should guns/ bloodsports be fully legalised in ireland?

Eoghan-psych

Easily_Irritate wrote:

Strange, but true. They initially do their test for a licence and after that they can still discharge firearms without having passed the annual gardai gun test. Madness!

Well, in all fairness - it's hardly as pressing a concern as literacy requirements now is it?

Be thankful we live in a society where it doesn't matter.

doctor evil

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The same arguments [check google for examples] have been used pretty much verbatim to justify slavery, segregation, corporal punishment of children, etc etc etc.

Labelling something "tradition" doesn't make it right. And no, I'm not from Dublin - that tired old "you're a townie, you don't get it" line is ridiculous.

People and animals are not the same. You cannot compare slavery/segregation/corporal punishment of people to the hunting of animals. I imagine that some people would be pretty pissed off at that.

"you`re a townie, you don`t get it" is not a completly ridiculous line. I know for a fact that a lot of people who eat meat would bitch and squel if pictures of lambs/cows/pigs appeared on the packaging of meat. The problem is that people have forgotten where meat comes from, too used to seeing it in prepared slabs. People have also forgotten how brutal to us nature can seem to be and can be guilty of over anthromorphising animals.

Sparks

Eoghan-psych wrote:

How many shootings occur without injury?

Well, I've been shooting for eleven or twelve years now without injuring anyone. The TCD rifle club's been operating in it's current form for over 40 years without injuring anyone. UCD rifle club's been operating for over a decade without injuring anyone. Rathdrum Rifle Club's been operating for over fifty years without injuring anyone. Dublin Rifle Club's been operating for over fifty years without injuring anyone. You're looking at upwards of a few hundred million rounds right there. And there are more clubs - Fermoy, Fingal, Midlands, Comber, East Antrim, Dungannon, Newry, Wexford, and that's just the rifle and pistol clubs - there are hundreds of clay pigeon clubs around the country.

Shooting's like airline travel. Safest thing in the world, but if there ever is an accident, it's reported everywhere (mainly because it is so unusual) and everyone thinks it's horrible - and noone seems to twig that, like pilots after an airliner crash, we're taking more notice than the general public is because it's more likely to be our necks on the line.

IF, however, you were talking about the criminal abuse of firearms, you're not making a fair comparison. It'd be like arguing that we should ban airline travel because a bunch of Saudis flew two of them into the world trade center.

Ri_Nollaig

Sparks wrote:

Well, I've been shooting for eleven or twelve years now without injuring anyone. The TCD rifle club's been operating in it's current form for over 40 years without injuring anyone. UCD rifle club's been operating for over a decade without injuring anyone. Rathdrum Rifle Club's been operating for over fifty years without injuring anyone. Dublin Rifle Club's been operating for over fifty years without injuring anyone. You're looking at upwards of a few hundred million rounds right there. And there are more clubs - Fermoy, Fingal, Midlands, Comber, East Antrim, Dungannon, Newry, Wexford, and that's just the rifle and pistol clubs - there are hundreds of clay pigeon clubs around the country.

Shooting's like airline travel. Safest thing in the world, but if there ever is an accident, it's reported everywhere (mainly because it is so unusual) and everyone thinks it's horrible - and noone seems to twig that, like pilots after an airliner crash, we're taking more notice than the general public is because it's more likely to be our necks on the line.

IF, however, you were talking about the criminal abuse of firearms, you're not making a fair comparison. It'd be like arguing that we should ban airline travel because a bunch of Saudis flew two of them into the world trade center.

yes of all the stats from the gun-related deaths from the US how many where from actual accidents from legaly held guns? banning guns would have little or no effect on guns been used in crimes etc they will always get them!
and doctor evil you replied for me

