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 :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


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

Pistol Refusal by High Court Judge ?

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,394 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    BornToKill wrote: »
    Stricter controls on the types of handguns and who gets them could possibly prevent the same happening here. Look around the world: severe legislative action on guns happens after a spree shooting incident. Is it such a bad thing that the licensing system takes preventative action? Should people be licensed even when the Guards oppose the application? Whose fault would it be if one of those applicants was unstable but ends up with a gun anyway? What would happen with firearms in this country then?

    I hate discussing this in public as it highlights how weak our position is.

    Why focus only on pistols though? Are rifles and shotguns any safer in the hands of a muppet. Will focusing on what 5% of legally held firearms prevent any significant level of crime?

    Everyone here is in favour of serious but fair legislation. No one wants a Dunblane, the obvious tragedy of it aside, the effect it would have on shooting sports would be devastating.

    The current set up is sh1t, one Super doing this, another down the road doing that. So a set of tough but fair rules for everyone. Even though going to court is a bad idea (as we are now seeing) it was because Supers were not fairly applying the legislation.

    It should not be easy to get a firearm legally but it should be possible and the difficulty should match the actual threat.
    If legally held firearm crime skyrockets well then the rules will have to be strict but it is currently practically nil so it gains the government nothing in crime prevention, bar of course PR.
    Look at the UK, banning pistols has not lowered firearm crime.

    Its depressing but we are a soft target for any PR exercise versus firearms in the country.


  • Options
    #153
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    It's been years since I stopped counting the number of times it's been said - we need to have a continous and professional PR campaign to promote shooting, with PROs in all the clubs and all the associations, instead of this attitude that a PRO is a luxury role and "shure can't whichever one of us is free stick a bit in the 'oul paper every so often?".

    And now we're seeing the reason why - from a place we should never have left ourselves land in in the first place. And I'm predicting that if it hasn't happened already, it won't be too long until the "old men of shooting" start pontificating on ranges and in pubs after matches as to how boards.ie has brought about all the problems the sport now faces and how it would all have been grand if it hadn't been for this little place. :mad:


  • Options
    #154
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,951 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    . And I'm predicting that if it hasn't happened already, it won't be too long until the "old men of shooting" start pontificating on ranges and in pubs after matches as to how boards.ie has brought about all the problems the sport now faces and how it would all have been grand if it hadn't been for this little place. :mad:

    If that is the case then the words should be "yesterdays men".

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Options
    #155
    BornToKill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    Vegeta wrote: »
    I hate discussing this in public as it highlights how weak our position is.

    Why focus only on pistols though? Are rifles and shotguns any safer in the hands of a muppet. Will focusing on what 5% of legally held firearms prevent any significant level of crime?

    Everyone here is in favour of serious but fair legislation. No one wants a Dunblane, the obvious tragedy of it aside, the effect it would have on shooting sports would be devastating.



    The current set up is sh1t, one Super doing this, another down the road doing that. So a set of tough but fair rules for everyone. Even though going to court is a bad idea (as we are now seeing) it was because Supers were not fairly applying the legislation.

    It should not be easy to get a firearm legally but it should be possible and the difficulty should match the actual threat.
    If legally held firearm crime skyrockets well then the rules will have to be strict but it is currently practically nil so it gains the government nothing in crime prevention, bar of course PR.
    Look at the UK, banning pistols has not lowered firearm crime.

    Its depressing but we are a soft target for any PR exercise versus firearms in the country.

    +1
    You're spot on Vegeta. It shouldn't matter about the type of firearm but, apparently, it does. Maybe because most of the actions taken have been on behalf of people looking for pistols and that has raised the profile. There's also the fact that shotguns and, to a lesser degree rifles, are familiar in that they've been around for years. The 'proliferation' of handguns - up from zero to about 1,700 in four years - attracts attention.

    Loads of people complain about the licensing system. Bear in mind that the present system is the unintended consequence of Dunne v. Donoghue and the Supreme Court declaring the Superintendent persona designata. That was hardly an unqualified victory.

    The public discussion is not on legally held firearms being regularly used in crime. It is the fear that someday one or more of those guns will be used in a specific crime.


Advertisement