By on October 20, 2016

gun

Not all car owners carry a gun, but most gun owners still use cars to get around. If you happen to have both, you may want to reconsider what you do with one when you park the other — especially depending on where you live.

Compared to your home, cars are much easier for thieves to gain access and they are infinitely easier to steal. When your car is stolen, everything inside goes with it. The Trace, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to expanding coverage of gun violence in the United States, recently reported on a study showing the number of firearms stolen from vehicles and what cities have it the worst.

The study surveyed 54 U.S. cities and found that Atlanta, Georgia, had more gun owners reporting their weapon stolen from a vehicle than any other. It also had the most firearms reported stolen from vehicles per 1,000 residents, followed by Lubbock, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana.

Automobiles are also the most likely source of stolen weapons in some cities. Atlanta police received 1,250 stolen gun reports last year and 69 percent of those were the direct result of vehicle break-ins. That number was 72 percent in Lubbock, 60 percent in San Francisco, and 53 percent in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Despite crime rates having plunged since the mid 1990s, firearm thefts from cars have trended upward in many cities in the United States. Most of the cities surveyed saw an increase over the last few years. It’s an incomplete list of cities, but the organization plans to flesh it out as more police departments provide statistics. The list can be found here.

As many states have eased up on the restrictions against leaving firearms in vehicles, doing so has become more commonplace. The Trace claims that many gun owners say they take their weapons with them when they travel in their car and regularly leave it there while they go about their daily business. With an estimated minimum of 300,000 guns stolen every year and the increased willingness of thieves to target vehicles, they may want to reconsider.

It’s not hard for a thief to grab your Colt 1911 from your 1991 Colt.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

120 Comments on “Don’t Leave Your Gun in the Car If You Live in One of These Cities...”


  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Lubbock? Really?

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    You should not leave a gun inside a car ANYWHERE!

    • 0 avatar
      LS1Fan

      This.

      Anyone can unlock any car at any time. All you need is a brick.

      • 0 avatar
        John

        Car + smash window with brick = gun theft
        House + smash window with brick = gun theft
        Person + smash head with brick = gun theft

        • 0 avatar
          Testacles Megalos

          So, to follow the normal Murkin logic path, the answer is easy.

          Outlaw bricks.

          Or, outlaw the use of the word “with.”

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          As a gun owner I’m not buying this. Our guns are in a safe. Safe is bolted to a concrete floor. I guess if you bring a plasma torch and/or a jack hammer you can have at it. If you’re really that motivated then have ’em, that’s what insurance is for.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Should be a question on the license permit.

    • 0 avatar

      Why not keep a gun in the car? My employer will fire me if I carry it inside. Many stores ask that you don’t carry inside. Many public places are deemed gun free. The Atlanta Aquarium runs you through a metal detector. I respect property owners fears of my protecting them, but I won’t take added risks by just leaving my gun at home. Replacing the window they smash will cost more than the little .380 I keep tucked away. Most states have no “test” for a carry permit. You can always tell when a bunch of folks who don’t have a clue what they are talking about start telling folks who use something how they should do it.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        “Replacing the window they smash will cost more than the little .380 I keep tucked away.”

        They come in 3-packs, don’t they? – one for the house, one for the car, and a “spare”.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @Frantz: was that written in ‘ironic’ script? Surely allowing a criminal or criminals to get possession of a handgun has greater societal implications?

        And that is another issue, since firearms generally are not smuggled into the USA then the firearms used in crimes must have at one time been legally purchased. So could the solution be as simple as tracing the last legal owner of a firearm used in a crime and charging them as an accessory to every crime associated with that handgun?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      This. 1000X this.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Since he has the NRA’s endorsement what percentage of gun owners will vote for The Donald?

    Sorry but I am with Hillary on this regarding the Heller decision and hope that she wins primarily so that she can appoint enough Justices to the Supreme Court to get Heller overturned.

    As a Canadian I am sick and tired of crimes being committed here using guns acquired and/or smuggled from the USA. Exporting gun violence to other nations is downright unneighbourly.

    Again sorry about interfering in another’s domestic politics but it does have considerable impact on our generally less violent society. We save the violence for the hockey rinks.

    And the battlefields where Canadian soldiers are renowned for their ruthlessness and efficiency (executing German’s in both wars in retribution for war crimes), record in WWI of not losing any ground or battles and in WWII for being urban warfare experts, and in Korea where the PPCLI earned renown for their conduct in the Battle of Kapyong. I included this final paragraph only to refute those who will denounce Canadians as being less able or willing to defend ourselves or capable of violence.

    • 0 avatar
      crm114

      No one cares that you Canadians hate our rights.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “No one cares that you Canadians hate our rights.”

        This, so much this.

