Criminal Weapon Selection

Written by Greg Ellifritz

Topics: News and Tactical Advice

  • SumoMe

Written by: Greg Ellifritz


I’ve written before about criminals and the guns they carry.  My study was obviously limited by the relatively small number of guns my upscale suburban police department seizes.  Other police departments seize far more guns than we do.


Currently, the Chicago Police Department seizes the largest number of firearms used in crimes.  I found this article to be incredibly interesting.  It is a complete account of all the weapons seized from criminals by the Chicago Police in 2014.  Astonishingly, they seize more than 6000 guns a year!


So, what kind of guns are they taking off criminals?


It isn’t the ones that are cheap and easy to conceal.  The brands taken most frequently were Glock, Smith and Wesson, and Ruger.  Most of these weapons are mid to full sized duty pistols.  Those handguns are not the cheap and easily concealed “Saturday Night Specials” that criminals stereotypically carry.  Dr. James Wright, in his book Armed and Considered Dangerousfound that the criminals he studied preferred larger, more powerful, and more reliable handguns over smaller, cheaper, and more easily concealed ones.  This study supports that hypothesis.


If you truly analyze the statistics, it’s really not surprising.  Where do criminals get their guns?  Mostly from stealing the weapons from lawful gun owners.  What guns do lawful gun owners most often use for home protection?  You guessed it, Glock, S&W, and Ruger auto pistols.  It shouldn’t be a shock that these stolen guns are what the criminal is caught with.


The Chicago PD article was great.  Another excellent resource to see the guns that criminals carry is the Baltimore PD Facebook Page.  They regularly show photos of the guns they seize from criminals.  Even more interesting is the fact that they show the ammunition that was carried in the gun at the time it was seized.  Looking through a relative sample shows me that similar to my own study, criminals often carry mixed ammo types and guns that are less than fully loaded.

An example of a seized weapon post from Baltimore PD's Facebook page.

An example of a seized weapon post from Baltimore PD’s Facebook page.


One other trend I would like to mention is when criminals alter the appearance of guns to make them look like toys.  The idea is to cause police officers and armed citizens to hesitate when confronted with one of these “toy” guns.  Criminals will hide real guns inside the shell of toy guns, paint an orange tip on the barrel of their pistol, or paint the entire weapon a bright florescent color to make it appear more like a toy.


Take a look at the picture below.  It is a fully functional pistol gripped shotgun hidden within the shell of a super-soaker water gun.  These are the kind of modifications you should be alert for.


Mossberg 12 gauge seized by police.

Mossberg 12 gauge seized by police.


Don’t think that this is some kind of “urban myth”.  Two weeks ago officers in my department were called out to investigate some suspicious people who were hanging out behind a closed business late at night.  The officers found the men seated in a car in the parking lot.  When officers checked the driver’s identity, they found he had a warrant for his arrest.


The officers ordered the man out of the car and he complied.  As soon as he got out, the officers saw a gun on the floor of the car where the driver had been sitting.  They arrested the driver and seized the gun.  The gun was a stolen .40 caliber Glock 22.  It was loaded with a full capacity magazine and had a loaded 31-round extended magazine as a spare.  Even more interesting is the fact that the entire gun HAD BEEN PAINTED BRIGHT LIME GREEN.  The thieves were clearly attempting to create the illusion that their .40 Glock was merely a toy.


The days of criminals regularly carrying junky .25 autos are over.  Today’s criminals carry full sized auto pistols and will employ every trick in the book to cause you to hesitate before shooting them.


Be dangerous.






If you would like to read more articles like this one, please sign up for my email updates.








45 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. Mike Mckay says:

    Its a shame this information wasnt being widely shared through the media prior to the shooting of the child holding an air pistol as that might have made the people criticising the officers involved in the extremely unfortunate accident to look at it with a more balanced and rounded pool of data

    Being in the UK and as a result guns not being such an every day part of life I would say however that from a purely objective sense it does seem quite bad to claim that criminals are arming themselves with guns from legal owners that they have acquired either by a burglary or a robbery.

    I had always assumed they got their guns from unreputable gun dealers, illegal gun dealers or were obtaining them with false ID in states that have little in the way of verification is the paper work seems “ok”.

    I think it would be interesting to see how they came to have the guns, and if the majority are from burglaries rather than robberies that might suggest better storage for guns in a home leaving only the personal carry weapons outside of that security and even then, only when the person is also in the home.

    If its due mostly to robberies though, I really dont know as that heads into the dilema of chicken and egg in so much that if the criminals get most of their guns from people carrying them legally it might suggest that the requirements for granting a carry permit should perhaps be examined to see if there is a way to weed out types of people who can currently carry a weapon but by profiling will tend to just hand them over rather than use them.

    I was thinking of examples like elderly people who wouldnt have the reaction times or agility to have any hopes of using them in almost any situation, people with poor eyesight or people who buy them expecting to never need to use them, as such dont take enough training and then when faced with a situation will be more likely to just freeze and hand them over. Because those types of people would be providing an endless source of free weapons with little to no risk in acquiring them if that makes sense

    I would imagine that similar types of exclusions apply to the driving of a motor vehicle to reduce the risk to other motorists and pedestrians and perhaps this kind of data might suggest a similar approach is needed with the issuing of a carry permit

    I can however see the danger from the anti gun lobby who might, and probably will use this type of data to achieve extreme restrictions and bans rather than just trying to plug the holes.

    I should stress this is merely an objective response to the editorial and one from a person not living in a country where guns are a regular aspect of everyday life. But evem so, it would seem to suggest that something (but not throwing out the baby with the bathwater) to try and stem the flow of registered guns to criminals which data like this should be able to facilitate without he need for excessive actions or restrictions

    • George says:

      I’m a Yorkshireman and now US citizen employed as a full time detective with a police department in the Southwest US. Unfortunately, most firearms are stolen, usually from unlocked vehicles with the remainder taken from burglaries of homes where they were unsecured. Based on my agency’s records, we don’t have a single record of a firearm taken by robbery from an armed citizen and I might hazard a guess that other agencies around the country share those same statistics.

      While it seems eminently sensible to Brits to secure weapons, whether left in a vehicle or in a residence, many Americans do not seem to share this mindset. There is an easy familiarity with firearms for many that apparently diffuses the respect for the damage the weapon may do if stolen. The difference in attitudes between the two countries may be attributable to the restrictive licensing required in the UK which specifically requires safe gun storage as a condition of ownership not to mention that defense of one’s home or person with a firearm hasn’t been recognized by the UK for almost a century.

      However, very much contrary to the UK position, gun ownership here is a right and self defense is inextricably linked to the 2nd Amendment in the majority of firearm’s owners eyes. Therefore, the weapon needs to be readily accessible or easily to hand. Disarming an alarm then unlocking a gun safe then loading the magazine isn’t going to cut it for the majority of Americans who live outside of such restrictive jurisdictions as say California. No, the weapon must be loaded and available immediately to counter the potential threat presented by an aggressor.

      Unfortunately, this leads to them being easily stolen if the residence or vehicle is burgled. Sadly, the majority of thefts from vehicles occur as a result of the vehicle being left unlocked. People leave guns, iPods, laptops, MP3 players and many other valuables in their unlocked vehicles which are frequently stolen. Stupid? You bet. Frustrating for cops trying to stop druggies getting easy access to stuff they can sell for dope? Absolutely!

      However, I believe education not legislation is the key here. For a success story in that regard, look at drunk driving in the UK. Up until the 1970’s, having a few drinks then driving was acceptable to most people. A concerted, targeted and extremely hard hitting public education program since then has resulted in the average person in the UK thinking a drunk driver is almost as bad as a child molester. Legislation is blunt instrument; changing people’s behavior and attitudes is an education issue.

      As a further example, look at drug use. More restrictions and increased penalties for drug use, abuse and trafficking hasn’t made a dent in the size of the drug trade. Conversely, the numbers abusing both illegal and prescription drugs is increasing.

      I could talk for hours on this subject but needless to say, nothing the UK has done in terms of firearms legislation has any applicability to the USA. I speak from the experience of owning firearms in the UK from 1984 until I emigrated to the US in 2005 and seeing many of my treasured pistols and revolvers, not to mention semi-auto rifles, tossed in the furnace by a nanny state, unthinking, knee jerk reaction government and to hell with civil liberties. Long live the 2nd Amendment and death to tyrants who would attempt to restrict their ownership. Have a good day.

      • Mike Mckay says:

        That was almost the point I was trying to make george except that ONLY offering the extremes of all guns in a safe or guns lying around all over the place is to say the least a bit disingenous and perhaps even leaning towards being a bit manipulative in its context

        When a house is empty it wouldnt be unreasonable for ALL guns left in a house to be secured in a safe, loaded or otherwise leaving them free to take a CCW out with them and possibly even carry something like an AR15 in the boot “just in case”

        When someone IS at home though, it wouldnt be unreasonable for guns to THEN be removed from the safe for relocation in a bedside table or other locations but ONLY when the house is occupied (remember they would still have their CCW with them whilst removing any higher calibre weapons from the safe so not exactly unarmed or vulnerable at any point in the process

        This could then be “encouraged” by extremely hefty penalties for a gun owner who through sheer laziness and a disregard for other peoples safety chooses or forgets to lock up their home defence weapons before leaving the building

        So rather than houses strewn from wall to wall with weapons just lying around or some ridiculous multi door gun safe that takes 3 hours to open during a burglary there is far more opportunity for a workable and far safer approach to gun ownership than two extremes

        If criminals are getting their guns from burglaries then it would be both irresponsible and abhorrent to not even examine “reasonable” changes that would still protect the freedom to own, use and even carry weapons.

