Gun toting soccer mom and husband dead in apparent murder/suicide

[UberNeuman]

Perhaps, if Timothy McVeigh wasn't bullied as a child then he wouldn't acted as he did...

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: NeoV
jesus christ princeofwands...

someone suggests, that maybe, just maybe - showing up at a soccer game played by children with a gun holstered on your hip - CC permit or no - is perhaps just a bit inappropriate, and you leap to

"And I say you don't have a single fact to support that statement, and so you are advocating the overthrow of liberty and feedom, as well as completely ignoring Constitutional and statutory rule, for an emotional and ignorant outburst. "

that's a stretch, even for you.

There are so many people that have a mental block when it comes to the 'I believe in gun rights but it's absurd to carry a gun <insert place here>'. Violence happens everywhere. Some say guns don't belong in churches. People get robbed in churches. Why would a soccer game be sacred? Nutjobs and criminals are everywhere. Remove head from sand.

So why does it need to sit in a holster on her hip? Sure, it might be legal, but why not just hide the thing and use it if necessary?

If you were a criminal looking for victims or some kind of crazy, do you:

A) mess with people on the soccer field with the lady who has the gun
B) find trouble elsewhere

Seems obvious?

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Perhaps, if Timothy McVeigh wasn't bullied as a child then he wouldn't acted as he did...

lolwut

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: amddude


If you were a criminal looking for victims or some kind of crazy, do you:

A) mess with people on the soccer field with the lady who has the gun
B) find trouble elsewhere

Seems obvious?

So, has then been a spree of attacks on the soccer fields on those who don't have weapons?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Perhaps, if Timothy McVeigh wasn't bullied as a child then he wouldn't acted as he did...

lolwut

The OP's premise is that if these people hadn't faced any criticism, then this dire chain of events may not have happen...

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: amddude

If you were a criminal looking for victims or some kind of crazy, do you:

A) mess with people on the soccer field with the lady who has the gun
B) find trouble elsewhere

Seems obvious?

Criminals most likely aren't going to mess with a crowded soccer field in the first place so you argument is irrelevant. They are going to go somewhere with fewer people to find a victim.

 

[OFFascist]

I like how this vauge article would imply that she is the one responsible. :roll:

From what I've read on a few other websites is that she was divorcing her husband and he decided to kill her and then himself.

Apparently he was also a parole officer, thus continuing to add to the statistics that law enforcement types are more likely to commit murder than concealed handgun license holders, yet some would continue to believe that they are the only ones who should be trusted with weapons.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spidey07
PrinceofWands

We may disagree on a whole lotta shit, but I would be very happy to have you as my neighbor. I'm lucky as every neighbor within a few hundred yards feels the same as you.

That they should keep their kids away from you?

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: spidey07
PrinceofWands

We may disagree on a whole lotta shit, but I would be very happy to have you as my neighbor. I'm lucky as every neighbor within a few hundred yards feels the same as you.

Love at first sight. Ain't it cute?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Hahahahahaa. Gun threads.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
So, if we are to take the OP's suggestion to its logical conclusion, then it means that Columbine killers wouldn't have acted as they did if they weren't picked on....

Actually that whole Columbine killers were picked on kids/tranchcoat mafia goths went nuts is almost totally an urban myth. I strongly reccommend reading Columbine by David Cullen, a 2009 book by one of the major reporters on the case. He goes into great detail debunking a lot of the myths about Columbine with solid factual evidence. A great read.

I think what disturbs most people about allowing civilians to carry deadly weapons to kid's games, etc. is that an unstable person wielding a firearm is exponentially more dangerous than some religious wacko zealot with a sign.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Sad news.

Lebanon City police tell CBS 21 News they are investigating the death of a couple. Tonight, police say they found 31 year old Melanie Hain and 33 year old Scott Hain dead inside their home on S. Second Avenue. Police say it looks like a murder-suicide. CBS 21 news has interviewed Melanie Hain in the past. You may remember her from a story we did when she wore a gun on her hip to her child's soccer game. Police say the death investigation is ongoing and autopsies have been scheduled.

