Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Weapons Culture in Ireland

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Chloris wrote: »
    We do intend on eating them. Why's firing them into trees problematic?

    What happens if you miss? Where do you think the bullet is going to go?


  • Options
    #33
    Chloris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Chloris


    Strider wrote: »
    What happens if you miss? Where do you think the bullet is going to go?
    Into the tree? It would hardly ricochet, would it?


  • Options
    #34
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    HardenendMan wrote: »
    Does that not confirm his point of view though?! I see it as healthy because of the restrictions!

    Not entirely, criminals can still get their hands on the weapons. I agree with the background and security checks, making sure you have adequate storage, but having to apply for a license for each gun is a bit silly.
    Strider wrote: »
    You don't re-apply every year, it's every 3 years.

    My mistake.
    nokia69 wrote: »
    I can see why thats the system

    any thing else would be foolish IMO

    We don't have a large gun culture, so the unnecessary restrictions are more of a hindrance than anything else. If I recall correctly, there was talk of more restrictive laws being put in place to counter "mass shooting" from the Gardaí.
    Strider wrote: »
    What happens if you miss? Where do you think the bullet is going to go?

    Wherever physics takes it :)


  • Options
    #35
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Chloris wrote: »
    Into the tree? It would hardly ricochet, would it?

    Assuming the tree is on the line of trajectory, what is it's sitting out on a branch with nothing but sky behind it, would you think it's safe to fire then?


  • Options
    #36
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Not entirely, criminals can still get their hands on the weapons.

    So you are saying that the restrictions and procedures are a bit OTT, and loosening them will lessen criminals ability to get guns? Don't get it.

    And criminals that can currently get guns on the black market will never be stopped by strict gun control.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    Strider wrote: »
    Assuming the tree is on the line of trajectory, what is it's sitting out on a branch with nothing but sky behind it, would you think it's safe to fire then?

    Please don't take advice on this forum for how to safely do some shooting.

    Best advice I can give is to never go shooting with someone who is a bit of a messer. Especially if yee are having a few beers!!


  • Options
    #38
    Chloris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Chloris


    Strider wrote: »
    Assuming the tree is on the line of trajectory, what is it's sitting out on a branch with nothing but sky behind it, would you think it's safe to fire then?
    I see what you're saying. I thought you might be worried about damaging trees or something. Well their house is on a hill and the pigeons are mostly in the hedges at the back of the house, which just has a sloped grass area directly behind it. I'm obviously going to do more research on hunting before going out, all guns blazing.


  • Options
    #39
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    HardenendMan wrote: »
    So you are saying that the restrictions and procedures are a bit OTT, and loosening them will lessen criminals ability to get guns? Don't get it.

    And criminals that can currently get guns on the black market will never be stopped by strict gun control.

    No, I am saying that strict gun laws don't stop criminals getting them, all they do is provide needless hassle to responsible gun owners.

    Background/security checks and making sure you have adequate knowledge/training and storage should be all that is required. Unscheduled Gardai inspections, likely.


  • Options
    #40
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    We don't have a large gun culture, so the unnecessary restrictions are more of a hindrance than anything else. If I recall correctly, there was talk of more restrictive laws being put in place to counter "mass shooting" from the Gardaí.

    well most farmers I know have a shot gun but thats not really "gun culture" the reason we have restrictions is because of the political problems in the north, and thats a good idea IMO

    this is not a hindrance its common sense


  • Options
    #41
    Penfailed
    Registered Users Posts: 7,487 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Junkyard Cat wrote: »
    I clearly remember seeing holstered guns at eye height on the hips of cops as a kid. Where am I from?

    The north?

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    nokia69 wrote: »
    well most farmers I know have a shot gun but thats not really "gun culture" the reason we have restrictions is because of the political problems in the north, and thats a good idea IMO

    this is not a hindrance its common sense

    Illegality has never stopped a criminal from getting a weapon. The IRA stole weapons from the Army a couple times, I don't think they care much about being arrested for illegally owning a firearm :/ At the risk of sounding like an ass, I'll post the "if making things illegal stops criminals getting them, we should probably making selling drugs illegal" argument.

