Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

astrofool · 23-01-2017 01:16PM

Majority of people are happy with the status quo in Ireland, there's a low amount of gun deaths, and we've relatively low crime rates, so why change it.

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

23-01-2017 01:58PM

The OP has a problem with the 'strict' gun laws in Ireland because he cannot hold a licence.
Maybe he is of unsound mind?
Maybe he has a serious conviction?
I think most people are happy enough with the laws as they are, If someone wants a licence they apply.

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2017 02:09PM

Most shooters are frustrated by the fact that the existing laws regarding firearms are often ignored by members of the Gardai.
Also some Gardai seem to have based their outlook on firearms on films they have seen.
I don't think watching Terminator, for example, is the best way to educate yourself on safe handling and use of a repeating shotgun, nor of reaching a judgment on the person looking to buy one.

Many court cases have been fought where a senior Guard has been found to be making up the law as he goes along. The judge in the vast majority of cases has found the Guard to be in the wrong, and awarded the sports person their licence (or directed that it should be granted, anyway) and awarded costs against AGS.

Titzon Toast · 23-01-2017 02:33PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Again, most of us don't want something like the US. Why do you always go to the US as the example of deregulating gun laws? We have some of the most pervasive gun laws in Europe. The Czech Republic has fewer gun-related deaths than Australia (who also have rather pervasive gun laws) despite having a much more relaxed regulatory framework.

"b-but the US" isn't the end-all be-all of an argument.

I never said it was, but it is certainly relevant. Guns are legal there, said legal guns kill thousands of people every year.
It's a pointless argument anyway, we'll never see legalised hand or machine guns in this country.
Stick to your .22 and your shotguns for sport.

Titzon Toast · 23-01-2017 02:35PM

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Most shooters are frustrated by the fact that the existing laws regarding firearms are often ignored by members of the Gardai.
Also some Gardai seem to have based their outlook on firearms on films they have seen.
I don't think watching Terminator, for example, is the best way to educate yourself on safe handling and use of a repeating shotgun, nor of reaching a judgment on the person looking to buy one.

Many court cases have been fought where a senior Guard has been found to be making up the law as he goes along. The judge in the vast majority of cases has found the Guard to be in the wrong, and awarded the sports person their licence (or directed that it should be granted, anyway) and awarded costs against AGS.

What about Bowling for Columbine then? Would that be a better example over Terminator perhaps? Ever seen it?
It's worth a watch.

jimgoose · 23-01-2017 02:41PM

Titzon Toast wrote: »

I never said it was, but it is certainly relevant. Guns are legal there, said legal guns kill thousands of people every year.
It's a pointless argument anyway, we'll never see legalised hand or machine guns in this country.
Stick to your .22 and your shotguns for sport.

Pistols (semi-automatic and revolver) are perfectly legal here, but like any other type of firearm certain criteria have to be met before a license can be obtained. Full-automatic is just as illegal here as it is in the U.S. to wit, completely.

eeguy · 23-01-2017 03:01PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Pistols (semi-automatic and revolver) are perfectly legal here, but like any other type of firearm certain criteria have to be met before a license can be obtained. Full-automatic is just as illegal here as it is in the U.S. to wit, completely.

There's a difference between legal and easy to obtain. To quote Battlecorps earlier post:

.22 handguns are allowed for target shooting. Some people have larger calibre handguns for target shooting but there are have been no new licences for those issued since November 2008.

BattleCorp · 23-01-2017 03:09PM

eeguy wrote: »

There's a difference between legal and easy to obtain. To quote Battlecorps earlier post:

.22 handguns are not much more difficult to licence than a shotgun or rifle. As long as you are of good character, mentally sound, no history of violence or substance abuse and are a member of an authorised range, you should have no major issues in getting a pistol licence.

The only major difference between getting a handgun licence or a rifle or shotgun licence is that you must be a member of an authorised range to get a handgun. If you aren't a member of a range, then forget about it.

One other thing I think I should add because lots of people here know feckall about guns or gun laws: Handgun licences are for target shooting only. That means that you can transport the gun to and from the range and use it as much as you like when you are on the range. You are not allowed to carry it around with you on your day-to-day activities, so no rocking around Tesco with it strapped to your hip.

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2017 03:22PM

Titzon Toast wrote: »

What about Bowling for Columbine then? Would that be a better example over Terminator perhaps? Ever seen it?
It's worth a watch.

Bowling for Columbine relates to the gun laws of a foreign country, and the various failures of the systems in that foreign country.
If anything, you are reinforcing my point. Why should a member of the Gardai take any more notice of Bowling than he does of Terminator in applying the laws of this State?
If you are seriously suggesting that the Gardai base their decisions on films, who gets to choose the film?
Paul Murphy? Michael Healy Rae? Gerry Adams? Yourself?
Apply the law as it stands, without prejudice, and stop treating vetted and screened and Superintendent approved sportspeople as if they were irresponsible volatile beings, to be trusted with a shotgun but not a target pistol.

munchkin_utd · 23-01-2017 03:50PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Just to add a bit here, the tradition around shooting in Germany is entirely hunting-related. The clubs will all be hunting clubs (traditional prey being deer, wild boars, and mountain goats). But it is very heavily regulated, the number of members each club is allowed is limited and as far as I know, the guns are kept under lock and key in the club buildings and can't be taking into private homes.

seems like the gun traditions in Bavaria and wider germany are different, in that in Bavaria target shooting as a sport is predominant rather than chasing and shooting animals and birds.

