Washington Security video shows break-in at Sequim gun store

[coyoteman5]

Now what's going to happen when one of those stolen guns are used in a murder will the victim family or the state be able to sue the gun store for lets say having guns to be stolen lets say because of inferior safety precautions or prevention
?????

 

[Belial]

Society needs to stop blaming the victim of crimes. The only person to blame here is the criminal that broke into the building and stole the guns.

You would think right?

 

[Dwesson]

Maybe consider the context.
Maybe gun dealers establishments should be certified like a typical bank vault.
Or perhaps specific regulations, "Remove from sight-store all firearms in secured-to-concrete safes at the time of closing"

Buy Once, Cry Once.
Cost to secure, or prohibitive, not my problem.
Potential harm from more stolen firearms in the wrong hands, that's a problem.

My comments are in reference to all gun dealers.
There's a solution to resolve. FIX IT.

Another shining example of "logic" from the left...

 

[Dwesson]

There was a previous thread on this burglary when it happened April 13. You could get into a bank with a front end loader; just not into the vault. Some gun stores empty their displays and lock up the guns in safes after closing; extra work and cost for employee time, but makes them less likely to be a target for burglars.

Most gun stores DO NOT do this as moving firearms into and out of a safe everyday is both time consuming and risks damaging the firearms.

 

[2A2Dend]

Why Thieves Target Gun Shops
The Life Cycle of a Stolen Gun

 

[Dwesson]

Why Thieves Target Gun Shops
The Life Cycle of a Stolen Gun

Nice link to the New Yorker. You literally cited an article that states:

"Since taking control in 2011, Republican legislators have made it easier to acquire machine guns, allowed concealed firearms in bars and restaurants, and authorized gun owners to lock weapons in their cars on public-school grounds."

You ever wonder why they don't do an article on "Why thieves target anhydrous ammonia"?

The article is a straw man, they cite pharmacies and banks who have storage requirements. Pharmacies are robbed all the time, oh look here's an article from another left leaning site about just that thing.

Addicts putting pharmacies under siege

They even make the claim some have stopped robbing banks to rob pharmacies, looks like all those federal regulations about how to store opioids is really paying off! Only to lead to people getting robbed at gunpoint versus at night after stealing a front loader.

The article makes it sound like gun stores have no security measures in place when that simply isn't true.

We used to hang horse thieves in this country...

 

[11Charlie]

I can't say what I think

 

[Dwesson]

I can't say what I think

I'll say what I think, I'm not surprised when members from "Non 2A States" make "Non 2A" arguments. Take that for what you will.

And "owning a gun" doesn't make you conservative OR a 2nd Amendment supporter (sadly the commentary on this site reinforces that all too often).

 

[2A2Dend]

We agree to disagree. Check

 

[Heyjoe]

Deleted.

 

[11Charlie]

I'll say what I think, I'm not surprised when members from "Non 2A States" make "Non 2A" arguments. Take that for what you will.

And "owning a gun" doesn't make you conservative OR a 2nd Amendment supporter (sadly the commentary on this site reinforces that all too often).

I take it as a member being divisive and trying to call people out when they don't know them from Adam.

 

[Dwesson]

I take it as a member being divisive and trying to call people out when they don't know them from Adam.

Let me see if I have this right.

1. A member proposes a new law that results in fines or jail time if not followed ("stringent").
2. Said law is to apply to the victims of a crime (otherwise law abiding FFLs) and punishes them.
   
3. Law is created because of criminal actions.
   
4. Member proposes new law with zero consideration to the impact of the livelihoods, nor operational feasibility to implement said law. (How much will this cost? They don't care "Cost to secure, or prohibitive, not my problem.")
5. Oh it will put you out of business? Ruin your livelihood? You have to lay some people off to afford implementing it? They don't care.
6. How many FFLs will close down? They don't care.
7. How much harder will it be for people to obtain firearms to defend themselves. They don't care.

I'd say they are the one being divisive and yeah, if that's how they think, I know them from Adam.

I know enough to know their politics and if that's not clear, I know enough to know they don't have the ability to rationally or logically think through their statements.

I know that their first instinct is to punish the victim ("I've said it for decades.") and they don't care what the impact is of their proposal, it's not their problem.

But if you somehow see it the other way, feel free to point out where I misquoted or am somehow wrong with my conclusion. I'm not unwilling to listen, but I also have no problem telling people that think like the above why they are wrong, and that they can go pound sand.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Punish the thieving criminal, not the business owner.

Pretty simple, effective idea.

Bring back the 'Guillotine' and use it!

 

[2A2Dend]

Intermission

Some here seem to enjoy taking things way out of context. Have at it.

Where I was going with my previous (two post back) comment, was some form of security guide-line.
The ATF supposedly has certain requirements that need adhered to for a gun shop. Cameras, bars over windows/doors, etc.
With all the thieves breaking into the shops, and getting away with it, that puts firearms into the hands of the no good.
The methods of security and other deterrents are lacking.
Short of "catching and hanging the thieves" for the crime, maybe they need to re-think, come up with a better approach.
Surely I'm not the only person to think there has to be a better way.

