A Lebanon woman who gained national attention when she openly-carried a handgun at a children's soccer game last year was shot and killed Wednesday night, according to police.
Police say Meleanie Hain and her husband, Scott Hain, died of gunshot wounds they sustained at their home on South Second Avenue.
The couple's children were home when the shooting occurred and are staying with family, according to police.
Hain's concealed weapons permit was revoked after she openly wore a holstered pistol to her daughter's soccer game in September 2008. A county judge later overturned the decision and returned her permit.
I saw the sad news first on Snowflakes in Hell. It's a terrible blow for the gun-rights crowd, besides being an unspeakable tragedy for the people directly involved. Sebastian said, "No doubt Brady will be exploiting this tragedy to the max by tomorrow."
Is that fair? Is it exploitation when someone points out that this incident perfectly illustrates several of the points we make? Is it wrong to show the sad irony in timing that only the other day the Univ. of Penn came out with a report showing that carrying a gun makes you more likely to suffer a gun tragedy? Is it taking advantage of a senseless crime to show how well it supports my theories that "guns are bad news for women" and that "10%" of legal gun owners should not have guns in the first place?
I'm deeply saddened by this, but I don't accept that it's wrong to say the things I've been saying all along. I honestly don't believe it amounts to exploitation.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This case bothers me on so many levels. It could be her "friends" on PAFOA who are going "too bad, so sad" in such an offhand way. Note to them: This will be the same response your friends will give if you get killed by a gun too. "Too bad, so sad, let's move on."
ReplyDeleteI'm saddened by a lot of things in this case. For one, this was a woman with a gun which she carried for self defense (presumably). Why didn't she shoot him? That's what the gun was for. Yeah, they were in the same household and married and all of that but if he was aggressive, she should have just shot him. Every pro-gun guy who posts here will agree with me.
On the flip side, I think that households with violent members (either wife or husband) should not have guns in the house. It's just common sense. A gun is really easy to use and super-hard to take back because you didn't really mean it.
Poor Melanie, with her gun on her hip, proved herself to be the world's fool when it comes down to gun rights. If someone who is so vocal about their gun rights can end up being shot and killed in their own house, how much good is a gun going to do everyone else?
P.S. I'm not with the Brady Campaign. I'm with People for Sensible Gun Laws.
I just posted on this as well. As I said in my post, though, what did her gun have to do with it? It didn't protect her, but it might have ... but then, I'm guessing her husband probably could have killed her without a gun given the strength difference between men and women.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a blow at all to those of us who realize what is at stake and have the common sense to understand how these situations develop. It is one more reason I will continue to fight for gun rights and make sure my own daughters have them when they move out of the house.
Instead of just posting ... "look! A woman who liked guns was murdered with one! Doesn't her bloody body juse prove everything I've said and make pro-gun people look stupid ... "
Why not use some logic or even facts to prove your case? What does this prove? Why?
1. Did her taking a gun to a soccer game have anything to do with her being shot?
2. Even if all guns were banned, she had already kicked her husband out of the house ... could he have come back and killed her anyway even without a gun?
3. Take a look at Clayton's page on civilian self defense. How many of those women would you disarm to keep this woman from carrying a gun to a soccer game, and how would that have made her safer from a domestic male partner gone insane?
I can almost hear Helmke and Co. putting on their dancing shoes.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want the advertising, quit providing the poster children.
ReplyDeleteAnd someone asked a good question:
ReplyDeleteWas her husband afraid of her?
The pro-gun people are going to steer clear of this post like it's a bomb! They do not want to appear with anything/anyone that threatens their pro-gun message -- and obviously this story totally threatens the entire thing.
ReplyDeleteThe sad fact remains, regardless whether they post or not, Melanie died and she was a gun-toter. She would have expected them to back her up, but they appear to be unable to.
So, what is the real lesson here? Is is that the pro-gun people talk loud but carry small sticks? Or is it something else?
Unless Mrs. Hain had her gun within reach at the time, I'm not sure how this "proves" anything, except that there is no good time to let down one's guard.
ReplyDeleteEven if she did have immediate access to her gun, this no more "proves" the inefficacy of guns for self-defense than a fatal car accident in which the deceased was wearing a seat belt "proves" that seat belts don't save lives. No one has ever claimed that carrying a gun provides one with a magic talisman that wards off all attacks.
