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

Cop Shot!

arybvtcw0eolkf

Anyone get word on this yet?.

Apparently a traffic cop (on a motorcycle) stopped a car on Ossary Road (Eastwall/Northstrand Dublin) and was shot by a passenger.

I've no word on the severity of injuries, but do motorcycle cops wear a vest like the other guys?.

And in this present climate is it time to arm the cops?.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

K-9

farohar wrote:

point still stands though that you can't really trust these people to behave responsibly with firearms.

Still a generalisation. They'll probably set up a tribunal if there're any incidents!:rolleyes:

Reku

Humans have ONE heart.
OMG! I just made a generalisation!:eek:

Like I said earlier in the thread you can't trust humans with any kind of destructive power, I don't see gardaí as exempt from this statement.

Manic Moran

farohar wrote:

I've emphasised the important bits, once 1972 passed (or certainly by the late 80's) people were out buying their guns once again and you could even see them on sale in country sports stores.

They weren't buying the same sort. You would not have seen in the country sports store in the late 1980s a Browning 9mm pistol or a .303 Lee Enfield as the temporary prohibition on such firearms was still in effect. You could still purchase a shotgun or a .22 rimfire, or after, if I recall, 1993, a .270 for deer.

Look at McVeigh vs Ireland back in 2004. From http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2004/1015/2245958614HM4CTFIREARMS.html

The Minister said the refusal was on grounds of a current policy to grant firearms certificates only for specified weapons. The Minister later stated that firearms certificates and import licences could be granted only in relation to those firearms which came within the policy - shotguns, crossbows, unrifled airguns and rifles up to .22, except in the cases of deer hunting and competition target shooting when bolt action rifles up to .270 are authorised.

The then 'current policy' referenced is the same one which was initially incorporated in 1972. It took a court case over the State's refusal to permit the import of an Olympic Air Pistol to finally remove the restriction, and only at that point could the firearms which had been confiscated thirty-plus years previously be returned.

NTM

K-9

farohar wrote:

Humans have ONE heart.
OMG! I just made a generalisation!:eek:

Like I said earlier in the thread you can't trust humans with any kind of destructive power, I don't see gardaí as exempt from this statement.

So what should they do in situations like Lusk?

Manic Moran

So what should they do in situations like Lusk?

Take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

NTM

MooseJam

Manic Moran wrote:

Take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

NTM

fückin A !

Reku

Manic Moran wrote:

They weren't buying the same sort. You would not have seen in the country sports store in the late 1980s a Browning 9mm pistol or a .303 Lee Enfield as the temporary prohibition on such firearms was still in effect. You could still purchase a shotgun or a .22 rimfire, or after, if I recall, 1993, a .270 for deer.

Look at McVeigh vs Ireland back in 2004. From http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2004/1015/2245958614HM4CTFIREARMS.html

The then 'current policy' referenced is the same one which was initially incorporated in 1972. It took a court case over the State's refusal to permit the import of an Olympic Air Pistol to finally remove the restriction, and only at that point could the firearms which had been confiscated thirty-plus years previously be returned.

NTM

If you want to kill someone a shotgun is just as useful as a pistol so what does it matter that people couldn't legally aquire their guns of preference, they could still get guns.

Seanies32 wrote:

So what should they do in situations like Lusk?

You're following the line that just because X has something so should we, which is a degenerative viewpoint since things just constantly get worse if you follow it, as I have repeatedly pointed out it just ends up a scenario of who has the bigger guns with each side pumping the funds into their little arms race, as a result the unarmed civilians would probably bear the brunt of the suffering since the average criminal would now probably use a gun in their day to day acts. These are people who manage to smuggle drugs, knives and even the odd budgie:D into our prisons so do you really think that they will actually be behind the gardaí in any kind of arms race?!?! If they can smuggle things into a prison smuggling guns into the country will be far easier.
So if guns are handed out to the gardaí then in a years time we'd be having this same debate but about civilians being allowed to bear arms, which if that was then allowed the criminals wouldn't even need to smuggle the guns anymore, they could just buy them from the less law abiding arms dealers.

There is no denying that the gardaí should be better equipped but it would be a far wiser investment I think to put the money into defensive equipment (e.g. kevlar based body armour), not offensive. What's to stop thugs from ambushing gardaí just to get the guns, in a country where they are illegal without a licence a gun which cannot be easily traced back to you would undoubtedly be of enough value for such things to become a common occurance. As to the odds of said thugs then leaving the witness gardaí alive after having aquired the guns I'll leave that to you imaginations...

Manic Moran

There is no denying that the gardaí should be better equipped but it would be a far wiser investment I think to put the money into defensive equipment (e.g. kevlar based body armour), not offensive.

