of peole who have guns are educated about them, and all of my grandchildren have been taught safety and how to shoot before they are 7. If they know about them there is no curiosity to see what happens. We also live in a community with lots of Amish, how would they protect their families when the men are away at work? If we defend ourselves and our rights we will not become victims!
The argument that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” sounds logical. However if we had acted about fifty years ago to control, at least the handguns and automatic weapons, we would have much fewer dangerous firearms today in circulation in the hands of the so-called "outlaws" If one has to have a license to own a motor vehicle, why is it not possible to enforce gun control laws? In most European countries where "Gun control" is in practice in some form, statistics show that the total firearms related mortality and morbidity is lower than USA.
But you forget to mention that the UK now has uncontrollable knife crime, and a per capita crime rate greater than the US.
Looking at GUN VIOLENCE is only looking at a portion of the true problem. Controlling overall violence sould be our goal, one we cannot attain by regulating implements.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece
Apparently, you and I interpret the "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" line differently. I have always taken it to mean that if guns are outlawed, honest, law abiding people will be preyed upon and victimized by armed people who disregard the law.
I have carried a .38 cal. snub nose revolver in my purse since I was 18 years old (for more than 30 years). I have broken down in terrible neighborhoods (while driving to good neighborhoods) and on the Interstate highways all over the country. I have 2 daughters and am a single parent. I feel safer with my gun. I know how to shoot well (I was taught before I was 5) and would not hesitate to defend myself or my children.
BTW, for what it's worth, I am a liberal who will vote for Obama.
I hope you're aware that a vote for Obama may very likely take away your right to carry a gun. He has stated that he feels all police depts. should have the right to come into your homes and confiscate your guns. Why do we never hear anything about this in the debates? It's an important subject for many, many people. I feel that having the right to carry a gun may be our ONLY defense at some point in the near future. Every day on the news they are more and more people being burglarized , more elderly beat up and robbed, car-jackings, home invasions.Don't some of you ever listen to the news?Our police depts. are being cut back and reorganized all over the country. Who do these gun control fanatics think will protect them? There aren't enough police now to protect half the people in this country and many of them are afraid to go into some areas and afraid to use any force because of the liberals that want them fired for doing so. I will never give up my guns!
The tautology "If Item X is outlawed, only outlaws will have Item X" is utterly stupid because you can apply it to ANYTHING. "If ten-kiloton tactical nuclear devices/sex with six-year-old children/setting people on fire solely for the entertainment value is outlawed..." I personally have noted a distinction between gun owners and gun fetishists, the latter being the ones who brag about having concealed-carry permits (thereby negating the entire rationale behind having one in the first place) and come up with extensive excuses as to why walking into a day care center with a Heckler G-36 is a necessity.
Thank you! I know several people who own guns (used to have a few myself) and I would trust any of them around my kids except for the one who is constantly bragging about how many guns he has (and how many of those are not registered) & is constantly bringing attention to the fact that he carries concealed. Yeah you can almost always tell the responsible gun owners in the same way that you can tell a genuine SpecOps person from a poseur... they're the quiet ones who don't brag about it or try to draw attention to it.
Blackjac--the only people who are talking about a "right" to own WMDs are the same people who don't want law abiding citizen to be able to own handguns and semiauto rifles/carbines.
why is it that whenever firearms and firearm CONTROL comes up , someone starts spouting off about AUTOMATIC weapons?! For the love of christ, automatic weapons were officially banned from gross ownership pretty much right after WWII. You can still own one LEGALLY IF --- AND ONLY IF - - You have a CLASS III permit and/or pay the tax stamp for that item. not only do you need to buy from a ClassIII dealer, you have to pay the $200 tax stamp AND submit your fingerprints and drawings of your storage/home. It's not like 19 year olds are out running around buying AK47s, and UZIs. According to US law, you CAN own these "styles" of weapons so long as they are SEMI AUTOMATIC.
Some people dont' want to have you with a HIDDEN pistol -- b/c "no one KNOWS if you have one!!" ..... but the flip-side is that they don't want OPEN carry b/c then "we have to SEE who has one." I am for any form of carry. If you can't get concealed in your area, see if you can OPEN carry. if you do, make sure you are doing it CORRECTLY (and keep a printed copy of the statute in your wallet for when the subsidized, uniformed, thugs come to harass you --- police think they're the only ones ever allowed to have a gun ::headshake:: ).
~Si vis pacem, para bellum
Actually--the legislation restricting fully automatic weapons passed in 1934
What you're saying is OK except you want to elect officials that want only you to have these kinds of weapons and disenfranchise the ones you don't want to possess the same. You're right. Outlawing is not the answer, but you do not deserve to be murdered just like the people you don't like do not deserve to be murdered by these weapons. The first amendment to the constitution says this. I agree with your headshake concerning the police with guns, but Emmet Till was mutilated and murdered in 1954, because of people like you who want to say who should have guns and who shouldn't. I will not allow you to pull me out of my bed in the middle of the night and take me some where, tie a cotton gin to my neck, beat me until even my own family does not recognise me, and toss me into the bottom of the river at your own delight. We will hold court in the middle of the street. I was in the military where I saw people like you cheating on the weapons qualifications. I'll bet it all on that. Bring your AK47's and whatever. I know you can't hit!
a couple points:
a) there would be MORE backlash were it a man, I believe, since it would create more anxiety about inappropriate gun use since men are historically more aggressive, or at least perceived as such. However, for this same reason, a woman with a gun, especially a mother, would draw more attention.
b) also, refer to the following quote from this article:
" A few days later, the sheriff revoked Ms. Hain's concealed weapons permit, based on a law that denies permits to any "individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a dangerous manner to public safety." "
The bad reputation she gained was a result of her carrying her weapon to the soccer game. She had received the permit in the first place, so the permit itself was the reason for her bad reputation. She acted in a "dangerous manner" by carrying a gun, so by this ruling anyone who carried a gun would be a danger to public safety and therefore no one should carry guns at all. (just to clarify -- that's the rationale I'm extrapolating from this quote, not my own belief).
I'm an attorney. IMO, the language of the law is arbitrary and will not survive a challenge.
How come Americans are the only people that think that guns are a necessary part of everyday life? I have never even seen a gun, apart from when the times I have visited the US (airport security).
Curious as to what country you're from?
United Kingdom
I lived through Katrina on the north shore of Lake Ponchatrain in LA.. We lost power for more than 5 weeks. Temperatures averaged in the 90s. Trees blocked the roads (we lost over 200 trees on 3.8 acres) and fell on our cars. We had a generator but little food and all of the stores were closed and inaccessible. The situation was desperate. People started coming into our area to steal generators and anything else they could get. It was incredible and very frightening. I had my 2 daughters and my parents in their 80s to look after. I was never so happy in all my life to have guns. I will NEVER be without a gun after what I lived through.
It's cultural holdover programming from the colonial era, before the invention of grocery stores and the police department.
Jason--every Swiss male over 18 has a machinegun and ammo in his home--and ownership of handguns and hunting rifles is common.
Switzerland also exported mercenaries and handled the banking of any and all despots who came through the door; what's your point?
Jason, we don't consider guns a "a necessary part of everyday life". We just consider them a useful tool that can safe lives during an emergency, like the seat belt in a car or smoke alarms in your house. You may never "need" any of those things, but they are very good to have, because if there is ever a time that you do need them, having them can mean the difference between life and death.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