        But to do nothing whilst falsely trying to claim the ONLY other alternative to the current and potentially flawed approach would be no gun ownership which is just a manipulative way to try and scare up a complete resistance to even discussing some reasonable changes similar to how the anti gun lobby will use any excuse to try and claim the ONLY reasonable choice is a complete ban

        I think the figures do seem to suggest that whatever systems are in place arent effective enough, and ironically a complete and inflexible approach to the possibilities of improvements to current systems is very likely to result in far more excessive bans if the current amount of gun related violence continued

        Whereas gun enthusiasts showing they are responsible by actually championing their own ideas for improvements which make things safer but without being too restrivtive and uunsafe would be a good path to a mutual win/win outcome for both gun owners and the victims of weapons that have been stolen from lazy or irresponsible gun owners

        • George says:

          I’m not offering any extremes Mike. I’m simply saying that legislation is both counterproductive and unconstitutional. There are several safes/storage containers on the market that allow the weapon to be securely stored but readily accessible via either a pin code or biometric or RFID device.

          The issue is simply one of education in changing attitudes towards safe storage of weapons. One thing that should have been learned from the UK experience is that of ‘reasonable’ restrictions or conditions. In less than half a century, the UK went from the Prime Minister “lauding the day there would a rifle in every cottage” to removing the right of the people to own firearms for their own defense. Incrementally, people’s rights were removed and further ‘reasonable’ restrictions were introduced to the point they are at today when you have to have a doctor certify you’re fit to own firearms among other onerous requirements.

          No, ‘reasonable restrictions’ are a slippery slope. Whose definition of ‘reasonable’ are we going to use? The NRA’s or Obama’s?? Mine? Yours? The road to hell is paved with good intentions but they often morph into something very different, especially when the government gets involved. Monitoring every single phone call, email and text message in the US sounded like a great idea to fight terrorism until its revealed that the program didn’t result in a single conviction but massively invaded the personal liberty of the people.

          I deal with the effects of criminals abusing guns every working day; people being shot, robbed and murdered. I’m still opposed to further restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in the US. Especially when stringent firearms legislation has been proven to be completely ineffective.

          The recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA is a classic example. EVERY single measure the anti gun folks want to impose on the rest of America was in place in CA. Universal background checks, a ban on so called assault weapons, safe storage regulations, waiting periods, magazine restrictions and a ban on CA residents buying firearms outside of CA among many others. What did it achieve? NOTHING. Why? Because criminals or people intent on hurting others will find a way around the restrictions if they are determined enough.

          Americans also allow the bigger cities to skew the gun control debate. America isn’t the number one most violent country in the world; it isn’t even in the top 10. If you were to remove cities like Chicago, NY, Baltimore, LA, New Orleans and Detroit, the US wouldn’t make the top 150 of most violent countries. In fact, without the cities, it would have less violent crime than Belgium.

          Ergo, why should 95% of the US be forced to adopt unconstitutional, ineffective and practically worthless gun controls to account for the inner city problems? Not to mention that IF the current Federal laws concerning firearms crimes were applied, many of the repeat offenders would be locked away for decades. We need to fix the cities, ensure repeat offenders are appropriately punished and educate people before we start talking about more laws.

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Not exactly sure which part of not allowing guns to be anywhere BUT in a safe when the home is empty would be unconstitutional tbh

            I dont recall reading that its an empty houses inalienable right to be armed, nor that its an inalienable right of a citizen to have unsecured guns lying around in an empty building

            I am fairly sure it says to “bare arms” which kind of needs a person to be present for there to be a right

            As for education, you are still being disingenuous there I believe in so much that the “changes” you mention werent unilateral

            NOBODY changes anything with its a pure “well if you feel like it could you maybe possibly please consider doing xyz”

            What invariably is the case though is a reasonable set of rules backed up by education about why they are necessary and THEN backed up further by stiff penalties if you “choose” to ignore them

            If drink driving had become legally allowable then education by itself would have accomplished practically nothing as most drink drivers think THEY are fine, that its only the OTHER people who drink too much who are the issue, but not them because they “know” when they have had enough

            How many deaths have been caused by drivers who “feel” ok but still killed someone or themselves?

            Most of them basically, because its only the ones who DONT think they are fine who leave their car and take a taxi

            As for medical checks they should be mandatory both for driving and weapons. Is it a “right” for someone as blind as a bat to own and carry a gun in public?? Whoever they might shoot is unlikely to even be the person they aim at, and even the person they aim at might not even be the, or even A criminal

            Same would apply to nervouce conditions like parkinsons where aiming at anything over 10 feet would be impossible and I am sure theres many more fairly common ailments and mental conditions that

            But hey, while we are on the topic of “rights” why not ensure each released armed bank robber or gang enforcer has THEIR rights to own and carry as many weapons as they like protected to

            Violent rapists and child molesters? Yeah sure, why no. After all they didnt shoot anyone so what could the possible downside be, none at all obviously

            Those are all “reasonable” restrictions, and unless there is no such thing as a “reasonable gun owner” which seems to be what you are claiming then the ONLY source for reasonable restrictions would be ones where it was the responsible gun owners themselves who championed them rather than the anti gun lobby whos focus would make it hard even for their reasonable members to try and forge any reasonable ammendments as they do seem to come across as an all or nothing sort of crowd

            So no, I dont see any infringements of the constitution worth mentioning at all because my suggestion only focused on people who medically just shouldnt be using guns (and most probably cars either) and the handling of guns left in an UNNOCCUPIED house

            So the only “right” being protected is that of a burglers self invented “right” to steal those guns and then use them themselves

            Not really a “right” anyone should be defending

          • Rod De Leon says:

            George, you make a very cogent argument from experience most of we in the US fortunately have little first-hand knowledge. Thanks.

            The simple truth is that gun control is a hardware solution to a software problem. Guns cause crime like hammers cause cabinetry. The true causes of violent crime: corruption, organized crime, poverty and income inequality, under-performing schools, poor mental health care, racism, privatized prison system, etc., are complicated and expensive to address. So, rather than raise taxes, politicians keep trying to deal with hardware, desperately hoping something might stick.

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    Great stuff.

    I hadn’t heard that criminals are making guns look like toys.

    As far as be Dangerous – great stuff.

  3. caleb says:


    Had no idea about the concealing the guns as toys … that’s … criminally genius.

  4. Rod De Leon says:

    Interesting article. I wonder if there is a correlation between the number of restrictive gun control laws and the sophistication of the firearms used. Or maybe it comes down to the criminal: a career criminal engaged in organized crime vs. the tweaker looking for his next score.

    Also, I’m no lawyer, but someone should mention that a law-abiding citizen looking to gain some tactical advantage or element of surprise by disguising his weapon as a toy could land in some very hot water. The BATF holds a very dim view of disguising firearms to look like something else: wallets, pens, canes, etc. Also, the motives of the defender in an otherwise justified self-defense shooting may be called into question if that defender used a firearm disguised as a toy. That’s why I’m not a fan of the current trend of guns painted hot pink, zombie green, and other neon-bright colors not typically associated with firearms (gun blue, black, nickel/chrome/stainless steel, OD, FDE). It makes them look too much like toys.

  5. Ivan Nikolov says:

    I would assume some of these seized guns had been taken by the criminals from LE personnel – it looks like there are quite a few Glock and S&W in .40 caliber.

  6. George says:

    Mike, it’s fairly simple; once you start on the slippery road to ‘reasonable’ restrictions, they ALWAYS increase. Rarely do gun laws get over turned. Sure, there have been some successes in the recent past but when do we start punishing victims? Because, unless it escaped your attention, people, however foolish for leaving valuables or firearms unsecured in their homes and/or vehicles are the VICTIMS of criminal activity.

    That’s why we as police officers, respond and take reports, gather evidence, find and prosecute criminals for their actions in burgling cars and homes. Agreed, people should be more responsible but ultimately, the person who breaks into the home or vehicle is the one who should be severely punished.

    To follow your argument to its logical conclusion, anyone who leaves anything which can be used as a weapon unsecured in their home should be prosecuted, right? So if a bad guy smashes your door in, steals your kitchen knives and stabs someone with it, that’s YOUR fault, not the bad guy’s? How about if he swipes your 9 iron and clubs someone with it? Your fault or HIS?

    Let’s focus on the root cause; scumbags preying on law abiding, decent honest citizens. Or should we prosecute the victim of a burglary for drug trafficking when the turd who stole their big screen TV sells it for pennies to buy more dope?? Asinine argument.

    We encourage people to do the right thing, especially law abiding citizens instead of punishing them when they are the victims. Short sighted suggestions like yours with the big nanny government argument is one of the major reasons I left the UK for good over a decade ago. Over here, freedom is prized, cherished and appreciated but it seems most of the UK thinks that making new laws is the answer to every problem.

    • Mike Mckay says:

      Since when do we punish victims? Depends on what they are a victim of doesnt it?

      We regularly punish people who through neglect or laziness leave their keys in the ignition of a running car while they pop into a shop. We punish people quite regularly where they have an accident through their own neglect or simply not paying attention to the road run someone over or crash into another vehicle

      Its a really thing straw to try and claim that someone who negligently leaves weapons in an empty house which are then used to kill ACTUAL victims by the burgler to someone who only has their TV, phone and money stolen because their guns were secured in a good quality safe and protected by an intruder alarm system

      Theres the saying that with rights come responsibility, but your arguement is purely focusing on rights whilst trying to dismiss ANY responsibility at all

      And as I have said quite clearly several times my hypothetical examples of reasonable changes niether impede nor remove ANY gun ownerships rights at all but would simply enforce a reasonable and to be honest intrinsic responsibility to the ownership of weapons

      I think even gun enthusiasts would criticise a gun owner for handing over a loaded gun to a complete stranger so they can look at it in a crowded street, but leaving that same gun in an unnocuppied home ready to be stolen you are claiming is a perfectly reasonable behaviour where its the gun owner who is the victim and not the people their guns kill when stolen? Seriously?

