Maryland Heights Gun Theft Nets 71 Weapons

[mikeb302000]

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/10/28/reward-offered-in-gun-theft/">Local CBS reports

Maryland Heights Police Chief Tom O’Connor says Tuesday’s thefts weren’t the first at the home in the 1900 block of Rule Avenue, “7,62 military ammunition was stolen some time back from the same resident.” O’Connor says that ammunition was taken from the home’s garage about a month ago, but the theft wasn’t reported until after the guns were stolen. O’Connor says it’s possible whoever took the ammunition, came back for the guns, but that’s not been confirmed. In fact, he says, police have no suspects at this time.

The victim was a retired policeman. He failed to report the ammunition theft, which might have alerted the local authorities to the fact that his home was a known target.

I'll bet he didn't have http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/02/safe-storage.html">one of these babies either, which would have been well within the budget of the reward now being offered.

In other words, this former law enforcement officer made it easy for the theft to take place. For that he's 100% guilty and should be http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">made to pay.

What's your opinion? Do you think if a person can afford 70 guns they can afford a safe to keep them in? Sounds simple doesn't it?

Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

2. Yes, punish the victim.

Good thinking sparky.


Not.

[Remmah2]

35. Previous board discussion.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/29/local/la-me-swat-20111029


"Most of guns stolen from LAPD may have hit black market"

[iverglas]

76. was he the victim of his failure to secure his weapons???

Or hm, was that maybe society, and whoever ends up getting robbed or killed by one of the weapons in question ...

Oh, hell, yeah, he suffered a loss as a result of that decision. But nothing compared to the potential losses to other people.

In case you really aren't getting it: he is blameworthy for his actions.

C'mon now. Aren't all us firearms control advocates supposed to place our faith in the responsibleness of firearms owners? It's very, very wrong of us not to trust our fellow citizens yada yada yada ...

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Oh boy, an ammo theft.

There are well north of trillions of rounds of ammo in the US.
I'm sure the police will care if some gets stolen.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

5. What a heartbreaking loss for the owner.

Wonder how long it took to get into his safe? Basically goes to show you not even a safe makes your guns safe.

[jmg257]

6. Yes...i think he could afford a safe. I think burglars who steal should

be made to pay since they are committing the crimes. They must also face very harsh mandatory sentences.

[aikoaiko]

7. Here's a link to the article so that no one has to click on a blind link

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/10/28/reward-offered-in-gun-theft/

[aikoaiko]

8. I think blaming the victim of crime is repulsive.

I'm ashamed of you.

[SteveM]

12. Glad he wasn't raped. nt

[Hoyt]

9. Gunners don't want to take any responsibility for anything.

[gravity556]

10. Right. I'm sure he took out ads in craigslist seeking a burglar

Absolutely contemptible to blame the victim.

[Hoyt]

26. SOB might have been selling some guns in "back alleys" to avoid background checks.

Hence Craig's list or something similar. Or, perhaps the fool was looking to buy another to add to his cache.

[rl6214]

27. Do you even understand any of what you write about?

What does this theft have to do with :

"SOB might have been selling some guns in "back alleys" to avoid background checks."

"Hence Craig's list or something similar."

"Or, perhaps the fool was looking to buy another to add to his cache."

Your post makes NO sense.

[Hoyt]

32. The poster I replied to mentioned Craig's List. Maybe you should read more carefully.

If you amass a bunch of weapons -- whether to keep you warm at night or for irrational "personal protection" purposes -- and it's known, don't be surprised if someone tries to take them.

Sorry, but someone with that many guns is a danger to themselves and others, and a sitting target for thieves. Heck, our "victim" might even have cavorted with criminals in acquiring some of those weapons. Hope police track where he got them from.

[rl6214]

73. The poster you replied to said sarcastically that maybe the gun owner

put an ad in craigslist to have his house robbed. The statement you made about craigslist, you made as accusations and fact. Maybe you should read more carefully, or respond more carefully.

"Heck, our "victim" might even have cavorted with criminals in acquiring some of those weapons."

There you go again, accusing the theft victim of doing something illegal that you just pulled out of your ass.

Heck, you might even still be abusing women and children. Hope the police look into that possibility.

