Stolen guns recovered

pablo128

Just an idle thought. Several firearms were recovered by Gardai in Tallaght yesterday following a chase. These included 3 shotguns reported stolen. Provided they are in good condition, not cut down etc, would these be returned to their owners, or would the fact they were stolen in the first place be reason not to return them?

And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

kirving

pablo128 wrote: »

And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

Vizzy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?

tudderone

I would imagine it would be down to how they were stored when not in use, ie. if they were not in a safe and stuck in the corner of a wardrobe or closet, the owner could be in trouble.

PSXDupe

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

Statements like this is why our sports are always under attack.

If the person had the firearms stored correctly and followed the law and any additional (if any) requirements set down by the super in the area. Then why would they not be entitled to have their firearm returned.

If criminals want to get their hands on firearms there are many way for get them. All a firearm owner can do is their best, safe, alarm, CCTV. They will not prevent a criminal from getting a firearm if they really want it.

wirehairmax

Speaking from experience, once the case has been concluded, and once the firearms are in good condition and safe to use, the owner will get them back providing their security measures are adequate and to the satisfaction of the local Superintendant.
I got 2 out of 3 back, my beautiful Beretta didnt come home unfortunately as the f****** had cut the stock and barrel off. It was given to my local RFD and wasnt worth fixing.

tudderone

wirehairmax wrote: »

Speaking from experience, once the case has been concluded, and once the firearms are in good condition and safe to use, the owner will get them back providing their security measures are adequate and to the satisfaction of the local Superintendant.
I got 2 out of 3 back, my beautiful Beretta didnt come home unfortunately as the f****** had cut the stock and barrel off. It was given to my local RFD and wasnt worth fixing.

That would boil my wizz :mad:. Anyway i thought sawn off shotguns were the firearm equivilent of the ford granada or mk2 jag, something from the criminal worlds good old days of the 60's and 70's ?

kirving

Vizzy wrote: »

Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?

While a stolen car might be used in a murder, it's equally likely to be broken down for parts and shipped abroad. The same cannot reasonably be said for a stolen firearm.

In any case, if your car is deemed to be at high risk of being stolen, you pay higher insurance. If it actually is stolen, your insurance will go up. If it continues to happen, you will be denied insurance.

PSXDupe wrote: »

Statements like this is why our sports are always under attack.

If the person had the firearms stored correctly and followed the law and any additional (if any) requirements set down by the super in the area. Then why would they not be entitled to have their firearm returned.

If criminals want to get their hands on firearms there are many way for get them. All a firearm owner can do is their best, safe, alarm, CCTV. They will not prevent a criminal from getting a firearm if they really want it.

Even following conditions for storage down to the letter, they may still be a soft target for criminals. IMO, someone's entitlement to own a firearm unfortunately comes secondary to the risk of it being stolen. Should a licence be withdrawn after the second theft, the third?

A question, because I don't know. Are the majority of stolen firearms taken during a "normal" burglary, or specifically targeted and cut from a safe?

Grizzly 45

From someone who has had a firearm stolen and recoverd a decade later in pss poor condition and chopped down.AGS wanted to destroy it straight away,but I asked them to hold off to see was it feasabile to replace the barrel and stock.[Winchester 1300XTR pump action]

It wasn't economically viable to do so.So I let it go. At the time I had other guns in the house,and they all survived the raid,as I had practised ramdom dispersal of the guns and parts and stashed them all over the place[Well pre 2008 ] Which IMHO is a better and secure option than having a whole safe load of goodies in one location to be attacked. So AGS had no problem re issing a liscense for the stolen gun.
So it will depend on how badly chopped and stored ,as said your gun was ,and whether you can source parts for it.As it is still now your property,you still have to sign off on the destruction of it post the case being closed.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Vizzy wrote: »

Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?

You don’t need a license to own a car. There are no storage requirements for where you put your car when you’re not using it. Stupid comparison.

2011

pablo128 wrote: »

And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

This can only be decided on a case by case basis.
Nothing else makes sense.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

From someone who has had a firearm stolen and recoverd a decade later in pss poor condition and chopped down.AGS wanted to destroy it straight away,but I asked them to hold off to see was it feasabile to replace the barrel and stock.[Winchester 1300XTR pump action]

It wasn't economically viable to do so.So I let it go. At the time I had other guns in the house,and they all survived the raid,as I had practised ramdom dispersal of the guns and parts and stashed them all over the place[Well pre 2008 ] Which IMHO is a better and secure option than having a whole safe load of goodies in one location to be attacked. So AGS had no problem re issing a liscense for the stolen gun.
So it will depend on how badly chopped and stored ,as said your gun was ,and whether you can source parts for it.As it is still now your property,you still have to sign off on the destruction of it post the case being closed.

I have all the guns in the safe, but with the fore-ends or bolts removed and placed in another safe thats hidden. So even if the scummers do manage to open or take the safe the guns are useless.

Another tip, if you are good at welding or know someone who is, get two lengths of chain the width of the safe welded in at the height of the triggers, pass it through the trigger guards and padlock the guns into the safe.

