Over 1,100 firearms stolen since 2003

fishdog

This was in the paper yesterday. Don't "shoot the messenger" !! Any comments??




SUNDAY BUSINESS POST October 28 2007

Over 1,100 firearms stolen since 2003 by John Burke


More than 1,100 firearms have been stolen in house burglaries and from gun dealers over the last four and a half years, according to figures obtained by Fine Gael.

In many cases, the weapons – mainly shotguns and rifles – are believed to have been stolen to order by criminals who may have been familiar with people’s membership of gun clubs or their involvement in shooting activities. The remaining robberies are believed to have been opportunistic.

The new Department of Justice figures, which were released following a parliamentary query by Fine Gael TD Bernard Durkan show that 206 firearm thefts occurred last year. There were 249 thefts in 2005, 243 the previous year and 292 in 2003. There were 109 firearm thefts in the first half of this year.

It is likely that as many as 1,300 firearms may actually have been stolen over the period, as the figures do not list the number of guns stolen per incident. Where more than one firearm was stolen the theft is counted as one incident only.

The figures suggest that there is a large supply of firearms – particularly shotguns – available to organised criminals, who may be using them in violent crimes and armed robberies. While a breakdown of the types of firearms stolen is not available, it is understood that senior gardai have been placed on alert about the theft of handguns by organised gangs, following the reintroduction of pistols to private ownership here two years ago.

An internal from Garda headquaters to superintendents nationwide, which was sent to each of the 25 Garda divisional areas last year, warned that homes of several hundred handgun owners could be targeted by crime gangs. Shotguns constitute the vast majority of firearms in private ownership.

Bananaman

scan003.jpg

Rew

1100 out of 220,000 and secure stogage has only recently been mandated. Its a fairly scaremongering article

IRLConor

It's a pity they don't have more data like:

1. The exact breakdown between rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc.
2. How many were stolen from secure storage.
3. How many were stolen while the owner was present (and if the firearms were securely stored, whether the owner was forcibly coerced to hand over the keys).
4. How many were recovered after they were stolen (and what proportion were intact and what proportion had been used for crime).
5. How much ammo has been stolen (broken down by type and calibre - for example 50,000 rounds of ammuntion is scary if it's all centerfire rifle ammuntion and not that scary if it's all air pellets).

That data (particularly items 2 & 3) would be very useful for all of us to figure out our security arrangements.

bullets

IRLConor wrote: »

It's a pity they don't have more data like:

you'd probably get the all
to familiar excuse......

"could be obtained only by a disproportionate expenditure of Garda time and resources"


~B

fishdog

Rew:

1100 out of 220,000 and secure stogage has only recently been mandated. Its a fairly scaremongering article

I take your point. but according to the artical:

There were 109 firearm thefts in the first half of this year.

Also regardless of when secure storage was mandated anyone that owns a firearm has a responsibility to ensure its security.

I know that there are alot of sensationalist articals, but this is not exactly from a tabloid and there is an explanation as to where the figures have come from.

How many were stolen while the owner was present (and if the firearms were securely stored, whether the owner was forcibly coerced to hand over the keys).

I would like to know if this has ever happened to someone that is not an RFD


In fact all of IRLConors points would tell us alot

IRLConor

bullets wrote: »

"could be obtained only by a disproportionate expenditure of Garda time and resources"

Maybe I should volunteer to do it for them.

Edit: actually, isn't the CSO supposed to be doing this stuff anyway?

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

scan003.jpg

I think the press are being used to prime 'Joe Public' for a ban on pistols ?

fishdog

I think the press are being used to prime 'Joe Public' for a ban on pistols ?

Dont think so, there is nothing to suggest from the artical that pistols are easier to steal than any other firearm. I would think that in general they are far harder to steal.

It does bring the secure storage of some firearms into question though.

bunny shooter

I am a pistol owner and if the other half sees that article i won't be a pistol owner too much longer !

Dr Strange

Has anyone seen the small article in todays Sunday Independent on stolen licensed firearms in the Republic? It seems to suggest that the gardai would like to see a return of the 'court based' licence renewals.

fishdog

Did not see it. Can anyone post a scan of it?

