should guns/ bloodsports be fully legalised in ireland?

stevenmu

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I'll start by saying I don't really think our government should take the view that they're not going to allow us defend ourselves in case we end up hurting ourselves, that's nanny-statism gone mad. Next, I don't think that actually is the case, altough it's hard to find nuetral statistics, they all either come from the NRA or gun control groups, I'll try and find something reasonably neutral anyway. I can't deny it does happen though, but firstly if someone pulls out a gun to defend themselves without the conviction to use it then they're an idiot, secondly proper training would teach someone how to deal properly with such situations.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

As has already been mentioned, the temprement in America is hugely different to that in other armed nations, such as Canada and Switzerland. These events also invariably happen in areas where carrying firearms isn't common such as schools, churches and office blocks. If even one or two other people at the incidents were armed and trained, the incident would end pretty quickly.

Wicknight wrote:

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

If that's the case then maybe you could explain why there's been so many threads here on after hours with people who've been mugged or been victims of unprovoked attacks ? Why is there so many stories in the news about people beaten to death or to within inches of their lives for no apparent reason ? How many people get raped in Ireland every year in their own homes or out on the streets ? Have you never felt uncomfortable walking past a gang of scumbags or are there any streets you won't walk down at night ?

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

I'll start by saying I don't really think our government should take the view that they're not going to allow us defend ourselves in case we end up hurting ourselves, that's nanny-statism gone mad.

And is wholly not the current situation. We have the same law as in the UK in this regard - if you believe honestly that your life is in peril, you have enormous leeway within the law in acting to preserve it. Practically nothing is illegal in the course of such action. However, as in the UK, that's only if you act honestly - pull a Tony Martin and you are going to jail.

What the government are saying (and what is quite reasonable given our problems with alcohol and violence) is that it is not legal to carry an offensive weapon.

bonkey

stevenmu wrote:

If that's the case then maybe you could explain why there's been so many threads here on after hours with people who've been mugged or been victims of unprovoked attacks ? Why is there so many stories in the news about people beaten to death or to within inches of their lives for no apparent reason ? How many people get raped in Ireland every year in their own homes or out on the streets ? Have you never felt uncomfortable walking past a gang of scumbags or are there any streets you won't walk down at night ?

I'm at a loss as to how any of that is related to the point it was answering, which is to do with the odds of getting killed, not the odds of getting abused/beaten up.

Indeed, the prevalence of such threads would indicate that the thugs don't generally set out to kill you - which is the position that you're apparently arguing against.

stevenmu

Sparks wrote:

And is wholly not the current situation. We have the same law as in the UK in this regard - if you believe honestly that your life is in peril, you have enormous leeway within the law in acting to preserve it. Practically nothing is illegal in the course of such action. However, as in the UK, that's only if you act honestly - pull a Tony Martin and you are going to jail.

What the government are saying (and what is quite reasonable given our problems with alcohol and violence) is that it is not legal to carry an offensive weapon.

As a hypothetical situation, if I was to be cornered in an alley by someone with a gun or knife who demanded I hand over my money. If I refused and they raised their knife or gun, and I responsded by pulling out a kife or gun and killing them, I'm pretty sure I'd end up in serious trouble and quite possibly end up in jail. As far as I'm concerned, that's wrong. Similarly, if a Garda happens to notice me carrying a gun or knife, even if there's nothing to suggest I've ever used it in any way against anyone, I'm in serious trouble again and quite possibly going to jail for it.

bonkey wrote:

I'm at a loss as to how any of that is related to the point it was answering, which is to do with the odds of getting killed, not the odds of getting abused/beaten up.

Indeed, the prevalence of such threads would indicate that the thugs don't generally set out to kill you - which is the position that you're apparently arguing against.

The fact that they don't set out to kill you isn't really an issue for me. Often when people survive attacks, it's not down to any benevolence on the part of the attacker, but often a case of luck and skill of the medical services, as is the case with the french girl who was attacked on her own doorstep a few months back.