Pkiernan

Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.

tudderone

Pkiernan wrote: »

Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.

It depends. Safes are cheap enough now. But i still know people who throw their gun under the bed or on top of the wardrobe. No excuse for it.

kirving

Pkiernan wrote: »

Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.

Victim blaming?

If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).

Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway, or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.

I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.

BattleCorp

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Victim blaming?

If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).

Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway, or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.

I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.

Even banks get robbed. No level of security is 100%.

Would you remove someone's driving licence if their car was stolen? It could be used in a robbery. Or worse than that, a getaway car killed a woman about a week ago.

You are being too harsh on responsible gun owners.

freddieot

Caught +10 over the speed limit :-
confiscate car
lose licence for life..

Same bizarre logic, only way to be sure to fully protect the public from a repeat in the future....Who needs to speed so one offence and you're done.

Only important difference in this example is that the offender is being punished, not the victim.

kirving

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even banks get robbed. No level of security is 100%.

Would you remove someone's driving licence if their car was stolen? It could be used in a robbery. Or worse than that, a getaway car killed a woman about a week ago.

You are being too harsh on responsible gun owners.

Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.

I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car. A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.

Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked? For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?

tudderone

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.

I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car. A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.

Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked? For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?

So a victim of crime, the chap who has his private property (not a crime in itself....yet) stolen, even though he has taken reasonable and responsible precautions with his security is the one penalised ?

Doesn't sound in the least bit fair to me. If he as i said earlier had chucked the gun under the bed or behind the door in the kitchen, fair enough, he did not take precautions.

Where does it all end though ? You cannot own a nice telly, hi-fi, shed full of tools because anto scoby round the corner has velcro fingers ?

Cass

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Victim blaming?

By saying the person should not have a firearm again is akin to making the person who is the victim of a/the crime responsible for the actions for the criminal.

In case you are not aware An Gardaí inspect people's home and security measures before granting a firearms license (this is in addition to the 9 page, 3 month, medical waiver, and background check each applicant goes through). As such An Gardaí signed off on the security measures as being adequate. So if An Gardaí are satisfied then how can anyone question the level of security?

If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).

You cannot stop a criminal with determination. Look at the ATM robberies, they stole diggers and excavators and pulled the walls out. Point being short of having a moat and sharks with fricking lasers on their heads nothing is theft proof.

Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway

You don't understand the firearms laws in this country. That in itself is a breach of the firearms Act so wouldn't happen and if it were the case then the firearm owner has no excuse and would have the firearm license revoked.

, or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.

Not even close.

The above example of the teenager is negligence on behalf of the firearm owner(s) whereas the criminal aspect is something you try to prevent, but cannot guarantee to be 100% successful.

I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.

Possibly and again a knowledge of the firearm acts and mindset of AGS would tell you the would ask for a higher level of security which can include but is not limited to full monitored house alarm with GSM backup, separate safes for different parts of the same gun (so its not ll stored together), hidden safes with key components, etc, etc.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.

Going by your line of thinking at some point the bank should not have any money as it cannot be trusted not ot be robbed again.

I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car.

Nor do you need a license to own a gun. You do need a license to use BOTH.

A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.

Have you data to support that assertion? Otherwise it's just an opinion. AGS have said themselves that as few firearms at the scene of criminal acts are recovered they cannot say if the firearms usd are those stolen or illegally imported.

Also approx. 13,000 cars per year are stolen yet according to AGS approx 200 firearms per year are stolen. Those firearm figures are badly misleading too as some years its far less and others a little higher and they don't account for the fact that the majority are stolen in one large lot from a firearm dealer.

So there are 65 more cars than firearms stolen and AGs cannot say what becomes of the firearms, but you say they are "by orders of magnitude" used more in crime.

Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked?

There is no number because by doing so you punish the owner for the criminal actions of others.

By doing so your (firearm owner) behaviour is now no longer the basis for how you are treated.

For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?

There are 18 firearms acts, 63 SI, 2 EU directives which directly or indirectly govern the ownership of firearms. As i said above we go through one of the toughest application processes in not only EUrope but the world and at every step it is overseen and signed off by An gardaí.

If someone is negligent as a firearm owner they will be punished by fines, jail, both and loss of licenses/firearms. If they are the victim of a crime they should be treated as a victim and as AGS have said their security was sufficient they are not to be held accountable for the actions of criminals. Ina court case, the name of which escapes me, the Justice ruled in a case involving this very topic that the firearm owner cannot be punished simply because of the nature of the items stolen when that firearm owner fulfilled all criteria laid out by the legislation and approved by An Gardaí.

The guy was given his guns and licenses back.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Have you data to support that assertion? Otherwise it's just an opinion. AGS have said themselves that as few firearms at the scene of criminal acts are recovered they cannot say if the firearms usd are those stolen or illegally imported.

Also approx. 13,000 cars per year are stolen yet according to AGS approx 200 firearms per year are stolen. Those firearm figures are badly misleading too as some years its far less and others a little higher and they don't account for the fact that the majority are stolen in one large lot from a firearm dealer.