[Hoyt]

74. I'd check out anyone with 71 guns. You'd think once one acquires a few that they'd realize more guns

aren't going to resolve whatever issues attract them to deadly weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Why? And what's your over/under for "checking out anyone"?

Knowing you, my money is on "However many guns I own, +1"...

[ileus]

80. no different than coin or stamp collecting...there are 1000's of great collectible firearms.

You could collect 71 of several different types of firearms.

A good 1911 collection could be in the 100's rather easily.

Sigs...

Walthers...

Shotguns...

71 is a small collection.

[Hoyt]

81. Anyone with that many 1911s could afford to protect them. Collecting like that is one thing,

collecting to kill -- including practicing religiously to do so -- is another.

I get collecting. But, when you start adding in a bunch of AK47s and all the knockoffs designed to "perk" potential owners "interest" and handguns bought for "clearing rooms" and similar BS. You got yourself a problem -- not necessarily you you, but those who typically fall on the "my gun is my cold dead hand" side of the politics.

Heck I once had 10 antique rifles. My favorite was the "hi-capacity" 40 shot magazine fed Evans Repeater, circa 1872. One really long, and heavy rifle. Guy I sold it too almost had a . . . . . . well you know . . . . . because the serial number on mine was next to his. Heck, he got so excited he gave me another $400. Also had an English Enfield breech loader that would accept 12 gauge shells. Only one of those I have left is an old Spanish American War Remington Rolling Block. I guess I need to find some shells that will fit it, just in case you guys are right about boogie man. Only get one shot though.

Hope no little gobblins got shot tonight.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Well, well. You once had a 'cache' (or 'arsenal', if you prefer), eh?

And were these antique rifles you sold in working order when you sold them? Black powder loads are still available (if pricey)
for many obsolete calibers...

[Remmah2]

34. Maybe he was trading guns for hookers too. nt

nt

[Hoyt]

79. I think he was happy with all those guns. Sad fellow and someone who has a problem.

[mikeb302000]

18. that's a fact.

all that bullshit about my blaming the victim is just that - bullshit. I didn't say let's not worry about the thieves and ONLY blame the victim. What I said is let's blame the victim for what he's guilty of.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. What is he guilty of? Securing firearms within his home? Why is that

a crime?

[rl6214]

23. Can anyone say Circle jerk?

Of course you are blaming the victim for being a victim.

Repulsive. Next you are going to blame a rape victim that becomes pregnant for not using birth control.

[PavePusher]

24. Please state what the victim is "guilty of", and cite to the evidence.

So far, you've done neither.

[ileus]

25. why guilty of being a gun owner.....of course...

[ileus]

30. let's blame the victim....

[Hoopla Phil]

91. "all that bullshit about my blaming the victim is just that - bullshit" OH REALLY??!!

Perhaps you should read your post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x474450#474765

I'm reminded of Mark Twain who once said: "I find that honest is indeed the best policy. That way I don't have to remember what I said, to whom, or when."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rl6214]

22. Right, victims should take responsibility for being victims.

:sarcasm: because I know if I don't put it, one of you anti-gun zealots will say I am agreeing with you.

[PavePusher]

11. "7,62 military ammunition"?

Unrec for anti-gun ignorance and quoting of such.

[ileus]

13. So are people assuming they weren't in a safe? Did I miss something?

[ileus]

14. How do we know he made it easy to steal the firearms? Are we assuming again?

[ileus]

15. So how do you propose he pay for items stolen from his home?

[ileus]

16. People don't report things because they don't want names and addresses in print...

making every thief in 4 counties aware. Are you assuming the cops would have posted a sentry at his house waiting for a month to catch someone returning?

[ileus]

17. Oh I know...I know...I bet sometime in his life he dropped one of his guns...hidden criminal.

[petronius]

19. When discussing a crime, it's appropriate to discuss steps the victim could have taken

to avoid or reduce risk, in order to draw general lessons or suggest better practices. However, it's never OK to shift even one iota of responsibility onto the victim (the blame belongs entirely to the perpetrator).

'Making a crime easy' is not something a person can be guilty of in any non-casual sense, no matter what the crime is. If laws were violated by the victim in advance he can be guilty of breaking those, but shifting blame onto the victim beyond that limited point is both pointless and reprehensible...