    There are needless hindrances in place for responsible gun owners, yes. I understand the need for reasonable restrictions (automatic weapons, background/security checks) but there is a great many unneeded restrictions which simply cause hassle for the responsible gun owners.


  • Options
    #43
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    I've actually got a licence for a shotgun which I use for shooting clays, and I've used a riffle & a handgun (which really aren't all that - riffle bores me to tears, and I'm just not accurate enough to enjoy shooting a handgun).

    I live in an apartment in the city though, so I obviously can't keep the shotgun in the house, so I keep it in the gun club where I'm a member.

    There's a lot of stupid rules though - I've got a shotgun and it's licenced. I've passed whatever tests the Gardai do on you to get the licence, so in their eyes, I'm ok to own a shotgun. Yet if I wanted to but a different shotgun instead after owning my one for a year or so, I'd need to apply all over again!


  • Options
    #44
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No, I am saying that strict gun laws don't stop criminals getting them, all they do is provide needless hassle to responsible gun owners.

    Background/security checks and making sure you have adequate knowledge/training and storage should be all that is required. Unscheduled Gardai inspections, likely.

    Ah right got ya.

    I dunno...I think getting a gun should be a big deal and be a pain. This stops people getting one for the sake of it. The more red tape, the less irresponsible gun owners there will be.

    Do you know much about the laws? Something I never asked my gun owning fried - are we (his friends) actually legally allowed shoot his gun?


  • Options
    #45
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    HardenendMan wrote: »

    Do you know much about the laws? Something I never asked my gun owning fried - are we (his friends) actually legally allowed shoot his gun?

    If you don't also have a licence for it, then you're not even allowed hold it legally speaking. If you were both on an authorised range it's a different story but just out in a field, you shouldnt be holding it. Sometimes it's necessary, if two lads are out shooting with their own guns for example and they need to cross a fence, one might unload the gun and hand it to the other guy to hold while he crosses it and then they'll switch to let him cross, that's necessary from a safety standpoint but legally speaking, they are breaking the law unless they have licences for the other gun they're holding. That's an example of the type of laws you deal with when you get into shooting.

    Another example is that the spent brass/shell from a bullet/shotgun cartridge being fired is considered a live round of ammunition and being caught with one unless you have a licence for it is illegal. So if you were walking through a field where someone had fired a gun and you found a piece of brass or a shell and you picked it up and brought it home just as a curiosity, you have broken the law.


  • Options
    #46
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    HardenendMan wrote: »
    Ah right got ya.

    I dunno...I think getting a gun should be a big deal and be a pain. This stops people getting one for the sake of it. The more red tape, the less irresponsible gun owners there will be.

    Do you know much about the laws? Something I never asked my gun owning fried - are we (his friends) actually legally allowed shoot his gun?

    I don't know much about our gun laws, no. I like firearms (a by-product of being interested in the military and browsing such forums), and looking into buying one or two, but it was too much of a pain and I never actually got around to doing it.

    I don't know many people who get guns "just for the sake of it". There are of course irresponsible gun owners, of course, which is why there should be mandatory checks to make sure you know what you're doing, but there are a great many pointless barriers to responsible gun owners.


  • Options
    #47
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Illegality has never stopped a criminal from getting a weapon

    yes it has, of course it has

    think about it


  • Options
    #48
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    nokia69 wrote: »
    yes it has, of course it has

    think about it

    No, it really hasn't. The US Federal weapon bans did nothing to affect weapon ownership numbers, nor on violent crime rates. It could be attributed more to incomes/economic circumstances.


    If making something illegal stopped criminals getting it, we should probably outlaw heroin.


  • Options
    #49
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No, it really hasn't. The US Federal weapon bans did nothing to affect weapon ownership numbers, nor on violent crime rates. It could be attributed more to incomes/economic circumstances.


