$1500 Cash Reward

"kontiki" wrote

That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

OK, I agree, and that explains one gun, perhaps two; _if_ they were at the
location the owner was presently located. I have to agree with some others,
that having a whole gun collection in a hangar (relatively easy place to get
into, and relatively low risk of a scumbag thief getting caught) lacks
wisdom.

Losing that much money in valuable items of any kind (if not guns, then
substitute baseball cards and see how it all reads) could have been
prevented by keeping them in a sturdy, bolted down safe; even if they were
at the airport.

I am sorry that this person got ripped off, and I would love to see the scum
that took everything apprehended and have their fingernails pulled out one
at a time. I just can not understand the choice of locations for all of the
guns.
--
Jim in NC

chris wrote:
On May 26, 1:39 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish wrote:
Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
to keep your gun collection I suppose.
Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.

That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.
Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.

Matt

Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!

What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

We simply value freedom and an armed populace is the only way to avoid
tyranny in the long run.


Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 May 2007 00:43:59 -0700, chris wrote
in .com:

What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
Iraq are able to resist occupation.

The notion made some sense in the eighteenth century, and its
underlying premise still holds today. Until the insurgents are
disarmed (at $3 billion/week all the arms in Iraq could have easily
been purchased) there will be no peace in the middle east.


Disarming never brings peace, it just causes people to find other means
to wreak havoc. You have to either remove the motivation they have to
fight or you have to completely eradicate them. There is no middle
ground. And arms have little to do with the problem in the grander
scheme. Take away the guns and you get bombs...

Matt

kontiki wrote:
chris wrote:

Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!


That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
a club or a bomb or even bare hands.

As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
people to be ready to protect themselves and others.


I agree. However, leaving a firearm in your airplane when you aren't in
it protects nothing and is just reckless and risks losing it ... which
is how this thread got started...


Matt

Shirl wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.

I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.

That is what gun safes are for.

Matt

chris wrote:
On May 26, 3:06 pm, Shirl wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.
I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.

That's why you lock the bloody things away!


Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
many parts of the world.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:


I agree. However, leaving a firearm in your airplane when you aren't in
it protects nothing and is just reckless and risks losing it ... which
is how this thread got started...

Oh I concur, I would not leave firearms in my hangar. Nonetheless,
it was his hangar, it was locked and someone broke in and stole his
property. That is the main point.

Matt Whiting wrote:


That's why you lock the bloody things away!


Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
many parts of the world.



I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.

chris writes:

What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

I think it has much to do with a frontier tradition of sorts. Much of the
early history of the United States is filled with pioneering efforts to tame
the wilderness, and when you're out in the wilderness a firearm can be a very
useful thing, for protection from animals or for hunting food. The "rugged
individualism" developed in this way survives today as an independence that
some express through a desire to possess firearms (sometimes developing into
paranoia).

The biggest problem in the U.S. is not the widespread presence of firearms,
but the combined widespread fascination with firearms _and_ with violence.
The Swiss have plenty of firearms, but they are not violent; and many
countries have a history of violence but not necessarily widespread ownership
of firearms. It's when you put the two together that weirdness ensues. See
_Bowling for Columbine_ for examples of the weirdness.

I personally don't see any reason to have a firearm anywhere (much less in an
airplane or hangar) except under the most restricted circumstances, but I know
that there's no arguing with the many Americans who love their guns.

Larry Dighera writes:

The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
Iraq are able to resist occupation.

The founders were thinking of specific and temporary circumstances, not
necessarily of a permanent state.

And the odd thing about American gun owners is that they worry about being
"conquered" by their own government, rather than any outside force. I guess
being able to vote is less important than being able to shoot. The fact that
organized militaries can easily overwhelp a few rifles or pistols doesn't seem
to occur to anyone.

The notion made some sense in the eighteenth century, and its
underlying premise still holds today. Until the insurgents are
disarmed (at $3 billion/week all the arms in Iraq could have easily
been purchased) there will be no peace in the middle east.

Just let them all kill each other, and then deal with the survivors (and
they'll have to deal, because they'll need the money).