[jeepnstein]

72. "pointless and reprehensible"?

Pretty much sums up the original post.

[rl6214]

21. What's "one of these babies" and how should he be "made to pay"?

If you want someone to know, post the info instead of a blind lind to your blog so you can make money.

"I'll bet he didn't have one of these babies either"

Pure, blind, biased speculation.

"In other words, this former law enforcement officer made it easy for the theft to take place."

Again, pure, blind, biased speculation.

Is this how you were an illegal gun owner?


I notice you conveneintly left this part out, dosen't fit your agenda?

"Fulton says the guns have not turned up at any shops or with any dealers, and they would know if they had, “We would expect calls from them. The (gun selling industry) are good partners in this.”

[mikeb302000]

28. good partners, sure I accept that

The problem is it's already too late. The guns didn't go to pawn shops and gun dealers, they went to the local drug dealers and criminals.

I know, more assuming on my part, but reasonable assumptions. Just like it's reasonable to assume that most gun thefts happen because improper precautions had been in place.

How many guns have been stolen from you? Your own experience will prove me right. If you've been robbed a few times, you probably didn't have proper safe storage going on. If you've never been robbed, you have. It's simple.

I blame the victim of theft for his part in making it too fucking easy.

[ileus]

29. I blame the victim of theft..of course you do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. And not so much the persons who *bought* the stolen guns, you'll note.

Color me unsurprised.

[jmg257]

31. Curious - how many other victims of crimes do you blame for their role in being a victim?

This might be interesting - Which other crime victims should be made to pay 'cause they 'made it too fucking easy' for themselves to be a victim?

[iverglas]

77. I'm curious too

How many other crimes put innumerable people other than the victim at risk of serious harm?

The guy who stole the purse I stupidly left lying around unsecured in my unlocked house while I went upstairs (or whoever he sold the contents to for a hit of coke) used my credit card to buy some souvlaki (or more likely get a cash advance from a crooked fast food operator) and then try to buy some leather jackets, which didn't work due to the state of my credit card balance. Nobody seems to have been injured or killed ...

71 guns on the street. Anybody seriously betting they're going to be used for target shooting at the range?

I wonder where all the guns came from in the interminable tales recounted here about people holding up gas bars and restaurants ... obviously, none was stolen from people like this ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. If the guy who stole your purse had gone for smack and had instead gotten fentanyl...

... (it happens on occasion) would you bear any responsibility for his OD?

[iverglas]

89. if you try to change the subject

do I have to follow you down your garden path?

Nope.

[Straw Man]

90. So that's a "yes"...

...to the original question?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I have a co-worker whose guns were all stolen. Every last one was recovered

and returned to him. They cut his safe wide open. It was a damn Liberty safe too, no easy nut to crack.

[Remmah2]

33. Interesting, the guy was a retired policeman.

And he stored ammo in the garage? WTF? With his life's experience he should have known better.

[PavePusher]

38. Where do you store ammo? n/t

[ileus]

39. I'll admit I have 2 or 3k in the garage

but then again I have several items stored out there that probably shouldn't be. I have some stored in the master bathroom and more in our walkin closet and bedroom. Ammo doesn't really draw moisture that much, the boxes they're stored in would suffer the worst IMHO.

[Remmah2]

41. In a cool dry place.

I consider a garage too hot in the summer. In the winter I consider it too cold for .22lr storage. (Freezing). Too humid any time of the year. (Steel cases rust, ammo cans rust.)

[DanTex]

36. Another demonstration of the link between gun ownership and gun crimes.

Even though many gun owners may not themselves be criminals, that doesn't mean they don't facilitate getting guns into criminal hands. The fact of the matter is that, due to incidents like this, gun ownership imposes a burden on the rest of society. If this guy could have found a way to get by with, say, just 1 gun, then there would be 70 fewer guns in criminal hands right now.

According to studies like this one, the overall cost to society per gun owning household due to increases in gun violence is in the range of $100 to $1800 annually. In economic terms, this is called an "externality", similar to pollution. And, just like we should have a carbon tax, in order to compensate society for the contribution to global warming of burning fossil fuels, it would be natural to levy a similar gun ownership tax. The people responsible for putting society at risk of this sort of thing should also bear the burden.

