Don't carry a gun with Punisher logo on it


Originally published at:


I thought it was because the Disney lawyers were going to be after you.


guns youtube is great btw


I get the logic behind no Punisher imagery on deadly weapons; that potentially shows intent… but aside from the sheer silliness/impracticality of it, I don’t get the ‘no girly colors’ rule.


You make it look like it is a toy gun. Won’t somebody please think of the children!?


If I ever get nicked for shooting someone in Ohio, I’ll know to phone the Munitions Law Group.


Lavender is this year’s color. The NRA fashionistas will mock you mercilessly.


Most depressing part of this video: “juries are a popularity contest.” Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I’m not arguing if it’s true, just that it makes me want to tear out my hair and move to somewhere else.


That was disheartening as hell; actual justice is an afterthought, if even a real consideration at all.


A gun that is customized as a fashion statement—pink, gold plated, adorned with superhero logos, whatever—implies that the owner likely doesn’t treat incredibly dangerous weapons as seriously as they should.

It’s probably a lot harder to convince a jury that you were a responsible, law-abiding gun owner who made a single honest mistake when your weapon of choice looks like it was selected to match your outfit.


Also understandable and very probable; due to the over-saturation of firearms in our entertainment media, and our country’s obsession with violence in general, I think many people don’t treat deadly weapons with the level of seriousness that is actually merited.


It’s certainly a depressingly blunt statement of a legal realist position; but I’d imagine that someone who specializes in gun-related cases has even more reason to suspect that it is true than lawyers in general:

Both the ‘was it the unfortunate but, but justified and legal, kind of self defense, or did you just want someone to make your day?’ decisions and the slot you get assigned from some sort of reckless negligence/manslaughter up to first degree murder are heavily dependent on determination of the person’s intent.

That makes for a lot of cases that basically boil down to “Yes, my client shot that guy; but do you think he did it for decent, reasonable, reasons that you can imagine because he’s not so different from you; or because he’s a monster you want to punish?” which is the sort of question where popularity probably helps.

I would hope that someone who deals in more cases that boil down to disputes about the facts of the matter, rather than the intent behind uncontested facts, would be slightly less pessimistic.


Why? Because “the jury is going to see it.”

Kind of obvious, when you think about it.

It IS obvious that people, such as jurors, can see things which happen to be visible. So obvious as to explain very little. A thinking person might suppose that the deeper reason why might be some consensus as to what its significance might be. I don’t trust those who insist that consensus somehow exists a-priori rather than being always re-negotiated and re-evaluated by the participants themselves.

So, Hello Kitty is cool, then?


Don’t carry a gun, unless you’re in the Wild West, period.



any logo has it’s consequences


I would argue that its the same with a gun which is tricked out with telescopic sights, lasers, etc. Its a different sort of fashion statement, but one which might go down okay with a jury.


How about just don’t Punisher logo anything? For fuck’s sake.


I think my favorites are still the porcelain ones by Yvonne Lee Schultz


I recently saw this idiot on Reddit that painted up some Hello Kitty guns for his wife and couldn’t help but think that the flippant disregard for power of said weapon would be obvious in any resulting court case, glad to see even a gun-friendly attorney would agree with me. These people treat deadly weapons like they’re fashion items or worse, toys.