Umiq88

Straying off topic again

the question asked is should guns be fully legalised in Ireland

i think its ridiculous to think it could ever happen there's a difference to being able to acquire a firearm than any old idiot could walk into a shop and buy a gun

as for the cruelty of A hunt ive never been to a hunt so i cant comment but hunting foxes (as in with a gun) is no more cruel than say an owl hunting mice are owls then cruel creatures that because owls hunt mice they will hunt humans i dont think so hunting is just a way of nature an we happen to be at the top of the food chain. also as far as im aware the fox has no natural predators either does a deer so if there numbers went unchecked their numbers would soar causing also sorts of problems for farmers as well as road users. i dont even see the point in arguing with people who have never acctually experienced the sport who say it must be wrong cause they use guns and guns are bad

as for the murders with guns again it has been pointed out that these for the most part were done with illegal imported arms so banning guns altogether will not effect this at all and if your using the argument that guns are dangerous and should be banned why not just ban cars they account for the most deaths everywhere sure why not ban chairs they're potentially lethal

Sparks

the question asked is should guns be fully legalised in Ireland

And the answer is that they already are. It's completely legal to own a firearm in Ireland, and it's perfectly safe, as human activities go (obviously, it's not mathematically perfectly safe, but that's because there are humans involved. Think of it as being about as safe as darts or chess or tiddlywinks).

Basicly, it's a poorly phrased question which suggests the person asking it didn't quite understand the current situation regarding firearms legislation in Ireland.

Eoghan-psych

Sparks wrote:

Well, I've been shooting for eleven or twelve years now without injuring anyone.

IF, however, you were talking about the criminal abuse of firearms, you're not making a fair comparison. It'd be like arguing that we should ban airline travel because a bunch of Saudis flew two of them into the world trade center.

Eh, no. Millions of hot dogs are consumed safely. Millions of air miles are travelled safely.

*No* instances of shooting people occur safely.

Eoghan-psych

psittacosis wrote:

as for the murders with guns again it has been pointed out that these for the most part were done with illegal imported arms so banning guns altogether will not effect this at all and if your using the argument that guns are dangerous and should be banned why not just ban cars they account for the most deaths everywhere sure why not ban chairs they're potentially lethal

Why do people keep trotting out this nonsense?

If I shoot you, 100% of the time you will be injured.
If, on the other hand, I ask you to sit on a chair, the chances of it killing you are *just a little* less.

Comparing parsnips to microchips is hardly a valid line of reasoning, is it?

Sparks

*No* instances of shooting people occur safely.

Firstly, it's illegal to shoot someone deliberately. Just in case you didn't know, like.

Secondly, your statement is the logical equivalent of saying that there are no instances of airliner crashes occurring safely or that noone chokes on a hot dog safely. Shooting isn't about shooting people except during war or crime. Focus on what it is, rather than what's already illegal and immoral and unethical, would you? Otherwise, you're comparing chalk to cheese and deriving an answer of five...

Eoghan-psych

Sparks wrote:

Firstly, it's illegal to shoot someone deliberately. Just in case you didn't know, like.

Secondly, your statement is the logical equivalent of saying that there are no instances of airliner crashes occurring safely or that noone chokes on a hot dog safely. Shooting isn't about shooting people except during war or crime. Focus on what it is, rather than what's already illegal and immoral and unethical, would you? Otherwise, you're comparing chalk to cheese and deriving an answer of five...

Ahem. It has been agreed and accepted already that sport shooting is wholly legal in Ireland - and nobody would argue against that. Not sensibly at any rate.

The argument at hand is converting the European Guns-as-sports equipment culture to an American guns-as-weapons culture. Others here are arguing that we should have the same access to carry guns as the Americans - *that* is what I'm arguing against.

Sparks

The argument at hand is converting the European Guns-as-sports equipment culture to an American guns-as-weapons culture.

Then could we be more clear about that please? The hundred thousand or so shooters here have seen what happens when people mix the two up, both here in Ireland and over in the UK.

snorlax

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Ahem. It has been agreed and accepted already that sport shooting is wholly legal in Ireland - and nobody would argue against that. Not sensibly at any rate.

