Gun laws and individual freedom in Ireland

Dankoozy

after seeing how tedious the process of renewing a gun license is over here since the new regulations were brought in it got me thinking. are we near the end of privately held firearms in ireland?

80e for a 3 year license now, it used to be 6 per year. the whole process is much more strict bureaucratic than before. what is the motivation behind this? an impending collapse of society or power grab for a supposedly utopian future where people are not 'allowed' to do very much at all or is there a legitimate attempt here to reduce gun crime which is actually extremely rare outside Limerick and now Dublin.

I can just imagine some bureaucrat envisioning some future where we are all transported in driverless pods on an autonomous network, copious amounts of 'media' streamed to our phones and a pipeline postal system so we need never leave our high-rise apartments if we don't want to. of course in such a society old ideals such as a country home and owning a gun would be considered backwards and barbaric.

there seems to be a growing school of thought that mere humans should not be allowed to drive around in "one tonne pieces of metal", wire/plumb their own house, repair their own equipment, shoot a gun, or basically do anything they have not had extensive training for. even some people now consider people living alone in large houses to be a problem and propose a 1-2% of value annual property tax. I don't know what the motivation behind this is, perhaps they are 'green' extremists or just hate individual freedom.

the only thing i can come up with is that it it's a result of increasing population - less people means more individual freedom in a lot of ways but in a few years the population is expected to decrease, will this lead to a relaxing of laws and the government in general becoming less pervasive?

diverdriver

The immediate motivation or excuse for toughening up gun laws was the high gun crime rate here. Of course none of this was anything to do with legal gun owners but the Minister stated he wanted to prevent a 'growing gun culture'. Which exists only in his fevered imagination conjured up by all the US gun massacres none of which are remotely relevant to the Irish situation. Also I do believe that no small part was played by the Garda Commissioner who seemed to mount a personal campaign against gun ownership aided by hysterical media reports. The RTE crime correspondant is a classic for uninformed comment and editorialising stories. This I believe is in no small part due to the fact that the Gardai are unarmed and unfamiliar with those scary firesticks. The irony of it is this, tightening gun laws makes no difference to gun crime because of course criminals don't bother buying legal guns. As a Tallaghy head, said to me recently. 'Guns have never been easier to get'

Of course most people weren't bothered by the new restrictions. They'll pop up here and wonder why anyone would want to own a gun and probably imagine the drug dealers get their guns by stealing them off ordinary citizens.

I do think that it is part of a gradual erosion of the freedoms we took for granted. Most of it's nearly invisible. Little things here and there or something like the gun issue which only affects a certain minority. Except that one day you will be the minority affected. Green taxes are one example. They are essentially an attempt to restrict your use of cars or whatever by making it expensive for you. There is a green agenda and it doesn't involve leaving things as they are.

I wouldn't call it a grand conspiracy because it isn't. It's just an unwitting slide into less freedom and more restriction in our lives. The Americans are very aware of that kind of thing but we Irish are not.

Years ago, my Father told me sternly when I asserted I had the 'right' to do something that: 'The only rights you have are those that other people allow you to have'. It's very true and often we don't see it that way. Losing a bit of freedom is easy, getting it back is very hard.

Victor

Dankoozy wrote: »

after seeing how tedious the process of renewing a gun license is over here since the new regulations were brought in it got me thinking. are we near the end of privately held firearms in ireland?

I doubt it, AFAIK gun ownership is increaseing slightly.

80e for a 3 year license now, it used to be 6 per year.

I imagine the €6 didn't cover the administration costs involved.

the whole process is much more strict bureaucratic than before.

There is a actually a decent regime put in place, as opposed to the whims and prejudices that went before.

what is the motivation behind this?

Putting in place a proper regulatory regime.

an impending collapse of society or power grab for a supposedly utopian future where people are not 'allowed' to do very much at all or is there a legitimate attempt here to reduce gun crime which is actually extremely rare outside Limerick and now Dublin.

Hyperbole much?

I can just imagine some bureaucrat envisioning some future where we are all transported in driverless pods on an autonomous network, copious amounts of 'media' streamed to our phones and a pipeline postal system so we need never leave our high-rise apartments if we don't want to. of course in such a society old ideals such as a country home and owning a gun would be considered backwards and barbaric.

Wahooo! I thnk you've just gone off your own topic.

there seems to be a growing school of thought that mere humans should not be allowed to drive around in "one tonne pieces of metal", wire/plumb their own house, repair their own equipment, shoot a gun, or basically do anything they have not had extensive training for.

I don't think thats unreasonable, in particular as things things can impact on others. Most people killed on the roads are no drivers. More than have-a-go handymen have their house burn down. There is many a yahoo who doesn't know how to use a gun properly (but on balance, I suspect I'd trust more gun club members with their equipment than car club members).

even some people now consider people living alone in large houses to be a problem and propose a 1-2% of value annual property tax. I don't know what the motivation behind this is, perhaps they are 'green' extremists or just hate individual freedom.

With freedom comes responsibilities. If you want to live down a boreen, why should my taxes and charges pay for your postal / telephone services, school bus, road repairs, etc.

the only thing i can come up with is that it it's a result of increasing population - less people means more individual freedom in a lot of ways but in a few years the population is expected to decrease, will this lead to a relaxing of laws and the government in general becoming less pervasive?

