Gun Laws

GerryRyan

Ok, where can I go to get info on the types of guns, or rifles you can legally own in Ireland? Or is it a case of any gun is allowed once licensed?
If its only there to protect house etc in case of break in, not owned for use with rifle clubs etc ...

Thirdfox

I thought it was farmers that could own shotguns... not sure about anyone else.

Eru

This is a mine field (no pun) to say the least and I will not pretend to be the foremost authority however my training and experience tells me that you can own rifles and shotguns for game and sport provided you have a license.

there is no allowance for ownership based on defence.

Technically you can own handguns and autos, etc however there seems to be much confusion as you could not get a license for these items until the courts decided blanket ban on licenses was illegal.

Now it seems you can have these but the forms, etc are long, tedious and confusing plus new laws are planned to ban them outright.

A gun enthuisiast on the site may be able to help you further or clarify some of my points as I am only posting what I know is correct and not guess work or rumour.

Thirdfox

Autos??? As in automatic machine guns etc.??? :eek: That's scary! Although I do know you need a license if you have a crossbow as that is considered a firearm too (perhaps you can use it in self-defence?)

Rovi

Come on over to the boards.ie Shooting Forum, you'll find lots of discussion on current and proposed gun law.

.

Reku

Thirdfox wrote:

Autos??? As in automatic machine guns etc.??? :eek: That's scary! Although I do know you need a license if you have a crossbow as that is considered a firearm too (perhaps you can use it in self-defence?)

Yeah, the daft thing is that by the wording of the laws you need a licence for recurves bows & compounds too, heck even a slingshot is technically a firearm, yet the Garda just don't car about these so no-one bothers getting a licence. Stranger still I'd be pretty sure you could do a lot more damage with a compound bow than a crossbow, as although compound's have a lower poundage (force behind the arrow/bolt) you can fire off far more shots in a given amount of time with them, and the poundage is still way about what you'd need to kill a person (a 30lbs recurve can easily do the job in the hand of a practiced archer, compounds are commonly available for up to 70lbs).

Eru

farohar wrote:

Yeah, the daft thing is that by the wording of the laws you need a licence for recurves bows & compounds too, heck even a slingshot is technically a firearm, yet the Garda just don't car about these so no-one bothers getting a licence. Stranger still I'd be pretty sure you could do a lot more damage with a compound bow than a crossbow, as although compound's have a lower poundage (force behind the arrow/bolt) you can fire off far more shots in a given amount of time with them, and the poundage is still way about what you'd need to kill a person (a 30lbs recurve can easily do the job in the hand of a practiced archer, compounds are commonly available for up to 70lbs).

What a load of ****e. You need a license for all weapons that can project a missile or gas and a dozen other descriptions and tey are all treated equally if found without a license.

Gardai will take what they find regardless of what it is but how many bank robberies use slingshots????

Reku

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

What a load of ****e. You need a license for all weapons that can project a missile or gas and a dozen other descriptions and tey are all treated equally if found without a license.

Gardai will take what they find regardless of what it is but how many bank robberies use slingshots????

Actually as a former member of the DCU Archery club we checked with the Garda and they said that you only needed a license for crossbows, recurves and compounds you don't need one for, and this is what every other archery club has been told when they asked their local Garda.
The only thing we could figure was that you can get some very small crossbows which still have a high poundage, and so could easily be concealed until the last instant for a hitman/assasination type killing.

Thirdfox

^^ "...you can get some very small crossbows which still have a high poundage, and so could easily be concealed until the last instant for a hitman/assasination type killing." - In Ireland? It just seems so surreal that we are talking about killer assassins in Ireland (or maybe I'm just naive?) Can anyone hire out ninjas too ?

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

you can own rifles and shotguns for game and sport provided you have a license.

This is correct. You can also own pistols. There are also a small number of people who are legally allowed to use firearms without a licence, namely the army, gardai and so on.

there is no allowance for ownership based on defence.

That one is academically a legal grey area in that there is no legislation banning the ownership of firearms for self-defence. However, in practical terms this is a moot point; the Gardai and Department of Justice explicitly state that they will not licence firearms for self-defence reasons (with the sole exception of a handful of firearms which are licenced for that purpose under the Irish equivalent of a concealed carry permit and which usually are issued to those under a serious threat from organised criminal or paramilitary groups).

Technically you can own handguns and autos, etc however there seems to be much confusion as you could not get a license for these items until the courts decided blanket ban on licenses was illegal.
Now it seems you can have these but the forms, etc are long, tedious and confusing plus new laws are planned to ban them outright.

