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

And this nonsense starts again!

Grizzly 45

Without commenting or prejudicing any coroner's outcomes or inquiries into what happened in the Lixnaw shooting tragedy,or belittling what happened. But could we please can these suggestions, which are starting to get media attention,[Irish Indo and RTE 61 news today] again, about demanding a medical for firearms applicants.

1] We already have given permission for AGS to request such info anytime we reapply.

2] No doctors want the responsibility of signing off on this, as they are not qualified to judge a person's mental health.You need a head shrinker, and they need four to five sessions to start getting an idea of what screws might be loose or too tight.

3] People can lie about their condition to their doctor or anyone else. You are not under oath in a doctor's surgery.

4] Alienate even further gun owners who might have depression or other mental problems, as they will be terrified of losing their licenses because they went to the doctors for some genuine help and have to declare such on the next application, which might be refused.

5]Unweildly, how will this work with multiple license holders that come up on certain dates?

6] They don't work! If they did, Raul Moate, Derreck Bird, the Plymouth shooting,and in Germany Erfurt, Wenindigen, and Hanau shooters would have been picked up by the German medical and psychological tests for new applicants.

7]They probably ADD to the chance of mass shootings. 95% of US mass shooters were on, or off depending their prescribed meds!!! It seems that Lithimun based medications prescribed by the medical professionals for "depression" is a major contributor to shootings over there.

Just strange that this is now getting airtime when a review of legislation is in the air?

As we have to put bin the full link, but the pertinent bit concerning us is here;

Ms Houlihan continued: “I’m asking the Irish government to review the gun licensing laws and put a simple step in place that when the licences are coming for renewal, that the gun holder has a medical.”

"...trained individuals who are talking to people who are holding gun licences and understanding what’s going on in their lives so that they understand that there are things here that may impact on their behaviour.”

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/relative-of-lixnaw-shooting-victims-i-dont-want-another-family-to-go-through-what-weve-been-through-41665584.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Grizzly 45

Yup,those psychological and medical tests sure worked well again in Germany to prevent another tragedy...Where anyone under 25 or first-time applicant are mandated to take.🙄

https://www.thejournal.ie/one-person-injured-in-germany-school-shooting-5768255-May2022/

JP22

Even if mandatory,

Any test, Psychological, Medical etc, including an NCT Vehicle Test is only an indication that something is ok and working fine now (in the present) and certainly wouldn't cover six months time/twelve months time down the road.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089339#Comment_119089339

I agree with some if the posts you make. Especially the idea of stigmatising people making them less likely to less likely to come forward.

But the fact they dont prevent 100% of future issues is not a good argument, as that doesn’t mean they don’t stop any. Stopping 100% should not be the goal, as there’s only one way to do that.

Grizzly 45

But does that mean we have to copy something that's not working in other countries just to satisfy a minority with feel-good legislation? Even as you are saying in not many words, a total ban has never stopped gun crime or shootings or even slowed them down.As we have seen here in Ireland and the UK with gun crime,we are the highest in the EU apparently.

As we have seen it isn't doing what it is supposed to do in the UK /Germany so why do we need to copy something that isn't going to prevent tragedies anyway? If the next family living out in the country who have an inter-family land dispute whack each other off with axes and slash hooks and then go string themselves up in the barn.Will the relatives be demanding a psychological assessment for everyone to buy rope and axes and slash hooks? Or is it just because A GUN!!!! was used, and once those nasty things are removed from society,it will be all good?

Del2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092664#Comment_119092664

Why don't we require the same checks for driving which is responsible for more people bring killed, innocents in RTCs, and committing suicide. We'd protect way more people if we required medicals for vehicle licences and renewal, we might not stop 100% of road deaths but it doesn't mean that we don't stop any.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093523#Comment_119093523

We absolutely should not copy something that isn’t working. To be make that argument, you really need to be able to show it doesn’t work. Which may be possible.

But pointing to a few random incidents doesn’t actually prove it doesn’t work. That’s all I’m pointing out.

The NCT was a good analogy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093753#Comment_119093753

What are you proposing? Who would you ban from driving?

Cars, Alcohol and cigarettes do a ton of damage. You’d save a ton of lives by severely restricting all three if we were honest. But never going to happen as they are each seen almost as rights.

Grizzly 45

But pointing to a few random incidents doesn’t actually prove it doesn’t work. That’s all I’m pointing out.

Well what would you suggest is a good way of proving it doesn't work?I've pointed out three EU countries that have this for the last 2 decades and still have mass shootings?

The NCT is a great example of fudge.Your cert is only actually valid until you leave the premises.Nor is it a failsafe that all faults are discovered either.I had a imported car that went thru at least four NCTs before I owned it before anyone noticed the chassis and body numbers were a mismatch!So imagine how more complex a problem there will be with a human mind.Also remember you will be paying for this,and I doubt our VHI or medical cards will cover this@ about 100 euros a go.What happens if you get an anti gun shrink,or one is employed by the state as is the case in Italy to use as a tool to reduce gun ownership numbers?Will you have a right to appeal to prove you are sane?

This is just a bad idea on so many levels.

And this story is getting legs in the media as predicted.Now we have the local holy man calling for more gun control .

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lixnaw-parish-priest-calls-for-greater-irish-gun-control-in-wake-of-murder-suicide-41675102.html

Mellor

Well what would you suggest is a good way of proving it doesn't work?

Without the stats/data it’s hard to prove much. I couldn’t honestly say it never “works” tbh.

But I would suggest that the false positives could far exceed the genuine cases, making it negative overall. That would be my approach.

I've pointed out three EU countries that have this for the last 2 decades and still have mass shootings?

