The Hammond News reports on the incredibly fast recovery the owners of the Hammond Gun Shop made after a traumatic break-in. Just one day later, Deb Gales, the owner of the family owned business is open for business.
It seems on one, not the police, not the ATF, and certainly not Debbie herself, have any concept of shared responsibility. Whenever guns are stolen, the focus needs to be placed on the "victim" of the theft. The thieves are already gone, the horse is already out of the barn, so to speak, what needs to be determined is how responsible were the precautions taken to prevent the theft and how properly were the guns stored.Burglars forced their way into the store about 4 a.m. Thursday in the 6800 block of Kennedy Avenue and stole 28 handguns. Officials at first believed 33 guns were stolen.
"They took out the whole front door," Gales said. "They smashed all our cases."
David Coulson, a senior special agent and ATF public information officer, said the federal agency has seen many stolen guns over the years end up in the hands of gang members and drug traffickers.
"It breaks my heart to know there are guns on the street that came from my store," said Gales, who has owned the business since 1993. "I've never had that before in all these years."
Guns stored in a glass display cases during the night are not responsibly secured. Jewelry stores and banks don't leave their valuable property in easily accessible places, neither should gun shops.
Video surveillance and other alarm systems need to be state-of-the-art. No one should be able to approach the front door of a gun shop at 4:00 a.m. without being immediately detected and captured on video.
But for all these mistakes and omissions all we get is that it breaks the heart of the owner, not enough to miss a day's business, mind you, and certainly not enough to invest in the proper and responsible measures to ensure no repeat performance, but she felt really badly. I guess that's something.
What's your opinion?
Well, if shedabeenthere with her Lady Glock or whatever fashionably accessorized inanimate object she had stuffed in her fannypack sheda whacked teh perps and shut up, that's why!
ReplyDeleteLet's see: front door taken out, cases smashed--and who did this? Oh, yes, burglars. Who's responsible? Anyone but, according to you. Again, we have demands on gun owners and sellers that would have the effect of eliminating private ownership, even though you tell us that that isn't your goal. Given the overhead of a small business, the shop owner may have all the security systems that she can afford. What you're asking for might drive her out of business. Would anyone here feel sorry for her in that case?
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDeleteAll of your complaints are noted, as if they fucking matter.
She's been in business for almost twenty years. For whatever reason she hadn't been burgled before. Her reaction to being burgled is to reopen for business the next day without anymore safeguards than she had before? I wonder if they stole any money, or did she make sure that her money was all someplace safe, like a safe?
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteLet's see: front door taken out, cases smashed--and who did this? Oh, yes, burglars. Who's responsible? Anyone but, according to you. Again, we have demands on gun owners and sellers that would have the effect of eliminating private ownership,
GC, what appalling codswollap, what colossal stinking pile of fresh bullshit.
The gun sellers I respect don't have doors that can be simply smashed in. They have bars across the windows as well, and security systems, including cameras, motion detectors, and really really loud alarms.
We require dangerous pharmaceuticals to be locked up. We should require the same of anyone who retails dangerous weapons, that those weapons, BECAUSE THEY ARE WEAPONS WHICH HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF USE THAN SAY ASPIRIN OR TEA SPOONS, be secured. Lots of businesses have higher levels of security than others, depending on what the business does.
It does not stop them from BEING IN BUSINESS, and it does not make the cost to their clients or patrons be prohibitive.
What we have here is a situation where the costs of those firearms being in the hands of criminals is passed on to the rest of us in society in the form of theft, injuries and death, etc.
That cost of greater security properly belongs with this business as one of their operating costs. And if they can't manage it then the invisible hand of the marketplace should see them out of business, and it should be sold to someone who can succeed through competition etc.
What we should not be doing is subsidizing guys like YOU Greg by allowing people to operate more cheaply so as to sell more guns to gun lunatics, while we pick up the cost, as a larger society, of your wanting - WANTING NOT NEEDING - to have your fetish phallic symbol.
Anything which makes it take longer and have a higher level of difficulty and a greater level of risk of being injured or caught reduces guns getting into the hands of criminals.
Don't give me boo hoo hoo you're being mean to the gun owner or the gun store retail owner. We ALSO hold the criminal accountable for THEIR actions. It is not an Either /or situation, we can and must hold ALL parties who make decisions that can result in guns on the streets in the hands of criminals BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT PREVENTING THAT FROM OCCURRING.
Once again that you, Greg, would promote it as such underlines and emphasizes your failures at critical thinking and your poor judgment that makes us here question your thought processes as a gun owner and a person who carries one.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour comment about my critical thinking skills means nothing more than, "I disagree with you." You don't have to add that, as I already know that we don't agree.
Greg Camp seriously believes he is "arguing" the merits of his case when he makes incredibly stupid, repetitively incredibly stupid comments and people tell him he's a fucking moron--and sometimes point out why. You're not arguing, Greg, you're whining.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeleteFor sake of clarification, distinguish between whining and arguing.