Who knows what actually caused it, but it's still sad. I sent a letter of support encouragement when it was all going on. Wish I could have done more. 8-(

If it does end up being linked to them being ostracized and all the other negative fallout it be a galvanizing factor in promoting a societal change in how we view rights, and how we respond as communities to disagreements over them.

Jump to conclusions much?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: NeoV
more completely irrelevant spew from spidey

you don't think the site of a woman, not in a police uniform - sporting a gun on her hip might cause some reactions AT A CHILDREN'S SOCCER GAME?

do you think - I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here - do you think it's possible it might - just might - alert or even scare a child or two? Is that really out of the realm of possible outcomes for you? Is that not, gasp - a possible normal reaction?

That's the parent's fault for the irrational fear of a gun.

No, that's a normal reaction of a parent to someone they barely know sporting a firearm at an event where children are playing.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: inspire

Unless prohibited by law, she had the right. Considering that the woman had her CCW re-instated, she was obviously not breaking any law, so therefore, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, she had the right. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you're viewpoint a moron is just flat out ignorant.

Reasonable parents don't freak out over guns, but I can understand a certain amount of alarm. Her insistence to exercise her rights is legal and justified. There have not been details as to who killed who or why.

A diagram would be helpful, maybe then you'd actually think about the retarded shit you post before hitting 'reply'.

Physician, heal thyself.

I didn't call you a moron; I called your ideas and reasoning retarded. Note the difference. Then address the points.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Please tell me how expressing ones rights is narcissim and how that type of mentality would make one want to commit suicide?

Apparently you are projecting your feelings as you don't actually know what the person in the article was feeling.

She had no "right" to bring a gun to a private event. I believe any sane person would agree it's stupid to openly carry a weapon at a children's sporting event, and any reasonable parent would object to this conduct. I see her insistence on the issue as entirely self-absorbed and crazy, and I also see a murder-suicide with children in the house as a self-absorbed and crazy act. Do I have to draw you a diagram or something?

Unless prohibited by law, she had the right. Considering that the woman had her CCW re-instated, she was obviously not breaking any law, so therefore, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, she had the right. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you're viewpoint a moron is just flat out ignorant.

Reasonable parents don't freak out over guns, but I can understand a certain amount of alarm. Her insistence to exercise her rights is legal and justified. There have not been details as to who killed who or why.

A diagram would be helpful, maybe then you'd actually think about the retarded shit you post before hitting 'reply'.

Have you seen parents at their kid's sporting events? For some reason, half of them think their kid is going to be a superstar and they go nuts (and sometimes violent) at the refs and other parents when things don't go their way.

This lady didn't seem like the sane type to begin with.

I mean, I confess - I don't know the details. I'm being a bit ignorant and making some assumptions based on the outcome and the premise that the legal system in her area is, in the end, effective. If this woman was being confrontational at the games and could have been perceived as threatening for any reason other than the fact that she was carrying a firearm openly, then I'm with you, Phokus.

I just don't categorically consider her a nutjob simply because she brought a holstered weapon to the game.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
You actually think it's a good idea to not only bring a gun to a kids soccer game, but to also have it visible?

In lots of cases, I would say so - only because many states don't allow CCW. If CCW were legal in all 50 states, I'd be happy to say - if you're going to carry to these types of events, then keep it covered.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
so no.


as has been covered in the thread repeated, you can be 100% legally right and a 100% jackass. The dead lady is a perfect example.


to use another analogy, you have the freedom of speech, but you should yell bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded theatre.

Neither of which are legal. Carrying a firearm is. Not invalidating your point, but the analogy doesn't fly.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The community can not have expectations different than what the law allows. Or rather, they can, but they can do NOTHING when those expectations are not met.