Rovi

Here's a cut-n-paste from www.independent.ie-

1,700 guns stolen in five years

Sunday November 04 2007

A total of 1,716 firearms -- including 387 rifles, 1,282 shotguns and 47 other assorted weapons -- have been stolen from private citizens in the last five years. The disappearance of these weapons has promoted Fine Gael TD Charlie Flanagan to call for the return of the old courts-based system of renewing gun licences.

"The amount of legally held weapons that has been stolen over the last five years alone would be enough to arm a revolutionary militia" said Fine Gael's spokesman on justice.

Though the use of sub-machine guns in gangland wars have grabbed most of the media attention, gardai believe the use of stolen shot-guns and rifles in post office and bank robberies pose just as much of a threat to the ordinary public. Significantly after a recent decline in the theft of armaments 2007 is set to see a rise in the theft of 'conventional weapons'. In the first 10 months of this year, 243 licensed weapons were stolen, according to gardai.

Our man in Havana

I won't be voting for Charlie Flanagan again! :mad: Who does he think he is?

What is this courts-based system of renewing gun licences he is on about?

Dr Strange

... enough to arm a revolutionary militia.

Ah jeez, that just screams 'beware of licenced firearms-holders' at the general non-shooting public. Firearms stolen from licence holders used by possible paramilitaries for coups .... and stuff like that. Really unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Seems like the papers are buidling up to something...

Methinks maybe the FCP isn't going to get a great result - though I admit this is probablt paranoid.

civdef

Charlie has always never been an ally of licensed shooters, some of his comments in firearm related Dail debates of years past bear testament to this. Now that he's FG justice spokesperson, we can expect much more like that.

The silly scaremongering language is all part of what he feels it takes to get more media coverage.

Keelan

No pitols are being issued in my district because of thefts.!!!!
All .223 rifles are on hold and their is talk of them all being lifted by next July!!!!
How do i know this, i went fishing with a freind, whos father is a super!!

The bright side of this is, they will be handed back, when all the law regarding firearms changes after July, when certain security arrangments are met by the holders of the firearms.

Good Luck.

Sparks

The problem keelan is what those security arrangements will be. I mean, I'm all for gunsafes and house alarms, I happen to think they're just common sense, but what if you're asked for what was asked for before the Dunne v Donohue case, which was - if I recall correctly - bars on windows and steel doors and other things that violated fire safety codes for houses. Or what if 24hr guards are asked for? There's nothing in the Firearms Act that says what the requirements can't be.

Sparks

Zaraba, I don't think you're being paranoid - the FCP are an advisory group, a kick-to-touch measure as far as I can see. They're not irrelevant - they may be able to prevent the worst excesses of paranoia from the powers that be - but I wouldn't say that their existance eliminates the need for lobbying the government...

Keelan

Sparks wrote: »

The problem keelan is what those security arrangements will be. I mean, I'm all for gunsafes and house alarms, I happen to think they're just common sense, but what if you're asked for what was asked for before the Dunne v Donohue case, which was - if I recall correctly - bars on windows and steel doors and other things that violated fire safety codes for houses. Or what if 24hr guards are asked for? There's nothing in the Firearms Act that says what the requirements can't be.

Exactly.

Our man in Havana

What was the outcome of Dunne v Donohue?

BryanL

i wonder if anyone says that a gun has been robbed so they don't have to license a rarely used gun.

Our man in Havana

That would be highly irresponsible and if caught out they would be facing a nice stretch in Portlaoise prison.

BryanL

i agree ,bond, but i'm still amazed at the amount that they are saying are being stolen. i'm just not convinced they are all being robbed thats all
Bryan

rrpc

Bond-007 wrote: »

What was the outcome of Dunne v Donohue?