Actually, that's not what the new laws are planned to do, according to the DoJ. Don't forget; ban handguns outright and you ban a full third of the olympic target shooting events, as was done by an unoffical DoJ/Gardai policy back in 1972, which left us in a legal situation where you could crawl around the Wicklow hills in a camoflauged sniper suit with night vision goggles and a sniper rifle, or own a fully automatic shotgun loaded with solid slugs (more commonly used by the LAPD SWAT teams to breach locked doors); but owning an air pistol to shoot in the Olympic games, a firearm that is only a firearm in Ireland (every other EU country says it's not powerful or dangerous enough to be a firearm, legally) would get you a jail sentence.

A gun enthuisiast on the site may be able to help you further or clarify some of my points as I am only posting what I know is correct and not guess work or rumour.

Can I just say, without implying that offense was taken from the comment, that the term "gun enthusiast" is almost offensive? We're target shooters and hunters and farmers, not gun fetishists. Yes, we might prefer one model of firearm over another and we can discuss that quite a lot; but it's because of the firearm's suitability to a particular task, not because of some intrinsic desire. These are tools to do a job, not objects of gratification in and of themselves.

Lastly, I would invite anyone interested in this subject to read the threads on firearms law in the Shooting Forum. Not that I don't welcome the discussion here, I'd find the perspective of legal experts on this to be of immense interest; but there's a lot of background information in these threads.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Lastly, I would invite anyone interested in this subject to read the threads on firearms law in the Shooting Forum. Not that I don't welcome the discussion here, I'd find the perspective of legal experts on this to be of immense interest; but there's a lot of background information in these threads.

What he said!

I probably should have elaborated a bit in my reply a few posts above. I too would be very interested in 'legal opinion' on this stuff; there's a Sticky thread running to 11 pages on the 'Criminal Justice Bill 2004' with links to current and proposed legislation, if anyone fancies having a look

.

Reku

Thirdfox wrote:

^^ "...you can get some very small crossbows which still have a high poundage, and so could easily be concealed until the last instant for a hitman/assasination type killing." - In Ireland? It just seems so surreal that we are talking about killer assassins in Ireland (or maybe I'm just naive?) Can anyone hire out ninjas too ?

Jonesboro market, up north, had plenty of 70-150lbs ones last I'd heard and I know people who've bought crossbows there with no license (but then I know people who've bought air pistols, i.e. airguns, there with no license too...:rolleyes: ). To be honest I'm surprised that place isn't shut down as it seems to be the place to pick up anything dodgy and it's not like there are any checks between there and the Republic to see if people have purchased anything illegal.
But then one of my neighbours has a Taser, no idea where he got it from, but those things are very much illegal so it is disturbing that he managed to get it into the country.
As for killer assassins, what about that man who killed Mark Byrne coming out of Mountjoy last year?

Eru

Sparks wrote:

That one is academically a legal grey area in that there is no legislation banning the ownership of firearms for self-defence. However, in practical terms this is a moot point; the Gardai and Department of Justice explicitly state that they will not licence firearms for self-defence reasons (with the sole exception of a handful of firearms which are licenced for that purpose under the Irish equivalent of a concealed carry permit and which usually are issued to those under a serious threat from organised criminal or paramilitary groups).

I would be interested to know who has this authority as I am not aware of any CCW existing in Ireland and I also know high profile people that are considered at risk are given garda armed protection.

Sparks wrote:

Actually, that's not what the new laws are planned to do, according to the DoJ. Don't forget; ban handguns outright and you ban a full third of the olympic target shooting events, as was done by an unoffical DoJ/Gardai policy back in 1972, which left us in a legal situation where you could crawl around the Wicklow hills in a camoflauged sniper suit with night vision goggles and a sniper rifle, or own a fully automatic shotgun loaded with solid slugs (more commonly used by the LAPD SWAT teams to breach locked doors); but owning an air pistol to shoot in the Olympic games, a firearm that is only a firearm in Ireland (every other EU country says it's not powerful or dangerous enough to be a firearm, legally) would get you a jail sentence.

I would be willing to put money on handguns being banned apart from very express and strict exceptions. I certainly do not foresee people being granted these weapons for either vermin control, hunting or as a mere hobby. In reality the DOJ is putting legislation in place to make their previous stance legal. Of course as you point out there must be some form of concession but we wait and see.

Sparks wrote:

Can I just say, without implying that offense was taken from the comment, that the term "gun enthusiast" is almost offensive? We're target shooters and hunters and farmers, not gun fetishists. Yes, we might prefer one model of firearm over another and we can discuss that quite a lot; but it's because of the firearm's suitability to a particular task, not because of some intrinsic desire. These are tools to do a job, not objects of gratification in and of themselves.