Based on this last paragraph, I'm not sure if you understand how life, communities and government work. Sure, if you are the only one living on an island, you can play your music as loud as you like, but don't expect to do the same in a populated area and not have complaints.

Sparks

Dankoozy wrote: »

are we near the end of privately held firearms in ireland?

Fast answer, no. They're too necessary for some applications like farming and hunting and target shooting.

80e for a 3 year license now, it used to be 6 per year.

No, it was 6 euro per year for your second and subsequent shotguns. The first shotgun cost (I think) 24 euro and every other firearm was 39 euro, so the 80 euro per three years is a cost reduction for most kinds of firearms.

what is the motivation behind this?

Dermot Ahern's political career. And Michael McDowell's political career before that.
That's basicly all, there's never been any threat to the state or the public from licenced firearms.
As to the notion that all this reduces gun crime... well, when was the last time you heard of a drug pusher looking for a licence for a gun in order to shoot his "business rivals"?

...or basically do anything they have not had extensive training for.

I don't know about 'extensive' training, but I know of nobody who'd think that letting someone with no training go off on their own and learn to shoot the hard way would be a good idea. We've been training folks to shoot since the founding of the state, you don't just hand them a rifle and say "off you go now".
(Not if you've got your head on straight anyway).


Look, whatever about property tax, the gun legislation stuff isn't anything to do with any high principles of political theory. It's down to the individual political careers of two consecutive Ministers for Justice who wanted to be seen to be doing something about gun crime. The fact that licenced firearms have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gun crime never made the papers because listening to muppets like Olivia Mitchell and John Deasy prattle on about how we have to ban all guns makes for a more tabloid newspaper story. And the fact that gun crime is unaffected completely by the new legislation won't make the papers because the Minister's PR department will be too busy pointing out how much safer we are now that all the law-abiding shooters are filling out 7 pages of a form per firearm rather than one or two pages.

Dannyboy83

Some members of society are guilty until proven innocent:
Gun owners, smokers, steroid users, bouncers, martial artists etc.
All easy targets.

I notice an increasing trend that Fat people are now included in the above category. One of these days, meat eaters & car drivers will be in there too.

You can say or do what you like to them, and its easily justifiable and guaranteed to score points.

Ironically, that perception isn't shared about alcohol and public drunkenness on this island.:rolleyes:

gizmo555

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Some members of society are guilty until proven innocent:
Gun owners, smokers, steroid users, bouncers, martial artists etc.
All easy targets.

I notice an increasing trend that Fat people are now included in the above category. One of these days, meat eaters & car drivers will be in there too.

A modest proposal. Let the meat eating gun owners shoot and eat the fat people. Two carbon footprints reduced for the price of one!

MysticalRain

I think the solution here is that gun owners will have to get organized and form their own lobby group, like the NRA in America (seriously). Have you thought about contacting your local TD and raising the issue with him/her?

Dankoozy

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think the solution here is that gun owners will have to get organized and form their own lobby group, like the NRA in America (seriously). Have you thought about contacting your local TD and raising the issue with him/her?

yeah.. i disagree with the concept of lobby groups but they seem to be a necessary evil with this political structure. the only way to stand up for yourself really, before all legally owned guns are repossessed and publicly destroyed with an angle grinder in the hope of getting a few votes from the "think of the children" crowd

Sparks

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think the solution here is that gun owners will have to get organized and form their own lobby group, like the NRA in America (seriously).

That topic (let's have one united group!) has popped up every three weeks over the last five years since the shooting forum started.
For a variety of reasons, some good, some personal, some out-and-out daft, it wouldn't ever work. At least not in Ireland.

Not to mention, Irish politics doesn't work like that. It's tit-for-brown-envelope, basicly. Lobbying, except where it's defined to mean "handing over a stuffed brown envelope containing either money or incriminating photographs or documents", doesn't really work so well over here...

starbelgrade

Driverless pods on an autonomous network, 'media' streamed to our phones, a pipeline postal system and 'green' extremists that hate individual freedom.

What the f*ck?!?! I don't understand the gun ownership thing & without throwing in the conspiracy theory / Big Brother stuff can I ask why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

Overheal

starbelgrade wrote: »

can I ask why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

I can think of 170 million apparently,

Civilians killed by governments in the 20th century, excluding war.
Soviet Union 62million 1917-1991
China (Communist) 35million 1949-Present
Germany 21million 1933-45
China (Kuomintang) 10million 1928-49
Japan 6million 1936-45


Total deaths directly caused by governments Excluding War 170million

Deaths in War Millions International deaths 30million Civil War deaths 7million

Total deaths in War 37million[/table]

http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/gov/govdeaths.htm

That figure is from 1999 of course. 21st century figures are still being counted!

You can always google your question to discover other reasons. My favorites, personally, being self defense and defense from the State.

starbelgrade

Overheal wrote: »

I can think of 170 million apparently,

Civilians killed by governments in the 20th century, excluding war.
Soviet Union 62million 1917-1991
China (Communist) 35million 1949-Present
Germany 21million 1933-45
China (Kuomintang) 10million 1928-49
Japan 6million 1936-45


Total deaths directly caused by governments Excluding War 170million

Deaths in War Millions International deaths 30million Civil War deaths 7million

Total deaths in War 37million[/table]

http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/gov/govdeaths.htm

That figure is from 1999 of course. 21st century figures are still being counted!