Whenever a gun shop is broken into it needs to be shut down pending a thorough investigation to determine if every possible precaution had been made to prevent the theft.
ReplyDeleteIf they're found lacking in something, depending on how grave the omission is, the closure should be continued until the improvements are made, in the very least.
Criminal negligence should be considered.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteArguing is what dog gone, Laci The Dog, Mikeb302000, JadeGold and maybe one of the gunzloonz who comments here do. Whiningville, poulation: Greg Camp.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteShould a convenience store be shut down if a band of teenagers break in to steal beer? Quit blaming the wrong people.
Democommie,
Your answer is exactly what I expected you to say, and it's a perfect example of why my side will fight you now and forever.
Greg wrote another one of his stupid false analogies that demonstrate his inability to use critical thinking:
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
Should a convenience store be shut down if a band of teenagers break in to steal beer? Quit blaming the wrong people.
Yes, Greg, just as soon as someone points a beer at another human being and successfully robs them, or kills someone by shaking it so hard the bottle cap flies off and hits them passing through their skull into their brain, or commits multiple murders by popping the little pull tab on the top of a can, spraying them with beer foam instead of bullets.
Beer is a controlled substance in terms of the age required to legally purchase it, and its use can have some bad outcomes including abuse, but - now pay attention to this point, since you missed it in forming your argument - BEER IS NOT A LETHAL WEAPON,THEREFORE, IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO SECURE IT IN THE SAME WAY WE REGULATE AND REQUIRE SECURITY FOR FIREARMS.
Seriously Greg, the arguments you make wouldn't pass muster in a fourth grade class discussion where I went to school; how do you justify teaching anyone above say, third grade? Are the standards in Arkansas now as low as say the state of Mississippi or Texas?
Are you really that intellectually dishonest? Your reasoning is SO POOR that you should feel shame and embarrassment for posing that notion.
If this is your idea of how someone who has a college education applies logic and critical thinking - and most of all, intellectual honesty - it doesn't surprise me that your concealed carry class was so extraordinarily poor as well. The educational level must be abysmally low in your part of the nation.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThere are significant parallels in what I asked. Beer is illegal for minors; guns are illegal for them and for felons and the mentally ill as well. Beer, when misused, causes people to do dangerous things; guns, when misused, makes dangerous behavior more dangerous. Beer, when misused, can kill; guns, when misused, can kill. Beer is regulated to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction; guns are regulated to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction. Both things can be used responsibly, but neither can be so used by thieves.
There is a lot that alcohol and guns have in common, and I'm not being intellectually dishonest, nor am I using bad reasoning to point those shared characteristics out.
"Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYour answer is exactly what I expected you to say, and it's a perfect example of why my side will fight you now and forever.
December 19, 2011 4:57 PM"
Greg Camp:
I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that, if you haven't got the gun you aren't going to "fight" anyone. Your whole, "manning the ramparts for gunzfreedom" is pretty fucking pathetic.
"There is a lot that alcohol and guns have in common, and I'm not being intellectually dishonest, nor am I using bad reasoning to point those shared characteristics out."
dog gone, I think that Greg Camp may be onto something. Why, just recently I read a story about a child who accidentally killed one of his siblings with a loaded beer--oh, I'm sorry that was a LOADED GUN. Well shit they look so much alike. But, anyway, there was a post here just a week or so back about a woman who got pissed at her ex-boyfriend and so she shot him and then killed four kids and herself with a bottle of merlot--damn, that's not right, it was another gun, sonofabitch.
Hey, I have to go to my jacknannythug meeting about confiscatin' everbuddies' gunz, so I don't got no more time. I'm sure that Greg Camp can provide numerous instances where "Booze didn't kill people, but drunk people with boozed killed people!".
Democommie,
ReplyDeletePay attention:
DRUNK DRIVERS!
Got it?
When I visit my neighborhood convenience store and buy a pop, it takes about 5 minutes and I'm on camera the whole time. Some stores have bars on the doors and locks. It's sad that many gun stores take only the same amount of time to purchase, say, an AR-15 (including background check, in Oregon), and have no more security than the Quick-E-Mart. There is no requirement I am aware of that they actually have bars on the windows, alarm system, a camera, or even any particular door locks. Such precautions would make too much sense, and I assume the gunloons would argue that it is offensive to their sense of "liberty" for such things to be mandated for a store selling lethal weapons.
ReplyDeleteYes, the thieves are to be held responsible for their actions, but gun store owners should be required to take such precautions, for the good of the safety of their community.
Greg:
ReplyDeleteDrunk drivers, drunk driving laws, automobile drivers insurance, a whole lotta drivers getting sued into bankruptcy of ACCIDENTALLY killing someone when they were drunk or sober, hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the beverage alcohol industry to remind people not to drive when they're drunk.
Now, otoh, there's assholez wit teh gunz....
Baldr's right. The thieves are responsible for breaking in and robbing. The store owner is responsible for having made that too easy. Both are 100% responsible for their respective crimes.
ReplyDelete