      Yes they lost their gun but as they COULD have locked it away thats still their fault too as the home was empty at the time

      What next? The right to leave loaded weapons on your lawn because its still yout property? Still victims in your eyes I am guessing

      The sad fact here is those very basic levels of responsible gun ownership SHOULDNT need to be enforced let alone suggested on a forum like this, because every reasonable gun owner should of their own cognition be doing that anyway merely to avoid them being stolen regardless of the real victims those weapons if stolen might create as a result

      As I said, with the CCW being with a person when out of the home they would at no point have been left unarmed or have had ANY rights removed by them simply keeping their guns locked when, and only when there is nobody licensed to use them in the home

      When they are in the home they could hang them from the light fittings for all I care because at that point they are (we would hope) being responsibly monitored by the home owner

      As for prosecuting victims, burgled drug dealers springs to mind, theyre also victims but still get prosecuted anyway. And someone being neglectful and irresponsible enough to leave guns in easy access to a burglar when a house is empty is far more responsible for what happens with that gun afterwards than if it was their Ipad that was stolen

      I personally would see it as quite reasonable for people showing such lapse and negligent ownerships of guns which are then used to commit a crime as being “reasonably” charged as an accessory to the crime because through their negligence theyre not many steps away from being a drug dealer because only someone mentally deficient in some way wouldnt be mentally able to see the risk of leaving guns unsecured in an EMPTY (<< important word that one) home

      Same way I would view someone who leaves a gun in plain sight on the seat of a locked car too tbh, as thats no better than leaving them easily accessible in a locked home

      • Mike Mckay says:

        Sorry, last but one paragraph should obviously have been

        I personally would see it as quite reasonable for people showing such lapse and negligent ownerships of guns which are then used to commit a crime as being “reasonably” charged as an accessory to the crime because through their negligence theyre not many steps away from being a GUN dealer because only someone mentally deficient in some way wouldnt be mentally able to see the risk of leaving guns unsecured in an EMPTY (<< important word that one) home

        gun dealer rather than drug dealer obviously lol

        • Mike Mckay says:

          The point being that the answer to your question of “when did we start prosecuting victims” would appear to be “a very very long time ago” as I am sure is the case in most civilised countries the world over and as such is hardly a “rare” or nonsensical concept

          Prosecuting people because despite being a victim in some way they were also clearly negligent or irresponsible leading to the loss of life or injury of another person seems to be quite widespread and not viewed as being either ridiculous nor the start of some percieved slippery slope (even in the US itself it seems)

          So I am surprised that YOU are surprised by a suggestion to make irresponsible people responsible for the side effects of their blatant lack of respect for other peoples safety or their own choice to behave negligently

          Considering its been going on for ages all around you without you seeming to have noticed it


          • George says:

            Of course you see it as reasonable; you think punishing people for the criminal actions of others is acceptable. I bet you were all for George Martin being prosecuted for owning an illegal weapon then using that weapon to kill one burglar and wound another?

            Of course, there is an aspect of this you don’t seem to grasp; 99% of firearms in the US, unlike the UK aren’t registered with the state or any other agency. Ergo, if you decide that you are going to punish someone for having their unsecured firearm stolen, how on earth are you going to know if that happens? I do not see people coming forward to report their home being burgled and that they had a firearm stolen if they know the next step is for me to charge them with a crime?

            What happens then? When that gun turns up at a crime scene or in the possession of a criminal, how am I supposed to trace where it came from or prove it was a stolen gun in order to charge the criminal with another crime? Moreover, how am I supposed to get the gun back to the legal owner of it?

            The only way around this conundrum is to insist ALL firearms in the US are registered with the authorities. Registration is ALWAYS a prerequisite for confiscation. UK gun owners found THAT out when they took our rifles and then our handguns. Voluntary registration isn’t going to work so then it has to be compulsory. Mass compulsory registration in the USA is going to result in civil war. Do you understand now why your idea is nonsensical?

            Your argument is ridiculous. Suppose we have a law abiding citizen who religiously locks his firearm away when out of the house every time. One day, he forgets or has an emergency, causing him to leave the house without securing it. A burglary happens and his gun is stolen; what now? Is he to be punished because of a one time failure on his part? And make no mistake, if your suggestion were to become law, the politicians would waste no time in ensuring he could never own a gun again.

            When would a gun owner get a break? Only if they followed the same kind of rules that UK gun owners are forced to? An alarm, a safe or gun room?? You misunderstand the nature of most gun ownership in the US. Serious gun folks have safes but they aren’t the majority from whom guns are stolen. Most people have one or two firearms, most often a handgun and/or a shotgun. They can’t afford alarms and big safes, they likely paid less than $300 for the gun and they keep them like they do fire extinguishers, just in case they are needed. They don’t go to the range, they have a gun as a tool, a comfort blanket and not something they fondle or obsess over.

            These are the folks we’re trying to reach with education, not the people who read this and other blogs on weapons because we already secure our weapons. You seem to forget that if the scumbag criminal didn’t break into the home or the vehicle, there wouldn’t be a problem. You also ignore the very salient points made by other posters that crime is a much larger issue and by focusing on the gun rather than the person stealing/selling/trading/using the weapon illegally, you miss the entire point.

            FYI, in my state, we don’t prosecute people who have their vehicles stolen while running outside their home or a shop; we prosecute the thieving bastard who took it. Welcome to the land of the free, not the socialist UK. Seems you have forgotten the old adage of the home being your castle…..

            Stay in the UK, you won’t fit in over here.

  7. Mike Mckay says:

    Actually george I really dont even NEED to respond to that post at all

    We are as far as I know discussing the article above and everything I have typed was based on what was written in the article, not on some completely unrelated opinions

    So lets look at what the article ACTUALLY says shall we?

    “If you truly analyze the statistics, it’s really not surprising. Where do criminals get their guns? Mostly from stealing the weapons from lawful gun owners. What guns do lawful gun owners most often use for home protection? You guessed it, Glock, S&W, and Ruger auto pistols. It shouldn’t be a shock that these stolen guns are what the criminal is caught with.”

    At no point did I refer to ANY laws as draconian as the UK ones, I kept my comments purely within the framework of the article above AND the second ammendment rights for a “person” to have the right to bear arms, which at no point also says that an empty car, an unnattended horse or an empty building should also have that right

    The article clearly says “most” guns are taken from gun owners, some of which will be responsible ones who were physically robbed and had no choice to hand them over, same applies too with the ones who might have been overpowered in their homes resulting in them being stolen

    None of which should in my opinion be guilty of anything as they werent negligent at all

    So the ONLY people I am referring to are negligent gun owners, which means that the ONLY people YOU are defending by trying to rebutt my point of view is also negligent and irresponsible gun owners alone, nobody else at all

    Not only have I not even once suggested carry weapons be banned unless a person is unsafe to do so which I wouold hope is already in place anyway (please correct me if people who would be deemed unsafe to carry a weapon by a consciencious gun owner still has their rights to carry and own protected btw) but other than that I have clearly stated that a carry weapon would totally negate ANY second ammendment rights restriction as the only suggestions have been referring to unnattended guns

    Which according to the article is where “most” criminals guns come from

    So in a nutshell my point all along is that irresponsibly and negligently unnattended and unsecured guns should be addressed because they are FREQUENTLY (not rarely) stolen then being used to commit crime, injure civilians and even kill people

    Meaning that you are quite literally argueing for peoples right to leave guns in easy reach of criminals with no chance of every being viewed negatively or held accountable for that

    And you think THAT is the view of a “responsible gun owner”

    I personally know of many gun owners in the UK who have hired me to provide security well over and above that required by law to protect their weapons and ammunition. I doubt very much that any of the countless people I have been conversing with over the last three months whilst researching a book would be very different either despite many of them residing in the US

    If I were a gun owner in the US I would personally find your stance on the matter both negligent and self serving to say the least and without any consideration for the innocent victims that such irresponsible examples of gun ownership leaves bleeding or dead in their wake as a result

    I would hope that more people who own guns in the US will see the information in the article as something to learn from and then seek to avoid WITHOUT the need for any changes in the law, but sadly they will become unfairly punished if the irresponsible gun owners and the people who blindly defend them are the majority.

    Because eventually the government will have no choice but to introduce widely sweeping gun restrictions on everybody, rather than only ones that deal specifically with the irresponsible and negligent ones as should be the case

    I wont be replying to you again as I have stated my point of view clearly several times now as well as referencing the ACTUAL claims in the article itself so further discourse is pointless especially with a contributor such as yourself prepared to defend to the grave a negligent gun owners “right” to put innocent civillians at risk merely because “its too hard to bother”

    I hope you or your family never find themselves shot by a stolen firearm that could so very easily have been secured if the person had any respect whatsoever for the well being of others

    • Mike Mckay says:

      Actually I thought I would reply to some of the stupider comments you made as not doing so would be remiss

      as for “people to poor to buy a safe” I am curious if people too poor to maintain their cars caught driving without working brakes are equally dismissed and ignored? (genuine question)

      Does their “right to drive” outwiegh other motorists to be reasonably protected whilst doing so and the same where pedestrians are concerned

      Similarly on the poor issue, if they ONLY have a carry gun then why would they need a safe? And if they can afford several guns then the safe should surely be bought FIRST (assuming they are responsible rather than negligent gun owners) if they will be leaving some in the home unprotected and where by your own words they cant even afford an alarm and most probably not even decent locks

      So yes, those are EXACTLY the people I was referring to because THOSE people are the ones arming the criminals

      I dare you to show anywhere that I have suggested the need for ANY restrictions that would impact in ANY way on responsible gun owners who either only own their CCW or whom have taken it upon themselves to ensure that guns left at home are secure ONLY when they are out of the house

      I much prefer people to respond to what I have actually written as that is after all the purpose of a “discussion” rather than replying to some self invented version that only exists inside their own minds and which doesnt even come close to resembling the text they are pretending to be replying to

      As for not fitting in inside the US, personally I think I would based on the gun owners (excluding yourself of course) I have already spoken to for my research

      But if other contributors feel that assumption is incorrect then I would honestly welcome their input so I can adjust my assumptions about whether the predominance in the US lies with responsible gun owners (my definition obviously, based on my views posted here) or not

      Genuine invitation as I would like to know if my personal assumption and experience is flawed and most gun owners DO think its perfectly acceptable to have guns in VERY easy reach of criminals and that in doing so they are completely blameless of those criminals then being able to use them

      Obviously if ALL gun owners secured all of their weapons the criminals would just get them somewhere else, I havent disputed that at all

      But I refuse to accept that it should then mean that letting people through laziness arm criminals for free should ever be acceptable where simple steps could avoid it and wich IMO shouldnt even need to be discussed because it should just be done BECAUSE its responsible

      Which if that was the case the government wouldnt have any real reason to target gun owners in the first place

      • George says:

        I’ve never, not once suggested most of the things you accuse me of. I’m also, given my full time job, in a position to know, at least in my area, EXACTLY how firearms are stolen. I know times of the day, methods of entry, an average of how many are stolen and how long it takes for the owner to realize they have been stolen.

