Thieves break into Springfield home, steal 500-pound gun safe containing 15 weapons

[trouble.smith]

Thieves who broke into a Sixteen Acres house Thanksgiving Day stole 15 guns by lugging away the 500-pound household gun safe that securely contained them, police said.

Sgt. John Delaney, aide to Police Commissioner William Fitchet, said the resident returned to his Marmon Street home Thursday to discover the break it and reported it to police.

The guns were locked securely inside the safe, Delaney said, but the safe itself was not anchored in place. When the robbers could not open the safe inside the house, they picked it up and carried it out of the house, he said.

“The safe probably weighed about 500 pounds, fully loaded, with the weapons he had in it,” Delaney said.

Because of the weight involved, police believe at least two people were involved, Delaney said.

The safe was later found, broken open and stripped of any weapons or ammunition, he said.

Detectives are investigating the safe to see who took it, but a bigger concern is the 15 guns that are missing, he said. They included various rifles and semi-automatic handguns, he said.

The guns will likely be sold on through underground gun markets and end up “getting into the hands of the wrong people,” he said.


http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break_into_springfield.html#incart_river_default

[Berserker]

1. They should

check to see how much the guns were insured for. Possible collectors items. A 500 LB. safe with only 15 guns don't seem to me to be worth the trouble. And I would think more than two men were needed. Sounds like an inside job. OR maybe they thought it was full of money and didn't give a shit about the GUNS?

[ileus]

3. if they had no idea what was inside...

a pig in a poke is worth hauling off if it's free.

For all they knew it was full or silver and gold and 25 guns.

Sounds like they weren't too worried about getting caught so the extra time to carry it out netted them a few thousand bucks at least.

[Blue_Tires]

8. No, I'm thinking the theives knew exactly what they were getting

and may have been friends or at least knew the homeowner...

[slackmaster]

2. My gun safe weighs 1,200 pounds empty

And it's bolted to the concrete floor.

If someone is really determined to steal it and its contents, there's nothing I can do to prevent it because I can't be home all the time.

[trouble.smith]

5. The thing about bolting a gun safe to the floor is that

the bolts further compromise the weakest point of the safe, the floor. What's more, because of the high center of gravity of most gun safes, the weight of the safe itself can be used to rip the bolts right of the ground and, possibly damage the safe's floor in such a way so as to facilitate entry with a standard set of B&E tools i.e. sledge hammers, mauls, wedges, wrecking bars, etc. A determined thief with even minimal safe cracking experience will not be deterred by floor bolts or a gun safe-especially if they know the house will be empty for the night.

[slackmaster]

6. It's not possible to stop a thief who is very determined and has time

The point of a safe is to make the majority of burglars say "Fuck that" and move along to another house.

[trouble.smith]

7. unless they're the safe cracking variety of thieves

in which case they say "jack pot". A safe plus ADT is probably the best solution for the homeowner who truly wishes to deter thieves, and maybe a Doberman Pinscher or two.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Dogs are easy for a thief to get rid of.

Poisoned hamburger meat takes care of dogs. But dogs are expensive and troublesome for an owner to keep.

[trouble.smith]

54. it's all part of the deterrent package

A thief typically cases a residence before breaking in and does his risk/benefit analysis. If he has to get through: an alarm system, a safe, a snarling doberman pinscher and, possibly, an armed homeowner or two, he's gonna be inclined to just move on to your neighbor's house. I'm obviously partial to Dobermans. I'll always have one.

[safeinOhio]

83. A husband and wife team

was busted in Michigan a few years ago. They would go into a home and steal bolted down gun safes in less than 20 minutes. They targeted country homes with deer targets in the yard. An expensive country home with deer target=guns.

[Remmah2]

35. Locks and safes are only intended to keep honest people out.

Would the world need locks, security lights, guard services if the whole world was honest?

[oneshooter]

50. Mine are anchored to both the floor and the wall.

The wall being made of concrete filled concrete blocks. Safes weigh 650lb empty.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. And yet this safe is far in excess of the CDOJ minimum like mine.

Most of the people here I've asked if a CDOJ-approved safe would meet their standard of safe firearm storage said that it would.

