Friday, May 20, 2011
Louisville Police Recover Stolen Guns
Although driving a car through the front of the building is certainly dramatic and probably cannot be adequately defended against, why the hell are the guns not locked in a safe? Do safe storage laws not apply to gun shops? Wouldn't that be the proper defense against theft?
I know, the inventory is too big. It won't all fit into a safe. Well that certainly is a terrible dilemma for the greedy store owner to grapple with. How about if safe storage laws apply and the shop simply cannot stock more than can be safely stored? Is that so difficult?
Whether the thieves simply climb in the back window which is too accessible or crash through the front of the building with a car, it is the gun shop owner's responsibility to not leave the guns lying around. If it's good enough for banks and jewelry stores, it's good enough for gun shops.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
MikeB: “Well that certainly is a terrible dilemma for the greedy store owner to grapple with. How about if safe storage laws apply and the shop simply cannot stock more than can be safely stored? Is that so difficult?”
ReplyDeleteImagine the greed of those gun shop owners- wanting to keep enough inventory to stay in business… But you can blame the ATF for pulling all the licenses from those “kitchen table dealers” who had inventories small enough to keep in a safe.
MikeB: “Do safe storage laws not apply to gun shops?”
What safe storage laws are you talking about, Mike? I don’t think there are any state laws aimed against theft- they are all geared towards child access. You can satisfy child access laws by storing guns in a locked travel case, which ironically facilitates theft by providing a nice convenient carry handle. Would you really feel better if that Louisville gun shop had trigger locks on all their guns?
I don’t think you’ve thought through the consequences of all gun shops having bank vaults. More daytime armed robberies, more shootouts, more DGUs, more bodies.
The premise that guns are weapons, potentially dangerous / lethal should be a sufficient basis for laws mandating safer storage and security.
ReplyDeleteWhat form this should take --should it be in the form of vaults, or a live security guard, or some other method or a combination of them should be up for discussion, and might most appropriately vary from store owner to store owner.
I tend to favor some combination of mandated greater security with say...some form of posted bond which benefits the victim of gun violence, particularly those where a gun stolen from a gun seller is established as the weapon involved.
Currently there is relatively little incentive for a gun store owner if they are insured against theft and damage to increase security other than what satisfies their insurer. They would be compensated for any losses, while having zero responsibility for the damages to other people that are caused by lax, or at least lesser quality security by the gun seller.
That idea would benefit everyone involved - the seller (who should reasaonably be able to seek an offset to costs by demanding lower business and property insurance rates); law enforcement which would benefit from less crime if theft were discouraged by gun stores being more difficult to rob; and the community which would benefit from having some compensation from posted bonds for gun violence victims as well as ideally less gun violence in their midst. No gun theft - the store owner keeps their money, even if it might not be readily accessible to them for other purposes while posted for store security.
We may not be able to eliminate all gun store theft, but I would aruge that we should try to find productie, constructive ways to make such thefts as rare as possible. We all have a vested interest in keeping guns out of the wrong hands - like criminals possesion.
Dog gone: “That idea would benefit everyone involved”
ReplyDeleteExcept for the person who wants to buy a gun who has to pay for the extra cost to the few gun shops that can remain in business after adding these undue burdens.
You act as if though FFLs could care less if their inventory is stolen. That is ridiculous. Every gun shop I have ever been in has security measures such as bars on the window, cameras, “buzz in” front doors, and alarm systems. How about having an alarm? Does that satisfy your requirement? Gun Control tells us that we are supposed to call 911 rather than take responsibility for our safety, so what is wrong with an automated system that alerts the cops to come bust the thieves?
I don't see FFLs as having any interest whatsoever in the costs of harm done if their inventory is stolen and used on a third party, NO.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a higher cost to gun owners - which there might not be, as the idea I posited could result in lower costs for example for insurance offsetting other costs that kept guns safer from theft - then that is shifting the costs of doing business to where they belong.
The current practice can have the gun shop owner reimbursed for theft of his inventory by insurance, while the victim who is shot by one of those stolen weapons has to bear the costs of his or her injury. A cost which should be the responsibility of the person making the profit from the sale, for not adequately keeping that inventory out of the hands of criminals.
Guns are not a necessity; there is no justification for keeping them as cheap as possible or as available as possible at the expense of people who are victimized by them being used.
There is a very real cost to society generally - lie the community law enforcement; and to other individuals such as community residents who are threatened or shot with these stolen weapons. Those costs quite appropriately belong with the person selling the guns and making a profit from those sales.
Come on TS, aren't you in all in favor of the invisible hand of the free market working? That only happens when all costs are properly allocated to the appropriate people - in this case, the seller, and the buyer.
Do you have any word about Safe Car Storage laws that can prevent the car from being stolen that was used to facilitate the stealing of the guns? Should the owner of that car pay restitution to the victims of gun violence?