The argument at hand is converting the European Guns-as-sports equipment culture to an American guns-as-weapons culture. Others here are arguing that we should have the same access to carry guns as the Americans - *that* is what I'm arguing against.

and whati v been trying to argue too. also sparks its worthwhile to bear and mind most articles from journals aren't necessarily peer reviewed(it weeds out all the bad articles if you select only peer reviewd) , and yes i am a member of the health faculty so i do know a thing or too about the health risks of guns as that epoused by the states (i don't think is possible to counter my agruments on introducing american style-gun legislation which is what this whole thread is about and iv mentioned that at least 3 times already so i dount i could be accused of being amibigious. i don't quite know what your arguing for if you disaggree with introducing american style legislation..also there is a definite lack of empirical evidence on your part to suggest the states is the way to go....i think i could spend a few years producing evidence that points to the chaos that might ensue if ireland became like the staes, because the evidence is overwhealming and many of my colleagues in the states have to waste a good lot of their time dealing with the reprucussions of firearm injuiry, both physical and pyschological....

oh yes and here's another (*peer reviewed article from peer reviewed journal)
to show that the availability of guns is linked to suicide

A reliability check of Lester's (2000b) 1970-1995 time series that examined associations between the availability of firearms and their use for homicide and suicide in Canada. For the period 1974 to 1999, the relative availability of firearms as measured by the rate of accidental death from firearms and the average of the percentages of suicides using firearms was positively associated with the rate of suicide by firearms and negatively associated with the rate of suicide by all other methods. Correlations for the homicide versus murder rates, homicide rate using guns versus murder rate using guns, and homicide rate by all other methods versus murder rate by all other methods were very similar. PsycINFO 2004 APA,(journal abstract)

Case-control studies show an association between firearms in the home and completed suicide, with higher risks associated with loaded guns and handguns in the home. Quasi-experimental studies also show a relationship between greater restrictiveness of gun control laws and lower suicide rates by firearms and overall. A prospective study shows that handgun purchasers have an elevated risk for suicide for up to 6 years after the purchase. Relatively few studies have examined the impact of intervention to encourage families to store guns safely or remove firearms from the home on suicidal outcome. (PsycINFO, 2004 APA, (journal abstract)

Flattop 15

[

QUOTE=snorlax]i didnt say that, i said nearly 70% of the population of these boards who have read the posts and all your arguments disagree with you and don't want to see city gangs or junkies getting their hands on yet more guns so they can do yet more damage. QUOTE]
Neither did I.I said that for this poll to have any viability it would have to be done nationally. this board is hardly repsentative of the majority of the irish pouplation.
Not only that I'll remind that you are asking two questions to vote on in reality it should be two seperate polls.So if somone has an issue with guns,but not an issue with fishing,for example how do they vote?Also shock,horror there are shooters out there who are anti fieldsports,how will they vote.So your poll is a slanted and unscientific statistic.To do this properly,you would need to ask the following questions maybe like;
should people have the right to use firearms or nonleathl weapons for self defence in Ireland [1 subject]
Should fieldsports be totally banned in Ireland?[1 subject]
Should irish firearms laws laws be tightned /loosend?[1 subject]
Maybe then your question and corrosponding polls would make sense.


Do you know if they actually have?? YOU dont seem to have!Because I never mentioned anything about junkies and criminals getting weapons,[which they can do pretty easily anyway],as a matter of fact I actually agreed with you about certain people not allowed to have access to firearms.Two of the groups you mentioned.Read my post again.And so what if shooters have an esprit de corps on this?You post this thread expect people to disagree with it,or with the misinformation on it.Maybe a more deeper perusal of the shooting board would answer some questions for you.

are you want to see them loosened so we can end up like the states( because that is what i don't want to see happen!) i assume people like you responding to me would like to loosen them and to allow every joe soap access to a gun so yes, of course im going to argue the case, maybe you should re-read my posts because that is what i have tryed to say times twice before but perphaps you got so lost trying to defend the valiant gun users that you missed my points, again i say i am not against getting rid of/ or loosening the gun regulations which is the whole point of my argument. you have pointed out that restrictions are tight and prevent anyone getting their .

