Gun store theft prevention

[Sam1911]

I have no idea on liability issues for the business. But as I mentioned pretty much all of the LGR's have just about everyone employed there armed. Can't imagine it would be that much of a strain for a LGS.

It's really hard to say. If nothing ever happens (because armed employees are an effective visual deterrent perhaps?) then it's not a strain at all. If something bad does happen ... in fact if any number of bad things happen, it might be a problem.

What are they expected to do during a robbery? Is that even a question? Obviously protect the employee's and patrons of the store.

Do the employees fully understand that? Is there a stated policy and some basic education for each employee in what the owner requires they do and don't do? Is that policy legally sound? Do they understand that they are armed ONLY for the defense of life, not the preservation/recovery of property? That a shoplifter or a smash and grab thief is not a legitimate target to draw on and shoot? That even if a robber has a weapon the best response might not be to try to outdraw him and engage in a gun fight?

Are they trained? To what level? Personally I would feel like anyone who can legally posses a firearm and has some experience, or furthermore has a CCW would be worthwhile to have them armed while working under these circumstances.

Man...I just don't know. I'd love to feel that way, but security guards are specifically trained for a very good reason, and a big part of that is to reign in "instinctive" tendencies which would endanger people and do more harm than good in a potentially violent situation.

And let's put a very fine point on this. ----- >MONEY<---------
1) They are armed to protect the employees and patrons of the store? Ok, great. Am I PAID to be a protector and guardian of the boss, my fellow clerks, and the public? Is my salary sufficient to cover these additional duties and the risks that come with them?

2) Are the company's insurance policies written to cover employees being armed (or told/encouraged to be armed) and acting as security guards? Will the insurers be paying the damages if a robber holds the place up and an employee (who was told to protect the store) draws on him and they start exchanging gunfire and a patron or passer-by is shot or killed accidentally in the exchange?

3) And this is the big one: If I, the counter clerk and security guard, act within the stated policies of my employer, will my employer back my actions and cover my expenses in any and all criminal and civil court cases I may be tied up in if shots are fired? If I'm charged with manslaughter/murder/AWD (criminal trial), or some robber's family wants to sue me for wrongful death (civil trial), are you, Mr. Employer, going to be paying for my legal defense? Or are you going to say, "Hey thanks for protecting the goods, but really sorry to hear about that $100,000 legal bill. Best of luck!"


This is one of those things that SEEMS very logical and common-sensical -- but isn't at all. It's pretty rocky ground.
While I'd like to hear otherwise, I have a gut feeling that most local gun shops encourage/allow their employees to openly carry mostly because they haven't really sat down and thought about these things very hard. It just seems the "right" thing to do ... and is, until it isn't.

We've all expressed out outrage at places like WalMart or Target which have made national news for firing an employee who laid hands on a thief or robber to stop them. And there's a sense of moral outrage that the good Samaritan employee was just standing up for the side of right and shouldn't be fired for protecting his employer's interests.

But the stores understand something that "we" generally do not: It is far cheaper to suffer the loss of merchandise than it is to deal with the legal matters surrounding ANY kind of violence, even completely "righteous" violence. Stores deal with loss of merchandise all the time, due to accidental breakage, shipment problems, employee theft, shoplifting, etc. That's just part of their business model. They do NOT want to have to include in their model massive legal fees to handle the fallout from a scuffle (or many) over one stolen item (or many).

It's sort of "Freakonomics" thinking but instead of looking at heroic employees taking risks to preserve the company's assets, retailers might well look at someone walking out the door with a stolen TV and say, "Oh, thank heavens! He only took a $1,000 TV, which we only had $800 in anyway. Thankfully we're not paying our lawyers ten times that amount to settle up a case because an employee hurt him getting back that comparatively worthless item!"

 

[hi-impact]

Sam1911,

Wow, lots of good food for thought.

"Freakonomics", hehe, I like that.

 

[Sam1911]

"Freakonomics", hehe, I like that.