I feel the previous threads and various reports make it clear that while attackers aren't trying to kill someone they're not exactly restraining themselves either. There was the story of the guy in temple bar being attacked by a gang and kicked repeatedly in the head, I think he ended up comatose for a few days, and an onlooker who tried to intervene was also seriously hurt. There's also the famous Annebels case. In either example an onlooker with a gun could have put a pretty quick end to it. If somebody were to attack me and I was in a position to stop them, I wouldn't wait around to see if they were actually going to kill me or just give me a beating, at that point it's going to be too late.

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

As a hypothetical situation, if I was to be cornered in an alley by someone with a gun or knife who demanded I hand over my money. If I refused and they raised their knife or gun, and I responsded by pulling out a kife or gun and killing them, I'm pretty sure I'd end up in serious trouble and quite possibly end up in jail.

You might be pretty sure, but you'd also be pretty wrong, at least on the charge of manslaughter. You would be done for possession of an offensive weapon though. But the leeway in self-defence is enormous. For example, if a farmer's at home and someone breaks in and he shoots them with the farm's shotgun in self-defence, he's not going to jail.

As far as I'm concerned, that's wrong. Similarly, if a Garda happens to notice me carrying a gun or knife, even if there's nothing to suggest I've ever used it in any way against anyone, I'm in serious trouble again and quite possibly going to jail for it.

Indeed. Nothing wrong with that, however, given the rather real problem with street violence we have in this country. After all, how does the garda know you're not about to use the weapon on someone else?

In either example an onlooker with a gun could have put a pretty quick end to it.

Yeah, but not how you're thinking, I suspect. Consider the situation again. You're talking about a right to bear arms in a country with an alcohol and street violence problem. That means that potentially, the guy who decides to lose his temper with you in a bar because he thought you looked at his girlfriend's ass, could now be carrying a sidearm. The fights would certainly end faster, I just don't think you'd prefer the outcome...

Also, if someone goes to mug you, don't forget that it's they who chose the time and place, and whether they have a mate behind you...

stevenmu

Sparks wrote:

You might be pretty sure, but you'd also be pretty wrong, at least on the charge of manslaughter. You would be done for possession of an offensive weapon though. But the leeway in self-defence is enormous. For example, if a farmer's at home and someone breaks in and he shoots them with the farm's shotgun in self-defence, he's not going to jail.

Yes, but he's legally allowed to have that shotgun at home, I'm not allowed have a handgun at home, and certainly not allowed carry a gun of any type around with me. I know I wouldn't be charged with manslaughter, as long as it's clear I acted in self-defense which is fair, but I could still go to jail for possesing something which may have just saved my life.

Sparks wrote:

Indeed. Nothing wrong with that, however, given the rather real problem with street violence we have in this country. After all, how does the garda know you're not about to use the weapon on someone else?

Am I not innocent until proven guilty ? I would also suggets that people convicted of relevant crimes not be allowed own or carry weaponry

Sparks wrote:

Yeah, but not how you're thinking, I suspect. Consider the situation again. You're talking about a right to bear arms in a country with an alcohol and street violence problem. That means that potentially, the guy who decides to lose his temper with you in a bar because he thought you looked at his girlfriend's ass, could now be carrying a sidearm. The fights would certainly end faster, I just don't think you'd prefer the outcome...

Also, if someone goes to mug you, don't forget that it's they who chose the time and place, and whether they have a mate behind you...

As Theodore Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick". I think someone is going to be much less likely to start a stupid row with someone if there's a good chance they're carrying a gun. In general people who are carrying guns don't get drunk, start silly rows and shoot someone, even in the US it happens much less then people getting drunk, starting silly rows and beating someone to death. Of course that's ignoring the fact that guns should be banned form pubs, and possesion of a firearm while under the influence should always be a much more serious offense then possesing and illegal one is today.

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

I'll start by saying I don't really think our government should take the view that they're not going to allow us defend ourselves in case we end up hurting ourselves, that's nanny-statism gone mad.

Well its in case you hurt yourself or others ... personaly I don't want you having a gun, no matter how "trained" you think you are to use it because I don't know you would pull it out on the Luas and blow everyones heads off because someone looked at you funny.

