So whats the deal with guns?

cormie

Hi,
Just curious as to what the deal is with guns. I see allot of you have guns. Why do you have them? How does the avarage Irish man go about getting one. What are the restrictions and what are the conditions?

Also, regarding paintball guns, are these legal? Do you need a license?

It would be great if you got a load of people together who have paintball guns and ammo and protective suits and just go to some massive forrest. And boards would be a great place to gather more people

Any help appreciated.

Shrimp

yeah, and whats the score on pellet guns?

Sparks

I'm starting to think we need a sticky thread on this and other FAQs! (In fact I'm going to start one later, but I've a new idea for this, so bear with me).

Okay, the deal is, yes firearms are legal. You need a licence to own one. The procedure for getting a licence, including a look at the form you have to fill out, is covered here.

People here have them for a lot of reasons, ranging from the farmer who has a single-barrelled shotgun for scaring dogs away from sheep and foxes from hens, through vets who use them for humane dispatching of large animals, hunters who shoot animals (from rabbits through to deer - though deer need a special licence) or birds for meat, doctors who use air rifles as part of physical therapy for patients with spinal cord injuries or strokes (the fine muscle movements needed to aim a rifle are what they're trying to replicate and the novelty of the activity means that patients find it easier to spend more time in therapy), through to target shooters at all levels from the plinkers through to those whose goal is to win a gold medal in the olympics. The thing to remember is that they're not toys and they're not treated as such.

The restrictions and conditions are covered in the Firearms Act 1925 and its later amendments and very basicly put are that you can't have one if you'd be a danger to others. The actual conditions for granting the licence are covered in Article Four of the Act. There are a few specific rules in legislation, though I've not seen a definitive list put together yet for shooters on things like whether or not you can shoot from a public road (there's a law in the UK that says that that is a very specific no-no, I don't know if it's carried over into Irish law or not). A lot of the rules on owning firearms though, are a bit on the fuzzy side because the original Act and its amendments were not drafted by people with a lot of expertise in firearms. As such, clear-cut answers beyond "talk to your local superintendent" are relatively uncommon (On the other hand, this does mean that the local superintendent should know all the locals who have firearms which is how the system is supposed to work in the first place - but if superintendents are transferred from station to station, it interferes with that system ).

Paintball guns have been a somewhat special case until recently because they are classified as firearms and the various paintballing companies like Crossfire have licencing arrangements with the local gardai, but I've not heard of anyone with their own personal gear (which is certainly not a definitive statement that there are no such people, mind!). They've been a special case because they don't normally have serial numbers stamped on them in the factory as most of our firearms would have (and airsofters are in the same boat). It isn't anything to do with the kind of shooting that most of the people here would talk about though (speaking personally, the whole idea of shooting at people with any kind of firearm, even one limited to a single joule of muzzle energy, just gives me the willies - but then, I don't even like shooting at humanoid-shaped paper targets), and there is a seperate forum for airsofters and paintballers on the Airsoft Ireland website including a thread discussing airsoft in the republic here. So that may be of more use to you.

Shrimp, "pellet gun" refers to two different kinds of firearm in Ireland; air rifles/pistols, and BB guns. The difference is that BB guns shoot steel ball-bearings (hence the name) using compressed air and air rifles and pistols shoot a differently shaped projectile made from a lead alloy (called a pellet, hence the sometimes used description "pellet gun" but that term is often also used for BB guns, confusingly ) Both are legal; both require licences. Neither are toys, unlike in the UK where they're sold as such - though they're no more toys in the UK than they are anywhere else, they're just treated as such for legal purposes. In the UK, there is a lower limit on the kinetic energy of the projectile of any kind of airgun below which it is not legally a firearm (it's 12 foot-pounds for an air rifle and 6 foot-pounds for an air pistol). This lower limit does not exist in Ireland, which is a rather unique circumstance - it exists in virtually every other EU country in one form or another - in Germany, for example, it's set at seven Joules and all airguns are stamped with a symbol (an F in a pentagram) to indicate that they comply with this rule and so need no licence. The result is that airgun shooting is by far the more popular sport (about 80% of all rounds fired in target shooting in Germany are air rifle shots), but in some places (like Glasgow and Edinburgh as recent tragic events have shown), they're also abused. From what I've heard from those who've met with the DoJ in recent weeks, there is very nearly no chance at all that such a limit would be introduced to Ireland in the upcoming legislation, and this was before the tragic shooting in Glasgow and the more worrying copycat shooting in Edinburgh last week. I'm not even sure myself that such a limit would make any sense except perhaps if it was set at a very low level (one joule would be appropriate from the airsofter's point of view, but I'd personally like to see some sort of study on lethality and muzzle energies before I'd back a particular figure, and so far as I know, none has ever been done). So long as a licence can be granted without onerous conditions, I don't see any need to eliminate the licencing mechanism, given the consequences of that elimination. Again, that's my view, not any official body's view (mainly because any official body that did say that would be immediately trashed by a vocal minority as being a "traitor" to the shooting community! :rolleyes: ).

Incidentally, if you've any other questions, post them in here; I'll use them for putting together a FAQ page.

cormie

Thanks.

