Melanie Hain is DEAD!

Well, the Open Carry poster child, Melanie Hain, has been shot dead.

...by her own husband.

I am sorry, but I don't feel too much regret since looking at her smug face made me want to grab her gun and pop a cap in her ass as well. Moreover, Hain points out the flaws in the argument about defensive gun use which is that a gun in the house will stop someone from harming you. Instead, it makes it far more likely the owner will be harmed. Only an insane person or idiot would believe the arguments presented by the "gun rights" crowd about using a gun for self-defence.

Therefore, it would be funny as heck if Hain was shot with her own gun.

I am hoping that her husband turned her own gun against her.

Why?

Precisely from my Second statement: Most concealed carry idiots make me want to grab their guns and pop a cap in their sorry moronic arses.

Despite the discredited studies from John Lott and Gary Kleck, it has been shown that adding a gun to a situtation makes it more likely that someone will get hurt. In the case of an idiot, untrained civilian, it is more likely to be the idiot, untrained civilian.

It 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.

Which is why I was trained to make sure any gun was stored unloaded and in a secure locked area.

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? If something is harmful and you have it around, there is the likelihood of harm. It doesn't take too many neurons to figure that one out. 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.

And as Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety point out: All guns are ALWAYS loaded.

The reason for the methodologically flawed Lott and Kleck studies is to try to show utility where there is none. Quite simply a gun in the house makes it more likely that you or another family member will get shot, whether on purpose or accidentally.

Unless of course, you properly store the gun in an unloaded and locked container. Preferably a safe.

But, that makes a gun even more worthless for "defensive purposes".

Which I guess places me in the camp of being "anti" since a gun is a shit weapon for self-defence.

Have a seance and ask Melanie Hain if you disagree with me.

But right on top of Hain's getting shot, comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania. Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Of course, the University of Pennsylvania is not the first study to show that having a gun in the house makes it more likely someone will be harmed by the firearm: here and the Wal-Hemenway study. More likely the owner or one of the owner's family members will be the victim than an intruder.

It is even more ironic that this shooting happened during domestic violence awareness month, which seeks to raise awareness about threats and violence against women. The Freedom States Alliance (FSA) pointed out that although Hain was an aggressive gun owner, her death followed a sad pattern of women being victimized by men with guns, in this case by her husband. According to a new study released this month, When Men Murder Women by the Violence Policy Center, firearms were used by males to murder 847 women in 2007 – a staggering number. More than 10 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers.

It seems when someone uses valid data, that it is more likely that a loaded gun in the home will lead to someone having an accident, quite possibility with serious injury or even death: usually to the idiot who has it to protect himself.

If Melanie Hain proved anything, it's that the gun control crowd are bang on and the "gun rights" crowd just spout shit.

And its even stupider to have untrained civilians walking the streets carrying loaded firearms. Someone who knows what they are doing can wrestle the gun from you and use it against you. It happens to cops.

Again, another argument against guns as defensive items.

The problem is that Melanie Hain shows what anyone with any criminal justice knowledge knows, most murder victims know their killer. Again, a gun in the house makes it more likely it will be used against you.

I just saw a "gun rights" post which pointed out that knives are also used as deadly weapons. Yeah, well, it's pretty easy to defend yourself against a knife attack, especially if you are fit and trained in self-defense. Knife wounds are also easier to treat than a gun shot wound.

Being an untrained, overweight twit with a gun makes for victims like Melanie. As I said in the start of this post, I want to grab the guns from some of these CCW and open carry assholes and blast them. Sorry, dipshit, but a gun isn't going to help you if you are not fit enough to keep it out of the hands of someone who can disarm you.

Right, Melanie?

I guess that makes me a law abiding citizen as opposed to an "otherwise law abiding citizen". I would have a field day if it weren't for laws against shooting jerks who carry guns in public with their own guns.

Case in point, I was walking down the street and some jerk bumped into me. I apologised, but the jerk kept on walking in an agressive fashion. I was ready ready to pound him, but I could tell he was carrying (you know--sport shirt untucked, but not loose enough to hide the fact he was "printing").

No, it wasn't that he was packing heat that made me think twice, but the fact that it was a crowded street and I didn't want to hit a bystander.

Unlike the asshole who was packing.

But there is another side to the Melanie Hain saga, the Sheriff revoked her carry permit.

Shall issue means that idiots like Hain and the CCW Jerkoff on the street have licences to carry concealed firearms in public. It takes their doing something openly stupid, or in Hain's case something incredibly and violently stupid, to have the permit revoked. That really shouldn't be. Local law enforcement should be able to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.

Which is why there is a gun rights crowd of idiots who shouldn't own a gun, but want them anyway to the detriment of public safety and society in general.

Quite frankly, there is no such thing as "gun rights". The Second Amendment was to protect me against the establishment of a standing army. But, guess what? The military budget makes it a joke as does the gun rights argument.

I mean the questions were about the militia such as "how will your militia be armed?" when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, not how do we get firearms into the hands of criminals and irresponsible assholes like Melanie Hain? Ever wonder why the Patrick Henry Quote "Let every man be armed" isn't used much anymore, because it shows Henry was interested in the Article I, Section 8 militias and not the Melanie Hains and the other morons like her of this world.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not infringe upon my privilege as a sportsman to have a firearm (it's a privilege, not a right for a private citizen to own a firearm outside of the Article I, Section 8 militia service).

Allowing unfettered access to firearms by irresponsible people does harm the privilege of gun ownership.

I just hope more "gun rights" people will get killed with their own weapons. I can see it now, The gun rights idiot--a dying breed.

Then maybe we can have some sane gun laws.