Dunne v Donohoe was the case where a requirement for a gun safe and extra security was stipulated by a Superintendent before issuing a licence. The case against the Superintendent was successful.

rrpc

BryanL wrote: »

i agree ,bond, but i'm still amazed at the amount that they are saying are being stolen. i'm just not convinced they are all being robbed thats all
Bryan

They are being stolen, those figures are correct. There are 220,000 plus licensed firearms in the country, the average figure equates to about 0.1% being stolen per annum.

The vast majority are shotguns (around 75%), which would probably indicate poor security where these firearms are concerned.

bigred

rrpc wrote: »

The vast majority are shotguns (around 75%), which would probably indicate poor security where these firearms are concerned.

Unfortunately, there's still plenty of people around the country (my father included) that still keep the ole 12ga behind the hall door in the farmhouse in amongst the sweeping brush, wellies etc. and a box of shells on the 'high shelf'. All we can do is be sensible about the guns we hold and try to influence others around us. If someone really wants to rob you, they will. Dissuading the opportunists is half the battle.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Dunne v Donohoe was the case where a requirement for a gun safe and extra security was stipulated by a Superintendent before issuing a licence. The case against the Superintendent was successful.

Yup, the case was against the Super, but the actual requirements involved had come from the Commissioner and had been issued as an unofficial guideline to all the supers. (The point of the case was that the Superintendents were the final arbiters of licencing as a result - noone could force them to issue or deny a licence, and noone could issue binding regulations on them on how to interpret the firearms acts.)
Dunne won in the High Court and then won the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Keelan

As regards gun safes, if they want the guns, they will get them, these criminals are very ditermined indeed!!!
The professional ones, know what they want, they have been informed of the number of guns ect and head straight for that once broken in to the house.!

Not too far from me, a man, with a .22 magnum rifle and 2 shotguns, had his house broken into and his rifle and 2 shotguns taken from his locked up safe!!!
He also had a .243, but lukyly, he was out stalking with that, that morning, otherwise, that would be gone too!!!
They cut a hole on top of the good gun safe, with an angle ginder and lifted the guns threw it, took all ammo and toched nothing else in the house, even though your man had a pile of money, (his wages) siting on the table of the kitchen!! They were just after the guns thats it!!
The poor fella, had his .243 taken off him then by the guards and could never get licenced again, he has since sunk into depression!!!
Sad really.:(

revan23

maybe have an empty safe, and keep the guns somewhere else in the house - just kidding, sort of

rrpc

Keelan wrote: »

As regards gun safes, if they want the guns, they will get them, these criminals are very ditermined indeed!!!
The professional ones, know what they want, they have been informed of the number of guns ect and head straight for that once broken in to the house.!

Not too far from me, a man, with a .22 magnum rifle and 2 shotguns, had his house broken into and his rifle and 2 shotguns taken from his locked up safe!!!
He also had a .243, but lukyly, he was out stalking with that, that morning, otherwise, that would be gone too!!!
They cut a hole on top of the good gun safe, with an angle ginder and lifted the guns threw it, took all ammo and toched nothing else in the house, even though your man had a pile of money, (his wages) siting on the table of the kitchen!! They were just after the guns thats it!!
The poor fella, had his .243 taken off him then by the guards and could never get licenced again, he has since sunk into depression!!!
Sad really.:(

That's a tough break. Two things come to mind when reading this. The first is that when siting a safe, it's important that it's in a position that the guns can only come out through the door and as difficult to apply an angle grinder as possible.

Secondly, he should appeal the refusal to court. He made a more than reasonable effort to keep the guns secure and that should be sufficient. Having said that , it's always important to keep rifles and bolts seperately so that if they are taken they are useless.

fishdog

The first is that when siting a safe, it's important that it's in a position that the guns can only come out through the door

Why would this make it any harder to attack the safe?
They simply attack the door then.

Sparks

Yeah, but that's an attack the safe designers expect fishdog, so they build the safe accordingly.

fishdog

Yeah, but that's an attack the safe designers expect fishdog, so they build the safe accordingly.

Ever seen safes that were sucessfuly attacked ?? Even when 3 sides are accessable the door seems the favorite target.

I am sure that this depends on the type of safe.