No offence intended, I was merely implying someone who has a keen interest in firearms and as a result of that interest would have experience and knowledge surpassing my own.

farohar wrote:

Actually as a former member of the DCU Archery club we checked with the Garda and they said that you only needed a license for crossbows, recurves and compounds you don't need one for, and this is what every other archery club has been told when they asked their local Garda.
The only thing we could figure was that you can get some very small crossbows which still have a high poundage, and so could easily be concealed until the last instant for a hitman/assasination type killing.

Actually as a current Garda and someone who can read legal text I can quote the exact legislation for you, I wont quote it all but the parts I believe most important:

"4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, "firearm" means—

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;
( c ) a crossbow;"

No poundage, distance or ability mentioned, all are illegal.

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I would be interested to know who has this authority as I am not aware of any CCW existing in Ireland and I also know high profile people that are considered at risk are given garda armed protection.

For pretty obvious reasons, the names of those issued PPWs are kept secret. They have to be signed off on by the Minister's office, as opposed to the usual route through the local Superintendent. It's far more common in N.Ireland than here though, with several thousand PPWs issued there (at least, that was the case a few years ago. An optimistic person might think that number's fallen since, given the peace process).

I would be willing to put money on handguns being banned apart from very express and strict exceptions.

What good would that do?
It certainly wouldn't affect gun crime - do you really think that criminals apply for licences for their firearms?

I certainly do not foresee people being granted these weapons for either vermin control, hunting or as a mere hobby.

Vermin control; air pistols are a standard tool for rat extermination in the UK and everywhere else for exterminators because they're short-range, cheap, effective and humane.
Hunting; it is a mandatory legal requirement in Germany and some other states to carry a sidearm with you while hunting deer or similar sized animals to deliver a humane and safe coup de grace in the event of the animal being wounded by the first shot instead of killed (which can happen despite perfect competency on the hunter's part).
"Mere" hobby; pistols make up one full third of the olympic shooting events, as well as being necessary for olympic pentathlon. Target shooting, especially at olympic level, is one of the (if not the) safest, most egalatarian, inclusive and accessible sports in the world. It is the most participated-in sport in the entire Olympics. I realise you might not appreciate this as we live in an unusual country in that it's a minority sport here. But when you begin to ban the safe and legal activities of a minority because of a lack of understanding of those activities, you take steps down a very dark path indeed.

In reality the DOJ is putting legislation in place to make their previous stance legal.

Unfortunately, this may well be true; but understand that their previous position was a highly cynical one which failed to stand up in court when finally tested after 32 years (a delay brought about by the Troubles). It did not achieve it's original aim (to enhance security in the North); it did not affect gun crime; in fact the only things it did were to destroy a perfectly innocent sport and to ensure a large number of inhumane deaths for deer for over twenty years.

No offence intended, I was merely implying someone who has a keen interest in firearms and as a result of that interest would have experience and knowledge surpassing my own.

Indeed; but I don't have a keen interest in firearms, I have a keen interest in target shooting. In simple terms, my motivation is at the other end of the range, where the round meets the paper, not at this end gawping at the firearm that put it there

Eru

Sparks,
I dont wish to go the road of gun control however I will say that we need not follow German or American examples when it comes to guns.

As for effecting gun crime, we have one of the safest countries in the world (admittedly this does not speak well for the globe ) and I personally do not think personal issue weapons are the answer for self defence. If nothing else it would make it easier for criminals to obtain them (shotguns are the most common gun used in crime and this is no coincidence) as they could be stolen from peoples cars/homes etc.

As for CCW's (lets use this term), yes they are accepted in NI however I am not aware of such a thing in RoI, indeed Gardai crarely carry firearms for protection off-duty so therefore who can? Surely such an allowance would not be made without Gardai being aware of it as I myself could encounter such a person walking along with a Glock in his backpocket and if that were too happen I would not ask for any form of license.

Lets look at having an armed police force before having a fully armed nation.

_Turismo4

About 7 weeks ago my cousin and his mate applied at the same time for there .22 caliber rifles, and my cousin got a phone call yesterday from the gardai saying he was successful, however his mate was not, and the reason is he had some black marks on his record for being drink.
Judging that case, I think you almost need a clean sheet in order to obtain a license for a gun.

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Sparks,
I dont wish to go the road of gun control however I will say that we need not follow German or American examples when it comes to guns.

To be honest, what makes the most difference in terms of gun crime seems to be the ethos that exists regarding firearms in a country, not its firearms laws. Switzerland, for example, has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world; yet it has some of the least restrictive firearms law anywhere. Until a few years ago, you could perfectly legally enter the Swiss version of the Dail with a concealed firearm. More than half the homes in Switzerland would have a firearm, usually a military type assault rifle. Every village has a firing range, and usually several target shooting clubs. Target shooting to the swiss is like GAA to us. And yet, we have more gun crime than they do, both per capita and overall.

