Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Josh Sugarmann on Slain, Gun Toting Mother

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:36 AM
Original message
Josh Sugarmann on Slain, Gun Toting Mother
In a post ironically entitled "Beyond the Easy Irony of Murdered Gun Advocate Meleanie Hain", Josh Sugarman shares his perspective on the domestic killing of an unarmed woman by her law enforcement officer husband:

From news reports, Hain... was a true believer: guns don't kill, people do. A corollary to this well-worn mantra is that gun ownership guarantees personal safety. The shooting in Pennsylvania belies both these pro-gun tenets.

...

In essence, Hain, like many of her fellow pro-gun advocates, lacked an ability to think in the abstract: Her gun experience was positive and whatever negative effects others felt from firearms, the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame. Is it too bold to think that if she had survived her husband's attack by shooting him to death she would have offered his killing as proof of the effectiveness of the self-defense handgun? Based on 25 years in the gun control debate I don't think so.

...

Instead, she will 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.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/beyond-the...


Irony indeed, but not easy irony. Josh goes for the gold.

First, after laying out a few undisputed facts he creates a blatant straw man--the supposed pro gun tenet "that gun ownership guarantees personal safety." This is a caricature, a farce, a fabrication, a bald-faced lie. No gun advocate of any repute claims this. You will not read it on the web. You will not hear it in debate. It isn't a tenet of the pro gun position. Period.

I do not mean to imply that no gun rights advocate has ever uttered this pathetic nonsense. It may be that Sugarman has actually heard someone say this, maybe even someone not in protective psychiatric custody. But that does not make it a pro-gun tenet. If I heard a lone nut or two explain that banning guns would cure cancer, that would not make it an anti-gun tenet either.

After solidly establishing his intellectual dishonesty, Sugarmann moves on to some serious sophistry. According to him, Hain lacked the ability to think abstractly. The poor woman actually thought that "the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame"! The clear implication is that she was to blame. It was only because she carried a gun that her husband--who was issued a firearm by the government due to his law enforcement duties--shot her with a state issued weapon. (I guess that lie was too blatant even for Sugarmann to state clearly.)

Next Sugarman counters an outrageous hypothetical. Is it possible that Hain might have thought her self-defense handgun effective had she survived the attack by using it? Based on 25 years of debate, he thinks she may have. Obviously, she should be condemned for that hypothetical as well.

Josh ends in style. She died. She carried a gun, yet she died. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!

Others died too! Thirty thousand of them die each year. And all those deaths--even the deaths of the ones who don't own guns--prove that that owning a handgun will not guarantee your safety, at least by gun control logic.

So there!!

People say that Americans are stupid--and we did elect Bush at least once. (I say we because I'm an American, not because I voted for him.) But there are limits. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Josh Sugarmann's article is a sick joke, an embarrassment to lunatics everywhere. Lies this bald and illogic this transparent can only work on willing victims--people who want to be fooled. Americans no longer want to be fooled on gun control. Josh didn't get the memo, apparently.

Triumphing in the death of an innocent victim of domestic abuse is contemptible. It's low even in coarse, 21st century society. Even by Republican standards. (And for the moral midgets among us, it is worlds apart from rejoicing in the triumph of a victim over a predator.)

It is telling that this is the intellectual level of a champion of gun control--that this is the caliber of argument that can be marshaled for the anti-gun position. The ignorance, bias, illogic, obliviousness, and sheer stupidity of modern gun control is shocking.

Democrats stand a much better chance of navigating the political seas and attaining real and lasting power without this albatross.


Last but certainly not least, my heart goes out to the poor children. I shudder to think of their suffering:

Neighbor Aileen Fortna, 51, said that her husband noticed the two older Hain children running past their house and crying. She said the children told another neighbor that "daddy shot mommy."

Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33245133/ns/us_news-crime_a... /


I hope they get all the love, attention, and therapy they need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Quick - find some support for that corollary will ya?
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 07:36 AM by dmallind
Any of the most wild and wooly pro-gun sites you can find - grab me a quote from any of the most passionate pro-gun lobbyist or organization you can find that tells me gun ownership guarantees personal safety please. Not one that claims it increases your odds or levels the playing field - I want to see that guarantee!

Did the anti crowd ever stop to think that maybe it's a bit easier to get someone to lower their guard when you are, oh I dunno, married to them?

Oh and if she had shot her husband, fatally or otherwise, to stop his deadly assault it would have indeed been yet another indication of the effectiveness of guns for personal protection. How would it not have been?