You can always google your question to discover other reasons. My favorites, personally, being self defense and defense from the State.

I bet you'll be shot down for saying that.

Overheal

starbelgrade wrote: »

I bet you'll be shot down for saying that.

They can try: I shoot back.

meglome

Overheal wrote: »

I can think of 170 million apparently,

Civilians killed by governments in the 20th century, excluding war.
Soviet Union 62million 1917-1991
China (Communist) 35million 1949-Present
Germany 21million 1933-45
China (Kuomintang) 10million 1928-49
Japan 6million 1936-45


Total deaths directly caused by governments Excluding War 170million

Deaths in War Millions International deaths 30million Civil War deaths 7million

Total deaths in War 37million[/table]

http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/gov/govdeaths.htm

That figure is from 1999 of course. 21st century figures are still being counted!

You can always google your question to discover other reasons. My favorites, personally, being self defense and defense from the State.

Do you think if the state turns on you that having one gun or twenty is going to save you?

The US must be the safest country in the world.

starbelgrade

Overheal wrote: »

They can try: I shoot back.

Well, that's a loaded reply if ever I heard one. NB: Every argument henceforth shall be gunned down.

evercloserunion

It's late so forgive me for not being more articulate about this. But we live in a country full of scumbags and thugs, I would not trust the knackers roaming the streets of just about every town in Ireland with guns, would you?

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Fast answer, no. They're too necessary for some applications like farming and hunting and target shooting.
No, it was 6 euro per year for your second and subsequent shotguns. The first shotgun cost (I think) 24 euro and every other firearm was 39 euro, so the 80 euro per three years is a cost reduction for most kinds of firearms.

Dermot Ahern's political career. And Michael McDowell's political career before that.
That's basicly all, there's never been any threat to the state or the public from licenced firearms.
As to the notion that all this reduces gun crime... well, when was the last time you heard of a drug pusher looking for a licence for a gun in order to shoot his "business rivals"?

I don't know about 'extensive' training, but I know of nobody who'd think that letting someone with no training go off on their own and learn to shoot the hard way would be a good idea. We've been training folks to shoot since the founding of the state, you don't just hand them a rifle and say "off you go now".
(Not if you've got your head on straight anyway).


Look, whatever about property tax, the gun legislation stuff isn't anything to do with any high principles of political theory. It's down to the individual political careers of two consecutive Ministers for Justice who wanted to be seen to be doing something about gun crime. The fact that licenced firearms have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gun crime never made the papers because listening to muppets like Olivia Mitchell and John Deasy prattle on about how we have to ban all guns makes for a more tabloid newspaper story. And the fact that gun crime is unaffected completely by the new legislation won't make the papers because the Minister's PR department will be too busy pointing out how much safer we are now that all the law-abiding shooters are filling out 7 pages of a form per firearm rather than one or two pages.

Um, how is a cost reduction for most firearms in licence fees a genuine attack on gun holders by politicians? I agree loads of political noise has been made needlessly about legally held firearms but relatively little beyond hot air has resulted considering the furore in the media etc.

nesf

Giving a private citizen a licence to possess a firearm should be a very solemn matter. Seriously, I can't think of any good reason to allow someone who doesn't have a clean criminal record and doesn't have proper secure place to store firearms anywhere near a licence (and that isn't an exhaustive list).

A strict regulatory system inevitably benefits genuine gun owners since it limits the amount of "legally held gun used to kill 4 teenagers" type crap from happening and thus less media crap and thus less political action against them.

Gangland weapon seizures have publicly been consisting to a large extent of weapons that are impossible to legally own here so I don't think anyone with any sense thinks there's a strong link between organised crime and genuine gun owners. Sure some weapons might be stolen rarely but it's generally simpler and cheaper to just smuggle in weapons from all appearances.


Legally held firearms inevitably end up in the news in unfortunate accident cases where a kid got near a loaded weapon or some loan nut does something who happens to have access to a gun (which seriously is a minority of the loan nuts out there thankfully). The former is why proper gun safes are as much for the sake of the people in the home rather than to prevent theft.

Sparks

starbelgrade wrote: »

why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

In my specific case, olympic target shooting. It's hard to do that without a firearm. And we happen to have a chest full of gold, silver and bronze team and individual medals in olympic shotgun from world cups and world championships over the last few years and several Irish shooters are in the top thirty shooters in the world. And that's true in other, nonolympic shooting disciplines as well (it's an Irish shooter who's ranked fourth in the world in PPC1500, a pistol shooting discipline, for example).

In other cases, hunting (for the pot), hunting (to control vermin numbers, which is so other food animals thrive so everyone else can eat), humane dispatch (this is usually vets), starting athletic races (blank firing pistols are still firearms under Irish law), and so forth.

It's got nothing to do with some daft notion of resisting an oppressive government (you tend to lose that kind of fight if you've got an air pistol and they've got an army with assault rifles, air cover and armour support).