        In our area, the most common way a firearm is stolen is out of a vehicle, either locked or unlocked. Mostly they are unlocked. Average number of weapons stolen is one. Average value is between $300 to $400, frequently under $300. People often refer to these guns as ‘truck guns’ or guns they don’t mind leaving in their vehicles or getting beat up in the vehicle as it bounces down the road.

        The article discusses the author’s research; my response is from PRACTICAL, daily experience from inside an agency with over 150 sworn officers and an annual call load of over 80,000 calls for service. I have attended 3 police officer’s funerals in the last 12 months, 2 of them killed with stolen guns. I’ve also worked 4 homicides, several drive by shootings, 2 attempted murders with guns and several felon in possession of firearms cases in the last 12 months. Every single gun case (apart from suicides) I worked involved stolen weapons.

        2016 began with a bang for me, getting called out at 0400 hours on 1/1/16 to deal with an attempted murder case. A drug dealer shot an addict with a stolen .380 and hit him three times, almost killing him. We searched the dealer’s house and found another stolen gun in the kitchen.

        I speak from experience, not supposition, not theoretical research but cold hard experience of (literally) walking through pools of blood dealing with the effects of stolen weapons. If anyone wants the number of stolen guns on the streets reduced, I DO.

        Your solution is unworkable, illogical, unconstitutional and frankly, naive. More regulation isn’t the answer; education and potentially, subsidized smart gun storage devices is. Freedom has a price but other, external solutions can achieve the same aim without burdening the gun owner with threats of prosecution, incarceration and loss of their rights. Have a nice day.

    • George says:

      The problem is, you speak from a position of ignorance. Yes, gun owners in the UK frequently go over board with security because they face a loss of their weapons and possible prosecution if they are stolen. I myself had a solid brick gun room with a steel door and alarm system but the law simply required I store the guns with a view to, as far is as reasonably practicable, prevent access to the firearms by unauthorized persons. When my father was alive, the police were concerned that unless all the guns we individually owned were secured separately, we shouldn’t share gun storage facilities in the same house. That’s the level of stupidity we’re talking about.

      You ignore the point I made; how on earth do the police expect homeowners who have firearms stolen to report same if they KNOW they will face prosecution? Your failure to address this key factor is where your argument fails. You want victims punished for the actions of criminals and you’re focusing on the wrong thing.

      I’m simply saying that I want people to be sensible and educate them about the dangers of unsecured weapons. I’d argue that as a police officer, frequently engaged in traffic stops and investigating serious violent felons, I have much more stake in ensuring that the criminal supply of weapons is reduced than you ever will.

      You simply haven’t thought your argument through to its logical end. I’m also not suggesting that guns be littered throughout a home with no thought to the consequences. I certainly don’t think that is a good idea but we differ on how to achieve the end result. You favor compulsion based upon threat of prosecution whereas I favor education. Your solution is unworkable without 100% gun registration because guns would still be stolen just not reported. Which is why it’s a ridiculous idea.

      • Mike Mckay says:

        Ok ok, I know I wasnt going to reply but you did bring up a point that I have actually answered already even though your selective reading meant you chose not to see it

        How do they expect home owners to report a theft with a risk of prosecution?

        So lets ban cars, because SOME negligent car owners run someone over and dont report it.

        the solution, which once again you are (I hope) cognitively able to have already answered yourself simply by looking around you in the US is everywhere

        If the guns were left unnattended in a suitable locked safe they would have absolutely NO reason to worry about it.

        If on the otherhand they “illegally” (if safe storage of unsupervised guns was compuslory) then sure, they have already broken the law, and criminals tend to not go out of their way to admit that

        But whatever penalty they “might” have faced, which would be based on the degree of negligence as with ANY other type of crime pertaining to reckless endagerment of others but would still be FAR FAR less than trying to cover up the initial crime by not informing the authorities

        One of the most decent traits in a person is realising they have made a mistake and having the spine to accept the repurcussions

        Committing not just a mistake, but a crime and then deliberately trying to cover it up is in itself a seperate and additional crime which tends to carry a MUCH higher penalty

        But that penalty is ONLY incurred by having the freedom to first not abide by the law itself and then secondly by then also choosing to try and get away with the initial criminal act

        So theres your incentive. Partially the desire to be a responsible gun owner and try to avoid anyone getting shot by informing the authorities in the hopes they can recover it and by taking your deserved lumps as a result

        The alternative you are on the verge of defending is someone initially breaking the initial law but then not even giving the police the chance to retrieve it before anyone is shot with it out of nothing more than a purely self serving attitude which isnt under any definition of the word “responsible” gun ownership

        And even though you claim to NOT be suggesting guns are littered around a home you ARE without any shadow of a doubt defending irresponsible gun owners “right” to do so. Which is kind of the same thing ya know

        Seriously, it IS!

        • George says:

          You finally admit that you wish to make victims of crime into criminals. You want to punish law abiding people by passing more unworkable, ineffectual and unconstitutional laws in an attempt to ‘do something” about ‘gun crime.’

          You’re on the same level as Obama; nothing he proposed to do via executive action with achieve a single thing. You want to punish citizens for the actions of criminals; glad to finally have you out of the closet.

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Nope, I clearly said where they have broken the law they are criminals.

            the hypothetical premise also clearly being stated as where there IS a law requiring safe storage of unnattended guns

            No second ammendment breaches anywhere as I am ONLY referring to unnattended guns, which by definition arent “bear arms” as there isnt a person present to bear them

            I have also clearly said that I dont see an issue with carried weapons, because they are by definition “attended”

            Lol at the obama comment

            I have on several occassions said that legislation NOR even discussion SHOULD be necessary because you would sort of expect responsible gun owners to be doing this shit by free choice because its common sense and because I would like to think they would prefer that THEIR gun didnt get used to kill innocent civillians

            I apologise if that isnt the case, but I really hope that it is

            I am still not sure exactly how what I have suggested in any way impedes a persons right to “carry” a weapon or indeed own them

            At worst it would mean they might own one less gun than otherwise having used that money on the safe which would logically be needed the moment they have more guns than they will be carrying at once but not as desperately needed before then unless they dont have a carry permit but do leave the house in which case I would ammend my view to say that having safe for people in a state where you cant carry, or where that specific person wasnt granted a carry licence they should have to have the safe FIRST

            But ONLY be required to use it when they leave the house

            That very simply change might have averted ALL of the killings you mentioned but without restricting the persons right to have a gun for personal defence in the slightest

            Yet you cant see a difference between that and total bans on gun ownerships?

            WOW, honestly, I am in utter disbelief at your attitude and your total disregard for the safety of innocent bystanders

            its truly staggering

        • Mike Mckay says:

          As for the staw man arguement that “you dont live here so you know nothing” the entire boundary of my comments has been based on the above article and the second ammendment which I went and read

          I then looked at the data mentioned in the article and sought the same information from a variety of sources to compare any bias

          Your actual comment is like pregnant women or those with kids saying “well if you dont have kids you wont know”

          Yet exactly 100% of bad parenting is done by people who DO have kids, go figure

          Most gaenochologists are men, none or most of which dont even have a vagine let alone a womb

          most rape counsellors havent been raped, because its such an emotive subject that only an exceptional percentage can effectively counsel someone afterwards. And a surprising number of the others are also men who havent been raped either

          If you look in many fields its not rare to find the accepted experts in any field being those with a degree of seperation from the topic

          Now I am not for a second claiming to be an expert lol, but simply highlighting the absolute fact that not being a gun owner nor living in the states alone negates the validity of what I say

          Whereas many of your own comments completely disregard both the second ammendment and the information in the article above

          But you have a gun and live in the US, which obviously makes you the moral arbitor on all things weapon related

          The only problem there is that many gun owners dont even come close to sharing your views on many, if not most of the topics we have discussed and they ARE both gun owners and americans, so what excuse will you use to unvalidate their opinions especially where they are very close to my own?

          But I have great respect for your ability to be able to. Seriously, I wouldnt bet against it in a million years.

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Actually heres an interesting paradigm for you

            Focusing specifically on your examples of the financially impoverished gun owners, too poor to buy a safe for a second

            As the article says “most” guns in use by criminals have been stolen from legal gun owners

            Now the guns are allegedly to protect them.

            But we see MOST illegal guns having been stolen, of which a percentage (the amount would be interesting to know) have been taken in a burglary rather that from the owner in person

            So the gun was at home, they werent

            Exactly HOW is that gun protecting them? Take your time.