Well, of course I didn't invent that at all, but I am a bit of a fan of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner who wrote the book Freakonomics back in 2005 and since have written a follow up and kept up a blog on the subject of the misunderstood economics and "behavioral economics" of many topics.

Their overall point is that common sense is frequently wrong because of factors affecting or affected by any decision which are just a bit beyond the obvious ones "everyone" can immediately see. Most of their ideas would be off-topic here, but we in the RKBA world often use exactly the same sorts of arguments when we advocate for (as Dr. Lott titled his book) "More Guns, Less Crime." I.e.: The general public feels it is "obvious" that if there weren't so many guns we wouldn't have as many shootings. We in the RKBA field have pretty persuasive arguments why that's actually not a logical way to get to the goal. But our arguments have to fight uphill against the superficially obvious common sense of the masses.

 

[Jim Watson]

Gun store clerks hereabouts are routinely armed. I don't know if they have gone into all the legal and philosophical debate over defending the proprietor's merchandise, customers, and employees. If I were a storekeeper, I would likely go armed for SELF defense. These days of gangs, terrorists, and dopers, "Just let them have the goods." may not be a survivable approach.

 

[grampajack]

The last gun shop theft in my area the robbers came in through the roof / AC unit. I can see taking some measures and doing more than your average store, but there is always the risk of something happening. If you make the burden too high they will just fold up and go out of business. A couple well placed cameras inside and out will deter break ins and make solving any crime easier.

Why lock up the expensive good stuff? I'd guess the typical thug doesn't care or know the difference from a $500 vs a $5,000 gun.

That's how they get pawn shops. Always through the roof. That's also why Walmarts in bad neighborhoods will have concertina wire along the roof in the back.

 

[Cannibul]

In the battle between armor and anti-armor the anti-armor always wins.

If they are determined to steal the guns they will get them.

You're adding a lot of extra time and handling. Lots of guns are going to get beat up which is going to cost the store money.

I agree that making it a mandatory 5 year minimum Federal sentence for gun thiefs would be great.

 

[Moparnut]

Personally I think gun stores should invest in higher resolution cameras. I see videos of robberies on the news and you can't tell what the guy or gal looks like. I think that would go a long way in getting a face in the public that is recognizable. Instead most stores buy the minimum their insurance suggests they get.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I don't know where you guys live, but Colorado has had a pandemic of gun shop break-ins over the past two years. A month or two ago, the average was at least one attempted hit per week with the same MO- vehicle through the front of the store. Some of the hardened stores were OK, some not. The shops that went into a former nail salon in the strip mall were generally hosed. Speaking to my ATF POC yesterday, stand by for mandatory FFL security requirements coming down the pipe.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think an alligator pit would be appropriate. Only the manager has the lock for the trapdoor.

 

[Archie]

I appreciate the brick and mortar gun stores/pawn shops that still exist in this age of e-commerce.

But, they [gun stores] need to do a better job of preventing gun thefts, so guns don't get into the wrong hands. There is way too much smash and grab.

What is the basis for this assumption or conclusion? I just looked for information on the number of guns stolen from retail outlets (FFL gun shops and such), and find that although gun stores are robbed with regularity, the numbers of firearms stolen is rather minor in comparison to firearms stolen from private persons.

There are a couple exceptions to this, of course. Chicago has more firearms stolen from licensed dealers than private citizens as Chicago doesn't allow private citizens to own firearms in large measure. New York City is similar.

Most of the information about firearms stolen from licensed dealers was found on the 'aren't guns terrible' websites and seem to suggest the next 'great step' in crime control is to close down (including run out of business) licensed dealers.

On the other hand; I'm willing to be wrong. What information shows such a threat to life and limb deriving from firearms stolen from retail outlets specifically?

 

[CapnMac]

What information shows such a threat to life and limb deriving from firearms stolen from retail outlets specifically?

Yeah, that's what I'd like to see, too.