As for effecting gun crime, we have one of the safest countries in the world

See above

I personally do not think personal issue weapons are the answer for self defence.

Personally, neither do I. But the PPWs I was speaking of in this case would have been issued in rather unusual circumstances, as it was explained to me, generally in areas where paramilitary groups were involved.

If nothing else it would make it easier for criminals to obtain them (shotguns are the most common gun used in crime and this is no coincidence) as they could be stolen from peoples cars/homes etc.

I'm afraid that you've nothing to support this claim. We asked in the Dail specifically for the number of firearms used in crimes in 2004/2005 which had been stolen from their legal owners. The answer was that the Gardai don't keep those statistics. And since the majority of shootings in that time period were happening with pistols and AK47s - neither of which were legally ownable at the time - I think it's fairly clear that the main source for firearms for criminals in this country is other criminals. They're smuggled in and sold on the black market; not bought over the counter with a lot of paperwork tracking who sold them, who bought them, who's using them and so on.

As for CCW's (lets use this term), yes they are accepted in NI however I am not aware of such a thing in RoI, indeed Gardai crarely carry firearms for protection off-duty so therefore who can? Surely such an allowance would not be made without Gardai being aware of it as I myself could encounter such a person walking along with a Glock in his backpocket and if that were too happen I would not ask for any form of license.

One would hope that the Minister would not issue such a firearm to someone likely to use it on a Garda; and that no Garda would stop and search someone for firearms without due cause while off duty - so how would you ever know?

Lets look at having an armed police force before having a fully armed nation.

Let's not; not while the indoor training ranges are closed and need to be rebuilt before reopening for safety reasons, not while there is insufficient money to train the quarter of the force who carry cards, and not while you have hundreds of P226 pistols sitting in storage for lack of training! I mean no offense, but there is no way that the Gardai could be safely armed in this country, to say nothing of the lack of desire there is to see an armed police force in this country.

Reku

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Actually as a current Garda and someone who can read legal text I can quote the exact legislation for you, I wont quote it all but the parts I believe most important:

"4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, "firearm" means—

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;
( c ) a crossbow;"

No poundage, distance or ability mentioned, all are illegal.

I practically know that legislation off by heart (think I still have it under my favourites on my home PC) as I bought a number of knives and swords on-line and prior to purchase wanted to ensure none of them would cause legal difficulties.

As I said earlier:

farohar wrote:

Yeah, the daft thing is that by the wording of the laws you need a licence for recurves bows & compounds too, heck even a slingshot is technically a firearm, yet the Garda just don't car about these so no-one bothers getting a licence.

Not my fault that the law and the average Garda's interpretation of what law he has to enforce differ, at this point due to no recurve/compound archers in Ireland having a licence, after all having been told that it wasn't necessary, you have probably a good 600-1000 people, quite probably many many more, (some of which may not be members of any official club or the IAAA) you'd have to track down if you wanted to chase this up. Though it is odd that they felt the need to specify air guns/pistols (part b), crossbows (part c) and stun guns/tasers (part d).
And if you really want something to chase up; look at blow guns (http://193.178.1.79/ZZSI66Y1991.html), half the time kids get a straw they'll use it as one of these with balls of paper mixed with saliva or balls of blue tac, do you want to chase that up? Then if you want to apply part (a), which you quoted above, to recurve bows, what about the paintball guns you can buy in toy stores which would clearly be covered by part (c)? Fact is these laws are not enforced in anyway near as strictly as the wording would allow. The only way the average Garda seems concerned is if the weapon can be readily used in street-crime, otherwise it's no greater risk than a claw hammer or screw driver (both easily concealed on yourself and quite lethal if you genuinely want to use them to hurt someone), neither of which have any restrictions what-so-ever upon their purchase & possession (reputable stores will not sell penknives to minors).

Rovi

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I would be willing to put money on handguns being banned apart from very express and strict exceptions.

If you look at Proposals for amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 (.PDF, approx. 0.5MB), you'll see that Head 51 deals specifically with rifle and pistol clubs, and rifle and pistol shooting ranges.
Why would they be legislating for pistol clubs and ranges if they were planning to ban pistols?

.

Sparks

I'm still waiting to see how the ICPSA takes that one Rovi

Reku

Rovi wrote:

If you look at Proposals for amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 (.PDF, approx. 0.5MB), you'll see that Head 51 deals specifically with rifle and pistol clubs, and rifle and pistol shooting ranges.
Why would they be legislating for pistol clubs and ranges if they were planning to ban pistols?

.