        • 0 avatar
          formula m

          What your right to be a careless gun owner

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @CRM in reality since 9-11 Canadians have had less government intrusion and therefore more civil liberties than Americans. The increase in government intrusion on American life since then has been grossly disproportionate to the actual threat.

            And compare the number of Americans killed since then by handguns (406,496) to the number killed by terrorism (3,308) and any reasonable person can determine what the true threat to their family’s safety actually is. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

            Again, not campaigning against firearm ownership, just against unregulated firearm ownership. The regulations in Canada seem to be working OK, except for the handguns smuggled in from the USA.

            And if your neighbour kept fouling up your neighbourhood and allowing his garbage to blow onto your property, then you too would have a right to complain.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            If you look into the actual source of this handgun violence, you’ll see that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it’s rival gangs/drug dealers feuding over turf, robbing each other of drugs/drug money and various back and forth retributions for slain cohorts. Guns used in these crimes are most often illegally acquired.

            Having lived in a neighborhood where such things happened in close proximity, I was very happy to carry my own concealed handgun. People not involved in illicit activities were rarely the targets or victims of these criminals, but it certainly did happen. In my new much nicer neighborhood, we don’t deal with the gun violence up close and personal, but we’re close enough to rough areas that we’re all vigilant for crimes of opportunity and break ins and such. Many of my immediate neighbors either conceal carry or have firearms in their homes. We’re not some sort of psychotics living out a paranoid post apocalyptic fantasy, we’re just pragmatic regular people taking advantage of rights afforded to us by our constitution.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        What he said…

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @ gtemnykh: I generally very much value and admire the great many contributions that you have made to this site. And surely you realize the difference between personal experience and/or anecdote and actual statistical evidence.

          From the American Journal of Epidimiology.
          http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

          “In a case-control study of members of a large health maintenance organization, Cummings et al. (20) found that a history of family handgun purchase was associated with an elevated risk of both homicide and suicide.”

          Or from the BBC:
          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

          There are numerous other valid studies demonstrating that ownership of a firearm actually increases your risk, rather than providing additional safety or security to the owner of the firearm.

          That is why regulation such as the storage and training requirements that are enforced in nations such as Canada and Switzerland serve as deterrents to firearm violence.

          • 0 avatar
            snakebit

            First, what the Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.” A well regulated militia doesn’t mean three guys in an F150 or Impala. The second part, to keep and bear arms, was secondary to the amendment until the decision in Washington D.C. VS Heller(2008) made it the dominant part of the amendment. So, those supporting private gun ownership are backing the recent court decision, not the original amendment. In the mid-2000s, someone compiled a list of democracies with gun ownership restrictions whose combined populations equaled the United States(the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Australia). They recorded a combined number of 112 gun-related deaths. The US recorded a little less than 32,000 during the same period. A third of the US deaths were marked as suicides. In the case of the UK, a mass shooting in a Scottish elementary school(16 deaths) prompted the UK to enact countrywide private gun ownership restrictions. The assassin at Sandy Hook took 20 first-grader lives plus 4? adults lives, and the majority of our federal lawmakers were paralyzed to enact any laws that would institute any restrictions on even assault weapons. To the two commentators who seem like reasonable people, but who keep their AR-15 type weapons because they get such a terrific high from firing them, even if you were longtime, close, friends of mine, if I learned that you kept a weapon like this in your house, I’d end that friendship in a New York minute.It would be like telling me about your last cocaine high. Outside of being used in a gun club and the weapon never leaving the club premises, there’s no justification for keeping an assault weapon in a private home. Period. Finally, the NRA rant/excuse that the whole problem with deranged mass shooters is only that-they’re mentally deranged, and if we only catch all of them, problem solved. There are the folks who’ve displayed a lifetime of mental illness, and we know about them. Then, there are the folks who’ve seemed pretty normal all their lives or student careers, until the day they’re fired, bullied, treated(they think)unfairly in a business setting, and they flame out. We aren’t ever going to learn who they are, if recent accounts from their friends are an indicator, their friends won’t have a clue either. So we’re back to guns. As one commentator posted a couple of years ago, no – guns don’t kill people, but you have to admit they play an integral part when people are killed, many times.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        With all due respect to Arthur. His opinion is held by “some” Canadians, not all. The Canadians being shot everyday, is not the fault of American guns. The blame can laid on the door step of our bleeding heart, hug a thug justice system

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          Mikey, I don’t normally disagree with you, but “hug a thug” policies are why crime rates are at all-time lows.

          They’d be even lower if we hugged thugs a little more and treated mental illness and addiction like a disease.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        crm114 – I don’t see it anywhere in his comment saying that he “hates our rights”.

        He is merely pointing out his displeasure about this fact, “Homicides in Toronto spiked to 80 in 2005, from 64 in 2004, and the majority were shooting-related. About 70 percent of the guns used were handguns and automatic weapons smuggled from the United States, police say.”

