Gun-Toting Soccer Mom Shot Dead
To restate the point of my post on American gun culture/violence by paraphrasing your Commander-In-Chief: I’m not opposed to all applications of Second Amendment rights. I’m opposed to dumb applications of Second Amendment rights.
And in particular, I worry about the mindset that finds justifications for those applications and the sometimes tragic consequences that said mindset helps to encourage, or at least fails to guard against.
Random Posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- related:http://www.timeso...
- These paradigm shifts are...
- Good points all. I don't...
- Physics, physics, physics...
- This is helpful, as I thi...
- There are a couple of nic...
- Yeah, I have to wonder ho...
- Also, I guess what I find...
- Yeah, I think that's what...
- She also points me to thi...
-
32 comments
So a woman who believed in open-carry was killed by her (estranged) husband and this is evidence against…
What?
How, seriously, she shouldn’t have been allowed to have a gun?
Personally, I’m sorry that she didn’t shoot her (estranged) husband before he killed her.
Scott,
I’m not sure what one has to do with the other here. There was a tragedy and I fail to see how it had anything to do with her view on gun ownership. Her sonofabitch abusive husband murdered her. Unless I’m missing something or you have a more compelling reason otherwise, I fail to see how it’s more than the sad tragedy it is.
I’m going to join the chorus of comments that agree that her carrying a gun had nothing to do with her being murdered.
I am wondering now — did she carry the gun everywhere because she was afraid of her husband?
Agree with the comments. When I read the post, I thought that maybe a cop had mistakenly shot her during a ruckus, or it was a case of mistaken identity. But then I hit the link. I fail to see how her allegedly dangerous mindset had anything to do with her demise.
Let’s say I oppose people sitting in trees as a form of political protest. If one of those protestors is later pushed off the Empire States building by a jilted lover… does that support my position regarding tree sitting?
Hey, quit picking on the Canadian, eh… (Though to be fair, Scott, I share the previously stated sentiments….)
I was perhaps too glib with this post in thinking that the arguments I laid out in the previous post would be understood in the context of the linked story, though, I wasn’t expecting to get any converts. I’ll provide more of an outline to my thinking, giving you some meat with which to disagree, when I’m not pressed for time.
Suffice to say that in the follow up post, it is specifically noted,
“Police have not said who killed whom. They did say the bodies were found on different floors of the family’s Lebanon house. Autopsies are scheduled for Friday.”
So what I’m suggesting (not proving, I got no causation here, hence the non-use of the word — I was very particular about that, by the way) is not based on the specifics of who shot who.
Jaybird
October 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Allow me to demonstrate how my mindset is deeply sexist and how I am, indeed, a member of the Patriarchy.
I cannot comprehend a mother shooting her husband and then saying “my god, I shot my husband, I would rather shoot myself than face the consequences!” Instead, I see generic woman saying something about her children and how they need a parent still and all that sexist “mother bear” stuff.
I can, however, comprehend a father saying “I shot my wife! I had better shoot myself!” (The fact that I comprehend it ought not be seen as approval, of course.)
All that to say: If this murder/suicide turns out to be anything but the guy shooting the lady then shooting himself, I’ll be deeply surprised.
Mark Thompson
October 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Fair enough, but it seems worth noting this: “Matthew Weisberg, who represented Meleanie Hain in a federal lawsuit against the Lebanon County sheriff, said he understood she had been seeking a PFA against her husband sometime in the past month.”
and this:
“Some neighbors told the Lebanon Daily News they heard or saw the children — a 10-year-old boy and girls ages 2 and 6 — running from the house and screaming “Daddy shot Mommy!” shortly before the 911 emergency center was alerted at 6:20 p.m.”
It also seems pertinent that he was, until recently, a prison guard.
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Agreed, what evidence there is seems to point towards the father. But, again, what I’m suggesting, which I will take the time to lay out in more detail and is not an argument about gun control or taking people’s guns away, is not ultimately determined by who shot whom.
Jaybird
October 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Be sure to touch on the whole “what we, as a society, need to do more of in order to prevent people in law enforcement from killing their spouses” issue.
