nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

Johnboner

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 Germany the rules are strict but it is still possible to own a firearm after all the tests. These are only 2 examples but most other European countries have similar rules where it is actually possible to obtain a firearm. I am not talking about the system like in the USA where in many states you just enter a shop like centra, choose a gun you want and walk out. I would love to be able to shoot watermelons if I want with guns as I find that it is one of the most fun activities you can do which is unfortunately illegal in Ireland, it mostly prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining guns as you can see that it doesn't stop constant gang shootings in Dublin with illegaly obtained firearms.
Also why do we copy everything just from the UK?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jimgoose

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

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:

You mean the FAL? 5.56mm NATO has a considerably faster muzzle velocity though, hasn't it?

Barry Badrinath

jimgoose wrote: »

You mean the FAL? 5.56mm NATO has a considerably faster muzzle velocity though, hasn't it?

Correct, by a few hundred fps.

I just prefer the 7.62 myself. Just love the kick to the shoulder.

Little CuChulainn

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.

You went out to them when they were still there. If you had a gun you would have shot them dead over a wing mirror. You are why people cannot have guns for self defence.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

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.

If he had a gun and shot them he would be charged. You cannot bring a weapon to a dispute, whether it be licensed or not. It's a separate serious charge.

soups05 wrote: »

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?

Yes. Get a stronger door if you are worried about it.

goz83 wrote: »

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

I would love to see that law that prohibits target practice. I wonder how people practiced before ranges.

soups05

i went back out cos my kids were out there. I would not have shot them over a wing mirror, if anything it would have been either to save my kids or cos they broke my jaw BY REPEATABLY KICKING ME IN THE HEAD.
A stronger door? so i have to go to the time,trouble and expense cos some scrote thinks he can walk the streets doing what he likes.
I am fed up trying to make people understand what its like, i really do hope you never find out for yourself

BattleCorp

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I would love to see that law that prohibits target practice. I wonder how people practiced before ranges.

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

eeguy

BattleCorp wrote: »

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

Probably none. More of a "look it up when you come across it" I'd say.

Nekarsulm

BattleCorp wrote: »

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

When you come across a Guard in the local sports shop/gun room trying to get his head around why a .17 centrefire is bigger than a .22 Magnum, and the shop owner was reduced to getting one of each bullet and showing him the difference, and the Guard kept saying "but 22 is bigger than 17"

[Deleted User]

BattleCorp wrote: »

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

When training in templemore you are taught about all legislation, which as you can imagine, is extremely large and varied.
You do exams, about what you have learned.
As the years go on, you learn more about the things you deal with everyday.
Therefore, if you move into the fraud unit, for example, you know more about fraud, etc etc
If you become the local firearms licence officer, then you learn about that.
I doubt very much that the ordinary Garda have a huge knowledge off firearms & their licensing. Garda members in charge of firearms licences, however, I would imagine should have good knowledge of firearms legislation.

jimgoose

Nekarsulm wrote: »

When you come across a Guard in the local sports shop/gun room trying to get his head around why a .17 centrefire is bigger than a .22 Magnum, and the shop owner was reduced to getting one of each bullet and showing him the difference, and the Guard kept saying "but 22 is bigger than 17"

...or why a .243 Winchester will go through a wall at 500 yards, yet a .38 S&W won't. Gaaaahhh!!

[Deleted User]

TBH lads, the ordinary uniform guard wouldn't really have a lot to do with firearms.
Plain clothes members who carry, would obviously have more knowledge.
For example, if a call came in that someone had found a firearm, then uniform members don't have knowledge about guns, they have been taught to call a guard who carries, to make the gun safe & deal with it.

goz83

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I would love to see that law that prohibits target practice. I wonder how people practiced before ranges.

OK, not the actual law, but a couple of discussions about it right here on boards.

First link is to the main discussion thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51304016

In the first post, you will see a link => http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51303566&postcount=342

The last few lines are of interest, where lenihan explains that a pistol or rifle are only to be used on a range when doing target practice. A shotgun is excluded.

Maybe battlecorp will link the legal end of it tomorrow.

mynamejeff

bubblypop wrote: »

TBH lads, the ordinary uniform guard wouldn't really have a lot to do with firearms.
Plain clothes members who carry, would obviously have more knowledge.
For example, if a call came in that someone had found a firearm, then uniform members don't have knowledge about guns, they have been taught to call a guard who carries, to make the gun safe & deal with it.

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though

if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

eeguy

mynamejeff wrote: »

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though

if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

I wouldn't say lack of training. They probably just have specialists who deal with this sort of stuff. Lads who'll know exactly what type of gun they're dealing with and how to make it safe.