Yet my Stack-On CDOJ-approved safe is nothing but a lockable filing cabinet. Far less robust than the one in the article. Now mine is bolted to the wall, but that would not stop someone with a prybar.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Isn't this how most criminals acquire their guns?

Shouldn't rights come with some level of accountability?

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. What "level of accountability"?

[Starboard Tack]

14. That would depend on individual circumstances.

Consider a dog owner. If he allows his dog to run loose and the dog bites someone, the owner is held liable. If he chains the dog up and still the dog gets free, the owner is still liable.
If you stash a bunch of guns without securing them properly and they end up in the hands of criminals, you should share some of the responsibility and be partially liable for any damage or injuries caused.

Accountability would discourage careless storage of firearms, along with casual sales.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. The guns were in a not-insubstantial safe. I see no negligence here.

And as another poster has pointed out, California mandates the use of a safe far less
sturdy than the one stolen here...

[Starboard Tack]

20. I guess the exception sometimes proves the rule.

Maybe he could've learned from the chicken farmer who put all his eggs in one basket. What's the point in having 15 guns all locked in one, obviously insubstantial safe? If I felt the need for a SD weapon, it would be kept close at hand.
But let's not be naive here. It's pretty obvious the thieves were looking for guns. How did they target this dufus? Loose lips, which seems to be quite common among gun owners. They love to brag about their latest acquisitions. These guys are not the sharpest pencils in the box.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Circular logic, casual bigotry and assumption of facts not in evidence

What's the point in having 15 guns all locked in one, obviously insubstantial safe?

"Insubstantial"? By what metric? The fact that it was stolen? Thieves can and have broken into
freakin' bank vaults, so by that standard no safe could be substantial enough for your taste.

How did they target this dufus? Loose lips, which seems to be quite common among gun owners. They love to brag about their latest acquisitions. These guys are not the sharpest pencils in the box.

And there we have the aforementioned bigotry and assumption of facts not in evidence...

[AlexSatan]

22. To correct the analogy

The dog is to be in a locked steel-walled room in the locked house. A burglar breaks in and gets bitten. Is the owner liable?

[Starboard Tack]

24. Possibly, if the owner intended to boobytrap the room.

But you really need to come up with a better analogy.
Obviously, the safe, in this case, was insufficient. And the burglar(s) didn't get bitten. Double fail!

Think about it for a moment. Burglars are not usually the smartest guys out there, but they are smart enough to know where to locate guns. In a gun safe. Now how did they figure that out?
IMO gun safes are useful places to secure guns when children are around. Otherwise, they are targets for thieves, as are most safes. It's called Burglary 101 - "Locate the Safe"

[AlexSatan]

30. Circular logic

If someone can steal it, it is not sufficient.

If someone steals it, that shows it was not sufficient. Using that, and knowing that EVERYTHING is vulnerable to some degree, no measures would be sufficient.

Even with 2 people, stealing a 500 lb safe is not easy. Was is an adequate weight?

BTW, the theoretical dog was not a booby-trap. It was a dog. It was kept in that room because it liked being in that room.

[Clames]

55. You are just never happy are you?

Laughable how you attack gun owners who don't own safes or secure their firearms and now you attack gun owners who at least do that much.

[trouble.smith]

37. But if the dog is secured in your house and someone breaks in and gets all bit up by said dog

you are not liable-at least not in Ohio.

securing the guns demonstrated that this individual took REASONABLE MEASURES to safeguard them against theft. what would a reasonable person do to safeguard their firearms? I doubt you could find a jury even in Massachusetts that would hold this gun owner responsible for the theft of these firearms or for any criminal acts committed on their property without their consent and/or knowledge.

[AlexSatan]

40. Exactly

And everything you said (and the law) make sense. The poster I was responding to does not think having them in a 500 lb safe in a locked house is "reasonable measures".

[Starboard Tack]

41. I don't think you are getting it.

Nobody is accusing the gun owner of being responsible for the theft or for any criminal acts committed on his property.

The issue is - were the guns stored safely? Obviously not.
Did the gun owner take reasonable measures to secure them? That would be for a jury to decide, based on all evidence available.
Did the owner facilitate the theft? Again, depends on available evidence.