So there are 65 more cars than firearms stolen and AGs cannot say what becomes of the firearms, but you say they are "by orders of magnitude" used more in crime.

I believe most stolen shotguns and rifles are stashed and used as a bargaining chip by criminals when caught. As i said earlier half joking, double barreled shotguns are very old hat in criminal circles, its imported Baikal pistols, and Glock pistols imported by the drugs gangs enmasse that are the weapon of choice.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/24/ukguns.news

zeissman

I know 6 people who had firearms stolen over the years.
4 of them were at home when the raiders came and they were held at gunpoint and had to hand over their firearms.
The other two homes were raided when the occupants were out.
None of them lost their licences and they all replaced their firearms.
None of them were ever targeted again.

garrettod

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

Hi,

Do you have a licenced firearm, or have direct experience of having had a licenced firearm stolen, perhaps ?

I'm starting to wonder if your just a social media troll, tbh :-)

Cass

I don't think this is trolling. I think the chap has some questions and opinions and he is entitled to ask them here, as anyone is.

Our responsibility is to answer those questions and where possible educate people. If they take that information on board then all the better, if not then that is their choice.

Cadpat_cowboy

Tara Wide Whistle-blower wrote: »

You don’t need a license to own a car. There are no storage requirements for where you put your car when you’re not using it. Stupid comparison.

Can't put your car in a yellow box on double yellow lines when it's not being used/parked.

dodderangler

Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.
Theres been smgunsmiths robbed for god sake in the past. With the right tools it's not that hard to get into a safe. Hope no one here ever gets robbed. Be terrible for people to blame them on it. Thatd all I'm saying about this now. Hubting and shooting community supposed to stand up for each other. Not put others down. Bad enough our sport is slowly disappearing as it is
With majority of the world already against us as hunters now we have to turn against each other?
Bad form altogether lads

BattleCorp

dodderangler wrote: »

Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.

It's pretty much only one lad saying it and we don't know if he is a gun owner or not. I suspect not.

tudderone

dodderangler wrote: »

Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.
Theres been smgunsmiths robbed for god sake in the past. With the right tools it's not that hard to get into a safe. Hope no one here ever gets robbed. Be terrible for people to blame them on it. Thatd all I'm saying about this now. Hubting and shooting community supposed to stand up for each other. Not put others down. Bad enough our sport is slowly disappearing as it is
With majority of the world already against us as hunters now we have to turn against each other?
Bad form altogether lads

What gave you that idea ? When the poop hits the fan, its everyman for himself.

deerhunter1

pablo128 wrote: »

Just an idle thought. Several firearms were recovered by Gardai in Tallaght yesterday following a chase. These included 3 shotguns reported stolen. Provided they are in good condition, not cut down etc, would these be returned to their owners, or would the fact they were stolen in the first place be reason not to return them?

And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

not not really,if the guns were stored legally no reason not to get them back.it may take a bit of time if required for a court case as evidence,but no reason why you would not get them back

deerhunter1

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

What a stupid immature comment:mad:

pablo128

deerhunter1 wrote: »

not not really,if the guns were stored legally no reason not to get them back.it may take a bit of time if required for a court case as evidence,but no reason why you would not get them back

Well just like anything else in life, some people wouldn't be as responsible or careful as others. As someone else has said, it should be decided on a case by case basis.

Which leads to another question. How thorough would Gardai be after a firearms theft? Would the owner be interviewed and the premises properly examined, or do they get treated like any other break in?

delboythedub

Kevin Irving wrote: »

While a stolen car might be used in a murder, it's equally likely to be broken down for parts and shipped abroad. The same cannot reasonably be said for a stolen firearm.

In any case, if your car is deemed to be at high risk of being stolen, you pay higher insurance. If it actually is stolen, your insurance will go up. If it continues to happen, you will be denied insurance.



Even following conditions for storage down to the letter, they may still be a soft target for criminals. IMO, someone's entitlement to own a firearm unfortunately comes secondary to the risk of it being stolen. Should a licence be withdrawn after the second theft, the third?

A question, because I don't know. Are the majority of stolen firearms taken during a "normal" burglary, or specifically targeted and cut from a safe?

If punishment dished out matched the crime, the crims would not put their hands on a gun in order steal it. Like they dont rob these guns in order to take part in the Olympics

Grizzly 45

pablo128 wrote: »

Well just like anything else in life, some people wouldn't be as responsible or careful as others. As someone else has said, it should be decided on a case by case basis.

Which leads to another question. How thorough would Gardai be after a firearms theft? Would the owner be interviewed and the premises properly examined, or do they get treated like any other break in?

From what I rememberd of it,as I was in London when it happened in 88,and my parents were at home,but had gone out for the night.They responded 100% quicker to their call when it was mentioned that a firearm was stolen:rolleyes:
Apart from that it was treated as a normal break in,the fukers made off with some of my mums jewelly and the VCR!!:p And everyone was happy they didnt get the other four guns in the house.

kirving

Apologies for my delayed response!

tudderone wrote: »

So a victim of crime, the chap who has his private property (not a crime in itself....yet) stolen, even though he has taken reasonable and responsible precautions with his security is the one penalised ?

