Should civilians be allowed to have guns?

magpie

I'm interested in the general feeling on the politics board in this regard.

Some discussion has come about on the 'shooting' forum in the wake of the tragic death of a 2 year old in Scotland who was shot in the head with a 'sporting' weapon. Understandably, the people on the shooting forum (as it's their hobby!) are very opposed to the idea of banning firearms and have a variety of reasons to back up their case.

Reasonable: It's a sport, Irish Olympic Team are good, Vets need firearms to put down sick animals, farmers need them, its ok to hunt rabbits etc.

Unreasonable: 'We shoot guns because we want to, and you don't need any other reason'. 'Gun Control means hitting your target'. 'If you don't like guns you're a carrot-muncher'

Anyway, thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think guns should only be in the hands of the military, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

See thread here for reference

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Reasonable: It's a sport, Irish Olympic Team are good, Vets need firearms to put down sick animals, farmers need them, its ok to hunt rabbits etc.
...

I'm inclined to think guns should only be in the hands of the military,

I'm at a loss to understand how you can say that the arguments above are reasonable arguments to own guns, but then say that you feel only the military should have them.

If sport-shooting or pest-control is a reasonable argument, then why are you ruling it out as a valid reason for someone to own a gun?

Or did you mean "rational" more than "reasonable"???

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

MrPudding

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

How big a problem is it? Do you have figures? How many of these shootings are carried out by the registered owner of a legally held firearm?

MrP

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here a

What do you call a 'sporting' gun (seeing as you put it in quotes)? And what exactly is a real problem? Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

There are no registered owners for these types of weapons AFAIK... They can be bought over the counter in certain shops.

I would say that there is a shooting every week with these types of weapons. The people doing it mainly strat fires and then target the fire officiers that attend. The 27 year old that was caught for the killing of the 2 year old has been charged with murder and he had been firing at the fire brigade as they attended a fire.

I have been shot at with these types of weapons when I was working on the railway track running through a certain area of Glasgow (about 8 years ago). It is elevated and they take pot shots at the workers and at the signal heads.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

What do you call a 'sporting' gun (seeing as you put it in quotes)? And what exactly is a real problem? Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

jc

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

The real problem is that these lethal wapons can be bought over the counter by anybody AFAIK

magpie

Or did you mean "rational" more than "reasonable"???

Correct. Mea Culpa.

Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

This argument is used a lot. However cars aren't specifically designed to kill things, whereas you'd have a hard time arguing that guns are designed for anything else.

Nuttzz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

I assume by here you mean Glasgow rather than in Ireland. Air rifles arent available here (ireland) like they are in the UK. TBH we should keep it that way

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

So what?

I don't know the particulars of the case, but consider this...

For it to be murder, then someone wanted to kill the two-year old. I very, very much doubt that had there not been an air-gun to hadn, that person would have said "gosh durnit....I really wanna kill this infant, but without my trusty airgun, its just not a runner".

The gun is not the problem in this case that I can see. The real problem is that someone (again, trusting your choice of words) wanted to end the life of an infant for some reason and carried out their desires.

Blunt trauma objects (e.g. a hammer), kitchen knives, strangulation and so on and so forth would all have achieved this just as well. Just like a firearm designed for sporting use, hammers, knives, ropes are not designed explicitly to kill something, but are directly related to a weapon which is. Should they all also be banned.

This argument is used a lot. However cars aren't specifically designed to kill things, whereas you'd have a hard time arguing that guns are designed for anything else.

Well, see, thats where we'd differ. I don't think I'd have a hard time at all.

If you want to categorise all arms as "designed to kill" because some are so designed, and/or you wish to categorise them thusly because they are derived from something who's original purpose was to kill....then I would expect you to be callnig for the banning of (as mentioned above) hammers and knives.

I would also point out that tanks are a form of vehicle explicitly designed for warfare, but that this has no relation to the purpose of a Toyota Prius (or any other example you want to choose).

If you are not going to apply the arguments consistently, then of course it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that which you may favour. Howver, if you look at it from a consistent point of view, then the first step is to explain why guns are all lumped into a single classification, while hammers, knives, vehicles, etc. all get broken down into "those designed explicitly for dealing death and those designed for something else but which could be used to kill".

To not do so is to presuppose the answer - in effect to create a circular argument.

I've never heard a pro-blanket-ban supporter explain knowledgeably and rationally why all guns are equal, but I've heard quite a lot of people who know quite a lot about guns explain why this is most certainly not the case.

The real problem is that these lethal wapons can be bought over the counter by anybody AFAIK

Then the real solution, surely, is to call for a requirement to register rather than to call for a ban?

if not, then consider this...

Last weekend I walked into a knife shop and bought a 15cm Gold Hamster kitchen knife. Its sharp enough to shave with, long enough to puncture any internal organ, and guess what....

I bought it over the counter....as an "anybody", with no license.

Just like a target pistol, this is an object which is potentially a lethal weapon but who's primary purpose is not the same as that of the weapon-type the object is derived from. It is not designed to kill, but can be applied to that purpose.

Whats the difference?

jc

magpie

If you're going to take that approach try at least comparing like with like.

A tank is an object modified from its original purpose (a vehicle to move persons/equipment) into one designed to carry armour and weapons.

