The Gorilla the antis haven't identified (yet)

[A.J. Holst]

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

Bad guys are getting relatively few guns through straw purchases, dishonest FFLs, LGS smash and grab, and even .gov sponsored programs like fast and furious.

The source is the estimated 200,000 stolen annually through burglary and property crime. That estimate is for reported theft...

I have an alarm and alarm dog, safe neighborhood.

I need to rethink gun storage.

They are all safe and concealed (for my residence  - only two of us) but they are not secure from someone opening a drawer or three and having easy access.

I foresee the antis rallying around the secure gun storage issue to place a huge burden of liability to dissuade new, reduce existing, and ultimately remove firearms.

Certifications of an approved and properly installed safe, additional locks on the firearm, illegal to store a loaded firearm, etc, etc, etc. We are seeing some of this already, if the have a Cause backed with real data, "common-sense" legislation can be enacted.

[Smith]

If you accept that premise, you've already accepted liberal ideology gun control and the end will always be the same.

[1fast4by]

...that would be a sneaky way to create a gun registry huh?

[Danger Rane]

The gun stores with nothing but glass storefronts getting hit and loosing 20-30 guns at a time doesn't help the situation you are describing. I actually wouldn't mind seeing some regulation requiring better security at these places since they aren't responsible enough to enact it themselves. 

[Whisper]

8 hours ago, Danger Rane said:

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some regulation requiring better security at these places since they aren't responsible enough to enact it themselves. 

This is the same argument that leftist authoritarians use for banning firearms:  "There should more laws to make these people do what I want them to do."  Are you sure this is the kind of legal philosophy you want to advocate?

Whisper

Edited November 8, 2017 by Whisper

[Danger Rane]

13 minutes ago, Whisper said:

This is the same argument that leftist authoritarians use for banning firearms:  "There should more laws to make these people do what I want them to do."  Are you sure this is the kind of legal philosophy you want to advocate?

Whisper

What kind of legal philosophy do you recommend in this instance? The failure of some of these businesses to take responsible precautions to deter/slow down/prevent these types of thefts is just gas on the fire for the anti gun folks, it's not going to help our cause. 

[monkeylizard]

If we're going to get a free-market solution to this problem then it will be in the form of something making low security cost more than reasonable security.

Insurance policies that require reasonable and specific security measures or they won't pay for the loss might be one route. If they stop making it easy for the shops to file a claim and lose nothing but their deductible then suddenly a few $K in some security vs. losing a whole lot more in inventory sounds like a smart move to the owners.

Either that, or civil lawsuits start flowing in when the stolen firearms are used in crimes and the victims can convince a jury that the gun shop was negligent by having no more security than a donut shop. That wouldn't be hard at all and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. The cost of defending (much less losing) a suit would see most shops go under, and any other with low security making some changes toot sweet.

Edited November 8, 2017 by monkeylizard

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, Danger Rane said:

What kind of legal philosophy do you recommend in this instance? The failure of some of these businesses to take responsible precautions to deter/slow down/prevent these types of thefts is just gas on the fire for the anti gun folks, it's not going to help our cause. 

Ah, yes, "responsible precautions."  The favorite vague argument of Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and other would-be tyrants who think they know best how others should run their lives and businesses.

These businesses all have insurance, and I would let their insurance companies decide what theft prevention steps the businesses should take to qualify for policies.  Risk assessment and evaluation is what insurance companies do best.

Assuming that you have guns, let me ask this: How comfortable would you be with someone else deciding how many locks and safes and alarms you should have at your house to qualify as a responsible gun owner?

Whisper

 

[Danger Rane]

2 hours ago, Whisper said:

Ah, yes, "responsible precautions."  The favorite vague argument of Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and other would-be tyrants who think they know best how others should run their lives and businesses.

These businesses all have insurance, and I would let their insurance companies decide what theft prevention steps the businesses should take to qualify for policies.  Risk assessment and evaluation is what insurance companies do best.

Assuming that you have guns, let me ask this: How comfortable would you be with someone else deciding how many locks and safes and alarms you should have at your house to qualify as a responsible gun owner?

Whisper

 

The insurance companies will make determinations based upon financial risk, not ethics. There is much to be taken from the adage "just because we can doesn't mean we should". While I theoretically could legally leave a pistol sitting in plain view on the dash of my unattended car in a parking lot would it be considered responsible to do so in modern times?

