Firearm not Weapon. Proper firearm terminology.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

Technically, 95% or so of all paintball markers are legally short restricted firearms and can't be licenced here, let alone rented out to stag parties. We've mentioned it here a few times, and the paintball folks know about the issue as well, as do the DoJ.

Technically, paintball guns may be all you say ... but equally, some nail guns could also be considered to have many of the technical characteristics of a restricted firearm - and I've never heard of any proposals to authorise, let alone restrict them.
Is it back to the spirit of the firearms law where the general thrust seems to be the control of lethal weapons (of all descriptions and uses) that are designed to kill (and to do so efficiently and at a distance)?
I know that licenced firearms are not always used for hunting ... but they have the capacity to be used to kill at a distance - and that is why they are strictly controlled (correctly IMO) .
On the other hand, nail guns are designed to shoot nails into timber at close range and paintball guns are designed to hurt the Managing Director's dignity on the office 'away day'.:)
... and before anybody says that the word 'design' is nowhere in the Firearms Acts, let me say that I accept that ... but nonetheless, this seems to be how the Firearms Acts are actually being enforced.

Sparks

J C wrote: »

equally, some nail guns could also be considered to have many of the technical characteristics of a restricted firearm

I'd be reasonably sure that nailguns *are* short restricted firearms because of how the firearms act is written.
So far as I know, they've just been ignored and unless someone is prosecuted for having one without a licence, that's not going to change.
This doesn't, however, do very much of anyone's opinion of either the law or how it's applied, and does not constitute a reasonable or acceptable solution to anyone I know; it's just what we're stuck with at the moment.

On the other hand, nail guns are designed to shoot nails into timber at close range and paintball guns are designed to hurt the Managing Director's dignity on the office 'away day'.:)
... and before anybody says that the word 'design' is nowhere in the Firearms Acts, let me say that I accept that ... but nonetheless, this seems to be how the Firearms Acts are actually being enforced.

Actually, "designed" is in the definition of a restricted firearm.
Also, what nailguns are designed to do and what they're capable of are different things entirely:



That specific case was a murder, but a quick google search will reveal large numbers of accidental "nailings", many of which happened at some distance away from the nailgun, to people other than the nailgun operator, and a few of which happened to people the operator couldn't see because they were behind a wall at the time.
If you wanted to, you could probably make a good case for licencing them.

As to paintball guns, there's a reason you are required to wear face protection while doing it. Read about the injuries and deaths that have occurred while paintballing without protective gear.

Also, there's the point that they can also fall into the class of "prohibited weapon" in Ireland:



(Currently these are what's loaded in the paintball guns in the US Embassy armory in Dublin, or at least the military version of this).

J C wrote: »

I can imagine that hearing protection would be a big one for target shooters, especially, where they are shooting large quanitities of ammunition in close proximity to each other on a range - no matter how good their ear defenders are.
It is a benefit that clay shooters generally don't enjoy.

It's also one that is not considered sufficient by many Gardai and has seen many applications for sound moderators declined with comments ranging from "wear ear defenders" to "just stop shooting then". Also, you don't see them on target shooting rifles at the highest levels (I've certainly never seen an olympic rifle that had them) because they impact on accuracy, even if only slightly, which undermines the case for having a moderator instead of good earplugs and defenders.

Moderators are also very useful for vermin control in proximity to farm livestock and other wildlife, that could be stressed or stampeded by sudden loud gunfire.

That's the more usual reason for granting a licence for a sound moderator here.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

I'd be reasonably sure that nailguns *are* short restricted firearms because of how the firearms act is written.
So far as I know, they've just been ignored and unless someone is prosecuted for having one without a licence, that's not going to change.
This doesn't, however, do very much of anyone's opinion of either the law or how it's applied, and does not constitute a reasonable or acceptable solution to anyone I know; it's just what we're stuck with at the moment.

Law is ultimately about addressing real and substantive risks. Nail guns, like other carpentry tools, such as circular saws are potentially dangerous equipment that should be used with care and following safety protocols.

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, "designed" is in the definition of a restricted firearm.
Also, what nailguns are designed to do and what they're capable of are different things entirely:



That specific case was a murder, but a quick google search will reveal large numbers of accidental "nailings", many of which happened at some distance away from the nailgun, to people other than the nailgun operator, and a few of which happened to people the operator couldn't see because they were behind a wall at the time.
If you wanted to, you could probably make a good case for licencing them.

The psychopath who did this would be quite capable of using a hammer to do the same thing ... and I'm sure that nobody would advocate restricting hammers under a FAC. It truly is a most horrific photo ... that poor person suffered a terrible death at the hands of that maniac.
Nail guns are useful safe equipment when used by trained responsible people - and the Offensive Weapons legislation is there to deal with any inappropriate behaviour surrounding their possession and use. By far the greatest danger with Nail guns, like you have said, is accidental 'nailings' ... and this is best addressed by proper Health and Safety training for the operators using them.

Sparks wrote: »

It's also one that is not considered sufficient by many Gardai and has seen many applications for sound moderators declined with comments ranging from "wear ear defenders" to "just stop shooting then". Also, you don't see them on target shooting rifles at the highest levels (I've certainly never seen an olympic rifle that had them) because they impact on accuracy, even if only slightly, which undermines the case for having a moderator instead of good earplugs and defenders.

So the Gardai are sensibly and logically authorising moderators then ... or am I missing something about what you are saying?

Grizzly 45

QUOTE=Cass;89780112]It's a bit of a joke calling it a silencer. A term coined from too much TV.

To be a bit pendantic ,it is actually correct in a historical context to call them a silencer,as that is what the inventor Dr Maxim the son of the famous machine gun inventor Hiram Maxim orginally called them and patented them as "The Maxim silencer." in 190 Somthing.

J C

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

To be a bit pendantic ,it is actually correct in a historical context to call them a silencer,as that is what the inventor Dr Maxim the son of the famous machine gun inventor Hiram Maxim orginally called them and patented them as "The Maxim silencer." in 190 Somthing.

