The case for Goon control
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
e-mail this
share this
Meleanie Hain was seldom seen in public without a gun on her hip, but she died unarmed at home.
Her beloved Glock 9mm pistol was in a backpack hanging from the front door when her husband, Scott Hain, burst into the kitchen of their Lebanon County home and shot her several times while their three young children shrieked nearby. He then went upstairs and ended himself with a shotgun, according to police.
If Mrs. Hain's handgun had been holstered at her side, she might have squeezed off a few rounds as she fell. The children would still be orphans, but at least she would have gone out in a blaze of glory worthy of a "Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom."
That's what "open-carry" advocates and the national media dubbed her in September 2008, when Mrs. Hain attended her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game with her pistol on her hip. Some "uptight" parents ignorant of the inherent risk of violent crime anytime kindergarteners gather complained to league officials. The officials referred the complaints to law enforcement.
Although she carried her gun openly, Mrs. Hain held a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Afflicted with the crazy notion that taking a lethal weapon to a children's soccer game is evidence one should not hold such a license, the county sheriff revoked it.
A star is born
Mrs. Hain appealed, and a star was born. Overnight, she became a heroine of the open-carry crowd, a bona fide "Dirty Harriet" standing up for God, guns and the American way in a country being destroyed from within by bleeding-heart ninnies who selfishly place the physical and psychological welfare of children above the childish fantasies of gun lovers.
A judge overturned the revocation, but said Mrs. Hain should conceal the gun if she still felt it necessary to carry it to children's soccer games. She told that silly judge she would do as she pleased, and filed a $1 million federal civil rights lawsuit against the sheriff.
The lawsuit outlived Mrs. Hain. She was 31 when her husband murdered her on Oct. 7, a week into National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. He was 33. If she "wins" her lawsuit, the proceeds will be placed in a trust for the couple's orphaned children, ages 2, 6 and 10. I'm sure the kids and their therapists will appreciate the money.
This is a tragedy from any angle, and my bleeding heart goes out to Meleanie Hain's family and friends. She did not deserve to die, and was not killed because she owned a gun or openly carried it. She was not killed because her husband owned a gun. She was a victim of domestic violence, and so are her children. Scott Hain could have killed his wife and himself by any number of means. She and he would be just as dead, their kids just as parentless.
The gun Meleanie Hain so proudly carried did not cause her death, but it did not prevent it, either. That's bad news for the cause she spent the last year of her life advocating.
Like most fringe distractions masquerading as real issues, the open-carry cause is all hat and no cattle, a tantrum seeking an easily cowed audience. Advocates push it as a gun-rights crusade, but it's goon rights they're really out to protect and expand.
Open-carry 'movement'
Inside most open-carry advocates is a spoiled child stamping his or her feet. You can't tell me what to do. I have a right to flash a loaded weapon wherever, whenever I like. Says so right in the Constitution. What else is in the Constitution? Who cares? Don't push me, pal, this thing is loaded.
Open-carry is not about personal security. It is about selfishness, conceit, intimidation, empty bravado and a pathetically self-righteous sense of victimhood that prizes individual preference over the common good.
Although its adherents refer to it as such, the open-carry "movement" is no such thing. Most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding folks who don't find it necessary or smart to carry guns openly. The so-called movement exists only on the Internet and in the shallow minds of open-carry advocates and cable "news" producers.
The open-carry crowd desperately wants to become a movement, but sanity and society keep getting in the way. An entry I stumbled upon while trawling open-carry Web sites says it all: "More and more of us need to carry openly so people begin to see it as normal again."
Good luck with that. The last time it was "normal" for civilians to openly carry firearms was the 1880s, when you might need a six-shooter to fend off bushwhackers on the trail or pick off a rattler before it spooked your pony. Also normal back then: cattle rustling, typhoid and public hangings as entertainment.
We've come a long way since the West was won, but if the Sept. 29 meeting of Scranton City Council is any gauge, we've got a ways to go.
Council introduced a measure that would (gasp!) require gun owners to report the loss or theft of a gun within 48 hours or face a $1,000 fine, 90 days in jail, or both. Eight other Pennsylvania cities have adopted similar ordinances. Ordinances in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have already been tested in the courts.