ReplyDeleteAgain, the store owner had an alarm and camera system that ultimately caught the suspects and recovered the merchandise.
Dog gone: “Guns are not a necessity; there is no justification for keeping them as cheap as possible or as available as possible at the expense of people who are victimized by them being used.”
We disagree. Your proposal, as well as many other proposals by gun control, is aimed at increasing the cost beyond the normal market at the expense of the safety of the poor.
Not at all TS. Safe Car storage is built into the costs of cars, including the costs of their insurance. Further, unlike guns, there are insurance provisions REQUIRED for car ownership that address the issue of individuals who are in jured if a car is stolen, which would be similar to what I propose for guns.
ReplyDeleteIf all the merchandise was not recovered, and the unrecovered guns were used to commit a crime, particularly a crime against a person ---- is tha ok with you TS?
I am arguing TS, that guns belong in a very different category from necessities; they belong in the category more along the lines of things like...alcohol, and tabacco.
As to the SAFETY of the poor? You have yet to make a conincing argument that is not clearly refuted worldwide that the poor are ever safer with more guns in their environment than less.
If guns would make poor areas safer, do you support the government handing them out, along wit ammo, to everyone in poor areas? Or are you enough of a realist to acknowledge that would make life worse, not better?
You utterly fail to address the proper allocations of expesne in the context of free market philosophy TS, one where the expense of a product remains with either the manufacturer, seller, or in some cases, buyer, and are not shifted to involuntary third parties (the victims).
Storage requirements for gunstores are usually dictated by the local government via zoning requirements. Insurance policy also incent security measures by offering lower rates if they are. The result is that most stores either have armored entry points and monitoring equiptment (as this one did) or they do lock the inventory in a strong room after hours.
ReplyDeleteAs for downstream liability to the store owner from missuse of stolen weapons, chain of responsibility (in tort law) breaks at the point a felony is committed. Which is as it should be. Honest people aren't responsible for the actions of criminals.
Honest people who don't prevent criminals from using their weapons to hurt others SHOULD be responsible, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this discussion is that we should make a much higher standard of security the norm for weapons, and a much higher level of liability for those who do not prevent their firearms from falling into the hands of criminals. If your negligence, carelessness, failure to secure your weapon enables someone to harm another with YOUR weapon, you should share in the liability for that happening.
I disagree. The responsibility lies completely on the thief. Trying to blaim the victim of the theft is both pointless and crass (she was asking for it). I agree that it is in our best interest to discourage the missuse of weapons but blaiming the guy who had his property stolen from behind locked doors and barred windows rather than the person who was willing to drive a vehicle through a wall to get it is silly.
ReplyDeleteBesides, storage standards are dictated by the local community through zoning regulations. If you believe they should be tighter make your case to your city council (or run yourself).
Anonymous, responsibility does not lie only with the thief if there was more that should have been done.
ReplyDeleteI am not so much arguing the specifics of this incident, as for a greater recognition that guns are not simple property (like say, clothing) but rather a category of property that lends itself to greater harm to others - such as alcohol affecting driving, as an example, or a swimming pool being an attractive nuisance - where greater protections and restrictions should be required than for less potentially harmful items.
I'm not suggesting that anyone is 'asking for it', but rather that the nature of the items - firearms - as a class of property is more likely to be targeted for theft, and more likely to be used for harm or be dangerous to others when it is stolen.
I think you make a particularly interesting point about local control.
I would counter that point with the argument that given how widely stolen guns are routinely transported for illegal sale and harmful use elsewhere, a broader authority, either state and/or federal, is justified.
If BOTH the thefts and the subsequent harm to others more usually remained strictly local, I think you would have a point. But it does not.
Dog Gone - are you suggesting that people who sell alcohol should also be responsible if their store is broken into and the thief kills someone while driving drunk?
ReplyDeleteAre pool owners responsible for people climbing their fence and drowning in their pool?
Should they put all of these into some sort of secured vault to remove their liability? How do you put a pool into a vault anyway?
You mention the costs should not be "shifted to involuntary third parties (the victims)." I would say the victim of the theft was an involuntary party to this crime and should not be hekd accountable for the criminal activities of another.
"Safe Car storage is built into the costs of cars, including the costs of their insurance."
How do you figure that? Is my insurance going to pay a third party that is killed if my car was stolen and used to kill someone? I seriuously doubt it. I would not be accountable for the actions of the criminal who stole my car.
Comparisons to alcohol and to cars are just silly. We're talking about guns.
ReplyDeleteI say again, if it's good enough for banks and jewelry stores, it's good enough for gun shops.
TS, maybe all the gun shops you've been in have proper security measures, but we've seen plenty in the news that havn't. This case in Louisville, as you pointed out did have the cameras and all that good shit, but for me that's not enough.
I don't know if I believe that safe storage laws are only about child access. I think they must be about both that and theft. And to demand that people properly protect agaist theft is not to "blame the victim." As I've said before, the thief is totally responsible for having stolen, but the gun owner is totally responsible for not storing the guns properly and making the theft easy.