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Um, how is a cost reduction for most firearms in licence fees a genuine attack on gun holders by politicians? I agree loads of political noise has been made needlessly about legally held firearms but relatively little beyond hot air has resulted considering the furore in the media etc.

There are two broad categories for all the little attacks that came in with that cost reduction. Firstly, there's the changes that made it impossible to get a licence - you can no longer get a licence for fullbore pistols (thereby wiping out several sports including an old olympic one) unless you had your licence before Nov.18 last year; and there appears to have been a de facto blanket ban on those centerfire pistols brought in on the quiet, which is very naughty as the Supreme Court was very insistent in Dunne-v-Donohue that the Gardai and Minister had no right to impose a blanket ban as that was undermining the authority of the Dail (because a blanket ban is effectively an addition to the Firearms Act, which only the Dail should be doing).

The second broad category is the ways it's been made more difficult to licence firearms (in ways that make little sense to those of us who have held licences for years). We all had to give character refererences this year, for example, and were not allowed to cite the Garda Superintendents who have signed off on us as safe for the past decade or more. Which in some cases meant that people who're fairly concerned with personal security had to divulge their hobbies to people who didn't know. And we had to give up our medical confidentiality privilege - to get a licence you must now disclose your full medical history to the Gardai which you never had to before. Clubs and Ranges are now being authorised by a new Firearms Range Inspector, at a cost of a grand a go for the licence plus tens of thousands in construction costs to meet a fairly arbitary standard of construction (I mean, if there's a dangerous design, that's one thing, but we're talking here about ranges that have been active without incident for fifty years). There were other concerns; see the last six months of the shooting forum for full details!

And that's leaving aside all the things said about us in the media. When a TD or a government minister hides behind Dail privilege to say that all 200,000 licenced firearms owners are basicly looking for an opportunity to walk into a school and start shooting children, how is that anything but a cowardly attack on our good names?

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

And we had to give up our medical confidentiality privilege - to get a licence you must now disclose your full medical history to the Gardai which you never had to before.

Some of your list I can see the problem with but the above just seems like simple common sense to me. No one should be left near a gun licence if they've suffered from mental illness without a psychiatrist signing off on it that this person isn't a danger to themselves or others and doesn't have a history of such, speaking as someone with bipolar who would like to (but am not planning on) do target shooting.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Giving a private citizen a licence to possess a firearm should be a very solemn matter. Seriously, I can't think of any good reason to allow someone who doesn't have a clean criminal record and doesn't have proper secure place to store firearms anywhere near a licence (and that isn't an exhaustive list).

Nesf, it's been a far more demanding process than that since 1925. The recent changes in 2004 don't add anything and are there as cosmetic changes only.
Hell, it's not even physically possible to strictly adhere to our firearms acts because we've had so many of them, all amending each other, that I've not yet met a single person who can hold it all in their heads at once what the law actually is. Even the new forms are impossible in places - I couldn't give you the name of my GP, for example, because I don't have one. I've seen six in the last five years, never for more than one visit each. In the end I gave the most recent name, but technically, that's giving misleading information and I could be done for it. Not to mention that fundamentally, the intent of that part (to get a medical record) is thwarted by the lack of existance of such a record in the first place.

Noone is arguing there shouldn't be controls, nor that those controls shouldn't be strict - but sensible would be a good goal as well as far as we're concerned.

A strict regulatory system inevitably benefits genuine gun owners since it limits the amount of "legally held gun used to kill 4 teenagers" type crap from happening and thus less media crap and thus less political action against them.

It's a nice thought, but utterly wrong. We had TDs and Ministers chasing votes by stamping on us publicly in the last year or two. Simply put, we're a soft target. We can't fail to comply with the law, which means two things - (a) we're not a threat, and (b) it's easy to take stuff from us if you're the Minister. So if your options to tackle gun crime are to (a) spend lots of money on the Gardai so they can take on drug gangs successfully through things like Operation Anvil; or (b) demonise a bunch of people who can't defend themselves then confiscate their firearms and call it a victory via your PR department; well, three guesses which way the current Minister jumped?

Gangland weapon seizures have publicly been consisting to a large extent of weapons that are impossible to legally own here so I don't think anyone with any sense thinks there's a strong link between organised crime and genuine gun owners.

Didn't stop the accusations and the banning of centerfire pistols and the large demands then placed on people for beefing up ranges and everything else.

The former is why proper gun safes are as much for the sake of the people in the home rather than to prevent theft.

A shame the new laws say you don't need a gun safe if you only have a single shotgun, isn't it? I mean, what harm could you do with a 12-gauge loaded with buckshot, right?
Now an air pistol, that's dangerous, that you'd need to have a gunsafe for (and there was talk of requiring an alarm for the safe as well for a while there).
:rolleyes:

Look, I understand the thought nesf, but you're missing out on a technical point that most people don't get until they look at the law with a mind to how its implemented in reality, and that's this: the law doesn't make practical sense.