Perhaps gun-shy after going off half-cocked on an unenforceable citywide indoor smoking ban, council voted 4-1 to table the issue until legal questions are answered. Or maybe it was the guys who showed up with guns.
A handful of open-carry advocates attended the meeting to protest an ordinance aimed at preventing the illegal resale of stolen guns. Some residents expressed alarm at the impromptu gun show and asked council to ban guns at City Hall. After a review of state law, solicitor Amil Minora decided a ban is not legally supportable. Seriously.
Let's review: Because secondhand smoke poses long-term health risks to nonsmokers, I can't light up in City Hall (not that I would, mind you). And yet any goon with a John Wayne complex can stroll into Council Chambers with the means to kill or maim several people in a heartbeat. Council can have someone removed for violating the five-minute limit on public speaking, but not for bringing a deadly weapon into the room.
Want to really get council's attention? Bring in a flamethrower. Council won't stop you, and you'll be an instant hero to the open-carry crowd, so long as none of them is accidentally immolated.
I'll close today with an obligatory disclaimer that will mean nothing to those who will angrily write me off as just another bleeding-heart ninny who hates God, guns and the American way:
I love God, and God loves me. Says so right in the Bible. I am not anti-gun, though I'd have a hard time explaining that to Jesus. I come from a long line of farmers, hunters and responsible gun owners. Half the households in my extended family have had deer's heads hung in their living rooms, and I see taxidermy as art. Creepy, but art.
I learned the safe use of and proper respect for firearms as a boy, and grew up to believe that a populace with access to arms is among the best defenses against tyranny. That said, if the 1st Infantry Division ever rolls down my street, I don't harbor any delusions about the efficacy of a 30-06 against an Abrams tank. "Red Dawn" was an '80s action film, not a documentary.
As a journalist, I understand that my greatest responsibility is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, which includes, but is not limited to, the Second Amendment. As a man, I understand that my greatest responsibility is to support and defend my family. I have never encountered a situation in which these two responsibilities conflict, which for me is some of the best evidence that the American experiment is among the best ever conceived.
I am staunchly, passionately, unapologetically anti-goon. I have encountered many in my 41 years, and most had no business owning a houseplant, let alone a deadly weapon. A goon with a gun is infinitely more dangerous than a goon without a gun.
Guns don't kill people; goons do. Guns make a goon's work easier, however, and if you have an argument against that logic, there are three orphaned children in Lebanon County I dare you to share it with.
CHRIS KELLY, the Times-Tribune columnist, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but can't remember the last time he felt it necessary to do so. E-mail: kellysworld@timesshamrock.com
80 posted comments
A requirement for trigger locks in no way diminishes a citizens right to keep, or, to bear arms, and yet, the imposition of such regulations would have some, particularly those in the goon squad,
screaming that we are turning this nation into a police state.
Unfortunately the NRA has become a political arm and foundation wall of "The Base" more like an affiliate of Fox News than an organization dedicated to the needs of responsible hunters,sportsmen and other gun owners.
I personally know more than a few NRA loudmouths who'd never admit it, and probably don't realize it, but their guns and scripted rhetoric are more an extension of their manhood than an exercise of their constitutional rights. In today's world your average citizen does not need to carry a loaded weapon. To the extreme, even dating back to Dodge City, they had to check their guns when they came into town, and pick them up when they left.
One last question I'd like to pass on. It was posed by Jenine Garofolo on the Bill Maher show. When these 12 or 20 or so good clean living flag waving Americans show up packing at public meetings, they are invariably red necked or middle aged white men. What would they say, and what kind of a panic would it create if it were 12 or 20 black men showing up to exercise those same constitutional rights?
With law enforcement, we can take comfort knowing not only have they been fully vetted but they have received intensive firearms safety training. They fully understand the repercussions of firing their weapon, how to deal with the adrenalin rush that comes with a potential deadly force situation, and have been trained in making split second decisions as to who/what is in their line of fire, and in separating good guys from bad guys.