Silencers were apparently invented 1902 and patented 1909.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

To be a bit pendantic ,it is actually correct in a historical context to call them a silencer,as that is what the inventor Dr Maxim the son of the famous machine gun inventor Hiram Maxim orginally called them and patented them as "The Maxim silencer." in 190 Somthing.

Does it silence your .243? Cause it doesn't silence my 6.5, .243, .308. even the .17hmr. So regardless of what it was meant to do, it doesn't do it. But i get your point.

My point was they did not, and do not, have to refer to it as a silencer except for sensationalist purposes. Suppressor works fine. It's like calling a shotgun a "death dealing boom stick". Ya know, like this:




:D:D:D:D

J C

Cass wrote: »

Does it silence your .243? Cause it doesn't silence my 6.5, .243, .308. even the .17hmr. So regardless of what it was meant to do, it doesn't do it. But i get your point.

My point was they did not, and do not, have to refer to it as a silencer except for sensationalist purposes. Suppressor works fine. It's like calling a shotgun a "death dealing boom stick". Ya know, like this:
:D:D:D:D

I have no problem calling a spade a spade ... and a shotgun a lethal weapon ...and a silencer a silencer.
Calling it a 'moderator' creates confusion in my mind between something that you stick on the working end of a gun ... and a category of poster on the Boards.ie !!

Witcher

It's all about context, if someone says they had a barrel threaded for a moderator it doesn't mean they're going to screw Cass onto the end of it:pac:

J C

For the avoidance of doubt ... it best to call a silencer ... a silencer.
... and that's probably why the word silencer is used in the legislation.

Cass

Serious time. The reason is PR.

The general public don't care for guns. If polled most would say we don't need them, others don't care one way or the other then the others still believe there is no Godly reason for having a gun, whatsoever.

So when you call a suppressor a silencer they immediately jump to TV/films of assassins/hitmen using these silent guns to kill people.
It's the same reason we don't call our firearms weapons. They simply aren't. They are firearms for sporting purposes. A knife is a weapon, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail gun (as above). All int he wrong hands.
It's the same reasons we don't use human shaped targets like they do in most other countries. We get along fine with standard bullseye targets and the public don't see a load of shooters, shooting at human shaped targets.

We don't hide what we do but we also don't need to provoke negative PR for the sports.

We are the most heavily regulated sport in the country, 18 different Acts associated with it, and with the lowest numbers of accidents of any sport. We also have the longest history of any sport. Target shooting has been around 20+ years more than the GAA. We self finance our sport, regulate it, police it, face the stiffest opposition yet the majority of people don't understand of know what it we do.

Unlike other countries we have no rights to firearms. As such we face a constant battle in the media. It's evident when a criminal shooting occurs with an illegal gun and although it may be a shotgun, etc. the first picture on the front page is always a Glock. Sensationalism.

My point being in a sport where we must defend ourselves at all times why is it we are subjected to "derogatory" terms that constantly paint us in a bad light.

Grizzly 45

We could call them what Maxim wanted to in the first place,but it didnt sound good for advertising back then. A firearm noise muffler??::pac:

Sparks

J C wrote: »

Law is ultimately about addressing real and substantive risks.

No, it's not. That's what it should be about. Not what it is about. Firearms law in Ireland is ultimately about reassuring the general public that individuals within their midst aren't playing with firearms as though they were toys.

The psychopath who did this would be quite capable of using a hammer to do the same thing

Indeed, but the few hundred cases I referred you to are not cases where you could say that.

nobody would advocate restricting hammers under a FAC

(a) Nobody was;
(b) Nailguns are not hammers even though their mechanisms rely ultimately on similar principles;
(c) FACs are a UK thing.

the Offensive Weapons legislation is there to deal with any inappropriate behaviour

And that legislation happens to be part and parcel of the Firearms Act (it's the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act you're thinking of in Ireland)

So the Gardai are sensibly and logically authorising moderators then ... or am I missing something about what you are saying?

Yes, you are missing something - I'm pointing out that what the Gardai do does not match what those with extensive technical knowlege of firearms and their dangers would consider best practice. This is mainly because we've underfunded the AGS for decades, so their training is simply not what it needs to be in all areas. This is one of those areas. And this is a recognised and acknowledged problem by senior AGS members.

J C wrote: »

I have no problem calling a spade a spade ... and a shotgun a lethal weapon

You can go ahead and call a shotgun a lethal weapon just after it's been used to murder someone. Something I think you'll find does not actually appear on the list of "good reasons" the AGS use when making licencing decisions for firearms cert applicants.

Calling it a 'moderator' creates confusion in my mind between something that you stick on the working end of a gun ... and a category of poster on the Boards.ie !!

I've highlighted the relevant and important part of that.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Also, you don't see them on target shooting rifles at the highest levels (I've certainly never seen an olympic rifle that had them) because they impact on accuracy, even if only slightly, which undermines the case for having a moderator instead of good earplugs and defenders.

I shoot my rifles without mods/silencers because I'm already deaf from a combination of old age, infirmity and 33 years of soldiering, but I've NEVER seen any kind of real target rifle - as shot in Bisley, Camp Pendleton, or Connaught Ranges - with a moderator/silencer. Those of us that have suitable multi-purpose guns, like me, in .308 Win or .223 Rem calibres, shoot target without a moderator/silencer, and the fun/practical/deer-stalking hunting stuff with one fitted - IF you want to.

A look at the firing line at any target Bisley shoot will show you what I mean.

tac

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

Also, you don't see them on target shooting rifles at the highest levels (I've certainly never seen an olympic rifle that had them) because they impact on accuracy, even if only slightly, which undermines the case for having a moderator instead of good earplugs and defenders.

Well, it's more likely that the reason you don't see them on ISSF rifles is that they're prohibited by the rules:

7.4.1.5 Barrels and extension tubes must not be perforated in any way. Compensators and muzzle brakes on rifles are prohibited. Any construction or device inside the barrel or tubes, other than rifling and chambering for the cartridge or pellet, is prohibited.

