Tulsa gun shop broken into overnight

[NikatKimber]

Some of this is simply common sense ....... has nothing to do with the 2nd ammendmant

Very little of your argument is common sense. Unless you're talking the same thing as liberal "common sense" gun laws.

To restate the facts of this case:

Store was locked.
Back room was locked.
Guns were in back room.

Bad guys stole SUV (felony - grand theft auto)
Broke and entered store (felony)
Stole multiple thousands of inventory (grand theft - another felony)

They drove said SUV through two walls (the correct two walls to gain access), which means they KNEW what they had to do to access the guns. What makes you think that if they had been in a safe they wouldn't have brought a torch?!?!?

They did NOT leave guns in plain view behind an unlocked door; which some of your statements seem to be implying this was analogous to.

NEXT:

As a private citizen owning a gun, do I have a legal responsibility to secure my firearms? No.

Do I have an ethical duty to secure them? I would say yes.

What/who defines "secure" is the question. It has not been legally defined (there's no legal duty to do so, so I don't expect it to be defined). And you have no legal OR ethical authority with which you can claim to define it for me.

So, if you think "secure" means inside a safe, inside a vault, inside a dungeon, inside a castle, inside a moat, with a drawbridge; then by all means, do so. But that does NOT make it required for me or anyone else.

Calling your definition "common sense" is no more reasonable than calling assault weapons bans "common sense" or standard capacity mag bans "common sense". In fact, it is precisely the exact same argument made by liberal gun-grabbers. You have literally made "it's for the children" and "but my definition is common sense" your argument in this thread.

In short, inside a locked house IS a valid definition of "secure" in this context. Maybe that doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, but that's not my concern.

 

[Shadowrider]

Ther are many laws in many states dealing with negligent storage of firearms. Most of which are centered around protecting minors from accessing said firearms but it’s not a stretch to start looking at gun owners as negligent for just leaving them unsecured in a closet at home.

No it’s not a stretch, but it’s wrong. I’m not going to play the victim game with the gun grabbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[emapples]

"If she hadn't dressed that way, she wouldn't have gotten hersel raped. "

What a strange world you live in.

You sure mention the raping women thing a lot ??? And all this time I thought you were more likely to rape men ......

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

You sure mention the raping women thing a lot ??? And all this time I thought you were more likely to rape men ......

Just parroting you.

 

[emapples]

Very little of your argument is common sense. Unless you're talking the same thing as liberal "common sense" gun laws.

To restate the facts of this case:

Store was locked.
Back room was locked.
Guns were in back room.

Bad guys stole SUV (felony - grand theft auto)
Broke and entered store (felony)
Stole multiple thousands of inventory (grand theft - another felony)

They drove said SUV through two walls (the correct two walls to gain access), which means they KNEW what they had to do to access the guns. What makes you think that if they had been in a safe they wouldn't have brought a torch?!?!?

They did NOT leave guns in plain view behind an unlocked door; which some of your statements seem to be implying this was analogous to.

NEXT:

As a private citizen owning a gun, do I have a legal responsibility to secure my firearms? No.

Do I have an ethical duty to secure them? I would say yes.

What/who defines "secure" is the question. It has not been legally defined (there's no legal duty to do so, so I don't expect it to be defined). And you have no legal OR ethical authority with which you can claim to define it for me.

So, if you think "secure" means inside a safe, inside a vault, inside a dungeon, inside a castle, inside a moat, with a drawbridge; then by all means, do so. But that does NOT make it required for me or anyone else.

Calling your definition "common sense" is no more reasonable than calling assault weapons bans "common sense" or standard capacity mag bans "common sense". In fact, it is precisely the exact same argument made by liberal gun-grabbers. You have literally made "it's for the children" and "but my definition is common sense" your argument in this thread.

In short, inside a locked house IS a valid definition of "secure" in this context. Maybe that doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, but that's not my concern.

Would those weapons be gone if they we stored in the safe, likely not. Safes take more time and allow LEO’s a chance to respond to the alarm before the the thieves make it out with the loot. Sorry you ladies are so butt hurt with this opinion......nah that’s a lie I don’t care if you are butthurt ....don’t care one damn bit

 

[emapples]

Just parroting you.

You didn’t answer my question ......If I brought a weapon in for work or repair would my weapon be stored in a safe when nobody was in the shop? Or would it sit out on a bench someplace ?

 

[NikatKimber]

Would those weapons be gone if they we stored in the safe, likely not. Safes take more time and allow LEO’s a chance to respond to the alarm before the the thieves make it out with the loot. Sorry you ladies are so butt hurt with this opinion......nah that’s a lie I don’t care if you are butthurt ....don’t care one damn bit

I'm not butthurt. Just clarifying for posterity, everything you have been posting is your opinion.

Could they have been *more* secure? Yes. No one is arguing that. The argument here is that there is no legal duty to make it impossible to steal gun shop inventory. Because that would be impossible. Also, any regulation requiring extreme security would be an easy way to eliminate all gun shops. Just require $500,000 worth of secure vault and bam! no more gun dealers.

It's asinine to imply that this gun shop is somehow responsible for a criminals' actions and commission of multiple felonies, and that they had not made good faith effort to secure their inventory.

The criminals did criminal things so they could do more criminal things. The law abiding citizen bears 0.00000000000000000000% responsibility in that.

 

[NikatKimber]

You didn’t answer my question ......If I brought a weapon in for work or repair would my weapon be stored in a safe when nobody was in the shop? Or would it sit out on a bench someplace ?

You are being unreasonable; completely nonsensical. The guns WERE NOT left out on a bench.

They were locked up, inside a locked store; and out of view.

Second, storing a customers item securely has nothing to do with it being a firearm. That has to do with protecting a customers assets and insurance. I would expect no different from a gunsmith than I would a jeweler.

 

[emapples]

I'm not butthurt. Just clarifying for posterity, everything you have been posting is your opinion.

Could they have been *more* secure? Yes. No one is arguing that. The argument here is that there is no legal duty to make it impossible to steal gun shop inventory. Because that would be impossible. Also, any regulation requiring extreme security would be an easy way to eliminate all gun shops. Just require $500,000 worth of secure vault and bam! no more gun dealers.

It's asinine to imply that this gun shop is somehow responsible for a criminals' actions and commission of multiple felonies, and that they had not made good faith effort to secure their inventory.

The criminals did criminal things so they could do more criminal things. The law abiding citizen bears 0.00000000000000000000% responsibility in that.

I am not saying they bear any legal responsibility, just some common sense responsibility .....a 1000.00 dollar safe and 15 bucks in bolts could have secured those 10 weapons and made them much more difficult to thrive .....the place is in a strip mall if memory serves .....

 

[Shadowrider]

I am not saying they bear any legal responsibility, just some common sense responsibility .....a 1000.00 dollar safe and 15 bucks in bolts could have secured those 10 weapons and made them much more difficult to thrive .....the place is in a strip mall if memory serves .....

So would you support a statute requiring specific security measures?