Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gardai carrying Guns

1…111213141517»

Comments

  • #482
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Locust wrote: »
    Having an armed cop is a massive deterrent

    If you were to put yourself in the shoes of a robber can you honestly say that you would shoot at a trained armed police officer? The point of using a weapon during a robbery is to put fear into the people you are robbing - when the police turn up at the scene - actually using the gun on them is either death or a lengthy sentence. When it gets to that point most people with any sense drop the gun and surrender. Its crazy that our first responders don't have that capability.

    I know we may be dealing with cracked up junkies but it must run through even the thickest skulls that pointing a gun at an armed officer will most likely get you killed.

    i was actually just talking about this with a colleague today. The Irish people massively underestimate just how violent and vicious some of the criminals are, particularly the young ones. There are many that would think nothing of firing at a Garda if it was the difference between escape or capture. There are some who would hope for the opportunity. If you want Gardaí to carry guns you better be ready for them to use them.

    For me, the main reason I would not like to be armed is that if push came to shove and I had to use it, I wouldn't feel like i could count on the support of the people, let alone management or politicians. I don't think the Irish people are ready for their police to be shooting people. Just look at the high profile incidents of that nature from the past.


  • #483
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Locust wrote: »
    Here let me help :- A few stats German population is over 80 million people and the police fired just 85 shots for 2011. Of the 85, 49 were warnings shots, 36 were aimed shots at criminal suspects, 15 people were injured, and 6 were killed
    http://rt.com/usa/news/us-germany-85-shots-022/

    The article is about comparing the US to Germany -- as the headline goes US cops used 85 shots per person.

    Would we be closer to Berlin or Boston?

    Locust wrote: »
    Crime in Germany
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

    I firmly believe those stats would be worse if they were an unarmed police service

    Just because you firmly believe it, does not make it true. Not in the slightest bit.
    Locust wrote: »

    Yeah lets pick the maddest country in the world... wait comparing the gun culture and numerous 'issues' the USA has to tiny Ireland is an exercise in futility. That comment doesn't hold water. The US is an abnormal society compared to ours, arguably governed by fear.

    Look at somewhere closer to home, within the EU - How many French or German cops attending the scene of an incident have been shot?

    We have a larger culture of fear and hyping crime than at least Germany, not too sure about France.


  • #484
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    Locust wrote: »
    Here let me help :- A few stats German population is over 80 million people and the police fired just 85 shots for 2011. Of the 85, 49 were warnings shots, 36 were aimed shots at criminal suspects, 15 people were injured, and 6 were killed
    http://rt.com/usa/news/us-germany-85-shots-022/

    Crime in Germany
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime

    I firmly believe those stats would be worse if they were an unarmed police service

    I'm surprised at German police firing warning shots.

    What happens to that bullet once discharged?

    If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

    Waving guns about or firing them off in to the air will only get you shot yourself.


  • #485
    Locust
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Locust


    monument wrote: »
    The article is about comparing the US to Germany -- as the headline goes US cops used 85 shots per person.

    Would we be closer to Berlin or Boston?
    I said you cant compare Ireland to US - one is frigid of firearms the other is gun mad. My mention of Germany was to point to another EU country. Whats your point?
    I was highlighting the fact that an EU country like Germany can have an armed police force with a population of 80 million and be incredibly self controlled with them. Thats staggering. It speaks volumes that the presence of armed police is enough to deter without having to actually use the thing.

    monument wrote: »
    Just because you firmly believe it, does not make it true. Not in the slightest bit.
    I think the stats speak for themselves. If i firmly disbelieve it, it doesn't disprove it. Whats your point?

    monument wrote: »
    We have a larger culture of fear and hyping crime than at least Germany, not too sure about France.

    My fear comment was not in relation to the media and public perception on crime glamour seem to shoot out of fear (I personally think a lot people in the US feel the need to have a gun out of a deep rooted fear).


  • #486
    Locust
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Locust


    Terrontress wrote: »
    I'm surprised at German police firing warning shots.

    What happens to that bullet once discharged?

    If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

    Waving guns about or firing them off in to the air will only get you shot yourself.

    If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.

    By definition - A warning shot is the intentional discharge of a firearm with the purpose of causing a positive change in a person's behavior. A warning shot could be fired to cause a person to stop fleeing, to cause a person to drop a weapon, to gain the attention of a potentially violent crowd, etc. The person firing will take into account what they are shooting at and the potential for the bullet to carry on (they would anyway).