Given the amount of weird and wonderful things that competitors hang off their rifles, if they weren't banned then someone would be using one.

Sparks

I'd forgotten about the "Any construction or device" bit in that rule, but the main worry for the rulebook is people trying to get an edge unfairly; if mods gave you that, I'd expect to see an explicit ban on them (stuff caught by the catch-alls that are real problems seem to get their own rules pretty quickly). My best guess is that they were trying there to stop someone using a loophole to make a new kind of muzzle break or porting on the rifle to reduce recoil.

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

I'd forgotten about the "Any construction or device" bit in that rule, but the main worry for the rulebook is people trying to get an edge unfairly; if mods gave you that, I'd expect to see an explicit ban on them (stuff caught by the catch-alls that are real problems seem to get their own rules pretty quickly). My best guess is that they were trying there to stop someone using a loophole to make a new kind of muzzle break or porting on the rifle to reduce recoil.

I suspect that for ISSF airgun and smallbore events there'd be no advantage but there might be in the 300m disciplines. A small fall off in accuracy might be compensated for by making a 60 or 120 shot match more comfortable for the shooter.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's not. That's what it should be about. Not what it is about. Firearms law in Ireland is ultimately about reassuring the general public that individuals within their midst aren't playing with firearms as though they were toys.

Its about addressing real and substantive risks and thereby re-assuring Society that firearms will be used responsibly and safely by the people who possess and use them for legitimate purposes - and that reassurance is provided by the gun licencing system under the Firearms Acts.

Sparks wrote: »

Indeed, but the few hundred cases I referred you to are not cases where you could say that.

I understand that they're nearly all cases of accidental injury from builders using nail guns for nailing building materials. This is not an issue of concern in relation to firearms - but one that is addressed by Health and Safety protocols on building sites.

Sparks wrote: »

(a) Nobody was;
(b) Nailguns are not hammers even though their mechanisms rely ultimately on similar principles;
(c) FACs are a UK thing.

Nail guns are power-assisted hammers with built-in safety features that effectively rules out their use in a manner similar to a firearm.

Why are FACs a 'UK thing' given the similarity of wording of the 'Firearm(s) Certificate' in both juristictions?

Sparks wrote: »

And that legislation happens to be part and parcel of the Firearms Act (it's the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act you're thinking of in Ireland)

Which proves my point that there is equipment, whose legitimate use is for things like carpentry (nail guns and screwdrivers being examples) which could also be used offensively. But they are quite legitimate to possess, use and carry for business and work reasons without a FAC/FC.

Sparks wrote: »

You can go ahead and call a shotgun a lethal weapon just after it's been used to murder someone.

... licenced firearms are very, very rarely used in any form of violence, in Ireland, such is the excellence of the gun licencing system.
However, a shotgun is a lethal weapon as it can be used to legally shoot and kill vermin - and game birds, in season ... and, like all guns, it's designed to kill - and/or to damage/destroy targets ... which technically makes it a weapon.

Of course, a shotgun can also be legally used for non-lethal purposes as well, like clay shooting ... but this doesn't eliminate its lethal potential - and the protocols that should always accompany the safe possession and use of all guns.

Sparks

J C wrote: »

Its about addressing real and substantive risks

No, it's not, not really (what it says it is and what politicians say it is, and what it actually is based on observed fact, these are not the same thing). If it was, the firearms acts wouldn't exist or would at least be far simpler and less manpower intensive to enforce, because any data-based analysis of firearms accidents would tell you that walking down stairs was a greater risk to the public than the last 150 years of target shooting and hunting in Ireland combined, and any legal professional will tell you that using a firearm to injure or kill another person is something that already carries hefty sentences from acts other than the firearms act.

No, I'm not making that up about the stairs btw. Look up the accident statistics from the CSO and do the comparison yourself.

The point of the firearms act is to reassure the public. Their actual protection owes more to the distributed actions of the entire community over a long period of time, but that's not easy to point at in a reassuring manner.

I understand that they're nearly all cases of accidental injury from builders using nail guns for nailing building materials.

Doesn't matter if it's accidental or not really, not under the logic of the existing firearms acts which basically say if an accident is mathematically possible, you need a licence for the thing that causes it.

Nail guns are power-assisted hammers with built-in safety features that effectively rule out their use in a manner similar to a firearm.

This isn't correct. Nailguns have a barrel and are capable of firing a projectile at more than 1 joule of muzzle energy and therefore are legally firearms if you want to read the law strictly. The legal definition of firearm does not care where that joule derives from, whether it be chemical reaction, compressed air, mechanical spring or electromagnetic (all of which are both used in what we think of as firearms and in various forms of nailgun). Nor does it care how difficult it is to trigger or aim.

Why are FACs a 'UK thing' given the similarity of wording of the 'Firearm(s) Certificate' in both juristictions?

For the same reason that the Taoiseach is the Taoiseach and not the Prime Minister, and no, I'm not being facetious.

Which proves my point that there is equipment, whose legitimate use is for things like carpentry (nail guns and screwdrivers being examples) which could also be used offensively. But they are quite legitimate to possess, use and carry for business and work reasons without a FAC/FC.

Generally because of oversight or intentional ignorance.
This is not a good basis for law.

... licenced guns are very, very rarely used in any form of violence, in Ireland, such is the excellence of the gun licencing system.
However, a shotgun is a lethal weapon as it can be used to legally shoot and kill vermin - and game birds, in season

No. A weapon, as any garda will tell you and the media and the Minister at the drop of a hat, is something that has been used to harm people. Until that term changes its meaning, no licenced firearm is a weapon unless that specific firearm is abused by its owner for an act of violence.

If you don't like that, please consider your argument as you drive home in your lethal weapon, other examples of which kill several thousand people a year in Ireland. And consider it further as you prepare your dinner with several lethal weapons, then sit down to watch sporting events that use lethal weapons (doesn't matter which sport really, they all use things that by this logic are lethal wepaons). Be very careful though if you take a bath afterwards before bedtime, because as we all know, baths are also lethal weapons. And the stairs up to bed? Lethal weapon, those, given how many people get pushed down them.