Any civil suits he may face, would be from third parties who may be injured.

[Travis_0004]

76. So by your logic, if somebody steals your car tonight are you responsable for the damage they do?

Gun safes prevent the vast majority of thefts, but I agee nothing is 100% foolproof. I think the owner did take reasonable measures.
I have to think that the criminals had scouted out the house, either a repair man or somebody else. They had to know it was there, and come prepared with a pickup truck, dolly, manpower, etc.

[Glassunion]

97. Bad analogy

"Consider a dog owner. If he allows his dog to run loose and the dog bites someone, the owner is held liable. If he chains the dog up and still the dog gets free, the owner is still liable."

In this case, to make a more accurate analogy, would be: What if the dog owner chains their dog up and someone STEALS the dog, and then the dog bites someone?

Or are you going to now state that a chains are an insufficient security measure?

[Starboard Tack]

102. OK, it wasn't the best analogy.

I had a dog that was regularly chained in the front yard. One day, a friend had attached the chain to the dog's choke chain, but he attached it incorrectly. A delivery boy took a short cut across the lawn. The dog went for him. The kid managed to retreat to the sidewalk, out of range for the chain, but the dog kept going and broke through the poorly connected chain and bit the kid.

As the owner, I was both legally liable and morally responsible. I assumed the dog was secure because I saw the chain. Dunn did the same when he saw his safe. There is no harm in learning lessons, especially when we learn them the hard way.

All those who think I'm defending the thieves and blaming Dunn for the theft are stupid. I'm pointing out how things aren't always what they appear to be.

[jeepnstein]

11. There should be.

I would hold the thieves strictly accountable for their crime. That is, if the state takes the time to investigate and prosecute the theft. The reality is that nobody will even bother to follow up on the crime and if by some bold stroke of luck they do catch the thieves the charge will be bargained away to nothing. That's not the way it should work. Criminals should be taken to task for their crimes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Silly jeepnstein, you're not blaming the victim!

reset sarcasm mode to <OFF>....

[Starboard Tack]

17. Of course the thieves should be held accountable.

But so should those who enable those thieves to arm themselves with illegal weapons.
Let's take a more extreme example. If you piled your guns up on the edge of your property, in such a way that anyone passing by could take their pick, should you be held accountable for any crimes committed with those weapons?

[gejohnston]

18. that isn't relevent in this case

we are talking about a 500 pound safe, not sitting openly on the coffee table.

[jeepnstein]

59. The owner went above and beyond to properly store his firearms.

Thieves broke in and hauled out a 500 pound safe. It's not like he left them on the front porch. You're just being plain silly now.

[Starboard Tack]

62. If thinking is silly, then you're right.

[Straw Man]

77. Guns in safe = guns on porch?

You call that "thinking"? I call it reductio ad absurdum. And yes, it's silly.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Guns on porch? Sounds silly, but you said it, not me.

[jeepnstein]

84. Yes I did.

You went to an even sillier extreme and said something about piling them up out on the property line.

The owner did the right thing and bought a safe. Thieves broke into his home and stole the firearms and the safe. What more could a homeowner do? At some point the thieves and criminals must be held accountable for their actions. Apparently you feel otherwise.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Nice conflation of 2 completely different things.

Yes, thieves should be held accountable for their criminal acts.
Gun owners should be held accountable when careless or negligent. The owner did the right thing and bought a safe. Correct. You ask what more could he do? Well, securing the damn safe might have helped. What do you think?
Are the facts here so hard to grasp?

[Straw Man]

90. Right.

My mistake: You said, "piled up on the edge of your property." Even more absurd.

Point taken. Your example is far sillier than I had previously thought.

[Starboard Tack]

92. That's what extreme hypotheticals are - SILLY

That's how we make a point, sometimes. I never suggested that Dunn piled his guns on the edge of his property. Obviously, his idea of securing his guns didn't work out too well. Now society has to pay for that. Why should taxpayers have to pay for his failure?

[Straw Man]

93. A point?

That's what extreme hypotheticals are - SILLY

That's how we make a point, sometimes.

And what is your point? That his safe was the equivalent of piling his guns on his property line?