I also note that there's not a single reference to bows in all those amendments. (also that it looks like they intend to reduce restrictions on air guns/pistols of less than 1 joule energy

(i) the insertion in subsection section 4(1) (b) of
"with a muzzle energy greater than 1 joule" after "an air pistol" and the substitution of
"projectiles" for "slugs"

, think it's only the pistols that come at that low an energy though)


*Edit- have checked and some of the pistols in fact are over 1 joule so I'd be fairly sure the rifles are probably all over 1 joule (so hopefully there won't be some twit taking pot shots at traffic on the motorway!)

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

I'm still waiting to see how the ICPSA takes that one Rovi

Well, I reckon the Clay Pigeon should be on the protected list! :rolleyes:

.

Sparks

farohar wrote:

*Edit- have checked and some of the pistols in fact are over 1 joule so I'd be fairly sure the rifles are probably all over 1 joule (so hopefully there won't be some twit taking pot shots at traffic on the motorway!)

Actually, that 1 Joule limit means that airsoft airguns are now legal. And if you think our stuff looks too scary to sell without licencing...

Eru

Rovi wrote:

If you look at Proposals for amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 (.PDF, approx. 0.5MB), you'll see that Head 51 deals specifically with rifle and pistol clubs, and rifle and pistol shooting ranges.
Why would they be legislating for pistol clubs and ranges if they were planning to ban pistols?.

In my post I never stated an outright ban I stated it would be difficult to obtain either and strict conditions will apply. 51 doesn't say it wont be or that you can obtain one with anywhere near the same ease as a shotgun (for example.)

Sparks,
I was not suggesting that we should arm the Gardai I was merely suggesting that this should be considered prior to arming the population for self defence. I agree that the mentality towards firearms has a big impact as there are many countries that are quite safe despite personal issue weapons however I like Irelands view and restrictions and lets be honest, how many idiots would apply and obtain them then abuse them? Im not suggesting yourself or others on this board would do so but drink and guns dont mix and Ireland already has 1 in great quantities. as for CCW's in Ireland, I think you misunderstood. I am suggesting that by not knowing they exist it would cause problems should I encounter someone carrying a concealed weapon. Unless you are suggesting that these people would not be searched by Gardai under any circumstances (such as foreign officials or their companions???).

Farohar,
the legislation is quite clear. crossbows are offensive weapons and to legally own one you require a license. This is in contradiction of your earlier comments concerning specific types. Please stick to 1 point, are you suggestign that your local Gardai allow crossbows without licenses despite the ligislation? If so then I must state I have no interest in buying a bridge.

Rovi

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

In my post I never stated an outright ban I stated it would be difficult to obtain either and strict conditions will apply.

From post #13-

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I would be willing to put money on handguns being banned apart from very express and strict exceptions.

Seeing as how pistol clubs and ranges are being legislated for, it looks like Target Shooting will continue to be a valid and acceptable reason for the possession of handguns.
As far as I can see, there are no proposals to introduce any other 'reasons'.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

51 doesn't say it wont be or that you can obtain one with anywhere near the same ease as a shotgun (for example.)

Which is how it is right now. While getting a shotgun licence is relatively (:rolleyes:) easy, getting a handgun licence is considerably more difficult.

.

Reku

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Farohar,
the legislation is quite clear. crossbows are offensive weapons and to legally own one you require a license. This is in contradiction of your earlier comments concerning specific types. Please stick to 1 point, are you suggestign that your local Gardai allow crossbows without licenses despite the ligislation? If so then I must state I have no interest in buying a bridge.

If you read back over the thread I have NEVER said that crossbows were legal without licence, only that recurves and compounds are. YOU are the one who has been adament that they (recurves and compounds) require a licence, and as I've have repeatedly said; although technically the definition of a firearm includes everything down to a slingshot, they do not make any special reference to recurve bows, compound bows or slingshots, whereas they do refer specifically to air guns and crossbows (among others). Your fellow Gardaí have taken this as a sign that only the items defined as firearms which are specifically refered to in the legislation are items which require a license.
By your post I can only assume you are unaware that recurve bows or compound bows are NOT a type of crossbow, I'll leave you to further educate youself in the vast difference between the types of bows.

And PS Sparks, are you saying that thing would be legal if the 1 Joule amendment goes through?!?!? Scary thought!

Eru

Rovi wrote:

From post #13-Seeing as how pistol clubs and ranges are being legislated for, it looks like Target Shooting will continue to be a valid and acceptable reason for the possession of handguns.
As far as I can see, there are no proposals to introduce any other 'reasons'.

You have proved my own point by posting my own statement, I never stated a complete ban. You are presuming you will be allowed for target shooting, I am presuming you wont. We will have to wait until the actual law comes into practice to see which way it goes so theres no point is arguing over it.

Rovi wrote:

Which is how it is right now. While getting a shotgun licence is relatively (:rolleyes:) easy, getting a handgun licence is considerably more difficult..