[ileus]

37. Ever tried to have a collection of one? Maybe a 1933 St gauden

but for the most part collecting anything involves more than one of any item.

If some criminal hadn't broken into this mans home he'd still be enjoying his fine collection of firearms.

I don't facilitate getting guns into anyone's hands, my collection has zero cost of ownership to me much less others outside my home. (well maybe a small cost of the insurance rider, a 6W heater for my gunsafe and a few bucks in cleaning materials)

The people who actually put society at risk with illegal firearms will never shoulder the burden...responsibility isn't one of the strengths of criminals. Get the one that robs, rapes, and kills to shoulder their fair share of the burden before you ask me to chip in one red cent.

[DanTex]

40. As long as nobody steals your guns, you may be right.

The social cost of gun ownership comes in the form of increased risk. Driving drunk also doesn't cause any harm unless you actually hit someone, but most people would agree that just getting behind the wheel drunk has a social cost, again in the form of increased risk. The point is that, statistically speaking, for every additional 10,000 handgun-owning households, you get, on average, between 1 and 3 additional gun homicides, and between 6 and 18 additional crime-related gunshot wounds.

Another idea might be to hold gun owners liable if their guns are stolen. That way, the guy in this OP would have to pay a fine for each of the guns that are now in criminal hands. Of course, since it is impossible to know ahead of time who is going to get robbed, and since the actual cost to society of arming 71 criminals is likely greater than the amount an average person would be able to pay, then, as with cars, gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance against this risk. In the end, it would probably be pretty similar to just a tax, in that gun owners would pay a certain amount every year to shoulder the burden of the added risk to society that gun ownership entails.

[Remmah2]

44. As yes, tax the Civil Liberties discussion.

face palm time............

[DanTex]

47. To conflate this issue with civil liberties is to trivialize civil liberties.

Right-wingers will also insist that a carbon tax would violate the "freedom" of people to burn fossil fuels, warning that capping CO2 emissions is the first step towards Stalinism. In fact, right-wingers pretty much slip the word "freedom" into every argument they make, whether it's breaking up unions, or degrading environmental laws, or cutting taxes for the rich, or arguing against universal healthcare, etc.

In reality, there is a clear negative externality to gun ownership, and the people who don't contribute to this should not be forced to share the social costs.

[PavePusher]

82. The Right to own and carry weapons (arms) is a Civil Right.

Your refusal to aknowledge that trivializes Civil Rights.

[PavePusher]

83. We already pay a tax on firearms and ammunition, your ignorance not withstanding.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Firearms+and+Ammunition+Excise+Tax+&pbx=1&oq=Firearms+and+Ammunition+Excise+Tax+&aq=f&aqi=g-v2g-m1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4108l4108l0l5282l1l1l0l0l0l0l278l278l2-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=78c83e778584f133&biw=1280&bih=869

[ileus]

48. And when they steal my guns I will still be right.

I stay let the criminals shoulder the burden...I already have enough burden to go around.

[DanTex]

54. "I already have enough burden"

That's nice to know, but the reality is that if your guns are stolen, then you will have contributed to arming criminals. And by merely owning guns, you are contributing the the risk of that happening, so you are engaging in a practice that has clear social costs. It doesn't mean you are a bad person. Everyone who drives a car is also engaging in a practice that has clear social costs. But it does mean that you should shoulder the burden for these costs, rather than having everyone shoulder them equally, including non-gun-owners who have nothing to do with the problem.

[gejohnston]

67. does this apply to

people who use illegal recreational drugs as well? Their money pays for it. Economies are demand driven, not supply driven. How much responsibility do we expect them to shoulder?

[jmg257]

42. How much would you tax each individual for their carbon usage? nt

[Remmah2]

45. I'd buy all my guns in stainless.

Avoid carbon steel.

[ileus]

50. I have a good mix of SS and blued, nothing shines like a wonderfully blued fine firearm.

[jmg257]

52. What about your stainless footprint?

[DanTex]

46. I don't know exactly.

In theory the tax should be equal to the social cost of carbon emissions, which is very hard to compute exactly. According to Wikipedia, the average estimate of this cost is $43 per ton of carbon, which comes out to 11 cents per gallon of gas.