You're approaching this from an illogically extreme position. There is no security device that cannot be defeated. Your ideology causes you to shift the onus onto the victim here. I think his precautions were reasonable. Even a secured safe can be broken into or removed; it just takes a little more effort.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for his failure?

Why should taxpayers have to pay for New York's failure to protect itself from storm surge? Let 'em drown: laissez-faire, don't you know.

[MicaelS]

13. And precisely WHAT " level of accountability" do you want?

Criminal break into a house and steal a 500 gun safe. And you want to blame the gun owner?

[Glassunion]

15. Well yes the gun owner has damaged society.

They should be accountable for the future crimes that may happen.

If the gun owner had adequately secured their firearms, they would not now be in the hands of criminals.
If the gun owner had realized the complete inadequacy of a 1/4 ton safe, they should not have had firearms in the first place.

If they had a better more secure safe, the guns would not be out in public running amok.
If they never had guns in the first place, the guns would not be out in public running amok.

There are things that may happen with those guns and the gun owner should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for whatever may possibly happen.

[AlexSatan]

23. I assume the same holds true

for a car owner whose car is locked, in a locked garage in a yard with a locked gate. Someone steals the car and runs over a pedestrian. The car owner should be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law", right?

[Starboard Tack]

28. You definitely need some analogy lessons.

Cars are not designed to kill. They are designed for transportation.

A car owner who is negligent with his vehicle is liable.

The gun owner should not be prosecuted for any murder committed with his stolen guns, but he should be prosecuted for lesser crimes, such as reckless endangerment. He is definitely liable to being sued in civil court by any future victims of his carelessness.

[AlexSatan]

32. Why does it matter what it is designed for?

Are you claiming a person who is run down by a car is not dead because that is not what it is designed for? Really? You do realize that cars kill more than twice as many Americans each year as guns, right?

So, was the car owner with a locked car in a locked garage in a locked/gated yard negligent? Cars can and have been stolen under those conditions.

Should that car owner be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Is the car owner liable in civil court?

Don't worry, I didn't oversee that you dodged the original question. Which is why I am giving you a second chance.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Enjoy your sojourn

[AlexSatan]

34. Have you noticed that a lot of folks do that on here

when they lose an argument?

Heck, but at least you didn't call me a freeper. (And the only time I've been to that stupid site in from links from here)

[Remmah2]

36. Cars and guns have a lot in common.

Both made of steel by the hands of humans. They are only as dangerous as the operator.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Talk to AlexSatan. You guys have a lot in common.

I'm way too old for such nonsense.

[Clames]

58. What a load of crap.

No, the owner should not be held liable for what someone does with his STOLEN property. Such idiocy to imagine that people should be held to such a "crystal ball" standard. Someone steals a propane tank then blows up their house and kills a neighbor using it to run their meth lab then the previous owner of the tank and the hardware store he bought it from are liable? You are the one who needs help with analogies.

[Glassunion]

38. Nope

Cars are not designed to kill, so there is a different standard. So you could leave it unlocked, in front of the garage with the gate open and it would not matter if someone went all GTA on a sidewalk during rush hour.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I blame the thieves for stealing and the owner for reckless storage.

I think the owner should be more responsible. When you accumulate weapons and store them unsafely, you should be held accountable to the degree that your lack of security has now become a threat to public safety.

500lbs is not much to move with a dolly. This puppy will carry double that. Costs $15 and weighs 6 pounds.

[gejohnston]

29. but that was not reckless storage,

to describe such a safe as "reckless" is absurd as it is extreme.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Apparently, it was reckless

I don't know exactly how the guy was reckless, but I do know he kept 15 guns in it and it was stolen. He may have been under the illusion that it was safe, or he might have let it be known that he kept these guns in a portable safe. Maybe his insurance company is looking into that. I know I would be. I'm always amazed at how cavalier some people are when talking about their "security" systems and how many guns they own. Not such a big deal on the internet, but letting neighbors or your local gun dealer know is asking for trouble at best and setting up an insurance claim at worst.