Doesn't sound in the least bit fair to me. If he as i said earlier had chucked the gun under the bed or behind the door in the kitchen, fair enough, he did not take precautions.

Where does it all end though ? You cannot own a nice telly, hi-fi, shed full of tools because anto scoby round the corner has velcro fingers ?

I don't think it's fair in the slightest, no. I'm moreso interested in what, if any repercussions are actually implemented in the case of careless owners. I completely understand why someone would want to, or sadly even feel they needed to keep their gun to hand at all time. I would wager that unlocked guns are a common sight around the country.

Cass wrote: »

By saying the person should not have a firearm again is akin to making the person who is the victim of a/the crime responsible for the actions for the criminal.

Not necessarily, but if I leave my car running while I run into the shop, it get stolen and knocks someone down, I do bear some level of responsibility for that outcome.

Cass wrote: »

In case you are not aware An Gardaí inspect people's home and security measures before granting a firearms license (this is in addition to the 9 page, 3 month, medical waiver, and background check each applicant goes through). As such An Gardaí signed off on the security measures as being adequate. So if An Gardaí are satisfied then how can anyone question the level of security?

Fair enough, can't really argue with that. Out of interest, is this purely factual based criteria, or would a subjective view of someones address or education come into it too?

Cass wrote: »

You cannot stop a criminal with determination. Look at the ATM robberies, they stole diggers and excavators and pulled the walls out. Point being short of having a moat and sharks with fricking lasers on their heads nothing is theft proof.

Of course, nothing is theft proof. Probably less of an issue these days, but in the past I would have considered banks as having a particular responsibility to prevent cash getting into the hands of paramilitaries.

Cass wrote: »

You don't understand the firearms laws in this country. That in itself is a breach of the firearms Act so wouldn't happen and if it were the case then the firearm owner has no excuse and would have the firearm license revoked.

I've seen it, only once mind, but I was taken aback to see a shotgun in the hallway by the front door.

Cass wrote: »

Possibly and again a knowledge of the firearm acts and mindset of AGS would tell you the would ask for a higher level of security which can include but is not limited to full monitored house alarm with GSM backup, separate safes for different parts of the same gun (so its not ll stored together), hidden safes with key components, etc, etc.

That's the kind of info I'm interested in. You can't do much more than splitting parts into hidden safes. I agree that anything beyond that would be extremely difficult to implement.

It does remind me of being in someone's house a few years ago when they saw a huge rat in the garden. By the time they had opened two safes and found other bits hidden very well around the house, it was long gone.

Cass wrote: »

Going by your line of thinking at some point the bank should not have any money as it cannot be trusted not ot be robbed again.

Again less of an issue nowadays with less cash in use, but cash levels would be reduced to the point of inconvenience to many customers in isolated branches were robberies have happened.

Cass wrote: »

Nor do you need a license to own a gun. You do need a license to use BOTH.

I didn't know that at all, I had always thought a license was a prerequisite to ownership.

Cass wrote: »

Have you data to support that assertion?
.....
So there are 65 more cars than firearms stolen and AGs cannot say what becomes of the firearms, but you say they are "by orders of magnitude" used more in crime.

I don't have data no, but I can imagine lots of reasons to steal a car, most of them monetary, scamming people, some of them of course for violent crime. I would image most genuine gun owners are far more savvy when it comes to buying than second hand car buyers.

Cass wrote: »

If someone is negligent as a firearm owner they will be punished by fines, jail, both and loss of licenses/firearms.

If they are the victim of a crime they should be treated as a victim and as AGS have said their security was sufficient they are not to be held accountable for the actions of criminals.
.

It would seem to me, that a few simple steps like separating and hiding parts, etc make stealing a working next to impossible, and should be common practice. I'd just like to think that most conscientious owners would set that minimum bar for themselves and see anything less as careless.

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Do you have a licenced firearm, or have direct experience of having had a licenced firearm stolen, perhaps ?

I'm starting to wonder if your just a social media troll, tbh :-)

I don't own one, but does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

I've had a licenced firearm pointed at me on more than one occasion in Ireland, if that counts for anything. I've also rented them in the US with astonishing ease and blasé attitude from the shop.

Cass wrote: »

I don't think this is trolling. I think the chap has some questions and opinions and he is entitled to ask them here, as anyone is.

Our responsibility is to answer those questions and where possible educate people. If they take that information on board then all the better, if not then that is their choice.

I'm genuinely not trying to be inflammatory, and thank you for your detailed reply. Given our current issues with gangland crime, and the incident that prompted the OP to start the thread, it's reassuring to know that most people are responsible, and that measures can be taken against careless owners.

deerhunter1 wrote: »

What a stupid immature comment:mad:

How so? You do realise that the entire insurance industry is based the principle of calculating risk, based on previous experience.

Chiparus

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Apologies for my delayed response!







Not necessarily, but if I leave my car running while I run into the shop, it get stolen and knocks someone down, I do bear some level of responsibility for that outcome.


.