A 'sports' gun is an objct modified from its original purpose (a means of propelling a piece of metal very fast into another person in order to kill them) into one designed for shooting targets.

See the difference?

hammers, knives, ropes are not designed explicitly to kill something, but are directly related to a weapon which is. Should they all also be banned.

Completely disingenuous argument. Hammers have a bona fide application for DIY, woodwork and skilled trades, Knives are necessary in every kitchen, rope is used in a variety of trades etc. You could easily have added 'bricks' 'hurleys' etc to this list.

Guns have no application other than shooting things, be they animate or otherwise.

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

Whats the difference?

Knives have a bona fide application for the preparation of food, and are used in millions of homes every day for that purpose. The fact that they can be used as a weapon does not detract from their original purpose.

Guns of any description are first and foremost weapons with absolutely no domestic application whatsoever. The fact that some people derive pleasure from shooting small animals / paper targets with them is not sufficient to outweigh the risk they pose.

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

This is presumably spoken as someone that has never tried to shoot something at a long distance? It is by no means easy.

Whether or not you happen to agree with it or not, some firearms are designed and produced with purely sporting applications in mind. Again whether or not you agree with it, shooting is a sport. It is an very difficult and skillfull sport practised by people who are generally very responsible and law abiding.

I do not believe that Bonkey's arguement are invalid. This is because I can see and accept that some firearms are created simply for sporting purposes.

I think the agrument that many day to day items can be used to kill is very valid. You will find it very hard to purchase a sporting firearm here in Ireland. I think you will also find that very few crimes are carried out using them.

MrP

magpie

I can see and accept that some firearms are created simply for sporting purposes.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not denying that. However they are still firearms, and as such aren't much use in a kitchen for slicing a loaf of bread. So firearms are not a sine qua non, whereas knives and other things that could possible be used as weapons are.

Therefore the argument suggesting that if you ban firearms you should also ban knives and hammers is inane, as there is absolutely no correlation between the two statements whatsoever. In effect, you might as well say 'if you want to ban firearms you should also ban Chinese people' and it would have as much intellectual rigour as the schoolboy debating standard riposte of 'if you say this, then you must also say that' that you seem to be relying on to support your argument.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

So what?

So what indeed

I don't know the particulars of the case,

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/34830.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4317423.stm

http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=6901&newsType=

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/34666.html

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5036278.html

For it to be murder, then someone wanted to kill the two-year old. I very, very much doubt that had there not been an air-gun to hadn, that person would have said "gosh durnit....I really wanna kill this infant, but without my trusty airgun, its just not a runner".

The gun is not the problem in this case that I can see. The real problem is that someone (again, trusting your choice of words) wanted to end the life of an infant for some reason and carried out their desires.

I have stated a fact that the man has been charged with murder nothing else. I was not involved in the decision to charge the guy with murder. It will up to the prosecution to prove the murder charge.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

A 'sports' gun is an objct modified from its original purpose (a means of propelling a piece of metal very fast into another person in order to kill them) into one designed for shooting targets.

So, by definition, a sports gun is not designed to kill - it is an object designed for another purpose, derived from something which was/is explicitly a weapon.

Ergo, not all guns are designed to kill, and not all guns are designed as weapons - exactly the point I was making.

Completely disingenuous argument. Hammers have a bona fide application for DIY, woodwork and skilled trades, Knives are necessary in every kitchen, rope is used in a variety of trades etc. You could easily have added 'bricks' 'hurleys' etc to this list.

Except that hammers and knives original purpose was as weaponry, and since then we have derivations which have bona-fide purposes.

But...given that you've just conceded (albeit with the use of apostrophes around the word sport) that a sports firearm is just such a derivation from the original purpose, I can only conclude that unless you feel sports is not a bona-fide use for an object then there is nothing disingenuous about my argument whatsoever.

I am simply asking why guns get "special" treatment, and are not broken down into "weapon" and "derived from weapon, but with other legitimate use", where every other case I've presented is.

Is sports recreation not a legitimate use of something? Shuold it not be sports that we ban then, rather than just guns? Or...less disengenuously....should it not be all sports which have derived from martial disciplines?

Guns have no application other than shooting things,

Now who's being disengenuous?

Knives have no application other than cutting things, but thats not how you made the distinction in their case. Then, it was the purpose - that there are things we could validly and reasonably want to cut. Same for hammers - there are things we validly want to deliver a powerful, focussed blow to.

But with guns, its the function, and not the purpose which you are looking at.

I started by asking why guns are a special case - why we don't classify them in the manner that we classify other things....and look how you're explaining it...by using different methods of classification for guns as for everything else.

If guns are onily for shooting, then knives are only for cutting, hammers are only for bludgeoning, and javelins are only for piercing things. Why is shooting inherently wrong, but not cutting, bludgening or piercing? Or, if cutting, bludgeoning and piercing are unfair simplifications of the uses of these items, specifically chosen to cast them in a bad light....why is that not also true for the term shooting?

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

I have never suggested otherwise. However, if you take a sports gun (e.g. target rifle), and shoot someone frmo a distance, then your chances of inflicting lethal damage are roughly zero. About the same as if you used an Olympic throwing-hammer as as weapon. Up close...you can bludgeon someone to death. At a distance, the chances of being lethal are almost non-existant.