And the reason for new legislation is mostly because of the court case on handguns. If the praqctice of refusing licenses was still accepted no new legislation would be looked at.

farohar wrote:

If you read back over the thread I have NEVER said that crossbows were legal without licence, only that recurves and compounds are

:rolleyes: Now I must repeat myself:

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

"4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, "firearm" means—

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;

Rovi

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

You have proved my own point by posting my own statement, I never stated a complete ban.

Hmmmm.... (post #3)-

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Technically you can own handguns and autos, etc however there seems to be much confusion as you could not get a license for these items until the courts decided blanket ban on licenses was illegal.
Now it seems you can have these but the forms, etc are long, tedious and confusing plus new laws are planned to ban them outright.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

You are presuming you will be allowed for target shooting, I am presuming you wont. We will have to wait until the actual law comes into practice to see which way it goes so theres no point is arguing over it.

I wonder what the pistol clubs and ranges mentioned in the proposed legislation are to be used for then, if you're correct?

.

Eru

Rovi wrote:

I wonder what the pistol clubs and ranges mentioned in the proposed legislation are to be used for then, if you're correct?

There is a difference between idle hobby and serious sport. The allowance would be for a limited few too be allowed legally train for such things as olympics, not so I can sign up and then go buy a Glock. Like I said, its a proposed legislation. It will change like so many before it and until its passed into law its all theory and estimates. Then there will be the legal challenges and case laws.

SteveS

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Sparks,
I dont wish to go the road of gun control however I will say that we need not follow German or American examples when it comes to guns.

Could you elaborate on this? As someone that owns a variety of guns and permits, I find the US laws to be very restrictive.

Reku

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

:rolleyes: Now I must repeat myself:

And now I must repeat myself that if it were meant to mean that all such implements falling under that definition were to require a license then that would be every bow, slingshot, nail gun, and I'm sure many other items (including, as I've said already, drinking straws, as people will use these as blowpipes, for which there is a law against the possession, purchase, sale or manufacture of), yet EVERY time someone in the DCU archery club, other college archery clubs and indeed the IAAA, asked a Garda if we'd need licenses they were told that ONLY CROSSBOWS require a license, the other forms of bow do not.

Furthermore, in the proposed amendments they are amending the subsection on airguns; such that if they have an output energy of under one joule they will not require a license, how could they do this if all items falling under the definition of a firearm require a license? Clearly not all firearms require a license, only those for which special provisions are made for in the subsections of the act.

It is like how not all knives are illegal, only those listed in the subsections (gravity knives, flick knives, machetes, etc...), the others are ok, as long as you don't try use them with intent to harm another or their property.

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

There is a difference between idle hobby and serious sport. The allowance would be for a limited few too be allowed legally train for such things as olympics, not so I can sign up and then go buy a Glock.

The problem being, of course, that while you don't use Glocks in ISSF (Olympic) shooting, you do use them in other kinds of target shooting like IPSC shooting (of which there is a growing community in Ireland). And IPSC safety regulations are very strict indeed. It's safe, it's legitimate, and banning it because the sports equipment it uses looks scary and can be abused is not moral, not ethical, not fair, and should not be legal. After all, there are many things used in different activities in modern life today that are equally, or in some cases, more lethal if abused.

Like I said, its a proposed legislation. It will change like so many before it and until its passed into law its all theory and estimates. Then there will be the legal challenges and case laws.

That's the problem - this is legislation that is applying to a very technical area, and it's being drafted without sufficient technical knowlege and then - and again, I mean no offense by this - being applied by people who have received insufficient training in the law. And that means there will be a lot of court cases and legal challanges and that means a lot of wasted money. But worse, from the sporting viewpoint, there's a lot of people put off the sport before they get into it, and that holds us back from the heights we could reach

And despite all this, it will not prevent gun crime. You want to prevent gun crime? Hire more gardai and apply the laws we have. You can't stop criminals with ink on paper. Ink on paper just gives you fake security. You can only stop crime with gardai on the beat.

Eru

SteveS wrote:

Could you elaborate on this? As someone that owns a variety of guns and permits, I find the US laws to be very restrictive.

America also has high gun crime and I dont think allowing people to own multiple weapons or carry them while shopping is a viable option within Ireland.

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

America also has high gun crime and I dont think allowing people to own multiple weapons or carry them while shopping is a viable option within Ireland.

I don't think any sane person is presenting that as a well-considered desired state of affairs, to be fair. The closest you'll see to that would be people who've been the victims of assaults or burglary who're angry and that's very understandable, frankly.

Eru

Sparks wrote:

I don't think any sane person is presenting that as a well-considered desired state of affairs, to be fair. The closest you'll see to that would be people who've been the victims of assaults or burglary who're angry and that's very understandable, frankly.