Bavaria's target shooting association has just short of a half million members in 4680 clubs. Considering that the area of Bavaria is almost identical to Ireland, thats a club tally of over twice what the GAA has in the 32 counties , which shows just how popular the shooting as a sport is
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayerischer_Sportsch%C3%BCtzenbund

Bavaria is only a section of Germany with 12million out of the total population of 90, but it has political clout a little disproportionate to its size

jackwigan · 23-01-2017 03:52PM

NiallBoo wrote: »

Nobody wants to hurt you or your family, they just want your stuff.
Then if you shoot them then you must understand that its just because you value your stuff over a human life -nothing to do with your own safety.

People are people. They're not good or bad, just people. That person taking your stuff might be an asshole, but they're still a person with some absolutely basic rights. I'm very grateful that the law agrees with me on this one.

You're not judge, jury and executioner. You don't get to take the law into your own hands (and even the law doesn't choose kill or maim people).

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

23-01-2017 04:09PM

I think the laws in Ireland are more or less fine, I would be interested though in seeing it become easier for people to take up target shooting, i.e. more ranges and a great access to weapons such as the possibility to rent them at the range, and for it to to become harder for people to get a hunting license, some sort of knowledge based test should be required first, some of the questions you see in the shooting forum from guys who already have guns are fairly bad, especially when it comes to the law.

The above is based on my experiences in Central Europe, where I live you need a license for hunting, but anyone can buy a shotgun or bolt action rifle from a shop. semi autos guns and hanguns are much more strictly controlled but still accessible to the average free citizen

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2017 04:11PM

jackwigan wrote: »

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

Going by NiallBo's argument, break-ins and rapes would still happen, its just that the people carrying out these crimes are not good or bad, just people, who may be assholes.
Well that's all right then.

Although I get the impression most of the people arguing for the divine rights of muggers, thieves and rapists probably never suffered the attentions of these fine upstanding citizerns.

soups05 · 23-01-2017 04:14PM

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?

wrong, i did not go after them, they came after me. punched me to the ground and then kept kicking me in the face,head and upper body until my son and daughter came out and saved my ass.
If they had not been there I would most likely be dead. Think am wrong? you were not there.
As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

as before, too many on this thread are living in cloud cuckoo land where they never have to deal with scum who have no respect for others lives or property. You give me no respect, then you get no respect in return.

everyone in this thread can log off and walk away and not think about it again. I have to live with this **** for who knows how long.

The criminals in this country can carry guns whenever they choose, I want the right to do the same.

eeguy · 23-01-2017 04:25PM

jackwigan wrote: »

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

True enough, but how often is there a break in physical or sexual assault? Rare in this country. Would changing gun laws to allow people to own guns for personal defense change that? Very doubtful.

Would changing laws lead to accidental shootings or an increase in suicides? Judging by evidence from countries with more lax gun laws, probably.

soups05 wrote: »

As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

What would have been the outcome if you or your son or daughter had a gun?
What did the Gardaí do after you reported it?

somefeen · 23-01-2017 04:27PM

soups05 wrote: »

wrong, i did not go after them, they came after me. punched me to the ground and then kept kicking me in the face,head and upper body until my son and daughter came out and saved my ass.
If they had not been there I would most likely be dead. Think am wrong? you were not there.
As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

as before, too many on this thread are living in cloud cuckoo land where they never have to deal with scum who have no respect for others lives or property. You give me no respect, then you get no respect in return.

everyone in this thread can log off and walk away and not think about it again. I have to live with this **** for who knows how long.

The criminals in this country can carry guns whenever they choose, I want the right to do the same.

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2017 04:36PM

somefeen wrote: »

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

Your argument supposes that these fine citizens have never come to the attention of the Gardai before, and are 18 years of age and have passed all screening requirements.
That is highly unlikely.
By the time these career criminals reach an age to apply under current regulations, they will have had dozens of contacts with the Gardai, thereby excluding themselves forever from LEGALownership.

jackwigan · 23-01-2017 04:37PM

eeguy wrote: »

True enough, but how often is there a break in physical or sexual assault? Rare in this country. Would changing gun laws to allow people to own guns for personal defense change that? Very doubtful.

Would changing laws lead to accidental shootings or an increase in suicides? Judging by evidence from countries with more lax gun laws, probably.

Never suggested the laws should be changed.

somefeen · 23-01-2017 04:50PM

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Your argument supposes that these fine citizens have never come to the attention of the Gardai before, and are 18 years of age and have passed all screening requirements.
That is highly unlikely.
By the time these career criminals reach an age to apply under current regulations, they will have had dozens of contacts with the Gardai, thereby excluding themselves forever from LEGALownership.