Sparks

fishdog wrote: »

Ever seen safes that were sucessfuly attacked ?? Even when 3 sides are accessable the door seems the favorite target.

Yup. That's why the door's the hardest target on any decent safe.
For example, external hinges:

There they are, nice and exposed, perfect target for an angle grinder. And your thief wastes a good 10 minutes (during which they assume the police are responding to your alarm) cutting through them before discovering that the door has bolts on at least two sides and that removing the hinges just means that the door can't swing open when the safe's unlocked - it does nothing to get you into the safe. Little things like that.

Gun cabinets now, on the other hand, aren't as hardened.

fishdog

If that high a standard of safe were normal in Ireland we would not have as much as

0.1% being stolen per annum.

revan23

to be honest, i'd say it's easier to steal the safe than to cut it open on site so to speak...

sidneyreilly

revan23 wrote: »

to be honest, i'd say it's easier to steal the safe than to cut it open on site so to speak...

Not if you have it properly secured on a few sides!

Sparks

I think that's why they usually want the safe bolted to a structural wall revan...

alan_simon

To get back to the topic, I was chatting to a garda this morning. I won't name him, but he's in charge of Firearms in a significant area of South Dublin. He was saying that the vast majority of thefts are, firstly shotguns and large calibre rifles, and secondly that most thefts are opportunistic. Unless you have a big centrefire rifle or a pistol in your house, your unlikely to be targeted by robbers. Mostly it's rifles being stolen from the backs of cars from people on their way to the range, who stopped for whatever reason.

Another interesting thing he said was that safes are not required for firearms, at least not for .22 rifles. The Garda appreciate a safe, but you can still get a license without a safe, or an alarm on your house. Maybe if this becomes obligatory (which it should, in my opinion) opportunistic robbers might not get your gun.

alan

Our man in Havana

Another interesting thing he said was that safes are not required for firearms, at least not for .22 rifles. The Garda appreciate a safe, but you can still get a license without a safe, or an alarm on your house. Maybe if this becomes obligatory (which it should, in my opinion) opportunistic robbers might not get your gun.

The local super insists on a safe and will not grant a FAC without one.

Umiq88

alan_simon wrote: »

He was saying that most thefts are opportunistic

alan_simon wrote: »

Unless you have a big centrefire rifle or a pistol in your house, your unlikely to be targeted by robbers

alan_simon wrote: »

you can still get a license without a safe, or an alarm on your house. Maybe if this becomes obligatory (which it should, in my opinion) opportunistic robbers might not get your gun.

alan_simon wrote: »

Mostly it's rifles being stolen from the backs of cars from people on their way to the range, who stopped for whatever reason

How will a monitered alarms system and top of the range safe stop the theft getting the guns from your car?

Can you really expect the same measures on everyone i mean in theory it would be great everyone having top of the range safes and monitered alarms but for my .22 rifle that i paid 280euro for im not paying 1000 for a monitered alarm and half that for a safe. I do keep my rifles secuely in a safe and i have it in an awkawad place not very visible and inside the wall so hard to get at.

I think if the government/gardai are so concerned grants should be issued towards shooters to help provide more security

i think the biggest problem is what if someone knows you have guns and comes into your house armed and you're there and asks you for your keys i for one would be inclided to give them to them i'm not going to risk my life over it so what is the average shooter to do

Criminals will get there hands on guns one way or another not that we should make it easy for them quite the opposite but i think theres only so much the shooter can do and responibility has to be handed over at some point

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

The local super insists on a safe and will not grant a FAC without one.

The act requires "secure storage". It leaves the definition of that up to the discretion of the local Superintendent, so you could have one person required to have a safe, a monitored alarm system, steel bars on the windows, and 24hr private security; and the guy 100 yards away might get a cert for the same firearm with nothing more than a strong cupboard door and lock, and it would still be perfectly legal.

alan_simon

psittacosis wrote: »

How will a monitered alarms system and top of the range safe stop the theft getting the guns from your car?

