22 year old ex-convict empties AK-47 into 12 year old

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Lemon law
sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

Since 1934, when all full-auto firearms were required to be registered, there have been exactly two (2) instances where a shooting has occurred with a registered full-auto firearm. In one of those instances, the incident occurred when a police officer used his department-issued full-auto firearm to murder a suspect.

2 known instances in 74 years of a registered full-auto firearm being used to kill someone, and one of those was a police officer who was on duty. There have been other crimes with non-registered full-auto firearms, but those are not firearms stolen out of private collections as the firearms in private collections would be registered.

That does not square with your claim of "many" collectors being robbed and having their firearms used in crimes. Once again, you use emotion and don't bother to look up the facts. Criminals are getting the few full-auto firearms they have through smuggling, not through burglary.

ZV

What about all firearms that are stolen period? What are those stats?

As I said in the post you quoted, "firearms in private collections would be registered". The firearm itself is what is registered. If it's stolen and used in a crime, the police would know that it was a registered firearm.

There are only two instances where a registered NFA firearm was used in a crime. Other cases involved firearms that were never registered. If they weren't registered, then they weren't ever in a legal collection. This means that full-auto firearms are not frequently stolen at all.

The overlooked fact is that NFA firearms are incredibly expensive right now and collectors who buy them go to great lengths to keep them safe, such as 1,000+ pound fireproof safes that are bolted into concrete floors.

ZV

EDIT: I see you're referencing non-NFA weapons, sorry. See PrinceOfWands' post.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

But we don't ban cars as a result. By your logic, as I pointed out earlier, we should ban high-power sportscars since they are responsible for a disproportionate number of accidents and there is no "legitimate purpose" for having them. No-one "needs" a sportscar and if we banned them all, we would save more lives than we would from banning the types of firearms you want to ban.

What you describe with cars, "abuse the privilege too often and you lose your license", is exactly what we do with firearms right now. Abuse the right and you have it taken away. What you are proposing instead is to take the right away from everyone, including those who have never, and will never, abuse it. That's what's wrong.

ZV

This is exactly my point. You have to meet certain criteria in order to drive an automobile, just like owning a firearm. You can break the law and drive without a license, just like you can use/own a firearm without meeting the standard. Why not put a governor in automobiles for 50 mph? There is no need to go any faster, and in this case there is hard data that actually proves that lives would be saved. There isn't even any hard data that magazine size leads to more death.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What about all firearms that are stolen period? What are those stats?

A great many are stolen. Just like cars, jewelery, and everything else. There's nothing you can do about it though. Just a part of life.

Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Lemon law
sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

Since 1934, when all full-auto firearms were required to be registered, there have been exactly two (2) instances where a shooting has occurred with a registered full-auto firearm. In one of those instances, the incident occurred when a police officer used his department-issued full-auto firearm to murder a suspect.

2 known instances in 74 years of a registered full-auto firearm being used to kill someone, and one of those was a police officer who was on duty. There have been other crimes with non-registered full-auto firearms, but those are not firearms stolen out of private collections as the firearms in private collections would be registered.

That does not square with your claim of "many" collectors being robbed and having their firearms used in crimes. Once again, you use emotion and don't bother to look up the facts. Criminals are getting the few full-auto firearms they have through smuggling, not through burglary.

ZV

Just to add to what you are saying, in both cases a semi-automatic weapon would have almost definitely killed the person as well. Heck, I bet in the Virginia Tech shootings, more people would have lived if he was using an smg because there wouldn't have been as many well aimed shots, and he would have had to reload more often leaving more time for someone to take him down. Contrary to popular video game and movie belief, well aimed shots are way more effective then randomly fired full auto shots.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

To be a licensed FFL dealer you have to meet local/state requirements which vary.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is why guns should be banned.

humm i wonder if this felon who cant own a gun would still get one if there was a total ban on guns?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What about all firearms that are stolen period? What are those stats?

A great many are stolen. Just like cars, jewelery, and everything else. There's nothing you can do about it though. Just a part of life.

Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

Usually that "glass" is lucite or polycarbonate, though sometimes it is indeed just glass. Most firearms that are stolen are stolen from private residences though. Almost always when people are fool enough to leave their guns in obvious places or plain sight. FFLs are heavily regulated by the BATF and can lose their license if they fail to take what the BATF views as proper security precautions. There are also, as TallBill mentioned, state and local regulations that must be followed and those regulations vary.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

Usually that "glass" is lucite or polycarbonate, though sometimes it is indeed just glass. Most firearms that are stolen are stolen from private residences though. Almost always when people are fool enough to leave their guns in obvious places or plain sight. FFLs are heavily regulated by the BATF and can lose their license if they fail to take what the BATF views as proper security precautions. There are also, as TallBill mentioned, state and local regulations that must be followed and those regulations vary.

ZV

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you really sure about that? Are there numbers to work with which prove it?

Numbers aside, let's assume for a moment that you are at least partially correct and it is true that more firearms are stolen from residences than anywhere else. That suggests that it is still very possible that a large chunk of them are still stolen from some of the places I mentioned.

Wouldn't be worth tightening up a lot of required securities in all states to lower the % of firearms being illegally stolen and winding up on the streets? I mean, I know that the problem will not be completely solved but it sounds like it is something which could at least make a partial impact. I guess what I am really trying to find out here is if the juice is worth the squeeze. What would we have to do to make that happen? What are the costs? What are the projected results based upon the number of arms currently being stolen from those kinds of locations now?

These are the kinds of things which I feel are at least worth being heavily analyzed and considered. I cannot think of any reason why any radical 2nd amendment supporter would be against it beyond simply being inconvenienced a little more when it comes to obtaining one of these arms, but even then the increased inconvenience will not be much and it should be worth it in their minds if it works. It may at least be worth trying.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

Usually that "glass" is lucite or polycarbonate, though sometimes it is indeed just glass. Most firearms that are stolen are stolen from private residences though. Almost always when people are fool enough to leave their guns in obvious places or plain sight. FFLs are heavily regulated by the BATF and can lose their license if they fail to take what the BATF views as proper security precautions. There are also, as TallBill mentioned, state and local regulations that must be followed and those regulations vary.

ZV

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you really sure about that? Are there numbers to work with which prove it?

Numbers aside, let's assume for a moment that you are at least partially correct and it is true that more firearms are stolen from residences than anywhere else. That suggests that it is still very possible that a large chunk of them are still stolen from some of the places I mentioned.

Wouldn't be worth tightening up a lot of required securities in all states to lower the % of firearms being illegally stolen and winding up on the streets? I mean, I know that the problem will not be completely solved but it sounds like it is something which could at least make a partial impact. I guess what I am really trying to find out here is if the juice is worth the squeeze. What would we have to do to make that happen? What are the costs? What are the projected results based upon the number of arms currently being stolen from those kinds of locations now?

These are the kinds of things which I feel are at least worth being heavily analyzed and considered. I cannot think of any reason why any radical 2nd amendment supporter would be against it beyond simply being inconvenienced a little more when it comes to obtaining one of these arms, but even then the increased inconvenience will not be much and it should be worth it in their minds if it works. It may at least be worth trying.

In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law? I realize that's not what you were saying, but the theory applies to businesses, manufacturers, etc.

I personally feel the 100% of the responsibility lies in the initial, and/or direct committal of a crime, and that law-abiding citizens should never be asked to shoulder a responsibility that is not theirs.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law?

You are twisting this too much with your own spin. Look, what I am saying here is very simple. I am saying that lots of firearms get stolen from places that store, manufacture, sell, and transport firearms. Why not try to stop those firearms from getting stolen? Because the criminals can get them in other ways? That's not an answer. If we thought like that then there would be no reason for people to register firearms at all. We might as well let them be sold in vending machines because we know that if we put a stop to vending machine distribution of guns the criminals will just find a way to get them elsewhere right?

I say we tighten the ropes and demand higher security and theft prevention at any place that deal with firearms with exception of private residences. At least, we should try it for a while and see where it gets us. We can speculate all day about whether or not it will help reduce the problem. I say we find out whether or not it actually does reduce the problem.

Why not? It is not like it will change the lives of the legal gun owner. They will still get their guns easily.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law?

You are twisting this too much with your own spin. Look, what I am saying here is very simple. I am saying that lots of firearms get stolen from places that store, manufacture, sell, and transport firearms. Why not try to stop those firearms from getting stolen? Because the criminals can get them in other ways? That's not an answer. If we thought like that then there would be no reason for people to register firearms at all. We might as well let them be sold in vending machines because we know that if we put a stop to vending machine distribution of guns the criminals will just find a way to get them elsewhere right?

