Monday, April 26, 2010

Lock Up Your Guns

The gazettetimes.com offers some good advice for gun owners.

ALBANY - While gun ownership is popular among many Linn County residents, gun safes, comparatively, are not.

"Most people keep them in their dresser or a nice case, like a piece of furniture - it looks good but provides no protection for the gun," said Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller.

There were at least five gun burglaries in Linn County in a three-day period this week.

"Burglars are going to take what is easy to steal and easy to get rid of," Mueller said. "Guns, unfortunately, are on the top of that list."

Thieves may be keeping the guns for themselves as protection or trading them for dope, in part because pawn shops are required to call the Oregon State Police and verify that the serial numbers on guns they accept do not match those of firearms listed as stolen.

Problem is, police and deputies say, many gun owners don't keep track of serial numbers.

The victim of a burglary this week on Upper Calapooia Drive could only describe the two firearms stolen from her home as a ".25 automatic pistol" and a ".22-caliber revolver."

Make, model and serial number were listed as "unknown."


I believe that's Albany Oregon, if I'm not mistaken. Two very interesting things come from the first part of this article. One, that gun owners have to start taking more responsibility in the storing and securing of their weapons, and two, that we need a national gun registry.

Most people don't write down their credit card numbers or their car serial number and keep them in a separate place, just like most gun owners don't do that with their guns. I guess people presume that "it won't happen the them." A gun registry would solve this problem.

A Ruger pistol was reported stolen Wednesday from an unlocked pickup parked in the 700 block of Queen Avenue Southeast. Although the owner didn't have a serial number, the store that sold him the gun, Bi-Mart, was able to retrieve the number from its records.

Though many of the hundreds of firearms in the Linn County Sheriff's Office evidence locker were seized during drug busts and weren't stolen, law enforcement officers believe some belong to local folks.


Examples like this make you wonder. How could someone leave a gun in an unlocked vehicle? My answer to this is a bit harsh, I admit. I say stupidity like that should be answered with immediate disqualification to own guns. The Gazette article goes on in a softer tone, but with good advice.

When it comes to protecting your guns, advice from law enforcement is simple: write down serial numbers and other identifying characteristics and lock up your firearms when you are not with them.

"The average Linn County criminal is not going to be able to get into a gun safe," Mueller said. "Their objective is to get in, get what they can and get out of there as quick as they can.

"It's like leaving a purse in the front seat of a car. Some people just make it too easy for criminals to take those things."


What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

20 comments:

  1. This article raises a number of points.

    First, we're always told by gunloons that gun ownership magically protects households from all crimes. In fact, it's not uncommon for gunloons to criticize non-gunowners by demanding we put up signs in our front yards stating this houshold has no guns.

    Yet, we see by this story that not only are gunloon homes victimized--it appears guns are quite the desirable object of theft. And study after study bears this point out: the value of stolen guns on the street is much higher than other stolen goods.

    Second, for all the yapping we hear about gunloons being responsible, accountable, expert, yadda yadda--how is it they can allow their weapons to be so easily stolen? We often hear from gunloons that they can't put trigger locks on guns or lock them away in safes because they are certain they'll need them in .0003 nanoseconds to fight the forces of evil--but when they go to their jobs at WalMart or 7-11, their guns are sitting at home, ripe for theft.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  2. If someone really believes that a firearm magically wards off harm, then they really are a "gunloon". The challenge of the "no guns here" sign is because to advertise your lack of weapons increases your chances of being burglarised. As this story shows, criminals are looking for easy pickings.

    What this story does bring up is the need to lock up every unattended firearm you own.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Problem is, police and deputies say, many gun owners don't keep track of serial numbers.

    Except that you (or the authorities) can go back to your FFL and get that information. In fact if the ATF requests a trace the FFL is legally required to comply with the request.

    It's right there in his bound book that he's legally required to keep. Your name, date of transfer, make, model, caliber & SN of the transferred firearm.

    In fact, last time I went to my FFL we were discussing how long it'd been since I'd seen him. He flipped back in his book and told me the exact date of my last transfer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "but when they go to their jobs at WalMart or 7-11, their guns are sitting at home, ripe for theft."

    So then you'd support permitless, unrestricted carry in all 50 states?

    If I don't want it stolen the safest place for a gun is on my person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The challenge of the "no guns here" sign is because to advertise your lack of weapons increases your chances of being burglarised. As this story shows, criminals are looking for easy pickings.

    Kevin isn't thinking very hard here.

    Hate to break it to Kev but burglars really don't want to talk to you or meet you. They want your stuff. So, this means they're most likely going to wait until the house is empty to burglarize it.

    Given the fact guns have a higher street value than anything except cash---I'd say having a gun makes you a better burglary candidate.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I don't want it stolen the safest place for a gun is on my person.