If I still had any guns or ammo left after that tragic boating accident, no I would not want anyone dictating how I did or did not secure my personal defense tools in my own home. It is not a valid comparison of scenarios. These firearms being stolen in alarming quantities during these way too easy smash and grabs are not personal defense items at someone's home, they are inventory assets left unattended overnight at the owners place of business and they are insured to mitigate said owners financial loss. The loser in this situation is the public at large, as it's doubtful these stolen guns are going home with the thieves for personal protection or 3-gun matches.

I truelly think we are closer in opinion than you think Whisper. My concern, which goes along with the OP, is that we WILL see attempts at overreaching policy that would try to effect us in our home, because of the lack of adequate precautions by a relatively small number of businesses. You know as well as I that the anti's would not limit their gaze to the security requirements of FFLs and gun shops. In my opinion these businesses are throwing the rest of us gun owners under the bus in the political arena, and saying screw you to the safety of their local communities. 

[Whisper]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, Danger Rane said:

The insurance companies will make determinations based upon financial risk, not ethics.

Which is what I said.  No one is talking about this as an ethical issue.

On 11/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, Danger Rane said:

I would not want anyone dictating how I did or did not secure my personal defense tools in my own home. It is not a valid comparison of scenarios.

It's not a valid comparison of scenarios to you, but I'd bet that for people who want an end to private gun ownership, it's a perfectly valid comparison:  "Persons or businesses owning guns should take 'reasonable precautions' to prevent guns from being stolen, and there should be new regulations to force them to do so."

On 11/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, Danger Rane said:

The loser in this situation is the public at large, as it's doubtful these stolen guns are going home with the thieves for personal protection or 3-gun matches.

Agreed -- and this is precisely the point that gun banners will focus on when guns are stolen from any source.  They won't draw a distinction between guns being stolen from businesses or guns being stolen from a private home.  "These evil guns are being stolen because of carelessness!  We need more laws!  Punish all careless gun owners!  Do it for the chiiiiiiiildren!"

On 11/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, Danger Rane said:

You know as well as I that the anti's would not limit their gaze to the security requirements of FFLs and gun shops.

Exactly right.  We agree on this.  The antis will want to focus on all guns, whether they are owned by businesses or individuals.  But you have already said that you agree greater regulation of businesses is a fine idea -- i.e., you agree with the antis on this principle, just not in the application of the principle to individuals.  My disagreement with you is that I don't accept the principle that we need more laws regulating gun storage in businesses, and if we accept that principle, we're supporting an argument that will be turned on individual gun owners immediately afterward.

Whisper

Edited November 14, 2018 by Whisper

[n0rlf]

So how about this, If you own guns in your home/car and they are stolen and used in a crime then there are two distinct possibilities. If the gun was stolen and there were no security precautions in place then the homeowner is liable for any civil suit brought by victims. If the gun was secured then there is immunity to any civil action. The definition of security precaution would be the hard part of course. Does that mean a safe (Sand if so is therre a list of acceptable safes) or is a gun lock enough? Personally I would like to see safes wherever there are guns. Too many stupid people if nothing else but that is just my opnion.

I know a lot of folks would not like it. I am unsure what I think but I have 3 safes in my house and the only guns out are our carry weapons. So if i leave my residence my guns are secure. After all a cheap safe is not all that much. Yeah I know cheap safes will not hold up to a determined thief. It will however slow them down and keep the children out. 

Even better, how about we end all plea deals and the rotsting door at the prison. Commit a crime with a gun and you go to prison for 30 years, no pleas, no options. Shoot the gun and it is 50 years, injure or kill someone is immediate life. No pleas, no BS deals, just get rid of the criminals. There is no deterent for anyone these days. Look at all the charges that the recent shooter in Texas faced. They let him off most. And then they screwed up the reporting so 26 innocent people died.

Lots of things need to happen. Punishing the law abiding due to the criminal's actions is not one of them. 

Now, good luck getting anything done until we get rid of every career politician in Washington and at the state and local level.

[A.J. Holst]

If we as gun owners start being more diligent with securing extra firearms, it should reduce the 200,000 per annum theft rate, shows we proactively using responsible and reasonable precautions and helps take away the argument.

As I originally posted, a few of my extra  guns are not stored in my safe and secure only until a drawer is opened.