Both are sports-related objects derived from weaponry. Both are designed for ranged use, but not as ranged weapons. Both are non-lethal at range except in the most exceptional of circumstances, and both are capable of being lethal at close range. Both have no practical use outside being used for sports, and being misused as weapons.

Where's the difference?

The fact that they can be used as a weapon does not detract from their original purpose.

(regarding a knife, in case the context isn't clear) A target-pistol was explicitly designed as a piece of sports equipment, not as a weapon. Why does the fact that it can be used as a weapon detract from its original purpose? As with the kitchen-knife, its a non-weapon with a legitimate use, derived from what was originally a combined weapon and piece of general survival equipment.

The first knives, just like the first guns were designed as tools and weapons. The first guns were used for hunting and survival as much (if not moreso) as for killing other people. The first knioves served to kill as well as cut.

Both have had non-weapon forms derived which are still capable of being used to deadly effect as weapons in the right circumstances.

Where is the difference?

Guns of any description are first and foremost weapons

I refer you back to the statement of yours which I quoted at the start of this post, where you acknowledge that a sports rifle is not designed as a weapon.

You see...this assertion that they are "first and foremost" weapons is exactly the circular argument I'm talking about. They're weapons because you classify them differently to everythign else which is a non-weapon derivation of a weapon. And why do you classify them differently? Because they're weapons.

So your argument (thus far, at least) appears to boil down to "they're weapons because....well...they're weapons".

with absolutely no domestic application whatsoever.

I've never suggested that they have a domestic application. I've suggested they have applications other than being a weapon. A piece of sportnig equipment is not designed nor intended to be a weapon. This holds true for the javelin. This holds true for the hammer. This holds true for the shot-putt. This holds true for the boomerang. All four are derived directly from weaponry, none have domestic application, and none of them are designed as weapons.

Whens the last time you - or anyone - called for their banning on the grounds that they are weapons with no domestic purpose?

So once again....why are target-pistols/rifles any different?

The fact that some people derive pleasure from shooting small animals / paper targets with them is not sufficient to outweigh the risk they pose.

"They"? What is "they" if not another "all guns are equal" assertion? Indeed, even putting paper and small animals together as you did shows that you're lumping target-shooting guns in with guns designed as weapons (even when the target is non-human, I'll concede that a gun is a weapon).

So, it still seems to boil down to "they're the same because...well...they're the same".

You have no explained why a target pistol carries a risk, what risk it carries, and why that risk is unacceptable over and above the myriad of other weapon-derived, non-domestic-utility objects that we have in our lives.

Oh - and if you're not going to distinguish between targetting paper and targetting live animals, then I put it to you that letter openers are no different to swords.

jc

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have stated a fact that the man has been charged with murder nothing else.

I beg to differ:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

This is where I took your assumption that it was murder from.

I was not involved in the decision to charge the guy with murder. It will up to the prosecution to prove the murder charge.

Ah, so. The gun used in the alleged murder was an air gun. Well, then I'll rephrase slightly...

Should it be decided it was murder, my point still stands about the rifle not being the problem, but rather the murderer....and that had guns been banned, we'd still most probably be hearing of a dead two-year-old only we'd be arguing over whether some other murder instrument should be banned.

Should it be decided it was not murder, but rather manslaughter or death by misadventure, I would suggest that gun education and/or stricter gun control would be sufficient to resolve the problem. Again going back to sports shooting, I believe Sparks pointed out at some point that there has never been a fatality in Ireland where a target-shooting gun was involved.

I fail to see why, then, we'd want to ban them here because of an accident in Scotland. It would be like saying Aer Lingus (perfect or almost-perfect) safety record should be grounded because some other national airline has a dodgy record, instead of saying that the solution for the other national airline should be to be more like AL.

jc

Sparks

magpie wrote:

However they are still firearms, and as such aren't much use in a kitchen for slicing a loaf of bread.

As pointed out in the shooting forum, knives are derived from daggers, which are edged weapons - so your argument is that "if it has a useful purpose then its background shouldn't matter". Thing is, the firearms used for hunting put meat on the table in the kitchen. The ones used by farmers for agricultural purposes keep dogs off sheep and other pest animals under control so that you can have grain for the bread you're slicing with the knife (and meat on the supermarket shelf). I'd count that as a useful purpose, so the whole "it's designed as a weapon" shouldn't matter, by your argument.

By the way, I don't recall anyone actually using the phrase "carrot muncher" But their argument that "we're not hurting anyone and we enjoy the sport, so what other reason do we need" is one that is protected in the constitution (personal liberty meaning you have to do something illegal before you can be hauled up for it).

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ:



This is where I took your assumption that it was murder from.




Ah, so. The gun used in the alleged murder was an air gun. Well, then I'll rephrase slightly...

lol I did not see you, as mod, give advice to others in this forum that they should not describe something as 'murder' because nobody has been convicted of 'murder'.

What do you call the ending of Robert McCarnteys life? Murder? Killing? Manslaugher? accident?. Nobody has even been charged yet and there have been plenty of threads describing it as murder (I am not arguing it was not murder, I have described it as murder myself).

Are you really advocating such nitpicking?

When a person is charged with murder, the vast majority of people descibe the killing as murder, not a 'killing'.

magpie

1)

Im going home to chop up my 5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns, I have seen the light , Im taking up paper folding . Magpie , go munch a carrot somewhere else , your arguments are lame and uninteresting.
We shoot because be want to and thats the only reason we need.