[gejohnston]

44. that's absurd,

actually, the more appropriate term would likely go to a jury. There is no way a US jury would buy that beyond a reasonable doubt. With civil suits, it is by preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard, would also be laughed at. There have been cases in Canada where the Crown charged the owner with reckless storage even with safe and alarm system. Judges throw them out most of the time, not even allowing it to go to trial.
Mr. Dunn took reasonable steps, if a safe is "reckless", then what is reasonable?

[Starboard Tack]

46. I'm not sure what exactly you think is absurd.

But, to answer your question "if a safe is "reckless", then what is reasonable?", I would say that a safe can be reasonable, when the safe itself is not easily transportable. There are many ways to accomplish that, probably the best being a secure installation, such as reinforced concrete on all sides except the door. A safe is only as secure as where you place it. If it can be wheeled in, it can be wheeled out, unless you build around it after wheeling it in. In general safes are designed to resist fire/heat. The more serious ones are designed to prevent entry, but if the safe itself is portable then all these qualities are irrelevant.

The safe itself is never reckless. People are reckless. Some are just dunn, I mean dumb. But I'll settle for careless if you prefer.

[gejohnston]

47. it isn't easily moved

I have moved safes. They require specialized dollies or four or five people and a piano cart. That is not easily transportable. Using the "reasonable man standard" your claim would be laughed out, as it should be. If it gets laughed out of Canadian courts in Quebec, guess how that will play in Idaho? Some lawyer would use the same theory and apply it to the car mentioned in another post. Thing is, cars are much more destructive than guns. What they are designed for is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)#United_States
Nor negligence.

IOW, you are saying renters, working class people should not own guns. I'm guessing you are baiting and don't seriously believe this.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Sorry, but you are wrong.

I used to move heavy shit, including safes, but mostly art objects, many of which weighed considerably more than any gun safe. A 500lb safe is a breeze for 2 guys and one 4 wheeler, or a good 2 wheeler. One guy could usually handle it with a 2 wheeler and a strap. The average 500lb safe measures 5'x3'x2'. Easily carried aboard this $40 handcart.

I'm not speculating on what various court jurisdictions might do. Reckless may be a little too strong. My point is about responsibility and accountability and how some people delude themselves. People will consume all kinds of garbage because they are told that it will improve their lives. Safes don't make things safe just because they are called safes.

Regarding cars, the argument might be valid if they had equivalent usage. Cars kill more people because 100+million are on the road for several hours every day. Accidents happen with all machines. Try imagining how many people would die if 100 million guns were being fired in public for several hours a day. Even if none were aimed at anybody, there would be a bloodbath just from ricochets and other accidents. That's why the analogy is ridiculous. I doubt that 1% of guns are carried in public daily, let alone fired.

I am not baiting. Renters should have the same rights as anyone else. I gave one suggestion as to how to install a safe. There are many more. I have designed and built safe rooms and closets in apartments. Really not that difficult. I'm wondering more about how the burglar(s) new Dunn had the safe and guns.

[gejohnston]

53. seriously?

reckless is not accurate. The nearest one would be negligent, which would not apply either because he took reasonable steps, based on the reasonable man standard, to safe guard the weapons. It is even above and beyond what is required by California. Sorry, that cart could not move 500 pounds.
It doesn't have to be an inside job. All you have to do is case shooting ranges and following them home. I remember discussing in DU2 about a rash of similar gun thefts in the Toronto area. While someone working in the Firearms Centre could get information from the registry, but casing was still more probable.
A car is also more destructive because what one could do with it in a short period of time. With a car, you can not only kill several people but also cause thousands of dollars of property damage.

[Starboard Tack]

60. I already acknowledged careless rather than reckless. Both fall under stupid.

Regarding the cheap cart, it is rated at 600lbs
http://www.harborfreight.com/heavy-duty-hand-truck-95061.html
There are plenty out there that will handle 1,000lbs or more, including this Wesco


Of course it doesn't have to be an inside job. Casing and following is common enough. So is lack of awareness, something a gun owner should not have. So is arrogance. Let's hope the new owners don't use them to hurt people and take better care of them.

I can't believe you are still supporting the car as weapon nonsense. Using one as a weapon is pretty rare. Accidents are also rare, when you consider the volume of traffic. But seriously, bringing cars into a conversation about guns makes no sense whatsoever. You know better than that.

