222233 wrote: » If we can justify unnecessarily giving people firearms to kill animals for "fun" and think that's okay than why not have guns on demand. I would personally prefer to see guns being accessed for protection than for "sport"
Poor Uncle Tom wrote: » Whoa there father of humanity... Who exactly is this 'WE' that needs to justify anybody else having anything? If you are putting yourself in a position where you decide what others should or shouldn't do or have you won't last long. Presently, society dictates that we have laws and rules if you want to live within its communities. This also provides rules and laws for firearm ownership, which are different for each country.If you want to dictate change in these areas you need to get elected to do so, otherwise its just perspicacious hot air.
222233 wrote: » If we don't want weapons and guns in the country ....
Poor Uncle Tom wrote: » You're making huge assumptions there, speaking for everyone? regardless of how angry you are you don't take on the mantle of becoming a mouthpiece for everyone in the country.
Johnboner wrote: » That's what I am saying, require strict vetting before being able to purchase a firearm.
Johnboner wrote: » But occurred to shoot innocent birds or other animals in Ireland? As I am only aware of hunting licenses in Ireland.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Nothing stopping you shooting watermelons as long as you have a bit of land or are in a shooting club.
uptherebels wrote: » Imagine living next to a guy that spends all day shooting targets, the other side of your garden.
mikeoneilly wrote: » Some people keep them loaded beside the bed
Mr.S wrote: » In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo.
WoolyJumper wrote: » If you get your jollies from shooting a cardboard man or a piece of fruit, fine but do it in the safety of a shooting range.
NiallBoo wrote: » People having guns in a conflict dramatically increases the likelihood of someone getting killed - ie. If you try to defend yourself with a gun then you're more likely to die. "Defending yourself with a gun" is also quite rightly considered murder in this country. Nobody has the right to take your stuff, but the criminal still has infinitely more right to life than you do to have a TV.
MyStubbleItches wrote: » The criminal gives up all rights to any 'entitlements' when they decide that it's quite ok for them to walk into a home that you've worked hard for, to invade the lives of a family that you love and possibly/probably worried about being able to provide for before you started said family. They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for. It's fools like you who have most of civilised society where it is now. Fools like you who are apologists and excusers for those elements who aren't happy enough to leach off those of us who work for a living but think that it's ok to threaten us in our own homes and barefacedly steal from us safe in the knowledge that IF they are ever brought to task for it, a fool like you will be sitting in the elevated position and let them walk back out the door scot-free.
Howard Red Explorer wrote: » Well your posts are suggesting the death penalty for theft. I don't think the poster is an apologist, or "excuser" as you say and I don't think anywhere did he say that thieves should get off scot free. Killing a burglar is a little over the top, don't you think?
eeguy wrote: » Only if your name is Padraig McNally. As I said before, having a gun for defence is a stupid idea and you will quite rightly be a murderer if you use it. Although you've probably got a much greater chance of accidentally killing one of your own family before ever getting the opportunity to kill a burglar.
MyStubbleItches wrote: » No, your interpretation is that I suggest the death penalty for theft. I absolutely do not so please don't twist my words. A penalty for theft would be nice, however.
MyStubbleItches wrote: » They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for.
MyStubbleItches wrote: » You won't necessarily be a murderer, that law has changed. I agree, having a gun solely for defence is a ridiculous notion. I owned a gun in the past and it scared the shīt out of me. It's a tool that was designed with one purpose in mind, there is no getting away from that.
Howard Red Explorer wrote: » The law states that you are able to use reasonable force to defend your home. It doesn't give you the right to kill. I suggest you check out the details of that law a little more
eeguy wrote: » having a gun for defence is a stupid idea and you will quite rightly be a murderer if you use it.
Howard Red Explorer wrote: » Well you did say this; It's quite suggestive, and life is a right too, no? Or is that excluded in this case. Would they have a right to a fair trial or would you take that from them on the basis that they invaded your home? The law states that you are able to use reasonable force to defend your home. It doesn't give you the right to kill. I suggest you check out the details of that law a little more Why would you buy something that scares the shít out of you? Odd.
NiallBoo wrote: » "Defending yourself with a gun" is also quite rightly considered murder in this country. Nobody has the right to take your stuff, but the criminal still has infinitely more right to life than you do to have a TV.
People having guns in a conflict dramatically increases the likelihood of someone getting killed - ie. If you try to defend yourself with a gun then you're more likely to die.
Mr.S wrote: » Johnboner wrote: » Should be relaxed, let's take a look at our European friends such as Germany and Switzerland, soldiers after serving get to keep their firearms at their homes in Switzerland and it is one of the safest countries in the world. In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo. With regards Switzerland, that's a common misconception. They are allowed keep privately purchased ammunition at home. Government-issued ammunition is no longer permitted to be stored at home, and government-subsidised training ammunition must be used on the range when purchased, but non-government ammunition for privately owned firearms (or service weapons, or ex-service weapons purchased by the soldier upon release) is not subject to these restrictions.