    There is a psychology of having a firearm but not being prepared to use it. If the bad guy gets even a wiff that you aren't prepared to use it, then he will take advantage of that.

    Sometimes you are better off showing him by warning shot that you are prepared to use it.

    Again theres a time and a place for it. A lot of countries fire warning shots, in some its quite commonplace, but here in Ireland obviously the public are absolutely terrified of firearms. Obviously it works for the German police.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    bravestar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Terrontress wrote: »

    If you are a police officer firing a gun, it should be at the torso with the intention of incapacitating the threat.

    Shots are aimed at center of mass with the intention of stopping the threat, not incapacitating.
    Locust wrote: »
    If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.



    As above. You shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill or incapacitate. While the result from the bullet may be either or both. The intention of the person taking the shot is to stop the threat.

    Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

    As for the German warning shots, I am not familiar with their laws or training so can't comment.


  • #488
    Flurple
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13 ✭Flurple


    why cant they just be normal and have tasers?


  • #489
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    bravestar wrote: »

    Shots are aimed at center of mass with the intention of stopping the threat, not incapacitating.



    As above. You shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill or incapacitate. While the result from the bullet may be either or both. The intention of the person taking the shot is to stop the threat.

    Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

    As for the German warning shots, I am not familiar with their laws or training so can't comment.

    Do you understand what incapacitate means?


  • #490
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    Locust wrote: »

    If you shoot - you should shoot to kill. The exception is a warning shot and I think theres a time and a place for warning shots. Its actually quite a tactical and advanced call to make in a crisis.

    By definition - A warning shot is the intentional discharge of a firearm with the purpose of causing a positive change in a person's behavior. A warning shot could be fired to cause a person to stop fleeing, to cause a person to drop a weapon, to gain the attention of a potentially violent crowd, etc. The person firing will take into account what they are shooting at and the potential for the bullet to carry on (they would anyway).

    There is a psychology of having a firearm but not being prepared to use it. If the bad guy gets even a wiff that you aren't prepared to use it, then he will take advantage of that.

    Sometimes you are better off showing him by warning shot that you are prepared to use it.

    Again theres a time and a place for it. A lot of countries fire warning shots, in some its quite commonplace, but here in Ireland obviously the public are absolutely terrified of firearms. Obviously it works for the German police.

    Where might an armed officer aim if he fires a warning shot? In to the air and it has to come back down. Against a surface and it might ricochet. I get what you're saying about the psychological advantage but I can't understand the practicalities of it.


  • #491
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Locust wrote: »
    I said you cant compare Ireland to US - one is frigid of firearms the other is gun mad. My mention of Germany was to point to another EU country. Whats your point?
    I was highlighting the fact that an EU country like Germany can have an armed police force with a population of 80 million and be incredibly self controlled with them. Thats staggering. It speaks volumes that the presence of armed police is enough to deter without having to actually use the thing.

    We are not Germany. The outcome of arming our police may not be as bad as the US, but it might be a lot worse than Germany -- we don't know.

    At the end of the day Germany is just one case. In another country, the US -- which we are more culturally linked to than Germany -- they used their firearms the same amount on one person.

    Locust wrote: »
    I think the stats speak for themselves. If i firmly disbelieve it, it doesn't disprove it. Whats your point?

    My point: Correlation does not imply causation; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

    There is likely to be many other factors at play, including social, cultural, and institutional legal factors.

    Locust wrote: »
    My fear comment was not in relation to the media and public perception on crime glamour seem to shoot out of fear (I personally think a lot people in the US feel the need to have a gun out of a deep rooted fear).

    Again, maybe not at the same level of the US, but Ireland has developed a culture of fear of crime, and we did this while gun crime was still below EU norms. For a large chunk of people, fear overtook reality a long time ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Locust
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Locust


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Where might an armed officer aim if he fires a warning shot? In to the air and it has to come back down. Against a surface and it might ricochet. I get what you're saying about the psychological advantage but I can't understand the practicalities of it.

    I've seen crowds in the north (back in the day) that weren't listening to commands to disperse and the then RUC fired warning shots from a rifle into the tarmac beside them... (which readily absorbed the bullet and pushed up a big mound) it really made the point. The crowd all instantly became compliant found religion and dispersed.