2) Find me an archaeologist who states categorically that hammers originated as weapons, and I'll consider taking your points on board. You seem to take the view that all blunt/edged objects are fundamentally weapons which betrays a fairly bleak view of humanity. Albeit a possibly accurate one.

Agent Orange

Irish citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns, no question. The streets have gotten more dangerous and we have a right to defend ourselves with lethal force.
However, there should be a test to decide whether someone is allowed to carry a gun or not. If the person is wearing a baseball cap, has silver/gold teeth, has a NAFF jacket or just a plain obvious SCUMBAG then they should NOT be allowed to carry a gun. This ensures only careful, conscientious citizens would be allowed to shoot someone.
Think about it: would that skanger hanging outside your local shop should 'YOUR MUDDER' after you if he knew you were carrying a Desert Eagle? Of course not. And if he did, he wouldn't be doing it for very long.

Horeb

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

Would that include your TERRORIST idols aswell.

I legally hold several weapons for hunting target shooting and self defence if god forbid I ever had to use them.

Sparks

Agent Orange wrote:

Irish citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns, no question.

Please tell me that's sarcasm in action? Look, being able to own a firearm and being able to carry one around concealed are rather different things entirely. And since Lott's statistics have been found to be unsafe, I'd not be a supporter of CCW as a right. We already have legislation to permit people at risk to carry personal protection weapons on licence, that's sufficent.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

Would that include your TERRORIST idols aswell.

Really sad

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

lol I did not see you, as mod, give advice to others in this forum that they should not describe something as 'murder' because nobody has been convicted of 'murder'.

I'm no longer a mod...but if someone calls something murder, then I assume its because they believe it was murder. You called it murder, so I assume you believe the guy was murdered. Then when I mentioned that you said it was murder, you got all defensive on the "I never said that" line. All I did subsequently was point out that yes, you did in fact say that he was murdered.

Are you really advocating such nitpicking?

I took issue with you saying firstly that the gun was used in a murder and then saying that you never claimed the child was murdered. If you see that as nitpicking, then yes....that is the level of nitpicking I'm advocating.

I've no objection to ppl referring to it as a murder, if thats what they believe happened. My objection comes when they call it a murder and then say that they never claimed a murder took place.

jc

Captain Trips

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

No it isn't mate. That's just confabulation.

Give us some stats. We have virtually *no* guncrime in Ireland. I'd like to keep it that way but unfortunately someone is making the news every week having been shot these days. It wasn't like this 2 years ago.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

2) Find me an archaeologist who states categorically that hammers originated as weapons, and I'll consider taking your points on board.

Because if I'm wrong about hammers, then boomerangs, spears, and all the rest of it also has no relevancy, right? If hammers weren't originally weapons, then there's no issue with boomerangs, spears, and....ohhhh...I know....yoyos.

You seem to take the view that all blunt/edged objects are fundamentally weapons

I believe they are all fundamentally derived from what would - in modern terms - be described as dual purpose objects. Bludgeoning objects were fine both for opening nuts and for bashing your neighbour's skull in. Edged objects were fine for scraping fur etc...and cutting your neighbours throat. Piercing objects were fine for punching holes in leather...and taking your neighbour's eye out.

Which came first in any of these? Tool or weapon....well...who can say.
But given that the gun is descended from earlier projectile systems, which are in turn descended from piercing objects....so the question of whether or not it is descended from something which was fundamentally a weapon or a tool first is just as relevant/irrelevant there as it is with a knife, hammer, or any other object.

You seem to take the view that everything except guns can apparently exist legitimately in weaponised and non-weaponised forms, but for guns, its somehow different and the non-weaponised forms should be banned, because, well, its different.

All I've asked for is why you make this distinction. So far, every time you've clarified it for me, you've used the distinction itself as a basis for the explanation - you treat them differently to explain why you should treat them differently.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Captain Trips wrote:

No it isn't mate. That's just confabulation.

Give us some stats. We have virtually *no* guncrime in Ireland. I'd like to keep it that way but unfortunately someone is making the news every week having been shot these days. It wasn't like this 2 years ago.

I am talking about the Glasgow killing and events in Glasgow. If the laws in the Republic are such that you have to go through a registration process to get an airgun, that is good. Unfortunatey, the situation here (in Glasgow and the rest of the UK) means that anybody can walk into a shop and buy an airgun.

SkepticOne

Agent Orange wrote:

However, there should be a test to decide whether someone is allowed to carry a gun or not. If the person is wearing a baseball cap, has silver/gold teeth, has a NAFF jacket or just a plain obvious SCUMBAG then they should NOT be allowed to carry a gun. This ensures only careful, conscientious citizens would be allowed to shoot someone.

LOL.

magpie

You seem to take the view that everything except guns can apparently exist legitimately in weaponised and non-weaponised forms, but for guns, its somehow different and the non-weaponised forms should be banned, because, well, its different.

All I've asked for is why you make this distinction. So far, every time you've clarified it for me, you've used the distinction itself as a basis for the explanation - you treat them differently to explain why you should treat them differently.

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!) have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households. As I said each item is a Sine Qua Non. This is what makes them different from firearms.