You say you would only ever use the gun for defensive reasons but sure everyone is going to say that aren't they. The very fact that you feel you need to whip out a gun to defend yourself from the big bad world, in my view, makes you someone I would not want having a gun. As soon as you pull out a gun on another person with a gun you force them to use it, and you are then forced to use it and suddenly you are in a gun battle. And a gun battle leads to people getting shot, either you the criminal or the guy sitting beside you on the bus. And I don't want to be that guy.

stevenmu wrote:

I can't deny it does happen though, but firstly if someone pulls out a gun to defend themselves without the conviction to use it then they're an idiot, secondly proper training would teach someone how to deal properly with such situations.

Firstly, do you force everyone to spend 3-5 years learning how to use a fire arm to the standards of the police before they can own one (or do you send them down to the shooting range for a weekend, cause TBH that would od nothing).

Secondly, a well trained police officer still ends up shooting innocent by-standers all the time. That is with years of training.

stevenmu wrote:

As has already been mentioned, the temprement in America is hugely different to that in other armed nations, such as Canada and Switzerland.

It is, and the difference is that Canadians and Swiss don't see guns as the solution to crime, where they do in the USA, which is why Americans whip out the guns at any sign of danger, which leads to such a high rate of accidental death.

stevenmu wrote:

If even one or two other people at the incidents were armed and trained, the incident would end pretty quickly.

No offense but that is such an NRA myth, that to end a dangerous situation all you need is to arm the people in the situation. Real world experience shows us that in situations likes these when a hostage or by-stander gets access to a gun and uses it it simply escilates the situation and forces the criminals to respond with deadly force. The majority of deaths in hostage situations happen when the hostage takers are cornered by either the police or the hostages revolting.

stevenmu wrote:

If that's the case then maybe you could explain why there's been so many threads here on after hours with people who've been mugged or been victims of unprovoked attacks ?

How many have been attacked with guns and how many have been shot? Do you think it is a good idea to now give the muggers easy access to assualt weapons?

stevenmu wrote:

Have you never felt uncomfortable walking past a gang of scumbags or are there any streets you won't walk down at night ?

Plenty, but the idea that anyone I pass in the street day or night could be carrying a loaded weapon would make me much more uncomfortable.

Umiq88

Such a bad idea arming everyone its just asking for trouble the more guns there is around the easier it is for people to get shot and america proves it

People should not have the right to decide if someones life is to be taken or not it should be left to guards who are trained and abide to the rules set down by the state then there is alot less room for mistake

snorlax

well im glad i left before i got that glorious opportunity to actually use them!:)

Ps Sparks hope didnt offend you or anyone in this thread becuse you seem to have a sensible attidue to guns, which is good to see. it is also always good to see where the other side stands...and take other opinions into account, 4million people in ireland, 4 million views.....!

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

Yes, but he's legally allowed to have that shotgun at home, I'm not allowed have a handgun at home, and certainly not allowed carry a gun of any type around with me.

Well, firstly even if he didn't have the shotgun legally, he wouldn't be going to jail for having used it (using an unlicensed firearm cannot be made illegal, for rather obvious reasons!). Secondly, you are allowed have a handgun at home if you have a licence, but you are not allowed have it for self defence. It is a grey area in that you cannot have a firearm for self-defence, but you are not restricted from using it in self-defence in extremis. Thirdly, no, you're not allowed carry a gun around with you unless you have a licence to do so (there are maybe a dozen such licences in the republic at any one time from the rumours I hear, they're kept very hush-hush because they're issued to people who are under extraordinary threat. They're quite common up North - some 12,000 such licences are currently held up there - but not down here because there's never been any real need for them (with a very few exceptions - police informants and the like).

but I could still go to jail for possesing something which may have just saved my life.

Well, yes. I mean, if you defended yourself by beating your assailant round the head with a kilo of heroin, would expect that there wouldn't be questions to answer later on?

Am I not innocent until proven guilty?

You most assuredly are. However, since carrying a firearm without a licence is an offence under the Firearms Acts, if you're caught carrying one without a licence or in an unsafe manner, you're proven guilty by default.