The data I've read, and the LE I've talked to suggest the average hoodlum just knows to go find Bubba out behind the bowling alley and he'll hook you up. Trying to rob a gun store is dangerous. Bubba works the old fashioned way--he knows the disgruntled clerk at the big-box gun store and will boost the store stock out the back door just before he quits that job. Or knows the dudes who know what box car to bust into.
There's a messy statistic in retail--store losses are only 10% by shoplifters, the other 90% are store employees lifting the stock. Like when the clerk at the national sporting goods store puts the single box price on an entire brick of ammo.

 

[Ignition Override]

Most US voters are not Serious about lengthy prison sentences for thugs. And if they were, how many would be willing to pay for more prisons-and near which towns?
Higher taxes and "location, location, location". You might as well forget this option.

Watching videos of pick up trucks crashing through the walls of gun stores makes me wonder whether MS-13 is just one of the gangs involved.

CapnMac: train box cars: an LEO in Lafayette LA who also worked hotel security told me that based on how certain people drive their cars (very subtle cues), they found interesting contraband in a car trunk.
After a train departs, how would anybody Outside the business know which box car has select-fire military rifles and grenades? That's the contraband which was found by chance in a car trunk. Or that's the only version he was allowed to discuss.

 

[Guitarmike]

It's really hard to say. If nothing ever happens (because armed employees are an effective visual deterrent perhaps?) then it's not a strain at all. If something bad does happen ... in fact if any number of bad things happen, it might be a problem.

Do the employees fully understand that? Is there a stated policy and some basic education for each employee in what the owner requires they do and don't do? Is that policy legally sound? Do they understand that they are armed ONLY for the defense of life, not the preservation/recovery of property? That a shoplifter or a smash and grab thief is not a legitimate target to draw on and shoot? That even if a robber has a weapon the best response might not be to try to outdraw him and engage in a gun fight?

Man...I just don't know. I'd love to feel that way, but security guards are specifically trained for a very good reason, and a big part of that is to reign in "instinctive" tendencies which would endanger people and do more harm than good in a potentially violent situation.

And let's put a very fine point on this. ----- >MONEY<---------
1) They are armed to protect the employees and patrons of the store? Ok, great. Am I PAID to be a protector and guardian of the boss, my fellow clerks, and the public? Is my salary sufficient to cover these additional duties and the risks that come with them?

2) Are the company's insurance policies written to cover employees being armed (or told/encouraged to be armed) and acting as security guards? Will the insurers be paying the damages if a robber holds the place up and an employee (who was told to protect the store) draws on him and they start exchanging gunfire and a patron or passer-by is shot or killed accidentally in the exchange?

3) And this is the big one: If I, the counter clerk and security guard, act within the stated policies of my employer, will my employer back my actions and cover my expenses in any and all criminal and civil court cases I may be tied up in if shots are fired? If I'm charged with manslaughter/murder/AWD (criminal trial), or some robber's family wants to sue me for wrongful death (civil trial), are you, Mr. Employer, going to be paying for my legal defense? Or are you going to say, "Hey thanks for protecting the goods, but really sorry to hear about that $100,000 legal bill. Best of luck!"


This is one of those things that SEEMS very logical and common-sensical -- but isn't at all. It's pretty rocky ground.
While I'd like to hear otherwise, I have a gut feeling that most local gun shops encourage/allow their employees to openly carry mostly because they haven't really sat down and thought about these things very hard. It just seems the "right" thing to do ... and is, until it isn't.

We've all expressed out outrage at places like WalMart or Target which have made national news for firing an employee who laid hands on a thief or robber to stop them. And there's a sense of moral outrage that the good Samaritan employee was just standing up for the side of right and shouldn't be fired for protecting his employer's interests.