Your logic is that any item which may be abused to do violence to another is a lethal weapon. My point is that that logic is flawed because in human history, damn near every single thing in the world, constructed or naturally occurring, has been used to lethal effect on someone by someone else, and thus we would be required to consider the world a lethal weapon and licence it and everything in it.

... and, like all guns, it's designed to kill.

Mine's not. And that one data point does rather scupper that generalisation. Now you're on to "most guns are designed to kill", but then there are more qualifiers on that and pretty soon, you get to the reality which is that a surprisingly low percentage of all firearms are actually designed to kill people, which is a long way from your assertion.

Ghost.

Sparks wrote: »

No. A weapon, as any garda will tell you and the media and the Minister at the drop of a hat, is something that has been used to harm people. Until that term changes its meaning, no licenced firearm is a weapon unless that specific firearm is abused by its owner for an act of violence.

So according to that hypothetical garda that means a nuclear bomb isn't a weapon until its dropped? And all of the firearms held and used by the irish defence forces aren't infact weapons, yet because they haven't been used to harm anyone. I don't think that sounds right.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's not, not really (what it says it is and what politicians say it is, and what it actually is based on observed fact, these are not the same thing). If it was, the firearms acts wouldn't exist or would at least be far simpler and less manpower intensive to enforce, because any data-based analysis of firearms accidents would tell you that walking down stairs was a greater risk to the public than the last 150 years of target shooting and hunting in Ireland combined, and any legal professional will tell you that using a firearm to injure or kill another person is something that already carries hefty sentences from acts other than the firearms act.

No, I'm not making that up about the stairs btw. Look up the accident statistics from the CSO and do the comparison yourself.

I have no doubt that firearms are possessed, used and carried very safely indeed in Ireland - and this is down to a culture of safety amongst gun owners which is supported and enforced by the firearms acts.

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it's accidental or not really, not under the logic of the existing firearms acts which basically say if an accident is mathematically possible, you need a licence for the thing that causes it.

The firearms acts controls who can possess firearms and the specified good reasons for which they may do so. They also ensure that guns aren't legally possessed by dangerous people.

Sparks wrote: »

This isn't correct. Nailguns have a barrel and are capable of firing a projectile at more than 1 joule of muzzle energy and therefore are legally firearms if you want to read the law strictly. The legal definition of firearm does not care where that joule derives from, whether it be chemical reaction, compressed air, mechanical spring or electromagnetic (all of which are both used in what we think of as firearms and in various forms of nailgun). Nor does it care how difficult it is to trigger or aim.

You may be technically correct ... but nail guns aren't designed to be weapons (that kill or destroy) and thus they aren't controlled, in practice, under the Firearms Act.

Sparks wrote: »

For the same reason that the Taoiseach is the Taoiseach and not the Prime Minister, and no, I'm not being facetious.

These are Irish language terms ... what is the Irish for 'Firearm Certificate' and do you refer to it in Irish with your friends down at the range?

Sparks wrote: »

Generally because of oversight or intentional ignorance.
This is not a good basis for law.

More like good logic and sense IMO, when it comes to nail guns and screwdrivers.

Sparks wrote: »

No. A weapon, as any garda will tell you and the media and the Minister at the drop of a hat, is something that has been used to harm people. Until that term changes its meaning, no licenced firearm is a weapon unless that specific firearm is abused by its owner for an act of violence.

Here is the wikipedia defintion of a weapon:-
"A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems."
Firstly, please note that the words weapon, arm and armament are interchangeable and identical words.
Secondly, the use of a weapon is inflicting damage or harm to living creatures and/or property.
All sporting guns fit this description, whether they are used for hunting (humane destruction/death of living creatures) or for target practice (destruction/damage of targets).

Sparks wrote: »

If you don't like that, please consider your argument as you drive home in your lethal weapon, other examples of which kill several thousand people a year in Ireland. And consider it further as you prepare your dinner with several lethal weapons, then sit down to watch sporting events that use lethal weapons (doesn't matter which sport really, they all use things that by this logic are lethal wepaons). Be very careful though if you take a bath afterwards before bedtime, because as we all know, baths are also lethal weapons. And the stairs up to bed? Lethal weapon, those, given how many people get pushed down them.

None of these things are designed to kill or damage property and thus they aren't weapons - in the strict sense of the word 'weapon'. They may be dangerous if used carelessly ... but that doesn't make a car a weapon - because its primary use is transportation. It may also be diverted to be used as a weapon by somebody, but a car isn't inherently a weapon ... and therefore misuse is controlled under the Road Traffic Acts.

Sparks wrote: »

Your logic is that any item which may be abused to do violence to another is a lethal weapon. My point is that that logic is flawed because in human history, damn near every single thing in the world, constructed or naturally occurring, has been used to lethal effect on someone by someone else, and thus we would be required to consider the world a lethal weapon and licence it and everything in it.


Mine's not. And that one data point does rather scupper that generalisation. Now you're on to "most guns are designed to kill", but then there are more qualifiers on that and pretty soon, you get to the reality which is that a surprisingly low percentage of all firearms are actually designed to kill people, which is a long way from your assertion.

Its all a matter of degree ... I have no doubt that somebody could possibly kill somebody else with a blunt butterknife if they tried hard enough ... but the chance of them doing this accidentally is zero and the chance somebody being actually able to do so is also practically zero due to the killing inefficiency of blunt butter knives. At the other end of the scale are guns, which are specifically designed to efficiently kill and/or destroy ... and that is why blunt butter knives don't require authorisation to possess and use ... but guns do.

BTW I'm not arguing that all guns are designed to kill people - hunting guns are designed to kill animals ... but they can be equally lethal to people.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

So according to that hypothetical garda that means a nuclear bomb isn't a weapon until its dropped? And all of the firearms held and used by the irish defence forces aren't infact weapons, yet because they haven't been used to harm anyone. I don't think that sounds right.

When that hypothetical Garda is asked to testify in a district court in a civilian case which somehow references those firearms and bombs, yes, they will not be weapons unless used.