How inconvenient is it to lock up, then access the extras? Not too. Tactically sound to lock them up?  Normally have a gun on me and not likely to experience a   John Wick style home invasion requiring multiple handguns stashed in critical locations.

[krunchnik]

How about we just make it illegal to steal firearms-Oh Wait---

[m16ty]

I understand what everybody is saying, but I should be able to lay my firearms on display out on the front porch and nobody bother them. I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around how I could be responsible because some lowlife thief breaks down my door and steals my guns. 

For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored securely in the safe, but I don't really like the idea of being held to some "secure firearm" standard. 

[JayC]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:02 PM, Gotthegoods said:

If we as gun owners start being more diligent with securing extra firearms, it should reduce the 200,000 per annum theft rate, shows we proactively using responsible and reasonable precautions and helps take away the argument.

As I originally posted, a few of my extra  guns are not stored in my safe and secure only until a drawer is opened.

How inconvenient is it to lock up, then access the extras? Not too. Tactically sound to lock them up?  Normally have a gun on me and not likely to experience a   John Wick style home invasion requiring multiple handguns stashed in critical locations.

Yes because we need to pass a law to reduce the 0.0066% of firearms stolen each year.  It's a rounding error, just like the national background check system is a rounding error, which has a 80-90+% false positive rate.  

These laws don't protect people, or do anything to reduce crime....  

Stop the failed war on drugs would be the best way to reduce crime, and would save us a lot of money as well.

[battleop]

"properly installed safe"

I don't understand why people resist this little bit.   Why wouldn't you want a properly installed gun safe and keep your guns (except for your carry and self defense guns) in them?    Then for the guns you keep out of that safe why wouldn't you want some kind of secure storage for them?    I kind of like the idea of keeping my guns from being stolen so this little part of that is something I have no issues with because I'm already doing that.

[hipower]

52 minutes ago, battleop said:

"properly installed safe"

I don't understand why people resist this little bit.   Why wouldn't you want a properly installed gun safe and keep your guns (except for your carry and self defense guns) in them?    Then for the guns you keep out of that safe why wouldn't you want some kind of secure storage for them?    I kind of like the idea of keeping my guns from being stolen so this little part of that is something I have no issues with because I'm already doing that.

The issue here is really simple...who decides what is 'reasonable precautions and properly installed safe". That is the crux of the matter.

I believe we all secure our valuables in some fashion. Most here would use a safe.

But having a politician, especially a gun control liberal, dictate the method is not acceptable to me.

[2.ooohhh]

1 hour ago, battleop said:

"properly installed safe"

I don't understand why people resist this little bit.   Why wouldn't you want a properly installed gun safe and keep your guns (except for your carry and self defense guns) in them?    Then for the guns you keep out of that safe why wouldn't you want some kind of secure storage for them?    I kind of like the idea of keeping my guns from being stolen so this little part of that is something I have no issues with because I'm already doing that.

I see that you have no issues since you're already doing that. I took a different approach, and I don't want the implications of a law requiring politician defined "secure storage" of a firearm/ammo. Sure it could go the way of the airline regulations for securing a firearm in transit, but it could also swing the other way and be FAR worse. Picture the government telling you that the retired vending machine you use for storing ammunition isn't on the "approved list of storage cabinets" b/c it doesn't have an approved lock. Never-mind that the "T" handle has a grind, pick, and drill resistant high security abloy cylinder in it now.

[bersaguy]

Well back when I owned several more guns than I do at present I was concerned about securing them so I invested in a good safe for securing any guns I didn't have out for personal carry or house protection. Now I only have about 3 guns in the safe and 3 that are either every day carry or house protection and all I can say is good luck to a bad guy about finding any of them. They are not kept in a drawer but more of less in plain sight but yet are very very easy to over look. Many friends come to my home and never see them and they are all gun owners. Most all bad guys assume that valuables are always locked up or hid in drawers and they are always in a hurry to do an in and out and don't want to spend a long time looking once they realize there is a safe in the house. The assumption is most all the valuables are in the safe and they don't have time to try and get in it. Most bad guys also look for a security system. I don't have one but I do have 3 trail cameras also concealed yet in plain sight that I turn on when I am away from the house for any long period of time that do take some great pictures. No I don't have the best of anything to keep a bad guy out of my house but I do believe they will be disappointed when they leave with nothing or almost nothing. 

Edited December 7, 2017 by bersaguy