If your car is stolen when you park in a dodgy part of town, should you be banned from owning a car or only if the car is running?

pablo128

Can we leave the car chat for the motors thread? It's not a fair comparison.

BattleCorp

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I've had a licenced firearm pointed at me on more than one occasion in Ireland, if that counts for anything.

This isn't a common occurrence here in Ireland so forgive me for being sceptical.

Care to detail the circumstances as I've been around guns for nearly 50 years and never had a legally held gun pointed at me?

pablo128

BattleCorp wrote: »

This isn't a common occurrence here in Ireland so forgive me for being sceptical.

Care to detail the circumstances as I've been around guns for nearly 50 years and never had a legally held gun pointed at me?

There used to be a cranky farmer close to where the Arc bar is at the Liffey Valley shopping centre. This would have been over 30 years ago. He regularly chased kids out of his orchard including myself, while pointing a shotgun at us.

Cass

Okay, this turned out longer than i'd like so i split it for easier reading.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm moreso interested in what, if any repercussions are actually implemented in the case of careless owners.

Different topic and not germane to this thread. The topic of stolen guns is completely different to people being "careless" with them which carries its own set of restrictions (under law) and punishments for anyone found to have committed such an offence.

I completely understand why someone would want to, or sadly even feel they needed to keep their gun to hand at all time.

You don't understand the gun laws in Ireland. Its illegal to not have your firearm(s) stored securely when not in use and this security is checked by AGS before you get your firearm (each one) and regularly throughout your ownership/status as a gu owner. As for "a gun to hand", that is completely illegal and you cannot own a gun in this country for the purpose of self defence.

I would wager that unlocked guns are a common sight around the country.

Speculationa, assumption and guess work cannot be argued with as its all made up.

Not necessarily, but if I leave my car running while I run into the shop, it get stolen and knocks someone down, I do bear some level of responsibility for that outcome.

Again you don't understand the gun laws in Ireland. Your analogy about the car is wrong. If you lock your car, alarm it, have an immobiliser, and keep it in a garage and still gets stolen should you be banned from owning another car?

This is what you are asking as your analogy suggests carelessness which is itself already an offence as a firearm owner, and again not germane to the thread topic.

Fair enough, can't really argue with that. Out of interest, is this purely factual based criteria, or would a subjective view of someones address or education come into it too?

I kept the list of criteria fairly short for ease of reading but if you want to see what we have to go through, which includes signing away our medical privacy rights, warrantless entry to our homes, etc, then have a read of the process in its entirety here.

Of course, nothing is theft proof. Of course, nothing is theft proof. Probably less of an issue these days, but in the past I would have considered banks as having a particular responsibility to prevent cash getting into the hands of paramilitaries.

Yet it happened. Like with stolen firearms, we try to keep them safe and RFDs (Registered Firearm Dealers) have much more stringent security than us yet they get robbed too. An Gardaí╔ sign off on all these measures, as well as demanding which ones should be done, so what more can you expect?

Cass

I've seen it, only once mind, but I was taken aback to see a shotgun in the hallway by the front door.

I cannot comment on what you claim to have seen but if such a thing did occur then as i said above, its a breach of the firearms act, and an offence even without the gn being stolen. If that gun was stolen the person would lose their license and not have the gun returned or be able to purchase another, most likely.

That's the kind of info I'm interested in. You can't do much more than splitting parts into hidden safes. I agree that anything beyond that would be extremely difficult to implement.

Again less of an issue nowadays with less cash in use, but cash levels would be reduced to the point of inconvenience to many customers in isolated branches were robberies have happened.

But not a complete refusal to issue cash to the bank?

I didn't know that at all, I had always thought a license was a prerequisite to ownership.

Nope.

Ownership is not linked to authorisation. It can be my property i simply cannot use it. So i can own as many guns as i like but to use them i must get a license from An Gardaí BEFORE i take ownership/possession of the firearm. To keep to the, somewhat tired, analogy of the car going, you can buy as many cars as you like, but try driving one without a license, tax, insurance, NCT, etc.

I don't have data no, .............

So its just an opinion! Can you see the harm in making statements like that? The majority of people get their information from TV, Movies or the press/media. Most of these have an agenda and rarely do fact checking so you get a sensationalised story with no data.

We had a brilliant press clippings thread that ran for years until it fell foul of the Copyright SI at which point it had to be deleted. It had hundreds/thousands of posts about such articles over the years.

I'd just like to think that most conscientious owners would set that minimum bar for themselves and see anything less as careless.

I cannot say everyone does as i don't know, but they should. not because of some higher moral imperative, but because the law says they must. So in reality they have no choice but to obey this.

I don't own one, but does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

I understand you are responding to another poster, but i also understand his skepticism. Our sport is attacked at all times because we use firearms instead of a hurl or racket. You yourself came on and made large, unsupported, and baseless assumptions to the point of accusations against gun owners without knowing the law, or the system in place.

I've had a licenced firearm pointed at me on more than one occasion in Ireland, if that counts for anything.

This is exactly my point. You say this and we're supposed to just believe it happened! Its sensationalist and without proof of it, its just someone anonymous poster claiming something happened. No offence btw, that is simply the truth of the matter.