The fact is domestic shootings are hard to defend against, and no-one even remotely sane will deny it. Trust me I know some people who actually ARE like the caricatures of anti paranoia - people who carry all the time in a locked house for example, with backup guns and extra magazines, always explaining their choice by the "what if" scenarios of the wildest kind. None of them - not one - keeps a bead on their spouse whenever they are in the same room. If you want to get the drop on the most paranoid of self defense advocates, marrying them would probably be your best bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That was sarcasm.
Oh and if she had shot her husband, fatally or otherwise, to stop his deadly assault it would have indeed been yet another indication of the effectiveness of guns for personal protection. How would it not have been?


I agree. That was sarcasm, and I forgot to use the quotes to indicate it:

Next Sugarman counters an "outrageous" hypothetical. Is it possible that Hain might have thought her self-defense handgun effective had she survived the attack by using it? Based on 25 years of debate, he thinks she may have. Obviously, she should be condemned for that hypothetical as well.


It's not outrageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. Also, notice that very few articles calling her "GUN-TOTING MOTHER"
bother to mention that she was >>>UNARMED<<< when she was shot in the back in her own kitchen? She didn't even have a gun in the room with her, as far as I can tell. The only gun in that situation was her LEO-husband's, which may have been a duty weapon for all we know.

What I wonder is, if she had been raped instead of murdered, would the "she had it coming because of her lifestyle" people still be crawling out of the baseboards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. Who does this remind me of?
In essence, Hain, like many of her fellow pro-gun advocates, lacked an ability to think in the abstract: <...>

There's somebody on this board who frequently dismisses pro-RKBA posters' arguments on the basis that they are supposedly "incapable of abstract thought." I guess now we know where he got that particular tactic.

And, to be blunt, the only thing that "thinking in the abstract" means in this context is "you should consider this notion despite its utter lack of demonstrable bearing on reality."

Her gun experience was positive and whatever negative effects others felt from firearms, the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame.

Yeah, I'm going to expose my obvious prejudice in favor of the concrete here, by asking: what "negative effects" did the late Melanie Hain's G26 impose on others? What makes Melanie Hain responsible for every crime ever committed using a gun? When two gangs of drug dealers exchange fire over control of a street corner in Baltimore or Detroit or Memphis, what makes Melanie Hain responsible? Or, for that matter, any other legal gun owner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
divideandconquer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Scaring the crap out of the other soccer mom's is a negative effect
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 09:56 AM by divideandconquer
"Her gun experience was positive and whatever negative effects others felt from firearms, the gun, and gun owners like herself, were never to blame."

Yeah till her gun nut husband whacked her!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. The other soccer mom's what was scared?
Grammar aside, surely nobody is so squeamish as to be scared by the mere sight of a weapon with not the slightest hint of aggressive use. How do they ever manage to cook if they are scared of knives? Do they ever watch their poor tykes play Little League with all those nasty bats? If anyone is so fragile and easily frightened why is it the fault of the more sane person who is not scared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. WTF does "Yeah till her gun nut husband whacked her!" even mean?
I see that you are just trying to live up to your name. I see that ALL of your posts are inflammatory flame bait and you are not genuine in ANY of your "arguments". Fuck off and welcome to my ignore button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. Oh, clasp the pearls! Some shrinking violet soccer moms were SCARED!
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 08:08 AM by Euromutt
Aren't you one of the people who constantly assert that people who own firearms for defensive purposes are motivated by "irrational fear"? Never mind that there were 5.2 million violent crimes in 2007 (of which about 93%, I might note, were not committed using firearms); that for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there occurred 1 rape or sexual assault, 1 assault with injury, and 2 robberies (which, by definition, involve at least a threat of violence); no, the idea that violent crime is a cause for concern is "irrational."

So why is that quaking with fear at the sight of a soccer mom with a G26 on her belt is perfectly reasonable, indeed a socially "negative effect"? Did the sight of Ms Hain, to paraphrase Jefferson, "pick their pocket or break their leg"? Why no, it did not.

People allow themselves to be scared of all sorts of things: members of ethnic minorities, GLBTs, illegal aliens, motorcycles, you name it. That doesn't mean we as society have take their worries seriously, let alone defer to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
26. Lot's of people are scared by protesters, should we stop all protests.
Maybe just isolate them to areas devoid of bystanders. Give them permits to protest within the confines of the nearest National Forest no closer than 1000 meters to anyone not participating in the protest. We wouldn't want anyone to be scared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. He's a jackass
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. Tragedy, or just another public health statistic?
So where are all the cop defenders?? Her back must have really presented quite a threat for a "trained law enforcement officer" to have to use deadly force.

All the smoke coming out of the ears and the sputtering denials of gun worshipers won't subtract this statistic from the data that guns in the home lead to a higher probability of death by gun violence.