        BTW, this is site is open to anyone with a keyboard in any country with internet. TTAC is a “global” community therefore his opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Freedom of speech is a universal human right.

        On topic now, firearms need to be properly stored when the owner and/or person responsible for that weapon is not in close proximity to it. It is hard to justify having a weapon for personal security when you allow the weapon to be easily stolen.

        • 0 avatar
          mikey

          Lou…I agree , we are all free to express our opinion.

          My opinion is one of , how can we blame the Americans for our gun violence ? The Americans have their laws, we have ours. Its not as if the USA is shipping guns to Canada., as some sort of business…

          Its all about criminals smuggling in weapons…At the point that weapon makes its way to Canadian soil, then it becomes our problem. Perpetrators of such crime, should be dealt with , harshly..
          But this is Canada , so instead of dealing with our own problems. We blame the Americans

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Toronto police estimate that about two-thirds of the city’s crime guns were smuggled from the United States (the rest were legally owned in Canada and stolen).”

            http://globalnews.ca/news/2743764/with-shootings-on-the-rise-in-toronto-and-edmonton-more-guns-are-being-seized-at-the-border/

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Mikey – laws in one country can have an affect on another country.
            At least 3/4’s of weapons used in crime in Canada were from the USA. That makes sense since they are much easier to obtain in that jurisdiction.
            Why does Trump want to build a wall between USA/Mexico? What happens in Mexico affects the USA and what crosses the border.

            I do agree that it is “our” problem when it comes to gun crime in Canada.

            There are various ways to stem the flow of firearms. One is increased border security and another is to lobby government in USA to tighten up gun laws. More often than not both types of approaches occur simultaneously. That is why FTA’s come into being and international treaties like the Geneva Conventions come to pass.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          If every self promoting busybody would just stop treating guns as somehow meaningfully different than hammers and books and tennis socks, they’d soon be cheap and common enough that very few would bother with stealing them. They are a pretty cheap item to manufacture to a pretty high standard these days.

          Their value to thieves, is almost entirely the result of every Ricky Retardo out there, running around with opinions about who can own them, which kinds they can own, when and where they can buy them blah blah blah.

          Kind of like wristwatches. Noone’s going to bother hacking your arm off to steal a Casio, the way some will for a Rolex. Yet the Casio serves it’s intended duty perfectly well.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          Automatic or semi-automatic? If they are automatic it should be easy to find where it comes from because of the tax stamp required to purchase one.

          • 0 avatar
            jpolicke

            “Automatic” designation becomes confusing for handguns. The odds are you will never see a full-automatic handgun, i.e. one that will continue to fire as long as you hold back the trigger. They exist but are rare. In speaking of handguns an automatic is simply one that does not have a revolving cylinder. So a Colt 1911,a Glock, etc. are “automatics”, but function in the same way as a semi-automatic rifle. One pull of the trigger, one round is fired.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @CRM in reality since 911 Canadians have had less government intrusion and therefore more civil liberties than Americans. The increase in government intrusion on American life since then has been grossly disproportionate to the actual threat.

        And compare the number of Americans killed since then by handguns (406,496) to the number killed by terrorism (3,308) and any reasonable person can determine what the true threat to their family’s safety actually is. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

        Again, not campaigning against firearm ownership, just against unregulated firearm ownership. The regulations in Canada seem to be working OK, except for the handguns smuggled in from the USA.

        And if your neighbour kept fouling up your neighbourhood and allowing his garbage to blow onto your property, then you too would have a right to complain.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          We have regulations, some cities choose not to enforce what is on the books. Look at Chicago and how many illegal firearms are used there. They have some of the most strict laws in the land yet crime is one of the highest in the land.

          As far as the car, make sure it is locked up. A quick smash and grab is much harder if the firearm is unseen and locked up. Sure, the window may cost more than the .380 but then there is another illegal .380 out there.

        • 0 avatar
          FOG

          “the number of Americans killed since then by handguns.. ”

          This statement disqualifies the rest of anything written after it. People kill people. They use objects, but the object isn’t the killer.

          Here is one, “That means that you are 15.4 times more likely to die from a stabbing or beating than a rifle.”

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/fbi-data-shows-youre-more-likely-to-get-beaten-to-death-than-killed-with-a-rifle/#ixzz4NjbGjHj5

          So knives and bats kill more people than rifles. Saying that irresponsible gun use is the fault of the gun and not the owner, is just wrong. If you outlaw hand guns they will just be worth more. The solution is swift justice for the person using the weapon, not demonizing an inanimate object.

      • 0 avatar
        Jim K

        Amen!

    • 0 avatar
      Car Guy

      Your opinion as a non citizen means zero.