Understandable yes but in America a lot of states allow people to carry sidearms in their cars or on their person when shopping, etc. You need not be at risk or have been attacked in the past, its your god given right within the American way. Personally I think this is very OTT and not needed.

I am however aware that certain areas within Britain domimic this without high gun crime.

GerryRyan

A nice healthy debate I've started here

Thanx to everyone for the links on amendments and laws, a bit of light reading ahead of me now. Thanks again.

Sparks

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Understandable yes but in America a lot of states allow people to carry sidearms in their cars or on their person when shopping, etc. You need not be at risk or have been attacked in the past, its your god given right within the American way. Personally I think this is very OTT and not needed.

It would strike me as being very over the top as well; but it's not necessarily as dangerous as it sounds. The US system is flawed in that no training is required to do this (for the most part - this isn't the case in many states); and that their society has a very loose attitude towards firearms. In neighbouring Canada, similar civil liberties exist, but with more training required, and their gun crime level is dramatically lower. Similarly in other nations like Switzerland. Again, it's not the law that makes the difference, but the ethos shown by those who use firearms.

That said, I don't think such a system would work in Ireland, not yet. We're still trying to get rid of drink driving, for heaven's sake! No, our gun laws are more or less good enough as is (there are parts that could stand optimisation - for example, in the UK the shooter is licenced, not the firearm. So were I to live there I would have one licence with three entries, not the three licences I have here. This means more money from me; but far more money cost to the state in Garda time and paperwork, for no net benefit Also, the 1 joule limit is needed to get rid of the ridiculous state of affairs where a BB gun bought in a toy store is treated in the same way as a .44 calibre handgun.

What's needed, and badly, is to tidy up the firearms laws; to better resource and train those Gardai that work with licenced firearms holders so that we see less of the "made up as you go along" behaviour that we've seen in some cases (not the majority, I'll point out - but there's so much time, effort and public money lost in dealing with the legal challanges over the few who get it wrong that it's daft that we don't see more training for this specialised role); and to much better resource and train those gardai dealing with gun crime.

Victor

Sparks wrote:

Also, the 1 joule limit is needed to get rid of the ridiculous state of affairs where a BB gun bought in a toy store is treated in the same way as a .44 calibre handgun.

[off topic] Well, should toy shops be selling "guns"?

Sparks

That's a question in the same vein as "should little boys be allowed to make bows and arrows from sticks" Victor. It's a moot point - they just do.
(And those childhood archery experiments are far more dangerous than the BB guns I'm thinking of, which have a muzzle energy of less than one joule, which means they would be unable to break skin, let alone injure badly).

Victor

Tell that to Manic's first shooting victim.

SteveS

Sparks wrote:

It would strike me as being very over the top as well; but it's not necessarily as dangerous as it sounds. The US system is flawed in that no training is required to do this (for the most part - this isn't the case in many states); and that their society has a very loose attitude towards firearms. In neighbouring Canada, similar civil liberties exist, but with more training required, and their gun crime level is dramatically lower. Similarly in other nations like Switzerland. Again, it's not the law that makes the difference, but the ethos shown by those who use firearms.

In regards to your last sentence, you are absolutely correct. As for training, I would agree that people should get trained before they carry a firearm (or even own one) and they should continue to get training throughout their life. I am a part-time instructor, so I am a bit biased in that regard. As for requireing training, most states do, but a few don't. Alaska and Vermont have no prohibition on carry, so anyone can carry, no permit required.

A few studies seem to indicate that training requirements have no effect on accidents or how likely one is to commit a crime. If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of people that carry are responsible individuals that get their own training. Michigan, where I live, has some 300,000 permit holders. The last survey showed that less the .01% of the permit holders were charged with a crime and the rate of criminal misuse of a firearm was substantially less than that of the police.

Despite what the media portrays, gun violence is not as common as many would think and occurs mostly in big cities. I grew up in a town of about 12,000 and the last murder committed with occured in 1963.

Eru

SteveS wrote:

the rate of criminal misuse of a firearm was substantially less than that of the police.

Can you supply documented evidence to support tyhis claim as well as any estimates concerning the police to civilian gun use in combating armed criminals? Please dont use completely biased figures to cpmpare to items that are completely different.

Reku

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Can you supply documented evidence to support tyhis claim as well as any estimates concerning the police to civilian gun use in combating armed criminals? Please dont use completely biased figures to cpmpare to items that are completely different.

Rodney King? Or for an Irish example the may-day parade. Policemen are just as fallable as everyone else. Take into account that all the police over there are all issued with guns while not every ciriminal necessarily has a gun and I can well believe that claim. Give the statistics for the police vs. criminals who own guns and I imagine it would be about even.

Sparks

Police are falliable farohar, but that doesn't mean that armed police engage in criminal acts as often as armed criminals!