            So what then happens if the person too poor to own a safe, and lets assume also too poor to own more than one gun comes back whilst the burglar now has their unsecured gun, lets assume they went as far as to hide it in their one room appartment but it was found

            Is the gun protecting them NOW? Kind of the opposite really

            You now have an initially unarmed burglar facing an unarmed home owner with their own gun (as I understand it not all states permit carry, and even ones that do have restrictions, so this isnt really stretching the scenario at all)

            So nope, now we have gone from the gun not protecting the guy to it actually being his murder weapon


            So, sticking with the scenario would the guy have been “safer” without the gun?


            Would the burglar have been more or less dangerous if the guy didnt have the gun?

            Less dangerous obviously as he would still be unarmed, or certainly doesnt have a firearm

            So I have kept within a very specific example of the kind which I would guess is where the “most of the illegal guns” would have come from

            I havent even mentioned the second ammendment, gun restrictions or anything else and theres nothing there that would even hint to my nationality nor gun owning status as I am ONLY stating the obvious facts based on the scenario portrayed which is far from being unrealistic

            But obviously its still merely that of a gun hating no nothing brit obviously (in your mind)

            Same would also apply if the guy CHOSE to leave his gun in his car on the seat or even in the glove box but not secured in a safe

            He would be just as unprotected by it whilst away from the gun, and just as much in an increased level of danger if he was unfortunate enough to return to the car before the criminal had left the scene

            And yes, in my opinion should be deemed in some part liable for the gun being taken as well as partially liable for any crimes committed as a result were there laws in place saying that an unnattended gun MUST be secured (still only referring to unnattended guns btw)

            So personally I think a “responsible” gun owner should have considered buying a safe BEFORE buying their second gun

            This not only would keep their primary weapon safe if they decided to leave it at home, but when they could afford to buy a second one that would be safe at home too when they go out

            If you cant afford a safe them personally I would say you cant have two guns, as the safe is far more important that the second un

      • Mike Mckay says:

        Almost missed something I had meant to respond to

        “The problem is, you speak from a position of ignorance. Yes, gun owners in the UK frequently go over board with security because they face a loss of their weapons and possible prosecution if they are stolen.”

        Do you even read what you write?

        I am sure americans who have never left the states might eat that kind of purely fabricated nonsense without question seeing you as “in the know” but its actually quite laughable

        Nobody “fears prosecution” if they have met to the letter of the law the requirements for the responsible storage of licensed firearms

        Thats kind of the point in having those requirements in the first place

        The same as nobody puts three sets of brakes on their car, or has 9 safeties on their shotgun for “fear” of being prosecuted for ONLY meeting the exact minimum requirements of the law, the claim is just plain daft

        People do however fit better brakes on their car, use a gun safe, also affix a trigger locking device and many other things NOT out of fear that despite meeting all legal requirements they will still be arrested, they do it to keep THEIR guns safer than they feel they would be otherwise

        Nothing more, nothing less

        • Greyson says:


          Just a couple things to consider. Many safes these days, especially ones in what I would consider the affordable range, are not quite as awesome as people seem to think. A criminal who can get into your home can probably get into more guns safes than we really want to admit. It might take more time, and they might have an easier time just stealing the whole safe and breaking into it later, but it is possible. Since that is the case, is locking a gun in a safe in a locked home really any more or less responsible than simply leaving the gun in a locked home? I can see arguments either way, but it feels like you assume gun safes are impenetrable; they are not.

          Similarly, I am not allowed to carry my CCW gun on school property when I go to pick up my children. My glove box does not lock (and even if it did, the plastic frame wouldn’t hold up well to a pry bar), so the best I can do is a locking box with a cable around the seat frame or lock the gun in the trunk (boot). A pair of wire cutters would make it easy to remove the box by cutting the wire holding it in the vehicle, and the trunk is actually easier to get into – climb into the back seat (or just break that window to start with) and push a button – the back seat folds down to let you into the trunk. In my case, I am not really on school grounds long enough for that to be an issue, but what about when my wife is volunteering in my son’s class all day (no; the school parking lot is not visible from any major street)?

          People need to be responsible for their choices and actions, but our perceptions of physical security and the realities of physical security can be shockingly different. Most locks really do little more than provide a deterrent.

        • Greyson says:

          Also, you mentioned leaving a gun on the seat of a car. I am fairly certain that leaving a gun in plain sight where it might inspire a theft is illegal. I am not a lawyer, so I may have the term wrong, but I believe it is called an “Aggravated Nuisance” or something like that. In that regard, what you are asking for does exist.

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Leaving the gun on a seat was actually something that cropped up several times in the search I did for examples of irresponsibility resulting in the law officials and editorials (plus comments) viewing it as a level of negligence that should result in punishment all by americans and all related to the act being in the states to highlight that it isnt just “no nothing foriegners” who hold such “ill informed” views

            Some had thrown books or clothing “almost” covering them, but almost anything else, even throwing it in a boot, locking it in the glove box or even just throwing it under a seat might still have meant it was missed if the thief didnt have more time to search further as thefts from cars are oftem almost committed on the fly aiming to steal what is clearly visible only and not wasting the time searching as it increases the chance of being seen or caught the longer they take

            So I guess ONLY dealing with that example a distinction could be drawn between leaving it on a seat, in a footwell or anywhere else in plain sight compared to it being in a boot

            And where many of the cars werent even locked to begin with which I find especially negligent when the person KNOWS they are leaving one or more guns in the car

            How would that differ exactly from someone who sells their gun to a criminal or swaps it for drugs then has them break into the car to cover their ass and claim the insurance?

            I was trying throughout to take into account and not restrict the people in states where carrying a weapon is allowed. Even unnattended guns requiring a trigger lock of some sort is needed it would at least lessen the risk to the owner returning whilst the robbery was in progress

            The information on safes is surprising, the only ones I have seen in the UK are exceptionally solid and would require cutting equipment or specialist power tools to penetrate at the scene and have been without exception bolted, anchored or even welded in place making their removal time end up being in hours rather than minutes

            Whilst I appreciate that no security is infallible, my point has been that its not expected to be. The aim is to make it take longer or to be impossible with “normal” break in tools

            Whereas leaving them easily at hand when a dwelling or car is empty means they might as well just be left out in the open

            As additional security I tend to recommend people add a domestic dialer to their alarm to alert them immediately when the alarm is activated and then at least a one camera in the room with the safe so they can also check if someone is actually in the house trying to acquire them

            This means they not only know, but can actually see whats going on from anywhere in the world and then alert the authorities right away

            My frustration was with the attitude of “they arent impossible to get into so why bother at all” which I do apologise for but I cant find any other fitting word than negligent to describe that sort of mindset

            I will bet the same person doesnt show the same lack of attention to their banking details, I am sure they dont go “locks can be beat, so why bother locking my house” or “brakes can fail, so why waste money having them on my car”

            Course not, because in those instances its mostly just them who will be affected. But with a stolen gun theyre the LEAST likely person to have to pay for their irresponsibility yet its the one area where they show a very lapse amount of inclination and DO seem to show the “why bother” attitude

            After all they will probably get a better or newer one with the insurance so theres no loss for them really at all, maybe even a gain if their guns are stolen

            I dont for one second think that ALL gun owners are like that, and I am stilly trying to cling to the belief that its not even close to “most” but views like those shown by george really dont help with that in the slightest

            The poor quality of US gun safes in itself though would seem to suggest that both the government and the NRA should perhaps be addressing THAT problem, perhaps who I know throw a lot of money into the promotion of guns could even offer safes at cost price or find a scheme where people can have them on a zero interest payment plan etc

            But it just seems that as it IS such a wide reaching problem where “most” illegal hand guns in use have been stolen that it should surely be where BOTH sides of the coin are focusing to try and stem the flow of guns not only with prosecutions for the overtly negligent gun owners and some requirements for unnattended guns but also in improving the quality of safes, their affordability or access to them and the way they are secured to stop easy removal as I would hope there are many people who would genuinely like a decent safe but where the price is prohibitive for them to get a decent one

            Even a rental scheme might be an idea that removes the outright purchase cost or a rent to buy type one

            Either way though, seeing the problem, shrugging and going “why bother” doesnt feel like the attitude of a “responsible” gun owner in ANY country

          • Greyson says:


            I am not disagreeing with you that leaving a gun in plain view is irresponsible. So is leaving a phone computer, or anything else of value. Yes, people need to be better about that stuff. I don’t disagree with that. I was simply pointing out a legal precedent that you might not have been aware of. (By the way, I did some more searching and the correct term is “Attractive Nuisance.” I’m not sure why I had aggravated stuck in my head.)

            I agree that many safes look very solid. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be defeated. For example, more and more safes are going to a digital lock these days, but those rely on batteries to power the lock. Since batteries can die without much warning, many of those safes have a removable face plate for the digital lock that contains a key lock behind it. I have seen differing quality key locks behind that plate, but most are pretty basic. Essentially just a suit case lock. My brother-in-law even has one that essentially uses a basic skeleton key. The safe is solid, but a little knowledge and a basic lock pick set can get you in pretty quick.

            Bolting safes in place is highly recommended, but not always as feasible as it seems at first. For homeowners it might be, but what about renters? Their landlord might not be ok with that. One might argue the gun owner should move, but that is not always as easy as it sounds.

            All in all, I understand why you hold the view you do and even agree to an extent. I was just trying to provide some additional information on some of the difficulties inherent in that view.