    • 0 avatar
      rev0lver

      As a Canadian who has shot a whole range of firearms (my brother in law is a certified gun nut and loves to take people shooting) I second this comment.

      There is a huge grey area between banning all firearms and having no gun regulations. Most of the world knows this, but, like the metric system….

    • 0 avatar
      roamer

      If you are of the opinion that reversing Heller, or tighter controls, or the outright ban of firearms, would reduce gun violence in Canada, then you might want to examine your more blatant biases. Great Britain banned firearms almost twenty years ago, and there is more gun violence there now than there was before the ban.

      Banning objects, of any type, at any time, has only the effect of limiting their access to those with political pull or criminals. This might as well be considered a natural law, as there are no countervailing examples I am aware of across history.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        Sounds like we need walls on BOTH borders. This is The Truth About CARS not The Truth About CANADA.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @ roamer. Sorry why are you not mentioning the Australian experience once they implemented greater firearm regulation? A very positive correlation.

        As for the UK firearm regulation has always been in place. And as per Wikipedia ‘the UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the worldGun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011’.

        It is really quite absurd how NRA supporters ignore actual facts and statistics. After each mass shooting they offer their ‘prayers’ for the victims then state, ‘we need to find a way to stop these’. Meanwhile every other first world nation on the planet has found a way, increased firearm regulation.

        Just cannot discern how the ‘average’ American views this. Do they really believe that their society and population is inherently more violent than that of any other first world nation’s?

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Your statistics leave out the increased number of attacks with weapons other than firearms, such as edged weapons and plain old fists. The pistol I keep for home protection works equally well on all. I do not owe an intruder a fair fight, and there are no points awarded for degree of difficulty.

          Regretfully, American society currently is more afflicted by violent criminals than others. But Europe is catching up, the only difference is they have to import their underclass. Let some refu-trash try their New Year’s antics on women in Atlanta or Lubbock and let me know how it works out.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      I was born and raised in Canada, moved to the United States in my mid twenties and became a naturalized US citizen.

      A substantial number of gun owners will vote for Trump while holding their noses and trying not to vomit inside the polling stations. Their objection to Hillary is that she wants to deprive them of their guns while refusing to deal effectively with violent criminals. Both the Republican and Democratic parties nominated their poorest candidates. No matter who wins the election, the losers will be the American people.

      Is your objection to armed American criminals crossing the border to commit crimes in Canada or to Canadian criminals using smuggled firearms? Either way, what works to control crime is a high probability of conviction coupled with long (i.e. multi-decade) prison sentences for repeat offenders. Three-strikes laws have taken a lot of really bad guys off the streets.

      Outside of a handful of inner city hell holes, the United States is as peaceful as Canada. Years ago, the cities of Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia were compared in an attempt to show that Seattle’s higher crime rate was due to its looser gun laws. After demographic differences were taken into account, the rates were the same.

      I won’t dispute the effectiveness of Canadian armed forces in battle. However, the question relevant to this discussion is whether Canadian private citizens have the will, the ability and governmental permission to do as well when confronted by violent criminals. I afraid the answer is that they don’t.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @kendahl: but Canadians have far less violent criminals than in the USA. So Canada must be on the right track. As are most other first world nations who also have much less violent crime than the USA.

        So Americans need to ask, if they truly wish to make their families safer, what is the reason for the disproportionate amount of violent crime in the USA?

        Your comment reminds me of the statement by an American peace officer who was vacationing in Alberta. He witnessed some young males misbehaving in one of the parks and stated publicly that he wished that he had his firearm with him. However he was never threatened, and never saw anyone breaking the law. So why so paranoid and feeling the need for a firearm? http://gawker.com/5932846/american-becomes-laughingstock-of-canada-after-letter-to-editor-lamenting-lack-of-handgun-during-mild-confrontation or
        https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/08/09/us_tourists_desire_for_gun_in_calgary_park_sparks_twitter_storm.html

        Sorry for the multiple identical posts earlier (above) something is wrong with either my connection or this site. It will not allow me to remove or delete the duplicate postings.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “Their objection to Hillary is that she wants to deprive them of their guns while refusing to deal effectively with violent criminals”

        I never understood this argument.

        For one, Hillary or someone like her can’t do anything significant about guns without a constitutional amendment. That’s pretty much not going to happen.

        For another, Hillary or someone like her would probably very much like to do something for violent criminals, like reduce poverty, better health care and/or treat addiction as a health issue, but it’s her opponents that block social-welfare programs. If anything, the issue with the American Democratic party is that they don’t do enough to help the poor.

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Hillary and her followers know they can’t remove the Second Amendment. Their solution is to “interpret” it to meaninglessness with “common sense regulations”.