I've also rented them in the US with astonishing ease and blasé attitude from the shop.

Depends on the state as some are almost as strict as Ireland while others are not plus the BIG DIFFERENCE is Ireland is NOT America.

We have on 2nd amendment, no right to firearms, no right to keep and bear arms, and no right to buy or use a gun for self defence.

I'm genuinely not trying to be inflammatory, and thank you for your detailed reply. Given our current issues with gangland crime, and the incident that prompted the OP to start the thread, it's reassuring to know that most people are responsible, and that measures can be taken against careless owners.

I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt, but to be honest in the back of my mind i do wonder myself at times about "new" posters on the forum. There is the part of me that thinks while you may not be trolling you could be pressing for info from firearm owners for an article or press related matter. It has happened many times in the past and we're always, and i mean always, made out to be "gun nuts" so we're naturally cautious.

tudderone

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I've seen it, only once mind, but I was taken aback to see a shotgun in the hallway by the front door.

I didn't know that at all, I had always thought a license was a prerequisite to ownership.

I don't own one, but does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

I've had a licenced firearm pointed at me on more than one occasion in Ireland, if that counts for anything. I've also rented them in the US with astonishing ease and blasé attitude from the shop.

I'm genuinely not trying to be inflammatory, and thank you for your detailed reply. Given our current issues with gangland crime, and the incident that prompted the OP to start the thread, it's reassuring to know that most people are responsible, and that measures can be taken against careless owners.

Farmers or owners of one shotgun got a pass with regards to owning a safe. If you have an issue with that, don't take it up here, head to the farming forum as it was the IFA who got that through.

You can own a gun, it does not mean you can actually have the gun or use the gun. If i walk into a dealers, choose a gun and pay for it, its mine. It does not mean i can walk out of the shop with it.

As for having an opinion, get involved with shooting sports here and you'll soon understand why people are so defensive, we are under constant pressure from idiot politicians and others who actually don't know the first thing about firearms or shooting.

Having a firearm pointed at you ? Why, what were you doing ? Illegal to do in any case.

Please don't bring America into it, you might as well be talking about the far side of Neptune, no comparasson to ireland at all.

The folks in Gangland/terrorist Ireland are not interested in nearly everything we own, double barrel shotguns and .22 rifles are of next to no interest in them, especially when they can buy a Glock and ammo for less than 1k.

Chiparus

pablo128 wrote: »

Can we leave the car chat for the motors thread? It's not a fair comparison.

Why not , you dont have a right to use/have them , they are both dangerous , and both used in crimes after being stolen.

If your car is stolen , should you be allowed to own one again?

pablo128

Chiparus wrote: »

Why not , you dont have a right to use/have them , they are both dangerous , and both used in crimes after being stolen.

If your car is stolen , should you be allowed to own one again?

If your house is broken into and your knives are stolen and used to stab someone, would you be barred from having more knives in your house?

Chiparus

pablo128 wrote: »

If your house is broken into and your knives are stolen and used to stab someone, would you be barred from having more knives in your house?

According to some here , you should be held in some way responsible.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

f , especially when they can buy a Glock and ammo for less than 1k.

That must be at Gussies "pre arrest closing down sale!"" Everything must go as I need bail money sale!!"There is no way you would buy any type of gun for less than 2 grand on the black market!And more so if it is a clean" new in the grease "gun.
Black market means it is hard to get and is being sold at inflated prices because you need it.We can see this in action today with the price gouging for hand sanitizer.Imagine the govt made its sale illegal on the public market,but people still want it and someone was willing to supply it under the counter or down the back alley.They can charge what they want as it is an illegal product with a limited supply.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That must be at Gussies "pre arrest closing down sale!"" Everything must go as I need bail money sale!!"There is no way you would buy any type of gun for less than 2 grand on the black market!And more so if it is a clean" new in the grease "gun.
Black market means it is hard to get and is being sold at inflated prices because you need it.We can see this in action today with the price gouging for hand sanitizer.Imagine the govt made its sale illegal on the public market,but people still want it and someone was willing to supply it under the counter or down the back alley.They can charge what they want as it is an illegal product with a limited supply.

My info might be a bit out of date, but if you want one you can get one. Like drugs, illegal but available on every street corner in the land.

meathstevie

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

If take it that should happen to everyone who’s car was stolen as well ?

kirving

BattleCorp wrote: »

This isn't a common occurrence here in Ireland so forgive me for being sceptical.

Care to detail the circumstances as I've been around guns for nearly 50 years and never had a legally held gun pointed at me?

The first was when I was a kid, sleepwalking and the second was a farmer when I was a teenager.

Cass wrote: »

Different topic and not germane to this thread. The topic of stolen guns is completely different to people being "careless" with them which carries its own set of restrictions (under law) and punishments for anyone found to have committed such an offence.

I think they’re very much related. Opportunistic crime thrives on carelessness.

