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 Should a licence be withdrawn after the second theft, the third?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

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.

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 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 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.

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 wrote: »

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.

Really. Walking along a road, and not even on the farmers land.

I was staying in someone's house, sleepwalked and made enough noise for them to think it was a break in.

Cass wrote: »

Again, unsubstantiable claims. IOW hearsay.

As is pretty much anything that anyone says online. Just because you wouldn’t do it, doesn’t mean that nobody would.

Cass wrote: »

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.

I’m trying to differentiate between actions that I have personally seen which I would deem irresponsible, and the community here who evidently take a different approach.

Cass wrote: »

What law, mandating what?

That firearms must be stored in a particular manner.

Cass wrote: »

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.

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. [/QUOTE]

Can you categorically tell me that every firearm that was reported stolen last year, was stored in the correct manner?

Cass wrote: »

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

Just in case there’s any misinterpretation of my quote, what I’m saying is that I know there’s no market for stolen guns or parts among genuine sportspeople.

But theft can be categorized into opportunistic or targeted. If criminals aren’t interested, and there’s no second hand market, then why are thieves going to such effort to steal them?

Cass wrote: »

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.

And you’re making the inverse presumption that all gun owners form a single conscientious, responsible, law abiding hive mind. I’ve specifically differentiated careless owners that I’ve personally seen (who I know are the minority) from others (on this forum), and yet you seem to want to take umbrage to that.

Cass wrote: »

And what about the criminals?

Of course, I’ve never argued otherwise.

Cass wrote: »

I cannot remember or find one case of a firearm owner being arrested or imprisoned/fined for leaving their firearms sitting around.

On 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.

So what you’re saying is, because the law says so, it’s always the case? That’s patently ridiculous. By that measure of reasoning, only 4 dogs left a mess on the streets of Cork in 21 years.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Just-four-dog-foul-fines-issued-in-Cork-in-21-years-dc2b8979-150b-4365-a6f0-28025ffbbb3a-ds

Lock it up FFS Cass. He is like my oul fella was, he could be completely wrong and be obviously so, but all the devils in hell could not get him to admit it.

Cass wrote: »

I cannot lock a thread because its become tiresome, but i also not trying to convince him of the error of his ways. Its more aimed at a rebuttal so others reading it, that are not familiar with firearms either, don't see the baseless assumptions, wild accusations and tall stories going unchallenged.

It sure has.

The more I suffer through reading this the more I have come to the conclusion, that you are trying to get members of the gun community to admit to a certain amount of flouting of the firearms laws, and for us to admit publicly that illegal activity is carrying on and that we are condoning it. But to what end I am unsure of yet.
You seem very insistent that we believe your experiences on your say so, irrespective of how bizzare your stories are.