I would also suggets that people convicted of relevant crimes not be allowed own or carry weaponry

They're not, for a period of five years past the end of their sentence. There aren't any permanent bans for repeat offenders, however, which would be a good addition to the Firearms Act to consider.

I think someone is going to be much less likely to start a stupid row with someone if there's a good chance they're carrying a gun.

That's John Lott's thesis (More guns, Less crime is the name of the book). However, Lott's statistics have been found to be mathematically incorrect, and reanalysis of his data using correct mathematics has shown that he can't prove that thesis. To date, noone has been able to do so, in fact. However, I would point out that a lot of people get glassed in pubs these days, a potentially fatal injury. If lots of people can't restrain themselves from attacking someone with one kind of deadly weapon, why would they do so with another, once the novelty's worn off?

In general people who are carrying guns don't get drunk, start silly rows and shoot someone

Except that this is Ireland, where we have a serious problem with alcohol abuse and street violence. You can't, therefore, make that claim with quite so much certainty!

snorlax wrote:

Ps Sparks hope didnt offend you or anyone in this thread becuse you seem to have a sensible attidue to guns, which is good to see. it is also always good to see where the other side stands...and take other opinions into account, 4million people in ireland, 4 million views.....!

I take absolutely no offence from someone who holds a view but is prepared to honestly listen to the other side and then reexamine where they stand, even if they retain their original views. It's people who don't want to listen or think that get under my fingernails, on either side of the debate!

stevenmu

psittacosis wrote:

People should not have the right to decide if someones life is to be taken or not it should be left to guards who are trained and abide to the rules set down by the state then there is alot less room for mistake

I don't see it as deciding if someone else lives or dies, as far as I'm concerned if someone threatens my life, or the life of someone close to me, then they are risking their own life. If they suceed in their actions they live, if they fail they may die, but the choice is theirs, nobody forces them to act in the first place. I would never deliberatly try to kill someone but if they died as a result of me defending myself, then I would see it as entirely their fault, they had a choice in initiating the event and they left me without one.

Wicknight wrote:

Well its in case you hurt yourself or others ... personaly I don't want you having a gun, no matter how "trained" you think you are to use it because I don't know you would pull it out on the Luas and blow everyones heads off because someone looked at you funny.

(Fully) Legalising guns won't make that any more legal than it already is

Wicknight wrote:

You say you would only ever use the gun for defensive reasons but sure everyone is going to say that aren't they. The very fact that you feel you need to whip out a gun to defend yourself from the big bad world, in my view, makes you someone I would not want having a gun. As soon as you pull out a gun on another person with a gun you force them to use it, and you are then forced to use it and suddenly you are in a gun battle. And a gun battle leads to people getting shot, either you the criminal or the guy sitting beside you on the bus. And I don't want to be that guy.

So should I be denied a right because somebody else may abuse it ? There's many people who vote like complete idiots but I would never argue that they don't have a right to vote. Should the government decide for me that I'm statistically safer not carrying a gun and therefore not let me ? Golfers are statistically more likely to get hit by lightening, boxers are statistically more likely to get severe brain damage etc etc Should dangerous sports be banned ?

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly, do you force everyone to spend 3-5 years learning how to use a fire arm to the standards of the police before they can own one (or do you send them down to the shooting range for a weekend, cause TBH that would od nothing).

Secondly, a well trained police officer still ends up shooting innocent by-standers all the time. That is with years of training.

There are various groups in the US that run gun safety and self defense courses, to higher standards than the police are trained, in fact they have campaigned for better training for police officers who generall have to do very little. I'm not sure how the courses are run but I got the impression they do a couple of nights a week for 6 to 8 weeks with refresher courses afterwards and people are encouraged to regularly visit ranges to keep in practice. I've spoken with a guy who has been running courses for 10+ years and has never had one of his students involved in a "bad" incident (i.e. where somebody who shouldn't have been shot was shot). By the way he lives/teaches in Virginia which has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US and has one of the lowest gun crime rates and is right beside Washington which has the strictest laws and highest crime rate.