[gejohnston]

63. it isn't careless either.

what arrogance? Holding the victim liable when he went above and beyond any legal requirement and took more than reasonable steps to secure them is arrogant.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Going beyond legal steps obviously wasn't enough.

Liability is not a crime, but a legal responsibility. IMO he was careless and possibly arrogant. As you pointed out, many thieves follow range users. Some gun owners, especially those who like to carry, become over confident, thinking nobody will mess with them. I'm not saying this guy was like that. He may be just careless, because his guns and special safe are now history. Stupid is as stupid does.

Instead of fighting me over this, when the story itself proves my point, why don't all the multiple gun owners here respond in a more positive way? Slackmaster mentioned that his safe is bolted to a concrete floor. That's good, not perfect, but good.
Obviously, going "above and beyond" doesn't always cut it.

[gejohnston]

70. how was he arrogant?

There is no way he was legally or morally careless. I'm guessing that is how they found out in this case and in Toronto.
Because blaming the victim, or filing frivolous wrongful death lawsuits, when he did not act in a reckless or negligent in any legal or moral standard. To the reasonable person, the legal and moral standard, would assume such a safe is enough. Iverglas had the same opinion of a Toronto machine gun collector that lost his collection to very professional thieves who defeated a bank vault and alarm system. If we were talking about a dim witted meth head getting them out of the sock drawer, your argument would have more merit. Under no system should a crime victim be liable for any act that he had no part in. That is why, as far as I am concerned, SYG vs DTR is less important as civil immunity. I would take Wyoming's DTR with civil immunity when you prove your innocence of murder or manslaughter (justifiable and excusable homicides are not crimes) than California's common law SYG.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Understand the mindset- 'He's a gun owner, therefore he's wrong'

(I remember very well the discussion about that Toronto case- apparently, the fact the guns were stolen at all was enough to prove negligence in Iverglas' not-so-humble opinion)

We're apparently supposed to set aside the "reasonable person" standard when it comes to
gun owners because, well, GUNS! I010111!

Note the rather emphatic rejection of AlexSatan's analogy about the theoretical liability of the owner of a car stolen under similar circumstances:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=89096

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=89107

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=89115

It seems some people really do feel that 'guns kill you deader'...

[Glassunion]

99. So what would be sufficient?

You state repeatedly that the storage of firearms in a 500lb safe is careless and insufficient (posts 14, 28, 46, 60, 65, 67 and 91). Yet, you have not stated one single solution to the problem.

Specifically, what safe and security solution in your opinion would be sufficient? Remember we are not all blessed with a concrete floor in our homes to bolt down to? Not all of us are homeowners and we are limited due to our rental agreements as to what we can do with construction. I'm sure we'll agree that a safe is better than nothing, however from your repeated assertions, it is careless none the less.

I am shaking my Magic 8 Ball, and it has told me that you will not have a solution. It is easier to simply say that the victim of the burglary was careless, without actually stating a solution. Reason is: that way, no solution is sufficient therefore ALL owners of firearms are careless in the storage of their firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

101. Not my job to keep your guns safe.

If you guys want to keep lots of guns, it's your responsibility to secure them. Hopefully, you all learn from situations like this, though from some of your replies, I gather otherwise. Some find it more important to scoff at my observations and suggestions. Why such negativity from guys with guns?

However, let me give you some thoughts on the subject.

1. Those who collect firearms should be aware that they are potential targets.
2. This fact should have a direct effect on their level of security and their general awareness.
3. If you are a renter and gun collector, you might consider renting a storage unit, where you could easily install a webcam for security. Mr. Dunn could have done the same and have been alerted immediately his house was entered.

I never said storage in a 500lb safe is, in itself, careless or insufficient. It depends how secure the safe is. This one obviously was not secure.

[ileus]

66. Remember their agenda is a ban on private citizens owning firearms.

The ole blame the victim is a common trait.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. I've moved things that have weighed >500 pounds. It ain't as easy as you make it out to be.

Large cast iron bathtubs for one job and machine tools for another.

[Remmah2]

85. Banks accumulate lots of money, have security and get robbed, who's fault?

THE GUN OWNERS AND NRA!

