Vehicles Burglarized in Livingston Parish Pistols Stolen.

[DAVE_M]

Now keep in mind I’m not advocating for this but behind tented windows and locked doors would be logically precautionary measures compared to the the back glass iof an unlocked truck with the windows down.

It’s worth mentioning again one can smash and grab a home pretty quickly. Seconds even.

part of my obligation to you statement is a potentially a logical fallacy on my part. I equate zero sympathy with ‘they deserved it’. The two are synonymous in my mind. And if they deserved it the thief was simply an instrument of fate. Similar to a lion eating a gazelle. The lion did no wrong. Right?

Conversely if you do think they deserved it how could you blame the thief?

At no point in this conversation to I ever say the victims of theft deserved it.

If you own firearms, part of being a responsible firearm owner is securing said firearms within your home or vehicle.

[Bangswitch]

At no point in this conversation to I ever say the victims of theft deserved it.

If you own firearms, part of being a responsible firearm owner is securing said firearms within your home or vehicle.

Ok that’s an important distinction. I can’t think of a single instance where I can separate those two thoughts.

[Bangswitch]

I get firearms shouldn’t be left in a vehicle without some other means of locking it. Now my iPad on the other hand has been left in the vehicle a few times and if someone smashed my window I wouldn’t feel ignorant for having my stuff stolen. A firearm is a bigger responsibility than a computer so I’m not going to in group them in the same category.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I understand this logic but near circular. If pooky steals your tablet and trades it for a Saturday night special by your logic you are still responsible for a criminal having a gun.

[DAVE_M]

Ok that’s an important distinction. I can’t think of a single instance where I can separate those two thoughts.

Not having sympathy for someone making an unwise decision is not wishing ill-will upon them. I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

[Log Island]

This:
“Thieves struck around 10 cars in the area, all of them were unlocked. But the burglars were apparently looking for certain things.”

They didn’t “break into” ANY of those cars. All of the vehicles that had items stolen out of, were left unlocked. We had this “phenomenon “ in my subdivision last summer. After I
pointed this out that they were NOT broken into, and if we’d all be responsible in locking our vehicles....I suggested that after a night or two of them pulling locked door handles, they’d move on to a neighborhood where owners weren’t so responsible...
Guess what...it worked...

[thperez1972]

It’s worth mentioning again one can smash and grab a home pretty quickly. Seconds even.

In a lot of the cases of cars being broken into, the cars are parked on or near the street. I'd bet motor51 can attest there are a lot of calls that come out about a suspicious person walking down the street pulling on car handles. They're not looking for a smash and grab. That's too loud and draws attention. They're looking for a quiet entry to minimize people realizing what they are doing. Conversely, I cannot remember hearing a call about a suspicious person walking up to houses checking to see if the door is unlocked. I'm sure that call has come out before. I just can't remember it and it's not as common as pulling on car doors. Entering a car is not at all like entering a house. You can walk up to a car and see if it's occupied. You cannot always know if a house is occupied. That unknown, coupled with the thief's desire to avoid conflict, makes a gun left in a home safer than a gun left in the car. Also, in order to check to see if a house door is unlocked, the thief must leave the public area where his being there would attract little attention. If you saw someone walk up to house after house after house, they would reasonably arouse more suspicion than seeing someone walk down the street. So the thief can causally pull on car door handles while in or very close to a public space. He has to leave that public space to get to most front door handles.

I understand this logic but near circular. If pooky steals your tablet and trades it for a Saturday night special by your logic you are still responsible for a criminal having a gun.

That's a stretch. By your logic, if I go to a restaurant and I tip the waiter and the waiter uses his tips to buy a gun, it's like I tipped him a gun.

[thperez1972]

Ok that’s an important distinction. I can’t think of a single instance where I can separate those two thoughts.

It's the thief's fault that the thief stole from the victim. Is there anything the victim could have done to prevent the crime or make the crime less likely to occur? If so, are those things reasonable solutions? The first thing that immediately comes to mind is locking the car doors. It's the thief's fault that the thief stole from the victim. The victim could have prevented the crime with minimal effort. If a preventable crime was not prevented by the victim, can you blame the thief while also not feeling sorry for the victim?

[Jstudzinski]

Ok so at what point would I get your sympathy? How many redundancies? I’ve never attempted to burglarize a home but I would bet I could get in and out of 95% of the homes of people on here, steal plenty of valuables (likely guns) and be gone long before someone shows up to stop me. Affordable security is an illusion.

95% is a stretch. My home personally not only would you be on camera the second you walked onto my property but if you did decide to enter my house the alarm would sound instantly. Maybe not some time ago but now affordable security systems are readily available and top of the line security systems like mine are not too expensive. I’m not saying it would be impossible for you to break in if you wanted to. I’m sure anyone could. I think what your missing here is the cars were unlocked. These guys were clearly not looking to break into anything, make noise, and draw attention to themselves. They were looking for easy opportunities to quickly and quietly go through someone’s belongings and take what they wanted. That’s how most of these car burglaries happen. I don’t think someone would make it too far down the street without LE showing up if they were busting windows and making a bunch of noise.

[Bangswitch]

Not having sympathy for someone making an unwise decision is not wishing ill-will upon them. I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

That’s not exactly a fair assessment. You have no sympathy for someone who allowed themselves to be victimized. If you said you had no sympathy for me when I was acting an idiot and rolled my 4wheeler it would be having no sympathy for someone who made a bad decision. Those aren’t the same thing. A bad decision that gave someone else an opportunity to make a decision is not the same as the direct result of piss poor judgment.

[DAVE_M]

That’s not exactly a fair assessment. You have no sympathy for someone who allowed themselves to be victimized. If you said you had no sympathy for me when I was acting an idiot and rolled my 4wheeler it would be having no sympathy for someone who made a bad decision. Those aren’t the same thing. A bad decision that gave someone else an opportunity to make a decision is not the same as the direct result of piss poor judgment.

I have no obligation to have sympathy for those who wilfully make bad decisions.