Archive for Monday, March 18, 2013

Lawrence man reports guns stolen in burglary Sunday

March 18, 2013


A Lawrence man reported two guns were stolen from a house in the 1300 block of Brook Street Sunday afternoon, said Kim Murphree, a Lawrence Police Department spokeswoman.

Lawrence crime, fire, courts coverage
Have a tip?
Contact Journal-World reporter Caitlin Doornbos:

The man said a shotgun and a rifle were missing Sunday when a relative checked on the house, and the door locks appeared to have been tampered with. Police registered the stolen guns with an FBI database, Murphree said.


elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

People like this that are not responsible enough to secure their guns need to be held accountable of any crimes that are done with their stolen guns

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 2 months ago

I assume that you feel the same about all other personal property. For example, if your car is stolen and you did not "secure" it?

mom_of_three 5 years, 2 months ago

except that locked cars can be opened and then hotwired.... some gun safes are probably better than others.

notorious_agenda 5 years, 2 months ago

What is your definition of secure elliotaw? Judging the victim of a crime without all of the details, and before even considering the actual perpetrator leaves you looking like a fool in my opinion.

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

Secure would be having them somewhere where they can not easily be taken i.e. a safe, if you are not responsible enough to do this you need to be held liable, if you are not responsible enough to lock your car, your insurance should not have to pay for it being stolen. Same way your insurance does not have to pay if you get in a accident and are not wearing your seatbelt.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

People break into cars. People break into houses. People break into safes.

People who have cars, houses and safes are not criminals.

Inanimate objects are no threat to you. Deal with the animate fools. Don't act like one, thief.

bad_dog 5 years, 2 months ago

"Same way your insurance does not have to pay if you get in a accident and are not wearing your seatbelt."

What? Who told you this? Kindly point this interested reader to the authority; statutory or contractual, for this conclusion.

greatgatsby 5 years, 2 months ago

Alas, his firearms were secure. In your locked house is considered a secure environment. Safes and locks are meant to protect from people who have immediate access to the area and need to be kept out. A locked house is a secure domain and anyone who breaks in is the true criminal.

kawrivercrow 5 years, 2 months ago

"people like this....need to be held accountable of any crimes that are done with their stolen guns"

This load of feces where victims are blamed for the actions of criminals will be the downfall of civilization. Just stop it already.

pace 5 years, 2 months ago

Well are you lonely? just spout mean nonsense and maybe they will talk about how stupid what you say. You should be ashamed that your mouth does't seem connected with judgment.

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

if you left it unlock or left it with the engine running yes, you should be held liable. Now had he had his guns in a safe and the safe was broken into that is a different circumstance, but there is no mention of a safe here which leads you to believe that the guns were just in the corner or in a closet. That is not responsible. It is no different than if a parent leave a 5th of vodka or pills on the counter and their kid takes them and dies, that parent will pay a price for that.

notorious_agenda 5 years, 2 months ago

Actually nowhere in the article does it mention "a corner or in a closet" Nothing in this article leads you to believe that. You are merely jumping through hoops to try twist this to fit your agenda. Does this victim even have kids?

First of all, no further crime has been committed, as far as we know, with the stolen guns yet. Parents and children typically live in the same residence. Children typically don't drink vodka to a point at which they die. We are talking about a burglary, so prey tell how many children have burglarized their parents and then killed someone with a 5th of vodka?

If you want to say "it is no different than..." Maybe you should realize that the thief would most likely not be killing his or herself with the gun. There would be another future victim. In your scenario the suspect is the victim. And what if the guns are stolen from the guy who stole them???

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

you don't comprehend very well do you? About 1500 children die every year from alcohol poisoning. I said when this happen and it is found that the parents where the source (weather intentional or not) of the alcohol the parents are held liable for that childs death because they did not take the proper steps to keep the child safe. If you own a gun and do not take the proper steps to secure it, and it is stolen from you, you should be held liable for what that gun is used for.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

That is just silly. An inanimate object is not a criminal. The owner of an inanimate object is not a criminal. Someone who, with malice aforethought, steals said inanimate object is a criminal...END OF STORY.

Protecting children from themselves is a different matter.

webmocker 5 years, 2 months ago

elliottaw says "It is no different than if a parent leave a 5th of vodka or pills on the counter and their kid takes them and dies..."

By this logic, a childless adult who lives alone and leaves prescription drugs in an unlocked cabinet should be held responsible if a thief breaks into the house, steals the prescription drugs, and gives or sells them to someone else who then overdoses on them.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Why can’t KansasLiberal realize that no matter how high pitched the scream, no matter how many times he repeats it, no matter how many other fools agree, my right to own firearms, for whatever purpose that I choose, is non-negotiable and none of his damn business.

Shelley Bock 5 years, 2 months ago

Gee, I thought that the 2nd Amendment was to establish a militia for the security of the State. Don't remember seeing "non-negotiable and none of his damn business" being part of the language written.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Gee, you are wrong.