Finally, wasn't her husband a cop? What would have saved her--disarming cops?
Oh--almost forgot. Anon pompously spews:
ReplyDeleteThe pro-gun people are going to steer clear of this post like it's a bomb! They do not want to appear with anything/anyone that threatens their pro-gun message -- and obviously this story totally threatens the entire thing.
In less than 4 hours, in the wee hours of the very early morning in the U.S., there are already 3 pro-rights people commenting. Your "too scared to talk about it" theory is not looking too good, genius.
+1, MikeB abusing this story for his crude gains shows he doesn't actually care about domestic violence.
ReplyDeleteHad any laws MikeB trumpeted been in place her husband would STILL have a gun, as he was a police officer.
Had all guns magically disappear, you still have a massive physical difference, and he LIVED with her.
If a person is in an abusive relationship their first step is to GET OUT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP! Until that happens you are at the whim of the aggressor.
And Anon, if you're such a tough guy, why don't you show your stones and pop over to my place
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/563542.html
Here's your challenge. Answer two questions:
"what firearms are you opposed to, and for what reason? And what are suitable uses for a firearm?"
Nobody else has dared, even the amazing MikeB!
On the flip side, I think that households with violent members (either wife or husband) should not have guns in the house. It's just common sense. A gun is really easy to use and super-hard to take back because you didn't really mean it.
ReplyDeleteSo, considering most wives are less physically powerful than their husbands, you are OK with disarming them?
And Mikeb "I saw the sad news first on Snowflakes in Hell. It's a terrible blow for the gun-rights crowd,"
Why, exactly?
The Brady's will dance in the blood of the dead. It's what they do.
ReplyDeleteThey are despicable.
Hey MikeB - You realize that in this case the bad guy with the gun was law enforcement officer.
ReplyDelete"Hey MikeB - You realize that in this case the bad guy with the gun was law enforcement officer."
ReplyDeleteAnother category for mike's 10%: LEOs.
The pro-gun people are going to steer clear of this post like it's a bomb!
ReplyDeleteSo hows that prediction working out for you anon?
And could you do us a favor and pick a name so we can tell you from all the other anons?
It isn't really all that hard, honest.
TomB - Looks like that prediction is working about as well as the Brady Campaign's constant "The Sky is Falling!" predictions everytime restrictions are loosened or further restrictions fail to pass.
ReplyDeleteFrom anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThe pro-gun people are going to steer clear of this post like it's a bomb! They do not want to appear with anything/anyone that threatens their pro-gun message -- and obviously this story totally threatens the entire thing.
That's funny! I'd already posted on this.
Pro gun people generally wouldn't post on this tragic and sad situation, because we know it had nothing to do with the fact that she believed in gun ownership. It had everything to do with the fact that she was married to a violent and murderous man.
But unfortunately we have to post on it, because the anti-gun side immediately slathered themselves in the blood of this poor women and began proudly exclaiming, "See! A woman who likes guns got shot! It proves everything I've said! Like my famous (though commonly debunked) 10% theory and that I think guns are bad news for women! But I'm not going to explain why this proves anything, I'm just going to hold up the body and be smug!"
Still waiting for some logic from the anti-gun side. Anything? Buehler? Buehler?
*cricket* *cricket*
Still waiting for some logic from the anti-gun side. Anything? Buehler? Buehler?
ReplyDeleteExactly, like how her being a gun rights activist has anything to do with her being murdered by her husband.
This doesn't prove anything beyond showing yet again that violent people will be violent.
I guess you could say it proves that "Domestic Violence is bad news for women"
What a sad sad tradgedy this is for the Brady Campaign and their supporters like MikeB.
ReplyDeleteThe children survived.
I know how dissappointed you are that the children were not slaughtered, MikeB.
Better luck next time.
Do some research before you post...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/gun-toting_mom_meleanie_hain_h.html
Why shouldn't we rely on the police to protect us, MikeB?
Does anybody ever read the whole story anymore? She didn't have a gun to shoot back with BECAUSE:
ReplyDelete"Hain's concealed weapons permit was revoked after she openly wore a holstered pistol to her daughter's soccer game in September 2008. A county judge later overturned the decision and returned her permit."