Cass wrote: »

You don't understand the gun laws in Ireland. Its illegal to not have your firearm(s) stored securely when not in use and this security is checked by AGS before you get your firearm (each one) and regularly throughout your ownership/status as a gu owner. As for "a gun to hand", that is completely illegal and you cannot own a gun in this country for the purpose of self defence.

If reality reflected the law, then the courts would be very empty places. I have no doubt that the majority of owners do comply with all restrictions imposed on them, but that’s not to say that everyone does, and quoting the law doesn’t make it so.

Cass wrote: »

Speculationa, assumption and guess work cannot be argued with as its all made up.

Likewise, other than the existence of a law which mandates otherwise, we don’t have data to say that all 200 guns stolen per year are cut from a safe.

Cass wrote: »

Again you don't understand the gun laws in Ireland. Your analogy about the car is wrong. If you lock your car, alarm it, have an immobiliser, and keep it in a garage and still gets stolen should you be banned from owning another car?

I kept the list of criteria fairly short for ease of reading but if you want to see what we have to go through, which includes signing away our medical privacy rights, warrantless entry to our homes, etc, then have a read of the process in its entirety here.

Thanks, I’ll take a look. I’m genuinely interested in it having seen this post.

Cass wrote: »

Yet it happened. Like with stolen firearms, we try to keep them safe and RFDs (Registered Firearm Dealers) have much more stringent security than us yet they get robbed too. An Gardaí╔ sign off on all these measures, as well as demanding which ones should be done, so what more can you expect?

I guess you can’t really expect more than that.

Cass wrote: »

I cannot comment on what you claim to have seen but if such a thing did occur then as i said above, its a breach of the firearms act, and an offence even without the gn being stolen. If that gun was stolen the person would lose their license and not have the gun returned or be able to purchase another, most likely.

All I can say is that it did, I have no proof of course.

I would hope that most responsible owners agree with those measures.

Cass wrote: »

So its just an opinion! Can you see the harm in making statements like that? The majority of people get their information from TV, Movies or the press/media. Most of these have an agenda and rarely do fact checking so you get a sensationalised story with no data.

Opinion maybe, but let’s be realistic, they’re not being stolen for their scrap metal value, so that leaves a few logical options:
Crime of opportunity, where the burglar has no real end goal. This would imply careless on the part of the owner IMO.
Stolen to be used in serious crime.
Stolen for their monetary value to genuine sportspeople. But I’m correct to say that they then cannot be registered by anyone else?
Can they be broken for parts and sold easily?

Cass wrote: »

I cannot say everyone does as i don't know, but they should. not because of some higher moral imperative, but because the law says they must. So in reality they have no choice but to obey this.

I think the posters on this forum, as with any enthusiast forum, reflect a subset of people who have particular regard and respect for the legal situation and genuinely have an interest in doing things the right way for the betterment of their sport or interest, but it’s important to remember the subset (of any group) that couldn’t care less.

Cass wrote: »

I understand you are responding to another poster, but i also understand his skepticism. Our sport is attacked at all times because we use firearms instead of a hurl or racket. You yourself came on and made large, unsupported, and baseless assumptions to the point of accusations against gun owners without knowing the law, or the system in place.

As I’ve said, the law and reality are two different things. If I go to the cycling forum and bring up lights, I’ll have the law quoted back to me all day long from people who wouldn’t dream of going out at night without lights, and can’t even comprehend that others might.

Cass wrote: »

This is exactly my point. You say this and we're supposed to just believe it happened! Its sensationalist and without proof of it, its just someone anonymous poster claiming something happened. No offence btw, that is simply the truth of the matter.

And I’m to believe that all owners are as conscientious as yourself? All I can really say is that I’ve been on here for over 15 years under this account, and have no reason to to lie about it.

Cass wrote: »

Depends on the state as some are almost as strict as Ireland while others are not plus the BIG DIFFERENCE is Ireland is NOT America.

We have on 2nd amendment, no right to firearms, no right to keep and bear arms, and no right to buy or use a gun for self defence.

Agreed, I researched going to a range in California - not a hope. In Texas, I was handed a rifle I could barely lift. I know we’re not the same, but I just thought that the attitude difference was interesting. My point in stating that at all, is that I am in no way anti-firearm at all.

Cass wrote: »

I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt, but to be honest in the back of my mind i do wonder myself at times about "new" posters on the forum. There is the part of me that thinks while you may not be trolling you could be pressing for info from firearm owners for an article or press related matter. It has happened many times in the past and we're always, and i mean always, made out to be "gun nuts" so we're naturally cautious.

I can assure you that I’m not writing an article. I saw the post on the main page, have a passing interest in the subject, and believe that irresponsible owners should face repercussions.

tudderone wrote: »

Farmers or owners of one shotgun got a pass with regards to owning a safe. If you have an issue with that, don't take it up here, head to the farming forum as it was the IFA who got that through.

Fair enough. Might explain some opportunistic thefts I suppose?

I guess there’s a fine line between quick accessibility and security.

tudderone wrote: »

As for having an opinion, get involved with shooting sports here and you'll soon understand why people are so defensive, we are under constant pressure from idiot politicians and others who actually don't know the first thing about firearms or shooting.