You might want to learn a little something about the Constitution in general and the Bills of Rights in particular before you make silly little comments like this.

BTW, “shall not be infringed” pretty well covers “non-negotiable and none of his damn business”.

Shelley Bock 5 years, 2 months ago

Wrong Peacemaker, you're the one that needs to re-read the Bill of Rights and Constitution. 2nd Amendment was established to preserve a militia for "the security of the State." Furthermore, Congress was empowered to regulate and control the militia of the various States in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17 (unnumbered) of the Constitution. Often ignored, but it's there.

"Silly little comments like this" statement only reflects on your substantially deficient myopic view. "Shall not be infringed" refers to the basic right of possession, not that Congress is prohibited from controlling and regulating possession. For instances, you can't own a Thompson sub-machine gun, can you? That's pure and simple regulation which you can't negotiate.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Hepburn, I normally enjoy discussing this subject with people that put some effort into learning about it, even if we don’t agree on much. Since that qualifier doesn’t apply in your case let me try to make this simple for you so you can understand:

The “sophisticated collective right” theory of the Second Amendment has been thoroughly debunked by Constitutional scholars and abandoned by even the most strident victim disarmament clowns. Even the ACLU has given up on it. Yet here you are, still clinging to it. You might want to read a little research, or heaven forbid, do some of you own, on the subject and quit reading 20 year old propaganda.

The fact that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate the militia has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Furthermore, why don’t you try to find out what “well regulated” meant in the late 1700s in this context. I will give you a hint, it did not, and does not, mean piling on a bunch of government regulations.

And here is the real kicker, which shows that you don’t know anything about what you are saying: I can lawfully own a Thompson sub-machine gun.

Why don’t you pick a new subject to worry about, this one is kicking your butt.

Shelley Bock 5 years, 2 months ago

Ha, so long as it isn't automatic, you forgot to say that. You might want to fully describe and disclose what you mean. You try awful hard, Mustang.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Yes, even if it is fully automatic, I didn’t forget anything. Full disclosure is right there, if you care to learn the facts.

I don’t have to try very hard to prove you wrong. I also don’t take condescending bulls**t from others, no matter their perceived status.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

What happened, Hepburn? Did you finally go look something up and find out you were wrong?

Too bad you don’t have the integrity to come back and admit it. I guess only Mustangs bother with integrity any more.

BlackVelvet 5 years, 2 months ago

Why do you GUN HATERS (as opposed to we gun NUTS, always find some reason to blame and/or bash anyone who owns a firearm? Perhaps this gun owner did not have a safe-perhaps he lived alone, therfore did not see a need to secure the guns from his (non) children. Or are you saying he has to protect the entire world from his evil guns....

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

People can own 100 guns for all I care, but they need to take the necessary steps to secure them. How many home burglaries have we had in Lawrence in the last year, if you don't have your guns secure you are putting everyone at risk. This also easily puts guns in the hands of people that probably could not buy them, which causes more crimes, which hurts the "gun nuts" argument that more guns is better.

Greg Cooper 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, good grief, elliot, give it up. You've made your (questionable, at best) point and are now painting yourself into an undefensible corner. Yeah, people need to secure their guns, and yes, people need to secure their drugs and alcohol from children. But you don't know a thing about these particular circumstances, do you?

Argue sopmething about which you are knowledgeable and you might get some respect. Argue just for the sake of defending something silly, you get egg on your face.

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

my stance has not changed at all, I never said people couldn't have guns I said people need to be held responsible for what happens to them because of their carelessness

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

Your stance may not be obvious to you but it's obvious to everyone else. You want all the big bad (and teeny tiny) guns to go away. You suspect that there is something evil and wrong about anyone who would own or handle a gun. The first step to overcoming such a problem is to admit to having the problem. You seem to be reaching out. Perhaps one of us can sponsor you in your recovery?

elliottaw 5 years, 2 months ago

I own about 10 guns, which are kept in a safe nice try though

webmocker 5 years, 2 months ago

elliottaw 1 hour, 14 minutes ago "I own about 10 guns, which are kept in a safe nice try though"

I would think that a responsible gun owner would know exactly how many guns he or she owns. Otherwise, how would said owner know if one was missing?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 1 month ago

I get it. You simply like to righteously blather on. My bad...for not believing you, and for believing that you get creative with the truth if it supports your views.

When's the last time you had your guns outside of your safe? How do you use your guns? What are they for? Why would you post "about" how many guns you have on a public forum, such as this? Is that really a responsible thing to do?