But the stores understand something that "we" generally do not: It is far cheaper to suffer the loss of merchandise than it is to deal with the legal matters surrounding ANY kind of violence, even completely "righteous" violence. Stores deal with loss of merchandise all the time, due to accidental breakage, shipment problems, employee theft, shoplifting, etc. That's just part of their business model. They do NOT want to have to include in their model massive legal fees to handle the fallout from a scuffle (or many) over one stolen item (or many).

It's sort of "Freakonomics" thinking but instead of looking at heroic employees taking risks to preserve the company's assets, retailers might well look at someone walking out the door with a stolen TV and say, "Oh, thank heavens! He only took a $1,000 TV, which we only had $800 in anyway. Thankfully we're not paying our lawyers ten times that amount to settle up a case because an employee hurt him getting back that comparatively worthless item!"

Sam1911,

I know the owner of a LGS and his employees are first and foremost armed to deter crime, They will only use their weapons if lives are at risk, just as most of us would in a self defense situation arose. I'll have to ask him if he has a plan to provide legal assistance if needed.

Regarding theft as part of the business model, I agree with you that most retailers factor in loss of product due to theft, I do not see gun stores factoring in x number of guns being stolen per month. There are lower cost ways to secure guns in cases at night, having a long plastic coated high strength cable that is secured to the floor is one way, especially if the floor is concrete.

Mike

 

[Double Naught Spy]

A bunch of new laws isn't going to do any more to deter theft than the current laws which we already don't enforce sufficiently. If we don't enforce the current laws sufficiently, then who is to believe we will do the same with a bunch of new laws.

 

[Sam1911]

I know the owner of a LGS and his employees are first and foremost armed to deter crime,

If I may ask to put fine points on these ideas:

They arm themselves first and foremost to deter crime? Meaning as a visual deterrent? Their primary objective in being armed, then is (not directly to protect life, or property, but) to make bad guys think twice about trying something?

They will only use their weapons if lives are at risk, just as most of us would in a self defense situation arose.

And I think that most would agree, at least on the face of it, that's the whole point. Apparently that gets lost in the shuffle in some situations (e.g. when unarmed thieves get shot while fleeing the premesis and other poor choices), but hopefully never for your friend.

I'll have to ask him if he has a plan to provide legal assistance if needed.

Please do! And as politely as you're able, please try to get him to treat the question with deep seriousness. What, exactly, WILL he do for an employee who ends up in criminal or civil court over a shooting in his store? And what does he feel his insurance company will cover? What would he feel his personal liability (legally?, ethically?) is for such an eventuality?

Regarding theft as part of the business model, I agree with you that most retailers factor in loss of product due to theft, I do not see gun stores factoring in x number of guns being stolen per month.

No, probably not -- for better or for worse. But their insurers do. You can count on it that when you go to an insurance company and tell them you're opening a gun shop, the rates they quote you will reflect that they expect you WILL be losing some inventory as a regular part of business. I imagine, based on some other insurance matters I've dealt with, that you can do certain things as an FFL which will entice your insurer to lower those rates if they can be persuaded you're going the extra mile to secure the inventory. But it's all a financial balancing act in the end. $150,000 for a vault and paying employees to move inventory in and out twice a day every day ... vs. getting $1,000 off your insurance bill becomes hard to justify.

There are lower cost ways to secure guns in cases at night, having a long plastic coated high strength cable that is secured to the floor is one way, especially if the floor is concrete.

Sure. But that only protects against the very most inept and unprepared thieves. A quick stop at the pawn shop for a second-hand angle grinder will have them through that nice "high-strength" cable in 15 seconds, including the time it takes to find an outlet to plug it in. To REALLY secure something takes far more money and well-designed material than most folks realize. Anyone who's ever worked in construction probably carries around the tools to defeat most physical security measures every day.

The very best way of securing inventory is good cameras, alarms, and insurance.

 

[CapnMac]

The ATF will spare no effort in tracking down stolen machine guns, so savvy criminals leave them alone.