Greif!! ! did you read anything I posted or you just dont want to accept a contra opinion!We will never end up like the States ,because they have a thing called the second amendment which defines a RIGHT[to keep and bear arms],not a PRIVILIGE which what firearms ownership is over here in Europe.
So you need not fear on that one anyway.
Two,I find most people who argue the look at the USA have never set foot over there or actually lived there .I have for four years and as posted carried a gun for most of that time in my work.Have you lived over there?
I also pointed out in a previous post that it is a MYTH that every joe and jane soap can buy a gun in the USA with out any backround checks,waiting periods etc LEGALLY.
Of course if you want to buy one illegally and take your chances with a ten year holiday in a Federal prision,well there is nothing stopping you there either.But you can do this here as well without the risk of a state paid holiday in Mountjoy.
The rest of your paragraphs points are uncomprehensible to me.You seem to think that legally held firearms are the only source of guns to criminals in this country.There is a steady flow of illegal firearms coming in with drug shipments.Also what do you mean that my main arguement for gun use our current firearms laws?????? Could you try to post this in a more comprehensible fashion for us thickos??


[

B]Every day[/B] in the U.S., about 90 people are killed with guns in suicides, homicides, and accidents, and another 175 are injured. annually. The U.S., whose firearm injury death rate is 5 to 10 times higher than that of other industrialized countries, does not have a national reporting system to track the incidence and characteristics of these tragic events with the detail needed to help to learn how to reduce gun injuries. .Abstract,American Journal of Public Health; Aug2000, Vol. 90 Issue 8, p1191, 3p) Courtesy of trinity college library and EBSCO host search engines( a peer reviewed article) and not some random american website, so i think that puts an end to your argument about my stats being unreputable, journals are the bedrock of research and iv spent 2 years studying them in college so i do know more then a layman. i think you will find the argument for loosening gun restrictions is a a straw one.

Yes,intrestingly written by the same group that Kellerman belongs to.So another strawman arguement.You didnt answer the question about where anarchy exists in the USA either.And no it doesnt end about your stats being unreliable,they are just biased in favour of an anti gun agenda. Three types of lies,lies damn lies and statistics!!! I lived and worked for four years in the USA in a capacity of liscensed private security specialising in defence of people in firearms cases and ballistics before I came home here .So I would know a lot more than pretty much any layman here on US firearms laws.

The article investigates defensive gun use (DGU) frequency and the nature of DGU incidents and the people who defend themselves with guns. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies or about 80,000 to 82,000

That is only actual reported incidents.It doesnt take into consideration the unreported incidens in places where there is more "criminal rights"than law abiding citizen rights.Places like Washingon DC NYC etc where it is virtually illegal to posses any type of firearm,unless you are a criminal of course.Your defence figures should be around the 75,000 taken in the approximate figures.This is why it is a totally pointless study.

if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. NCVS is a nonanonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject or armed self-defense. Its interviewing part was carried out from February through April of 1993. Prevalence figures were computed by dividing the weighted sample frequencies in the top two rows of numbers by the total weighted sample size of 4,977. Estimates indicated that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGU of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns. Evidence internal to this survey directly indicates that a one year recall period yields larger estimates than a five year recall period. The average number of DGU in this time span was 1.5 per DGU-involved household. ( Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Fall95, Vol. 86 Issue 1, p150, 38p, 4 charts )

Errr this is 2005!!The figures are now compleaty out of date by 12 years.You would want to go and get some new stats!


here's another one just for good measure , again a peer reviewed article:

