A few weeks ago, an acquaintance and I started talking one evening after work. The conversation eventually came to guns. He used to own one, but now he doesn't, because he doesn't see the point. I can't recall if he's pro-2A, or a self-proclaimed anti, or whatever. Anyway, a specific scenario came up that generated a lot of emotion from him, which kind of surprised me (coming from him, since he's usually logical and level-headed).
Let's say that I own a gun (far fetched, huh?), and I leave it loaded somewhere in my house (assume there are no children who could get it, it is owned legally, etc). Now, let's say someone breaks INTO my house (to rob it), finds the loaded gun, and for some reason, ends up shooting my acquaintance's wife with it.
My acquaintance then tells me that he'd kill ME because it was MY gun that was used to kill his wife. Never mind that someone else shot her, but he specifically said that he'd come and kill ME because it was my gun and I had left it loaded somewhere for an intruder to find it and use it. He was very upset while telling me this, obviously angry from just thinking about the scenario.
I rebutted with a similar scenario in which someone steals MY car and ends up killing his wife with it. I asked if he'd want to kill me for that. He says no, that it's different. And the only way I could understand how it was different (thru his explanation) was that a gun is for killing, while a car is not.
Needless to say, I would blame the intruder who committed a crime to gain access to my house, then committed another crime by stealing the gun, and committed yet another crime by shooting his wife. But apparently that logic is flawed and the blame falls on me, the gun owner. Seriously? That's like blaming the gun manufacturer, or the gun importer, or the gun store, and NOT the actual person responsible for pulling the trigger.
Well, I just wanted to put this out there.
What do you think? Opinions? Reactions?
(At least now I know that I need to be proactive if this scenario ever happens and my acquaintance comes knocking on my door....)
Let's say that I own a gun (far fetched, huh?), and I leave it loaded somewhere in my house (assume there are no children who could get it, it is owned legally, etc). Now, let's say someone breaks INTO my house (to rob it), finds the loaded gun, and for some reason, ends up shooting my acquaintance's wife with it.
My acquaintance then tells me that he'd kill ME because it was MY gun that was used to kill his wife. Never mind that someone else shot her, but he specifically said that he'd come and kill ME because it was my gun and I had left it loaded somewhere for an intruder to find it and use it. He was very upset while telling me this, obviously angry from just thinking about the scenario.
I rebutted with a similar scenario in which someone steals MY car and ends up killing his wife with it. I asked if he'd want to kill me for that. He says no, that it's different. And the only way I could understand how it was different (thru his explanation) was that a gun is for killing, while a car is not.
Needless to say, I would blame the intruder who committed a crime to gain access to my house, then committed another crime by stealing the gun, and committed yet another crime by shooting his wife. But apparently that logic is flawed and the blame falls on me, the gun owner. Seriously? That's like blaming the gun manufacturer, or the gun importer, or the gun store, and NOT the actual person responsible for pulling the trigger.
Well, I just wanted to put this out there.
What do you think? Opinions? Reactions?
(At least now I know that I need to be proactive if this scenario ever happens and my acquaintance comes knocking on my door....)
Dave
Co-Founder & Global Moderator
Delaware Open Carry
"You have to be prepared to do the violence in order to survive the violence."
Co-Founder & Global Moderator
Delaware Open Carry
"You have to be prepared to do the violence in order to survive the violence."