Also, judging by the punters on the shooting board those with an interest in 'sporting' guns have an interest in owning "5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns". The fact, as evinced on boards, that there is substantial cross over between the sports shooters and the 'D-Fens' types is reason enough for me to suggest a blanket ban.

In contrast most people who buy kitchen knives don't also hoard WW2 Nazi daggers and SAS punch daggers because they're 'interested' in knives.

abccormac

I yhink the distinction between a gun and a knife is quite clear. The scumbag who killed the two year old in Glasgow would , I believe, have been very unlikely to run up to a bunch of firemen and start stabbing them for a bit of fun. Unfortunately, quite a few people seem to think firing a "harmless" (in their eyes) air rifle at people is a legitimate way to spen their evenings. I for one am very grateful that the laws in relation to firearms of any kind in this country are extremely stringent. Unfortunately, it is still possible for scumbags to get their hands on powerful weapons. I have seen some posts on the shooting forum advocating that a distinction should be made between low powered air guns and more powerful "real" guns. I cannot agree with this. Some people are too stupid to realise that these weapons are not toys. That they are extremely dangerous. And that given the correct circumsatnces they can kill. And as for agent orange? Well considered argument. :rolleyes:

Sparks

abccormac wrote:

I yhink the distinction between a gun and a knife is quite clear.

Indeed, but distinguishing between them doesn't make either one less potentially dangerous. If you don't think I'm correct on this, read these and remember that I can wander down to Tesco here and get a 17-piece knife set as a bonus gift for shopping there on their loyalty cards system, that's how uncontrolled they are:

Eight teenagers killed in school knife attack in China.
Alaska School Knife Attack Leaves 4 Injured.
Student Slashes Five Classmates in Indiana
At least eight dead in Osaka school rampage.

The scumbag who killed the two year old in Glasgow would , I believe, have been very unlikely to run up to a bunch of firemen and start stabbing them for a bit of fun.

No, it's more likely that he'd have thrown rocks or glass bottles like his ilk do in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, quite a few people seem to think firing a "harmless" (in their eyes) air rifle at people is a legitimate way to spen their evenings.

Indeed, and these people need to be locked up. There is no debate on that point.

I for one am very grateful that the laws in relation to firearms of any kind in this country are extremely stringent. Unfortunately, it is still possible for scumbags to get their hands on powerful weapons.

Indeed, as the IRA have shown for many decades. Unfortunately that merely proves that gun control laws merely control those who obey the law already and are by definition not the cause of the problem.

I have seen some posts on the shooting forum advocating that a distinction should be made between low powered air guns and more powerful "real" guns.

It depends on where you draw the line in terms of muzzle energy. Airsoft guns are made to shoot at humans in a paintball-style game, they are limited to one joule of muzzle energy. ISSF air rifles are made for the olympics, they're limited to seven joules. The kind of rifle that criminal used in Glasgow would have been limited only by UK law to 16 joules. At some point along that path, there is a point where an airgun becomes potentially lethal. It's probably somewhere around the seven joule mark but it's hard to draw a line because no proper study into the lethality of airguns has been done. And of course people who shoot things like airsoft guns would like them to be deregulated, firearms licencing is akward, and not well understood by the Gardai who administer the system so there are a few people who've found the process fustrating and confusing. For example, airsoft guns don't generally have serial numbers, so how do you licence them when the licence requires a serial number?
And saying that the very idea is daft isn't right either because under Irish Firearms law, virtually anything remotely shaped like a firearm can be legally held to be a firearm and requires a licence - down to those suction-cup dart guns that every kid in the country seems to get at some point in their childhood.
That's why there's a lower limit on muzzle energy before something is classed as a firearm in UK law and most of the other european countries in the first place!

magpie wrote:

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!) have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households. As I said each item is a Sine Qua Non. This is what makes them different from firearms.

Again, this is incorrect as firearms have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households, because millions of households eat bread, lamb, mutton, beef, vegetables and so on, and firearms are used in the production of all of these, not to mention meats which are hunted like rabbit and venison.
And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications.

Also, judging by the punters on the shooting board those with an interest in 'sporting' guns have an interest in owning "5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns".

That's one quote from one person - there's more than just one person on the shooting forum.

The fact, as evinced on boards, that there is substantial cross over between the sports shooters and the 'D-Fens' types is reason enough for me to suggest a blanket ban.

There is already a de facto blanket ban on owning firearms for self defence or defence of property in Ireland (at least in cases of defending from humans).

In contrast most people who buy kitchen knives don't also hoard WW2 Nazi daggers and SAS punch daggers because they're 'interested' in knives.

Nope, but frankly I've yet to see anyone successfully argue that a Sabatier chef's knife isn't a lethal weapon if abused. And yet, I've two in my kitchen that need no licencing, no training and no controls of any kind when purchasing.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!)

So what you mean is some of those items I listed.
OK. Tell ya what.

I'll accept that the knife, rope, and the domestic hammer are different, if you agree that you're now saying that the aborigine arsenal needs to be banned.

For clarification, that would include the Yoyo, the Boomerang, the Olympic javelin, the Olympic shot-putt, possibly all the olympic fencing and archery equipment.....

because you seem to be admitting that there is no difference there. Or, at least, you're not providing one.

Excellent. Never did like those fscking uppy-downy yoyos anyway. Weird things. We're better off wihout them.

