If we had similar laws to US would you own a gun?

FileNotFound

Couldn't allow tasers/pepper spray, sure all the junkies would just taser/spray shop staff etc. and then rob the place.

Non lethal - suspended sentence - be a ****show.

For any of these to work the laws would need a total overhaul

1874

FileNotFound wrote: »

Couldn't allow tasers/pepper spray, sure all the junkies would just taser/spray shop staff etc. and then rob the place.

Non lethal - suspended sentence - be a ****show.

For any of these to work the laws would need a total overhaul

They should not be easily accessible, under strict licencing only,


What you are describing isnt a fault of tasers/sprays, its a fault of the justice system to (not) impose sentences for actual crimes.
So not allowing limited but effective self defence weapons under strict controls because other aspects of the criminal justice system already dont work is imo not a good argument, Im not criticising you, I think you are right, it is a valid reason, but still not a good argument and imo a much better approach to allow non lethal self defence items (tools) as means to defend against criminals where the Organisations charged with that are under pressure to carry out that role, I feel people should be allowed defend themselves in a non lethal way if they cannot escape an attacker.


imo laws need to be enforced, we probably dont need an overhaul if they were just enforced, maybe that requires an overhaul but there shouldnt be junkies or others out and about loose on the streets committing crimes, they really should be taken away from society, either locked up because they are dangerous and treated/rehabilitated or if they cant be rehabed just for the greater good of society serve time for actual crimes.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

They should not be easily accessible, under strict licencing only,


What you are describing isnt a fault of tasers/sprays, its a fault of the justice system to (not) impose sentences for actual crimes.
So not allowing limited but effective self defence weapons under strict controls because other aspects of the criminal justice system already dont work is imo not a good argument, Im not criticising you, I think you are right, it is a valid reason, but still not a good argument and imo a much better approach to allow non lethal self defence items (tools) as means to defend against criminals where the Organisations charged with that are under pressure to carry out that role, I feel people should be allowed defend themselves in a non lethal way if they cannot escape an attacker.


imo laws need to be enforced, we probably dont need an overhaul if they were just enforced, maybe that requires an overhaul but there shouldnt be junkies or others out and about loose on the streets committing crimes, they really should be taken away from society, either locked up because they are dangerous and treated/rehabilitated or if they cant be rehabed just for the greater good of society serve time for actual crimes.

But your argument is undone by the same stats that haunt guns


if you give tasers to people to defend themselves that will make them easier for attackers to get hold of them


they you have a knife to a gunfight type situation


if people dont have tool like a gun at their disposal in that moment fo despair or rage they can't use them




look at the stats on suicide, it seemseveryone person who has a gun and wants to off themselves uses it


and people, possibly farmers be my guess tend to have guns and tend towards suicide more, is it because they have the guns?

dulpit

People talking about needing guns for protection in Ireland - protection from what? You see gangs/etc where young lads have knives "for protection" ending up getting stabbed themselves, or stabbing someone. If guns were available then it would just end up with people shooting themselves or others.

I have thankfully never been mugged or held up or anything, but I know a few people who have (in both shops and on the street). Not one person ever even considered trying to defend themselves, it's not worth it. I can understand it might be a different argument to protect yourself from assault rather than robbery though, but I still can't see how a gun would do anything other than increase the chance of yourself getting hurt.

monkeybutter

dulpit wrote: »

People talking about needing guns for protection in Ireland - protection from what? You see gangs/etc where young lads have knives "for protection" ending up getting stabbed themselves, or stabbing someone. If guns were available then it would just end up with people shooting themselves or others.

I have thankfully never been mugged or held up or anything, but I know a few people who have (in both shops and on the street). Not one person ever even considered trying to defend themselves, it's not worth it. I can understand it might be a different argument to protect yourself from assault rather than robbery though, but I still can't see how a gun would do anything other than increase the chance of yourself getting hurt.

life can we tough out in the wild wild .... west Atlantic way

BattleCorp

monkeybutter wrote: »

look at the stats on suicide, it seemseveryone person who has a gun and wants to off themselves uses it

and people, possibly farmers be my guess tend to have guns and tend towards suicide more, is it because they have the guns?

If people want to kill themselves, they'll do it with or without a firearm.

In my area there have been two suicides by drowning in the last week or so. Other relatively recent suicides in my area include hanging, poisoning/overdosing, jumping from heights and drowning. My area would have a lot of legally held firearms and I genuinely don't remember the last time someone around here killed themselves with a gun.

1874

monkeybutter wrote: »

But your argument is undone by the same stats that haunt guns


if you give tasers to people to defend themselves that will make them easier for attackers to get hold of them


they you have a knife to a gunfight type situation


if people dont have tool like a gun at their disposal in that moment fo despair or rage they can't use them




look at the stats on suicide, it seemseveryone person who has a gun and wants to off themselves uses it


and people, possibly farmers be my guess tend to have guns and tend towards suicide more, is it because they have the guns?

No it is not,
for a start, lets clear this up. Firearms are not reasonable to carry as a self defense weapon, not here anyway. I have not said it nor am I advocating for that here.
Your assertion that the same problem that plagues having guns for defence would occur for non lethal items in that there would be an arms race for non lethal items by unsavoury characters to commit crimes is not identical, (edit in the scenario of non lethal items there wont be an arms race for items), that imo is incorrect.
Because,
While a gun may be a viable countering threat to another person with a gun (and as such an arms race can exsit) because they are capable of being used offensively.
For defensive weapons, if someone pulls a taser on me, run or block it, pulling out another taser like you are going to have some kind of lightsaber battle is ridiculous, the same for pepper spray, it may be possible to knock or brush away the physical can (unlike a knife or a bullet) or you could run.
I do not see 2 people squaring off to each holding cans of pepper spray, it even sounds laughable.
They still should be difficult to obtain and pepper spray is likely to have a useful life and if it is used its gone, and difficult to replace so I dont see criminals going out of their way to obtain it.

I said non lethal items should be strictly regulated, and even if someone gets their hands on them the level of offensive capabiliy is not significantly increased over a criminal or someone punching someone in the face or even threatening or using a knife, id actually say it is less dangerous, imo stun type weapons likely will never be permitted, but I think pepper sprays are reasonable for defense as they could deter or slow an attacker, they dont significantly aid an attacker anymore than the options available already, but it increases someones defensive capabilities and in any scenario it is non lethal, unless maybe someone has asthma.

So I dont belive there would be an arms race to obtain non lethal items.If someone threatened me with a can of spray Id try knock it out of their hand, always easy to say, if I saw someone with a knife Id run if that was an option.

Feisar

Deleted User wrote: »

Bow. It is the oneida kestral. Comic books nerds will know it as the bow that "Green Arrow" uses in the TV show "Arrow" over recent years of the show.

Yer grand so, no issue. Crossbows are covered under the firearms legislation and in the eyes of the law you'd be in possession of an illegal firearm. Which is a bit of a misnomer as crossbows don't fire as such, air rifles fall under the same.

Feisar

Feisar wrote: »

Yer grand so, no issue. Crossbows are covered under the firearms legislation and in the eyes of the law you'd be in possession of an illegal firearm. Which is a bit of a misnomer as crossbows don't fire as such, air rifles fall under the same.

Kewl thanks. Is there any laws governing the arrows you own? I have a few modified and tailored and specialized. None of them explode like in Arrow though

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd like a happy medium, somewhere between the two.

At the risk of going (slightly) off topic: what would you like to be able to do, legally, in Ireland that you can't at the moment?
And what would you still prefer to see forbidden, legally?

Guess I'm really asking is where would you draw the "happy medium" line?

Feisar

1874 wrote: »

No it is not,
for a start, lets clear this up. Firearms are not reasonable to carry as a self defense weapon, not here anyway. I have not said it nor am I advocating for that here.
But your assertion that the same problem that plagues having guns for defence in that there would be an arms race for non lethal items is not identical to having non lethal items for self defence imo, that imo is incorrect.
I said non lethal items should be strictly regulated, and even if someone gets their hands on them the level of offensive capabiliy is not significantly increased over a criminal or someone punching someone in the face or even threatening or using a knife, id actually say it is less dangerous, imo stun type weapons likely will never be permitted, but I think pepper sprays are reasonable for defense as they could deter or slow an attacker, they dont significantly aid an attacker anymore than the options available already, but it increases someones defensive capabilities and in any scenario it is non lethal, unless maybe someone has asthma.

So I dont belive there would be an arms race to obtain non lethal items.If someone threatened me with a can of spray Id try knock it out of their hand, always easy to say, if I saw someone with a knife Id run if that was an option.

A couple of items. Firstly it's hard to argue that it's OK to have pepper spray, i.e. acknowledging the need for a self defense tool and also argue that a person cannot have the best one a gun and in practical terms that means a handgun.
Secondly is on how you perceive this potential violence is going to play out. Knock the can of spray for yer man's hands? Sounds like they are squaring up to you? That's fantasy stuff right there. It'll happen when the cards are stacked wildly in their favour and why not. If I was going to attack someone I'd want the odds in my favour. Plus it'll be two/three on one. So then you say to yourself f me I needs a gun! Not so simple, look at the Tueller Drill, a gun is not a free ticket. But when people have them they seem to be the solution rather than a solution. Now one can argue that the cops use pepper spray. But the same rules don't apply, they are usually going into a situation in numbers, two plus rather than getting mugged on the street. When's the last time cops on the street subdued 3 plus with pepper spray?

Edit - I'm only chewing the fat, in no way am I an advocate of guns for defense.

Feisar

Deleted User wrote: »

Kewl thanks. Is there any laws governing the arrows you own? I have a few modified and tailored and specialized. None of them explode like in Arrow though

Not my field so I can't say. Bow hunting is illegal here (we talked about that before) so I don't know where that puts broadhead arrows? Head to the archery forum I'd say.

1874

Feisar wrote: »

A couple of items. Firstly it's hard to argue that it's OK to have pepper spray, i.e. acknowledging the need for a self defense tool and also argue that a person cannot have the best one a gun and in practical terms that means a handgun.
Secondly is on how you perceive this potential violence is going to play out. Knock the can of spray for yer man's hands? Sounds like they are squaring up to you? That's fantasy stuff right there. It'll happen when the cards are stacked wildly in their favour and why not. If I was going to attack someone I'd want the odds in my favour. Plus it'll be two/three on one. So then you say to yourself f me I needs a gun! Not so simple, look at the Tueller Drill, a gun is not a free ticket. But when people have them they seem to be the solution rather than a solution. Now one can argue that the cops use pepper spray. But the same rules don't apply, they are usually going into a situation in numbers, two plus rather than getting mugged on the street. When's the last time cops on the street subdued 3 plus with pepper spray?

Edit - I'm only chewing the fat, in no way am I an advocate of guns for defense.

Nope,
there is no option of escalating to a gun, Im not suggesting it, you are.
Thats fantasy, because it simply is not a viable or exercisable option here.

Im saying a spray is a potentially viable self defense item and thats it, you are doing gymnastics here talking about Tueller drill, you're bringing a gun into it repeatedly and not me.
There is never going to be a scenario where any defensive measure is absolutely applicable to any situation that occurs, the best defense is being aware and avoiding certain situations, too many scenarios to start throwing them out, but Ive heard and seen a few of them that are worth avoiding.

Samsonsmasher

Absolutely. It is my right to defend myself from danger whether it is criminals or a tyrannical government. It is an innate right that existed before any civilization to defend yourself.
All other rights - freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, private property the right to vote etc all spring from the right to bear arms.

If criminals or psychopaths commit crimes with firearms it should not infringe the rights of law abiding people to bear arms.

km991148

If we had similar gun laws to the US I would move.

Fuk that.

Feisar

1874 wrote: »

Nope,
there is no option of escalating to a gun, Im not suggesting it, you are.
Thats fantasy, because it simply is not a viable or exercisable option here.

Im saying a spray is a potentially viable self defense item and thats it, you are doing gymnastics here talking about Tueller drill, you're bringing a gun into it repeatedly and not me.
There is never going to be a scenario where any defensive measure is absolutely applicable to any situation that occurs, the best defense is being aware and avoiding certain situations, too many scenarios to start throwing them out, but Ive heard and seen a few of them that are worth avoiding.

OK, maybe I misunderstood, are you advocating pepper spray as a self defence option?

1874

1874 wrote: »

Nope,
there is no option of escalating to a gun, Im not suggesting it, you are.
Thats fantasy, because it simply is not a viable or exercisable option here.

Im saying a spray is a potentially viable self defense item and thats it, you are doing gymnastics here talking about Tueller drill, you're bringing a gun into it repeatedly and not me.
There is never going to be a scenario where any defensive measure is absolutely applicable to any situation that occurs, the best defense is being aware and avoiding certain situations, too many scenarios to start throwing them out, but Ive heard and seen a few of them that are worth avoiding.

Feisar wrote: »

OK, maybe I misunderstood, are you advocating pepper spray as a self defence option?

what did you misunderstand? you thought Im advocating something else?

Feisar

1874 wrote: »

what did you misunderstand? you thought Im advocating something else?

OK so there was no misunderstanding. I think it’s silly to advocate pepper spray and disallow the best form of self defence. No need to accuse me of mental gymnastics just because of your silly idea of how this hypothetical violence was going to go down.

1874

Feisar wrote: »

OK so there was no misunderstanding. I think it’s silly to advocate pepper spray and disallow the best form of self defence. No need to accuse me of mental gymnastics just because of your silly idea of how this hypothetical violence was going to go down.

Silly? but you are advocating using the best form of self defence?
which is what exactly? Im guessing its not self defence training, situational awareness, physical training (to be fit enough to run away),
if you say a handgun after all that and called my suggestion of a non lethal option silly, because that would be a bit immature, not viable, not realistic, fantasy land stuff.
Not to mention you highlighted the Tueller drill yourself, which you think untrained people are going to be effective at carrying out?

Feisar

1874 wrote: »

Silly? but you are advocating using the best form of self defence?
which is what exactly? Im guessing its not self defence training, situational awareness, physical training (to be fit enough to run away),
if you say a handgun after all that and called my suggestion of a non lethal option silly, because that would be a bit immature, not viable, not realistic, fantasy land stuff.
Not to mention you highlighted the Tueller drill yourself, which you think untrained people are going to be effective at carrying out?

Agreed on all yer stuff re fitness/situational awareness my point being though if one advocates weapons for self defence it’s a bit unfair to eliminate the best one.

1874

Feisar wrote: »

Agreed on all yer stuff re fitness/situational awareness my point being though if one advocates weapons for self defence it’s a bit unfair to eliminate the best one.

Which in your opinion is? what? Nukes, take off and Nuke the entire site from orbit
If its the other thing, then spit it out and say it, that it is your opinion.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

No it is not,
for a start, lets clear this up. Firearms are not reasonable to carry as a self defense weapon, not here anyway. I have not said it nor am I advocating for that here.
Your assertion that the same problem that plagues having guns for defence would occur for non lethal items in that there would be an arms race for non lethal items by unsavoury characters to commit crimes is not identical, (edit in the scenario of non lethal items there wont be an arms race for items), that imo is incorrect.
Because,
While a gun may be a viable countering threat to another person with a gun (and as such an arms race can exsit) because they are capable of being used offensively.
For defensive weapons, if someone pulls a taser on me, run or block it, pulling out another taser like you are going to have some kind of lightsaber battle is ridiculous, the same for pepper spray, it may be possible to knock or brush away the physical can (unlike a knife or a bullet) or you could run.
I do not see 2 people squaring off to each holding cans of pepper spray, it even sounds laughable.
They still should be difficult to obtain and pepper spray is likely to have a useful life and if it is used its gone, and difficult to replace so I dont see criminals going out of their way to obtain it.

I said non lethal items should be strictly regulated, and even if someone gets their hands on them the level of offensive capabiliy is not significantly increased over a criminal or someone punching someone in the face or even threatening or using a knife, id actually say it is less dangerous, imo stun type weapons likely will never be permitted, but I think pepper sprays are reasonable for defense as they could deter or slow an attacker, they dont significantly aid an attacker anymore than the options available already, but it increases someones defensive capabilities and in any scenario it is non lethal, unless maybe someone has asthma.

So I dont belive there would be an arms race to obtain non lethal items.If someone threatened me with a can of spray Id try knock it out of their hand, always easy to say, if I saw someone with a knife Id run if that was an option.

i never said fireams were ok to carry as defensive weapons


yes if you have them available, in peoples homes cars etc, they will become easier to acquire, theres no getting away from it


People pick guns up this way all the time, they are looking for them


of course it can aid an attacker, if you try to knock it out of their hands, they will mace you or pepper spray you or taser you, they can be used at distance meaning you wont get to them even though you might thing=k you are bruce lee



then they can do what they want, at minimal danger to themselves


attacking with a knife or punching you entails way more danger for them

and they are threatening, who is going to not hand over a phone or empty a register if the threat is pepper spray in the face and losing what you have anyway


this is why they are banned in the first place

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

At the risk of going (slightly) off topic: what would you like to be able to do, legally, in Ireland that you can't at the moment?
And what would you still prefer to see forbidden, legally?

Guess I'm really asking is where would you draw the "happy medium" line?

I'd like to be able to licence a wider range of firearms such as centrefire pistols.

I'd also like the process we have for restricted firearms to be scrapped and have those types of firearms categorised the same as unrestricted firearms. There shouldn't be a pile of extra hoops and rules for those.

I'd like for it to be ok to set up a home shooting range if you are not causing a nusiance to neighbours and you had suitable backstops etc.

I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed to licence guns for self-defence.

I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed to licence fully-auto firearms although if we were, I'd get one.

I'm fine with the fact that we have a robust licencing system but I think the range of firearms that we can access is too restrictive.

Samsonsmasher

Most people in Ireland don't understand what the 2nd Amendment actually means

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It does not mean that the "well regulated militia" is necessarily the same as "the people." In fact it can mean the opposite.
It also does not mean that the "free state" and "the people" are one and the same. It can also mean the opposite.
The comma before "the right of the people" is the most important part of the amendment apart from "shall not be infringed."

The amendment means in plainer terms that because the state has an armed military and police force - in the 18th century the militia often played a dual role as both law enforcement in peacetime and during warfare as a military unit - the people - individual persons - have a right to bear arms also.

"Shall not be infringed" is worded that way because the right to bear arms is inalienable.
It cannot be taken away.

The right to bear arms is not just to hunt but to allow the citizen to protect him or herself from a tyrannical government that would prefer to monopolize the use of force.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own and defend himself with the same weapons as the police and the military.

PoisonIvyBelle

No. I really don't like them and I'd feel unsafe having one in my home even if it was legal.

Atlantic Dawn

I'd get a decent hand gun as a complete defensive weapon to protect myself in my own home it would never ever be taken outside the house. Additionally I would get an AR-15 as a purely attack weapon to take out anyone and his/her accomplice trying to rob the catalytic convertor on my car.

FileNotFound

1874 wrote: »

They should not be easily accessible, under strict licencing only,


What you are describing isnt a fault of tasers/sprays, its a fault of the justice system to (not) impose sentences for actual crimes.
So not allowing limited but effective self defence weapons under strict controls because other aspects of the criminal justice system already dont work is imo not a good argument, Im not criticising you, I think you are right, it is a valid reason, but still not a good argument and imo a much better approach to allow non lethal self defence items (tools) as means to defend against criminals where the Organisations charged with that are under pressure to carry out that role, I feel people should be allowed defend themselves in a non lethal way if they cannot escape an attacker.


imo laws need to be enforced, we probably dont need an overhaul if they were just enforced, maybe that requires an overhaul but there shouldnt be junkies or others out and about loose on the streets committing crimes, they really should be taken away from society, either locked up because they are dangerous and treated/rehabilitated or if they cant be rehabed just for the greater good of society serve time for actual crimes.

That was a very long winded rambling response.

All defensive weapons can be used offensively. Unless you're a mentally challenged redneck in the NRA, this is common sense.

Anything the public can get a criminal can get too.

What is the going rate for non lethal, no long term damage assault in Ireland for most cases? Say a punch in the gob. That is where these would most likely fall? Just more effective, less risk for the criminal. Increased risk for the Gardai to boot.

ILoveYourVibes

I would prefer to be allowed a tazer and or pepper spray.

But I would consider a gun yes. I would have to learn a lot more though and train to actually own one.

Maybe just an air gun.


But i would carefully look into it.

DoozerT6

I think the only scenario I would carry a gun or have one in my house is in the case of societal collapse, and as long as I learned how to use and maintain it properly. If there was a war, or some sort of complete societal breakdown, desperate people will do desperate things. I would like to think I would only use it for self-protection and never become the aggressor.

But that begs the question - would I even have the metaphorical ba!!s (I'm female) to use it, if push came to shove? There's that saying, never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to actually pull the trigger. Lots of people here saying they would shoot an intruder or attacker, but would you, really??? There is absolutely no way to know that unless you find yourself in a situation where you are highly panicked or in severe distress and suddenly your gun is in your hand. What next? Would you do it? You will absolutely never know unless it happens. As would I. I think I would GET myself a gun in an apocalyptic scenario - USING it against another person would be a different matter.

ILoveYourVibes

DoozerT6 wrote: »

There's that saying, never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to actually pull the trigger.

Maybe that would be enough though?