...
FamousHeather, I would guess that she was not at that time carrying a gun, but the revocation of her concealed carry permit would not have been a factor, because A) this was apparently in the home, where no permit would be necessary; B) even without a permit, I believe one can carry openly in Pennsylvania, which Ms. Hain famously did; C) her concealed carry permit had been returned to her.
ReplyDeleteTo famousheather...
ReplyDeletePlease do some research before you post.
You are just as uninformed as MikeB.
One thing I'd like to clarify is that I don't say stories like this PROVE anything. I often say they "illustrate" a point that I've been making. I think proof is hard to come by, but when the illustrations become numerous enough, you have to wonder.
ReplyDeleteAbout why was her death was a blow for the pro-gun crowd, are you kidding me? She was touted last year as a sort of poster-woman for the movement. Her sad (in retrospect) 15 minutes of fame made her a pro-gun heroine. She embodied all the things you guys believe in. When someone like that gets killed the way she did, that's a terrible loss.
Or, do you want to deny that?
Certainly a loss for those who knew and loved her.
ReplyDeleteA loss for the Gun Rights Movement? hardly.
Actually the fact that creeps like you want to make political Hay out of her death at the hands of an abusive Cop in their home, shows exactly what YOUR stripes are, and does our side good.
Anti-Gun bigots only care about their agenda, not about human lives.
It amazes me that the rights denial lobby and its cheerleaders think they have anything to gain in the cynical exploitation of Ms. Hain's tragic murder. I really don't see what they could possibly be thinking how this could even slow down the acceleration of the gun rights movement. I rarely accuse the anti-rights folks of an excess of rationality, though.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Hain has 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.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take too much brain power to get that having a loaded gun in your house makes it more likely someone will be shot accidently. I am qualifying that to say loaded gun, since an unloaded gun can't do too much.
But that's not my point here. So, let's change the statement to elephants rather than guns.
Having a herd of elephants around makes it more likely that you will be killed by stampeding elephants.
You can't be killed by stampeding elephants if there aren't elephants around: can you? Likewise, not having a loaded gun lying around means you are not likely to be harmed by it. You can't be harmed by things that are non-existant, unless they are the statistics used by the "gun rights" crowd to back up their arguments, which are non-existant in reality.
By your "logic," Laci, shouldn't we, if we care about the poor, endangered people in Africa, slaughter all the elephants--there is, after all, no "right" to have elephants around, is there?
ReplyDeleteThe Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is very real indeed, and simply denying that fact over and over again makes it no less true.
By the way--Ms. Hain's murderer was a parole officer, entrusted in the state of Pennsylvania with full law enforcement powers. In other words, if you propose to disarm people like him ("like him" in the sense of his job, not in the sense that he was violent, murderous scum), you can give up any hopes of continuing to fool the police into supporting the forcible citizen disarmament lobby.
ReplyDeleteEach death standing as proof that the absolute she tried to personify--that owning a handgun will guarantee your safety--is false.
ReplyDeleteExcept that she personified no such absolute. No one except crazy anti-gunners claim that owning a gun will guarantee your safety. It doesn't guarantee safety anymore than a fire extinguisher guarantees my safety in case of fire. It gives me a means by which to increase my chances of survival, it is by no means a guarantee.
Likewise, not having a loaded gun lying around means you are not likely to be harmed by it. You can't be harmed by things that are non-existant
ReplyDeleteActually I could have 100 loaded guns lying around and I can say with 100% certainty that I will not be harmed by them. Until my guns are capable of jumping up, aiming themselves at myself or others and pulling the trigger they can't DO anything.
Do you have rope, twine, or an extension cord at home? You should get rid of them since they might strangle you. After all, you can't be strangled by things that are non-existent right?
You know MikeB, after reading Laci's blog for a bit I must say you're not that bad.
ReplyDeleteThat woman is nuts and she makes you look downright knowledgeable and reasonable when it comes to guns & gun laws.
Of course if she allowed comments then all of the blatant lies and factual errors in her posts wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
BTW - do you admit yet that Hain's husband was a sworn LEO under PA law? I showed you the proof but I'm wondering if you and Laci will both deny it as usual?