Submitted by J-W-L t3_zfwj6x in nottheonion
juggarjew t1_izepwyh wrote
I would bet there was some issue at home so he moved the guns to his office to avoid issues with the wife or kids. Gotta be why they were there.
MyNameIsRay t1_izf1vgt wrote
No one in their right mind would store unsecured guns in an unlocked closet of an unlocked room in a gun-free-zone hospital.
This shouldn't even be an option to consider...
juggarjew t1_izf2n66 wrote
You’d be surprised what people bring to work. That guy probably felt it was a private enough area to do so. It was closet in his office. You really never know what someone is going through, his kid or wife could have been suicidal and he needed a quick place to store the guns outside the home. A place that is secure enough where it won’t get broken into like a mini storage unit or some such.
I dunno, I can’t pass judgement until I know the full story. People see “guns” and freak out but to many they are just tools or a hobby. I will agree it was a poor decision , but we just don’t know the full story.
MyNameIsRay t1_izf5fju wrote
>his kid or wife could have been suicidal and he needed a quick place to store the guns outside the home
Most FFL's will store guns for you.
There's an organization called "Hold My Guns" that was made for just that purpose.
Any decent friend/shooting buddy should let you store guns with them in a situation like this. (I've sure done it for my friends.)
Plus, he could have just removed essential components and stored those in the office if safety was a concern. There would be no legal issue with a bag of bolts and barrels in the closet.
>A place that is secure enough where it won’t get broken into like a mini storage unit or some such.
An unlocked closet in an unlocked room, that other people obviously have access to, is not the more secure option...
>People see “guns” and freak out but to many they are just tools or a hobby.
Just for reference, I'm a massive gun enthusiast. I'm not freaking out about the guns, I'm freaking out that he left fully functional and unsecured guns in the unlocked closet of an unlocked office in a gun-free-zone.
GetOffMyLawn_ t1_izgz3y3 wrote
How about a gun safe at home? Which is where they're supposed to be stored anyway. And wifey and kid don't have the combo.
MyNameIsRay t1_izizknj wrote
A youtube tutorial and some patience can get you into basically any safe. It's nothing but a delay to someone with motivation to get inside.
That's why people in this position want them entirely out of reach, or entirely non-functional.
GetOffMyLawn_ t1_izj2er1 wrote
Exactly. It will deter the casual visitor, or provide some protection in case of a fire, but a thief will have no problems. At least I know where all my important paperwork is.
juggarjew t1_izf60yd wrote
I agree it was less than ideal, but people do weird stuff when they are under duress. Who knows, I still cant pass judgment on him until I hear both sides. He should have known better though, than to have guns that were illegal according to state law, that might have been part of why he felt the need to handle it on his own terms.
MyNameIsRay t1_izf86hx wrote
People do do weird stuff under duress, but any responsible gun owner should know the options they have and the laws that apply.
Again, if the concern was a spouse/child doing something dumb with them, you can just pop a part out and disable them fully, and it would be totally legal to store those parts in his office closet.
I can't imagine a single scenario where this would be the only option.
mushi1996 t1_izf8dvz wrote
Yea but a zip lock back full of harmless firing pins or a duffle fill of barrels is far more practical and safe than storing a bunch of unsecured firearms
Mental_Cut8290 t1_izf7jun wrote
>Most FFL's will store guns for you.
Like I would ever trust someone with a badge to hold on to something valuable.
MyNameIsRay t1_izf8j34 wrote
You might want to google what an FFL is and reevaluate your position...
Mental_Cut8290 t1_izfao3y wrote
Federal firearms license.
What's to reevaluate now?
MyNameIsRay t1_izfbdww wrote
Why you think they have badges, why you don't trust them.
They're business owners, not federal agents...
Mental_Cut8290 t1_izfcc1w wrote
Thank you for clarifying.
gerkletoss t1_izg99kc wrote
Suppose you owned guns and your child started exhibiting signs of violent antisocial behavior.
This still wouldn't be the right move, but it's not hard to come up with a motivation.
MyNameIsRay t1_iziyvsk wrote
I'd just disable the guns, remove the bolts/barrels, and store the bolts/barrels somewhere remote.
It takes seconds, it renders them all useless, and is totally legal since bolts/barrels are just chunks of metal.
Or, I'd just bring them to a buddy's house and leave them in their safe.
Wouldn't ever cross my mind to just leave fully functioning, unsecured firearms in an unlocked closet of a hospital...
GetOutOfNATO t1_izfrc9a wrote
The existence of gun free zones encourages mass shooters.
MyNameIsRay t1_izg0892 wrote
Do you also think the existence of gyms encourages obesity?
GetOutOfNATO t1_izg7rx3 wrote
No, “universal” healthcare does that.
dankinator420 t1_iziaf1j wrote
This is a joke right? I come from the uk that has universal healthcare and has a much lower obesity per capita then America (which doesnt have universal healthcare).