Better to have that that a Garda who did a week long course 5 years ago try and deal with it.

somefeen

mynamejeff wrote: »

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though

if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

Really?
Found a sawn-off shotgun once and the guards we flagged down, if I remember rightly, just threw it in the boot and took it in town.

MadYaker

If Ireland had more relaxed gun laws there would be a lot more privately owned guns in the country and this would obviously result in a higher level of ilegally owned fire arms as guns would surely be stolen or sold on to the black market. There is a massive black market for guns in the USA and the vast majority of these which are seized by the police were originally legally owned fire arms that were stolen or bought ilegally.

The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot, so i think were better off with the gun laws we have.

goz83

MadYaker wrote: »

If Ireland had more relaxed gun laws there would be a lot more privately owned guns in the country and this would obviously result in a higher level of ilegally owned fire arms as guns would surely be stolen or sold on to the black market. There is a massive black market for guns in the USA and the vast majority of these which are seized by the police were originally legally owned fire arms that were stolen or bought ilegally.

The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot, so i think were better off with the gun laws we have.

I think it would depend on what laws were relaxed. As it stands, getting a license for a firearm is usually a drawn out process, often taking 6 months or more. Before a person can apply, they need to have all the necessary security in place and after going through that trouble and expense, you might be refused.

Some laws could be amended and other could be relaxed without encouraging more ownership. For example; after going through the process of getting a first firearms license, it should be easier and quicker to obtain subsequent licenses. The licensed person has been shown to be trustworthy and competent enough to be granted a license and so the process should be simplified after the first application. Instead, each application is dealt with by the local Firearms Officer (a made up, unofficial role) in the very same way as the first. They might not contact your references the second time around, but everything is the same and it takes the same long period of time.

So the bottom line cannot be "more guns = more people getting shot". It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of firearms legally licensed would not interest criminals...who can just buy illegally imported guns, rather than try to steal a bold action .22 calibre plinker.

Heckler

goz83 wrote: »

I think it would depend on what laws were relaxed. As it stands, getting a license for a firearm is usually a drawn out process, often taking 6 months or more. Before a person can apply, they need to have all the necessary security in place and after going through that trouble and expense, you might be refused.

Some laws could be amended and other could be relaxed without encouraging more ownership. For example; after going through the process of getting a first firearms license, it should be easier and quicker to obtain subsequent licenses. The licensed person has been shown to be trustworthy and competent enough to be granted a license and so the process should be simplified after the first application. Instead, each application is dealt with by the local Firearms Officer (a made up, unofficial role) in the very same way as the first. They might not contact your references the second time around, but everything is the same and it takes the same long period of time.

So the bottom line cannot be "more guns = more people getting shot". It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of firearms legally licensed would not interest criminals...who can just buy illegally imported guns, rather than try to steal a bold action .22 calibre plinker.

I own a bolt action .22 rifle (took 5 months for licence) and a .22 semi-automatic pistol (took 2 months)l, both used for target shooting.

I was put through the wringer by the Guards for my first ( rifle) license. I got the license granted for the pistol without ever meeting a guard.

Outside of war zones more people are killed by .22 calibre bullets than any other every year. While they are not a "man stopper" i.e. being shot by one won't automatically stop you in your tracks, you can easily bleed to death from a .22 gunshot.

"Plinker" makes it sound inoffensive and harmless. The .22 is used as a weapon because it can penetrate the skull and bounce around scrambling the brain without exiting the other side as opposed to a through and through shot.

The gun laws as we have it here are adequate but flawed. Its tricky but doable to get a license. I think If you have a license for say a year or so, have shown good character and no issues, you should be allowed have pretty much whatever you want up to a point.

Shotgun licences are pretty much handed out no problem. A license for a .22 pistol not so much. I can tell you now which I'd rather be shot with. It ain't the shotgun....

somefeen

Heckler wrote: »

Outside of war zones more people are killed by .22 calibre bullets than any other every year. While they are not a "man stopper" i.e. being shot by one won't automatically stop you in your tracks, you can easily bleed to death from a .22 gunshot.

"Plinker" makes it sound inoffensive and harmless. The .22 is used as a weapon because it can penetrate the skull and bounce around scrambling the brain without exiting the other side as opposed to a through and through shot.

That's a very interesting point

If I remember rightly a .22 is the proscribed humane method for culling seals for those reasons.
It can penetrate the skull and kill the animal instantly but wont come out the other side and fly off in a random direction endangering the shooter or anyone else nearby.
Also, because of the shape of a seal's skull if you shoot one right between the eyes the bullet will ricochet back at you. With a .22 fired within the 'humane distance' the ricochet is not likely to cause serious injury.

Just thought it was interesting aside. I suppose the lethal effectiveness of a gun can't really be measured by it's calibre. A 303 is probably more dangerous to the person pulling the trigger if they don't know what they are doing.