    Again, Mikey isn't being a bright bulb. This is because Mikey has watched too many Die Hard movies and thinks the bad guys are going to announce themselves from the next zip code and then engage in a soliloquy with Mikey prior to robbing/assaulting him.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jade, you're assuming that criminals are 100% accurate in their ability to judge wiether or not the house is truly empty.

    If you were a burglar, wouldn't you prefer a home that you know has no weapons that could be used against you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jadegold: “First, we're always told by gunloons that gun ownership magically protects households from all crimes.”

    No. Don’t use “always” in this context again.

    Jadegold: “how is it they can allow their weapons to be so easily stolen? We often hear from gunloons that they can't put trigger locks on guns…”

    Trigger locks don’t prevent guns from being stolen.

    Jadegold: “They want your stuff. So, this means they're most likely going to wait until the house is empty to burglarize it.”

    Burglars don’t bother waiting in the UK.

    My concern is that this isn’t about safe storage; it is just about reducing gun ownership. Here is an excerpt from Gun Control Australia on how they feel about safe storage laws:

    "If guns are to be permitted in homes then we believe that all gun owners should be required to have a specially built gun-room within their homes. Such a room should have no windows and a double-locked steel door to contain improved gun safes and warning devices. Any gun owner found to have not complied with storage laws should lose their guns for at least a ten year period."

    They have much stricter laws than us, yet they continually push for more, and more. Seems like their real objective is to make it so prohibitively expensive and continue to drive down gun ownership. How can an urban living person meet these requirements? You guys wouldn’t do this, right? Would you stop at just having them lockup up? What is next for Australia after they get this? Mandatory 100ft underground bunkers with 6ft of concrete?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I meant to post the link

    http://guncontrol.org.au/2009/06/on-guns-can-the-australian-public-trust-the-australian-institute-of-criminology-we-say-no/

    ReplyDelete
  10. TS:

    No, we are told that guns always prevent all crimes. Look, if gunloons are going to pretend gun control is useless because it doesn't eliminate all crime--then you can't have it both ways.

    Second, the UK's rate of "hot burglaries"--burglaries that occur when someone is home is about 26%. The US rate is 14%.

    Unfortunately for your argument, you are about 6 times more likely to be a burglary victim in the US.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thus you defeat your previous argument that criminals don't break into occupied homes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wake up, kev.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why should I "wake up"? I might as well go back to bed seeing how you are practically proving yourself wrong for me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jadegold: “No, we are told that guns always prevent all crimes. Look, if gunloons are going to pretend gun control is useless because it doesn't eliminate all crime--then you can't have it both ways.”

    It is pretty easy to formulate an argument when you get to make up what the other side tells you and say they are wrong. No one has told you that. If not, prove it. What they oppose is gun control that doesn’t reduce ANY crime, or laws that will reduce self-defense more than crime.

    Jadegold: “Unfortunately for your argument, you are about 6 times more likely to be a burglary victim in the US.”

    According to this link, UK burglary rate is 13.8 while the US is 7.1. Please show me your data and calculations that allowed you to come up with the UK being 1/6th the US rate. A little math tip for you: “imaginary numbers” means the square root of a negative number, so that is not going to help you.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is pretty easy to formulate an argument when you get to make up what the other side tells you and say they are wrong. No one has told you that.

    Actually, gunloons do promote the meme that if gun control can't eliminate crime then it's useless. Moreover, you keep telling us about how many lives are saved via DGU without mentioning the fact DGU data is largely subjective.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Actually, gunloons do promote the meme that if gun control can't eliminate crime then it's useless."

    So if not to thwart crime, what is gun control for then?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jadegold: "Actually, gunloons do promote the meme that if gun control can't eliminate crime then it's useless."

    FWM, Jade substituted the word “reduce” with “eliminate” in order for him to say “you’re wrong”. But hey, it is just one word, not like the factor of twelve in his burglary rates.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jadegold: “Moreover, you keep telling us about how many lives are saved via DGU without mentioning the fact DGU data is largely subjective.”

    Not me. I do think it is largely subjective (hence the wide range in totals from these studies). You’ve also heard me say that DGUs shouldn’t be compared to crime totals because the DGU is reactionary to a crime happening. All else being equal; if crime drops- so will DGUs. But even if you take the smallest number from any study, and then divide it by 100 claiming that most were protecting property- why are these people not important to you?

    ReplyDelete
  19. TS pointed out, "DGUs shouldn’t be compared to crime totals because the DGU is reactionary to a crime happening. All else being equal; if crime drops- so will DGUs."

    That's an interesting angle on the whole thing. I don't know if I've thought of it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, the theory is sound. If there are no crimes to stop, there's no DGU.

    ReplyDelete