          When pro-life forces attempt any restrictions on abortion, the pro-choice side immediately see this as the beginning of a “slippery slope” towards eventual elimination. Abortion advocates point out the bad faith inherent in the pro-life side, wherein the pro-lifers seek to achieve in increments what they know they can’t get in one bite. When 2A supporters react the same way to the anti-gunners they get reviled as paranoid extremists.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          Take a look at what Hillary and others like her have already inflicted on us in the places which they run before telling us how insignificant these restrictions are.

          To legally acquire a handgun here in Maryland requires a training course, fingerprinting, $2-300 in fees and costs, and a 3-4 week wait just to get the license. Getting the gun then requires signing away your HIPAA rights, another $10-20 fee, and another waiting period of at least 7 days that in the past has stretched to upwards of six months.

          Now that you have it, forget about defending yourself outside the home with it. Carry permits are unavailable to anyone outside of politicians and their major donors. If Joe Working Slob much as stops for a cup of coffee on his way home from the store he’s “transporting without a license” which, if convicted, will revoke his gun rights forever.

          Brought to you by the same upstanding people who claim that merely showing ID to vote is an unacceptable burden on a Constitutional right.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      For the record, I am told that being critical of violence being exported through your nation’s Southern Border makes you a racist.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Big Al From ‘Murica –
        Racism:
        “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

        The belief that gun crime in Canada would be less if guns were less available in the neighbouring country isn’t racist unless he blames a race for the problem.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      OzCop

      Canadians scoff at the US’s desire to build a wall on our southwestern borders to keep drugs, guns, and illegals out…Perhaps Canada should consider the same at our northern borders. It has been several years since I crossed into Canada, but the rigorous search of my vehicle and my person causes me to wonder just how one could get past customs with a gun…

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      We are gun owners and we are with the 83% of other NRA members who wanted a standardized, national background check for gun ownership after Sandy Hook. Even the NRA was supportive of it after, to loosely paraphrase, “an understanding of the process and assurances it is fair.”

      A very small, but vocal minority is metaphorically holding the country hostage over the idea that anyone with a pulse should be able to have a gun. I for one agree with both candidates that if you’re on the do not fly list, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.

      There are a lot of misconceptions on gun ownership in the US in general on both sides of the argument. But right now it is easier to take a gun on an airplane than a Samsung Galaxy 7 (or for that matter it’s easier to get a gun through security at an airport than it is an 8 ounce bottle of water). That is just whacky.

      One of the biggest misconceptions is that a felony conviction prevents you from gun ownership at a federal level – the end. That isn’t true. There is a stunning list of loopholes in the federal law. Among them is your sentence must exceed 364 days. So you could be convicted of a felony, even at the federal level, even a violent one, and if your sentence is less than 364 days, your ability to own a gun is not impacted. In North Dakota it is legal for a felon to own a gun period (that one state is the outlier). In many other states you have a path to gun ownership, even as a felon. To me this is just plain nuts. If you’re convicted of a felony, you shouldn’t be able to own a gun – period – end of story. It shouldn’t matter your lawyer negotiated a plea deal of 3 years supervision and a 180 day suspended sentence.

      I’m a gun owner. Multiple guns. Evil, awful assault weapon guns (love shooting the AR-15, love it, love it, love it, could target shoot all day long with it). We keep them in a safe – a massive heavy safe. I don’t leave them in cars. I don’t leave them in bedroom drawers. I don’t think people on the no fly list should be able to have guns. I don’t think that people who are being watched by the FBI or other security agencies, or on terror watch lists should be able to have guns (unless in confiscating the guns it compromises a broader investigation). I don’t think that people with a history of mental illness, multiple protection orders, and domestic violence should be able to have guns. I believe a majority of Americans agree with me on this.

      I’ll close with one can of gasoline. The only candidate who has said, “I will take your guns,” in the 2016 campaign cycle was Donald Trump. Oh yes he absolutely did. First debate, stop and frisk, he specifically called out using stop and frisk to take away guns. Yes, he did add, from those who shouldn’t have them.

      But then a national stop and frisk policy becomes a huge issue – how do you determine, “who shouldn’t have them.” Not all states require a conceal carry permit for handguns for starters. Most states require no permit for a long gun. Just possessing gun doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have one. Having a gun in a stop and frisk isn’t probable cause. There is no way in a stop and frisk to go, “oooo, bad guy,” beyond if the bad guy is a known entity by those stop and frisking. But that takes neighborhood police work – like done in NYC. As gun owners my wife and I were horrified when Trump said this, and we were further stunned when there was zero backlash for his comments on this topic. No other politician, Republican Democrat or otherwise could have said that – which creates a scarier layer that he got away with it in the first place.

      • 0 avatar
        Jim K

        AP……you and I are definitely on the same page on many aspects of gun ownership. However, I can’t agree with your stance on the issue of gun ownership being forbidden for those on the no-fly list. It is extremely easy for someone to get put on the no-fly list in error. It has been documented in many, many cases. Restricting someone’s constitutional rights without due process is extremely concerning.