Eru

I asked:

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Can you supply documented evidence to support tyhis claim as well as any estimates concerning the police to civilian gun use in combating armed criminals? Please dont use completely biased figures to cpmpare to items that are completely different.

in respnse to a comment that the police use firearms illegally more than civilians and Farohar responds:

farohar wrote:

Rodney King? Or for an Irish example the may-day parade. Policemen are just as fallable as everyone else. Take into account that all the police over there are all issued with guns while not every ciriminal necessarily has a gun and I can well believe that claim. Give the statistics for the police vs. criminals who own guns and I imagine it would be about even.

Hmmm, wheres the firearm Farohar? where in either case? In fact, how many were found guilty of a crime at all??????????? Walk a mile in the shoes then comment.

Stating the police commit more crimes than civilians is absurd, 12000 Gardai, 5 million civilians, if that stat was true there would be no Gardai to arrest anyone. In fact so is the comment that theres stats concerning illegally held firearms at all. Please provide statistics for how many criminals own illegal guns, I would love to know how that was compiled.

hullaballoo

Albeit that I'm all for free speech, farohar, I'm concerned that your views on the armed forces may be out of step with what is a tolerable level in a discussion forum. If you wish to make claims that reflect poorly on members of the community, please ensure that your evidence is sufficient to suport such a claim. Otherwise, keep your opinion to a slightly lower key please.

SteveS

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Can you supply documented evidence to support tyhis claim as well as any estimates concerning the police to civilian gun use in combating armed criminals? Please dont use completely biased figures to cpmpare to items that are completely different.

If you are really interested, I can dig up the statistics. It might take a few days. I am not suggesting that police are dangerous, or that they should not be armed. I was just pointing out that, as a group, people that obtain concealed carry permits are a very safe group.

I don't want to bash police, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that some of them are very unsafe when it comes to handling firearms. There was an incident in which a police trainer was "goofing off" in a locker room. He told one of his trainees to "shoot him" and handed her what he thought was an unloaded revolver. It was loaded and he was shot in the arm by the trainee. Another local cop left his gun on the back of a toilet in a school restroom, where it was eventually found by a student at that school. Fortunately, they didn't touch it and no one was hurt. These incidents are rare, but they do happen.

As for comparing police vs. non-police use of firearms, I am not sure what kind of comparison you are looking for. I am not aware of any database that tracks justifiable shootings. I know that Gary Kleck has done some research.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Reku

I seem to have read:

the rate of criminal misuse of a firearm was substantially less than that of the police

rather differently than everyone else; in that to me it says that criminals misuse firearms less than the police forces do, in other words I read what it actually says. As such I pointed out examples of police acting poorly and that they are just as fallable as the rest of us, those examples proving such. Then from the fact that in the US police are issued guns as standard, whereas criminals are not, of course they are going to have higher rates of gun misuse when they have higher rates of gun ownership. Then I said if the statistics were restricted to criminals who owned a gun I'm sure they would've been as bad as the police.

NOW HOW THE HECK IS THAT A POLICEMAN BASHING POST?!?!?!?

... think I'll stick to the forums where people actually read posts before replying as the amount of times I'm having to repeat & restate myself here is getting ridiculous.

hullaballoo

Right, see ya!

Eru

SteveS wrote:

The last survey showed that less the .01% of the permit holders were charged with a crime and the rate of criminal misuse of a firearm was substantially less than that of the police.

Back this claim up with the statistics you claim exist.

Then compare the amount of times a police officer uses his gun to defend hiumself, other people and property to the amount of times a civilian does so. Put simple, police officers look for crime and actively try to get too crimes in progress and stop them. How many civilians do this?

Now compare the amount of gun crime commited by civilians to the amount of gun crime commited by police. Remember all non police and army personell are civilians regardless of previous convictions.

If the comparison does not support your comment please remove it.

SteveS

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Back this claim up with the statistics you claim exist.

Then compare the amount of times a police officer uses his gun to defend hiumself, other people and property to the amount of times a civilian does so. Put simple, police officers look for crime and actively try to get too crimes in progress and stop them. How many civilians do this?

Now compare the amount of gun crime commited by civilians to the amount of gun crime commited by police. Remember all non police and army personell are civilians regardless of previous convictions.

If the comparison does not support your comment please remove it.

I was trying to compare the percentage of police that were involved in unjustified shootings with the percentage of concealed carry permit holders that were found guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc.

Did you read the link I provided in regards to non-police using guns for defensive purposes?

Again, I was not trying to be critical of police, but rather show that concealed carry permit holders, as a group, were safe. If you want to discuss the police, I suggest that you start another thread, as this one has gone far enough off topic. BTW, police are civilians in the US.