The battle between arms and armour has been going on since the first Egyptian decided to use a leather hide to protect himself. Arms have always won out. If the establishment concludes that there is sufficient threat against Gardai to warrant equipping them with bullet-resistant armour, then by default there is sufficient threat to warrant arming them as well. All you're doing is just making a harder target, if the first shot doesn't get him, the second could well strike either a weakened part of the armour, or maybe some unarmoured part like the head. Police body armour is designed to give the wearer a second chance, an opportunity to react if possible. They're not designed to have the wearer sit there and get pummelled defenselessly. And if you're worried about an arms race against Gardai, it would seem reasonable that as long as the Gardai are armoured, the opposition will seek arms capable of defeating that armour.

What's to stop thugs from ambushing gardaí just to get the guns, in a country where they are illegal without a licence a gun which cannot be easily traced back to you would undoubtedly be of enough value for such things to become a common occurance

Seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Criminals these days do not appear to be having any great difficulty acquiring arms regardless of the current licensing situation, I see no reason why this should change any time soon.

NTM

Reku

Manic Moran wrote:

The battle between arms and armour has been going on since the first Egyptian decided to use a leather hide to protect himself. Arms have always won out. If the establishment concludes that there is sufficient threat against Gardai to warrant equipping them with bullet-resistant armour, then by default there is sufficient threat to warrant arming them as well. All you're doing is just making a harder target, if the first shot doesn't get him, the second could well strike either a weakened part of the armour, or maybe some unarmoured part like the head. Police body armour is designed to give the wearer a second chance, an opportunity to react if possible. They're not designed to have the wearer sit there and get pummelled defenselessly.

No, but they could give you time to retreat back to your car/bike and try escape & request back-up.

And the garda in question was shot with a shot-gun, one of the types of firearm that was readily available after 1972.

Manic Moran wrote:

And if you're worried about an arms race against Gardai, it would seem reasonable that as long as the Gardai are armoured, the opposition will seek arms capable of defeating that armour.

But it will be a damned bit harder since according to articles in the Sunday times yesterday, many of the illegal guns are stolen from legal owners and as such are shotguns (230,000 people have licenced shotguns in Ireland) and rifles, others are probably modified replica guns, originating in Germany and then purchased from illegal sources in Britain. As such most of these are not designed for dealing with people in body armour (as per that shootout I refered to earlier in the thread).
At 230K people in the country holding licenced shotguns we already have too many firearms, as that's 1 in every 17 people (last year's census gave a population of 4,239,848) owning a legally obtained shotgun, throw in the rifles, handguns and illegal arms and I wouldn't be surprised if the number rose to 1 in every 10 people!:eek:

Manic Moran wrote:

Seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Criminals these days do not appear to be having any great difficulty acquiring arms regardless of the current licensing situation, I see no reason why this should change any time soon.

NTM

They are often stealing them from the homes of licenced owners, there's no sense in supplying more owners for them to steal from. There have been instances of guns being stolen from army barracks, why would you think that a garda station or a pair of gardaí on patrol is any less viable a source of guns for those determined to obtain them.

Suppose all this debating is now moot anyway since the garda inspectorate, Kathleen O'Toole, has stated that she is against arming the gardaí and in fact refered to the US as proof that, in her oppinion, this does not work, being from the Boston police force herself I think she's qualified to make such remarks.

Dave!

You got a source for the instances of guns being stolen from army barracks? I've not heard of any robberies committed with a Steyr...

Dyr

technically, a steyr isnt a gun but

Dave!

How so? It's an assault rifle, are they not considered guns? I don't know the definition...

Dyr

im being facetious, of course. Or whatever it is.

Reku

DaveMcG wrote:

You got a source for the instances of guns being stolen from army barracks? I've not heard of any robberies committed with a Steyr...

Had I figures I would have supplied them, however I'm sorry to burst your Steyr bubble but the army do use other guns too.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055151497

I note that the thread I'm linking to is on the very forum you have in your signature...:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

DaveMcG wrote:

How so? It's an assault rifle, are they not considered guns? I don't know the definition...

Technically, the only guns the Irish Army have are the 105mm Light Gun, an artillery piece. Steyr is a 'Rifle' or 'weapon', the H&K is a 'pistol' and so on and so forth. It's a nit-pick. The Bofors 40mm might be termed a gun as well, though I believe it's more accurately an autocannon.

Kathleen O'Toole, has stated that she is against arming the gardaí and in fact refered to the US as proof that, in her oppinion, this does not work, being from the Boston police force herself I think she's qualified to make such remarks.