I note you still have yet to address my point. I gather, by virtue of your failure to respond, that you believe that anyone who objects to the God Hates Fags "ministry" protesting at military funerals with a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign is, to borrow your phrase, "advocating the overthrow of liberty and freedom." Can I safely assume you are 100% in favor of such protests as not only legal but unobjectionable?

I see few similarities between foundations based on hatered of their fellow human beings, and those who legally take measures to protect themselves.

 

[Nebor]

I have no problem with the open carrying of arms. Just like with gay rights, the agenda of the gun nuts is to get in people's faces, and get them used to seeing it on the streets, on tv, etc. I'm not a fan of open carrying in everyday city life, because the disadvantages of open carry are too great compared to concealed carry. But I've been to open carry BBQs where everyone carried openly and had a great time.

I would say that open carry isn't a good idea in most cases, but certainly shouldn't be illegal. Most anti-gun people prefer that people carry their guns openly so they "know who to avoid."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The community can not have expectations different than what the law allows. Or rather, they can, but they can do NOTHING when those expectations are not met.

I note you still have yet to address my point. I gather, by virtue of your failure to respond, that you believe that anyone who objects to the God Hates Fags "ministry" protesting at military funerals with a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign is, to borrow your phrase, "advocating the overthrow of liberty and freedom." Can I safely assume you are 100% in favor of such protests as not only legal but unobjectionable?

I see few similarities between foundations based on hatered of their fellow human beings, and those who legally take measures to protect themselves.

You're willfully ignoring the parallel. Both the God Hates Fags morons and the decedent in this case were exercising their Constitutional rights in a way that was both disrespectful and disruptive to others.

I have every right to my own opinion as to this, and my opinion is that this woman was acting like a narcissist tool by insisting on openly wearing a gun at a soccer game for 5-year-olds. I don't think being a wacko (which I believe she was) means she deserved to die, any more than I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church people deserve to die, but I feel I have the right to comment on both parties' conduct.

Are you saying I don't have the right to comment on this woman's conduct merely because it was (at least arguably) legally and Constitutionally protected? If you feel I don't, then by your logic you have no right to make derogatory comments about the Westboro Baptist Church, the American Nazi Party, or any other party exercising its First Amendment rights.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The community can not have expectations different than what the law allows. Or rather, they can, but they can do NOTHING when those expectations are not met.

I note you still have yet to address my point. I gather, by virtue of your failure to respond, that you believe that anyone who objects to the God Hates Fags "ministry" protesting at military funerals with a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign is, to borrow your phrase, "advocating the overthrow of liberty and freedom." Can I safely assume you are 100% in favor of such protests as not only legal but unobjectionable?

I see few similarities between foundations based on hatered of their fellow human beings, and those who legally take measures to protect themselves.

You're willfully ignoring the parallel. Both the God Hates Fags morons and the decedent in this case were exercising their Constitutional rights in a way that was both disrespectful and disruptive to others.

I have every right to my own opinion as to this, and my opinion is that this woman was acting like a narcissist tool by insisting on openly wearing a gun at a soccer game for 5-year-olds. I don't think being a wacko (which I believe she was) means she deserved to die, any more than I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church people deserve to die, but I feel I have the right to comment on both parties' conduct.

Are you saying I don't have the right to comment on this woman's conduct merely because it was (at least arguably) legally and Constitutionally protected? If you feel I don't, then by your logic you have no right to make derogatory comments about the Westboro Baptist Church, the American Nazi Party, or any other party exercising its First Amendment rights.

No, I didn't ignore anything - I just think your analogy is shit - a fact which you've chosen to ignore and replace with some strawman where I'm denying your right to have an opinion. I don't give a shit what your opinion is, but if it makes no sense (which is, in fact the case here), I'm going to call it like I see it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: inspire

No, I didn't ignore anything - I just think your analogy is shit - a fact which you've chosen to ignore and replace with some strawman where I'm denying your right to have an opinion. I don't give a shit what your opinion is, but if it makes no sense (which is, in fact the case here), I'm going to call it like I see it.