Jim said: "How do you figure that? Is my insurance going to pay a third party that is killed if my car was stolen and used to kill someone? I seriuously doubt it. I would not be accountable for the actions of the criminal who stole my car."
ReplyDeleteRead your policy Jim; contact your insurance agent, or your state's insurance commissioner. Or you can take my word for it; I worked in the executive section of the Home Office Claims division of one of the largest insurance companies in the U.S., a multinational headquartered in MN.
Absolutely if a thief steals your car and harms someone with it, that person will be compensated by your insurance. The car AND the driver are insured for injury to someone else, under pretty much every auto liability policy under every state in the U.S. In most places it is required by law; in all places it is a good idea.
It is common elsewhere in the world as well.
And the reason that became the law is that there were enough cases where someone was injured by stolen cars that insurance was developed to cover the damage done by cars, period. No-fault, uninsured, underinsured liability coverage - all developed also to cover the damage done by cars regardless of theft, etc.
My parents built an inground pool when I was five. I thought it was unfair at the time that the law AND their insurance policy REQUIRED them to also build a fence, and keep it locked. Locking and unlocking that damn gate was a real hassle. And yes, even with the fence, there was still liability if someone (especially kids) climbed the fence and drowned; it was just someone more mitigated/limited liability because it was an attractive nuisance - a temptation and a danger or hazard above the usual things in homes without pools. I suggest you might want to read up on that kind of hazard / risk and insurance.
Jim also wrote: "are you suggesting that people who sell alcohol should also be responsible if their store is broken into and the thief kills someone while driving drunk?"
No. Although as a practical matter, such retail outlets usually DO have stricter requirements for security, both in terms of what their insurer requires and what municipalities require to license them. I'm arguing that like alcohol, which can impair people, there are special risks associated with alcohol as a product, just as there are special risks associated with weapons - more so guns than some others - which qualify as a category with more requirements and restrictions, including storage, than other products do.
I thought that was obvious, but apparently not, so thank you for seeking the clarification.
Btw, Jim, there are lots of kinds of coverage that your insurance policy probably provides you - I don't know which state you live in so it would be difficult for me to be more specific.
ReplyDeleteBut you can be a PEDESTRIAN, walking down the street or sidewalk, and if you get hit by a car, even if your car is miles away, you have coverage under your policy for damage caused to you by another vehicle.
Insurance is interesting, complex, and exists in part on the premise that it is important to mitigate certain kinds of damage. Important specifically to the individual harmed, but also that it is equally important to not have damaged and uncompensated people in a community because it harms that community as well, impairing the ability to function - labor force, businesses, the larger economic stability is harmed, in some cases crippled, by such losses if there is not some mechanism to minimize it.
It would be perfectly logical to extend that to apply to damages and losses to people from guns. It is part of why schools, especially universities, have opposed legislation which would make it legal to have guns on campus; they don't really care either way I suspect about guns. But the insurance costs to those educational institutions went through the roof, and the couldn't get policies without that coverage - appropriately so.
MikeB: “I don't know if I believe that safe storage laws are only about child access. I think they must be about both that and theft.”
ReplyDeleteThe California safe storage laws have no provisions for theft prevention. NJ is very similar. As an example, a trigger lock satisfies the safe storage laws, but obviously isn’t the slightest deterrent to prevent the gun from being stolen. Also, putting a lock on the original case that a handgun came in also satisfies the law, and clearly a thief can just walk away with the whole thing.
I should also note that the provisions are not mandatory requirements of storage. Rather they provide a means of criminal prosecution if a child (not a thief) gains access to the gun. You can not get in trouble for having a loaded gun sitting on the end table so long as it just sits there. The requirements are only that a trigger lock be sold with the gun, or that can be waived if you document that you have a lockbox/safe.
So those are the two strictest states in the union. You have to look to Australia to find the type of laws you are thinking of.
MikeB: “This case in Louisville, as you pointed out did have the cameras and all that good shit, but for me that's not enough.”
I fear it will never be good enough for you. Like I said, Australia has laws requiring guns to be stored in safes, so now they just ask for more:
If guns are to be permitted in homes then we believe that all gun owners should be required to have a specially built gun-room within their homes. Such a room should have no windows and a double-locked steel door to contain improved gun safes and warning devices. Any gun owner found to have not complied with storage laws should lose their guns for at least a ten year period.
I don’t have time right now to look up the actual text of DC and Chicago’s storage laws, but I believe even those could also be met with trigger locks and portable lockboxes. The draconian part comes in because you were forced by law to store them that way regardless of whether you have children in the house, which makes them unavailable for self defense. You couldn’t even keep it loaded in a quick release strong box.
ReplyDeleteTS, Thanks for the lesson on what safe storage laws really mean. You're right, I think we need something more.
ReplyDelete