The Washington Post reports on this sad story. Because a cop left his gun in the glove compartment of his car which was parked in front of his home, it was easy for a thief to get it. Three weeks later tragedy struck.
That's one of the ways so-called law-abiding gun owners contribute to the gun flow. Who's responsible? You tell me.
Please leave a comment.
Were your guns stolen?
ReplyDeleteAnd if they weren't why won't you answer me?
So who did you kill?
"Who's responsible? You tell me."
ReplyDeleteThe thief who stole the gun.
The person who pulled the trigger.
Without either of the named above, the crime could not have happened.
Focus on putting criminals behind bars, and not on taking inanimate objects away from law-abiding citizens. The root cause of crime is criminals, not guns.
And if they weren't why won't you answer me?
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to believe that the whole thing was a story to begin with. There's nothing to tell because nothing really happened. It was probably just an attempt to endure himself to other gun owners in attempt to illicit similar responses.
Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that MikeB lived in an area where his guns were under some sort of ban, like Chicago, New Jerkey, or DC for example.
Technically speaking, it would be illegal, but no one here (except Guy or perhaps Laci) would condemn him for his owning the gun and refusing to participate in the city's registration/restriction process.
I suspect that this is the kind of criminal action that MikeB has committed.
What he did with the guns he owned once he moved out of the country is another matter.
And his hypocrisy concerning his ignoring the law would be yet another.
Speculation, but there it is.
Good point Anon.
ReplyDeleteTho its just as likely that he was a serial rapist with all the information we have.
If we are to assume that Conceal Carry Permit holders are simply people who haven't been caught yet, then its a fair estimate.
Anonymous asked who's responsible and why don't we focus on the criminals.
ReplyDeleteLeaving a gun in the glove compartment overnight should be a crime, if it's not already. Of course the thief should have to answer for what he did, but the first mistake, which earns some part of the responsibility is the sloppy gun owner who made it too easy for the gun to be stolen.
"Leaving a gun in the glove compartment overnight should be a crime, if it's not already."
ReplyDeleteWhy should that be a crime? Can the gun do anything to anyone if no one takes it?
Should it still be a crime if the owner took increasing measures to prevent the theft of the gun, but still left it in their glove box?
What if the person locked in their glove box, locked the car, and had an alarm?
What if they locked in the glove box, locked the car, parked the car in a locked garage and set the alarm?
What if they had a safe installed in the car to prevent theft, but the car itself is stolen?
At what point, if any, do you stop blaming the victim and blame the only person responsible for the crime? The criminal is responsible for it leaving the safety of the glove box, no one else.
Sorry Anon, the whole idea is that a glove compartment of a car is not safe enough.
ReplyDelete"The criminal is responsible for it leaving the safety of the glove box, no one else."
Safe storage laws should make that clear in any state where they don't already. In which case the gun owner would have been negligent, which is exactly what I'd blame him for.
Why do you keep defending gun owners right or wrong? How does that affect you?
Because every slice of cake you take is a piece of cake that belongs to me.
ReplyDeleteI ask again, how is it irresponsible? If the gun is out of sight, no one knows it's there. If the thief doesn't take the gun, the gun can harm no one.
Am I to be considered some sort of criminal waiting to happen because I leave knifes (big ones, with really sharp edges) in an unlocked kitchen drawer where any person could just come and take them?
If a thief steals my knife from my unlocked kitchen drawer, am I responsible?
I will never accept that ANYONE other than the THIEF is responsible for the action of STEALING. Similarly, I will never accept that anyone other than the killer is responsible for killing. Make all the silly dubious connections back to the original owner you wish, but they don't apply.
Once Mr. Anonymous got through with his silly knife comparisons, he made a clear statement of position.
ReplyDelete"I will never accept that ANYONE other than the THIEF is responsible for the action of STEALING. Similarly, I will never accept that anyone other than the killer is responsible for killing. Make all the silly dubious connections back to the original owner you wish, but they don't apply."
You said never, right?
What if a CCW guy gets falling down drunk, and passes out in an alley way. An opportunistic thief takes his gun and kills someone with it an hour later. Does he, the drunk CCW guy, bear no responsibility?
What if a gun owner leaves his gun in full view on the dashboard of the car while he runs into the store for cigarettes? Two eighth-graders walk by on their way to school, the temptation is too much and they take the gun. Minutes later one of them is accidentally shot dead right there on the sidewalk. Is that cigarette-smoking gun owner not responsible, even a little?
Nope. and Nope.
ReplyDeleteIn the first case, even assuming that it were to happen, what happens if he falls down drunk and no thief comes along? Then the gun remains safely tucked in the holster, doesn't it? See, if the thief doesn't steal it, the crime doesn't happen?
In the second case, again, assuming anything so ridiculous would happen, if the two curious 8th graders don't touch the gun, and don't steal the gun from his car what happens? The gun stays on the dashboard, doesn't it? Again, intervention from an outside influence causing the crime.
We can keep going with made up ridiculous examples, but in every case, the person(s) responsible will be the person(s) taking the gun, not the person(s) not-taking the gun.
So, in your world, gun owners can do anything they want, however reckless, and never be held accountable if someone else pulls the trigger, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThat's convenient.
You must feel that way for all "aiding and abetting" type laws too, in your world, everything is black and white, people are either law abiding or criminals. Right?
"So, in your world, gun owners can do anything they want, however reckless, and never be held accountable if someone else pulls the trigger..."
ReplyDeleteNope.
But when it comes to theft, the thief does the thieving, and is responsible for the theft.
I know you hate comparison, but let's take this road for a moment. If a thief steals your car, and uses it to run down and kill a child, are you responsible for not making it harder to steal your car?
Now, in both of your examples, the persons would be as stupid as can be to do what they did, and I would probably say "those idiots, what were they thinking?" But to blame them for the actions of another is wrong. They didn't steal the gun. The gun didn't steal itself. The thief is the only one responsible for the theft.
The only way you can change that is to make more laws, specifically laws that address safe storage and penalties for failing to do so.
"aiding and abetting"
A conscious decision is made to aide and abet. Failing to keep your gun from being stolen wouldn't apply.