But what is the robber doesn't use a gun?

[trouble.smith]

31. and they accuse us of being the "nuts". What nerve.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Who would "they" be? And who would "us" be?

Are you differentiating between responsible gun ownership and gun nuttery? Or are you claiming all gun owners are accused of being nuts?
Let me help you here. The "nuts" are those who are irresponsible. They think carrying guns is cool. They think guns are the same as cars, or fire extinguishers, or seatbelts. They think carrying a gun around makes life safer, especially for themselves. If you identify with any of that, then I guess it makes you part of the "us" you refer to.

Most of the actual "us" in this world, would identify with your "they". As one of "them", I have respect for guns and what they are designed to do, which is put holes in things. They are fun to shoot at inanimate targets. They are useful when hunting for food and they are sometimes useful for home protection and self-defense. They are extremely dangerous when mishandled and potentially dangerous when not secured properly.

[trouble.smith]

52. the term "gun nut" is regularly used as broad brush smear attack against anyone who supports the 2A

and I think it's ironic when someone who would blame the gun owner instead of the thief calls me a "nut" when it's patently obvious who is being irrational here. The man did his due diligence. I have moved safes too. It isn't as easy as you have stated in other posts. This is a 500 lb safe. This object is not easily moved from the inside of a house to the outside and into a vehicle in the dead of night while remaining stealthy.

Amsec Model TF6032---508 lbs empty. Exterior Dimensions 59"H x 30"W x 21"D

The owner purchased a very expensive and suitable device for safely securing his firearms, a device that exceeds the legal requirements found in California. As far as I'm concerned, he did more than enough and he is in no way culpable for anything that becomes of those weapons and; furthermore, it is downright nutty to hold him accountable for the actions of the thieves that robbed him and to accuse him of not storing his weapons properly.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Apparently it was moved quite easily. Successful burglars tend to be stealthy.

Why such denial, when the facts speak for themselves? Do you think egg thieves have any qualms about taking the basket too?
If you think gun-nut is a smear, then there are a lot of self-smearers out there.
http://gunnuts.net/
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gun%20nut

Gun-nuttery has little to do with 2A IMO. Where did I blame the owner over the thief? The thief committed a serious felony. The owner is just dumb and careless, hardly felonious. Do you not support responsible gun ownership? Do you think putting 15 guns in a 500lb box means they are safe? If so, then you have learned nothing from this.

[rrneck]

68. I used to handle office furniture for a living

and a five hundred pound safe is not easily moved. If I had to install a fire file I had a crew of three with me and it still wasn't easy.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Well, I disagree, but so what, they took it.

Whether it is hard or easy, it was accomplished without detection. 2 guys with a good 2 wheel handcart dolly, or a 4 wheeler could roll that sucker right out the door. Stairs could slow them down, but not by much, as they don't care about breakage. All depends on the route. On a consistently flat surface, a heavy duty furniture blanket would suffice with 3 guys, or 2 strong guys. But I'm thinking they targeted the place, knew exactly what they were after, if not knowing precisely what it contained. They came prepared. If I were in their line of work, I would have a front man who spots the marks. Maybe he works for a gun dealer, maybe at a range, or maybe he does business with the mark. Collectors would be prime targets and easy to locate, because they buy and sell. Innocent conversations can furnish all the info they need.

[rrneck]

78. Lots of maybes, and I've seen 'em all.

It ain't easy, and equipment and preparation increase exposure. Don't go telling me how easy it is to carry off a five hundred pound box with a slick finish until you try it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Out of a (probably) older house, to boot.

Not a lot of new (as in after mid-70's) housing stock in Springfield, Massachusetts.

[rrneck]

81. Yep.

Steep narrow stairways and doors, shit piled up everywhere, a tight corner or two and it can become a real pain in the ass before quick.

Many people don't realize that just having enough ass to pick something up is the easy part. The real trick is getting a proper grip for everyone and getting the whole crowd through the tough spots. And if one guy lets go, the whole thing falls apart. That's bad when you're dodging the cops.

