“Don’t take your guns to town, son.”

Apparently, Christopher Smith hadn’t heard that famous Johnny Cash lyric because he took his guns to town, more specifically, to a party in Elsberry in 2022.

As the mother in the song warned, nothing good can come of taking guns into an emotionally-charged environment, whether a bar full of rowdies or a party where your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend is.

“Leave your guns at home, Bill. Don’t take your guns to town.”

If you need to take a gun to a party for your safety, just don’t go to the party. It’s not worth it.

But Smith went, took his gun, and naturally, something stupid happened.

Smith was reckless and irresponsible and when he felt threatened, fled the party while firing his gun aimlessly into the crowded residence.

A 17-year-old was unintentionally shot and nearly died. He recovered, allowing Smith to avoid a murder charge.

But his crime was still serious and one certainly deserving of the 20-year prison sentence he received last week.

Again, his actions were reckless and irresponsible and nearly resulted in the death of another human being. Regardless of if he intended to cause harm to the victim, the results of his actions were the same and as such, he deserved a serious punishment.

In that context, I can’t help but think of another teenager who acted reckless and irresponsibly and consequently endangered the lives of those around her: Hailey Zenk.

Killing three people and seriously injuring a fourth wasn’t enough to get Zenk locked up in prison the first time she appeared before a judge. It took a probation violation for her to see the inside of a prison, albeit for only seven years, or nearly a third of Smith’s sentence.

So if you’re keeping score at home, killing three people and injuring a fourth in a drunk driving accident nets a seven-year sentence while injuring one in a shooting generates a 20-year term.

Why the disparity? Sure, firing a gun into a crowded room is beyond stupid and likely to have negative consequences. But is it any more stupid than driving drunk? Is driving nearly 80 miles an hour in a 35, like Zenk was, any less likely to create negative consequences than firing a gun into a crowded room?

No, I would argue both driving skunk drunk and firing a gun aimlessly are on par in terms of recklessness, irresponsible and selfish behavior.

The difference, I maintain, in the two sentences is the victims.

The teenager Smith shot at the party in 2022 was truly an innocent victim. Wrong place, wrong time. He wasn’t an instigator, he wasn’t even a target. He was just there.

Zenk’s victims, on the other hand, were more participants than bystanders. They willingly got into the vehicle with an impaired driver and suffered the ultimate consequence for their mistake.

Instead of a one-car accident resulting in three deaths, had Zenk been alone and hit another vehicle killing three, the sentence would have been much different.

The implication is the victims, because of their decision to ride with her, are sharing in the blame and consequence.

But should they? Is what Zenk did any less egregious because of who the victims are? Does it really matter if they were in the same car, or a different one, or walking down the street?

Three lives are gone. Period. Should what they were doing at the time of their deaths really have an impact on the punishment for the perpetrator who ultimately killed them?

The reality is, in this instance, it did matter, at least to one judge in St. Charles County. With the victim’s families attending every minute of every court case, he may have been too nice to admit that, but his prejudice is obvious.

Zenk is actually lucky the people she killed were her friends. Unlike Smith’s shooting victim, these weren’t random strangers she’d never met.

And somehow, that familiarity made what she did less egregious in the eyes of the justice system.

So much for justice being blind.

Gregory Orear is the general manager and editor of the Lincoln County Journal, Troy Free Press and Elsberry Democrat. Contact him at gorear@cherryroad.com.