Example; a sound moderator (known far and wide as a silencer thanks to hollywood even though it doesn't actually silence anything) is classified as a firearm in and of itself. In Ireland, they're used by hunters to prevent hearing damage (shooting in the countryside with your ears covered by ear defenders isn't safe for anyone nearby because you can't hear them), to prevent spooking farm animals while controlling vermin, and by target shooters to be polite to the twenty other people on the range who don't want to lose their hearing when you shoot. But they're treated like they were made from uranium. It makes no practical sense at all, but it sounded good in the Dail, so we're stuck with it. And the Dail doesn't make sense most of the time - reading back over the debates on all the firearms acts, we see huge numbers of examples of people talking through their hat about the technicalities of firearms ownership in Ireland, and there's little to no fact checking going on. Hell, they nearly banned .22 rifles in the 1960s because a senator thought that The Day of the Jackal was a documentary. And while the Firearms Consultation Panel might have fixed this tendency, the current Minister made his proclamations on what the law was to be changed to before he ever met with the FCP.

Firearms legislation is technical stuff - it needs technical expertise to correctly draft sensible legislation. And we don't have that in the Dail, nor people willing to listen to experts and put their advice above political expediency. Until that changes, firearms law will never be about public safety and will always be about keeping a Ministerial backside on a Merc seat.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Some of your list I can see the problem with but the above just seems like simple common sense to me. No one should be left near a gun licence if they've suffered from mental illness without a psychiatrist signing off on it that this person isn't a danger to themselves or others and doesn't have a history of such, speaking as someone with bipolar who would like to (but am not planning on) do target shooting.

That's a great idea, but the mental health professionals disagree with you because:
(1) it takes months to sign off on someone as having a clean mental health bill, and that's months of supervised care;
(2) psychotic breaks cannot be predicted in advance.

I mean, look at Fort Hood. The shooter there was a psychiatrist himself for crying out loud.

On top of which, you've been barred from even applying for a licence and the gardai forbidden to give one to you if you're mentally unstable, since 1925 (technically for longer, but that was under British law). If that law didn't work (and some argue it didn't), then what makes you think this one will?

Especially when no GP in Ireland is qualified to testify to mental health, nor will any do so because of the liability issues?

Hell, even the form we sign to grant access to medical records won't be accepted by some GPs as sufficient to grant that access - so it's useless before you even get going!

Rovi

Sparks wrote: »

Hell, even the form we sign to grant access to medical records won't be accepted by some GPs as sufficient to grant that access - so it's useless before you even get going!

The shooting GPs (some them pistol shooters) that I've spoken to say that under no circumstances will they or any other medical practitioner they know of accept the clause on the application form as any sort of 'permission' to disclose medical information.

MikeC101

Sparks wrote: »

In other cases, hunting (for the pot), hunting (to control vermin numbers, which is so other food animals thrive so everyone else can eat), humane dispatch (this is usually vets), starting athletic races (blank firing pistols are still firearms under Irish law), and so forth.

It's got nothing to do with some daft notion of resisting an oppressive government (you tend to lose that kind of fight if you've got an air pistol and they've got an army with assault rifles, air cover and armour support).

This is pretty much my opinion on the matter. Nothing to do with the notion of resisting the state (which I don't think many gun owners in Ireland feel necessary, and emphasising this only makes us look like nutcases to most people), everything to do with the practicalities of living in the countryside.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

That's a great idea, but the mental health professionals disagree with you because:
(1) it takes months to sign off on someone as having a clean mental health bill, and that's months of supervised care;
(2) psychotic breaks cannot be predicted in advance.

I mean, look at Fort Hood. The shooter there was a psychiatrist himself for crying out loud.

On top of which, you've been barred from even applying for a licence and the gardai forbidden to give one to you if you're mentally unstable, since 1925 (technically for longer, but that was under British law). If that law didn't work (and some argue it didn't), then what makes you think this one will?

Especially when no GP in Ireland is qualified to testify to mental health, nor will any do so because of the liability issues?

Hell, even the form we sign to grant access to medical records won't be accepted by some GPs as sufficient to grant that access - so it's useless before you even get going!

Which is why I chose my wording very very carefully. Currently or previously, not potentially.

Edit: It's not that it would work, or that it would stop all instances, approaching regulation in that manner is pointless, it's that it could prevent some people from getting firearms who might get them under a system where their health records weren't available.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Firearms legislation is technical stuff - it needs technical expertise to correctly draft sensible legislation. And we don't have that in the Dail, nor people willing to listen to experts and put their advice above political expediency. Until that changes, firearms law will never be about public safety and will always be about keeping a Ministerial backside on a Merc seat.

Indeed, such is the problem of representative Government I'm afraid.

donaghs

Unfortunately, I'm starting to think that private gun ownership is gradually becoming becoming thought of as a necessary evil in many peoples minds.

Guns are more widespread in crime, but almost never involving legally held guns. The best advice for dealing with dangerous criminals, even privately from Gardai, is to look the other way. If our justice system can secure a conviction, the sentences are risible, then undermined by early release, and the fact that criminals can continue running their affairs from inside a prison. Many people will take the lesson from the murder of Roy Collins that it is pointless trying to challenge criminals and the law cannot protect you, and if you do end up in a confrontation, you have to settle it permanently & privately so you don't spend your life looking over your shoulder.

Sparks

donaghs wrote: »

Guns are more widespread in crime, but almost never involving legally held guns.

