Drug gun comparison

mick65cm

I got banned on different site for poisting this but i think its reasonable.



In america gun laws are lax and people in pick up guns fairly handy both legally and illegally. and look at all the shootings they have it would be seen as madness for any country to want to copy them.

but switzerland have very lax gun laws and similar amount of assualt rifles in the country but no mass killings. Absoluteely 0.


Could drugs be the same. When people say legalise all drugs it worked for portugal.

Is that like saying let people have any guns they want and there will be no extra deaths because it works for switzerland- just ignore america.

I think one country is doing something is not enough to base on argument on.

The_Valeyard

The average citizen does not need a weapon. Unless you are a farmer and caring for cattle or member of the defence forces, specialised gardai, nobody needs to carry a weapon.

thattequilagirl

Well, the US and Switzerland have very little in common. Portugal and Ireland are both small post-Catholic countries on the periphery of Europe.

There's no denying that it worked in Portugal, and we need to do something about the heroin problem here. Criminalising marijuana users is ridiculous when you look at our relationship with alcohol, weed causes far less damage.

El Tarangu

Switzerland has a the 2nd highest firearm-related death rate in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Badly Drunk Boy

El Tarangu wrote: »

Switzerland has a the 2nd highest firearm-related death rate in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

4th highest according to your link. Montenegro, Serbia and Finland are higher. Still high, though...

kneemos

El Tarangu wrote: »

Switzerland has a the 2nd highest firearm-related death rate in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

It includes suicides.If guns are available I'd imagine it may be a popular choice.

Badly Drunk Boy

kneemos wrote: »

It includes suicides.If guns are available I'd imagine it may be a popular choice.

Yeah, I was just about to say the 1 in 3 firearm-related deaths in the US are homicides, but in the European countries it's usually less than 1 in 10.

mick65cm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Switzerland has a the 2nd highest firearm-related death rate in Europe.

I was getting at the school shootings and stuff... not really lads comitting suicide. But doesnt matter anyway cause the question I was really asking was do people think if something works for one single country should that be enough to say it will work for definite for everyone else.

biko

El Tarangu wrote: »

Switzerland has a the 2nd highest firearm-related death rate in Europe.

Firearm-related doesn't mean murder. Switzerland murder rate is very low.

Huntergonzo

Is it not the case that Portugal decriminalised all drugs, which isn't the same as legalisation, I mean you can't go to any sort of shop and buy a bag of weed or cocaine in Portugal as far as I'm aware.

But decriminalisation is only a step in the right direction, drugs like cannabis should be legal worldwide, it's prohibition is embarrassing. As for harder drugs, I can see arguments both ways, only fact of the matter is that people can still get their hands on them quite easily regardless of the law, which doesn't say a lot for 'the war on drugs'.

As for guns, I grew up on a dairy farm and as such I've fired a shotgun a couple of times (once at a clay pigeon and once at an empty can of bavaria) and honestly I can't for the life of me understand the attraction, they're dangerous and unnecessary.

Joe or Mary Bloggs does not need a gun when they're pissed off, but a big aul spliff might be just what the doctor ordered!

biko

Maybe the problem with US is that it's full of yanks? Could that be it?

El Tarangu

biko wrote: »

Firearm-related doesn't mean murder. Switzerland murder rate is very low.

There were two mass shootings within the space of a few weeks of each other in 2013.

The point I'm making is that while they are still mercifully rare, they are a lot more common than, say, Ireland, where firearm ownership is very restricted.

SEPT 23 1989

paranoia and an assault rifle is not a good combination

BattleCorp

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The average citizen does not need a weapon. Unless you are a farmer and caring for cattle or member of the defence forces, specialised gardai, nobody needs to carry a weapon.

I have firearms, not weapons and I am an average citizen.

I use my firearms for my sport, target shooting. Add me to the above list of people who need guns please.

I don't carry them around with me though, only to and from the range.

kneemos

The yanks aren't far removed from the wild west mentality in fairness. Add in inner city deprivation and drug wars.

seamus

mick65cm wrote: »

but switzerland have very lax gun laws and similar amount of assualt rifles in the country but no mass killings. Absoluteely 0.

"Very lax" in comparison to Ireland. Quite stiff in comparison to the US. The US also has an attitude problem in relation to weapons, citing one's "right" to have a weapon. This invented entitlement overrides common sense. It doesn't exist in Switzerland, so people don't go waving around weapons that they bought just because they could, and they don't have any sense of entitlement to that weapon.

I think one country is doing something is not enough to base on argument on.

Generally you're right, but the comparison you make with Switzerland and the US isn't valid because they don't do things the same way.

If a country was looking to legalise guns, would you tell them to look at the US model or the Swiss model?

You'd tell them to follow the Swiss model, which acknowledges that they do things differently.

Likewise the Portuguese model indicates that decriminalisation works. So it's a good place to start, but it doesn't guarantee it would work here. Follow the Portuguese model to avoid making the mistakes they may have made along the way but keep monitoring it to see how the introduction works and whether it needs to be tweaked for local conditions.

Hercule Poirot

The gun ownership debate always makes me think of the UK's reaction to Dunblane - it happened once, never again. There is no need for an ordinary citizen to have access to a gun (members of gun clubs aside) - no reason at all.

Drugs are a different kettle of fish; legalising drugs does not remove/reduce crime completely - the people of Amsterdam would tell you this, however anything that even slightly impacts on the gangs of Ireland/Europe would be a good thing in my opinion

BrokenArrows

mick65cm wrote: »

I was getting at the school shootings and stuff... not really lads comitting suicide. But doesnt matter anyway cause the question I was really asking was do people think if something works for one single country should that be enough to say it will work for definite for everyone else.

People just aren't getting your actual question!!

So ya, i think that just because something works in one country it doesn't mean it will work in another.
I cant think of any prime examples of this outside of drugs and guns.

Back to the off topic discussion of guns...
I think Americas biggest problem is that their history is full of lawlessness and violence (the days of the lawless wild west) and in the past 100 years of movies they are portrayed as the gun toting shoot first and ask questions later. The hero kills dozens of people with no repercussions. Im not saying watching a movie is going to make you kill someone but when your raised as an American and the world thinks your a gun nut then its going to affect you. Life imitates art.

Its also a genetic thing in my opinion. Tendency towards violence can be something which is pass down from generation to generation and America was initially populated by people who were the risk taking violent type.
And also for a long time America was the go to place for people from all over the world to run away from their criminal problems in other countries.
This can cause a slightly higher than average amount of violence in the country and when the country does nothing to curb access to weaponry then mass murder is the inevitable outcome.

Huntergonzo

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

The gun ownership debate always makes me think of the UK's reaction to Dunblane - it happened once, never again. There is no need for an ordinary citizen to have access to a gun (members of gun clubs aside) - no reason at all.

Drugs are a different kettle of fish; legalising drugs does not remove/reduce crime completely - the people of Amsterdam would tell you this, however anything that even slightly impacts on the gangs of Ireland/Europe would be a good thing in my opinion

There's no question that legalizing drugs doesn't completely stop crime, I don't think there's a society on earth that has managed to stop crime. But decriminalising drugs does stop making criminals out of people who take drugs and legalisation does the same with added tax benefits to the state.

sbsquarepants

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Well, the US and Switzerland have very little in common. Portugal and Ireland are both small post-Catholic countries on the periphery of Europe.

There's no denying that it worked in Portugal, and we need to do something about the heroin problem here. Criminalising marijuana users is ridiculous when you look at our relationship with alcohol, weed causes far less damage.

I'm all for legalisation, but a lot of people miss the point about Portugal.
It's not that they just decriminalised everything, it's that they took the money the would have spent pointlessly trying to stop the drugs in the first place, and prosecute (persecute!) users in the second place and they spent it wisely on rehab and education.
Prohibition has been a disaster at all times and in all cultures, it just doesn't work. Everyone knows this, so why do we keep doing it?

Bio Mech

I thought this thread was going to compare different types of drug guns. Whats best for supplying your friends over the wall in Mountjoy? The cocaine blaster or the heroin hand cannon. Alas no its not.

BattleCorp

Huntergonzo wrote: »

There's no question that legalizing drugs doesn't completely stop crime, I don't think there's a society on earth that has managed to stop crime. But decriminalising drugs does stop making criminals out of people who take drugs and legalisation does the same with added tax benefits to the state.

If you decriminalised drugs like they did in Portugal, heroin addicts will still need drug dealers to get their gear from, so there would still be gang killings and turf wars.

Legalisation with distribution of drugs through controlled clinics would probably get rid of most of the drug dealers. The only way someone might go to a drug dealer in those circumstances would be if the drug dealer was cheaper or maybe had an out of hours service.

Huntergonzo

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you decriminalised drugs like they did in Portugal, heroin addicts will still need drug dealers to get their gear from, so there would still be gang killings and turf wars.

Legalisation with distribution of drugs through controlled clinics would probably get rid of most of the drug dealers. The only way someone might go to a drug dealer in those circumstances would be if the drug dealer was cheaper or maybe had an out of hours service.

This is true, this is why personally I favour legalisation, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction but it's a funny one. It's basically like legalising drugs for the buyer but not the seller and it turns down the chance to bring in tax from the sale of drugs.

Legal or illegal, drugs aren't hard to get, never have been, never will be, governments should acknowledge this and try to make the trade safer through regulation.

BattleCorp

Huntergonzo wrote: »

This is true, this is why personally I favour legalisation, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction but it's a funny one. It's basically like legalising drugs for the buyer but not the seller and it turns down the chance to bring in tax from the sale of drugs.

Legal or illegal, drugs aren't hard to get, never have been, never will be, governments should acknowledge this and try to make the trade safer through regulation.

I'm not in favour of corner shops selling heroin to anybody who wants it, but clearly the current system isn't working.

There are still pitfalls to the "legalise everything" system. One being similar to the Netherlands. They had pot heads from all over Europe flocking there because weed is legal.

We'd be in the same boat if we legalised everything. You'd have junkies from all over flocking here and that wouldn't be a good thing.

mahoganygas

I don't think it is wise to compare just 2 societal norms and hope to come up with a meaningful conclusion.

Yes, drug laws and gun laws have an effect on each other.

I'd argue that access to mental health services and gun laws would be a better comparison. But it doesn't tell the full story. Switzerland and USA are two incredibly different countries.

Huntergonzo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not in favour of corner shops selling heroin to anybody who wants it, but clearly the current system isn't working.

There are still pitfalls to the "legalise everything" system. One being similar to the Netherlands. They had pot heads from all over Europe flocking there because weed is legal.

We'd be in the same boat if we legalised everything. You'd have junkies from all over flocking here and that wouldn't be a good thing.

I've been to Amsterdam twice myself (I'm not really a weed smoker though, and I hate tobacco) and I thought it was a lovely city, has it's problems of course but so do all cities.

I don't think the corner shop should be selling heroin either, heroin is about as hard as it gets and should be discouraged at every opportunity.

You could start off lighter with cannabis though and I wouldn't worry too much about smokers flocking over here in great numbers causing problems, I think claims of significant problems are often exaggerated to scare people. There would be extra tourists in of course but that would be an opportunity to increase revenue for the country.

Hercule Poirot

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I've been to Amsterdam twice myself (I'm not really a weed smoker though, and I hate tobacco) and I thought it was a lovely city, has it's problems of course but so do all cities.

I don't think the corner shop should be selling heroin either, heroin is about as hard as it gets and should be discouraged at every opportunity.

You could start off lighter with cannabis though and I wouldn't worry too much about smokers flocking over here in great numbers causing problems, I think claims of significant problems are often exaggerated to scare people. There would be extra tourists in of course but that would be an opportunity to increase revenue for the country.

Personally, if the "soft" drugs like cannabis were available from government sponsored agencies (rather than the local newsagent) it could be beneficial all round - it create more revenue for the government and cut out the gang land connections.

We know that there would be black market for getting these drugs cheaper, it would be inevitable, but in a society where alcohol and tobacco are legal it is scandalous that cannabis is seen with such scorn.

gctest50

BattleCorp wrote: »

......... You'd have junkies from all over flocking here and that wouldn't be a good thing.

dey tuk all our drugs joe sorta thing ?

TeaBagMania

[QUOTE=seamus;98835822 The US also has an attitude problem in relation to weapons, citing one's "right" to have a weapon. This invented entitlement overrides common sense. It doesn't exist in Switzerland, so people don't go waving around weapons that they bought just because they could, and they don't have any sense of entitlement to that weapon.[/QUOTE]



But you see we do have a “right” to own firearms it’s in our constitution, so what’s wrong with exercising the amendment in our constitution?

And if you feel the desire to go waving you gun around, it’s called brandishing, not only will you go to jail for it but your lose your right to ever own another firearm

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The average citizen does not need a weapon. Unless you are a farmer and caring for cattle or member of the defence forces, specialised gardai, nobody needs to carry a weapon.

I don't understand the farmer caring for cattle part. Why would a farmer caring for cattle need a gun?

I think people want firearms more so than need firearms. We should also be using the correct term "firearms" as the term "gun" tends to infer "weapon".

The USA and Switzerland have different approaches towards firearms, "because it's my constitutional right" shouldn't be a reason to purchase a firearm. "Because I like to shoot stuff, I like guns, I like hunting," etc, are more logical reasons imo.

BrokenArrows

TeaBagMania wrote: »

But you see we do have a “right” to own firearms it’s in our constitution, so what’s wrong with exercising the amendment in our constitution?And if you feel the desire to go waving you gun around, it’s called brandishing, not only will you go to jail for it but your lose your right to ever own another firearm

The problem is that your constitution had this amendment added to it in 1791. Things have changed a lot since then.
In 1791 the "arms" that they would have were single round muskets which took a long time to reload. Those that came up with the idea for "right to bear arms" never imagined that someone could hold a weapon which could hold a few dozen rounds and fire them all in a few seconds.

Also it was introduced at a time when there was the need for the people to be able to defend themselves against foreign and domestic invasion. That risk is no longer present as the USA has a comprehensive domestic and foreign army and an armed police force to protect its citizens. Neither of these existed in 1791.

Since this is an amendment to your constitution it should now be amended again to remove this.

Huntergonzo

Aleah Aggressive Hamper wrote: »

I don't understand the farmer caring for cattle part. Why would a farmer caring for cattle need a gun?

To keep townies away from cow tipping and kill the occasional badger.

Deise Vu

As I understand it, Swiss males undergo compulsory military service and they bring their weapons home with them (must be interesting if you are in a Tank regiment). So maybe proper training in weapons and understanding their function versus learning from Hollywood / Notorius Big / Sarah Palin is the key?

TeaBagMania

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The problem is that your constitution had this amendment added to it in 1791. Things have changed a lot since then.
In 1791 the "arms" that they would have were single round muskets which took a long time to reload. Those that came up with the idea for "right to bear arms" never imagined that someone could hold a weapon which could hold a few dozen rounds and fire them all in a few seconds.

Ahh I see you watched that propaganda video on youtube

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Also it was introduced at a time when there was the need for the people to be able to defend themselves against foreign and domestic invasion. That risk is no longer present as the USA has a comprehensive domestic and foreign army and an armed police force to protect its citizens. Neither of these existed in 1791.

We still need to defend ourselves from foreign invasion, if nothing more than a deterrent. Another country would have to be mad to try a ground invasion in the US, there are more firearms than there are people, and IMO the domestic threat is far greater. Tyranny is alive and well in Washington DC and far overdue for elimination

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Since this is an amendment to your constitution it should now be amended again to remove this.

LOL yeah like that will ever happen

Hercule Poirot

TeaBagMania wrote: »

But you see we do have a “right” to own firearms it’s in our constitution, so what’s wrong with exercising the amendment in our constitution?

And if you feel the desire to go waving you gun around, it’s called brandishing, not only will you go to jail for it but your lose your right to ever own another firearm

The problem with this (and I'm not aiming this at you specifically) is that when the guns are brandished it usually leads to fatalities - surely the civil liberties of people far outweigh the rights of the constitution?

So the person loses the right to own another fireman? So what? The damage has already been done

BattleCorp

Aleah Aggressive Hamper wrote: »

I don't understand the farmer caring for cattle part. Why would a farmer caring for cattle need a gun?

I think it might have been a bad choice of words. Farmers might need guns to protect against vermin such as foxes attacking lambs, rabbits eating crops etc.

I think people want firearms more so than need firearms. We should also be using the correct term "firearms" as the term "gun" tends to infer "weapon".

You can't get a gun in Ireland if you want one. By law, you must need a firearm before the Gardai are allowed to give you a firearms licence. If you take part in target shooting, hunting or vermin control, then you need a firearm to do this. Firearms aren't allowed for self defence here in Ireland.

I've no problem with the word 'gun'. It's the word 'weapon' that I have a huge problem with. I have firearms/guns. I don't have weapons. A weapon is something that you attack somebody with. A chair could be a weapon if I hit somebody over the head with it but people don't describe it as a weapon to start off with.

The USA and Switzerland have different approaches towards firearms, "because it's my constitutional right" shouldn't be a reason to purchase a firearm. "Because I like to shoot stuff, I like guns, I like hunting," etc, are more logical reasons imo.

The USA and Switzerland have very different approaches to all sorts of laws. You'll find that the average Swiss person is pretty law abiding. That's not to say that the average US citizen isn't, but the US does have all sorts of mad sh1t going on over there with regard to law breaking that Switzerland doesn't have.

BrokenArrows

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Ahh I see you watched that propaganda video on youtube




We still need to defend ourselves from foreign invasion, if nothing more than a deterrent. Another country would have to be mad to try a ground invasion in the US, there are more firearms than there are people, and IMO the domestic threat is far greater. Tyranny is alive and well in Washington DC and far overdue for elimination





LOL yeah like that will ever happen

No propaganda video was watched. What is propaganda about what i said? Its all true, i just read some books at some point in my life and i have common sense.

And you my friend are the typical American who likes his guns.

ps. Stop increasing your font size. Thats just encouraging the loud american stereotype.

TeaBagMania

It’s true I do like my firearms, unless you grew up in the states it difficult for others to comprehend.

I don’t even get to use them as much as I would like too, id say I probably go to the range once a year, probably more like once every 18 months

When I quote someone my font changes size, but when I use Quick Reply it works fine. It’s a Boards issue not me

BattleCorp

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Also it was introduced at a time when there was the need for the people to be able to defend themselves against foreign and domestic invasion. That risk is no longer present as the USA has a comprehensive domestic and foreign army and an armed police force to protect its citizens. Neither of these existed in 1791.

Since this is an amendment to your constitution it should now be amended again to remove this.

Do you not think Americans will need to be armed to protect themselves from President Trump? :pac: :pac: :pac:

Seriously though, it's in their constitution so they have every right to have a gun.

We have no right to tell them to change it. Similarly they have no right to tell us to allow abortion etc.

And personally I believe that if they did have a constitutional referendum on the right to bare arms issue over there, it would be defeated. They aren't in the habit of removing their rights over there.

seamus

TeaBagMania wrote: »

We still need to defend ourselves from foreign invasion, if nothing more than a deterrent. Another country would have to be mad to try a ground invasion in the US

Not because of the people, tbh.

You'd have to be mad because the US has the largest military-industrial complex in the world and has overfunded and heavily armed security forces, including SWAT teams, even in small towns.

The people themselves would quickly start shooting eachother in blind panic. Your average Joe with a weapon is not trained to use it. The same reason why more guns in public doesn't make mass shootings safer, arguably making them even more deadly.

Thinking about the violence we've had here in Ireland where four guys ran into a conference room with AK's. One person dead, a few shots fired. If everyone in that room had been armed, there would have been a bloodbath.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Huntergonzo wrote: »

To keeping townies away from cow tipping and kill the occasional badger.

Frog :pac:

TeaBagMania

One area I commend Ireland on is requiring firearm owners to purchase and bolt down a gun safe in their home and then have it inspected and signed off on by the guard.

I would totally support this in the states, IMO gun owners aren’t held liable enough.

If my child or any child in my home gets a hold of my firearm and hurts someone with it because I failed to secure it properly than I should be held 100% liable

Also, to help weed out the wackos maybe some kind of physical\mental health evaluation is needed, hell, I have to have a physical to fly my plane and that’s just as lethal as a firearm

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

BattleCorp wrote: »

You can't get a gun in Ireland if you want one. By law, you must need a firearm before the Gardai are allowed to give you a firearms licence. If you take part in target shooting, hunting or vermin control, then you need a firearm to do this.

I didn't mean what you put down in your application or what you say to the FO, but what people generally think to themselves. The reason behind owning a firearm may be vermin control or targeting shooting, but they are not necessities if you get what I mean. "Because I would like to have a gun" isn't going to get you one :P

TeaBagMania wrote: »

One area I commend Ireland on is requiring firearm owners to purchase and bolt down a gun safe in their home and then have it inspected and signed off on by the guard.

I would totally support this in the states, IMO gun owners aren’t held liable enough.

If my child or any child in my home gets a hold of my firearm and hurts someone with it because I failed to secure it properly than I should be held 100% liable

Also, to help weed out the wackos maybe some kind of physical\mental health evaluation is needed, hell, I have to have a physical to fly my plane and that’s just as lethal as a firearm

Unless the law has changed recently, I don't believe Gardai are required to inspect your premesis or the safe. They can request an inspection but your application shouldn't be effected if you refuse. Correct me if i'm wrong.

TeaBagMania

I could have misread that, maybe it was request to inspect and not required to inspect. I’d have to reread to be sure

Maximus Alexander

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

We know that there would be black market for getting these drugs cheaper, it would be inevitable, but in a society where alcohol and tobacco are legal it is scandalous that cannabis is seen with such scorn.

This doesn't even have to be true. It's only true with tobacco and alcohol because of the massive levies the government places on them. The black market wouldn't be able to compete on cost with a legal, mass produced weed farmer, unless levies were high.

Even at that, what proportion of the smokers / former smokers you know get / got most of their cigarettes under the counter? Very low, to nil, is the answer for me anyway. Most people will choose the legal route where available.

JuliusCaesar

TeaBagMania wrote: »

We still need to defend ourselves from foreign invasion

Yeah, remember when the Russians invaded Georgia?





As for drugs, this is a really good read. Very thought-provoking. Links to video at the end of the wiki, for those who'd rather watch than read.

TeaBagMania

Hey, Red Dawn could totally happen

beach_walker

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

The gun ownership debate always makes me think of the UK's reaction to Dunblane - it happened once, never again.

Not true they have had a few mass shootings since then.

mick65cm wrote:

I think one country is doing something is not enough to base on argument on.

I totally agree tbh. A whole host of factors need to be addressed/examined.

BattleCorp

TeaBagMania wrote: »

One area I commend Ireland on is requiring firearm owners to purchase and bolt down a gun safe in their home and then have it inspected and signed off on by the guard.

Funny enough a single shotgun isn't included in this law. If you have a rifle or a handgun, you must have a gun safe. If you have only one shotgun, you don't need a safe.

I would totally support this in the states, IMO gun owners aren’t held liable enough.

If my child or any child in my home gets a hold of my firearm and hurts someone with it because I failed to secure it properly than I should be held 100% liable

It wouldn't work in the States because if you need a gun for self defence, there is no point having it locked in a safe. But I do see your point regarding people carelessly leaving them lying about.

Also, to help weed out the wackos maybe some kind of physical\mental health evaluation is needed, hell, I have to have a physical to fly my plane and that’s just as lethal as a firearm

The thing is though, America doesn't have the resources to mentally test every single gun owner. And besides, testing everybody mightn't achieve much. A person be mentally ok today when they are tested, but who is to know what their mental health will be like down the road.

Effects

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The average citizen does not need a weapon. Unless you are a farmer and caring for cattle.

What does a farmer need a gun to protect cattle from?

BattleCorp

Aleah Aggressive Hamper wrote: »

Unless the law has changed recently, I don't believe Gardai are required to inspect your premesis or the safe. They can request an inspection but your application shouldn't be effected if you refuse. Correct me if i'm wrong.

The Gardai can request to inspect your premises to make sure that you comply with the secure storage requirements.

If you refuse them entry, I'm sure that they won't have proof that you can securely store the firearm and so won't issue you with the licence.

So yes, I do believe that your application will be affected if you refuse.