I say we tighten the ropes and demand higher security and theft prevention at any place that deal with firearms with exception of private residences. At least, we should try it for a while and see where it gets us. We can speculate all day about whether or not it will help reduce the problem. I say we find out whether or not it actually does reduce the problem.

Why not? It is not like it will change the lives of the legal gun owner. They will still get their guns easily.

I don't mind it, I'm just reminding people that it won't affect much in the end. If only 20-40% of firearms stolen are obtained that way, and only a percentage of crimes are committed with stolen firearms, then only a very small percentage of crimes could possibly be impacted by such changes. Moreover, it fails to account for criminals simply shifting their method of acquisition, reducing the impact even further.

My big issue is that I'm against legislation that has very little impact, unless you can also make the negative impact to the law-abiding and businesses equally low.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You are twisting this too much with your own spin. Look, what I am saying here is very simple. I am saying that lots of firearms get stolen from places that store, manufacture, sell, and transport firearms. Why not try to stop those firearms from getting stolen? Because the criminals can get them in other ways? That's not an answer. If we thought like that then there would be no reason for people to register firearms at all. We might as well let them be sold in vending machines because we know that if we put a stop to vending machine distribution of guns the criminals will just find a way to get them elsewhere right?

I say we tighten the ropes and demand higher security and theft prevention at any place that deal with firearms with exception of private residences. At least, we should try it for a while and see where it gets us. We can speculate all day about whether or not it will help reduce the problem. I say we find out whether or not it actually does reduce the problem.

Why not? It is not like it will change the lives of the legal gun owner. They will still get their guns easily.

Well, in theory what you are suggesting could an idea worth. The problem with gun control is that a lot of extra crap would try to be tacked onto that idea. Depending on what security measures you are asking for, it could be considered trying to raise operational costs to keep gun stores out of business.

Honestly though, we'd have to talk to current gun store owners to see the impact. I've been to a few with pretty hefty security systems already in place anyways. Still 200,000 - 400,000 is quite a few.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I don't mind it, I'm just reminding people that it won't affect much in the end. If only 20-40% of firearms stolen are obtained that way, and only a percentage of crimes are committed with stolen firearms, then only a very small percentage of crimes could possibly be impacted by such changes. Moreover, it fails to account for criminals simply shifting their method of acquisition, reducing the impact even further.

My big issue is that I'm against legislation that has very little impact, unless you can also make the negative impact to the law-abiding and businesses equally low.

Originally posted by: TallBill
Well, in theory what you are suggesting could an idea worth. The problem with gun control is that a lot of extra crap would try to be tacked onto that idea. Depending on what security measures you are asking for, it could be considered trying to raise operational costs to keep gun stores out of business.

Honestly though, we'd have to talk to current gun store owners to see the impact. I've been to a few with pretty hefty security systems already in place anyways. Still 200,000 - 400,000 is quite a few.

To the two of you:

Basically the way I see it is that we should not ignore potentially impacting solutions out of fear that they will be written for reasons not intended. We will never get anything done with any problems that we face if we continuously think like that no matter what the issue is.

When it comes to the businesses and their impacts specifically, the costs should be one time and they should help their business if nothing else. Examples such as replacing glass with steel and switching out cheap locks on doors for something much more effective and modern would sure as hell be cheaper than getting robbed. It should by no means drive them down and possibly even force them to go under. You don't even have to force them to do it right away. Give them 2-3 years to make it happen. That will provide the ones that are struggling to stay in business to save up money to make the upgrades. If any of them do go out of business, one could simply look at it as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Beyond all of that, I just want to give it a try. I think the differences could be a good step in the right direction that only impacts the criminals.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law?

You are twisting this too much with your own spin. Look, what I am saying here is very simple. I am saying that lots of firearms get stolen from places that store, manufacture, sell, and transport firearms. Why not try to stop those firearms from getting stolen? Because the criminals can get them in other ways? That's not an answer. If we thought like that then there would be no reason for people to register firearms at all. We might as well let them be sold in vending machines because we know that if we put a stop to vending machine distribution of guns the criminals will just find a way to get them elsewhere right?