Wicknight wrote:

No offense but that is such an NRA myth, that to end a dangerous situation all you need is to arm the people in the situation. Real world experience shows us that in situations likes these when a hostage or by-stander gets access to a gun and uses it it simply escilates the situation and forces the criminals to respond with deadly force. The majority of deaths in hostage situations happen when the hostage takers are cornered by either the police or the hostages revolting.

That almost sounds like you're blaming the hostage deaths on the hostages who try to defend themselves as opposed to the hostage-takers who actually kill them. There will always be situations where it's better to not respond and act against attackers but there will also be situations where it is. I think it's better to let the people involved in each individual situation decide what the best course of action based on the actual circumstances rather than apply a blanket response to all situations. Supposing you're in a bank when it's being robbed, in general the best thing to do is sit/stand still, look at the ground and don't get involved. But what if they start shooting, are you going to be happy to just stand there thinking that statistics will protect you ?

Wicknight wrote:

Plenty, but the idea that anyone I pass in the street day or night could be carrying a loaded weapon would make me much more uncomfortable.

It may suprise you but they already could be. I know of several places I could go with a couple of hundred euros and get an illegal handgun and some ammo (before anyone says I should report them, they fairly well known and have been mentioned on the radio etc, I'd imagine the Gardaí are just waiting to catch them in the act). There are gangs of scumbags hanging around with loaded weapons, I'd feel a lot happier walking past them if they weren't so sure that I didn't have one too.

stevenmu

Sparks wrote:

Except that this is Ireland, where we have a serious problem with alcohol abuse and street violence. You can't, therefore, make that claim with quite so much certainty!

I'd see that as being probably the best argument against the liberalistaion of gun laws here, altough I don't think the alcohol problem is all it's hyped up to be (but that's another days discussion ). Alcohol or not I think a large amount of street violence is down to the fact that there are those who know that there almost certainly won't be any consequences to a group of them attacking individuals or smaller groups. If individuals were more likely to be armed, then all of a sudden what would have been a simple attack 'just for a laugh' suddenly can have huge consequences, and maybe I'm being naieve, but I still have in enough faith in the humanity of the Irish scumbag to think they wouldn't go around randomly shooting people.

Sparks

I still have in enough faith in the humanity of the Irish scumbag to think they wouldn't go around randomly shooting people.

It wouldn't be random, they'd be aiming at them.

Umiq88

there's no doubt that in certain situations a gun being used for self defence could resolve the situation and save lives the problem is not everyone is capable of handling a gun and could be a danger to themselves as well as others the real problem comes when issuing licences how are the guardi to decide who is capable of handling a firearm and sending them on a training course may be well and good but that wont stop people who have bad intentions with their gun they can still take the training course putting guns in the hands of people who are not properly able to use them is a bad idea and it may seem harsh that people who would use there gun responsibly and appropiatly should not be granted a licence but its the lesser of two "evils" so to speak

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

(Fully) Legalising guns won't make that any more legal than it already is

It will make it legal to have the gun right up to the point where you start shooting people, and after a few people are dead then the police can step in a stop you. Also it makes it would give anyone and everyone access to a letal weapon. Like I said, I am not worried about the inner city drug dealer with a gun, I am far more worried about the business man on the Luas who has just had a nervious break down and has an Uzi under his coat.

stevenmu wrote:

So should I be denied a right because somebody else may abuse it ? There's many people who vote like complete idiots but I would never argue that they don't have a right to vote. Should the government decide for me that I'm statistically safer not carrying a gun and therefore not let me ?

There is no "right" to carry a loaded weapon around because it makes you feel safer. With a loaded weapon you become an unacceptable risk to yourself and others.

stevenmu wrote:

I'm not sure how the courses are run but I got the impression they do a couple of nights a week for 6 to 8 weeks with refresher courses afterwards and people are encouraged to regularly visit ranges to keep in practice. I've spoken with a guy who has been running courses for 10+ years and has never had one of his students involved in a "bad" incident (i.e. where somebody who shouldn't have been shot was shot).

Like i asked before, would you make everyone who wanted to own a gun go on these courses before they would be allowed own a gun?

stevenmu wrote:

That almost sounds like you're blaming the hostage deaths on the hostages who try to defend themselves as opposed to the hostage-takers who actually kill them.

