Gardai with guns!

Witcher

Kirby wrote: »

You own and fire guns. Your opinion on the use of guns is clearly biased because of this. So if you are going to discount my opinion because I am not a police officer, I'm going to discount yours for being a gun nut.

See how this works? I'm betting you wished you hadn't made that comment now.

I haven't posted anything related to the 'use of guns'. As I edited into my post; I would have called you out the same way for saying the Gardai 'absolutely don't need' any piece of equipment.

Gun nut...christ.

Kirby

"I don't think the Gardaí need guns"
"You aren't a Guard! What would you know!"

That was basically your response and it's as juvenile and ridiculous as it sounds.

EoghanIRL

The amount of obese guards you see these days is ridiculous . I thought you had to pass some fitness test or something ??

stehyl15

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The amount of obese guards you see these days is ridiculous . I thought you had to pass some fitness test or something ??

Too much chipper and breakfast rolls i supose

EoghanIRL

stehyl15 wrote: »

Too much chipper and breakfast rolls i supose

Just run up a gently sloping hill and you've already won.

moc moc a moc

roadsmart wrote: »

in fact every detective grade Garda is

Every detective-grade Garda has the option of carrying a firearm. I wouldn't assume that every single one of them necessarily avails of that prerogative.

Piliger

roadsmart wrote: »

You're way off. Far more than ERU and RSU are armed, in fact every detective grade Garda is. That's roughly a quarter of the force afaik.

No actually they are not. They have the choice to go armed when there is a clear need, but the vast majority do not do so the vast majority of the time.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hardly a convincing argument. There's a reason that all military and police sidearms introduced today are semi-auto.

Wasn't defending the argument at all, but incidents like that give rise to exaggerated claims of unreliability. It seems that every time any police force or military adopts something new there are a dedicated group of people champing at the bit to complain about even the smallest defect or teething problems and blow them out of proportion.

MadsL

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

one shot would do :cool:

Delusional.

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's hard to see an Irish criminal, scum that they are, kill an unarmed guard.

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

meathstevie

nelly17 wrote: »

I wasnt aware that they were on their person, for some reason I always thought they were in a Lock Box in the back of the Volvo

That would be as useful as the proverbial tits on a bull. There's probably some more specialised equipment under lock and key in the vehicles alright but locking away all firearms would be nonsensical as it costs time that can not be afforded to be lost in critical response situations.

meathstevie

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's hard to see an Irish criminal, scum that they are, kill an unarmed guard. Most know damn well that it'd be life in prison with feck all chance of parole. If the garda doesn't have a gun they can just point theirs at them to make a getaway. Highly unlikely they'd fire at an unarmed guard.

If the garda had a gun then suddenly the "getaway" scenario has turned into a potential shootout scenario. One, if not both of them, will wind up shot. Hypothetically, Adrian Donohoe might have lived if he didn't try to take on the robbers in Dundalk (which was a brave and commendable thing to do). If possible, a follow up raid or tactical arrest by the ERU would have been better, stacking the odds in the favour of the gardaí who have bigger, better weapons and top notch training.

I was robbed at gunpoint when I worked in a petrol station three years ago now. In the heat of the moment I'd of loved every armed guard and soldier in the country to zipline/paraglide/jetpack down from nowhere and riddle your man. Put with a calm head I'm glad the only gun was in the hand of the robber (who wound up getting nothing anyways - counter was behind glass and just leaped into the office). He ran away and the detectives (who arrived within a few minutes) took a guess at who it was based on our info, put his door in that night, arrested him and retrieved the gun and I assume your man was put in jail. Not a single shot fired.

There was also the incident at the RIRA funeral in North Dublin a few years back when handguns were fired over the coffin or something. Many people were shocked that the garda didn't wade into a huge crowed with live ammo just to stop a few lads with handguns. Instead the detectives and whatever other secretive units were monitoring the funeral made follow up arrests and retrieved the weapons.

This is how I want armed policing conducted in Ireland.

What you are talking about are tactical decisions. Those are made with minimising risks as the overwhelming factor. Nobody with an ounce of tactical training in that kind of situation will consider an all guns blazing option as first choice but when risks have to taken and shots need to fired you still want two things available. The first is immediate or at least rapid deployment and the second is decisiveness. An under equipped firearms unit an hours travel away is no good when some poor shop worker is held hostage with a knife against his throat and the means to neutralize the threat are insufficient and the poor sod ends up stabbed anyway.

harry Bailey esq

Heckler wrote: »

No such thing as an automatic sidearm. A Sig is a semi-automatic firearm, as are all other pistols unless illegally modified.

a glock 18 IS fully auto,but lets not nitpick
an ingram mac 10 is classed as a handgun and can also be flicked onto fully auto.but Christ almighty,I wouldn't recommend one of those for anybody,even the police!

wendell borton

MadsL wrote: »

Delusional.