Mr.S wrote: » Johnboner wrote: » Should be relaxed, let's take a look at our European friends such as Germany and Switzerland, soldiers after serving get to keep their firearms at their homes in Switzerland and it is one of the safest countries in the world. In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo.
Johnboner wrote: » Should be relaxed, let's take a look at our European friends such as Germany and Switzerland, soldiers after serving get to keep their firearms at their homes in Switzerland and it is one of the safest countries in the world.
goz83 wrote: » The law says otherwise. Target practice is only permitted at an authorised range. This includes zeroing for accurancy. Having hundreds of acres of land won't lawfully allow someone to shoot a single shot from a rifle, or pistol unless it's on a range. A shotgun however
soups05 wrote: » I really do envy most of the posters on this thread, they obviously have never had to deal with the dregs of society. I was attacked last week in my on front garden, the 1st page of this thread contains my post quoted from that thread.I sit here now at 140 am, unable to sleep. My diet is liquid for the next 6-8 weeks, am on a variety of tablets for pain and swelling and I am waiting. I am waiting for the scum to fulfill their promise of coming back to burn down my house, kill my family etc etc. I have been there and done that before, I suffered for many years while living in another location and now it seems like history will repeat itself. Just like serial criminals I know that there are serial victims, I know cos I have been one all my life. My biggest regret from last week is that I let them walk away, scot free, to come back when they feel like it to terrorise us. Hold your moral high ground folks, just know that some of us down here in the gutter are afraid for our children,our wives,our lives. If they come back I have no means to defend myself. But if I get the chance, if luck is on my side for once, then keyboard warrior BS goes out the window and I will make them pay. I will make the purge look like a damn disney cartoon to protect those I love. Its not about shooting watermelons, its about being able to live in safety, without fear.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Where does the law say that? It's not a question of moral high ground. What would you actually have done with a gun last week? You went after them. Would you have brought the gun with you? Would you have gunned them down over a wing mirror? What if you'd been wrong about who did the damage?
BattleCorp wrote: » Actually there's not much difference between the two examples that you gave. Both are sports with their own set of rules and regulations. You see football boots as sporting equipment. I see a rifle or pistol as sporting equipment.
To your final point; I didn't know that a gun would scare the shít out of me.
MRnotlob606 wrote: » Guns are seen as weapons to most people, in fact a deadly weapon that can end up in the wrong hands. I think the comparison is quite factious to be honest. The laws we have here in Ireland are quite excellent and there something to be proud of, Relaxing gun laws would seem counter-intuitive considering the success we have with our current gun-laws, and the fact there's a high number of shootings in Ireland recent years. If you wanna go shoot clays, we're not in Tennessee.
munchkin_utd wrote: » getting back to the original premise, why isnt Ireland like Germany or Switzerland, thats easy. Theres a tradition in those countries of shooting clubs (at targets). It goes back to before the wars and in the mountainy regions its the centre of the community, probably the nearest equivalent to what the GAA is to rural Ireland. Bizarely, at the Oktoberfest in Munich (large festival attended by 6 to 7 million people each year) you arent allowed to bring a bag bigger than a handbag onto the grounds for security reasons BUT thousands of people taking part in the bavarian national shooting competitions can bring guns and bullets and crossbows with them! According to the official site, that's 9742 competitors including 500 underage . http://www.altronik.de/oktoberfest/?s=5 And back to tradition, at the Oktoberfest at least three of the "tents" have shooting related names with only one of them currently housing a shooting range. But again, thats the thing. If you have a shooting range at a community festival you have to admit that shooting must be a fairly integral part of that regions tradition/ culture.
El Tarangu wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Op - Switzerland has the 3rd highest firearm-related deaths in Europe, precisely because of the fact that soldiers bring their weapons home with them.
Tornaxx wrote: » If they didn't have the guns, most of those suicides probably would have happened by another method.
Manic Moran wrote: » Without denying how you felt about it, would you not agree that being scared by an inanimate piece of metal is a little irrational and not a particularly sound way of assessing government policy? It's not as if I don't understand where you're coming from, it certainly took me a little while to get used to the concept of my just having a pistol 'lying around' after I first purchased one about a year after I moved to the US, but over time once I got over the culture shock, as it were, and further educated myself on the larger background, I moved away from my 'Irish' mentality to a more 'American' one. In other words, I don't think anyone being 'scared' of an item is a particularly sound basis to make decisions which affect others when there are less emotional assessments which can be made. Even if moral assessments are hugely subjective in themselves, they're still better than emotional ones.
Graces7 wrote: » Not at all irrational. A large knife in someone's hands would have the same effect. It is a weapon.Period.An aggressive item. Until I came to Ireland around 16 years ago I had never seen a gun in life. One day I was waiting in the car for a friend who had gone into the bank. The car was suddenly surrounded by armed soldiers. I did not know then re cash deliveries that were then protected by soldiers. There is no way of expressing the terror I was in. Moral? What is moral about guns?