However, you may wish to look up the legal definition of assault - "use" does not necessarily mean "shoot" or "detonate", depending on context, "point" is sufficient in some cases.

This is a *very* old argument btw, this isn't exactly new or clever.

Sparks

J C wrote: »

supported and enforced by the firearms acts.

Not so much. As reading any of the threads here instead of rehashing the same arguments from at least the last decade or two would tell you...

The firearms acts controls who can possess firearms and the specified good reasons they may do so. they also ensure that guns aren't legally possessed by dangerous people.

No. That's what the Gardai do, not the firearms act. The act gives the gardai the powers needed to do that job; it is the judgement of the gardai that does the actual job of restricting possession to people who aren't dangerous, not the act.

You may be technically correct ... but nail guns aren't designed to be weapons (that only kill or destroy) and thus they aren't controlled, in practice, under the Firearms Act.

Again, this is not correct. Firstly, the Firearms Act (the clue is in the name) is not for controlling weapons. Secondly, the design is irrelevant to the definition of firearm in the act and thus their inclusion in it. Thirdly, the only reason they are not in practice controlled using the act is convenience and/or ignorance of the law by the Gardai (which sadly, with the state of the firearms act, is not in any way unlikely). And they are not the only things in this state that are legally firearms but not controlled using the act.

These are Irish language terms ... what is the Irish for 'Firearm Certificate' and do you refer to it in Irish with your friends down at the range?

They're not Irish language terms in this context, but Irish political terms and the point is that this is not the UK, but a different legal jurisdiction, with different legal systems, different terminology and while you can draw parallels and say things are analogues, there are significant non-obvious differences between the two and while it'd be fine to use loose terminology in a chat over a pint about something else, when you're arguing the semantics of the law, you can't indulge in that luxury.

Here is the wikipedia defintion of a weapon

We used to have two kittens.

Sorry, are we not playing the "sway utterly irrelevant data" game?
Or have we suddenly passed the Use Wikipedia Instead Of Irish Statute Books Act 2014 while I wasn't looking? The term is Firearm. Until and unless you use it to harm another human, it is not a weapon. Same as for a hurley, a golf club, a cricket or baseball bat, a chainsaw, a car, a chef's knife or a toaster oven.
The only reason in this state to refer to a legally held firearm as a weapon is to attempt to defame the holder of that firearm. And frankly, it's uncivil to do so and if you'll consult the forum charter's first rule on that particular point...

the chance of them doing this accidentally is ...

Yes, yes, we've all read the statistical argument a thousand times. Not once, however, have we ever read a version of it that managed to convince us that cars, knives, aspirin tablets, stairs and rocks aren't lethal weapons, but legally held firearms are.
That's because the argument is specious nonsense that's not even logically self-consistent, let alone able to withstand critical argument.
And I'd be kinder dismissing it, but you're writing as though this was a new and obvious idea, but it's a darn sight older than you and me put together and has been debunked for pretty much its entire life.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

When that hypothetical Garda is asked to testify in a district court in a civilian case which somehow references those firearms and bombs, yes, they will not be weapons unless used.

However, you may wish to look up the legal definition of assault - "use" does not necessarily mean "shoot" or "detonate", depending on context, "point" is sufficient in some cases.

This is a *very* old argument btw, this isn't exactly new or clever.

An inherent weapon is a weapon, whether its used or not. Like Ghost has said, a Nuclear Weapon is a Nuclear Weapon even when its sitting peacefully in its silo.

Some things are inherent weapons i.e. they have been designed specifically to kill and/or inflict damage ... other things can be used as weapons i.e. they're designed for some other use, but they are diverted to kill or inflict injury/damage by somebody.

Sparks

J C wrote: »

An inherent weapon

No, I'm sorry, making up terms that don't exist isn't valid argument.
The term is weapon, the definition is not "firearm". Claiming it is otherwise is simply defamation of those who hold perfectly legitimate firearms certificates.

Ghost.

Sparks wrote: »

When that hypothetical Garda is asked to testify in a district court in a civilian case which somehow references those firearms and bombs, yes, they will not be weapons unless used.

However, you may wish to look up the legal definition of assault - "use" does not necessarily mean "shoot" or "detonate", depending on context, "point" is sufficient in some cases.

This is a *very* old argument btw, this isn't exactly new or clever.

It may be a *very* old argument but I wasn't trying to be new or clever, I was just making the point that the statement you made about what the guard would say doesn't sound right.

You may well be correct that when that hypothetical Garda is asked to testify in a district court in a civilian case which somehow references those firearms and bombs, yes, they will not be weapons unless used. It doesn't mean they aren't weapons. If he testified that a horse was a dog in court it doesnt mean it a dog in reality.

I get the argument that nothing is a weapon unless its used to cause harm to someone. BUT the first firearms were specifically designed to cause harm be it to people or game although they can serve a duel purpose for target shooting, and believe it or not our nuclear bomb was designed for the purpose of causing harm and killing people despite what our guard believes or says in court.

So ya I agree that nothing is a weapon unless used to cause harm except items that were specifically designed to cause harm and to be used as weapons, same as bows etc. If they are used or not doesn't matter, they are weapons and calling them something else isn't pulling the wool over anyones eyes.

Everything has the potential to cause harm and could possibly be used as a weapon with different degrees of effectiveness, firearms were designed as weapons and have a great potential to cause harm that why we have such strict licencing of them. Just because something is a weapon doesn't mean its bad. I personally wont get upset if someone calls a firearm a weapon, they are what they are. Although they will never be used to cause harm to people just to game and vermin being hunted.

Sparks wrote: »

However, you may wish to look up the legal definition of assault .

No thanks, it doesn't matter to me what the legal definition is. Im pretty sure that the law cant rewrite history. Anyway, as you have correctly pointed out it only matters what the hypothetical Guard testifies in court.;)

J C

Sparks wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, making up terms that don't exist isn't valid argument.
The term is weapon, the definition is not "firearm". Claiming it is otherwise is simply defamation of those who hold perfectly legitimate firearms certificates.