So should we point out Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Canada, or Luxembourg as cases where it does seem to work?

NTM

Dave!

farohar wrote:

Had I figures I would have supplied them, however I'm sorry to burst your Steyr bubble but the army do use other guns too.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055151497

I note that the thread I'm linking to is on the very forum you have in your signature...:rolleyes:

Dry your tears, I was only asking for a news article or something, not a f*cking UN study on army gun theft :rolleyes:

thefinalstage

Manic Moran wrote:

Technically, the only guns the Irish Army have are the 105mm Light Gun, an artillery piece. Steyr is a 'Rifle' or 'weapon', the H&K is a 'pistol' and so on and so forth. It's a nit-pick. The Bofors 40mm might be termed a gun as well, though I believe it's more accurately an autocannon.

So should we point out Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Canada, or Luxembourg as cases where it does seem to work?

NTM

France too.

Reku

DaveMcG wrote:

Dry your tears, I was only asking for a news article or something, not a f*cking UN study on army gun theft :rolleyes:

You can't tell the difference between:
:rolleyes: and

no wonder you missed the thread in the forum you plug in your sig...:p

As for all these countries that people point to as wonderous locations where it does work, as Terry would put it:
"This is not Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Canada, Luxembourg or France".
And if I'm not mistaken these countries also allow civilians to possess guns far more readily than Ireland does thus leading to easier aquisition of guns for the criminal elements too.

eroo

we're gone WAY OFF topic here.open up a new thread on the subject

thefinalstage

farohar wrote:

You can't tell the difference between:
:rolleyes: and
no wonder you missed the thread in the forum you plug in your sig...:p

As for all these countries that people point to as wonderous locations where it does work, as Terry would put it:
"This is not Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Canada, Luxembourg or France".
And if I'm not mistaken these countries also allow civilians to possess guns far more readily than Ireland does thus leading to easier aquisition of guns for the criminal elements too.

Em, they already have all the supplies thy need? The only difference will be that the guns are stolen from here rather than bought abroad.

tech77

Fair enough it's generally accepted that violent crime is a bigger problem in the US than here but is it directly attributable to an armed police force or is this a spurious correlation.

Maybe it is i don't actually know- maybe someone could provide some evidence to show whether the two are linked.
As somebody else mentioned America seems to be an exception in this regard.
Other countries with armed forces don't have the same problem as the US.

Could the rate of violent crime in the US be attributable to other causes like the fact that guns are just more accessible to the general public (and more or less any nutjob can own one) and that it's not specifically a response to an armed police force per se.

Also if arming the cops isn't a solution what is the solution.
Nobody has really touched on this in the thread TBH.

I don't know but i think there's only so much that 'providing disadvantaged scumbags with more opportunities and eradicating deprivation etc' can do.
(God i hate that facile excuse TBH..).

Anyway even if that utopia was achieved there'll always be good old psychopathy (which i tend to believe is more the real cause of this and many shootings.. that and drugs i suppose).

One things for certain, scumbags don't have much to fear with some of the sentences being handed down nowadays and the cushy prisons that await them.
As someone else said here they probably see these small stretches as badges of pride nothing more.

Reku

thelastangryman wrote:

Em, they already have all the supplies thy need? The only difference will be that the guns are stolen from here rather than bought abroad.

But limited supplies, hence why every junkie and mugger isn't carrying one, no sense opening the floodgates just to put out a cigarette.

tech77 wrote:

Also if arming the cops isn't a solution what is the solution.
Nobody has really touched on this in the thread TBH.

Actually people have, the posts have just gotten hidden behind all the gun-nut posts who want their right to brandish arms (not pointing any fingers so it's up to you if you feel you fall under this label) and others discussing such.

I am suprised that I don't think one person has suggested Taser pistols (as opposed to the ones requiring pushing a handheld device into the person, for obvious reasons), if nothing else at least they are not lethal, instead people keep insisting that the general gardaí should be entrusted with lethal firearms when we've had threads here in AH showing we don't even trust them to use their sirens only when appropriate. As I have pointed out gardaí of detective rank or higher are allowed to carry guns on duty so it's not like there aren't already plenty of gardaí that could carry them if they wanted to, the fact that these people have been promoted would imply that at least they are not among the least professional in the force.

arybvtcw0eolkf

DaveMcG wrote:

You got a source for the instances of guns being stolen from army barracks? I've not heard of any robberies committed with a Steyr...

From memory I can only recall the famous robbery of a G.P.M.G. from the armoury in Clancy Bks, and the .50 HMG 'stolen' (later found to have been sold) from the post in Ayta-Zutt (Lebanon).