Not almost. Never. We've repeatedly asked the Minister and the Commissioner in the Dail and in public meetings and always gotten the same answer - there is no recorded case of a stolen but originally legally owned firearm being used in a crime.
(We've then been told "well, we can't prove it but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen". Well, I can't prove there are no china teapots in orbit around pluto, but I can be reasonably sure the best option pending proof is to assume there aren't...)

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Which is why I chose my wording very very carefully. Currently or previously, not potentially.

Indeed, but it's potentially that's of some use. Currently has been banned since the founding of the state, and Previously is irrelevant unless you believe in the notion that mental health, once damaged, can never be repaired (and all the mental health professionals I've ever spoken to or read on the subject are adamant that that's only the case where real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place - in both cases, firearms ownership has been banned since '25).

it could prevent some people from getting firearms who might get them under a system where their health records weren't available.

Yeah, I've had firearms of my own since 2001 and used them since 1994, I've trained hundreds of people to use them, I'm certified as an ISSF judge and I've represented my club and country abroad in the sport, and I don't have any health records in the system to begin with, and even if I had no GP will release them, not on the strength of the form I've signed.

The system doesn't work, basicly, it just provides you with ways to inadvertently commit a crime (by making a mistake on your form or filling it out incorrectly, or not being able to give an answer that's 'true' from the point of view of the form).

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

and all the mental health professionals I've ever spoken to or read on the subject are adamant that that's only the case where real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place

Honestly, no. For some people drugs and therapy don't fix everything and they will suffer lifelong problems. For most thankfully that's not the case due to modern medicine but for an unfortunate number it's still not a reality.

Were any of these people you talked to practicing psychiatrists out of interest?

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I've had firearms of my own since 2001 and used them since 1994, I've trained hundreds of people to use them, I'm certified as an ISSF judge and I've represented my club and country abroad in the sport, and I don't have any health records in the system to begin with, and even if I had no GP will release them, not on the strength of the form I've signed.

The system doesn't work, basicly, it just provides you with ways to inadvertently commit a crime (by making a mistake on your form or filling it out incorrectly, or not being able to give an answer that's 'true' from the point of view of the form).

I'd argue that in this day and age someone should be compelled to keep a valid medical history on file with a doctor and that they should keep it up to date (i.e. have previous doctors forward on details to their new one). It should be kept private of course, but it should exist. For life assurance and similar it's very necessary.

But that's a separate debate.

Nodin

starbelgrade wrote: »

can I ask why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

Why not?

Some people enjoy the discipline of shooting, and firearms as works of engineering/tools in their own right. Some people watch trains for similar reasons. Only one bunch are the occassionally the subject of knee-jerk legislation though.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Were any of these people you talked to practicing psychiatrists out of interest?

Just one. The others were psychologists and nurses working in mental health.

The thing is, there's such an unhealthy stigmata around mental health in Ireland that anything, no matter how minor, is seen as permanently debilitating. Post-partum depression? Thought of as near-permanent. Depression over the death of a loved one? Erra, you never get over that, you're delicate for life afterwards. And so forth. And remember, you're not talking here about a qualified experienced psychologist or psychiatrist making the judgement, but the local Garda Superintendent. Who's not qualified in mental health. And the only one he's got permission to ask under the current act is your GP. Who's also unqualified, and who may not have seen you for as along as the local Garda has. Or in my case, may not even really exist in the sense assumes they exist in (the act is framed for the Ireland of 1925 where your GP delivered you at birth, knew you your whole life and might, were you unfortunate, be the chap signing your death certificate).

I'm not saying it's not a comforting thought; but it's just not workable because there's no way to objectively test mental health that doesn't take several weeks. Hell, even the Barr Tribunal's recommendation was a tick box on the form that asked you to tick it if you'd ever had a mental disorder that should preclude you from firearms ownership :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Nodin wrote: »

Some people enjoy the discipline of shooting, and firearms as works of engineering/tools in their own right. Some people watch trains for similar reasons. Only one bunch are the occassionally the subject of knee-jerk legislation though.

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.
Some specific guns are not of course, but for the most part, they are weapons.
While statistically it may be the case that it is not legally held firearms involved with crime, nevertheless they do get used in suicides and school shootings.
I haven't heard the same amount of concern for our "freedoms" when other weapons get banned, samurai swords for example.

All the other legal uses of these weapons can be replaced by other technologies. We don't need a gun to start a race for example.
We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

I'd argue that in this day and age someone should be compelled to keep a valid medical history on file with a doctor

Valid medical history of what? I've never had a serious illness or injury in my life. You might get my childhood innoculations, but that's about the most serious thing in there other than an allergy to penecillin, and that's a record that goes around your wrist or neck, not in a file.

Add to that the fact that I've moved from my home town to Greystones and now to Dublin, while most medical records can't be transferred from one floor of a hospital to another. So what hope have records kept by GPs on the back of index cards and old envelopes if you move clear across country? There is no standard for keeping medical records. Not on paper and not electronically. It's shockingly haphazard, even in hospitals (in the office of a GP it's out-and-out frightening).

Get the medical lads to tidy up their paperwork and then let's talk about keeping one file for one person for the whole country. Making it a legal necessity before it's practically possible is a really bad idea.

Nodin

RedPlanet wrote: »

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.

The emotive argument......