The link I posted in reference to where the guns go, don't analyze the story and who wrote it. The article is long winded, full of drama and fluff, but if you take the time to get through it all, it tells a story making complete sense from conception.

FYI, no, I'm not a conservative
FYI, no, I'm not anti-2A
FYI, no, I'm not a leftist

I'm out

 

[Dwesson]

Intermission

Some here seem to enjoy taking things way out of context. Have at it.

If you think me, or anyone else took your words out of context, I'm more than happy to correct my statements.

Where I was going with my previous (two post back) comment, was some form of security guide-line.
The ATF supposedly has certain requirements that need adhered to for a gun shop. Cameras, bars over windows/doors, etc.

There's not a supposedly, they have requirements.

With all the thieves breaking into the shops, and getting away with it, that puts firearms into the hands of the no good.
The methods of security and other deterrents are lacking.
Short of "catching and hanging the thieves" for the crime, maybe they need to re-think, come up with a better approach.
Surely I'm not the only person to think there has to be a better way.

Your proposal lacked any thought to implementation costs, logistics or ramifications. It was a knee-jerk reaction to "here's a problem, I have a solution" and when people pointed out the issues (you're punishing the business owners, the cost to implement your proposal was unrealistic, and that it may not even be feasible logistically, the guy stole a front loader to break in!) your response was "not my problem".

The link I posted in reference to where the guns go, don't analyze the story and who wrote it. The article is long winded, full of drama and fluff, but if you take the time to get through it all, it tells a story making complete sense from conception.

You posted a story that has a lot of straight up factual errors in it, is written with an obvious biased agenda who's authors want to limit access to firearms. Which is exactly what driving a lot of FFLs out of business would do.

Firearms are stolen because they are easily fungible for cash, the same as drugs, jewelry, tools, and iPads. Yeah a lot of stolen guns are sold to gang members because guess who doesn't care if the gun they are buying is stolen?

FYI, no, I'm not a conservative <---That's apparent, obviously not a libertarian either....

FYI, no, I'm not anti-2A <-- Your proposal would drive FFLs out of business, ruining livelihoods and laying off a fair amount of people as well as limit access to firearms. Additionally it would drive up the cost of firearms themselves as the FFLs would be forced to raise prices to pay to retrofit your "bury a barrel solution". Maybe you have a proposal that doesn't do that? Maybe you have a way to pay for it that doesn't bend over the small business owner and make guns cost prohibitive for people to purchase them?

FYI, no, I'm not a leftist <--- Proposes legislation that hurts small businesses, and decreases access to firearms, fails to address logical and factual inconsistencies with their argument...

I'm out

 

[DB is Here]

Short Version:
1) Physical barriers will be compromised...

Now what? (Spend more money?)...See #1.

Low Cost Solution:
Death penalty or life imprisonment for those that steal or straw man purchase guns.

 

[11Charlie]

Rule 1 be excellent to each other!!

different people have different views that doesn't make them wrong or you right. Period! Lets keep this civil and remember that we are all here for the same cause.

 

[Dwesson]

Rule 1 be excellent to each other!!

different people have different views that doesn't make them wrong or you right. Period! Lets keep this civil and remember that we are all here for the same cause.

I'm at a loss here. Are we not allowed to civilly call out illogical statements, ask for clarification, point out deficiencies? No one is name calling.

This is a pro-gun board, is it not? When someone suggests something that could demonstrably hurt access to firearms, don't we have a duty to highlight that?

 

[DB is Here]

Some here seem to enjoy taking things way out of context. Have at it.

Where I was going with my previous (two post back) comment, was some form of security guide-line.
The ATF supposedly has certain requirements that need adhered to for a gun shop. Cameras, bars over windows/doors, etc.
With all the thieves breaking into the shops, and getting away with it, that puts firearms into the hands of the no good.
The methods of security and other deterrents are lacking.
Short of "catching and hanging the thieves" for the crime, maybe they need to re-think, come up with a better approach.
Surely I'm not the only person to think there has to be a better way.

The link I posted in reference to where the guns go, don't analyze the story and who wrote it. The article is long winded, full of drama and fluff, but if you take the time to get through it all, it tells a story making complete sense from conception.

FYI, no, I'm not a conservative
FYI, no, I'm not anti-2A
FYI, no, I'm not a leftist

For the record, while I disagree with your solution to this issue, I'm thankful that you listen & debate others w/o getting your nose bent out of shape...I respect that.

 

[11Charlie]

I'm at a loss here. Are we not allowed to civilly call out illogical statements, ask for clarification, point out deficiencies? No one is name calling.

This is a pro-gun board, is it not? When someone suggests something that could demonstrably hurt access to firearms, don't we have a duty to highlight that?

Absolutely and I didn't name you or any other member by name. Just want us all to remember that we are here to help each other learn and do it in a positive manner.