So we'll just have to disagree cause I think some of the items you want banned should be controlled (licensing, education, etc.) with such controls determined by the realistically conceivable and demonstrable threats they pose as taken on a case-by-case basis.

I will point at the lack of fatality from specific item types where they are either purely non-deadly, or where they are potentially deadly but properly managed. This will be my reasoning why licensing is sufficient - because its been shown to work. You will point at the lack of a domestic use for it as the reason why licensing isn't enough and a ban is needed.

Guess thats the end of that line of discussion then...unless you're not infavour of the yoyo being banned and want to rethink the notion that a standard domestic use is all thats needed.

Incidentally...does pest control on a farm constitute standard domestic use?

abccormac I yhink the distinction between a gun and a knife is quite clear.

I think the distinction between the type of gun you have chosen to base your example on, and a knife is quite clear. I think the conclusion that all guns should be banned rather than some merely being controlled is simply not borne out by it. Ireland has right control over target-pistols, and there has been a sum total of 0 fatalaties related to this gun-type.

I'm not foolish enough to suggest that this should mean Joe Bloggs can head in off the highstreet and buy himself a fully legal assault rifle....although this seems to be the reverse of what you're saying...that because dangerous weapons available without control are abused, all guns should be banned.

jc

<edit>
p.s. Seeing as you mentioned hurleys...I can't see a specific domestic use for which one is specifically intended for which wouldn't immediately involve classifying sports as a domestic use, which would once again re-qualify target-pistols/rifles
</edit>

DaBreno

"And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications."

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

MrPudding

DaBreno wrote:

"And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications."

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

Not sure about human medical applications but I believe Vets use firearms to put down large animals.

MrP

Sparks

DaBreno wrote:

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

Air rifles are used in the rehabilitiation of stroke victims and spinal cord injury victims by the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Dublin.

DaBreno

MrPudding wrote:

Not sure about human medical applications but I believe Vets use firearms to put down large animals.

MrP

Cheers.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Also, judging by the punters on the shooting board those with an interest in 'sporting' guns have an interest in owning "5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns".

As a counter-example, I have an interest in guns - sporting and otherwise. I live in a country where I can legally own and use one. I have no interest in ever owning, or even firing one.

The fact, as evinced on boards, that there is substantial cross over between the sports shooters and the 'D-Fens' types is reason enough for me to suggest a blanket ban.

Correlation and causation.....not the same thing.

I can guarantee you that every single one of the 'D-Fens' fans breathes air...without exception. The correlation between them and, say, males, is also significant. The correlation between them and males living in a city is probably even more significant. We can go on and create a profile which gives as strong a correlation as the one you are suggesting gives rise to a blanket ban.

In contrast most people who buy kitchen knives don't also hoard WW2 Nazi daggers and SAS punch daggers because they're 'interested' in knives.

Correlation in one direction does not imply correlation in the other.

You will find a strong correlation between those who commit knife-crimes and those who own knives not primarily intended as weapons.

Alternately, but just as validly in response...most people who buy sporting rifles don't go around comitting gun crimes.

I should mention (in the interests of fairness) that despite not owning guns, I intend to have a longbow made for me later this year after I get some more practice in, and my girlfriend (who has done fencing as a hobby in the past) has numerous daggers - both replica and real - and swords - both replica and real - which she considers to be an art-collection. Does this makes us likely killers?

I mention this because I heard from a sword-smith recently that there is a proposal in Scotland to curb an increase in violent knife-crime by banning large knives and swords. Given that the sword category has no connection whatsoever to the types of knife typically being used in violent crime, I find the parallel fascinating.

At a guess, you'd support the ban, whereas I (and the smith in question, who's Scottish) would say that banning swords would have little if any effect, and any effect it did have would be just as effectively achieved through registration.

jc

abccormac

I should have made it clear in my earlier post that I don't think a blanket ban on gun owner ship is necessary. Sorry for any confusion. I asked a question on the shootin g forum, but the thread was locked so I'll ask it again here.

Reading back through the shooting forum I have seen several posts about getting licenses for pistols. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are talking about "weapon" type pistols (ie "real" bullets designed to make big holes in people) as opposed to small calibre air pistols designed for target shooting. Why would anybody need one? How does legalising these pistols benefit society? I assume (again, perhaps incorrectly) that it was already legal to use target pistols, so why would anybody want to see guns of this sort more easily available?

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

I mention this because I heard from a sword-smith recently that there is a proposal in Scotland to curb an increase in violent knife-crime by banning large knives and swords. Given that the sword category has no connection whatsoever to the types of knife typically being used in violent crime, I find the parallel fascinating.

At a guess, you'd support the ban, whereas I (and the smith in question, who's Scottish) would say that banning swords would have little if any effect, and any effect it did have would be just as effectively achieved through registration.

jc

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=637&id=1345182004

• Banning the sale of swords. While the sale of swords would be outlawed under the proposals, the Executive has no plans to ban swords being kept in private homes. There would, however, be a ban on the possession of a sword in a public place.

bonkey

Ta for the link.

I guess tough noogis on my mate the smith then....self-taught, self-employed....and the swords that he's sold that are in ppl's homes are still legal. He just can't make and sell them more of them....in order to limit violent knife-crime.

Meanwhile, those who sell the knives that are causing the issues will be unaffected (in the case of domestic knives), or restricted/monitored (in the case of non-domestic knives).