Which is an assertion "we" hold true and dear, but is not necessarily backed up with arrest records. Which rather tracks with the history of the IRS going off and arresting tax scofflaws (DOJ/FBI is typically the arresting agency).
Which winds up being like the executive history of the Federal AWB--IIRC, 13 arrests; charges filed 6 times; 1 plea bargain.
Which follows a general trend of gun laws having no effect on gun crime.
Other than to make previously innocent actions illegal.
NYC's Sullivan Act (a blatantly racist, anti-immigrants, classist law) is closing on on being a century old. And has about 300 arrests, 50-60 trials, an a couple dozen convictions. All to no demopnstrable effect upon "gun" crime in NYC.

Now, all of this is why "our" community tends to be incredibly informed and educated about legislation, laws, and enforcement. "We" have to be, as the hopolophobes have driven us into being not merely law-abiding, but law-educated. In short, we have to be "right" just to do our thing. (Or be part of the 2% and therefore not subject to the mundane rules we plebes must endure.)

 

[Solomonson]

Retail is a relatively low margin business. So while firearms probably have a higher margin than cheaper items, paying someone for an extra 10-20 minutes of work twice a day to put firearms on display in the morning and then lock them up at night is pretty costly when you multiply that by a full year. Not to mention adding either a VERY large safe, or a dedicated safe room is a pretty expensive thing to add as well.

Customers like to see actual items when browsing, they go to a store to see the physical gun. They can look at pictures all day long from home, and retailers know that, so they need to keep those items on display. Forcing gun shops to keep their firearms in a safe would just continue to erode away at the remaining brick and mortar stores.

You're generalizing. It depends on the product, location, etc. I know someone that owns a shoe store. He's an exclusive retailer for a few brands locally. It's like printing money -- even with the online competition.

 

[larryh1108]

Is stealing guns from a gun shop considered a federal crime (Federally licensed) a state crime or a local crime? Bank robbers are charged federally; is it the same with someone who steals guns from the federally licensed dealer? What if only ammo is stolen? Would that be a federal crime? It seems that thieves fear federal prosecution over state or local prosecution. No matter who files the charges, it seems that enforcement of existing laws is rather lax when you consider the implications. I agree with the poster that anyone convicted of stealing firearms should also be held liable for any further crimes used with the stolen weapon. This includes theft from private citizens. While that may not stop the thieves who fear no law, it may cut back on the thieves who are a little smarter than their majority.

 

[CapnMac]

There is a problem in assuming criminals think and rationate as others do.
Part of their criminality is in their inability or unwillingness to engage in risk-benefit analysis.
Sadly, federal convictions are a tiny percentage of all criminal convictions.
To the criminal, all convictions are bad, does not matter which ones. Convictions, though, are really the rarity.
Which is a fundamental problem with addressing the issue.
Not all crimes result in arrest.
Not all arrests result in a charge.
Not all charges end with a conviction (and plea bargains blur this no end).
Not all convictions end in punitive jail sentence (see plea bargains).

So, it's easy to see how a criminal, already bad at risk assessment, is going to not seethe line between "do the crime, do the time."

 

[double bogey]

All of the gun shops around here have bollards in front of their stores. Also roll down windows. The ones that don't get stolen vehicles driven through them. Most employees are armed. Don't know about roofs, but I suspect any roof openings are barred and alarmed.

 

[swede4198]

Leaving guns in display cases works if the cases are hardened themselves. You can buy polycarbonate cases that are able to resist being smashed with hammers today, jewelers often use them. Determined thieves can get into them but it will take more than a few minutes which is not what they want as the clock is ticking until the cops get there. Bollards are not that expensive to install and are used by Best Buy and Target stores all the time. gates and roll down shutters are used by many non-gun retailers in urban areas. You can't keep determined people out but you can layer defenses so that it takes too long to get to the guns before local police will arrive. Costs can be recouped in lower insurance costs but you will need more capital to set up your store than most who just rent a store front, buy some used display cases and hang a sign on the front of the building.