    • 0 avatar
      walleyeman57

      My understanding of the Heller decision was that this was a local government (DC) outlawing handguns and denying permits to everyone -including the police officer who brought the case.
      http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/no-hillary-clinton-supreme-courts-heller-decision-wasnt-toddlers/

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Violent crime is down (way down). It’s not as clear with property crime, especially “easy” property crime like smash and grabs.

    Don’t leave anything valuable in the car, ever, visible or not. My wife learned this the hard way two months ago, when a thief watched from the bushes as she hid her purse in our C-Max and then broke into it through a window the minute she left. Neither of us carries a gun, but if she did it would have been gone that day.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      If she carried a gun on her person rather than in a purse, it wouldn’t be available for the thief to steal.

      The safest place for valuable items is a pocket or fanny pack. Put everything else in a cheap purse.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        She was in a place (a city park in a wealthy suburb) where she would not have been legally allowed to carry the gun.

        • 0 avatar

          This is why people leave guns in their cars. I can’t check a pocket knife, much less my revolver, if I have business inside my county’s courthouse. Perhaps manufacturers ought to include, or offer as an option, a quickly accessible secure place to store useful and/or valuable property. I believe Ohio criminalizes aftermarket hidden/secure compartments in a conveyance as prima facie evidence of the crime of hiding contraband from law enforcement. Even if the compartment is empty or the if the contents are legally owned.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Get a Chrysler Minivan with stow and go seats.

            The area where the seats fold is a hidden storage compartment, known only to minivan enthusiasts.

            It’s not locked like a safe, but it is hidden. Someone standing outside of the car can’t see if valuables are stowed there, and so can’t tell if breaking into the vehicle, and opening the sliding door would yield anything.

            I suppose a sedan’s trunk could be used that way as well. But then you’d be stuck driving a sedan.

            It works well for cameras and electronics.

            P.S. American gun kicked me out for failing to completely subjugate my opinions to theirs, and also for a general lack of entheusiasm — so I don’t really have much to say on that part of the discussion.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            This. Store all your loaded handguns in minivan cubbies where your toddlers can easily pull them out and thwart crime.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Even if you can legally go armed, there are places that are off limits. That leaves you with four options:
    (1) Avoid such places. (This is the preferred choice.)
    (2) Leave the gun at home and hope you don’t need it before returning.
    (3) Store it, no longer than necessary, in your automobile and hope that you don’t need it and that it isn’t stolen.
    (4) Carry anyway and hope you don’t get caught.

    A better solution would be to do away with “gun free” zones except for ones able and willing to provide airport grade security and safely store personal weapons while the owner is on the premises.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      There’s another option. Obtain a high quality lockbox, secure it to your vehicle, please your weapon into it BEFORE you arrive at your destination.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      I’m not against almost all gun ownership. I like trips to the range. I support the Second Amendment. But I don’t own a gun. Given my current lifestyle and circumstances, I simply don’t want the responsibility should it be stolen. That’s a personal decision and is valid only for me. There are circumstances where I would own firearms, but that is for another place and time.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “(2) Leave the gun at home and hope you don’t need it before returning.”

      Do you really, really need a gun that often? I mean, really?

      I don’t think I’ve ever been anywhere where being armed wouldn’t make things infinitely worse. I mean, I can always run or give someone my wallet.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s always that one time that will bite you! I’m so glad to say that never once have I ever had to draw my firearm. The one time I did unclip it was an escalating situation at a waffle house (of course, but hey, I’m allowed to have waffles at 11pm if I want darn it!) Waitress was noticeably distressed on her cell phone and I heard her tell her manager that “he was coming here and he was really pissed”. Manager said she’d have her phone ready to dial 911. Clearly some sort of domestic issue. Well the guy came in, he yelled but never touched her and the police weren’t called. That being said, I sat ready to surprise the heck outta that guy should he grab her. The best thing is, you need to pull the trigger even less than you need to have a gun. Bad folks generally stop doing bad thing when guns are pointed at them. Having 911 on standby is all well and good, but in a bad situation that won’t be quick enough. You shouldn’t ever have to have a gun, but I’d much rather have it by my side than hope life goes the way I want. And I’d much rather a bad guy be dead than to give up my wallet (which has no money in it anyway). It’s a principle thing.

  • avatar
    Car Guy

    Before moving to communist New York I carried for 5 years. There are plenty of small car safes to store your firearm. Easy enough.

    • 0 avatar
      tinbad

      You obviously have no idea what communism is like if you refer to New York being it.

      • 0 avatar
        Car Guy

        You obviously have no idea what it’s like to be a law abiding citizen gun owner in a state that hates your second Ammendment rights.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Communism has a meaning. And it’s more specific than just “I don’t like the politics here.”