[trouble.smith]

69. personally, I like a bigger safe but I think this gun owner did all that we could expect of him

to keep his weapons secured. that's my bottom line. that it was stolen along with its contents speaks more to the audacity of the thieves than lack of due diligence on the part of the gun owner and to imply that he is in any way accountable for what happens to those weapons once they filter out to the streets is preposterous. The thieves who stole them are accountable as are the dealers who buy them and resell them to the criminals as are the criminals who use them but not the individual who had the firearms stolen in the first place. I personally find it objectionable to require a safe of any kind in order to exercise your constitutional right, especially when the safe your talking about costs in the neighborhood of $2,500-$3,000 and especially when the smaller safes serve their intended purpose better than 99.9999999% of the time. Seriously, how much safe would you require a man to purchase in order to exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

[shadowrider]

49. Of course.

The gun owner should have had the safe bolted and welded to the floor, 4 levels below basement level with only a vertical shaft to get out. Then he should have had it electrified and guarded by 35 trained pit bulls with 47 laser beams guarding the space around the safe.

Tell ya what, IF the gun owner had done all of the above, he'd still be blamed to insufficient protection of his weapons.

Makes ya scratch your head.

The lesson: Absolutely nothing gun owners do to protect their guns is good enough.

[trouble.smith]

57. You hit the nail on the head right there.

[Remmah2]

87. "Shouldn't rights come with some level of accountability?"

Same with the first amendment but some how driveling $hit is still acceptable.

[Starboard Tack]

89. 1A comes with accountability. They call it libel and slander.

Watching your guns is just as important as watching your tongue. You should know that!

[trouble.smith]

94. How much does it cost to watch your tongue?

How much should it cost to watch your guns?

[Starboard Tack]

95. Obviously more than Mr. Dunn was prepared to spend.

Now he has unwittingly supplied 15 more firearms to the black market, he will hopefully rethink his idea of "safe storage".
Those guns may end up costing society a helluva lot, in lives and $$.
Ask Joe Wilson how much it costs to watch your tongue.

[trouble.smith]

96. Is the violence in Mexico America's fault then-since we "walked" all those guns into Cartel hands?

[Starboard Tack]

100. Depends how you assess fault. I don't ascribe blame for the actions of others.

Regardless of legalities, you know when you are being responsible. Do we blame the bartender for the deaths caused by a drunk driver he served? No, but if he knew the guy was drunk and gonna drive, he acted irresponsibly.

[trouble.smith]

103. unless they stored their guns in a measly little 500 lb safe which was then stolen?

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Check the local hospital emergency rooms for men with hernias, strained backs, etc. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

26. There are other tools available besides guns. See post 25

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. I doubt you've ever moved anything that large into or out of a house.

I daresay you wouldn't be so sanguine about the difficulty if you'd had.

[Remmah2]

86. You seem to have intricate knowledge of stealing things.

Are you a hidden criminal?

[Speck Tater]

27. I helped a friend move and it took 5 of us and a piano dolly to move his gun safe. nt

[mikeysnot]

43. Inside job

Most likely a friend of a friend, and mix that in with leaving for the holidays.

[MrSlayer]

51. This is obviously done by "friends" or it's inside.

People don't just randomly break into houses and do things like this. Whomever did this job knew exactly what they were going after. So that means it's friends, family or the victim that set this up or perpetrated the crime.

[trouble.smith]

56. that is not at all obvious though it is possible of course.

maybe he had contractors in his house recently and maybe they became aware of his safe and his schedule and maybe one of these contractors was a thief or knew a thief or had a drug problem or a gambling problem. And thieves do break into homes and businesses and make off with safes. It happens all the time.

[MrSlayer]

61. My point is that it was someone that knew it was there.

It's not a random break in.

[trouble.smith]

64. yeah, that much seems fairly obvious.

[gejohnston]

79. Doesn't have to be an inside job

https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentHome
could very well be someone who has access to the licensing and registration records who gave the information to the thieves. Kind of like how stalkers used DL records to find their targets.

[Remmah2]

88. Look at the bright side, only 15 guns were stolen plus the safe.

Had the home owner been home and shot the 2 $ons of bitche$ we'd have to listen to a two week tirade about how evil home protection and self defense laws are. If it's not one thing it's another.