I say we tighten the ropes and demand higher security and theft prevention at any place that deal with firearms with exception of private residences. At least, we should try it for a while and see where it gets us. We can speculate all day about whether or not it will help reduce the problem. I say we find out whether or not it actually does reduce the problem.

Why not? It is not like it will change the lives of the legal gun owner. They will still get their guns easily.

In theory, that works, but short of requiring that the firearms be put into a safe at night, there's not much additional security that is practical. The gun shops I frequent already have bars on their windows and cement barricades to prevent people from being able to drive a car through the walls. And these are shops in neighborhoods that are generally regarded as very safe.

I do agree that reasonable security ought to be a requirement (if it isn't already) for stores, etc, but there's only so much one can do before the returns get so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

ZV

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I don't mind it, I'm just reminding people that it won't affect much in the end. If only 20-40% of firearms stolen are obtained that way, and only a percentage of crimes are committed with stolen firearms, then only a very small percentage of crimes could possibly be impacted by such changes. Moreover, it fails to account for criminals simply shifting their method of acquisition, reducing the impact even further.

My big issue is that I'm against legislation that has very little impact, unless you can also make the negative impact to the law-abiding and businesses equally low.

Originally posted by: TallBill
Well, in theory what you are suggesting could an idea worth. The problem with gun control is that a lot of extra crap would try to be tacked onto that idea. Depending on what security measures you are asking for, it could be considered trying to raise operational costs to keep gun stores out of business.

Honestly though, we'd have to talk to current gun store owners to see the impact. I've been to a few with pretty hefty security systems already in place anyways. Still 200,000 - 400,000 is quite a few.

To the two of you:

Basically the way I see it is that we should not ignore potentially impacting solutions out of fear that they will be written for reasons not intended. We will never get anything done with any problems that we face if we continuously think like that no matter what the issue is.

When it comes to the businesses and their impacts specifically, the costs should be one time and they should help their business if nothing else. Examples such as replacing glass with steel and switching out cheap locks on doors for something much more effective and modern would sure as hell be cheaper than getting robbed. It should by no means drive them down and possibly even force them to go under. You don't even have to force them to do it right away. Give them 2-3 years to make it happen. That will provide the ones that are struggling to stay in business to save up money to make the upgrades. If any of them do go out of business, one could simply look at it as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Beyond all of that, I just want to give it a try. I think the differences could be a good step in the right direction that only impacts the criminals.

After reflection I couldn't object to it, as long as it was moderate like you suggest. If it was badly written and then twisted I would get a bit pissy.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

Usually that "glass" is lucite or polycarbonate, though sometimes it is indeed just glass. Most firearms that are stolen are stolen from private residences though. Almost always when people are fool enough to leave their guns in obvious places or plain sight. FFLs are heavily regulated by the BATF and can lose their license if they fail to take what the BATF views as proper security precautions. There are also, as TallBill mentioned, state and local regulations that must be followed and those regulations vary.

ZV

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you really sure about that? Are there numbers to work with which prove it?

Numbers aside, let's assume for a moment that you are at least partially correct and it is true that more firearms are stolen from residences than anywhere else. That suggests that it is still very possible that a large chunk of them are still stolen from some of the places I mentioned.

Wouldn't be worth tightening up a lot of required securities in all states to lower the % of firearms being illegally stolen and winding up on the streets? I mean, I know that the problem will not be completely solved but it sounds like it is something which could at least make a partial impact. I guess what I am really trying to find out here is if the juice is worth the squeeze. What would we have to do to make that happen? What are the costs? What are the projected results based upon the number of arms currently being stolen from those kinds of locations now?

These are the kinds of things which I feel are at least worth being heavily analyzed and considered. I cannot think of any reason why any radical 2nd amendment supporter would be against it beyond simply being inconvenienced a little more when it comes to obtaining one of these arms, but even then the increased inconvenience will not be much and it should be worth it in their minds if it works. It may at least be worth trying.

In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law? I realize that's not what you were saying, but the theory applies to businesses, manufacturers, etc.