GetOutOfNATO t1_izil5ny wrote
False. obesity in the UK is a significant problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfti1
dankinator420 t1_izim9ju wrote
Weird, I never said it wasnt a problem, just that it's a bigger problem in the us
dankinator420 t1_izin2gk wrote
The only things I can see that effect obesity is national wealth and consumerism culture. Universal healthcare has nothing to do with it.
GetOutOfNATO t1_izixpl2 wrote
If your neighbor is paying for your healthcare then you have reduced incentive to not get fat. It’s a moral hazard.
dankinator420 t1_izizei8 wrote
So can you explain why america has a higher obesity rate per capita despite having one of the most expensive healthcare systems? In theory what you say can make sense but that simply isn't the reality of the situation. Having universal healthcare causes governments to make more of an effort towards healthy eating, where as a for profit health system actually causes monetary gain from obesity. This causes cases of misleading information when it comes to healthcare and raises the rates of obesity.
GetOutOfNATO t1_izj3cic wrote
>So can you explain why america has a higher obesity rate per capita despite having one of the most expensive healthcare systems? In theory what you say can make sense but that simply isn't the reality of the situation.
It’s not obvious because there are also tons of other variables that affect whether or not a person gets fat. We could spend all day talking about them.
>Having universal healthcare causes governments to make more of an effort towards healthy eating,
I disagree, government nutritional recommendations are another reason western society is weak and fat.
If socialists can’t accomplish their goal of getting people to eat healthier and it becomes too expensive for the state, then they just cut funding to the “universal” healthcare system so a lot of people don’t get the treatment they need.
>where as a for profit health system actually causes monetary gain from obesity. This causes cases of misleading information when it comes to healthcare and raises the rates of obesity.
What’s wrong with a for-profit healthcare system continuously researching and developing ways to treat complications from obesity?
dankinator420 t1_izj56h5 wrote
>It’s not obvious because there are also tons of other variables that affect whether or not a person gets fat. We could spend all day talking about them.
But there's no correlation to free healthcare and obesity so your initial point is still wrong.
>I disagree, government nutritional recommendations are another reason western society is weak and fat. And if they can’t accomplish their goal of getting people to eat healthier and it becomes too expensive, then they just cut funding to the “universal” healthcare system so a lot of people don’t get the treatment they need.
You say you disagree but what follows has nothing to do with my point. Every year we have a push for healthy eating in the uk. I will admit that funding is slowly drying up for the nhs but that has far more to do with companies lobbying for an american based healthcare system.
>What’s wrong with a for-profit healthcare system continuously researching and developing ways to treat complications from obesity?
In my experience that isn't what actually happens though. In for profit healthcare, solving problems isn't profitable and therefore rarely happens. It's much better to mislead the consumer and give short term solutions.
Edit- I realised I misread your last point. The problem with only treating the complications of an issue is that it doesn't stop the issue. Keeping people obese so they can charge them for the complications is exactly the reason your entire argument is invalid. For profit healthcare does not promote a healthier lifestyle or limit obesity.
GetOutOfNATO t1_izj76kb wrote
>But there's no correlation to free healthcare and obesity so your initial point is still wrong.
How do you know?
>You say you disagree but what follows has nothing to do with my point. Every year we have a push for healthy eating in the uk.
Yes it does, because what governments promote as healthy eating is actually unhealthy. Further contributing to the problem.
> I will admit that funding is slowly drying up for the nhs but that has far more to do with companies lobbying for an american based healthcare system.
No it’s because your voters elect politicians that starve NHS funding in favor of more politically expedient spending. Universal healthcare doesn’t work because the democratic mob is greedy.
>In my experience that isn't what actually happens though. In for profit healthcare, solving problems isn't profitable and therefore rarely happens. It's much better to mislead the consumer and give short term solutions.
Nah, for profit healthcare has continuously lead the way in technological and productive advancements for centuries. What you’re describing can only happen if market competition is stifled, like under socialism where the state has monopoly control.
blue-cube t1_izf5s21 wrote
Yep. Has to be an issue with wife/girlfriend/kids where the dude needed a short term solution.
It was the marketing director of the hospital. In a closet in what seems to be spare office he had use of. Which (the office) was locked - although the guy, the owner of the hospital and cleaning staff did have access/keys. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/marketing-director-arrested-after-cache-of-guns-found-at-new-jersey-hospital.html
As long as they were in a closet and basically hidden or hidden under things and in a personal office....not much difference (risk wise) than having stuff in a closet in an apartment where building maintenance have door keys.
Was it not NJ and not a hospital, it would be a total non-issue (re: storing some stuff in a closet in a locked office at work with the owner's knowledge).
juggarjew t1_izf68pl wrote
I think it would not have even made the news had all the guns been state legal, hes only in trouble for the "illegal" stuff like the Kriss vector and the larger capacity magazines.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments