Should firearms be legal?

Blazer · 30-04-2011 04:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

but I see absolutely no legitimate reason for anyone outside a trained police officer having access to a handgun.

I say yes, we should have handguns,,,strictly controlled etc but I like the option of being able to protect myself in my own home...especially if the scumbags are armed themselves.

garv123 · 30-04-2011 04:08PM

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Security at hoe-downs, duelling, popping caps in peoples asses, expressing excitement by shooting 2 guns in the air and shouting yee-haww.

Seriously though, people with deer hunting licences can apply for licences for handguns, for finishing off a kill etc. Im sure there are other reasons but its fairly strict with regards to who can apply and get one.

have you any proof of this? i shoot and never heard of this before.

hand guns can be only used in an authorised range and not just carying it around with you hunting.

garv123 · 30-04-2011 04:12PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

it dosn't matter what sort of hunting you are talking about pistols have a practical application during hunting, pest control, farming and veterinary services.

nobody used handguns to hunt. you'd have to be about 20 feet away from a rabbit to kill it with a handgun

Raging_Ninja · 30-04-2011 04:12PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Just before I clicked onto this thread I had jsut read this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9470238.stm

So my thoughts. Handguns should be super-illegal.

Could have just as easily used a knife, an axe or a golf club.

PeakOutput · 30-04-2011 04:15PM

garv123 wrote: »

nobody used handguns to hunt. you'd have to be about 20 feet away from a rabbit to kill it with a handgun

You may not, it may not be possible to get a pistol licence for hunting here, but saying nobody is factually incorrect as I know numerous people who do carry a handgun when they go out deer/moose/coyote hunting (I don't know any hunters in Ireland).

Edit: I also know people who use handguns with silencers and scopes for small vermin control

garv123 · 30-04-2011 04:16PM

the op asked about ireland. its legal to do lots of things in other countries and not here.

PeakOutput · 30-04-2011 04:17PM

garv123 wrote: »

the op asked about ireland. its legal to do lots of things in other countries and not here.

We were talking about practicalities not legalities. the fact is there are practical uses for handguns, including hunting.

opinion guy · 30-04-2011 04:24PM

Raze_them_all wrote: »

He would of and would eaily of done it with any gun.

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Could have just as easily used a knife, an axe or a golf club.

No he couldn't. If he had used a shotgun or a knife an axe or a golf club, there would have been noise. Screaming and shouting. Others in the house waking up before he got to them. He killed 3 adults and 2 almost adults in their sleep including a 20 year old son. An entirely different prospect to trying to kill them with another type of weapon, including a shotgun. Odds are there would have been a struggle. As soon as he fired the first shot or hit someone with a club there would have been noise, shouting, screaming etc. He could have been killed himself. Or subdued and arrested instead of on the run. Read the story. This was a cowardly act giving his victims no chance planned in advance. This guy would not have attempted this without a handgun and suppressor. And if he did it might have ended differnetly.

Sc@recrow wrote: »

I say yes, we should have handguns,,,strictly controlled etc but I like the option of being able to protect myself in my own home...especially if the scumbags are armed themselves.

Why do you need a handgun to defend yourself ? Something wrong with a shotgun ?

It wasn't me! · 30-04-2011 04:25PM

It is legal to own pistols here. The law is extremely complex. It is not possible to license any firearm for the purposes of self-defence or defence of property. If your intention in licensing a firearm is to do so and you express another reason, your licence is invalid by virtue of your bad faith on application.

As of 2009, it has not been possible to license what are referred to as "restricted" short firearms for which you did not hold a licence prior to 2008. These firearms include centrefire pistols and .22 pistols with magazine capacities over 5 shots. It's a stupid law which does nothing to protect anyone but only serves to limit the competitive disciplines available to pistol shooters in Ireland. It is only possible to license a pistol for target shooting in Ireland on an authorised range as a member of an authorised club. The oversight involved is enormous.

Prior to 2009, there were a number of pistols licensed for the purpose of humane dispatch of animals in hunting scenarios, typically by those hunting either professionally or on such a scale that it was a practical reality. For the vast majority, the number of times the pistol would be used is so small as to render it just another thing to carry around (and try a day's deer stalking on tough ground and even a two pound pistol is something you'll leave at home if you can).

I would like to see a day where we return to a more sensible licensing regime, in line with the rest of Europe, where rifles, pistols and shotguns are common.

By the way, for a sense of perspective, and for those who are happy to have shotguns legalisef but not pistols, on the basis, presumably, of perceived lethality, in a typical game shotgun with two cartridges, I can load two rounds of OOO buckshot, each of which contains around eight pellets of about 9mm diameter. Therefore, in under half a second, I can get both shots off and introduce the equivalent of an entire magazine from a 9mm pistol to the air. This doesn't make a shotgun more dangerous than a pistol, because our licensing regime licenses them to people who will use them in an appropriate fashion, where neither is any more of a threat than the other. They all have a practical application whether in target shooting sports or clay pigeon shooting, pest control, hunting for the table or control of population for environmental purposes. For Irish shooters, firearms are the tools of our trade or our pastimes. They are the means by which we conduct them, not an end in themselves. They're not weapons, because there is no intent to harm a human being. They're tools. And, like the rest of Europe, we should start maturing enough to recognise them for what they are and treat them appropriately.

Manic Moran · 30-04-2011 06:28PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

What practical use does a pistol have other than shooting a person?

Despite the fact that other uses have already been mentioned, why is shooting a person automatically wrong?

A criminal caught with a gun can get a prison sentence without having committed any other crime and can be stopped from hurting someone in this way

So you are fine with the Gardai pulling you aside and running you through airport-type security when you're just going shopping down Grafton Street, in case you're carrying a firearm?

It is not common for Military units to use handguns....well, the Officers do, but then they are not REAL army

Depends on the job. Dual carry has proven quite popular in Iraq and Afghanistan amongst units that are able to do it.

Wrong. Been there, done that...and I'm still here. He isn't.
Do you want to tell me that you will have NO hesitation is using a firearm against a human?
Sorry, but unless you've been there (and I have, more times than I care to remember), you DON'T know how you react.
Most people freeze /hesitate when they have to pull the trigger. That is when things go pear shaped.

Do yourself a favour - get a nice wooden 2x4, the approx size of a baseball bat. Believe me, when the time comes, you won't hesitate and you will do a **** load more damage.

And some of us have shot at people with no hesitation. You are correct that you won't know for sure until the time comes, but surely that's a balance of decision which the individual has to make, not that society should make for him.

Its legal in America and they now have a crazy gun culture over there, kids bringing guns to school and all that. Bad idea.

Wasn't a problem when it was legal to do so. Only been an issue relatively recently. Plus, kids with guns isn't necessarily a bad thing, over in Switzerland the government hosts nationwide competition for children aged 12-16 to shoot the Swiss Army's service rifle. Winners get their pictures in the national paper.

The only reason to carry handgun over rifle or a shotgun is concealbility. I don't have a problem with people legally owning shotguns, I'm dubious on rifles, but I see absolutely no legitimate reason for anyone outside a trained police officer having access to a handgun.

Why, then, in the US when rifles, shotguns and handguns are all available, is the handgun the overwhelming weapon of choice for defence in the home?

nobody used handguns to hunt. you'd have to be about 20 feet away from a rabbit to kill it with a handgun

Although not in Ireland, handgun hunting is not unpopular. It's considered a challenging sport for the very reason you cite: You need to stalk very closely to get the shot off.

Something wrong with a shotgun ?

For starters, you need both hands to operate it. Much easier to dial the police with the other hand when you only need one to keep your firearm ready. Plus, in a confined space like inside, the shorter the better.

NTM

PK2008 · 30-04-2011 06:31PM

I think Temple Bar on a Saturday night would be a blood bath if we legalised guns

ukoda · 30-04-2011 06:49PM

opinion guy wrote: »

No he couldn't. If he had used a shotgun or a knife an axe or a golf club, there would have been noise. Screaming and shouting. Others in the house waking up before he got to them. He killed 3 adults and 2 almost adults in their sleep including a 20 year old son. An entirely different prospect to trying to kill them with another type of weapon, including a shotgun. Odds are there would have been a struggle. As soon as he fired the first shot or hit someone with a club there would have been noise, shouting, screaming etc. He could have been killed himself. Or subdued and arrested instead of on the run. Read the story. This was a cowardly act giving his victims no chance planned in advance. This guy would not have attempted this without a handgun and suppressor. And if he did it might have ended differnetly.

Why do you need a handgun to defend yourself ? Something wrong with a shotgun ?

Your missing your own point here - he planned it, he wanted to kill these people - and he worked out the best way to do it, if he had no access to a handgun he would have worked out another way of doing it, probably by poisoning them. The reason he did it had nothing to do with him having access to a handgun.

Its absolutely ridiculous to say that this crime wouldn't have happened if he couldn't get a handgun and suppressor.

garv123 · 30-04-2011 06:54PM

ukoda wrote: »

Your missing your own point here - he planned it, he wanted to kill these people - and he worked out the best way to do it, if he had no access to a handgun he would have worked out another way of doing it, probably by poisoning them. The reason he did it had nothing to do with him having access to a handgun.

Its absolutely ridiculous to say that this crime wouldn't have happened if he couldn't get a handgun and suppressor.

+1
what would they have done if they heard the gunshots? wrestle the gun off him :rolleyes:

plus he could have got himself a sharp knife and slit their throats for a death in seconds without even waking anyone up

sdanseo · 30-04-2011 08:05PM

11,000 gun related murders in the USA per year, on average, and that's not including the surely hundreds of thousands of people who don't die. Why on earth would anyone legalise the guns when America has proved it just results in bedlam?

ukoda · 30-04-2011 08:20PM

sdonn wrote: »

11,000 gun related murders in the USA per year, on average, and that's not including the surely hundreds of thousands of people who don't die. Why on earth would anyone legalise the guns when America has proved it just results in bedlam?

America has proved that Americans use guns to cause bedlam.

Canada has the same gun laws as the US yet...

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.

Dyr · 30-04-2011 08:32PM

ukoda wrote: »

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.

just proves that the americans are better shots :pac:

It wasn't me! · 30-04-2011 10:02PM

I really, really wish people would stop using the "Look at America" argument. The problems there are social ones and nothing to do with government policy on firearms (Ask yourself how many people are illegitimately killed - as opposed to killed for reasons it's legal to kill someone there - with a firearm which the killer is entitled to own, as in not disentitled by virtue of criminal status). Look at Europe. Look at France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria for a fistful of examples where gun ownership is commonplace, where firearms are popular for sport and work purposes, which have strong and well developed societies and so don't have problems. It wouldn't be unusual to walk into a pub in the Austrian Alps to find a bunch of hunters there celebrating a day's hunting, nor in Germany, or France. Target shooting ranges are dotted all over the continent (There are dozens in Munich alone for example) and participation is astronomically huge, because the culture is such that that is normal, and yet, no problems on a societal level. I'm a sporting shooter. I'm a competitive target shooter and a hunter. Firearms are the tools of my pastimes. I also control predators and vermin species for farmers, and they're the tool for that too. This is normal, the world over. If it seems strange, it's Irish society and popular perception that's out of step with the rest of the world.

MagicSean · 01-05-2011 10:56AM

I'm sorry i hurt your feelings by not replying sooner.

jive wrote: »

If I didn't have a gun I would definitely end up with a bullet in me.
+1 for guns being legal

If you didn't have a gun you could have bought a monitored alarm, cctv, security lights, deadbolts and a rottweiler. You wouldn't have to worry about intruders in the first place.

I'm aware of no incidents in this country in which a simple burglary has involved the offendor bringing a firearm. So they only way you would be shot is with your own gun.

jive wrote: »

Prove it's incorrect - I don't know the statistics because I don't read all that much about the pros and cons of gun legality. I do know that gun crime is rising and those with the guns have the upper hand. If they are legalised it is a level playing field and they can't use their gun as leverage and are aware that they can't.

How can you not see my point? It's pretty obvious. People who need a gun for criminal activities will get a gun because they don't abide by the law. Those who abide by the law will not have a gun and thus are at the mercy of criminals with a gun. It's pretty simple.

It's not about owning a gun, it's about using it. Point me to one incident in the last ten years were the victim owning a gun would have changed the outcome for the better.

Raging_Ninja · 01-05-2011 04:07PM

k_mac wrote: »

Point me to one incident in the last ten years were the victim owning a gun would have changed the outcome for the better.

All of them?

Gunnerkid · 01-05-2011 04:11PM

should have added a poll

Manic Moran · 01-05-2011 08:13PM

k_mac wrote: »

If you didn't have a gun you could have bought a monitored alarm, cctv, security lights, deadbolts and a rottweiler. You wouldn't have to worry about intruders in the first place.

A sidearm is a hell of a lot cheaper. You don't need to worry about taking it to the vet. Or picking up its droppings, or worrying about whether it will get on well with the kids. "Get a dog" is thrown out a little too easily, I think, dogs tend to come with quite a commitment.

I'm aware of no incidents in this country in which a simple burglary has involved the offendor bringing a firearm. So they only way you would be shot is with your own gun.

Presumably true. But it doesn't negate the possibility of the other guy being shot with your own gun. And since you start with the gun, the odds are in your favour.

It's not about owning a gun, it's about using it. Point me to one incident in the last ten years were the victim owning a gun would have changed the outcome for the better.

Would or could? The former is impossible to prove. The latter is not too difficult to hypothesise.

NTM

Nodin · 01-05-2011 08:58PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

A sidearm is a hell of a lot cheaper. You don't need to worry about taking it to the vet. Or picking up its droppings, or worrying about whether it will get on well with the kids. "Get a dog" is thrown out a little too easily, I think, dogs tend to come with quite a commitment.

...plus you'll never have to tell the little ones that Mr 12 Gauge has gone to live on a big happy farm down the country....

SeanW · 10-05-2011 07:58PM

k_mac wrote:

Point me to one incident in the last ten years were the victim owning a gun would have changed the outcome for the better.

It looks like k_mac has withdrawn his post, but I'd just like to take up this point really quickly.

My elderly uncle and aunt were victims of a home invasion some years ago, two men in balaclavas, uncle kept a shotgun and was able to get to it, chased them out, fired a shot after them to scare them away good. Scumbags ran away and never came back.

If k_mac had had his way, the criminals would have been the only ones with a gun in that situation (and every other). Needless to say, it would most likely have ended up much worse.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2011 08:12PM

100% not.

I don't buy this self defense argument. It is NEVER ok to kill a human being.

Thatnastyboy · 10-05-2011 08:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% not.

I don't buy this self defense argument. It is NEVER ok to kill a human being.

So given the choice of kill or be killed, you'd say go ahead? how noble,

If i'd a gun, and I was being threatened by someone with one too, i'd aim for the face and have no regrets. :cool:

Raze_them_all · 10-05-2011 08:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% not.

I don't buy this self defense argument. It is NEVER ok to kill a human being.

What if said person was going to knife a pregnant woman and the only way to stop them was to shoot them dead?

SeanW · 10-05-2011 08:23PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% not.

I don't buy this self defense argument. It is NEVER ok to kill a human being.

FWIW in my Uncle's case, he didn't kill the attackers. Even though the ****ers would have deserved it.

choppermann · 10-05-2011 08:24PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% not.

It is NEVER ok to kill a human being.

Ehhh yeah it is when someone has the intention of robbing or hurting you or your family or worse then shoot away.
But then again I live stateside and have a legal firearm in my house.
I hope to never have to use it but being ex-military I have the discipline to do so if the situation ever warrants it.

garv123 · 10-05-2011 08:28PM

SeanW wrote: »

FWIW in my Uncle's case, he didn't kill the attackers. Even though the ****ers would have deserved it.

hasnt there been a change in the law where you can use reasonable force to defend your property and family where death of the intruder may be the outcome.

but in your uncles case, he'd be up for murder since they were running away and would have been shot in the back. thats not reasonable force. (if the police found the bodies of course:D)

Raze_them_all · 10-05-2011 08:32PM

garv123 wrote: »

hasnt there been a change in the law where you can use reasonable force to defend your property and family where death of the intruder may be the outcome.

but in your uncles case, he'd be up for murder since they were running away and would have been shot in the back. thats not reasonable force. (if the police found the bodies of course:D)

The law was always reasonable force Garv the problem was it was up to the judge to decide. I believe the law change enables you to confront your intruders where previously that would of been a shadey area.

I'm sure someone will correct me though

Should firearms be legal?

Comments