[

B]Firearms are the second leading cause of death in the United States for ages 15-34, with motor vehicles in first place and cancer a distant third[/B]. For ages 30 to 54, firearms generate as many deaths as motor vehicle crashes. Despite the severity of the problem, data on non-fatal firearm injuries are virtually non-existent. Firearms cause 57 per cent of all suicides. These differ from other suicides in that the rates are highest in low-income areas. For any population group, the availability and lethality of firearms are major determinants of such death rates. This is vividly illustrated by data from the Aarhus region of Denmark published in this issue of the Journal. Despite the overwhelming importance of gun availability, the problem of firearm injury and its solution are far from simple. Much attention has been given to the possibility of restricting the sale and ownership of handguns and handgun ammunition, because of their very low benefit-risk ratio. Although the size and conceatability of handguns is of no benefit except for killing people, proposals to limit private ownership or use of small, easily concealed handguns evoke strong reactions from the firearm industry, the National Rifle Association, and many gun owners.( Abstract, American Journal of Public Health; Jun85, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p587, 2p)

You really love Kellerman and Co dont you?? Dont bother trying to convince me with him.Just google this mans name and see what sort of a liar,phoney and quack this man and the group is! You can quote the medical journals all you like!Ink doesnt refuse paper,doctors can be biased and paid as well, to write anything that they have an agenda with,as well as to get money for their cause or keep themselves in a job.Which Kellerman and doctors against guns do very well.Wrap up dodgy statistics in medical jargon and publish and push it as a healthcare issue. Cmon!!! Not only that this arguement is 13 years old,which was bandied around alot under the Clinton dictatorship,it has been debunked soo many times it is hard to belive anyone would belive it anymore.

THIRD TIME I am asking you if you didnt like guns.Why did you join the Irish FCA?? I note in one post you said that there were too many people who were trigger happy in it.HMMMMM Not a good recomendation for a body of people who are supposed to have one major asset in their chosen career and profession.DISIPLINE.If somone said that about a civillan gun club,well you could be sure it would be investigated nowadays.

Musashi

I own a Steyr rifle!
It has never shot anything on its own!
I have never targeted anything I did not intend to eat.
My family are all divers, recruited as rescue divers in the event of a drowning, a common enough event here on the coast.
We have all dragged up bodies from the sea and lakes/rivers around here,suicide is not about guns,it is about desperation and any means available!
Sad but a reality, young lads will hang or drown rather than sit the leaving cert.? WTF? Pressure is one thing but these lads have nothing to do with shooting,and I resent the hijacking of their plight to further the anti gun cause!
If the suicide rate is your concern,work with the youth ,if not, do not hijack shooting as a scapegoat for your pet cause.

Flattop 15

For those who wish to continue this debate with a medical slant I would suggest a reading of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws website. www.DSGL.org
especially the article AMA firearms and intellectual dishonesty.

stevenmu

Apologies if this argument has already been made, but I just came across this thread today and I've only had time to read the first few pages.

Basically, if guns are kept illegal for self-defense purposes, then only the criminals will have them, putting the innocent majority at an immediate disadvantage. The large amount of armed crime in Ireland today is proof that criminalising the carrying of weapons, be they guns, knives or other (even pepper spray ffs, does not deter would be muggers/murderers/rapists/thieves etc. It should be obvious to most of us that criminals aren't going to follow the law. This really only leaves us with 2 options for keeping ourselves safe
1) Have Gardaí absolutely everywhere, which through no fault of theirs is impossible. There's always going to be plenty of oppertunity for crime.
2) Carry arms for self-defense. Simple really, if someone attacks you or threatens the safety of you or your family, then you stop them. Simple as that !

Eoghan-psych

stevenmu wrote:

Basically, if guns are kept illegal for self-defense purposes, then only the criminals will have them, putting the innocent majority at an immediate disadvantage.

The US has at least one legally held gun for every man woman and child. They have a culture of using guns for self defense.

And still crime.

Why is that, do you think? Could it be - no, surely not - that carrying guns doesn't actually do *anything* to remove the threat of crime? Could it be - no, surely not - that crime is actually related to *other* variables?

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

Basically, if guns are kept illegal for self-defense purposes, then only the criminals will have them, putting the innocent majority at an immediate disadvantage.