    Older colleagues (from across the way) have told me, that they regularly used to take fire when driving through certain areas on weekends... They couldn't alway pinpoint where the shooter was but generally used to pick a rubbish bin close enough and shot the bin sending it flying as a warning shot, which prevented further shots being fired.

    Warning shots are historically more of a military tactic, the police seem to have moved away from them due to the risks involved, but the psychological advantage is great.

    They are meant to be discharged in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury, ricochet dangers and damage property. So its a judgement call that a officer or soldier would make - to fire at something soft enough that will not ricochet or in a safe direction.

    A quick google search i found the Indianapolis Police have authorised warning shots, which is rare http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-impd-to-permit-officers-to-fire-warning-shots-20120627,0,5528013.column

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/man-taken-into-custody-after-missoula-police-fire-warning-shot/article_c7a8bc58-2c88-11e2-8dde-001a4bcf887a.html

    http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=8438

    http://japandailypress.com/hiroshima-police-fire-warning-shots-on-knife-wielding-ex-u-s-marine-098671

    http://www.radford.edu/~tburke/Burke/warningshots.pdf



    This is all fantasy stuff as -- Ireland is a long ways away from 1. arming uniform AGS 2. having a policy that authorises warning shots!!
    Nonetheless i enjoy discussion


  • #493
    Locust
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Locust


    bravestar wrote: »
    Warning shots are a no no. If the threat you are facing is that serious a risk to yours or someone else's life, that a firearm is required, then you must shoot to stop the threat. By firing a warning shot you are basically saying that the threat was not immediate or serious enough for you to shoot the person and if that was the case then you should have attempted to stop the threat in another manner and not have used a firearm at all.

    Situations can be fluid as im sure you well know. The threat may be a risk to life one moment and may be okay the next - it may be a threat to life, but may not be immediate, there are so many variables - you could be driving down a road one minute and the next surrounded by a violent crowd smashing the windows of your car trying drag you out of the vehicle and kick you to death.

    I understand warning shots are a no no for the police in this part of the world but if the spit hit the fan and it came down to it, a warning shot could save your life.


  • #494
    MEMBER12
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭MEMBER12


    Well Iam all for arming the Gardai, I would still like see a referendum on this however, there is one reason that this will not happen and that is money. And perhaps the courage of someone to bring it up in the Dail. I think there would have to be a major incident for this to occur. Let's hope someone does not get hurt to make this happen.


  • #495
    bravestar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Terrontress wrote: »

    Do you understand what incapacitate means?

    Yes. It does not however take into account the possibility of death. If I incapacitate you, I would presume you are still alive. If I kill you, I would presume you are dead. If I stop you, you could be incapacitated or dead.

    I didn't make the terminology up, if you choose not to listen, then fair enough.


  • #496
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    bravestar wrote: »

    Yes. It does not however take into account the possibility of death. If I incapacitate you, I would presume you are still alive. If I kill you, I would presume you are dead. If I stop you, you could be incapacitated or dead.

    I didn't make the terminology up, if you choose not to listen, then fair enough.

    Nonsense. There is nobody more incapacitated than someone killed.


  • #497
    bravestar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Terrontress wrote: »

    Nonsense. There is nobody more incapacitated than someone killed.

    Well you must be the only person who thinks killing and incapacitating are the same thing. Since you dont listen to words, I suggest you go get some training in relation to the use of less than lethal - lethal use of force and then come back to us.


  • #498
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    bravestar wrote: »
    Well you must be the only person who thinks killing and incapacitating are the same thing. Since you dont listen to words, I suggest you go get some training in relation to the use of less than lethal - lethal use of force and then come back to us.

    Less than lethal force is not relevent when talking about using a gun though. You shoot to put the person down. Doesn't matter if they die or not.


  • #499
    bravestar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    MagicSean wrote: »

    Less than lethal force is not relevent when talking about using a gun though. You shoot to put the person down. Doesn't matter if they die or not.

    It is relevant because less than lethal is used to incapacitate and that word appears to be the subject of much debate. That's why I mentioned it.

    Back to firearms, you are correct. Shoot COM to stop threat. Death or not is irrelevant as long as the action is stopped that caused you to fire.


  • #500
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    bravestar wrote: »

    It is relevant because less than lethal is used to incapacitate and that word appears to be the subject of much debate. That's why I mentioned it.

    Back to firearms, you are correct. Shoot COM to stop threat. Death or not is irrelevant as long as the action is stopped that caused you to fire.