Stercus Accidit

farohar wrote:

I am suprised that I don't think one person has suggested Taser pistols (as opposed to the ones requiring pushing a handheld device into the person, for obvious reasons), if nothing else at least they are not lethal, instead people keep insisting that the general gardaí should be entrusted with lethal firearms.

Those tazers are little use against a man with a shotgun, he can still shoot you or in some random direction, in fact its very probable hed pull the trigger from the electricitys effect alone.

There are also so many instances of them being abused.
You wont shoot someone for being drunk as quick as zap'em but a drunk may well get tasered by a pissed off guard, its happened a lot in the US.
It even happens in schools, its definition as non lethal seems to have led it to be used for "pain compliance", which is taught as a legitimate technique.

Basically do as I say or I'll torture you.

I say let the guard decide if he wants to do a firearms course, and let his superiors decide if he's eligible to.

And f*** those tasers they're as bad a batten rounds in the north.

The taser issue is open to discussion, I've said my part.

Edit: A taser is worse than a gun as it will be used in any situation it can be, but is useless when in the worst situation, a gun need never be used and will be more likely to deter a criminal, you dont have to shoot him.

Satan Polaroid

I think Tazers could be useful in situations where someone has a weapon other than a firearm, but do I think every Garda should have one? No.

For the life of me I can't understand why the Gardaí don't have pepper spray though. It is very effective, and has little to no long term effects on the victim.

eroo

yes i agree,pepper spray are direly needed for gardai on the beat

Manic Moran

Satan Polaroid wrote:

For the life of me I can't understand why the Gardaí don't have pepper spray though. It is very effective, and has little to no long term effects on the victim.

From the numbers of people killed by pepper spray, I remain unconvinced that it's really any safer than a Taser.

NTM

Dave!

How many people is that?

coyote6

Manic Moran wrote:

From the numbers of people killed by pepper spray, I remain unconvinced that it's really any safer than a Taser.

NTM

I've used it quite a bit and (inevitably) have been exposed quite bit. We also get hosed down with it in training. As you know (and I know you probably do), it really sucks. I could see where someone getting a REALLY nasty dose accompanied by pre-existing problems could have some difficulty. When I use it's in lieu of something more severe.

An example: I responded to a group home that houses adult mentally ill people. The worker got his arse kicked by a large "client" who was still tearing the place apart. When I arrived the guy charged me at close quarters with the metal leg of a stool. I wasn't going to stand around and ask him what he was going to do as he was advancing rapidly. I oc'd him and he stopped. He snots everywhere and the medics decon'd him.

All this to say it's a trade off. I peppered him instead of something much more likely to permanently hurt him. Tasers freak me out a bit. We don't use them and I'm afraid they're going to make people rely on them too much. I'm not takin' a zap from one of them if I can help it. Electricity is magic you know.

Manic Moran

DaveMcG wrote:

How many people is that?

Apparently in the hundreds. Doing a quick Googling around, a paper in the North Carolina Journal of Medicine by Smith and Stopford last year stated that "since 1993 over 70 in-custody deaths have involved the use of OC spray" which is not an exhaustive tally. (i.e. how about non-in-custody deaths?)

It is to be noted that the spray is not necessarily the cause of death (Or at least the catalyst, eg respiratory illness or allergy), and sometimes the spraying was entirely incidental to what actually caused death, but since the argument against Tasers basically goes "Person A was zapped. Person A subsequently died", it is resonable to presume fairly similar ratio of causality.

It is also to be noted that standard Taser training for an officer involves getting Tased himself, yet

In April 1998, Dr. Ronald H. Levine, then State Health Director, and Harry Payne, the Commissioner of Labor, sent an advisory letter outlining the health and legal concerns associated with the use of OC spray, and recommending that exposure during training be discontinued

Many law enforcement and corrections agencies now prohibit the practice of spraying trainees directly in the face with OC. Based on reports of ocular damage, bronchospasm, pulmonary edema, laryngospasm, respiratory arrest, and death following OC exposure, it is reasonable to conclude that exposure during training, particularly repetitive, direct facial spraying of individuals at increased risk, may cause serious adverse effects and possibly even death. Occupational exposure during training is not advised, and those organizations that continue to use OC spray should avoid direct exposure and screen out and exempt entirely all employees at increased risk for adverse effects (those with pre-existing allergies to peppers, with corneal disease, hypertension, heart disease, respiratory infections, bronchitis, asthma or a history of airway reactivity following irritant exposures, and cigarette smokers).

Quite a list of hazards, would you not agree? Cigarette smokers? I mean, if you want to be really safe... "Excuse me, Sir, do you smoke?" "Eh? No" "Thank you... *spray*"

NTM