RedPlanet wrote: »

I haven't heard the same amount of concern for our "freedoms" when other weapons get banned, samurai swords for example..

(A) There was actually a great deal of similar comment on boards at the time.
(B) That legislation actually doesn't affect collectors of the genuine article (Katana, btw).

RedPlanet wrote: »

All the other legal uses of these weapons can be replaced by other technologies. We don't need a gun to start a race for example.
We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

...and I suppose we could get rid of bows, crossbows, and get the javelin out of the olympics as well.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Valid medical history of what? I've never had a serious illness or injury in my life. You might get my childhood innoculations, but that's about the most serious thing in there other than an allergy to penecillin, and that's a record that goes around your wrist or neck, not in a file.

Add to that the fact that I've moved from my home town to Greystones and now to Dublin, while most medical records can't be transferred from one floor of a hospital to another. So what hope have records kept by GPs on the back of index cards and old envelopes if you move clear across country? There is no standard for keeping medical records. Not on paper and not electronically. It's shockingly haphazard, even in hospitals (in the office of a GP it's out-and-out frightening).

Get the medical lads to tidy up their paperwork and then let's talk about keeping one file for one person for the whole country. Making it a legal necessity before it's practically possible is a really bad idea.

Oh I agree that is a mess. I just think that it's necessary. I mean, look at it this way, can an adult be reasonably expected to remember every illness they had as a kid, what exactly they were hospitalised for etc.

Sparks

RedPlanet wrote: »

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.

God I'm sick of that one. Some guns are designed for killing, yes. But they're designed for killing rabbits or foxes or deer or boar or other food or vermin animals. Very, very, very few guns (and frankly, you wouldn't get past thirty models) are designed for killing humans (AK47s, P90s, M-16s, M-4s, and purpose-built sniper rifles, and that kind of military hardware).

(And for the record, while you could conceivably kill someone with my firearms, you'd be doing it by grabbing the barrel and beating the person to death with the buttplate of the rifle - and in that, it's as dangerous as a hurley. You might be able to kill them by shooting them, but it'd take a while with the airguns. The .22 might do it, but the thing weighs nearly 8kg and only takes one round at a time so you're not going to be holding up a bank with the thing. Frankly, my car makes for a more dangerous prospect. Or my recurve bow, which requires no licence and is bought over the counter, and would happily put a rather unpleasantly solid arrow through you and out the far side anywhere within fifty metres or so).

While statistically it may be the case that it is not legally held firearms involved with crime, nevertheless they do get used in suicides and school shootings.

Suicides you can't prevent by taking away tools, you have to address the root cause - mental health. Which we are loath to do in Ireland because there's such a stigmata attached to it.

Taking away guns to stop suicide has been tried. It looks like you've done something, so people stop working on the root cause. And the next year, congratulations Minister for Justice, suicide by firearm is down 100%; but boo to you Minister for Public Works, suicide by jumping from tall buildings is up 100%, and boo to you, Minister for Lifeguards, why was there such a rise in the number of drownings this year?

As to school shootings, the only one that's happened near here was dunblane (you can't really compare the US shootings because the systems of firearms control are so diametrically opposed), and the firearms used in dunblane were illegally held because Hamilton had lied on his application about the club he was in - he'd been chucked out of it, and several others, because at the time everyone thought he was a paedophile. The scottish police never lifted the phone to confirm his membership as they were meant to, and here we are today, with people merrily calling any licenced firearms holder a paedophile waiting for a chance to go shoot up a schoolyard full of children :mad:

We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

Oh dear. Er, no. We couldn't (does the phrase "She swallowed a spider to catch the fly" ring any bells). And frankly, even with every hunter in Ireland hard at it, we can't control the deer population we have now. Lots of them are in for a cruel death by starvation this winter, and the pressure for food will drive them further towards populated areas, so the number of fatal car accidents is going to rise as a result.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Oh I agree that is a mess. I just think that it's necessary. I mean, look at it this way, can an adult be reasonably expected to remember every illness they had as a kid, what exactly they were hospitalised for etc.

It might be necessary, but it's not the patient's fault that the doctor's recordkeeping is unbelievably poor. So if legislation was introduced, it should be aimed at the medical establishment, not the patients!

RedPlanet

Nodin wrote: »

The emotive argument......

It's a statment of fact.
Google "define: gun" (without the quotes)
•a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity (especially from a metal tube or barrel)

Guns are weapons by design, they are rightly classed as such.
Because they are weapons, they get regulated and or banned.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Just one. The others were psychologists and nurses working in mental health.

The thing is, there's such an unhealthy stigmata around mental health in Ireland that anything, no matter how minor, is seen as permanently debilitating. Post-partum depression? Thought of as near-permanent. Depression over the death of a loved one? Erra, you never get over that, you're delicate for life afterwards. And so forth. And remember, you're not talking here about a qualified experienced psychologist or psychiatrist making the judgement, but the local Garda Superintendent. Who's not qualified in mental health. And the only one he's got permission to ask under the current act is your GP. Who's also unqualified, and who may not have seen you for as along as the local Garda has. Or in my case, may not even really exist in the sense assumes they exist in (the act is framed for the Ireland of 1925 where your GP delivered you at birth, knew you your whole life and might, were you unfortunate, be the chap signing your death certificate).