          The idea that the worldwide finance industry’s most important city and nerve center, and the one where there is the greatest concentration of wealth on Earth, is “communist” is hilarious.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            But he’s being repressed!

          • 0 avatar
            2manycars

            It would probably be more accurate to refer to New York as an authoritarian nanny state.

            It is interesting that while the U.S. is ranked 3rd from the top in murders throughout the world, if you take out just 5 Democrat-controlled, left-wing cities the U.S. would be 4th from the bottom instead. (Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St. Louis, and New Orleans — all cities with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country.)

            As far as Hillary and other Democrats who want to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment are concerned – are THEY willing to give up THEIR armed security?

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            I love how people cite the “ineffective” gun laws in certain cities as examples of all gun regulations as being useless.

            These cities and their laws are like a rowboat being pummeled by waves of guns pouring over the sides from the great sea of second-amendment “solutions”.

            The reason guns are available to the inner cities is because the vast number of Americans WANT IT THAT WAY.

            It’s solving three problems for the gun lovers:

            1. It arms the people that they want to kill each other.
            2. It gives a perfect excuse (#1) to keep guns legal and flowing like water.
            3. It keeps the gun manufacturers profitable, and NRA money coming in.

            It’s really good for the domestic economy, though, we really should put a $1.00 tax per bullet in place to cover all the healthcare/funeral costs rung up in the inner cities.

        • 0 avatar
          tinbad

          I live in CA, so I’m sure you’d classify that as a nanny state too. Difference is I grew up in real communism in the USSR and believe me, the two couldn’t be further apart.

          As far as 2nd amendment, it’s a 250 year old afair that, based on all the facts, we can do away with (just like any other civilized nation in the world). But how dare we take actual facts and apply logic to them to make decisions about our future!

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            .http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/tougher-gun-sentences-chicago_n_4144962.html

            More importantly:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-violence_us_58082033e4b0dd54ce37ad9e

            Gun control laws for a city’s boundaries have little impact unless they have checkpoints going into and out of the city.

            And as mentioned the majority of gun crimes in Canada are committed by firearms illegally smuggled from the USA.

    • 0 avatar
      rev0lver

      I have to ask. And I’d genuinely like to know. What are you so afraid of that you’d want to carry a gun at all times?

      It’s such a foreign concept to me and I’d love to better understand the thought behind it.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I’ve never understood the answer to that question, but I’ve learned that if I ask it people will think I want to ban guns.

        I’ve lived in major cities my whole life and have never felt the slightest wish to arm myself in normal life. It just seems like a lot of hassle, danger, and opportunity for stuff to go badly wrong, in return for a measure of safety that I can also get in other ways (like exercising good judgment).

        The only times I’ve really wanted a gun are when I’ve been in rural areas with nasty fauna.

        • 0 avatar
          rev0lver

          I definitely don’t want to ban guns. My brother in law has at least two assault type rifles (all legal), including the infamous AR 15, and they’re a blast to shoot at the range. But I’ve never felt the need to arm myself while going about my daily life.

      • 0 avatar
        Car Guy

        Glad to tell you. During a home invasion I was robbed at gun point and I’ll use every legal means at my disposal to defend myself and my family if it ever happens again. I’ve been stripped of the right to carry in a state that has unreasonable may issue laws. Until you walked a mile in my shoes you have no right to judge me.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        I went to war three times. The folks I went to fight on those occasions now say they want to come here and bring the fight to my family. Based on my experiences with them overseas I am inclined to take such threats seriously. Hopefully I never need it but my carrying it is no threat to people such as yourself who seek to do me no harm. And as to your ridiculous assertion that I’ll accidentally shoot someone I’d simply refer you to the over 1100 days I have carrying all manner of weapons from open bolt fully automatic machine guns to long rifles to handguns in which not once did they go boom when I did not intend for it to.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Not necessarily “all times.” Just some times. Kind of like a flashlight, or a windbreaker. The new breed of small guns aren’t really that big a deal to just bring along, so why not?

        What’s infinitely more perplexing, is what causes a bunch of complete strangers to run around all preoccupied with whether I am allowed to bring along my windbreaker when I go out or not.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “What are you so afraid of that you’d want to carry a gun at all times?”

        That is extremely valid.

        Here is a point that makes puts serious doubt into the “gun carry for safety” debate.

        Police use a 20-21 foot rule for edged weapon attackers. Basically, if your gun is not in your hand ready to fire, you will get hurt by an attacker who is under 21 feet away. I watched a Mythbusters video to that effect recently. That same rule can apply to any physically superior attacker.