Psittacosis, I presume you know one of the prime rules of firearm safety... NEVER leave your firearm unattended in an unsecured place. If you leave your firearm in the safe everytime your not using it, then your going to reduce the chance of you getting your gun stolen.

It wasn't me!

What I read was that he was saying the guns are in the boot, and when stopped in traffic, for example, the thieves open the boot and simply take the gun.

I had heard, however, that when a rifle is in transit, it's supposed to be disassembled, in the sense that the bolt at least, and possibly other essential parts, will be removed. Is this true, and if so, how does this impact on the effectiveness of guns stolen during such opportunistic thefts? Or is it something that isn't observed?

bullets

alan_simon wrote: »

The Garda appreciate a safe, but you can still get a license without a safe, or an alarm on your house. Maybe if this becomes obligatory (which it should, in my opinion) opportunistic robbers might not get your gun.

alan

I was told my super would Not issue any licenses without a safe (which I totally agree with) and they examined mine after it was bolted to the wall and floor. I was also asked if I had safe in the car! (I dont own a car I travel with a friend when shooting and remove the bolt and pocket it and also use a trigger lock) I also keep my bolt and ammo in a locked strong box in a completely separate area of my house. For Center fire I was told they
would look for a monitored alarm and as for Pistols I was told the super
did not issue licenses for pistols at all full stop!

I have no problems with them insisting on an Alarm but I do have a problem
with them insisting on a monitored alarm by third party. When that party
is not you and it means paying a monthly price.

At the moment I am planning on saving for an alarm. I cant afford much
due to a high mortgage.

I don't trust alarms at all. Every time one goes off where I live people
ignore it. Window and door sensors are no good if they smash the glass.
PIR's that trigger the alarm only happen when someone has already broken into your house. Vibration sensor can be accidentally triggered.
I've got 14 cats 3-4 of which are indoor pets and have free movement of the house I can only imagine how often they would trigger PIR's even with the pet friendly ones.

3rd party monitored alarms you have a monthly fee to pay and some systems
are not compatible with some phone/broadband services I think???
ie if I am with Smart Telecom and want Eircom phone watch it kinda
messes things up.

~B

E. Fudd

I recently got a price for monitoring by a central station, €150.
Which I thought wasn't too bad If it was the difference between an FAC and no FAC.

As I am in the electrical business, and used to do alarms (up until the new regulations came in, requiring me to pay approx €3000 a year to be licensed and avoid prosecution), this price was subject to me installing the dialler myself. I know that I was charging about €200 when I used to install them, which would be a once off charge, and then the 150 a year.

One of the little known facts about the monitoring malarky is that the installer who signs you up to a monitoring contract receives around €50 per annum from the monitoring company for as long as you have the contract!!

fishdog

I recently got a price for monitoring by a central station, €150.

Sounds like a good price, but what do you get for your money?? People think that if the alarm activates the monitoring company will ring the Gardai and they will in turn respond as quickly as they can. This is not the case. If the alarm activates the monitoring station will ring the keyholders and then the Gardai who will only trun up if a keyholder will meet them there!! If a keyholder can not make it there the Gardai will not turn up!!

This is in the Garda policy document that you can see on the PhoneWatch website.

What is the alternitive??? Buy an alarm that will ring (and/or text) you (and several others) when it activates, you in turn can phone the Gardai. Why pay a middle man ????

The Gardai accept this for all legal firearms in all of the cases I have come across (many).

Like E. Fudd, due to the Private Security Authority government scam I no longer work in the alarm industry.

bullets

fishdog wrote: »

The Gardai accept this for all legal firearms in all of the cases I have come across (many).

Thats good to know!

~B

rrpc

fishdog wrote: »

Sounds like a good price, but what do you get for your money?? People think that if the alarm activates the monitoring company will ring the Gardai and they will in turn respond as quickly as they can. This is not the case. If the alarm activates the monitoring station will ring the keyholders and then the Gardai who will only trun up if a keyholder will meet them there!! If a keyholder can not make it there the Gardai will not turn up!!

If the Gardai know there are guns in the house you can bet your life they'll be out very quickly. Sparks found that out when his house was burgled last year.