To be honest, I don't think so. Firearms might well be useful in some such situations, but for the most part you don't have a sufficiently well-defined situation to use one and stay out of jail yourself. And if you have sufficient warning that an attack is imminent and you don't run away, you're a bit daft really (with certain exceptions, such as when someone's breaking into your home in the middle of the night). And you have to ask, if they're not going to address the majority of the problem, are they worth the cost? Giving every untrained Tom, Dick and Harry a firearm will result in accidental shootings (that's why target shooting puts such emphasis on training, and why hunters are now introducing formalised training courses). And you also have to worry about cases where innocent people are perceived as a threat (incorrectly) by equally innocent but scared people who then shoot them.

That said, there are 12,000 such self-defence weapons issued up North (mostly to government workers) and they seem to have managed reasonably well to refrain from carnage - but it's not clear how much of that is down to the fear of the long-term consequences of discharging a PPW in an environment where a knock on the door at 4 in the morning from a bunch of "the lads" looking for a "donation for the cause"...

The large amount of armed crime in Ireland today is proof that criminalising the carrying of weapons, be they guns, knives or other (even pepper spray ffs, does not deter would be muggers/murderers/rapists/thieves etc. It should be obvious to most of us that criminals aren't going to follow the law. This really only leaves us with 2 options for keeping ourselves safe
1) Have Gardaí absolutely everywhere, which through no fault of theirs is impossible. There's always going to be plenty of oppertunity for crime.
2) Carry arms for self-defense. Simple really, if someone attacks you or threatens the safety of you or your family, then you stop them. Simple as that !

(2) is a long, long way from simple!
And you missed (3) as well - actually apply the laws we have.

meditraitor

Big restrictions, but sometimes vermin need to be shot(get some yanks in every two or three weeks), like fox's , hare's , seals , thieves(lusk) , students

chump

Who the fu*k voted yes?

Are ye mad?

There's always people a lot worse off than you, who have less to lose, arm these people?

stevenmu

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The US has at least one legally held gun for every man woman and child. They have a culture of using guns for self defense.

And still crime.

Why is that, do you think? Could it be - no, surely not - that carrying guns doesn't actually do *anything* to remove the threat of crime? Could it be - no, surely not - that crime is actually related to *other* variables?

Yes, there will always be crime, but at least with the right to carry guns, or other defensive weapons, people will have a chance to defend themselves from it. If you want to use examples from the US, look at Washington DC which has possibly the most restrictive gun laws in the US, and also the highest rates of violent crime. There are towns in the US where all residents are required by law to keep and maintain a firearm, like Kennesaw, Georgia which have miniscule crime rates compared with the US averages (source ). Requiring someone to have a gun seems over the top to me but it does prove a point.

Sparks wrote:

To be honest, I don't think so. Firearms might well be useful in some such situations, but for the most part you don't have a sufficiently well-defined situation to use one and stay out of jail yourself. And if you have sufficient warning that an attack is imminent and you don't run away, you're a bit daft really (with certain exceptions, such as when someone's breaking into your home in the middle of the night). And you have to ask, if they're not going to address the majority of the problem, are they worth the cost? Giving every untrained Tom, Dick and Harry a firearm will result in accidental shootings (that's why target shooting puts such emphasis on training, and why hunters are now introducing formalised training courses). And you also have to worry about cases where innocent people are perceived as a threat (incorrectly) by equally innocent but scared people who then shoot them.

I would agree that running away is always the best option, but there are many situations where it may not be an option. I would also be in favour of mandatory training with some form of qualification exam to prove someone can safely and capably handle a firearm.

There is the fact that having a gun is a big deterrant, merely having a visible firearm will strongly deter someone from attacking you, or people around you, in the first place. There's also the argument that with concealed carry, criminals will be deterred from attacking anyone just in case, altough I'm not sure how statistics work out regarding open vs concealed carry, it's probably pretty hard to measure. Either way, the mere act of posessing a gun is likely to reduce the need to use it, and from having discussed the issue with an american gun safety trainer (while I was still pro-control), proper training can almost completly eliminate improper usage (of the type you mention anyway).