No I am saying that you are are statistically far far far more likely to get shot if you attempt to fight back in a situation like that. So the idea that you are safer if you have gun with you and use it to defend yourself is nonsense. You are more likely to get shot if you do that, so the person without the gun is actually safer.

stevenmu wrote:

Supposing you're in a bank when it's being robbed, in general the best thing to do is sit/stand still, look at the ground and don't get involved. But what if they start shooting, are you going to be happy to just stand there thinking that statistics will protect you ?

If you want to get out alive, yes you are. The odds of the robbers just randomly shooting you for no reason are very small. The odds of the robbers shooting you because you posse a real threat to them is very high. The first people to get shot in abank robbery are always the banks guards. Why? Because they are threat to the robbers and (in most countries) are armed.

stevenmu wrote:

There are gangs of scumbags hanging around with loaded weapons, I'd feel a lot happier walking past them if they weren't so sure that I didn't have one too.

How many people, in the history of the state, have ever been shot at random by a criminal?

Catsmokinpot

are americans better off with guns? dont seem to be
canada has alot of guns they seem to be doing fine... so i dont know to be honest

pred racer

Sparks wrote:

It wouldn't be random, they'd be aiming at them.

Lol.I love it!

meditraitor

Holy jebus, is this thread still going

No is the answer, anyone with a half a brain would come to that conclusion

Medi

Sparks

And last night's incident with two gardai, both armed, one (allegedly) drunk, having a roaring match outside the US embassy while on duty kindof reinforces the point that carrying sidearms around on CCW permits wouldn't really work too well here. I mean, if two trained officers on duty in front of the US embassy can behave like that, what's going to happen if anyone can walk about with one?

stevenmu

Ooops, forgot about this thread...

Sparks wrote:

And last night's incident with two gardai, both armed, one (allegedly) drunk, having a roaring match outside the US embassy while on duty kindof reinforces the point that carrying sidearms around on CCW permits wouldn't really work too well here. I mean, if two trained officers on duty in front of the US embassy can behave like that, what's going to happen if anyone can walk about with one?

On the other hand if these are the people supposed to be protecting us then we're in big trouble without some means of protecting ourselves

Catsmokinpot wrote:

are americans better off with guns? dont seem to be
canada has alot of guns they seem to be doing fine... so i dont know to be honest

Is there any reason to believe they'd be better off without them, and wouldn't keep killing each other with other means ?

Wicknight wrote:

Like i asked before, would you make everyone who wanted to own a gun go on these courses before they would be allowed own a gun?

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this before, yes I would.

Wicknight wrote:

No I am saying that you are are statistically far far far more likely to get shot if you attempt to fight back in a situation like that. So the idea that you are safer if you have gun with you and use it to defend yourself is nonsense. You are more likely to get shot if you do that, so the person without the gun is actually safer.

Statistically huge numbers of people are putting themselves and others at risk by having unprotected sex, should we ban that ? You may argue that sex is natural whereas guns are not, but man is a toolmaker and the first tools we made were weapons. Without those tools we would not have become the race we are today, so making tools for defense and attack is natural behaviour for humans, a minority are already using tools to attack the majority and yet we're expected to not use tools to defend ourselves ?

Wicknight wrote:

How many people, in the history of the state, have ever been shot at random by a criminal?

Probably not many but that number will increase in years to come as gun crime becomes more and more common. There have been though a huge number of people who have been attacked with various other implements, hurls, bats, hammers, screwdrivers, knives, samurai swords(very rarely) etc. Yet we can't even carry pepper spray

Sparks

stevenmu wrote:

On the other hand if these are the people supposed to be protecting us then we're in big trouble without some means of protecting ourselves

You may have missed the point there....

Statistically huge numbers of people are putting themselves and others at risk by having unprotected sex, should we ban that ? You may argue that sex is natural whereas guns are not

I'd be more likely to argue that if John and Mary are having unprotected sex in their home, that I'm rather unlikely to have anything come through three interior walls and remove the back of my skull along with it's contents...

Redleslie2

AK47s for the people baby. And legalise foxhunter toff scum hunting.