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Thanks for that can of worms. I’ll be sure to go fishing with it.
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
It also occurs to me that the post of mine to which I was referring was really long and there any number of things to which I could be pointing. So merely linking it wasn’t probably, particularly helpful.
Jaybird
October 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
My confusion was over the “dumb application of second amendment rights” thing here.
Where was the dumb application? The fact that the guy (apparently a prison guard) had a gun?
I don’t understand.
Mike Schilling
October 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Where was the dumb application?
I presume it was bringing a loaded gun to a kids’ soccer game. I don’t know about you, but I’d categorically refuse to be a referee.
Jaybird
October 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Oh, I wasn’t focusing on that as much as the fact that her estranged husband killed her.
greginak
October 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Scott, scott, scott. You should know by now that any discussion of guns involves the subtext of “OMG the government is going to take my guns away.” It’s an unwritten rule that may not be broken.
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Head, meet wall?
Dave
October 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Scott, scott, scott. You should know by now that any discussion of guns involves the subtext of “OMG the government is going to take my guns away.” It’s an unwritten rule that may not be broken.
(bangs head against wall)
Any other caricatures you’d like to share with me today? Killing grandma? Corporate shill?
greginak
October 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Hmmm other caricatures…no I think I am done for the day. Yes my post was chock full of snark. However I would bet 100 quatloo’s that just about every post discussing any aspect of gun violence gets around to “don’t take are guns away.” It seems almost impossible to discuss this complex subject without it.
FWIW I don’t see how this case says anything much about what gun laws we should or should not have.
Mike at The Big Stick
October 9th, 2009 at 6:42 am
I think the reason for that is that the Left’s knee-jerk response to gun crime seems to always be a call for gun bans. Trafficking has never been seriously addressed at the federal level and prosecution of felons caught with guns has been woeful for nearly two decades. Pro-gun folks just want the laws on the books to get enforced first and unfortunately they don’t.
Should the gummint subsidize gun purchases for tax-paying American citizens? One handgun/holster and one AK or M-16 with three cases of ammo!
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I’m inclined to leave gummint out of this particular discussion, BC.
Bob Cheeks
October 9th, 2009 at 4:29 am
…my bad?
I agree that it doesn’t matter who shot whom. Either way, I don’t see the connection her enthusiastic, even bizarre support for public open-carry laws has on the murder suicide. It does not seem obvious that the murder suicide was committed by someone openly carrying a weapon in public, or that the nuder suicide was connected to anyone who was doing so. It does not appear that the crime had anything whatsover to do with the fact that she supported open-carry laws.
Scott H. Payne
October 8th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yes, thanks Sam, you’ve already mentioned that.
Your welcome. But after I said it, there seemed to be some discussion about who shot whom. I was not clear what that had to do with the orginal post, or the interpretation of it.
I would still be interested in hearing how the things are connected, namely the muder suicide and her views on open-carry laws. One was posited in the original post. Or at least it appeared to be. I guess it has something to do with the “mindset.” But I am not sure what that means.
Okay, after some more consideration and sleeping on it, I’ve decided that y’all are right and I’m wrong. This is a bad example to use in making the point I sought to make. As such, I’m inclined to drop the point and chalk this up to hasty blogging, which will happen from time to time. Meeting adjourned, thanks for coming out.
Mike at The Big Stick
October 9th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Scott,
Unfortunately you didn’t participate much in the discussion your last post on the subject generated. I think that your views as an outsider looking in are important as to learning more about the ‘perception’ non-Americans have about our culture, but I would be equally interested in hearing your prescription for how to change things for the better. I would ask if you think reducing U.S. gun violence is best accomplished by a cultural shift (and how do you make that happen) or by a new application of law. If the latter, what would those laws look like?
Scott H. Payne
October 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I’m personally more inclined to look at the influence of culture as regards this particular issue.
Jaybird
October 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Scott, for the record, I’d be interested in reading the gun violence essay you would have written without the influence of this particular story.
The discussion of the responsibilities of The State, The Culture, and The Individual and the interwebbing between them would be a discussion with a lot of nooks and crannies.
Scott H. Payne
October 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Duly noted, I may yet write that piece.