In cases like this, I often talk about shared responsibility. The gun owner makes the theft easier by not following procedure, like in this case, or by some other act of stupidity or sloppiness. The thief steals the gun.
I keep hearing cries of, "only the thief is responsible." Well, that's true as far as it goes.
Here's where we've gotten off on the wrong foot. When I talk about shared responsibility, some people, especially the contentious and argumentative ones, think there's one only one amount of responsibility that must be divided up among all the participants. That's not it at all.
The thief is 100% responsible for stealing the gun.
The gun owner is 100% responsible for making that possible either by failing to follow procedure like in this case, officers are supposed to have their weapons with them, or by leaving the gun in a vulnerable place. In homes, depending on the state, there are safe storage laws aimed at preventing theft.
Violation of these regulations should be more carefully monitored and more severely punished.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Well, we can say that the individual who committed the crime is responsible for the crime. You know, how it usually works?
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you want safe storage laws for everything, like gasoline?
Say someone syphons your tank to make molotovs, are YOU somehow responsible because you don't have a locked gas cap?
Ho about when the government is responsible? Should they share in the responsibility too?
ReplyDeleteIn Ohio you cannot carry a firearm in a restaurant that sells alcohol. Last night I went to pick a take-out order of sushi. Since the restaurant has a bar area in the back, I had to leave my gun unattended in the car by law while walked in, picked up my order and walked out.
Had my gun been stolen because I complied with the law, wouldn't every member of the legislature that voted against allowing CHL holders to carry in a restaurant?
I assure you that my gun would have been better protected under my shirt than in my unattended vehicle.
Seems to me that ordering takeout sushi in Ohio is far more dangerous than anyting you think you need to carry a gun around for.
ReplyDeleteChange 'thief' to some other crime, and see how this flies.
ReplyDeleteThe rapist is 100% responsible for raping the woman.
The woman is 100% responsible for making that possible either by failing to follow procedure like not wearing provocative clothing or not staying at home.
At the same time, I do encourage personal responsibility, so while I believe women should be safe, and guns should not be stolen, it's also their responsibility to take some measures of self-protection rather than relying on the kindness of others.
It's simply that your argument singles out a group you don't happen to like in this case, but applying your argument to other situations shows just how puerile the argument is.
Jade,
ReplyDeleteUhh..you might be on to something there...
Anonymous, when all else fails, has resorted to the old incendiary rape comparison.
ReplyDeleteViolation of these regulations should be more carefully monitored and more severely punished.
ReplyDeleteWhat punishment are you going to give yourself for the violations of firearm laws that you committed MikeB302000?
Incindeary rape? I don't recall anyone being lit on fire while being raped. That would seem especially heinous.
ReplyDeleteAs for how that compares to gun theft and victims of crime, though, Anon made a good comparison.
Do you blame a woman for being raped? Do you see it as her fault or not?
It is never, ever the victim's fault that they were the victim of a crime. It is always, always, the fault of the criminal that they perpetrated the crime. Placing any responsibility on the shoulders of the victim reduces the responsibility on the criminal, and that is never right.
I would think humans eating fish bait, in Ohio or anywhere else, is questionable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (one of them) says, "It is never, ever the victim's fault that they were the victim of a crime."
ReplyDeleteThis is the sleight of hand and misdirection that biased pro-gun folks are so good at.
I repeat:
"The thief is 100% responsible for stealing the gun.
The gun owner is 100% responsible for making that possible either by failing to follow procedure like in this case, officers are supposed to have their weapons with them, or by leaving the gun in a vulnerable place."
Is the criminal 100% responsible for breaking the laws that are supposed to stop them from buying firearms illegally?
ReplyDeleteShould people who buy firearms illegally be punished?
What do you recommend as a consequence for breaking firearm related laws?
"This is the sleight of hand and misdirection that biased pro-gun folks are so good at."
ReplyDeleteHow is it sleight of hand, MikeB?
You reiterated:
"The thief is 100% responsible for stealing the gun.
The gun owner is 100% responsible for making that possible ..."
If the first statement is TRUE, then the second has NO BEARING on the situation, or is FALSE.
Let's go back to the "incendiary" comparison of rape, again.
If the rapist is responsible for the rape, are you still assigning responsibility for the rape to the victim? Is the rape victim responsible for her own rape by dressing in a provacative manner, or hanging out in a location that she shouldn't?
If you say yes, then you are making the first statement a FALSE statement, because the 100% number means either one is, or the other is, but they can't both be.
So, which is it?
The rape comparison is bullshit. We're talking about guns. If the guy who made it easy for the thief broke a law, wouldn't he be guilty of breaking that law? If there are laws about safe storage and handling that were broken, like perhaps in some enlightened States where you're not allowed to leave your gun unattended on the dashboard of the car when you run in for a pack of smokes, and you break those laws, you are responsible for that.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your problem? Are just so contentious that any mention of guns sets you off to disagree?
I say those kinds of laws pertaining to the safe keeping of your weapons should be more strict.
By all means, let's blame all the thieves for all their thefts, but let's start demanding that you gun owners do your share too.
"If the guy who made it easy for the thief broke a law, wouldn't he be guilty of breaking that law?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're asking here.
Breaking the sentence down, it looks like you are asking if the victim of theft (the guy who made it easy for the the thief) broke a law, would he be guilty of breaking the law?
Yes.
Or, di you mean to ask, if a victim of theft made it easy for the thief to break the law, would the victim of theft then be guilty of breaking the law (that the thief broke) also?
It would depend upon the way the law is written, but generally, only if he was an accomplice to the thief. Otherwise, he's just a victim of the thief.
"If there are laws about safe storage and handling that were broken... (BS that people don't do, but MikeB is convinced otherwise) ...and you break those laws, you are responsible for that."
Yes, a person in those states would be guilty of violating those specific safe storage laws, assuming they applied. In your example, criminal negligence would likely apply. Further, if the law provided for it, they may even become criminally liable for the actions of the thief. I am not aware of any states that have that provision, though.
"...but let's start demanding that you gun owners do your share too."
We do our share. We just don't agree that we should be burdened with someone else's share because you see a correlation without causation.