    If making something illegal stopped criminals getting it, we should probably outlaw heroin.

    It does lessen it though. Because of the illegality, criminals have to have contacts, money, put in effort. So only the really serious criminals have guns. There are exceptions - serious crim gives some lacky a gun to do a job for him. But it does stop the retarded low level criminals from getting them.


  • Options
    #50
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No, it really hasn't. The US Federal weapon bans did nothing to affect weapon ownership numbers, nor on violent crime rates. It could be attributed more to incomes/economic circumstances..

    we don't live in the US

    only the most extreme Irish criminals have guns, in the US every cheap dime store hood can get his hand on serious fire power


  • Options
    #51
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    HardenendMan wrote: »
    It does lessen it though. Because of the illegality, criminals have to have contacts, money, put in effort. So only the really serious criminals have guns. There are exceptions - serious crim gives some lacky a gun to do a job for him. But it does stop the retarded low level criminals from getting them.

    Not from getting them, you can probably find a gun in Dublin quite easily (it's probably used in a murder though) if you know where to look.

    Even so, making it unnecessarily stringent for responsible gun owners (who are the only ones going to be affected by such legislation) is naive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    nokia69 wrote: »
    we don't live in the US

    only the most extreme Irish criminals have guns,

    Not so, quite a lot of criminals have guns. Wasn't there estimates of 250,000+ unregistered firearms in the country?
    nokia69 wrote: »
    in the US every cheap dime store hood can get his hand on serious fire power

    No, actually, they can't. You need to fill out forms/background checks (it's federal law, I believe), wait for the ATF to approve it, and you also need to satisfy the people selling you the weapon (they reserve the right to refuse anyone without explanation).

    The problem with guns in the US, is the saturation of weapons (though gun availability has had no affect on violent crime: in the UK, they banned firearms. Firearm-related incidents dropped, but knife-crime rose to almost a parity of pre-ban firearm incidents) and the extremism of both wings.

    Look at Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic. They have laxer gun laws than us, with relatively little gun crime. Laxer gun laws != more criminals getting guns, because the criminals would be disbarred from getting said weapons because of background/security checks.


  • Options
    #53
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Not from getting them, you can probably find a gun in Dublin quite easily (it's probably used in a murder though) if you know where to look.

    Even so, making it unnecessarily stringent for responsible gun owners (who are the only ones going to be affected by such legislation) is naive.

    Sorry but I disagree. I want gun owners to have lots of red tape to cross to show that they are very serious. Pain in the bum yes, but it's for the greater good. Stops people building up a war chest just for a bit of fun.


  • Options
    #54
    HardenendMan
    Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭HardenendMan


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Not so, quite a lot of criminals have guns. Wasn't there estimates of 250,000+ unregistered firearms in the country?



    No, actually, they can't. You need to fill out forms/background checks (it's federal law, I believe), wait for the ATF to approve it, and you also need to satisfy the people selling you the weapon (they reserve the right to refuse anyone without explanation).

    The problem with guns in the US, is the saturation of weapons (though gun availability has had no affect on violent crime: in the UK, they banned firearms. Firearm-related incidents dropped, but knife-crime rose to almost a parity of pre-ban firearm incidents) and the extremism of both wings.

    Look at Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic. They have laxer gun laws than us, with relatively little gun crime. Laxer gun laws != more criminals getting guns, because the criminals would be disbarred from getting said weapons because of background/security checks.

    No no no! I only want guns to be sold legally for farmers and sport. Never lower the restrictions I say. We need guns to be non existent for average joe.


  • Options
    #55
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    HardenendMan wrote: »
    No no no! I only want guns to be sold legally for farmers and sport. Never lower the restrictions I say. We need guns to be non existent for average joe.

    Why is that? Every statistic points to gun control not impacting gun crime in any meaningful way (economic circumstances, general crime rates and better indicators). The FBI have said the affect of their bans has not had any measurable affect, iirc.