Sparks wrote:

(2) is a long, long way from simple!
And you missed (3) as well - actually apply the laws we have.

(3) would be an improvement on the current situation, but the fact is that the law (in this context) is almost always applied after the fact, providing little protection for the victims of those who break the laws in the first place.

stevenmu

chump wrote:

Who the fu*k voted yes?

Are ye mad?

There's always people a lot worse off than you, who have less to lose, arm these people?

Legalising guns won't make murder and robbery legal (I presume this is what you are saying these people might do), therefore if they kill you and take your money they'll be committing a crime. Do you really think they'll say, "Hey, let's kill this guy and take all his stuff", "Oh no, wait, we can't, guns are illegal". The fact that guns are regularly used in crime in Ireland today, not to mention knives, baseball bats, hammers etc, shows that they don't. By definition criminals don't obey the law. The only thing gun control laws do is keep them out of the hands of innocents like you and me. What are we supposed to do when they come after us with weapons, despite the fact that it's illegal ?

Umiq88

For the people just joining that arent aware guns are already legal in ireland under certain conditions

- Trained forces - army and special police forces (obviously)
- Hunting these would be shotguns, rifles and air rifles
- Target shooting target shooting air rifles/pistols, rifles and pistols

There are a huge amount of firearms legally held i myself have 2 and i know alot more people with guns.

What the poll is for is making the legal as in anybody can just walk up to a place and get a gun be it for self defence or whatever reason they give. Personally i think its a very bad idea and the easier it is for untrained people to get guns who dont have a specific use for them the easier it is for mistakes to happen.

Alot of guns used in crime are illegally imported so banning guns will not deal with the problem the only answer i can think of is for the police force to be increased which is easier said than done and more done about confiscating/fining/jailing people in possession of illegal arms

Rovi

chump wrote:

Who the fu*k voted yes?

Are ye mad?

There's always people a lot worse off than you, who have less to lose, arm these people?

<raises hand>
I did, for one.

On ‘mature reflection’ however, I’d either change my vote to ‘yes legalize them but with restriction’ or not vote at all.
When I voted (way back near the beginning of the thread), I mistakenly assumed that the person posting the poll actually knew something about the firearms/shooting situation and the legislation governing it here in Ireland.
I figured (erroneously, it now transpires) I was voting ‘Yes’ to the notion of liberalizing the legislation regarding the licensing of handguns, and tidying up our bizarre gun licensing system in general.
As the thread developed, it transpired that the pollster meant that a ‘Yes’ vote was in favour of some sort of mythical ‘American’ situation where anyone could buy anything at any time. A ‘situation’ that has already been shown to be nothing more than a figment of the imagination.

My fault, I should have clarified the intent of the poll before I voted, but it’s done now and I can’t take it back.

Just for the record, I’m NOT in favour of a ‘free for all,’ but I AM in favour of any law-abiding responsible person being able to legally purchase a piece of sporting equipment without being branded as some sort of nutcase/criminal.


.

Eoghan-psych

Rovi wrote:

<raises hand>
Just for the record, I’m NOT in favour of a ‘free for all,’ but I AM in favour of any law-abiding responsible person being able to legally purchase a piece of sporting equipment without being branded as some sort of nutcase/criminal.

Absolutely - emphasis on *sporting equipment*. People should indeed be allowed, with reasonable restriction [security, basic safety training etc etc etc] to purchase sporting weapons. There is indeed a case to be made for a dramatic rethink on Irish gun law [we are excluded, if memory serves, from certain olympic shooting events because shooters are not permitted to own weapons of the right calibre].

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

Yes, there will always be crime, but at least with the right to carry guns, or other defensive weapons, people will have a chance to defend themselves from it.

As I said, not necessarily. If you're walloped from behind without warning, it won't matter much what you have.
BTW, interesting point - there's no such thing as a defensive weapon.