Well our poster would not pass the screening requirements either if his main reason to own it was 'defence'.
The scenario I described is one where the law is relaxed considerably from where it is now.

Even where the possesion for the purpose of defence was allowed, more licenced firearms means more firearms that are liable to be stolen by the aforementioned fine citizens.
The odds of either of them having a gun then increases.

Even if both the scumbags were unarmed and the poster was, what then. Is he going to go out to his driveway with a rifle over a wing mirror? If not the same thing would have happened and if he did then what? Is he allowed kill them? At what point does a man holding a rifle feel his life is in enough danger to justify killing?
"They were running at me so I shot them"
The implications of that are huge.

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2017 05:08PM

Well if we agree that the two who assaulted him were not legally entitled to hold a firearm, and the victims was, then the law will judge him on the merits of the case. This is the difference between an upright citizen and a criminal. The upright citizen knows his life will change from that instance, and that he will be subject to the courts and in an instant must make that enormous judgement call.
The criminal has long decided to do whatever it takes to evade the law.

Self defensive weapons are so unlikely in this country however, as to render their discussion pointless. Only senior judiciary figures and those at serious risk of abduction can reasonably expect to hold such a firearm.

soups05 · 23-01-2017 05:19PM

somefeen wrote: »

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

ah but your missing the point, they WERE armed, albeit with a knife. now I admit to being a little emotional at the moment and not my usual clam self. so lets say I went out with no weapon and still got a kicking, then I get my gun and shoot them and not worry about them coming back. I would be defending my kids who where tackling them at that point.

or say I took the gun out in the first case, I wave it around and they decide to never come back. Cos cowards like that will pick on the weak, not the armed.

eeguy · 23-01-2017 05:39PM

soups05 wrote: »

ah but your missing the point, they WERE armed, albeit with a knife. now I admit to being a little emotional at the moment and not my usual clam self. so lets say I went out with no weapon and still got a kicking, then I get my gun and shoot them and not worry about them coming back. I would be defending my kids who where tackling them at that point.

Then I'd say that would be murder. You got a kicking and instead of calling the Gardaí, you got your legally held gun and shot them.

soups05 wrote: »

or say I took the gun out in the first case, I wave it around and they decide to never come back. Cos cowards like that will pick on the weak, not the armed.

So now you've escalated the situation. What if they come back with their own gun? What if they come back and you don't have a chance to get your gun out of the safe?
Seeing as you've threatened them back, they're more likely to want to put you in your place.

A gun isn't a replacement for the Gardaí, inefficient and hanstrung as they currently are.

soups05 · 23-01-2017 05:51PM

so what is your solution to the problem then? Gardi will be the first to say they cannot be everywhere, so if (when) these two come back what am I to do? when they are kicking in my car, or worse my front door, what am I to do? sit back and hope the gardi get here in time?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 23-01-2017 05:57PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Why?

No one needs a gun unless you're a farmer, and if you need one you can legally get one here.

There is no need for the average person to own one.

We have gun clubs in Ireland. Shooting is a hobby for some people.

There's also a vibrant Hunting scene in the country.

Barry Badrinath · 23-01-2017 06:18PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Yep, cause most people would instantly be able to see the difference.

I understand where people are coming from to a certain extent.

If you are not expecting it or have never been in a situation where the army are close to you, the sight of weapons may be a bit of a shock to some.

In most cases the soldiers are chatty and friendly to people while performing their task but are still observing and maintaining an alert posture.

"Armed to the teeth" is something they are not but that is a matter of personal opinion.

jimgoose · 23-01-2017 06:22PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

..."Armed to the teeth" is something they are not but that is a matter of personal opinion.

Only have the 30-round mag in the Steyers, do ye, instead of the 42? :pac:

goz83 · 23-01-2017 06:24PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where does the law say that?

I can't go searching for it now, but it is illegal to even zero a rifle outside of an authorised range. I believe it has already been mentioned on this thread. Target practice is only allowed on a range. Some ranges can only accommodate .22 calibre rounds and to top it all off, a toy bow and arrow legally requires a firearms license

Very well written laws you see

Barry Badrinath · 23-01-2017 06:25PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Only have the 30-round mag in the Steyers, do ye, instead of the 42? :pac:

Well we dont perform that function anymore but even so, I couldnt be tellin' ye :pac:.

"Tschure, dem guns r plastk. Der no bulletses in dem guns, so der isnt".

jimgoose · 23-01-2017 06:37PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well we dont perform that function anymore but even so, I couldnt be tellin' ye :pac:.

"Tschure, dem guns r plastk. Der no bulletses in dem guns, so der isnt".

Little piddly bullets as well. Shure they're the same size as .22LR!

Barry Badrinath · 23-01-2017 06:45PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Little piddly bullets as well. Shure they're the same size as .22LR!

Id prefer the aul 7.62mm FN...b.b.b.buuut it'd be heavier

It would almost encourage you to fire a few rounds just to lighten the weapon :pac:

Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

Comments