John Hamm 5 years, 2 months ago

Why do you Liberals tend to forget the Second Amendment to the US Constitution? It is there for a reason. Now go ahead and say it doesn't apply to "modern" weapons and I'll zing ya back with printing presses versus the internet for right to speech. "no" > "now"

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

All you SHOW is fear of the world around you "KansasLiberal"! You have a right to that fear as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of those who have caused you NO HARM. Owning a gun is not a crime. Hunting is not a crime. Target shooting is not a crime. "Plinking" is not a crime. Collecting is not a crime. And you may think it wrongheaded of me to say this, but not trusting the police force to act as your personal bodyguard is not a crime!

KansasLiberal, I think it may be time for you to create a gated...nay gated and walled...nay gated, walled, mined, razor-wired and patrolled by mercenaries for you and your ilk, who apparently believe that there should be a bluebird singing Kumbaya on your shoulder and fairy tales of our current government system actually providing you with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are your neighbors, friend. We are not criminals. We are not "nuts". Quit being rude.

BlackVelvet 5 years, 2 months ago

He can't have mercenaries....for they have....GUNS!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, but KL is fine with guns in the hands of a government. Perhaps I define mercenaries a bit differently.

SnakeFist 5 years, 2 months ago

I thought people who owned guns were supposed to be immune from this sort of thing? Aren't criminals supposed to be deathly afraid of gun nuts - isn't that the whole rationale for owning a gun?

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Your error begins with your first two words.

The rest just helps emphasize just how big of an error it is.

DillonBarnes 5 years, 2 months ago

What a silly thing to say, you're grasping at thin air trying to find a reason to demonize gun owners.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 2 months ago

SnakeFits, I thought people who despise guns were all fearful twits and immune to logic. Isn't that the whole (ir)rationale for wanting all guns to go away, beginning with those of your lawful neighbors?

Mark Currie 5 years, 2 months ago

I don't know enough about the circumstances, how do we know the guns didn't have gun locks on them? All guns sold new now come with them. These keep them safe from children, and people unfamiliar with guns. Yes I have a safe & use it. I am a big believer in safes and gun locks. I just get tired of being blamed for everything that happens to or with a gun. Just this morning, I had a great time shooting in an indoor range. Before I leave home again my TARGET PISTOL will be secure. Not all guns are meant to kill. But even if they were, the 2nd amendment is put in place to protect people from being controlled . I am a normal average retired guy that enjoys shooting, whether it be a target pistol or an AR 15. Sorry if I offended anyone, flamesuit on.

bevy 5 years, 2 months ago

Don't worry guys, unless the thief took the ammo too, he won't be able to use them at all. Can't find any at any of the local retailers.

Chris Beilman 5 years, 2 months ago

So what if they had guns in their house ! The house was locked up ... Someone broke into the house. Who broke the law here ??? What a ridicules conversation.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

I don't see any evidence in this news report that the gun owner in this case failed to exercise reasonable caution. He kept the guns at home, locked up, and he reported their theft to the police. That suggests that he is responsible citizen.

If stolen guns were the only source of weapons used in criminal acts, there would be about 85% less gun violence in this country. Most criminals don't get guns by stealing them from private citizens. Instead, they buy them from dealers who fail to do proper checks (a minority of dealers), or from private parties who aren't required to do background checks, or through friends and family members who buy guns for persons who would not pass background check. Or they buy the guns from other criminals. See

Enlightenment 5 years, 2 months ago

Gun owners, secure your firearms in a safe. It will reduce the amount of firearms stolen and used by criminals. It's that simple. Anti-gun people have a legitimate concern that the more guns held by "legal" gun owners equates to a greater chance "criminals" will get their hands on firearms via burglaries of cars and homes where "legal" gun owners store their firearm.

My feeling towards firearms is similar to religion, both are legal and I wont' infringe on your rights until your rights begin to negatively impact me and my rights. So just be responsible and keep your firearms in a safe to lessen the chance of burglars and children getting their hands on firearms and causing deaths. Enough said.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 2 months ago

Shooting guns for nearly 50 years, often more than once a week. Shoot varmints, but am much more of a target shooter now. Love to shoot Blue rock. Can protect myself and family, family can protect me as well.

This is the American gun argument in a nutshell. If daddy or more nowadays, mommy teach children gun safety, more-so, respect of guns, they tend to be supporters of the Second Amendment.

Sadly, on the coasts in urban areas daddy and mommy (nowadays nanny state preachers too) teach children to fear a tool (guns) they tend to be anti Second Amendment.

Umm? With a few urban areas deciding national elections, is our Constitution really safe? Try buying a 32 oz unsweetened ice tea in NYNY and wonder what the original framers of our laws would think.

bad_dog 5 years, 2 months ago

FYI, Constitutional framer concerns aside, you can purchase a 55 gallon drum of sweetened tea in NY and drink it through a firehose straw if you want. A NY State judge threw out the ban last week; finding it arbitrary and capricious.

Don't tell me you missed "Slim, Sexy Sarah" seductively slurping sweaty sixteen ounce sodas at the CPAC last weekend...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.