I'm not saying it's not a comforting thought; but it's just not workable because there's no way to objectively test mental health that doesn't take several weeks. Hell, even the Barr Tribunal's recommendation was a tick box on the form that asked you to tick it if you'd ever had a mental disorder that should preclude you from firearms ownership :rolleyes:

Sure, but your statement was utterly false and as bad as the statement you're complaining about! Post-partum depression and actually most depression cases that GPs see are utterly different things to bipolar and schizophrenia. If anything we've a problem with a dual stigma, people after seeing someone with a minor depressive episode thinking that people with bipolar should be able to snap out of it as easily and other such crap.

There is a stigma and it is horrible, but surely you must realise how insulting statements like yours are to people like myself who after five to seven years of treatment are still faced with mental health problems on a near constant basis. Despite the best efforts of modern medicine we're still not living full and happy lives. It can be a lifelong problem and lumping us in with people who go through a minor depressive episode and then come out of it and never again have symptoms is, well, ridiculous!

Sparks

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's a statment of fact.

No, it's a statement of belief, and it's erroneous.

Guns are weapons by design, they are rightly classed as such.

"Weapon" is a thing used for the purpose of harming another person. The word carries an implied statement of intent. I do not own weapons. I own firearms. And frankly, I'd prefer it if you didn't slander me by calling them weapons. If you want to accuse me of intending to commit a crime, do so openly please. (And we've had to repeat that particular request to everyone from the Minister to the Commissioner down to the Gardai in the stations to the reporters covering this sort of thing, so you can understand why we don't see the humourous side to it).

(And firearms are regulated, six ways from sunday, and have been since the founding of the state. The point here is that many of the new regulations make no practical sense and serve no practical purpose).

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Post-partum depression and actually most depression cases that GPs see are utterly different things to bipolar and schizophrenia.

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia would be the kind of thing I was referring to as where "real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place". They have biochemical causes in many (if not all) cases, and are pretty close to being the very definition of "serious" (and I'm pretty sure that counts as preaching to the choir).

The problem I was referring to is that there's no real delineation in most people's minds between those kind of serious issues, and minor issues when it comes to mental health in Ireland. And when people can't tell what's serious and what's not, the idea of legislating standards based on mental health is a very, very precarious one.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia would be the kind of thing I was referring to as where "real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place". They have biochemical causes in many (if not all) cases, and are pretty close to being the very definition of "serious" (and I'm pretty sure that counts as preaching to the choir).

The problem I was referring to is that there's no real delineation in most people's minds between those kind of serious issues, and minor issues when it comes to mental health in Ireland. And when people can't tell what's serious and what's not, the idea of legislating standards based on mental health is a very, very precarious one.

Psychological damage =! inherent mental illnesses! The former implies something happened and that it was at some point undamaged rather than innate, you wouldn't describe someone born unable to walk as having a "damaged spine" would you?

RedPlanet

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's a statement of belief, and it's erroneous."Weapon" is a thing used for the purpose of harming another person. The word carries an implied statement of intent. I do not own weapons. I own firearms.

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.


Oxford English dictionary:
gun

• noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force. 2 a device for discharging something (e.g. grease) in a required direction. 3 N. Amer. a gunman: a hired gun.

Sparks

Well, it would rather depend on why they couldn't walk - Spina bifida for example, would be a damaged spine but it's a birth defect. And no, I'm not saying that psychological damage is the same as a biochemical problem, I'm saying those two causes are seperate from more easily treated mental health problems, from which a full recovery is possible.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.

Thanks. We've so far had apologies for the misuse of the word 'weapon' from the Minister, the DoJ and the various Gardai we've spoken to.

irish_bob

from listening to the story on the news of how a retired farmer in galway was beaten to death , it seems he put up a fight , sounds like he wouldnt have hesitated to use his index finger either had he been properly prepared

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.


Oxford English dictionary:
gun

• noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force. 2 a device for discharging something (e.g. grease) in a required direction. 3 N. Amer. a gunman: a hired gun.

Many months ago I had the exact same argument with him quoting the exact same dictionary. I really wouldn't waste your time on this.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it would rather depend on why they couldn't walk - Spina bifida for example, would be a damaged spine but it's a birth defect. And no, I'm not saying that psychological damage is the same as a biochemical problem, I'm saying those two causes are seperate from more easily treated mental health problems, from which a full recovery is possible.

And you're wrong in that depression primarily caused by genetic factors isn't necessarily difficult to treat. You're drawing a distinction that isn't really there it's bloody impossible to say where genetic factors end and psychological factors begin to be the prime causal factor.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

Many months ago I had the exact same argument with him quoting the exact same dictionary. I really wouldn't waste your time on this.

Typical.
I recall before the last Olympics he was trumpeting about this Darren somebody and how this irish shooter was our best chance of a medal.
While i don't give much a sh*t about the Olympics i just peeped up an said that if were a betting man i'd put my money on our boxers, since that is where most (51%) of irish Olympic medals come from..
Anyway he wouldn't go away, but it did pique my interest that Ireland actually does have a shooter in the Olympics (talk about a niche sport!)
Anyway the result was predictable.

Our boxers did themselves (and Ireland) proud.
Our "shooter" must have had an off day.