That doesn’t actually prove anything though. It’s like saying seat belts and airbags don’t work because people still die in crashes. Which is obviously nonsense.

Better approach could be looking at rate of incidence before and after the measure was introduced. Was there any change.

The NCT is a great example of fudge.Your cert is only actually valid until you leave the premises.Nor is it a failsafe that all faults are discovered either.

Exactly. NCT is a brief check at a point in time. Issues do slip past, futures issues can occur. But the fact it catch or prevent every issue doesn’t mean it won’t catch any issues - which is why the “incidents still happen” argument is completely flawed.

I agree. it’s a slippery slope and open to abuse. Very hard to grade a subjective thing like that. False positives etc. We can build an arguement on that. But flawed arguments will be easily dismissed.

Grizzly 45

Without the stats/data it’s hard to prove much. I couldn’t honestly say it never “works” tbh.

Let's rephrase it to isn't working then...As it obviously isn't. Now the next question is how do you prove an X quantity? IOW No one has kept statistics on a problem that was not considered a problem until this became mandated in those countries? So the only stats that are there are the ones that show a negative effect of these tests not preventing shootings from happening. Unless we want to use the US stats, which I would be totally adverse to use, as it is unrealistic in an EU comparison, of people availing of mental health, such as it is in the US, and being prescribed mood-altering meds, and then either not taking or having the doses altered to the point they went off on a spree? Is again proveing another negative to this pro argument?

To use the NCT example again. Going by AGS traffic corps the biggest cause of accidents here is speeding by males under 25 in Ireland. Mechanical faults is less than 8% cause of an accident. We don't have figures for this even pre NCT times to compare this either. Plus, the NCT is was more EU harmonisation than any "making life safer by getting rid of junkers off Irish roads!" story we were sold.We don't need an NCT to tell us speeding is dangerous and is a pastime with young male drivers.Yet we don't invest time or money in giving young fellahs a place or lessons on how to handle a 100times more dangerous item than any gun.

I think we would find that in these "shooting sprees" in Ireland.98% of these cases are [1] Inheritance and land disputes [2] Depression or isolation or stress-induced. I would consider those causes more relevant to preventing family tragedies than collectively fearing 130 K +/- gun owners as potential psychos.

[Deleted User]

"Cars, Alcohol and cigarettes do a ton of damage. You’d save a ton of lives by severely restricting all three if we were honest. But never going to happen as they are each seen almost as rights."

In Ireland seventeen (17) people per day die in this country from cigarette related causes and many more take up hospital beds due to their smoking habits( info from friend working in Dublin Hospital) yet nothing been done about this situation and cigarettes can be purchased in every corner shop, petrol station, shopping mall etc except i dont think my local Mosque sells them. Same with Alcohol , sold everywere but cigarettes and alcohol SHOULD be controled substances but its to much of a good money maker for elected reps. Shame on them

Mellor

Let's rephrase it to isn't working then...As it obviously isn't.

The "evidence" you gave, doesn't prove its not working. Just because incidents happened doesn't proved it doesn't work. Again, that's like saying seatbelts obviously don't work.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it does work. But arguments like that are entirely flawed, putting them forward does more harm. Comes across as clutching at straws and play the tragedy card. If it actually doesn't work, there that can be shown.

Now the next question is how do you prove an X quantity? IOW No one has kept statistics on a problem that was not considered a problem until this became mandated in those countries? So the only stats that are there are the ones that show a negative effect of these tests not preventing shootings from happening.

I'd expect the Germans to have data. They are quite details focused.

If there are stats that show these tests don't prevent any incidents, that would work too. But I haven't yet seen them.

Unless we want to use the US stats, which I would be totally adverse to use, as it is unrealistic in an EU comparison, of people availing of mental health, such as it is in the US, and being prescribed mood-altering meds, and then either not taking or having the doses altered to the point they went off on a spree? Is again proveing another negative to this pro argument?

Agreed. The US has an awful medical system. Any very lax access to firearms. Neither of which is a parallel to the European situation. You could not for a second suggest that everyone in the US would have the same access to care or firearms if they were in europe.

I agree completely. Speeding, mobile phones, driving while tired, or under the influence.

NCT prevents more than mechanical failure. But if any old car was allowed on the road, in any condition. There would obvious be more accidients.

Also have to consider that removing an option doesn't fixed the problem. If every firearm in the world was destroyed tomorrow. Self shootings would be zero. But hangings probably go up.

Grizzly 45

Again, that's like saying seatbelts obviously don't work.

But people have still been killed by their seatbelts. Mostly by being upside down and releasing them thus dropping their entire weight on their neck and head,or second jammed mechanisms and being trapped in a car wreck fire,or in water.That's going by the German ADAC[their version of our AA].Not saying seatbelts don't work,but in some cases they will kill you yoo.

I'd expect the Germans to have data. They are quite details focused.

If there are stats that show these tests don't prevent any incidents, that would work too. But I haven't yet seen them.

They are indeed, and they don't have.As it was never a considered equation in the licensing process over there until post-Erfurt. It might take them awhile[35 years] but when they discover something doesn't work they chuck it off their law books.IE The keeping of spent shells from all licensed firearms, as a reference to aid in shootings and "looks like an assault rifle" clauses went out in 2001.

Also have to consider that removing an option doesn't fixed the problem. If every firearm in the world was destroyed tomorrow. Self shootings would be zero. But hangings probably go up.

Exactly!!! We can't legislate for crazy, and as said if this had been done with a slash hook or an axe. Would there be a call for a psychological examination for anyone wanting to own sharp farm implements? Or is this just a focus on a fetishized item by media and public opinion as the obvious scapegoat?