  8. Mike Mckay says:

    I do accept that “you” might have only gone past the required level because YOU were scared of some imaginary paramilitary black ops team dragging you off to a covert sight on the dark side of the moon where they are also hiding elvis and the last remaining unicorns however, probably a part of why you emigrated I suspect

    But paranoia is what paranoia does, its rarely the majorative mindset though

    I can see how someone constantly in fear of imaginary things would struggle with laws and restrictions, and also why they might be amazed that other people “dont get it”

    But seriously, dont assume you “know” the reasons that people have such things done, because in 30 years I have done a fair few of those upgrades and can guarantee that whatever reasons “you” might have been scared of werent shared by most if not all of the ones I have met

    Anyhoo, I am sure your guns are safe locked away in your bombproof anti zombie shelter 3 miles underground in its faraday cage. So none of this would appy to or affect you anyway as I am sure your entire abode is better than any gun safe so that the new world order cant take them from you

  9. Mike Mckay says:

    Actually george on reflection I apologise unreservedly for the last post (January 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm)

    Its actually quite late here and normally I would niether be that snarky or personally insulting to a forum participant except in response to a similar toned post which you havent posted (not that the “well they did it first” excuse is really a valid one either)

    So as I couldnt see a way to remove it of my own volition please accept my unreserved apology for a post that was utterly lacking in class or decency


  10. Mike Mckay says:

    Actually the previous one wasnt much better, so the same applies to that one too even though the underlying gist itself I stand by, that doesnt extend to the tone with which I wrote it which was just as inexcuseable as the first one I referred to

    • Mike Mckay says:

      I am not sure what is allowed to be called a “gun safe” in the US, and as I said maybe some federal legislatin (I do know how much people HATE that) might however be the answer

      Safes of any type in the UK are graded and the ONLY gun safes I have seen tend to have internal hinges, multipoint locking and either 5 or more level dead locks to work the multipoint locking or high security pin face keys, some even using digitally coded keys

      they would take a person in an open space a considerable time to penetrate even with power tools or sledge hammers and where they cant be fastened the other option is to get one bigger than you need then fill all the excess space with concrete blocks or lead so that its immensely heavy and almost impossible to carry away without a large group of people

      Locating it in cupboard makes swinging or levering far more difficult and with alarms going off while theyre trying the chances someone stuck around long enough to succeed dimish rapidly with each passing minute in a built up enviroment which after all seems to be the most common type of place theyre being obtained from

      The electronic ones tend to be extremely expensive and dont really add much in the way of extra benefit but the battery doesnt tend to be as much of an issue as many assume as they start telling you the battery needs changing months before it would stop functioning which again would kind of link back to a cant be bothered or laziness mentality if that ever happened as most people would be using them I would guess far more regulary than every few months

      But your post does highlight the type of thinking I was getting at

      The “if I was a burglar what would I do” followed by “ok, so how do I make that harder” type of process rather than the “whatever I do a professional safe cracker could get in, so why bother” type, because we both know that professional safe crackers DONT burgle single room apartments in poor areas on the offchance their MIGHT be a gun in a safe there

      kids, drug users and the like on the other hand OFTEN target that type of place often just looking for stuff to sell for their next fix. But far too often walk out with an unsecured and loaded gun so they can now move up the crime hierarchy as a result

      In the UK its also a crime to be caught with tools commonly used for burglary or car theft, even broken spark plug ceramic I think as that shatters laminated glass with barely any noise

      And if almost everyone had gun safes the criminals still looking to acquire their weapons that way would need to carry a lot of very telling tools with them as a result

      So that also might be another angle to try and minimise the flood of weapons from licensed owners

      But as I said early on, the most important thing needed is for people to actually TRY to secure them without the need for legislation because if the flood was stemmed to a mere insignificant trickle there would be no leverage for restrictive laws, whereas the eventual side effect if the majority shrug their shoulders and say why bother is that eventually a government will have no choice BUT to impose legislation which we both know would niether be fair nor reasonable and which would then affect everyone rather than just the irresponsible ones equally

      But I do feel that perhaps the only route to any improvements that WONT include ammendments to the 2nd ammendment or ways around it are ones that the gun owners and organisations like the NRA champion themselves using the experience and successful methods and ideas they have used being “encouraged” rather than legislated by only punishing the people who just cant be bothered and dont want to take ANY reasonable steps to keep their unmonitored weapons secure or at least making them extremely hard to steal which is the main point I have been trying to make all along

      • George says:

        Mike, it appears you’re hard headed or just not very good at reading and comprehension. That’s not an insult but an observation.

        Understand this if nothing else; I do NOT approve of people leaving firearms unsecured EVER. I however want to educate people rather than punish them for many of the reasons I already mentioned.

        Chief among those reasons is that people will simply NOT report gun thefts. You made the rather silly suggestion that they would if they had the “stones” to admit to it. All I’d ask is when is the last time you went to the local cop shop and asked them to issue you a ticket for doing 80mph on the M6? Answer; never. People commit crimes all the time but rarely do they admit to them unless caught. Its even more unlikely they would admit to a firearm theft if they knew they were going to be punished.

        Hell, they don’t report gun thefts, even when there is no penalty and let me give you an example. About 3 months ago, a couple of youths were wandering around their neighborhood at about 1am. Up to no good, they found an unlocked truck. Inside the truck was a 1911 .45, fully loaded with 8 rounds. One then dares the other to use the gun to rob the gas station across the street which he does. We arrested them both soon thereafter based on a tip from an informant.

        That .45 was recovered but no-one reported it stolen. I went on several occasions to the area where the kids told me they stole it from but I could never find the truck or anyone who would admit to having had a gun stolen. But you think that under penalty of prosecution, a victim would voluntarily admit to having a gun swiped?

        You’d be surprised at how many people in the US think that their guns need to be ‘registered’ even when most states don’t require it. Can’t tell you how many folks have asked me if they are going to be in trouble for having an unregistered gun.

        When I said you were ignorant of the situation over here, I meant of the general culture and attitude towards guns by many regular folks who aren’t ‘gun’ people. The people you’re usually conversing with on gun forums and blogs aren’t typical of the type of gun owner we’re discussing here. The folks who have guns stolen from their vehicles are, by and large, uninterested in guns and discussing them. It truly is just like a fire extinguisher to them and so you aren’t going to contact them on gun forums.

        You’ve also revealed your ignorance on the types of gun ‘safes’ available in the US. Most safes here are fairly substantial things, costing several thousand dollars and lots of people to move them. Others are in the several hundred dollar range and provide more protection than the average gun cabinet in the UK.

        Most of the cheaper safes are nothing more than cabinets but made of thinner steel than the UK equivalents and usually with one central lock controlling a top and bottom locking bar. I had a burglary case last year where the suspects were able to force the top of the door open then bend it back to access the weapons.

        You’re also ignorant of the majority of burglaries in the US. It is rare indeed that we have professional burglars who specifically target residences for theft and spend the time or have the skill/knowledge to disable alarms and open safes. The usual burglar is an addict who frequently knows someone who lives in the residence or who targets the area because they perceive it to be a middle class neighborhood. They don’t rob rich people’s houses because they usually have alarms and the addicts have to walk in the areas so they are easily spotted.

        They will kick in a door or break a window, get in, grab electronics like phones, Ipods, laptops or tablets or guns then get the hell out of there. It is rare they will spend time to break open a safe or try to. Its also rare that more than one or two guns are taken.

        These are facts, not opinions, based on my actual experience and review of the statistics of actual crimes committed in my city. They are mirrored by crimes committed in my county as I work very closely with the Sheriff’s office in investigating many of the same scumbags. Its also mirrored by anecdotal conversation with officers and detectives from all over the US during training classes, conferences and online LEO only social media sites.

        As I have said, I don’t want more firearms on the streets any more than anyone else does but to suggest that more legislation is the key is naive and unworkable. It would have to be a Federal law and that wouldn’t survive scrutiny. As the Heller and other decisions have held, requiring owners to keep guns locked up is an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms.

        Education is the key, not legislation. If you understand that, you might understand my position.

        In regards to your other comments, well, I was never worried about black clad ninjas coming to get me but I was worried about people who knew me talking to others who might decide to try yo burgle my home to steal my guns. I had one of the largest collections of gun in North Yorkshire (per the firearms officer) when I left and even after giving away, selling and auctioning many guns in the UK, I still imported 37 weapons when I moved here.

        I also thought I had a responsibility to secure my guns and wanted to go above and beyond the police requirements to safeguard my firearm and shotgun certificates. Not to mention the arbitrary and capricious rules handed down by various police forces over the years in complete contravention of the various Firearms Acts. Territorial restrictions is only one of the many issues facing gun owners in the UK that have no basis in law but I digress.

        • Mike Mckay says:

          Firstly I wasnt claiming that magically everyone would instantly start owning up to having stolen a packet of sweets when they were 5.

          But lets take an example of an accidental running over of a pedestrian. IF someone does stay at the scene and “own up” they know full well that even though its an “accident” they have a good chance of being charged with something. But many still do, even when they could have driven off with a reasonably good chance of never being discovered

          Some will do it because thats just the sort of person they are, others because they KNOW if they took the chance and did get caught they would face a much stiffer penalty. The same arguement of “it wouldnt change anything” had been applied people would KNOW that run or stay they would still only get the same punishment so I would wager that a LOT more people would run,

          So the aim isnt some magical 100% increase, its for maybe 5%. 20% if the penalty for running was extremely severe. In fact many laws have been introduced not to stamp anything out, but to deter a percentage of people, to pursuade the relatively decent folks to do the right thing rather than the easier lazier one in a variety of situations and in most cases it has some effect And in the case of an accidental collision with a pedestrian it also saves lives when the do. So that again means hypothetically 5-20% potential reductions in deaths which might have occurred if they had just ran and left the person on the street

          Except for the people not in the situation in the first place as it never affects them.