Requiring someone to have a gun seems over the top to me but it does prove a point.

No, it doesn't. If you had two identical towns with identical people in identical areas and ran the experiment that way, then maybe - but comparing Washington, DC to Nowheresville, Georgia, well, that's not even apples and oranges.

There is the fact that having a gun is a big deterrant, merely having a visible firearm will strongly deter someone from attacking you, or people around you, in the first place.

I wouldn't try that approach in a dublin pub were I you, it'll prompt the "hard men" to try it on...

stevenmu

Sparks wrote:

BTW, interesting point - there's no such thing as a defensive weapon.

True, I should really have said "the right to carry guns, or other weapons, for defensive purposes.

Sparks wrote:

No, it doesn't. If you had two identical towns with identical people in identical areas and ran the experiment that way, then maybe - but comparing Washington, DC to Nowheresville, Georgia, well, that's not even apples and oranges.

I suppose I'll have to admit you're right again here, it's not proof but it is an indicator.

Sparks wrote:

I wouldn't try that approach in a dublin pub were I you, it'll prompt the "hard men" to try it on...

If you're thinking of them same type of "hard men" I am then I'm pretty sure it wouldn't, they'd just try it on with someone who wasn't armed. Altough I think we all know that alcohol and guns don't mix well no matter what the circumstances

snorlax

THIRD TIME I am asking you if you didnt like guns.Why did you join the Irish FCA?? I note in one post you said that there were too many people who were trigger happy in it.HMMMMM Not a good recomendation for a body of people who are supposed to have one major asset in their chosen career and profession.DISIPLINE.If somone said that about a civillan gun club,well you could be sure it would be investigated nowadays.

[/QUOTE]


iu joined the fca becuse i heard it was great fun and for the cheap beer. i left after abiout 4 classes becuse some of poeple were too trigger happy and i discovered i hated guns and their reality. no i didnt join for the guns i joined for the craic , like a lot of people do, it woke me up to the reality....that was a good few years back anyhow and allowed me to develop a greater understanding of them, i was very young and naiive back then!:) oh and i think the facts speak for themselves so maybe u sud re-read them! the fca is like dads army tbh and i v never actually shoot anyhting, and im glad now, iv got some more sense!
oh yes and killerman or whatever, didnt write those articles m afraid so sorry to burst ur bubble. i get the names for you on friday (when i have more time and amn't on placemnt)

Sparks

i discovered i hated guns and their reality.

Well, in fairness, it is the RDF. They don't use firearms for sport! There are other realities for firearms - target shooting is one of the oldest and is the largest and most egalatarian olympic sport, after all.

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

Legalising guns won't make murder and robbery legal (I presume this is what you are saying these people might do), therefore if they kill you and take your money they'll be committing a crime. Do you really think they'll say, "Hey, let's kill this guy and take all his stuff", "Oh no, wait, we can't, guns are illegal". The fact that guns are regularly used in crime in Ireland today, not to mention knives, baseball bats, hammers etc, shows that they don't. By definition criminals don't obey the law. The only thing gun control laws do is keep them out of the hands of innocents like you and me. What are we supposed to do when they come after us with weapons, despite the fact that it's illegal ?

Yes but as America has shown that doesn't work ..

For a start, in the USA if you own a gun you are far more likely to be shot (or a member of your family be shot) by your own gun in a home invasion than by a criminal's gun.

Secondly, it is incredably niave to assume that only hardend criminals abuse fire arms. It seems a week doesn't go buy without a person going nuts in the states and shooting up a place. AFAIK the vast majority of gun deaths in America not involving criminal on criminal violence are domestic.

Thirdly the defense argument doesn't really work in the real world either. You assume that criminals set out to kill you when they are attacking you. The majority don't want to kill you, unless you become a threat to them, ie you wip out your gun. A follow on from point one, you are more likely to get shot yourself if you attempt to "defend" yourself with a gun. So having a gun and using it vastly increases the odds that you will be shot and killed