I don't get it...it will remain legal to sell (under stricter conditions) the problem-causing implements, whilst the swords which aren't a problem must go.

That would seem to be like banning target pistols whilst still allowing 9mm handguns to be sold under license.....which I doubt anyone here would suggest is a good idea (he says, heading back topicwards).

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

I agree that tighter registration for swords would seem logical. The Scottish Execuitive have to be seen to be doing something though as the knife culture here (in Glasgow) is unreal. They would probably ban the sale of all airguns if they could but it is out of their hands (that matter is reserved to the UK government under devolution).

Sparks

abccormac wrote:

Reading back through the shooting forum I have seen several posts about getting licenses for pistols. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are talking about "weapon" type pistols (ie "real" bullets designed to make big holes in people) as opposed to small calibre air pistols designed for target shooting. Why would anybody need one? How does legalising these pistols benefit society? I assume (again, perhaps incorrectly) that it was already legal to use target pistols, so why would anybody want to see guns of this sort more easily available?

It wasn't legal to use target pistols for the last thirty-odd years. Or, to be more accurate, it was legal, but not possible because a policy decision by the gardai and DoJ was made in 1972 to not issue licences for any kind of pistol. Thus wiping out all shooting sports that used pistols in the country, but having lamentably little effect on the security problem they were facing from terrorism, and having equally lamentably little effect on criminal uses of sidearms. Which, even more sadly, is a rather normal end result of most firearms legislation, because most legislation addresses what is felt by legislators to be the easy solution to a problem - and while they're experts on law, they're rarely experts on firearms

As to why would anyone want sidearms to be legal in Ireland, the problem isn't as easy as it sounds - how do you define the difference between a target pistol and a sidearm other than through intent of use? There certainly is a line, and from far away it's obvious (an olympic air pistol isn't anything like an FN Five-SeveN, for example), but the closer you get to it, the blurrier it becomes. The largest target pistol shooting event in the US, for example, is NRA Bullseye pistol shooting. Looks a lot like olympic shooting - a standard paper bullseye target, shot from a set range in a set time, and so forth. But they shoot that event with three guns - the first series with a .22 calibre pistol, the third with a .45 calibre pistol and the second with a pistol of intermediate calibre. It is a legitimate sporting discipline, established for years with tens of thousands of participants; and the main pistol used for the event is the Colt 1911 pistol, for many years the standard pistol of the US military. Granted, it was often totally rebuilt for accurising, but a lot of people shot the event for recreation and couldn't invest the thousand dollars or more that that can cost, so they just shot a stock 1911. So the same pistol was both a target pistol and a sidearm, with only the intent of the user differentiating between them.

What seems most likely will be that a line will be drawn on the basis of calibre in the upcoming firearms legislation review, and those pistols under that line will be relatively easy to get, on the same par as .22 rifles and the like, and those over that line will be more difficult to get access to, the same way that most firearms legislation is in practise at the moment anyway. (You generally find that getting an air rifle for target shooting raises few eyebrows in the garda station, but getting a .308 rifle for hunting needs a few more forms to be filled and sees a few more questions asked).

MizzKattt

A gun is an inanimate object. Yes, dangerous in nature and with a high level of risk. Still, many inanimate objects may and have been used to inflict harm; guns, hammers, knives, cars, poisons, baseball bats, pipes, nail guns, cigarettes, greasy foods, etc. By banning the gun, blame is shifted away from the person handling the gun to an inanimate object.

abccormac

Nobody is suggesting that we shift blame for shooting incidents to an inanimate object, and to suggest otherwise is more than a little insulting.

I think the attitude of most anti-gun people is that all guns are inherenrly designed to be dangerous, therefore why allow public access to them? They are only strictly neccesary to a tiny proportion of the population, most people don't need them The army needs heavy machine guns, and I'm sure firing one off at a static target would be great fun, but nobody would seriously argue that I should be allowed to own one. This is obviously an exaggerated example, but the principle remains the same. We control access to lots of inanimate objects and substances because the potential harm of allowing them outweighs the potential benefits of doing so, for example, drugs. I think that our current laws are good enough. We allow access to guns under certain circumstances, but only of a certain type, shotguns, target and hunting rifles, etc. I see no reason to allow easier access to othr types of guns, or to relax the laws as they stand.

Just out of interest, what exactly is legal here in Ireland, and what sort of license requirements are in existance? I have a vague idea that you need to get land owners signatures to get a gun for hunting but I'm not really sure. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Sparks said: No, it's more likely that he'd have thrown rocks or glass bottles like his ilk do in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Its kind of hard to ban rocks, Its much easier to ban guns!

A Dub in Glasgo

MizzKattt wrote:

A gun is an inanimate object. Yes, dangerous in nature and with a high level of risk. Still, many inanimate objects may and have been used to inflict harm; guns, hammers, knives, cars, poisons, baseball bats, pipes, nail guns, cigarettes, greasy foods, etc. By banning the gun, blame is shifted away from the person handling the gun to an inanimate object.

You know, that is very logical. The next step is to make AK-47s available to everyone and maybe some RPGs & SAM-7s just for that little extra oomph. After they are just inanimate objects, it is the people who kill!

Reminds me of Ordell in the film Jackie Brown

"AK-47. For when you absolutely positively have to kill every motherf*cker in the room! Accept no substitute!"

