But had they pulled it off as planned, the death toll from propane explosions would have been far greater than the number of people that were actually killed.
Totally irrelevant, of course.
Those who fear, loathe, misunderstand, or dislike guns will continue to insist that they have no benefits and are responsible for much death and suffering.
Those who love, collect, compete with, own, or use guns will continue to insist that they’re just tools, and if they weren’t available, the death and suffering would come from something else.
Arguing about it here won’t change anybody’s opinion, and I’m not sure why I engaged in the first place. I guess I was just drawn into it because some asshole decided that if someone disagreed with his political position on guns, and said someone died in a murder/suicide, it was worthy of “giggles.”
I’m approaching 150K miles on my current car and exactly zero of them have been on that spare tire that’s been with me the whole way. But no one would say you’re foolish or “acting out” for keeping the spare tire on your car when you went to a kids soccer game, even though the chances of having to change a flat at that particular game are infinitesimal.
There’s also no chance that your spare tire is going to kill anyone.
If you think this was a clever bit of logic, you ought to go write it on a board and stare at it for a while. Perhaps it will sink in after a time, and you might feel embarrassed. That would be a natural reaction, so don’t let it get you down!
There’s also a tire iron!fnord!. The chances of it being used to kill anyone are about the same as any other inanimate tool that requires a human operator to perform any function.
Oh, no, I’m aware that many people have an irrational fear of guns and attach far more significance to the actions and motives of people that carry them than they would for other types of tools or safety devices.
If you told someone they should take the spare tire out of their car whenever they were transporting their children around, they’d probably say you were a daffy bastard and, even if it’s almost a mathematical certainty that they won’t need it, their children are important enough to have it on hand, just in case.
OK you get one of those giant foam hands, I get the tire iron, and we’ll see who has the better chance.
Gun aren’t safety devices. They are killing (or otherwise maiming) devices. People have a perfectly rational fear of irrational people who feel the need to equip themselves with offensive weapons.
When I think of the phrase “tool using monkey” I don’t generally imagine giant foam hands. Also, why are you threatening me?
I guess mine don’t work right.
If you can only imagine using a gun to kill someone, I suppose it would be pretty scary if you thought everyone else was just as violent as you. If, OTOH, you think of a gun as a tool you can use to protect yourself and others, other people being able to protect you isn’t scary.
The point was that your argument that guns are no more harmful than any other tool is completely fabricated.
No, guns have other uses besides killing people, like erm… erm… killing animals and knocking over tin cans at a distance. If everyone was as violent as me, then the world would be a considerably safer place, and in fact less scary.
Oh you’re protecting me. Well I can sleep better knowing that your finger is on the hair-trigger of such a ‘safety device’.
One thing I don’t understand about the US healthcare system is this; if someone is feeling stressed or angry or depressed or life has just generally got on top of them - and they don’t have health insurance - can they go somewhere and get a course of medication or an appointment with a healthcare professional?
I ask becasue clearly this womans behaviour was not within the range we’d generally consider ‘normal’, eventually there was a major argument at the family home - probably about nothing - and she died.
I have no idea of this familys insurance situation, nor anything else, it’s just a general point about access to medication in times of difficulty. Obviously in a UHC system you visit the Doc and something appropriate is prescribed straight away gratis or next to gratis - what do Americans do, especially in that area of temporary mental health problems caused by transient life circumstances ?
PrettyVacant, you raise a valid point, but the person who must initiate care for psychological problems is the person who has the problem. Either of the Hains might not have realized there were problems. They might not have known where to seek care. Or they felt there is a stigma to seeking treatment, so they refused to do so. There are also access issues; is there a counselor who is immediately available to deal with crises, or would there be a wait for an open appointment?
I believe, but can’t be certain, that Mr. Hain probably had insurance through his job. But again, the best insurance in the world or UHC can’t help someone who doesn’t seek care.
All of this being said, I think Mrs. Hain was stupid for bringing her gun to a child’s soccer game; there was no reason to have it and lots of reasons not to. Her death was tragic, and I think it’s good that her death is being used to raise awareness of domestic violence.
It’s not a serpent, it does not crave your flesh. I know of guns that have been around for decades and have never once snuck out and attacked someone.
I joke about the idea that someone would be in hysterics over the realization that almost every car on the road has a tire iron in it… and your response is to state something to the effect that you’d be happy to fight me with one just to prove a point. That’s kind of weird.
She didn’t die of a self-inflicted wound, so these musings on her mental stability aren’t entirely relevant.
Also, I’ve been unable to look up a quick and clear answer on whether PA prohibited concealed carry in public parks, IIRC her only options were open carry, going disarmed, or not going. If you’ve reasoned out that the safety of yourself and your family is important enough to take responsibility for personally, it’s not likely that you’re going to voluntarily abdicate that responsibility.
I’m not sure, but I’d swear I just heard somewhere about a law-abiding gun owner murdering his wife and the shooting himself in the head while their kids were in the house.
Guess he didn’t have spare tire handy to kill her with.
All gun owners are law abiding, exceptionally safety conscious and employers of best practices in regards to storing, handling and discharging firearms.
Until they’re not.
It’s kind of like abstinence-only sex ed in that way. It works right up to the point that it does not.
We need to recognize, and apparently accept, that a proportion of Americans will pay for our gun rights with their lives every year, and that bringing a gun into one’s home is associated with about a 50% increase in the likelihood that someone in the household will die due to violent crime, and an even greater increase in the likelihood that someone in the household will commit suicide with a firearm.
That’s pretty much the bottom line. You pays your money, we all takes our chances.
It does no good to try to belittle people by suggesting that they are frightened by guns. I’m sure it does no good to suggest that gun owners own guns because they are scared and panicky to begin with (such as the guy who gunned down his fiancee out of overdue panic).
Yes, it’s equally ironic if being really into cars means you think that will prevent you from being killed by a car. Which is to say, not at all. I refer you yet again to *The Compass of Irony *by D.C. Muecke. Instruct yourself.
This woman expected that the guns that she and her husband carried would keep them and their children safe. Instead, she failed to protect herself with her gun, and her husband killed her and then himself with his own gun. The kids are still alive, but probably pretty fucked up by the whole thing. So, the guns that were intended to protect instead were the instruments of pretty much the ultimate harm. That’s irony.
That’s Alanis Morisette irony, which has no relation to actual irony. To dig up something I once said in another thread, it’s ironick.
If he managed to beat himself to death with it after killing her, now **that **would be impressive.
I just called the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office. (Yes, I know that the Hains lived in Lebanon County, but concealed carry laws are statewide.) The deputy I talked to told me that in government-owned parks, it is legal to carry concealed unless there are signs indicating otherwise, and this is, in fact, a statewide thing. Given that Mrs. Hain wasn’t arrested and the cops didn’t confiscate her gun, the park was most likely public and she would have been allowed to carry concealed.
I’m not convinced that routine psychological counseling would affect his rights under Title 18, Section 922(d). Of course, Hain might have been under the misconception that such was the case, or that the counselor might report a threat of harm to his wife to the police and he’d lose his firearms under the Lautenberg Amendment.
But under the law in Pennsylvania, he’d only lose his concealed carry permit for reasons of mental health if he were involuntarily committed as an inpatient. Cite. Of course, he could also lose his permit for “good cause” but the law isn’t more specific about what constitutes “good cause.” Cite.
I don’t know if any of this would have affected his job, however. These laws apply to firearms, and I can’t find any information about whether he carried a firearm during the course of his employment.