          As you are already saying nobody, or a lot of people dont bother to report gun thefts NOW when there is no penalty for not doing so it really comes across as a convenient arguement to claim that nothing would change, that if faced with 20 years in prison or being banned from ever owning guns again or some other punishment tailored to suit the “culture” you describe would make even 5% of people out of that group change their behaviour and report it (and then face NO penalty at all) I call foul, and dont believe it for one second

          The same would apply with securing them, even if any locked metal cabinet at all, anything, even a filing cabinet with a hasp and padlock on it would suffice and mean NO prosecution theres nothing to lose by reporting it because you have met to the letter of the law the requirements, but if you dont thats when the penalties kick in

          education is fine, in fact I have been saying that too because learning the habit of not leaving guns unnattended in empty houses is a habit and not doing so needs to be “taught”

          But as with anything else niether the stick nor the carrot by themselves is as effective as a combination of the two. And doing absolutely nothing simply because there isnt a “perfect” solution is less effective than just a stick or just a carrot as there is no effort at all expended into trying to improve things so they DONT improve, or more acurately they tend to spiral downwards until one, usually the stick is the only option viable

          With practically any behaviour, habit or choice there are always people spread across the entire spectrum, but genrally the distribution tends to follow the bell curve losely with very few at each extreme and the majority in the middle, and its the middle where the people who either by a carrot, a stick or a combination of the two can be nudged in the right direction

          If it nudges too many in the other direction then you need either more stick or more carrot depending on which way the trend is changing

          But the distribution CAN be changed, not even bothering because it wont go 100% in the way you want is part of what created the problem to begin with

          As I said earlier I dont for a second think that if it was made harder for criminals to steal guns that arent even attempted to be hidden or protected could be massively reduced that it would make too much difference to how many guns were on the streets because they would just get them from somewhere else

          But even that would then give the police a better chance of stemming THAT source, as its much easier to find a person selling 100 guns a week than it would be to put a policeman on duty outside every hous that has guns left in easy access to a burglar

          I also havent been offering my posts as a “hey look, this is the answer to ALL the gun worries in america” either, but simply as ideas, starting points with the hope that rather than just a constant stream of “well thats flawed so its stupid to even suggest it” might have actually got a dialogue going along the lines of “that wouldnt work, but maybe if it was changed like this it might not be so off point” and that has been the reason I have been so critical of your posts because despite what you might have felt you were writing it comes across far more like the first example with only slight glimmers of the second and even then you have picked those apart

          An example is bedside cabinets, when I was searching that cropped up over and over again as a place guns have been stolen from, left loaded in a drawer than in most cases didnt even have a lock and where the person was out when it was stolen

          Now education alone MIGHT make some people rethink that and lock them away when they go out and put them back there when they are in. The stick approach would also cause a percentage of people to alter their behaviour too. But a combination based on what works best with each individual culture would generally be far more effective but any change would be more effective than nothing

          As I have said also many times, nowhere in the constitution does it say empty houses have a right to anything, it ONLY applies to people

          So even under the second ammendment nobody actually has a right to “arm” an empty house, so whether they are locked up when a house is emtpy or not the ammendment is irrelevant as it applies to a persons right to own, use and carry them not to leave them anywhere they please for whatever reason

          If nothing else it would probably help with the thousand or so children killed by guns (mostly legal) inside a famuly dwelling due to accidental discharges because of loaded guns being left around when the licensed user isnt present. And even if that was a 5% drop in just that one example of people being irresponsible it would still be a worthwhile thing to aim for I feel

          People claim to be trying to protect “freedoms” when they in fact arent, but are trying to increase their income. The koch brothers for example spend millions each year championing the abolition of “big government” and in doing so have managed to get many safety legislations axed and the abilities of organisations like the FDA reduced allowing them to do things like pump known carcenagenic toxins directly into public drinking water with practically no chance of ever being prosecuted

          But when it comes to things like the rights of a debtor to sieze assets, garnish incomes or tax rates for the top earners their lobbying cash is heavily in support of “big government”

          So just because someone claims to be fighting for freedoms doesnt mean they are, and what they are often fighting for only really benefits them at the expense of everyone else who buys into it

          that does however apply to both sides in any hot topic not just one, which is where the people themselves become the deciding factor

          So I do fully get one of the main cogs of the problem which is that so many people are convinced that any change, even one that in reality wouldnt impinge on their rights but would only encourage them to be more responsible when they exercise those rights will have them thinking of slippery slopes ending in zero gun ownership or whatever else they have been told but the reality is that inaction, or action that is optional or can be ignored will do very little without some teeth behind it when you dont

          drink driving here is a very good example, you used to be able to do it to silly extents even if you got caught over and over. the education was good, but it still left people feeling they were fine when they werent and no noticeable difference occured until you had a few chances then lost your licence alongside of a much higher amount of checks, spot checks and portable breathelisers and thats when the severe decreases came

          even now you can still be let off the first time completely IF you take an awareness course after which you dont have that option again for 5 years and its a fraction of the figures it was 20 years ago

          But if all they had done is tried to educate by itself with no extra police effort and no increased penalties we wouldnt have seen a very big difference at all

          even with that the balance of stick and carrot has varied immensely during that time where now its got a bit more carrot than it used to have and not as much stick. But it will never go back to the way it was because decisive and balanced action was taken and fine tuned in the following decades

          I think perhaps the other main contributor there might be police funding which like most countries is being cut drastically (comparatively) even in areas where more is needed rather than less as I have read a few articles stating that even police firearms training has been cut back drastically leaving it up to officers themselves to have to pay out of their own pockets to get any decent amount of training each month (please correct me if I misread that)

          So yeah maybe you are stuck in a spiral that cant be reversed because of outside factors as much as the internal ones where gun ownership is concerned but downward it clearly is

          Because even people who might start off wanting to go above what is required will have decreasing numbers when living costs go up but wages dont, or they move and have to choose between securing their guns or decorating first making some do the decorating then genuinely “plan” to have a safe installed but then the boiler breaks, the kids want some new $100 dollar trainers for christmas that they can barely afford and so on ad infinitum

          And its THOSE people that the stick will motivate to make the right decision, not everybody

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Almost forgot about the speeding comment you made, yup, youre spot. Nobody would

            Which is why they put speed cameras all over the place and instant life time bans

            And speeding, especially excessive speeding by predominantly decent people nosedived by huge percentages because then there was a “stick” and a much higher chance of getting caught

            Sadly though it became a bit of a cash cow and often penalises people for being 1 mile an hour over a limit even though a slightly different viewing angle of the speedo can make more difference than that. But the serious and constant speeders who are by far the more dangerous ones had a very noticeable reduction because theres really no fun at all in owning a car that does 150 mph when you have just lost your license permanently

            So as I said, sometimes you need more carrot than stick and sometimes its the inverse. And as the climate changes you can change the balance to suit it

  11. Eric says:

    The Boston PD also posts pictures of (all?) the guns they confiscate on their twitter feed:

  12. George says:

    Mike, speed cameras in this state have been ruled unconstitutional and no longer allowed on state maintained roads. That’s the essential difference between here and the UK; Americans often don’t take fascist, nanny knows best, jobsworth bullshit lying down.

    You want to give gun owners who fail to secure their weapons more punishment than the turds on the street who use, sell or deal in them? Unlicensed dealing is punishable by up to 5 years in jail per offense (Federal law) as is a straw sales (purchase by one person intending to pass it to another who can’t pass the background check)while possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is worth 10 years.

    However, in reality, most offenders don’t anywhere near that level of punishment. Many get off with probation because they are poor little criminals who didn’t know better….. Sarcasm off. However, it seems that the law abiding guy who screws up gets hammered into the floor and certainly there would be a LINE of Democrat prosecutors just chomping at the bit to punish gun owners.

    The difference between your theoretical accident involving a pedestrian and the theft of an unsecured gun from a residence or vehicle is blindingly obvious. In the case of an accident, there is another person involved who can be a witness against the driver, there is likely physical evidence linking the vehicle to the driver and vehicle and a fairly strong likelihood of being caught.

    However, without gun registration, there is no way the state would be aware of the possession of the firearm by the owner. The only witnesses to the crime would be the owner and the criminal; the chance of the criminal saying they stole an unsecured weapon is about zero. Ergo, sans physical evidence of the theft of the firearm and any witnesses, the chance of a person voluntarily reporting themselves to be punished, especially if the punishment is draconian, is somewhere close to the same chance of Hillary admitting she’s a lying fucking bitch, unfit for public office.

    Therefore, if the law is unworkable it shouldn’t be introduced. Lyndon B Johnson stated: “You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered.” I can think of no finer quotation on which to end this discussion.

    Regarding the reduction in police resources? Yes, many departments have been reduced or had their resources cut to the bone. If we were to do the sensible thing and legalize drugs, the police could get back to preventing crime instead of trying to deal with what is, in reality, a public health issue. Burglary wouldn’t be as common, nor would much of the inner city crime driving the demand for illegal weapons but that’s a topic for another time.

    My agency hasn’t suffered as badly as in other parts of the country but we still don’t get to shoot as often as we once did, mostly on qualification twice a year rather than training several times per year. Some agencies in California are working with a couple of full time cops supplemented by reserve officers volunteering their time. That’s a lousy situation to be in for sure.