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

Considering we've been through a civil war and the troubles the numbers shot dead is extremely small. The majority of deaths were accidental.

A male uniform motorcyclist traffic corps member was shot on duty in around Dublin 3, if I remember correctly a few years ago.
A male uniformed sergeant was shot with a sawn off shotgun in crumlin a few years before that.

Now, neither of them were killed, thank god! But it does show that criminals are more likely these days to shoot at unarmed uniformed gardai.

Having said that, there are more than enough firearms held by members of AGS, the problem is the distribution, many firearms holders are mainly in offices and only occasionally need to be armed. Also, there are times of the day when there are fewer armed members than others.

kerry4sam

kerry4sam wrote: »

Oh Heavens Above, that's far too high!



I can't help but wonder now should we be looking to making it some way easier for guns with the average joe soap. Considering the full-timers who cannot be trusted to keep their tongue, or their heads at times, to think it's very possible they could be armed when they loose it, should they loose it, should people be entitled to a fair/equal way to defend oneself

I've always been anti-gun ownership, but just cannot help but think this may be the way to go,

Just a query,
kerry4sam

Are you serious???
You think that it should be made easier for people to own guns because you think someday some guard, may 'lose the head' and start shooting people!!!

That's some statement.

Santa Cruz

Dean0088 wrote: »

A risky tactic but I'd argue that it has served the country well by indeed making AGS acceptable to the Irish people, and alienating armed groups such as the anti-treaty IRA, PIRA and now whatever new concoction of IRA groups have formed over the last decade.

AFAIK, the PIRA leadership forbid direct attacks against Gardaí and Irish soldiers because they knew it'd kill any support they had in the Republic. Obviously incidents happened when they collided but overall the gardaí have mostly been left alone during all conflicts on this Island - particularly post 1930s.

You are correct there in so much as IRA orders were not to engage with the forces south of the murder. Sadly there were many occasions where this order was disobeyed. Of course if the IRA had taken on the army/Gardai in the same manner that they took on RUC/British Army I think they would have come off second best. The Governments south of the border have shown that they are not slow to use extreme measures when under threat

Piliger

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you serious???
You think that it should be made easier for people to own guns because you think someday some guard, may 'lose the head' and start shooting people!!!

That's some statement.

It matches the kind of mind numbing way of thinking you hear in the States all the time. "We have to protect ourselves from the government !" LOL.

Fukuyama

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You are correct there in so much as IRA orders were not to engage with the forces south of the murder. Sadly there were many occasions where this order was disobeyed. Of course if the IRA had taken on the army/Gardai in the same manner that they took on RUC/British Army I think they would have come off second best. The Governments south of the border have shown that they are not slow to use extreme measures when under threat

Very true.

However I don't think regular gardaí could ever have been a target even if the government of the Republic had actively engaged and not just contained PIRA. There's something about targeting unarmed police that's just distasteful and would have caused a dropoff in support for the IRA. Even in war there are still some moral rules which are mostly followed.

The PIRA were a lot of things and carried out some scummy atrocities but they were still a group that could sit around a table and talk. I think the higher-ups in PIRA knew it'd always end in an agreement and using savagery beyond reproach wouldn't have forced the hand of the government North or South, rather it would have strengthened their resolve.

An armed police force, in my opinion, justifies a legitimate target in times of war/conflict. Particularly one that was as 'involved' as the RUC. I don't agree with the IRA or anything but speaking in a pure objective manner - if a force (police or para-military) becomes armed it's placing itself in the firing line.

Heckler

This gun debate always just goes round and round. Yes I'm biased I own guns but as I see it gun owners here put forward a reasonable argument (forget about America !) only to get called "gun nuts", "Rambo wannabes" etc.

I really wish some of you anti-gun crowd would take the time to actually visit a shooting club and see what goes on. Speaking from my own experience in my club:

Nothing is more paramount than safety.

You don't remove a firearm from a vehicle without the approval of the designated range safety officer. Doesn't matter if he's your best friend you've known for years. You ask first.

No camouflage or tactical looking clothing.

No military or human shaped targets allowed.

Any breach of the safety rules you're given a bollocking. A second breach you're told to leave and not come back.

All shooting is done by the command of the range officer. Eyes and ear protection at all times. Line ready, load and make ready. Then depending on the discipline shoot when told. After, unload and show clear.

I would guess that of 3 hours at my club of a day probably 30 minutes is actually spent shooting. Between yakking, going forward to check targets etc.

At 41 I'm probably the youngest in my club.

There are guys there shooting for over 40 years with multiple firearms for different disciplines which means they have been vetted by AGS each and every time each one of those firearms has been up for licence renewal. This would run into the hundreds in some cases over the years.