I'd really only be interested in a firearm for my safety and the safety of others. I remember there was a riot down in Bray outside 3 pubs that are right beside eachother. I'd say if I shot into the air everyone would stop and be scared to death. Of course I wouldn't intend to harm anyone with it. Just keep the peace by making them think I could. I'd also use it if I was ever approached with a syringe etc. My first action would be to run away and using it would be my last resort (syringe to the neck, trigger is pulled). It would make me feel allot safer though.

I'd never want to hunt an animal for sport, I find that terrible. If I was going to eat the animal, that's different, that's our instinct. I find killing for sport cruel though. I'm the one who gets the bee in the cup and lets it free rather than getting the newspaper.

Paintball would be great fun and if I knew there were enough people who would be up for monthly/bi monthly etc forrest battles, I would love to join in if it was legal.


I don't understand why the police force don't even have tranquilizers or stun guns

I hate violence and I'm not an aggressive person at all, I'd just like to feel a bit safer.

Eoghan-psych

cormie wrote:

I'd really only be interested in a firearm for my safety and the safety of others. I remember there was a riot down in Bray outside 3 pubs that are right beside eachother. I'd say if I shot into the air everyone would stop and be scared to death. Of course I wouldn't intend to harm anyone with it.

People who keep guns for safety are more likely to be shot by their own gun, by their own family than they are of ever using it to protect themselves. People who keep guns for safety are more likely to shoot a member of their family than they are of using them to protect themselves.

cormie wrote:

I don't understand why the police force don't even have tranquilizers or stun guns

Special Branch are armed. So are the ERU. Arming the regular Gardai could only be counterproductive - US cops are armed, and that does *so* much to make the country safer....

cormie wrote:

I hate violence and I'm not an aggressive person at all, I'd just like to feel a bit safer.

That doesn't follow - it's like the old chestnut "there's never a garda when you need one". Studies have shown that people feel *less* safe when the police are more visible. The same process works for guns.

Sparks

Cornie, the one thing you will not (and frankly, should not) be granted a firearms licence for is protection, whether it be self-protection or protection of property, that's very explicitly stated by the Gardai.

There's a good reason for this - as shown in the US, using a firearm for self-protection requires it to be your first resort, whereas the law here demands that violence against another person in self-defence not be the first resort. The law here is the same as the law in the UK, in that you are not permitted to carry any sort of weapon (be it firearm or anything else from clubs to chemical sprays) for the purpose of self-defence. Besides, which, counter-intuitive as it sounds, firearms aren't the best idea for self-defence. The best tool you have for self-defence is between your ears. The near-riot in Bray - well, personally, I stay away from the seafront in that town and also from a few other pubs in the the town itself. Ergo, I'm not at risk. The best idea for self-defence is basicly to not put yourself in danger.

There have been cases where firearms were used in valid self-defence, but those are relatively rare and all were cases where the use was in extremis (in other words, there was no other reasonable course of action available, and the firearm was not originally intended for use in self-defence). But there's a long way between not prosecuting someone because they used a firearm as an ad hoc last resort in self-defence; and issuing a licence to carry one around for self-protection from an unspecified threat! There are, as in all rules, a few exceptions - there are about a dozen or so Personal Protection Weapons issued in this state at any one time, usually in cases where a valid threat is known, and usually it's to do with terrorism or organised crime; and it's true that this is far, far more common up north; but those are markedly different cases than a general security blanket, in that there is a very real and discriminating threat involved! And there are studies backing up what Eoghan has said - I believe the most reliable showed that in the US, you were 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of gun homicide if a firearm was kept in the home. I don't know how well that would translate to Ireland (I suspect it wouldn't translate anywhere nearly as badly as 2.7, and countries like Switzerland show that it's not necessary for the figure to be any higher than one at all), but I'd rather not run the experiment to find out!

I should also point out, by the way, that target shooting and hunting (the main uses people here have for their firearms) are nothing to do with self-defence, and that many of the firearms used for either wouldn't be suitable or in some cases even usable for that purpose (an ISSF air rifle, for example, couldn't be used for self-defence except maybe as an incredibly expensive - as in, two thousand euro - club).

On the hunting aspect, most if not all hunting in Ireland is done with the intention of eating the meat afterwards. Trophy hunting isn't generally well regarded in most quarters, and most if not all hunters in Ireland are also members of the NARGC and so do more for conservation and restocking than any other group in the country, both by contributions of money and of their own time.

Paintball is legal, but I'm not sure what the story is on owning your own gear - but there are certainly several companies around the country who can accomodate you in this as well as clubs.

The general gardai don't carry weapons because of the circumstances surrounding their creation after the civil war when disarmament was something the state needed to pursue aggressively; having armed gardai would have made the situation worse, not better. There are, however, small groups of gardai such as the Emergency Response Unit who are armed.

dahamsta

Sparks wrote:

I'm starting to think we need a sticky thread on this and other FAQs! (In fact I'm going to start one later, but I've a new idea for this, so bear with me).

Excellent post Sparks, answered a lot of things I was curious about.