I understand that, I can see from the replies that conducting your business within the letter of the law is an onerous task.

tudderone wrote: »

Having a firearm pointed at you ? Why, what were you doing ?

And I get accused of victim blaming…. Sleepwalking, and walking along a road.

tudderone wrote: »

Please don't bring America into it, you might as well be talking about the far side of Neptune, no comparison to ireland at all.

As above, my point really was that I’m not some anti-gun protester is all.

BattleCorp

Kevin Irving wrote: »

T
And I get accused of victim blaming…. Sleepwalking, and walking along a road.

So, walking along a road and a farmer pointed a gun at you? Really?

And where the fcuk were you sleepwalking when you had a gun pointed at you? Or am I misunderstanding things, was the gun owner sleepwalking?

Apologies but colour me sceptical.

Cass

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The first was when I was a kid, sleepwalking and the second was a farmer when I was a teenager.

Again, unsubstantiable claims. IOW hearsay.

I think they’re very much related. Opportunistic crime thrives on carelessness.

Nope. Leaving a firearm "sitting around" for a teenager to pick (as YOU described it) is not the same as having them locked away and some scumbag breaking into your home to try and steal.

If reality reflected the law, then the courts would be very empty places. I have no doubt that the majority of owners do comply with all restrictions imposed on them, but that’s not to say that everyone does, and quoting the law doesn’t make it so.

For starters i didn't quote the law and again you are making baseless assumptions about the actions of a community of people you know nothing about.

Likewise, other than the existence of a law which mandates otherwise,

What law, mandating what?

we don’t have data to say that all 200 guns stolen per year are cut from a safe.

Yes we do, An GArdaí have it on PULSE. Where each firearm was stolen from and whether that person was an RFD or private owner.

I would hope that most responsible owners agree with those measures.

Does the fact that every reply to your posts so far has been to explain that the baseless assumptions you are making regarding security and firearms is wrong, not show that to be the case?

Crime of opportunity, where the burglar has no real end goal.
This would imply careless on the part of the owner IMO.

This is your idea of logical thinking?

How? How is having them stored in a safe wit trigger locks and/or alarms careless? You are now bordering on being argumentative simply to illicit a reaction.

Stolen for their monetary value to genuine sportspeople. But I’m correct to say that they then cannot be registered by anyone else?
Can they be broken for parts and sold easily?

No, and no. So that is another "logical" reason with no basis in reality or law.

....... but it’s important to remember the subset (of any group) that couldn’t care less.

You're making a presumptive leap that you cannot support with data or facts. Look on social media where the rules are not as strict as on a forum like this and you'll find that people still educate and inform others of what is right and wrong. The shooting community is a tight knit one and we understand that firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege can be removed for any reason. With the time and money we invest in our sport, each person, no one wants to jeopardize that by acting outside the law.

As I’ve said, the law and reality are two different things.

You are once again assuming people intend to break the law. A flawed logic and a sentionalist statement to provoke an argument.

I can assure you that I’m not writing an article. I saw the post on the main page, have a passing interest in the subject, and believe that irresponsible owners should face repercussions.

And what about the criminals?

I cannot remember or find one case of a firearm owner being arrested or imprisoned/fined for leaving their firearms sitting around. Yet we are treated as the criminal when a theft occurs and we're also the whipping boys when criminal acts involving guns (those illegally imported.not stolen) because we are known section and An Gardaí can punish us and release a press statement about how they are tackling gun crime.

• The shooting in the Dublin Hotel a few years back was done with AK-47s. You cannot own them in Ireland.
• About 10 years about a guy was shot at on the M50 with a Mac10 machine pistol. You cannot own them.
• In the Garda release of stolen guns they listed grenades and machine guns. As we cannot own them it must be Garda or Defence forces yet the data for those are lumped into civilian ownership (see now why the numbers cannot be trusted).
• Shane Geoghohan was murdered in Limerick in 2008 by gangland criminals. The DoJ response was to ban handguns over a certain caliber for all legal gun owners. The Minster even admitted it'll have no effect on criminal acts but he had to be seen to be doing something so he punished us for the actions of criminals.

Fair enough. Might explain some opportunistic thefts I suppose?

I guess there’s a fine line between quick accessibility and security.

Om that point, while some with one shotgun may not be required to have a safe the law says they must break the firearm into its component parts, store the parts in different locations throughout the house and have a trigger lock on the gun. So its not a case of a shotgun sitting in a hot-press somewhere.

I'll finish with this. In America the anti gun crowd are so scared of this Covid-19 pandemic that they are now trying to buy guns. They are learning the hard way that the propaganda they have been fed over the years and spouted themselves is not true as they are being refused permission/licenses, cannot buy a gun online, have to do background checks, etc.

IOW try buying a gun someday and you'll find out exactly what we go through. The expense, the background checks, the security costs, the criteria to get one, and finally waiting to see if AGS deem you worthy to own one..

Max H

Cass there is an old old saying. You've given some darned good answers. BUT.

Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon.
No matter how good you are, the bird is going to poo-poo on the board and strut around like it won anyway.