It's interesting that you obviously can't respond to my point, so instead you call me names, the exact thing you've accused me of doing. Unimpressive.

As I said, I see both the decedent in Virginia and the Westboro Baptist Church as narcissist assholes. Unless you believe I'm doing something wrong by saying that, I will continue to do so.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: NeoV
you don't think the site of a woman, not in a police uniform - sporting a gun on her hip might cause some reactions AT A CHILDREN'S SOCCER GAME?

do you think - I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here - do you think it's possible it might - just might - alert or even scare a child or two? Is that really out of the realm of possible outcomes for you? Is that not, gasp - a possible normal reaction?

That's the parent's fault for the irrational fear of a gun.

It's not the "irrational fear of a gun." It's the very rational fear of (1) a non-law-enforcement, non-military individual whose psychological state and intentions we don't know (2) carrying a deadly weapon (3) at a venue for children (4) where no one has ever seen a gun-carrying private citizen before.

If you cannot acknowledge that it is entirely rational to feel fear under these circumstances, then you are either (a) a sociopath, (b) amazingly stupid, (c) lying, or (d) some combination of the foregoing.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: inspire

No, I didn't ignore anything - I just think your analogy is shit - a fact which you've chosen to ignore and replace with some strawman where I'm denying your right to have an opinion. I don't give a shit what your opinion is, but if it makes no sense (which is, in fact the case here), I'm going to call it like I see it.

It's interesting that you obviously can't respond to my point, so instead you call me names, the exact thing you've accused me of doing. Unimpressive.

As I said, I see both the decedent in Virginia and the Westboro Baptist Church as narcissist assholes. Unless you believe I'm doing something wrong by saying that, I will continue to do so.

I haven't called you a name, but keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. I'm simply saying your logic is shit. If you think I'm personally attacking you, I highly recommend you PM a moderator.

However, you take your personal, second-hand opinion of a situation that none of us know much about, and conclude the woman is a narcissitic asshole. Fine. You then use that to connect her to the group 'God Hates Fags', implicitly ignoring the larger incongruity that these two entities are far more different than they are alike. One is based on hatred and persecution and dehumanization - the opposites of what our country was founded on, and the other is based on a free exercise of the individual rights that gave birth to our country.

You then draw broad consluions from this invalid analogy. The two are different - get the fuck over it. It was a shitty analogy two pages ago, and it's a shitty anaolgy now. Two years from now, it will still be a shitty analogy.

If the woman had brandished the weapon or conducted herself in a threatening manner, then you might have an argument, but had she done that, I doubt the Sherriff's office would have re-instated her CCW permit.

Futhermore, and this is for the sake of what you've demonstrated to be your limited reading comprehension - I don't care what you say or that you say it. It's still utter nonsense. That you somehow feel that I'm threatening your First Amendment rights is simply ridiculous.

I'm done with repeating myself to you. gg.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: NeoV
you don't think the site of a woman, not in a police uniform - sporting a gun on her hip might cause some reactions AT A CHILDREN'S SOCCER GAME?

do you think - I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here - do you think it's possible it might - just might - alert or even scare a child or two? Is that really out of the realm of possible outcomes for you? Is that not, gasp - a possible normal reaction?

That's the parent's fault for the irrational fear of a gun.

It's not the "irrational fear of a gun." It's the very rational fear of (1) a non-law-enforcement, non-military individual whose psychological state and intentions we don't know (2) carrying a deadly weapon (3) at a venue for children (4) where no one has ever seen a gun-carrying private citizen before.

If you cannot acknowledge that it is entirely rational to feel fear under these circumstances, then you are either (a) a sociopath, (b) amazingly stupid, (c) lying, or (d) some combination of the foregoing.

And again, that is simply an irrational fear that has no basis in rational thought. Why are you so scared of seeing guns in the possession of "non law enforcement"? How often do you see somebody carrying? I guess not much because I'm pretty used to it and don't have some kind of irrational fear of seeing a weapon.