    • Mike Mckay says:

      the example of the thief keeping their gob shut is easily fixed, you give them three times the sentence if they dont say where they got it from or if you want to get really extreme, their 5 year sentence starts when they say but if they genuinely cant remember it then 2 or 3 times the sentence would probably be better

      I will bet you a dollar to a hundred that a large percentage WILL start talking because as you said yourself, they normally KNOW the person they stole it from so I would expect the percentage that miraculously have their memory come back would be huge

      At which point you can then jail the negligent owner or just ban them from owning guns, but if not registering them is so rife I would just stick with jail personally

      And once the first few hundred are jailed for the same amount of time as a person illegally selling a gun once again I am sure that a high percentage of those lazy lapse gun owners (purely by coincidence) would start to either by the minimum level of gun security they should have had in the first place or new thefts would be reported in much higher amounts

      People might not like change, especially when it might require them to stop being so god damn lazy but even uneducated people CAN do maths and CAN exhibit glimmers of common sense when prodded enough to do so

      The main problem I could see and which nobody seems to have brought up yet which is why I mentioned the police funding is that to have any type of minimum level of security you also need someone, maybe not the police but some organisation to either randomly or routinely check people are following the rules which was perhaps the biggest problem, even more so than peoples apathy or fear of change as both of those can be altered with the stick if they dont respond to the carrot

      But you cant magic an entire national organisation out of thin air with no money, and with debts in the trillions and more people moving their wealth off shore its another thing that is only set to get worse rather than better in the near future

      the shooting thing I came across in relation to that kid shot with an air pistol. Which bizarely nobody else seemed to bring up which wasnt that surprising as it was a typical anti cop type mantra mostly

      But it does seem that everyone seemed to expect the police to be almost superhuman and incapable of making mistakes, all extremely negative yet confusingly none of them seemed to be offering to do the job themselves as they seemed so sure they could have done better

      Nor did anyone even question whether people expected to put their life on the line were being given an adequate amount of access to training

      Going back to the car example though, if a criminal got their gun from some scary dude who would have them killed if they gave up their supplier then yeah, choosing to be quiet would actually make sense

      But if they were facing 5 years instead of 10 by turning in someone who is quite unlikely to do anything I think you would have far more people speaking up in the same way that the same type of offer works with just about every other type of crime because as I said, even uneducated people can still do maths and exhibit glimmers of common sense

      The revolving door issue which we also have here on the other hand, thats systemic. But like reducing the amount of civilian guns stolen is best fixed from within but unfortunately the levels of people that CAN change things tend to be more into politics than actually doing their job effectively

      if on the otherhand you could get the gun thiefs to shoot them it might solve both problems, because the moment that its rich people in positions of power that start getting shot rather than poor expendable irrelevant people (in their eyes) your head will spin with how quickly draconian gun restrictions start being forced through by the same people who made money from opposing them (thats obviously tongue in cheek rather than an actual suggestion I hope you understand lol)

      Even so, I still reckon its a pretty acurate prediction

      • George says:

        I had promised myself I wasn’t going to reply but some of your points need to be addressed.

        You’ve not spent much if any time talking with criminals have you? Do you know how rare it is to actually catch the guy who initially stole the gun in the first place? VERY. You obviously glossed over the part where I stated that the vast majority of gun thefts are from unlocked vehicles; even if you catch the thief, they have no idea who the owner is in that case.

        Unless you’re going to wave a magic wand, you aren’t going to change the criminal justice system. Threatening to increase sentences if they don’t talk is a violation of the 5th Amendment right to be free from self incrimination. In addition, most criminals won’t rat out their fellow gang members or buddies. Quaint as it may seem and contrary to the old saying, there is a certain honor among thieves. Especially when they know their attorney is going to get them a relatively light sentence if they just keep their mouths shut. Snitches get stitches is a common refrain in jail.

        Let me address the most serious failing in your argument, that of compulsory inspections of safe storage. This isn’t the UK and the cops don’t get powers to enter a private residence whenever they choose because a person owns firearms. That is a direct and absolute violation of the 4th Amendment which will NEVER, EVER pass any congress, senate or Supreme Court scrutiny, FULL STOP. As well as being a cop, I’m licensed to manufacture machine guns, suppressors and pretty much anything else I want to and the law only allows the ATF, based upon my having a license, to inspect my books and inventory once every calendar year and only during my stated business hours.

        Anything beyond that requires a search warrant, based upon probable cause that a crime is, has been or will be committed and signed off by an officer, a district attorney and a judge. The warrant has to state what the officer seeking it is specifically searching for and the grounds upon which he believes the probable cause exists. The DA and the judge have to agree or the warrant isn’t getting signed.

        If the cop lies on the application, he is done. At best, he’ll be fired; at worst, jailed and sued. Home inspections of safe storage simply isn’t happening in the USA due to the constitution. The 4th Amendment is the most jealously guarded of all the rights as it prevents the government from abusing the citizens in their homes, prevents unfair and unwarranted arrests and is a huge curb on government overreach and potential for tyranny.

        No judge, no DA and certainly no cop is going to be able to articulate a lack of safe storage as a reason for a search warrant. Moreover, any attempt to pass a law infringing on the 4th Amendment is going to wither and die on the vine. When you become a cop, a DA or a judge, you swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution; any such attempt to side step the 4th is doomed to failure, shit bust, end of conversation.

        Again, any attempt at compulsory registration of firearms in the USA is going to lead to either civil war or massive civil disobedience. Canada tried that; they just shitcanned the attempt after over a decade of trying and BILLIONS of dollars wasted when they realized it was never going to work nor would it help stop crime.

        Your ideas are naive and have been tried, with predictable failure rates. Most of them are unconstitutional, unworkable and focus on the wrong thing. You’re trying to frame the US into the same nanny state, big government thinking the UK is used to accepting without realizing that’s not how Americans think. The problem isn’t guns; its criminal behavior. Blaming law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is inane.

        You’re not only ignorant of the realities of politics, common customs, criminal behavior and the constitution in the US, you would likely be branded an authoritarian tyrant. If you openly talked about these ideas over here in person,around gun people, I think you might be lucky to escape with a beating.

        I have absolutely nothing left to discuss with you because you have ZERO clue about this nation and its laws.

  13. Mike Mckay says:

    Actually I do know how low the clear up rate is on burglaries. I was waiting for you to mention it though because I was waiting fot you to mention it as its also an admition that the current system isnt working, is clearly broken and that its NOT a viable way to address the flood of guns into criminals hands

    However I would hope you catch SOME, the figure I chose which I believe was around 100 arrested armed criminals who then said where they got them from (but if it meant doing 5 rather than 15 years I suspect that would go up

    So unless youre claiming NO state anywhere manages to solve more than 100 burglaries a year then its worse than I imagines

    But for the hypothetical, and if every state only manages to solve an average of .2 of a burglary of a firearm a year that would still give you the hundred nationally if it was a federal rather than state legislation

    Th 4th ammendment however falls under your championed cause of education, and if peoples defence of ANY change, even one proposed, worded AND fought for by gun owners themselves would still be untennable then you also then prove that “education” isnt working either

    Which is because, as I said earlier carrot but not stick NEVER works, which you have just highlighted all by yourself

    As I have been saying from the start, any workable and realistic change HAS to be wanted by the people it affects in the first place.

    And if, as you do seem to be saying that even the gun owners dont even want changes that might stop or reduce the accidental shootings inside the home without a criminal even being present then as I have said all along

    The responsibility for the effects of inaction lie with the people whos “rights” are causing them plain and simple. And thats a universal truth not a national one

    • Mike Mckay says:

      A trailing thought though, do you have things like annual safety checks for gas equipment in the US?

      Because thats no different in essence if you do. Its still a legally required “safety check”

      And if so, where was the revolution or mass civil dissobedience?

      I had already outlined the flaw in checks which is the money to do them initially, but even a self certification system would be better than none, and would be enough to prosecute if someone says they installed a safe when they didnt or werent using it whilst the house was empty

      But once again rather than even looking for ANY workable change that might reduce the amount of stolen guns its still the why bother approach, which is why you have the problems in the first place because nobody, or not enough people can be bothered at the levels necessary from top to bottom

      Which is also why Obama is threatening to bother on peoples behalf albeit for entirely the wrong reasons, but he is being given the justification to attempt it because of the inaction on any scale big enough to make a difference by the people themselves

  14. Mike Mckay says:

    I do agree however that our back and forth is becoming, if not already circular, and although it didnt evolve into a phase where solutions rather than problems were being offered thats sometimes all that is going to happen especially with a limited cross section or small amount of contributors

    But even though you clearly disagree I have throughout been taking the stance of looking for “improvements” rather than bans or even restrictions whilst frequently pointing out that they would and indeed should come from gun owners rather than state or federal legislators in order for them to be reasonable and fair, affecting only the negligent owners and the ones who choose to be lazy

    The reality of this despite you not seeming to accept it is that eventually such a group gives a government enough rope to illicit enough support to step in on their behalf with anything but fair or reasonable solutions

    And if that results in a civil war as you predict it will be one where the opposing side is first demonised and criminalised to get the support needed to push ahead

    After all, unconstitutional changes are far from rare hence many of the ammendments to the constitution many of which were also vehemently opposed and lets not forget the far reaching powers of the patriot act and countless other changes to policing and the use of military or private contracting military organisations to list a few

    Even slavery (albeit one before the constitution) which was also a right led to civil unrest and dissobedience so too did racial segregation

    So my approach was one of jump before youre pushed because whatever weapons indivuals have the military has more, bigger and theyre far better trained in using them as even the ATF prove over and over again

    Two quotes spring to mind

    “All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing” (probably not by who you might think btw)


    “Ignoring history is the shortest path to repeating it”

    Feel free to reply to these without response as I agree our back and forth has pretty much expended itself now and thank you for the discussion


  15. George says:

    No company, public authority (save those in public housing) or state has any statutory right of entry to a private house.

    Amendments to the constitution is a whole other topic. Infringements on the 2nd Amendment are steadily being rolled back and will continue to be.

    The simplest thing I can say is this: the USA is a whole different world from what the UK has morphed into. The UK more closely resembles Nazi Germany with the myriad regulations, controls, politically correct speech and ignorance of the severe problems facing it.

    The US is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. Any unnecessary firearms regulations will be resisted. Armed crime is on the decrease and has been for the last 20 years. Your ‘solutions’ involving legislation won’t work and won’t be adopted.

    We solve plenty of burglaries but by the time we interview the suspect, the stolen items are long gone. They aren’t keen to talk to us because of increased penalties for the theft of firearms. As I said, it is an infringement on the 5th Amendment to threaten or have increased sentences for refusing to talk. Have a nice day.

Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Episode 362 – One of Our Staff Experiences a DGU | The Polite Society Podcast