I'm saying nothing derogatory about legal fireams owners (who are all persons of the highest moral and personal probity) ... I'm merely debating the point of what constitutes a weapon.

Is there such a thing as an inherent weapon ... or does a weapon only become a weapon when it is used to kill or injure, like you say it does?

If it is the latter ... what should a Nuclear Weapon in its silo be called?

Ghost wrote:

Everything has the potential to cause harm and could possibly be used as a weapon with different degrees of effectiveness, firearms were designed as weapons and have a great potential to cause harm that why we have such strict licencing of them. Just because something is a weapon doesn't mean its bad. I personally wont get upset if someone calls a firearm a weapon, they are what they are. Although they will never be used to cause harm to people just to game and vermin being hunted.

That sums it up allright.

IRLConor

J C wrote: »

Is there such a thing as an inherent weapon ...

Maybe there is, but many, many firearms could never be classed as such.

Mine for example. Neither designed for, nor used as a weapon.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

I was just making the point that the statement you made about what the guard would say doesn't sound right.

With the example of a nuclear bomb.

I mean, there's legitimate argument and there's taking the mickey. And trying to use nuclear bombs in an argument about whether or not the use of the word weapon is warranted when talking about firearms definitely falls into the latter category.

It doesn't mean they aren't weapons. If he testified that a horse was a dog in court it doesnt mean it a dog in reality.

We're not talking about his testimony; we're talking about what the words mean. That's not set by the Gardai. And just for the record, the very-real non-hypothetical Gardai agree with the shooting community on this point and have said so in public at the firearms consultation panel meetings.

BUT the first firearms were specifically designed to cause harm

So first of all, to paraphrase the simpsons, records from that time are sketchy at best because the first firearms were made before the invention of english as a language. It's entirely possible they were repurposed to be weapons rather than being invented to be so. Certainly we've seen the opposite path taken with inventions - got a corkscrew handy?

Secondly, when something has been around this long, talking about the original design purpose (when frankly, noone really knows what that was) is not very useful.

Thirdly, when you look at the modern design purpose, your point no longer holds up because relatively few modern era firearms are designed to cause harm to humans. They can all be abused to do so - even mine, if you don't mind using it as a club - but now we're into what something can be abused to do and that means everything on this planet has a proven record of being a lethal weapon at one time in history or another and so the argument isn't of any real use anymore.

calling them something else isn't pulling the wool over anyones eyes

Deception is the very opposite of the reason why we don't use the wrong word to describe firearms.

Right now, in Ireland, about 5% of the population is licenced to possess a firearm. Add in the army, spouses and so forth and a conservative estimate is that 10% of the people have ever seen a firearm for themselves as something other than a fleeting novelty like passing an armed garda on the street. But 99% of us will have seen firearms in the media, whether in news reports on gun crime or in movies. In the former, there's massive selection bias that isn't made explicit and in the latter, well, hollywood isn't really concerned with reality when making movies and with firearms, they might as well work by magic given how they're portrayed.

So everyone has an idea in mind when you say "gun" but only 1 in 10 has any actual real data to base that idea off.

So when you say "weapon" and point to someone who has a legally licenced firearm, you're not being accurate and concise in your description, you're using a heavily context-laden term without explicit disclosure of that context.

Where I'm from, we have a short little word for that, but "lie" is seen so pejoratively round here that we use the term "inaccurate depiction" a lot...

So instead we use the correct term - firearm.

Now, if you're going to tell me that "weapon" is the correct term, you're going to have to come up with an argument that logically and with supporting evidence proves that I should be regarded as a killer-in-waiting; but somehow falls short of the legal standard required to revoke my firearms certificate on the grounds of public safety (which is a mandatory action for the local super should he suspect my possession of the firearm is a threat to that safety or to the peace).

So far, nobody I have ever spoken to on this point, yourself included, has been able to frame such an argument in a logically self-consistent way that survives honest critical argument.

Sparks

J C wrote: »

I'm saying nothing derogatory about legal fireams owners

Except that you are by using the wrong word to describe what they possess.
This isn't even a unique pattern either btw, this form of argument has been seen and decried elsewhere before, like the "all men are potential rapists" argument.
Being the subject of such a debunked argument is just defamatory in the legal sense of the term - ie. that the words you are choosing to use cast the people you are talking about in a negative light to the average listener.

Is there such a thing as an inherent weapon

In Irish law and usage, no. In the OED, no. Even in google, no, except in longer combinations of words talking about computer games.

what should a Nuclear Weapon in its silo be called?

Outside the purview of the law as it applies to private citizens.
I mean, if you want to use ridiculous examples, you're only going to have a ridiculous argument. Why not talk about whether or not war elephants are "weapons" and ignore the animal control and import laws? At least then it'd be funnier...

J C

Thanks to everyone.

Very interesting and thought-provoking points all round.

Cass

Splitting from this thread.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

It is kind of hard to argue against that one.

It actually isn't since you can't make an inert nuclear bomb, as they all have to have a critical mass of nuclear material, something that doesn't and cannot exist inertly and which has to be actively maintained. In other words, a nuclear bomb is in a whole other category even setting aside the more obvious legal and common sense points.

The simpsons!!! As in the cartoon.....I really think you could source better reference material to construct a better counter arguement. And records from the time and the origin of the earliest firearms and their purpose are well documented.

I'm afraid they really aren't. You're talking about records that were created not only before modern english but before the language modern english derives from and depending on what you call the first firearm, possible even before that language.
We just don't have records of anything that old that are reliable in the kind of detail you're talking about. From anywhere. On any subject. We have fragments, here and there, and we piece the rest together.

Do you really expect people to believe the chinese invented and developed them for the purpose of target shooting!

When did I say target shooting? We know fireworks were developed before firearms, is it so unlikely to you that a recreational device was repurposed?

Saying somthing isnt useful doesnt make it so. Remember the horse and the dog? Take for example the bow, been around a lot longer that firearms and about that records of origin are non existent. But I think its reasonable to assume that the earliest hunter gatherers didnt invent it for archery competition and target shooting. Its logical it was invented to cause harm and catch prey. Id consider it a weapon.