MizzKattt

abccormac wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that we shift blame for shooting incidents to an inanimate object, and to suggest otherwise is more than a little insulting.

I think the attitude of most anti-gun people is that all guns are inherenrly designed to be dangerous, therefore why allow public access to them?

Its kind of hard to ban rocks, Its much easier to ban guns!

abccormac, no insult was intended. Apologies to those I have insulted.

Simply, there will always be something around that will have the potential to harm, maim or kill another. Some of these items will serve no practical purpose except pleasure. Again, I repeat cigarettes, fatty foods, etc. However, I prefer the power to lay in my realm of whether I have access to them or not. Not some politician.

Should certain citizens be excluded from access to an item because a minority chooses to abuse it?

sceptre

MizzKattt wrote:

Should certain citizens be excluded from access to an item because a minority chooses to abuse it?

Might depend on what that item is. I'd rather access to plastic explosives and plutonium was left regulated for example. Obviously those are two extreme examples and I'm not seeking to draw a comparison. However as a simple question with a simple answer I'd have to say the answer can well be "yes". Simplistic answer, yeah. Far too simplistic for what you're discussing so I'll probably just keep schtum.

MizzKattt

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You know, that is very logical. The next step is to make AK-47s available to everyone and maybe some RPGs & SAM-7s just for that little extra oomph. After they are just inanimate objects, it is the people who kill!

Reminds me of Ordell in the film Jackie Brown

"AK-47. For when you absolutely positively have to kill every motherf*cker in the room! Accept no substitute!"

Dub, that is a very extremist take. I'm not sure how to respond to it without sounding petty or extremist myself.

I'm not exactly sure how drivers licenses work there, so please excuse any mistakes. It was explained to me when I was going for my motorcycle license, Europe has a level system where a person could not go beyond their skill level. Some bikes are just too powerful for some riders.

The same applies to guns. In the states, a course, a background check, fingerprints, a written exam, a practical exam is required before a license will be issued. This is to ensure the person carrying a gun is aware of the risks and responsibility required to wield a gun. It is a machine. I am the driver. It is my responsibility to ensure my machine will be used properly.

A Dub in Glasgo

MizzKattt wrote:

Dub, that is a very extremist take. I'm not sure how to respond to it without sounding petty or extremist myself.

I'm not exactly sure how drivers licenses work there, so please excuse any mistakes. It was explained to me when I was going for my motorcycle license, Europe has a level system where a person could not go beyond their skill level. Some bikes are just too powerful for some riders.

The same applies to guns. In the states, a course, a background check, fingerprints, a written exam, a practical exam is required before a license will be issued. This is to ensure the person carrying a gun is aware of the risks and responsibility required to wield a gun. It is a machine. I am the driver. It is my responsibility to ensure my machine will be used properly.

Yes I was being flippant and using extreme examples but the principles are the same. What if person X has the 'skill' level to own an AK-47 and just happens to leave it lying around the house for his son (who happens to be a majorly fecked off teenager) to take into school and blast away. It is all about risk mitigation and allowing people to own those sorts of weapons does not sound like good risk mitigation to me.

I am aware that the US regards weapons as a god given right to own.

abccormac

No problem MizzKattt,
The difference between food, cigarettes and guns is all to do with time scales. Smoking and poor eating may kill me in the long run, but a gunshot to the head would probably kill me naow. And anyway, we already control access to dangerous items and substances such as drugs. You have to take everything on its own merits. I might derive great enjoyment from filling myself with e's every weekend, but as a society we have decided that the costs to society of people doing so are too large.

There is a similar issue with gun ownership. We have decided as a society that the risks to society as a whole are not balanced by the potential for some people to have fun with firearms. We therefore restrict access to them. AS a society we have also decided that the benefits of being able to carve the sunday roast with a razor sharp knife outweigh the costs of people occasionaly deciding to carve up other people instead.

We could go round and round in circles asking why, when we have strict control of gun ownership, we don't have such strict control over knives or yo-yos or boomerangs or sharp sticks, but it would get us nowhere. Until somebody lays out a way in which relaxing the gun laws would benefit society more than it would increase the risk of me being shot, Iwon't see any reason to relax them.

MizzKattt

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

just happens to leave it lying around the house for his son (who happens to be a majorly fecked off teenager) to take into school and blast away. It is all about risk mitigation and allowing people to own those sorts of weapons does not sound like good risk mitigation to me.

Unfortunately, that is not an implausible scenario. Still, as a licensed gun owner, it is the owner's responsibility to secure his gun. A MAJOR portion of ownership is limiting access of others less skilled/licensed. I believe if an owner is negligent with his/her weapon, he should be held accountable for damages the weapon may be used for.

Yes, I have guns in my home. Yes, I do feel that it is my right to possess them. I also have a ten year old daughter who has never and will never under any circumstances touch my gun(s) because of the education and experience I have provided her. Additionally, my car keys are within her reach. Yet, she knows my car and my gun(s) are off limits to her because they are powerful and potentially deadly machines.

abccormac wrote:

Smoking and poor eating may kill me in the long run, but a gunshot to the head would probably kill me naow.

Am I to assume the government is a better judge of how I should die and how long it should take and what is acceptable for me to use to kill myself?

My point is this: Everything with moderation, responsibility and sound judgement.