Longslide45

Smallpointer ;
Shooting 50 meters from a roadside or on a road into a piece of property is illegal in Ireland.
Also there is nowhere in the US that suggests or authorthises you use deadly force as a first response.It gives you rights and responsibiliy to make a decision to use deadly force,and this varies from state to state.

Here you must meet the force offerd with equal force.So if you have a gun and your aggressor has a knife,you must go get your kitchen knife to equal the force offerd.[Dont laugh this is from an Irish court self defence case].Hmmm a 120 lb woman taking on a 280 lb man who intends to rape her or kill her armed with a kitchen knife.Whats she to do?Ever wonder why the Colt was called "the equilizer".Crazy world.



As for that old anti gun chestnut of you being likely to be killed by your own gun is now finally debunked by the concealed carry liscenses,that now 40 states issue their citizens.Were this the case the accidental death rate by would be alot more than it is now.Just to give you an example;

These stats were gatherd by the US dept of Health [1998 I think]
Registerd gun owners in the USA 80 million [plus/minus 2 million]
accidental gun deaths 1,500
deaths per gun owner 0.000188
Doctors in the USA 700,000
accidental deaths by doctors 120,000
deaths per doctor 0.171
Doctors are 9,000 more dangerous than gun owners!!!
[Oh,just in case you think the Dept of health is somhow pro gun ,it isnt.It is staffed by a good few of the more noisome anti gun crowd.]

To answer Cormies point .Yes,actually allowing people to carry guns does make the place SO!!! much safer.The crime stats for concealed carry states have been steadilty dropping over the last ten years.Florida introduced it after the 1990 car jacking spree.The anti gun crowd howled of bloodbaths ,shooting sprees, etc.Remarkably ten years later car jacking is non existant in Florida.The police put it down to the CCWP,not to their policework.

fiacha

anyone else smell a troll ??

cormie

When it comes down to it, only the individual knows what they are capable of themselves.

I couldn't kill somebody, I'd hate to shoot somebody.

However, if it meant that less people suffered at the cost of one(or more) person(s) who is provoking the suffering, I would use force.

civdef

Initial question had been answered, thread is veering off into politics territory.

Sparks

Longslide45 wrote:

Shooting 50 meters from a roadside or on a road into a piece of property is illegal in Ireland.

I thought as much, but did you find the actual citation in law?

Also there is nowhere in the US that suggests or authorthises you use deadly force as a first response.

Yes, there is (in fact, see the law they're debating in Florida only just this week to give citizens the right to open fire in public places without first seeking to retreat), though I was referring more to the training courses that they give over there on using firearms for self-defence, which stress getting the firearm out and pointed at someone as fast as possible.

Here you must meet the force offerd with equal force.

No.
Let's just be clear on that point for the simple reason that it's caused no end of confusion in the UK in recent weeks, and already in the UK there's one man who chose to plead guilty on (according to him) the basis of how the Tony Martin case was reported (the Martin case was horribly misrepresented in the press in the UK as being self-defence when in fact it was nothing of the sort).

The rule is not equal force, but reasonable force. In other words, you cannot use lethal levels of force unless you honestly believe that your life is in immediate peril and you have no other recourse. A philosophy that I personally feel is very sensible because it means that if you act honestly, you won't have to worry, but if you decide to act as judge, jury and executioner for someone, you will - and frankly, since I don't think that you should be allowed to shoot someone dead for something as petty as burglary, I have to agree with that idea.

Hmmm a 120 lb woman taking on a 280 lb man who intends to rape her or kill her armed with a kitchen knife.Whats she to do?Ever wonder why the Colt was called "the equilizer".Crazy world.

You know, I hear the rape thing advanced all the time as a justification for self-defence with firearms and the simple fact is that it's not a justification because the simple statistics are that over 70% of all rapes are carried out by family or close friends of the rape victim, and I don't know of too many women who would take a gun to bed with their spouse...

As for that old anti gun chestnut of you being likely to be killed by your own gun is now finally debunked by the concealed carry liscenses,that now 40 states issue their citizens.

Again, no - the recent study carried out by the NRC in the states showed that there was no conclusion regarding the effect of CCW on crime that had any support from any statistical survey carried out to date. And the "old chestnut" of the 2.7 figure wasn't to do with CCW, it was to do with simple ownership and it was a properly carried out study done by qualified epidemiologists from the CDC in Atlanta. These guys didn't have an anti-gun backing, they were qualified to do the study, and the study does (and did) hold up to peer review by people from both sides of the pro/anti-gun camp.

To answer Cormies point .Yes,actually allowing people to carry guns does make the place SO!!! much safer.The crime stats for concealed carry states have been steadilty dropping over the last ten years.

Sorry, but no, again this isn't proven. Crime figures fluctuate all the time, and it's not causation you're talking about but correlation. Lott's studies on the effects of CCW on crime have been shown to have been unsupportable, not because of the data collected, but just because of how he did the maths (in other words, not because of his philosophy, but because of his sums, which are objectively checkable and which were found to be wanting).

fiacha wrote:

anyone else smell a troll ??

I did wonder about that, but the question's important enough to warrant answering regardless of origin, at least once!
(That doesn't mean that the mods will stand for an abusive thread to develop though!)