    Just go to a dictionary and look the word up.


  • #501
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,408 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Good to see the important issues being debated here:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    bravestar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Terrontress wrote: »

    Just go to a dictionary and look the word up.

    I did. It doesn't mention killing. I see your still not listening, so in the interest of letting the thread get back on topic, I'll go have more productive conversation with a wall.


  • #503
    Corcioch
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭Corcioch


    Ha ha ha ha . . .What a thread!!!

    I haven't logged in here is ages . . . .im bored stupid at the mo . .obviously.

    Despite an absence I see its still the exact same folks in the exact same roles . .

    The same people arguing a pro Police/ Garda stance, no matter what the debate/ allegation etc . ..and the same old heads putting the Gardaí down at every chance, occasion and on any and all issues. Its laughable.


    Im a Garda ( could get sacked for typing that )

    I have been face to face with well armed criminals (he had Handgun & 2 rifles, I had a wooden truncheon ). Attacked with a samurai sword/ Katana, hammer etc among other weapons

    . .And I have had the displeasure of having a knife driven into part of my body . . .all in the course of my duty.

    Would I like to carry a gun everyday . . . . .NO. No flippin interest. It wouldn't have stopped me being stabbed the way that fight went, and I wouldn't have wanted to, shoot the guy who had just stabbed me/ kept trying to stab me. There are other ways to deal with most things. I can do without that hassle that would follow shooting someone dead . .both mental and administrative/ legal

    As for the specialist armed response units . . . .Pah. As a spontaneous incident response . .they are useless in most parts of the country.


    You can keep your guns . . .Guns are for cowards imo.


  • #504
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    So if you are being stabbed you would prefer the offender not be shot?

    I don't understand it but I respect your viewpoint.


  • #505
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,001 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    Corcioch wrote: »
    I have been face to face with well armed criminals (he had Handgun & 2 rifles, I had a wooden truncheon ).
    Ah Jebus, a perp with three arms! At least you had a free hand. :)

    Not your ornery onager



  • #506
    Corcioch
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭Corcioch


    Esel wrote: »
    Ah Jebus, a perp with three arms! At least you had a free hand. :)

    Ahhhh. The thread clown. I forgot to mention you in the post above. Smart, smug and glib nestled behind your laptop/ tablet etc etc. Legend . . .indeed. Worthwhile . . . . .not so much.


    Why in the name of Jesus are serving members wasting their time coming onto threads here with the level of trolling?? I don't get ye lads and lassies. I haven't been here in a while, and I wont be back for along time . . .but its the exact same. If someone comments on each and every say Garda thread on the ES page, with a view to knocking you, AGS etc each and every time no matter what the topic, incident etc . .well folks that is a Troll. Place is riddled with them. Why would you bother. Life is far far far to short to have moments of your day populated by such bottom feeders as trolls.

    Slán agus Beannacht.


  • #507
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    wow:rolleyes:


  • #508
    MEMBER12
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭MEMBER12


    Corcioch wrote: »
    Ha ha ha ha . . .What a thread!!!

    I haven't logged in here is ages . . . .im bored stupid at the mo . .obviously.

    Despite an absence I see its still the exact same folks in the exact same roles . .

    The same people arguing a pro Police/ Garda stance, no matter what the debate/ allegation etc . ..and the same old heads putting the Gardaí down at every chance, occasion and on any and all issues. Its laughable.


    Im a Garda ( could get sacked for typing that )

    I have been face to face with well armed criminals (he had Handgun & 2 rifles, I had a wooden truncheon ). Attacked with a samurai sword/ Katana, hammer etc among other weapons

    . .And I have had the displeasure of having a knife driven into part of my body . . .all in the course of my duty.

    Would I like to carry a gun everyday . . . . .NO. No flippin interest. It wouldn't have stopped me being stabbed the way that fight went, and I wouldn't have wanted to, shoot the guy who had just stabbed me/ kept trying to stab me. There are other ways to deal with most things. I can do without that hassle that would follow shooting someone dead . .both mental and administrative/ legal

    As for the specialist armed response units . . . .Pah. As a spontaneous incident response . .they are useless in most parts of the country.


    You can keep your guns . . .Guns are for cowards imo.
    I respect your post but I disagree with you. It's time for Ireland to follow the rest of the world, bar England, Wales, Scotland and New Zealand.


Advertisement