[jmg257]

49. Would you tax every person in the US to cover those costs? Only those

who own cars? Only those who buy gas? All home owners? Home owners with furnaces? Business owners who heat their shops and factories?

How would you calculate each of the people's tax rate?

[DanTex]

53. A carbon tax would apply to any activity that produces CO2 emissions.

As far as the mechanisms for collecting and enforcing the tax, obviously I don't have all the details. But the idea is that any individual or corporation pays in proportion to how much CO2 they produce. If you drive a gas-powered car, you have to pay for all the CO2 that you produce, and this would likely be collected at the pump. And if you don't drive a car, you pay nothing on that part of the tax.

If you run a coal power plant, you have to pay a tax for all the coal you burn. If you are an airline, you pay for the jet fuel you burn. And so on.

You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

[jmg257]

57. A similiar tax put towards gun violence could work. Based on the proportion of

gun violence an individual's actions produce. If a person mis-uses guns to cause violence, they have to pay a penalty for a percentage of gun-violence costs.

Maybe a mandatory punitive damage tax per incident to help cover the burden to society that they choose to contribute to, & are 100% to blame for creating. Proper self-defense gun uses could be incurred by the attacker (or their estate in case of death?) which actually caused the incident to occur.


If you don't own guns, or do own guns but don't use them to perpetrate gun violence, you pay nothing.

[DanTex]

58. If your guns are stolen, then you are contributing to arming criminals.

This is obvious. Putting guns in the hands of criminals, even by accident, is very clearly contributing towards gun violence. Intentionally giving guns to criminals is worse, of course, in the same way that running someone down on purpose is worse than a car accident. But guns in criminal hands are a very serious problem, and the only people contributing at all to this are people who own guns.

I'm sure you'd agree, for example, that if someone was keeping weapons grade plutonium in their home, and they got robbed and the plutonium got into the wrong hands, that the homeowner shares some responsibility for the outcome. And by the same reasoning, simply owning guns contributes to the risk of criminals being armed, in the same way that owning plutonium contributes to the risk of arming nuclear terrorists, or facilitating a catastrophic environmental disaster.

Now, you may have a point that just taxing all gun owners equally is not the right thing to do. Some gun owners keep their guns safer than others, and don't loan them to people they don't know too well, etc. What could work better is a system of registration, so that if your gun gets stolen, you are liable. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you are liable. But if you are actually able to keep your guns secure, then you pay nothing.

But, as I mentioned, this would require mandatory liability insurance, as with cars. In fact, cars are a very similar situation: most drivers don't get into accidents, but those who do can (unintentionally) end up causing a lot of damage and personal injury. So, to ensure that everyone is actually able to cover liabilities that may come up, we require that everyone is insured, which results in a form of cost-sharing: insurance premiums play the role of a tax that covers the social cost of the risk of causing a car accident.

[Remmah2]

60. Stolen cars and cell phones are used by criminals as well.

Admit, you have a hard-on for fun owners.

[DanTex]

63. I think even you can figure this one out...

The social costs of gun ownership in terms of higher rates gun crimes are clear and well documented. There's an obvious reason that we perform criminal background checks on gun purchases but not cell phones or cars. I think even a hardened pro-gunner like yourself can figure this out.

And, as we've been discussing, I agree that cars have social costs: things like CO2 emissions, car accidents, traffic congestions. Some of these are covered by taxes or insurance, and like I said I am in favor of a CO2 tax.

[Remmah2]

69. If we didn't have cell phones we wouldn't have crank phone calls.

Kidnappers couldn't call for ransome.

Heck I can walk into a drugstore and by a cell phone that can't be traced.

Cell phones are used to trigger terrorist bombs.

Some people while texting walk into the street into the path of an oncoming car.

Cell phones can be used for crime and evil, just like cars, guns and chair legs.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Won't work- see Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=460&invol=575

Since you've admitted that "insurance premiums play the role of a tax", this wouldn't fly.

[gejohnston]

70. so does smoking pot

even more so because their money goes to may for the drug wars in Mexico. I notice you don't bitch about that.

[Remmah2]

43. Should car owners be charged for the theft of their cars?

Even if they didn't lock the doors?

[ileus]

51. remember......cars unlike guns don't kill people...or something like that.

:)

[Remmah2]

55. But cars are used in drive by shootings.

No carbon tax if you use a hybrid in a drive by!