I personally feel the 100% of the responsibility lies in the initial, and/or direct committal of a crime, and that law-abiding citizens should never be asked to shoulder a responsibility that is not theirs.

those numbers seem a bit high, very high....also the fact that they were 1994 numbers makes me question them - the year of the assault weapons ban. when i get over this headache i will look around at other sources to see if they are all in the same ballpark...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

After reflection I couldn't object to it, as long as it was moderate like you suggest. If it was badly written and then twisted I would get a bit pissy.

Ditto.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Has there been some solid studies about where a number of them are stolen from? I mean, it is one thing to steal them from a private home. It is something completely different when they are stolen from warehouses, manufacturing sites, and other distributors. If a great many are stolen from locations such as these, then could it potentially be helpful to legally demand increases in security as well as increases to the penalties should successful robberies occur as a result of failing to oblige to the security increases?

For example, there are hunting sections of some stores where guns and ammo is stored behind a glass housing of some kind. Perhaps make it a requirement to protect them much more. Don't use glass. Use steel or something. Anything to make it a lot harder to break into.

Usually that "glass" is lucite or polycarbonate, though sometimes it is indeed just glass. Most firearms that are stolen are stolen from private residences though. Almost always when people are fool enough to leave their guns in obvious places or plain sight. FFLs are heavily regulated by the BATF and can lose their license if they fail to take what the BATF views as proper security precautions. There are also, as TallBill mentioned, state and local regulations that must be followed and those regulations vary.

ZV

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you really sure about that? Are there numbers to work with which prove it?

Numbers aside, let's assume for a moment that you are at least partially correct and it is true that more firearms are stolen from residences than anywhere else. That suggests that it is still very possible that a large chunk of them are still stolen from some of the places I mentioned.

Wouldn't be worth tightening up a lot of required securities in all states to lower the % of firearms being illegally stolen and winding up on the streets? I mean, I know that the problem will not be completely solved but it sounds like it is something which could at least make a partial impact. I guess what I am really trying to find out here is if the juice is worth the squeeze. What would we have to do to make that happen? What are the costs? What are the projected results based upon the number of arms currently being stolen from those kinds of locations now?

These are the kinds of things which I feel are at least worth being heavily analyzed and considered. I cannot think of any reason why any radical 2nd amendment supporter would be against it beyond simply being inconvenienced a little more when it comes to obtaining one of these arms, but even then the increased inconvenience will not be much and it should be worth it in their minds if it works. It may at least be worth trying.

In 1994 600,000 were stolen from residences, while it's estimated that 800,000-1,000,000 total were stolen from all sources combined.

P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report, Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1997

Here's some food for thought. While guns through theft are one source, there are others (legal guns smuggled in, illegal sales, strawman purchases, legal sales, etc). Even if you completely stopped all gun thefts (which I'm sure you agree is impossible) there would still be a number of ways to obtain a firearm.

EVERY crime in America allows more crimes to be committed. First of all it encourages continued crime as being rewarding. Second, any money made through crime can go to further criminal acts. So, if you allow your jewelery to be stolen, that jewelery can be sold and the proceeds could buy drugs and a gun that wasn't stolen. The drugs feed an addiction, which requires more money for more drugs, and also causes poor decision making. The successful crime encourages the criminal to do it again next time. Now they are also supplied with a gun because you allowed your jewelery to be stolen. Now, should you be held accountable for allowing your jewelery to be stolen if the gun purchased with the proceeds is then later used in a crime?

If you are not responsible for what someone can do with what they steal from you, then why do you want gun owners singled out for it? If a gun thief (criminal A) sells the gun to criminal B, then uses the money to buy a legal gun, and both criminals then commit a murder with their firearms, who is accountable? How far removed from a crime do you consider someone responsible, even if they themselves took every precaution and never broke a law? I realize that's not what you were saying, but the theory applies to businesses, manufacturers, etc.

I personally feel the 100% of the responsibility lies in the initial, and/or direct committal of a crime, and that law-abiding citizens should never be asked to shoulder a responsibility that is not theirs.

those numbers seem a bit high, very high....also the fact that they were 1994 numbers makes me question them - the year of the assault weapons ban. when i get over this headache i will look around at other sources to see if they are all in the same ballpark...

BJS is a bit lower, around 400,000 instead of 600,000. It's so close that it doesn't matter.

 

[bob4432]

even 400,000 in a year, stolen? that just seems incredibly high

 

[winnar111]

Why didnt they execute the convict beforehand?