For those private citizens who want to carry a concealed weapon in public, we can take some comfort in they have gone through a thorough background and criminal check, had people in good standing vouch for them, and in some states they most show proof of military service or private firearms safety training. There is a system in place, usually at the local level, to oversee license renewal and revocation.
We can take comfort in Pa. hunters who are required to take hunter safety courses, not to mention they too must be licensed to hunt.
But there is no comfort in seeing open carry yahoos because they are required to prove nothing to walk around with a deadly weapon. And therein lies the problem. When you see a private citizen openly carrying a firearm in public, how do you know:
1. If this person has ever been subject to a mandatory background check (Brady Bill)? Perhaps their guns were obtained before the Brady Bill, via a private sale or passed down from family members. Are they a felon?
2. If this person had any firearms safety training or even fired their weapon? Do they have any idea of the damage a bullet can do, or how far it can travel?
3. If this person could quickly determine the good guys from the bad guys in a deadly confrontation situation? How do they intend to show arriving law enforcement they are not part of the problem?
4. If they realize that someone may try to take their very obvious gun away and use it against them and others?
5. And most importantly, is this person a citizen in good moral standing and of sound mind, or a lunatic?
If the open carry crowd feels that strongly, then simply require them to get a concealed weapons permit. If they carry concealed, the permit is in their wallet. If they carry openly, they put the permit on a strap and hang it from their neck for all to see they are duly licensed to do so.
As for the City Council meetings, have the open carry gun folks check their guns at the door. Didn’t they do that in the old wild west?
With law enforcement, we can take comfort knowing not only have they been fully vetted but they have received intensive firearms safety training. They fully understand the repercussions of firing their weapon, how to deal with the adrenalin rush that comes with a potential deadly force situation, and have been trained in making split second decisions as to who/what is in their line of fire, and in separating good guys from bad guys.
For those private citizens who want to carry a concealed weapon in public, we can take some comfort in they have gone through a thorough background and criminal check, had people in good standing vouch for them, and in some states they most show proof of military service or private firearms safety training. There is a system in place, usually at the local level, to oversee license renewal and revocation.
We can take comfort in Pa. hunters who are required to take hunter safety courses, not to mention they too must be licensed to hunt.
But there is no comfort in seeing open carry yahoos because they are required to prove nothing to walk around with a deadly weapon. And therein lies the problem. When you see a private citizen openly carrying a firearm in public, how do you know:
1. If this person has ever been subject to a mandatory background check (Brady Bill)? Perhaps their guns were obtained before the Brady Bill, via a private sale or passed down from family members. Are they a felon?
2. If this person had any firearms safety training or even fired their weapon? Do they have any idea of the damage a bullet can do, or how far it can travel?
3. If this person could quickly determine the good guys from the bad guys in a deadly confrontation situation? How do they intend to show arriving law enforcement they are not part of the problem?
4. If they realize that someone may try to take their very obvious gun away and use it against them and others?
5. And most importantly, is this person a citizen in good moral standing and of sound mind, or a lunatic?
If the open carry crowd feels that strongly, then simply require them to get a concealed weapons permit. If they carry concealed, the permit is in their wallet. If they carry openly, they put the permit on a strap and hang it from their neck for all to see they are duly licensed to do so.
As for the City Council meetings, have the open carry gun folks check their guns at the door. Didn’t they do that in the old wild west?
The study seems to mistake or misinterpret dates on which "shall issue" laws took effect. Lott and Mustard's definition for a "shall issue" law does not apply to every state they refer to as a "shall issue" state. Because of these alleged errors in the study, these researchers found little support for Lott and Mustard's conclusion that concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime. Some critics of Lott and Mustard's study suggest that the laws may even increase homicide rates.
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high. Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed.
Is this a piece about domestic violence, or the right to openly carry a firearm?It really seems like the latter, in which case, riddle me this: if the guns kept in her house did not cause her death, then why is half of your story dedicated to her? Why mention her at all? I must have missed the part where open-carry advocates or any other gun-rights advocates ever claimed that having a firearm around would ALWAYS save your life.