[DanTex]

56. If guns were regulated and taxed like cars, it would be a huge improvement.

First, cars are registered, and you need to pay a fee every time you renew the registration, which serves as a tax of sorts. Then, there is a federal regulatory agency, the NHTSA, which has the power to write and enforce regulations for safety and also things like fuel economy. And then there's the requirement that every car owner must have liability insurance.

Guns, which kill almost as many people per year as cars, but don't provide anywhere near the same amount of social benefit, are not nearly as well regulated. So, by all means, let's regulate gun ownership the way we do car ownership. I agree entirely.

[Remmah2]

59. I can drive my car in all 50 states, Canada, Europe, Mexico.

Cars do not need to be registered on private property, nor is their a limit to their size or mileage range. You can be 16 and get a permit too, ex-cons are allowed to own firearms.

[DanTex]

61. Actually there are plenty of regulations on cars, much more than on guns.

Obviously, things wouldn't be exactly the same, for example, you're not allowed to drive a car on a sidewalk, or on the wrong side of the street. These things don't have analogies that I can think of for guns.

And, there actually are limits to the size of cars, along with many other very detailed regulations that ensure that cars are safe to drive on America's roads. Also, obviously, there are plenty of people who are not allowed to drive cars, even people who are not ex-cons.

My point is that the combination of registration, an empowered regulatory agency, and mandatory liability insurance I think would be a great start towards getting the gun violence problem under control. But despite the fact that guns kill many people and produce very little social benefit, whereas without cars society would instantly grind to a halt, this basic regulatory structure doesn't exist for guns.

[Remmah2]

65. The violence problem is caused by criminals on the streets instead of jail.

And many don't have CCW permits nor driver's licenses.

[Atypical Liberal]

66. Guns are regulated much like cars already.

If I want to own and operate them on private property, in most places no paperwork is required at all.

[gejohnston]

85. for example?

With cars I can buy one in any state without it having to be shipped to my home state, where the background check and be in compliance with whatever local laws in place. Not so with a gun.
you do not need a licence to own a car, only to operate one on public streets (hire a driver) in any jurisdiction. Non shooting collectors (where required) must
I can sell a car to anyone regardless of state of residence, immigration status, age etc. Not so with a gun. I can sell a gun to Spin, if I sell one to you or Sarah Palin I committed a federal crime.
Car dealerships most likely do not require a license from the feds. Only local business license.
DOT does not inspect car dealerships' records
John Dean may own as many cars as he wants, being in the same room with a gun could send him back to prison.
there is no place in the US where you need police permission to own a car or buy gasoline.

combination of registration, an empowered regulatory agency, and mandatory liability insurance I think would be a great start towards getting the gun violence problem under control.

I think it will be as New Zealand discovered with registration in the 1980s, expensive theater and nothing more. I fail to see what liability insurance has to do with anything. We do have an empowered regulatory agency, they just happen to have questionable management. If this was before ATF was formed, you would have a valid point. When the IRS did it, their management did not put gun law enforcement high on their priority list.

[iverglas]

78. it's such a simple concept; can you really not grasp it?

Should car owners be charged for the theft of their cars?

Why would they be? Did they steal the cars? You do understand how that criminal law stuff works, right?

If there is a law requiring that they lock their cars, or more likely that they not leave their keys in the ignition (as there is in my jurisdiction), then they can be charged with breaking that law.

Duh.

Nobody was actually suggesting that a person who lets 71 firearms be taken from his home be charged with the theft of the firearms. You did get that bit, right?

[gejohnston]

87. In other words

safe storage laws for cars.
Lets? I don't remember the article mentioning a safe or lack of.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. "overall cost to society per gun owning household due to increases in gun violence"

What "increases in gun violence" would those be?

[Atypical Liberal]

68. Blame the victim.

If someone breaks into my garage and steals my car, is it my fault? Of course not. It is the criminals fault.

[Straw Man]

92. Where did it say he didn't have a safe?

I must have missed that. You'll "bet" he didn't have one? Why don't you just try to find out? Or would that be too much like work? Not as much fun as jumping to conclusions.

You know that safes aren't inviolable, right? Even the big-ass ones in banks.

Simple? Yup. Very simple. That's my comment.