All the fuming denials and disavowals of the cop fellators won't subtract this statistic from the data that a percentage of cops are unfit for their jobs for being violently psychotic (and in this case, suicidal too).

Sugarman's analysis is spot on. They do lack an ability to think in the abstract, or at least to understand public health statistics and their import. They like things that go boom, the power of putting holes in things from several yards away, being badasses who can 'defend' themselves. They don't want to acknowledge the obvious, such as "you can't protect yourself if your back is turned and you're unarmed". They can't think in the abstract, or they would have realized that they have rewritten the second amendment, until it now means "A well regulated militia continuous flow of tragedy being necessary to the security for the entertainment of a free State, the right of the People mentally ill to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
divideandconquer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. This should be a cautionary tale to all women who live with gun nuts
Even if you get your own gun you'll never be safe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. So LEO's are "gun nuts"?
Thank you for your wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Well this one was nuts
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 11:53 AM by izquierdista
Homicide and suicide are not consistent with good mental health.

(Are you really that stupid that I have to point that out to you?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. nice non-answer, thank you for your childish reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. You keep calling the shooter a "gun nut".
Do you have any evidence that supports this? Cites? Or is it true because you say it's true?

What is your definition of "gun nut"? Did he fit this deinition?

Will you ever answer a direct question or are you just here to hit people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. What's with the "gun nut" bullshit? Youre just an asshole looking to stir the pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. So LEO's should not be allowed to take their service weapons home?
You bloviate plenty of BS, but offer nothing as a solution.


imagine that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. LEOs should be screened for mental illness
As I said, the gun lobby works tirelessly to ensure that the mentally ill have the right to bear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. They are.
Obviously, that's not a guarantee of anyone's safety...

Oops, there's that 'G' word again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. Do you have a link to that BS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. Simple.
Only allow perfect people to be police officers. Let me know when you find one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. Where has any gun rights group lobbied for that?
Please provide a citation that the NRA wants mentally ill people to own guns. It's simply not true--they were one of the groups pushing for the NICS background check that flags on mental health records. There may be plenty of reasons to dislike the NRA, but strawmen aren't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. Please show me anyone on this site--any "gun worshipper", "cop defender" or the like
who has hasn't or doesn't

"acknowledge the obvious, such as you can't protect yourself if your back is turned and you're unarmed."


Anyone will do.

If you can't show any evidence of your claim, perhaps you can see the real reason you think that "Sugarman's {sic} analysis is spot on"--your "analysis" is also FOS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. You are awfully bitter about that last arrest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. LOL, I just caught that one!
Just goes to show one should pay attention to one's choice of avatar..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Uh,
I hold an MFA and I make non objective (abstract) art. And I'm a gun owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. Obvious tripe
"A corollary to this well-worn mantra is that gun ownership guarantees personal safety"
No one says that. His whole article is attempting to discredit something no one believes. I believe that is called a straw man, a flawed argument. A journalist writing this must know this and therefore is intentionally being misleading, that is called lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Hey, it's what the Joyce Foundation wants to hear.
So there!

(sarcasm, etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
23. What a dishonest disengenuous deceptive piece of shit...
josh sugarman...

What a disgusting ...creature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
24. An impressive rationalization...
Edited on Tue Oct-13-09 04:01 AM by depakid
Poorly reasoned though- and aimed rather toward denial of the obvious- and legitimate points expressed by the OP.

That said- it's a good example of what one sees with obsessives. Pull out every rhetorical "trick" in the book- in a shotgun approach- irrespective of whether they apply honestly and objectively or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. What are the legitimate points in Josh's article--the one criticized by my OP?
I trust that is what you meant, though it is not what you actually said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks to Sugermann now I know that her abusive husband wasn't responsible, a gun was.
What an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. Trial by jury, the 5th amendment
and a number of other laws should "guarantee" that no innocent person ever goes to jail (or guilty person goes free). Obviously that isn't the case. Since they are not 100% effective they are useless, repeal them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. Also, are gun-grabbers now of the opinion
that we should disarm even police officers?

Usually they are quite content to merely disarm average citizens, leaving instruments of government enforcement fully armed.

So either A) he favors disarming cops which is moronic or B) he doesn't in which case this would have happened even with strict gun control laws.

I will give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that he isn't an idiot, merely attempting to mislead his audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piwi2009 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
35. " the absolute she tried to personify,that guns guarantee your safety""

Who told him that and why did he believe them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. Folks, don't forget to read all the comments at HuffPo
Sugarmann's article gets picked apart pretty thoroughly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Thanks for the heads' up....
.. since huffpo started doing the 'nipple slip' and 'crotch' shots, I've kind of written it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 17th 2014, 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC