On Sat, 26 May 2007 07:25:49 -0500, Dan wrote:

Assuming the hangar in question was locked that should be enough to
protect any property from being stolen. A competent burglar can get into
most safes and buildings if he is determined to do so.

When you think about it, though, a hangar could be more secure than a typical
home. Entry to a house can be attained with no further investment than a stone
through a window. The hangars at my airport have only a single point of
entry...no glass to smash, no patio doors to lift off the track, not even wooden
door jambs to splinter. Mind you, the locking mechanism on the door isn't the
greatest, but it at least gives only ONE point the occupant has to upgrade to
increase security.

Plus, larger airports often have full-time security contingents.

In my case I have a gun safe, but I shouldn't need it since I live
alone and secure my house when I am not home. If South Africa holds the
gun owner as much as or more responsible than the burglar then something
is wrong there.

It's a swing of the pendulum a bit far in the opposite direction, but it does
have its attractions. One of the anti-gun arguments here in the US is that the
weapons purchased by law-abiding citizens too often end up in the hands of
criminals; here's a way to fight that. Properly securing one's weapons is the
hallmark of a responsible gun owner.

It's matter of degree, of course. If the gunowner can show forced doors and
busted safe, I would figure he or she had taken adequate steps to protect the
weapons. If the owner leaves his F150 in a dark tavern parking lot with a rack
of guns in plain sight in the rear window, that's another thing.

Ron Wanttaja