“You can’t charge me with a gun violation while I’m out on bail for a gun violation, that would be Double-Jeopardy!” —Self-Taught Constitutional Law Experts, Probably
maybe the guns were for demonstration purposes only. see what i am doing? don’t do this, kids.
People who thump their Bibles with guns are the worst.
You don’t often see that kind of dedication to ones work. Truly inspiring.
- Some church people: Jesus will protect me from C19, not masks or vaccines
-Also some church people: I need 27 guns on me at all times for protection from people who scare me
Not said: they were probably doing that outreach work as a condition of their parole on prior prior prior gun charges.
OR their form of ‘reducing gun violence’ involves having more firepower.
My neighborhood social media is a blast every time someone posts that a gun was stolen from their car. Amidst the people getting banned for victim blaming, the victim often states they need it for protection, although without acknowledgement that they are only contributing to the problem.
Soon the neighbourhood social media will only be reflective of people who own guns.
To be fair, it’s a better idea than “everyone is safest when everyone has maximal firepower”
It is victim blaming, just like if they got their new iPhone or a bag with a laptop stolen out of it.
But, people really shouldn’t leave valuables in their car - especially in view. That’s just not smart. Being prepared includes taking steps to not make you an attractive target.
Anything expensive like that, and can be sold is just going to make the problem of crime worse, as now they have the money to buy weapons, drugs, whatever. Or in the case of stolen firearms, sell it to someone on the black market.
That “taking steps for safety” conversation is what gets nasty when it comes to other forms of crime prevention though. Seems reasonable for a laptop, sounds grotesque for other examples.
My brain does enjoy blaming irresponsible gun owners though, their questionable lack of responsibility is affecting the safety of the entire neighborhood. If it is affecting me then I feel like I have a say in their actions? Of course I’m speaking only of my example.
Guns are not like iPhones or laptops.
The victims would be those harmed by the guns.
“Ok class, I’m here to teach you about gun safety.”
Well, yeah…if everyone had a cannon, it wouldn’t be gun violence, would it? Problem solved.
A gun comes with certain responsibilities, one of which is locking it securely when not in use. If it was visible and not in a locked case, it was an attractive nuisance. Victim blaming for the win.
If a crook steals an unsecured laptop then the laptop’s owner is the only person likely to suffer harm.
The same cannot be said if a crook steals an unsecured handgun.
They’re still a victim of theft.
Yes, I agree, dangerous things should be secured more than non dangerous things. I agree it could have some repercussions down the road, and depending how lax one was on their security, they should share some of the culpability for those acts - at least on a moral level.
But if one wants to reason that out, you could say the same thing about people who leave expensive things unsecured, which can be quickly sold/traded for a weapon as well. One extra degree of seperation doesn’t mean one’s actions didn’t have unintended consequences down the road.
I have a friend who didn’t do illicit drugs partly for that reason. He knows that someone, somewhere, probably got hurt or killed in the making/transport/selling of it. (Of course today with weed, that isn’t necessarily so.)