It's also possible it was used to start fires. Are we really having a discussion about what prehistoric man was thinking when he designed something we'd recognise in the modern world, from scratch?

My point does hold up as modern firearms still operate on the same principles and do the exact same thing as the earliest ones, they just do it a lot better. They are designed to cause harm, be it humans or animals as I said all along.

Again, you're saying all firearms are designed to do the one thing.
They're just not. You have actual hard evidence of that sitting right there on the firing line of every Olympics since the modern games started in the 1890s, you just don't want to accept that it's real. That's denial, not logical argument.

Really, you believe your firearm would only be a weapon and could harm humans if it was used as a club. And you think Im taking the mickey for using a nuclear bomb as an example of a weapon.....:rolleyes:

My kind of firearm (an air rifle) was used in at least one suicide attempt in the UK in the last decade that I know of. It was not successful at point-blank range. If you wanted to use it as a weapon, you would have to use it as a club. Since it's metal, it'd be a pretty good club, but so would a hurley and a hurley won't cost you two grand.
And we're back to the abuse argument again anyway there.

Its not the wrong word to describe a firearm, its only wrong in your opinion. I never said a weapon is another name for a firearm. What I said is its correct to describe a firearm as also being a weapon. The same as a sword is also a weapon.

This is not argument, this is denial.

I agree that the public are largely uneducated about firearms and this is well known. But it has no bearing on your arguement that a firearm schouldnt be called a weapon.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should use the wrong word for a thing because nobody is educated about that thing?
Especially when the word you're suggesting has very strong negative connotations that imply an object has already been used for an unethical purpose?

Come on now, there no point in being daft about it. And you need have no fear of being labeled a killer in waiting.

I, and every other shooter with a licenced firearm, already have been. By TDs. In the Dail, on the official record of this country's government.
So please don't tell me what happens when people use the wrong word to describe things to me, because I and every regular poster in here and tens of thousands of others live it on a daily basis.

I understand you dont agree with it because it upsets you

No. Your premise doesn't upset me, it's just wrong. What upsets me is that you believe that denying logical argument and evidence somehow counts as logical argument in and of itself. That kind of thinking doesn't just affect this narrow topic - it's a pretty basic reason why this world we're living in is so ****ed up.

Ghost.

World English Dictionary (Better source of reference than the simpsons in my opinion)
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

— n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Ive highlighted the important word for you. Its the english language, I hope you arent going to say there are few records of it.

The free dictionary:
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)
n
1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Again Ive highlighted the important word for you

Collins Dictionary
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm Pronunciation for firearm )

Definitions
noun

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Again Ive highlighted the important word for you. You cant really still think what Im saying is wrong and you are right can you. Unless you are now going to tell me the dictionary and the english language is wrong!!! Maybe it is and you are right!!! That is denial. But I dont really care any more.

My logic is sound, you seem to be having difficulty following it though. And you seem to have a good grasp of the english language so I dont see why what Im saying doesnt make sense to you. Just use a little common sense and it will click for you.

If you are caught in posession of any item covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 and find yourself in court Id be interested to see if your argument that something isnt actually a weapon until its used to cause harm will stand up. Therefor if you have not used it to harm somebody you arent in possession of a weapon. I doubt the guards would back your argument then.

Ive nothing more to say about it. Thats why I deleted my last post, I dont want to get drawn any further into this daft pointless argument. Your argument is deeply flawed and just choosing to ignore historical facts and the english language is difficult to respond to.

If you ever decide to pursue a career in law good luck with it, you will need it.

clivej

I remember target shooting @ 10y on the buildings years ago with a Hilti nail-gun. Scary when you see the 3" nails hit a block wall flat on. :eek::eek::eek:

---

Can anyone tell me where you can tick the box for a moderator on the FCA1 form. Section 3.2 Accessories it says silencer. So when we tick the box we are applying to use a silencer.

So then with that reasoning we all have permission to use a silencer not a moderator. ;);)

reniwren

Just noticed, the receipt letter I received from the guards had reference to both firearm and weapon, you can see why people call them different things according to their point of view really

meathstevie

Personally I tend to think of offensive weapons as anything produced, used, modified or intended to unlawfully hurt or kill people other than it's user. It can be anything from a rifle to pallets of fertilizer and a tank of diesel to make a bomb to something like a stick of wood.

Firearms in someone's possession for lawful purposes like target shooting, hunting, pest control, soldiering, policing, lawful sale and supply and so on are not offensive weapons but firearms.
In some cases the users are trained to use them against other persons but even then the principal purpose of doing that is hardly ever to hurt or kill someone but to neutralise threats or achieve certain objectives.

extremetaz

"Weapon" is an interesting word in that it's defined as a noun but regularly used as an adjective - that's where all this confusion is coming from.

Even the definition in any of the dictionaries is ambiguous (but for the "noun" declaration), usually phrased along the lines of "any object used"... which in itself is a pretty good indictment of the state of our society's ability to phrase anything precisely (which is, of course, pretty high on the list of things that a dictionary is meant to do), yet those three words are the crux of the matter.

Under Sparks interpretation, the implication of those words is that the specific artifact in question has itself been used in an offensive manner. "Used" is interpreted as being a statement of the past tense. This however would make the word "weapon" an adjective.

Under the counter arguments, "used" is interpreted in the present tense, leading to the phrase *actually* meaning "any object which has present application". Which of course conforms with the definition of a noun.

So - strictly speaking, the latter argument is correct.


However - for the love of all that is the superpower elseways known as common sense - would ye ever COP THE F*CK ON!! - Seriously, what is it with you people?!? is it simply "grammer entitlement"?? or is there some sort of "hard man" satisfaction gleaned from being able to say that you own a "weapon". For christ sake would ye ever grow up and get with the program!!

The application of sensationalist, Hollywood terminology (no matter how grammatically correct and justifiable), to the tools that we use to enjoy our hobby, serves only to project associations of violence to what is an entirely non-violent passtime.