        Situational awareness is a term often used. It has been proven that most people who have been assaulted overlooked obvious danger signs or chose to ignore their instincts. A gun in one’s possession does not alter that fact.
        Another point is how well trained a gun owner happens to be. Police use 20-21 feet. They happen to be trained better than most civilians.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          “Another point is how well trained a gun owner happens to be.”

          and it even goes beyond ‘training.’ 40 years ago, i was a u.s. army drill sargeant. it is my opinion that – if safety is one’s actual concern – no one should be permitted access to firearms without proper training. period. but, as important as ‘training’ and ‘weapon familiarization’ and even ‘experience on the firing line’ can be, they do not even come close to simulating the actual conditions and stresses of finding yourself in a genuine firefight, with your life on the line. that is when things get real. and that is the part of ‘responsible gun ownership’ for which most people will never be sufficiently prepared.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            philipwitak – agree 100%. No one knows how they will perform “in the heat of battle” until the time comes.

        • 0 avatar
          Jim K

          Thinking that police are better trained the most firearm enthusiasts who take concealed carry or personal defense seriously is a fallacy. The majority of the police out there are very poorly trained.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Jim K –

            Yes, firearm enthusiasts take courses on it and many are probably better than rank and file police but I said this “They happen to be trained better than most civilians.”

            I’m betting that most gun owners have minimal training if any at all. That explains the number of accidental deaths we see with firearms.

            According to the Centre for disease control, in 2013: “505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm; and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with “undetermined intent”.

    • 0 avatar
      Car Guy

      Certinally sad people are willing to flush their rights down the toilet so easily….

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        “Certinally ”

        The right to be semi-literate?

        Or the right to live the fantasy that carrying a gun will result in anything except your accidentally shooting an innocent bystander?

        • 0 avatar
          Car Guy

          @ Kenmore – I served my country faithfully for 6 years including 2 deployments so I think I know a bit more than you on the subject of weapons.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            That increased your accuracy with a handgun?

          • 0 avatar
            Car Guy

            Someone has to ask if the military provides training and proficiency in using firearms? Really? Don’t even know how to respond to that!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Yes, 20 plus years increased my accuracy with handguns, rifles, machine guns, grenades, “field expedient” explosives, and freaking anti tank missiles. You needn’t fear the little LC9 concealed in my waistband.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            He did say handguns. In some respects that is a valid question.

            A friend of mine was an avionics technician in the military and he couldn’t shoot his way out of a wet paper bag. A hunting buddy of mine served Infantry and Armoured. He on the other hand was mind-numbingly accurate with any firearm.
            I’ve known police that admittedly were not good shots and have known members that would practice shooting at the small “grading” silhouette instead of the target’s main silhouette.

            If you want to be good, you need to practice. There are always “naturals” but those tend to be rare and/or stuff of legend.

  • avatar
    markf

    Easiest place to steal a gun out of a car is school parking lot. Places like Colorado make it illegal to carry on any school property but you can have locked in your car (in a compartment before you enter school property)

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    This is a non-problem for me. I don’t own a gun.

    And I often leave my car unlocked, so anyone who wants the worthless items inside can simply take them, without me having to file an insurance claim and pay the deductible for a broken window.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      SCE to AUX – I have known several people who had lived in areas of Vancouver or Surrey with high crime that deliberately did not lock vehicles. They also left glove boxes and arm rest compartments open. They basically were adverting “nothing to steal here”.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        This is what I used to do and it worked pretty well. The worst I’ve had to do is put my manual back in the glove compartment.

        Beats a smashed window every time.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      A friend of mine leaves his car unlocked and had a window broken anyway. Some of the tweakers that do this don’t even bother to pull the door handle.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    So, just to be clear: we’re blaming the victim of the crime and not the perpetrators? That seems a dangerous train of thought.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    “The Trace, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to expanding coverage of gun violence in the United States”

    Correction-“The Trace, a wholly owned subsidiary of the oligarch Michael Bloomberg, dedicated to expanding coverage of violence committed by criminals with guns so as to delegitimize gun ownership until it becomes possible to depopulate the earth.”

    I hope he is the last one to survive the plague that everyone catches from unclean phone booths so he has some time to contemplate how evil he is.

  • avatar
    Hezz

    As someone who carries concealed at times, the only reason my sidearm would stay in the car is if I am forbidden to take it inside the building or area I am entering. If you don’t want law abiding people leaving their guns in their cars, let them carry them. Putting up “gun free zone” signs seems to have little actual deterrent effect on people with evil intent.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lie2me: Road trips are always fun, especially when the reward is a new car. Good goin’
  • Matt Foley: In the mid-90’s, I worked with a guy who flew out to Phoenix with $1000 cash and said he was...
  • bullnuke: Great story, Corey. Well done.
  • PrincipalDan: I wish you well. It would be hard for me to get the 6 when 8 is available.
  • brettc: Very nice, congratulations on your find! I’m considering doing this to pick up either a southern 500...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States