    Should there be restrictions? Yes. Background/security checks, psyche evaluations, and proficiency tests. Should they be kept out of the hands of the average person? I don't believe so. So long as the person displays proper skill, why not allow them to have them?


  • Options
    #56
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No, actually, they can't. You need to fill out forms/background checks (it's federal law, I believe), wait for the ATF to approve it, and you also need to satisfy the people selling you the weapon (they reserve the right to refuse anyone without explanation).

    I'm pretty sure hardened criminals don't fill out application forms when they're buying guns. They're kind of sneaky that way.
    Look at Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic. They have laxer gun laws than us, with relatively little gun crime. Laxer gun laws != more criminals getting guns, because the criminals would be disbarred from getting said weapons because of background/security checks.

    Czech and Switzerland have both had mass shooting this year perpetrated by fellas using legally held firearms.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31608932
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32680212


  • Options
    #57
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    The problem with guns in the US, is the saturation of weapons (though gun availability has had no affect on violent crime:

    yes guns are ubiquitous, legal and illegal, I hope we never have the same problem, but yes gun availability has to have an affect on violet crime

    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    in the UK, they banned firearms. Firearm-related incidents dropped,

    of course

    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    but knife-crime rose to almost a parity of pre-ban firearm incidents) and the extremism of both wings.
    .

    a different problem, but not as bad IMO


  • Options
    #58
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure hardened criminals don't fill out application forms when they're buying guns. They're kind of sneaky that way.

    And that was not the claim. The claim was that anyone could walk into a shop and get some "serious firepower", which was not true.

    By your own logic, banning firearms does not hinder criminals.
    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Czech and Switzerland have both had mass shooting this year perpetrated by fellas using legally held firearms.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31608932
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32680212

    Haha, I knew both of them would be brought up.

    Yes, they were carried out with legal firearms, but they can be studied as statistical anomalies, not a standard rule of thumb.

    The IRA used legally bought cars (well, someone legally bought them) in car bombs in Britain. But that does not mean restricting car sales would stop it or lessen the impact. They would still have used them. Thus, car bombs would be statistical anomalies when studying car-related deaths.


  • Options
    #59
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    nokia69 wrote: »
    yes guns are ubiquitous, legal and illegal, I hope we never have the same problem, but yes gun availability has to have an affect on violet crime

    It doesn't. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but every statistic shows that gun bans (even from the people who instated the bans) have no noticeable affect on overall violent crime.

    nokia69 wrote: »
    a different problem, but not as bad IMO

    Not a different problem, the same problem. Violent crime. It is hardly coincidence that knife crime rose to an almost parity with pre-ban gun crime, is it?

    You can point to statistical anomalies (mass shootings) but I can also point to mass stabbings in China, that doesn't mean knife availability should be looked at.


  • Options
    #60
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Not a different problem, the same problem. Violent crime. It is hardly coincidence that knife crime rose to an almost parity with pre-ban gun crime, is it?

    You can point to statistical anomalies (mass shootings) but I can also point to mass stabbings in China, that doesn't mean knife availability should be looked at.

    I think its different

    mass shootings are not that rare, the american right to bare arms dates back to the war of independence when a gun was a one shot, stop, and reload weapon

    in the modern world its very different, the rate of fire is far higher, what Jefferson, Madison, and co called guns is very different to what we call guns


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    nokia69 wrote: »
    I think its different

    It isn't, though.
    nokia69 wrote: »
    mass shootings are not that rare, the american right to bare arms dates back to the war of independence when a gun was a one shot, stop, and reload weapon

    And they can be safely considered statistical anomalies, as they are not the norm. Several thousand are killed every year in violent crimes, whilst only a handful are killed in mass murders. Yes, it is abhorrent, but it is relatively few in comparison to other violent crimes.
    nokia69 wrote: »
    in the modern world its very different, the rate of fire is far higher, what Jefferson, Madison, and co called guns is very different to what we call guns

    What does this have to do with responsible gun ownership?


Advertisement