In short you're doing a significant disservice to the entire community through the application of such terms - and even for the sake of that very fact I'd actually go so far as to submit that a revision of both terms is required in their dictionary definitions. It is quite obvious that they are each incorrect as they are presently defined.

Regardless of its status as a noun, the associations that "weapon" leads to mean that, in practice, it *IS* an adjective - making Sparks definition the more correct (albeit colloquially). Thusly, the term "firearm" is *not* justly defined by its application.

So, in summary - to all ye hardmen who want to describe your firearms as weapons, you're entirely grammatically correct in doing so according to the rules of the English language...


....but you're still assholes.


QED. :rolleyes:

Ghost.

extremetaz wrote: »

"Weapon" is an interesting word in that it's defined as a noun but regularly used as an adjective - that's where all this confusion is coming from.

Even the definition in any of the dictionaries is ambiguous (but for the "noun" declaration), usually phrased along the lines of "any object used"... which in itself is a pretty good indictment of the state of our society's ability to phrase anything precisely (which is, of course, pretty high on the list of things that a dictionary is meant to do), yet those three words are the crux of the matter.

Under Sparks interpretation, the implication of those words is that the specific artifact in question has itself been used in an offensive manner. "Used" is interpreted as being a statement of the past tense. This however would make the word "weapon" an adjective.

Under the counter arguments, "used" is interpreted in the present tense, leading to the phrase *actually* meaning "any object which has present application". Which of course conforms with the definition of a noun.

So - strictly speaking, the latter argument is correct.


However - for the love of all that is the superpower elseways known as common sense - would ye ever COP THE F*CK ON!! - Seriously, what is it with you people?!? is it simply "grammer entitlement"?? or is there some sort of "hard man" satisfaction gleaned from being able to say that you own a "weapon". For christ sake would ye ever grow up and get with the program!!

The application of sensationalist, Hollywood terminology (no matter how grammatically correct and justifiable), to the tools that we use to enjoy our hobby, serves only to project associations of violence to what is an entirely non-violent passtime.

In short you're doing a significant disservice to the entire community through the application of such terms - and even for the sake of that very fact I'd actually go so far as to submit that a revision of both terms is required in their dictionary definitions. It is quite obvious that they are each incorrect as they are presently defined.

Regardless of its status as a noun, the associations that "weapon" leads to mean that, in practice, it *IS* an adjective - making Sparks definition the more correct (albeit colloquially). Thusly, the term "firearm" is *not* justly defined by its application.

So, in summary - to all ye hardmen who want to describe your firearms as weapons, you're entirely grammatically correct in doing so according to the rules of the English language...


....but you're still assholes.


QED. :rolleyes:

That was a really good post. Especially the first half. But you lost the run of youself with the hardman and hollywood stuff in the second half. Dunno where you plucked the "hardman" stuff out of.

as for the last comment

extremetaz wrote: »

....but you're still assholes.

Well you really let yourself down there. I dont think there is any need to be abusive towards anyone. You had already made your point in a very good and civil manner.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

World English Dictionary ...
The free dictionary:....
Collins Dictionary....
...
Unless you are now going to tell me the dictionary and the english language is wrong!

No, but I will point out that those are US English dictionaries and we speak UK English, whose de facto primary dictionary is the OED, which says:

weapon:
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:

firearm
A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun:

Different words, for different things.

If you are caught in posession of any item covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 and find yourself in court Id be interested to see if your argument that something isnt actually a weapon until its used to cause harm will stand up.

Can I just point out to you there the name of the act?
It's the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act.
If firearms were weapons in the eyes of the law, why wouldn't that be called the Firearms Act? Why have two seperate terms in law unless they refer to two seperate things? (In fact, it's more explicit than that in reality - there are two seperate legal definitions for firearm and weapon because the law says they're two seperate things).

If you ever decide to pursue a career in law good luck with it, you will need it.

No thanks, I've written enough of the stuff for a lifetime

Sparks

For fits and giggles and because I couldn't actually remember back that far, I went and looked up the first time we had this argument on this website (I've had it on several others before this one as well). 2003 is the first reference I found on here. And that wasn't very long after I started posting on here in the first place.

Just to point out that this isn't a new argument and it's not the first time, or even the hundredth time, that we've heard this line of argument and there's nothing that's been said here in this thread that hasn't come up and been debunked the same way many, many times before. And it always boils down to "yes, I know the OED and the law and the gardai and the judiciary and the government all agree with your definition, but I can find dictionary entries/out-of-context quotes/sentimental pleas for acceptance of defamation for the good of society/derogatory jokes/etc/etc/etc, and my common sense says you're wrong so you are".

This is beyond getting old.

extremetaz

Ghost. wrote: »

But you lost the run of youself with the hardman and hollywood stuff in the second half. Dunno where you plucked the "hardman" stuff out of.

that latter half is what you may call an "opinion piece" if you like - bottom line is that I don't understand the insistance, and it's simply my stated opinion of those who chose to engage in it.

I would of course be interested in hearing a counter argument should anyone care to present one, and who knows, you might even manage to change my opinion - but right now I'll stand by every word of it - including that last line - because I can't feckin' stand ye!

Ghost.

Sparks, for more giggles the best bit is I like most shooters including yourself Im sure dont refer to them either as firearms or weapons, but as rifles, shotguns, guns etc. day to day.
As I said its a pretty pointless debate on pretty much a point of grammer a extremetz pointed out, and an old one as you have said.

extremetaz wrote: »

I would of course be interested in hearing a counter argument should anyone care to present one, and who knows, you might even manage to change my opinion

No counter argument from me, Ive argued my little heart out. Everyones entitled to their own opinion.

extremetaz wrote: »

I can't feckin' stand ye!

Ah no, dont say that. You seem like a lovely fella. You made me feel sad now, Im going to cry myself to sleep:(
Your last comment does say a lot about you, I guess it does lend weight to your post as you seem to be a lad who would know all about being a hardman.

extremetaz

what can I say - ya got me. :rolleyes:

Sparks

I think that's as good a place to draw a line as any.