Irish Gun Control - To Strict?

codex1 · 25-08-2012 12:00AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm half on your side and half totally against your arguments.

Target shooting is my hobby so I have a huge interest in the types of firearms available here in Ireland.

I have to take issue with your comment above. If somebody is a dick, then it might be too late to take away their guns. You won't know that they are a dick until they do something dumbass with their firearms.

I believe that gun control is a little too strict here in Ireland. However, the powers that be are totally correct with their fully auto centrefire ban. These are military weapons and should not be available to the general public. There is no reason for me or anybody else in Ireland to have one.

That said, I do believe that the CF pistol ban is totally ridiculous. Never has a legally held CF pistol been used to commit a crime in the state (open to correction) so how banning them cuts down gun crime is totally beyond me.

I'm a responsible person, very safe with my firearms but because of the stupid CF pistol laws, I can't take part in some of the competitions held at my club because I didn't have a CF pistol before the ban came in.

I favour gun control because guns shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly to anybody that fancies having one. If I had to pick the US system of gun control or the Irish system, then I'd reservedly pick the Irish system. The Irish system isn't that bad, it just needs a bit of tweaking here and there to iron out some of the dumb rules that were put into legislation by people who hadn't a fcuking clue about firearms.

I agree that people should have a need for a gun in order to get one. Irish legislation says that if you can prove that you need a high caliber rifle, you can get one. Why anybody needs a .50 cal rifle over here is beyond me. What would you be hunting with that? The longest target range here is 1300m. Plenty of smaller calibers (.308) would easily hit targets at that distance.

I don't agree with your "I want it so I should be allowed to get it" theory. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Given that no one can predict the future, the only gauge of a persons mental competency to own a gun is their past - both criminal history & firearms training. For this reason I stand by my original statement, if they get issued a licence are later found to violate the rules - take the guns away. How else would you determine this in an objective way?

I agree with you that a fully auto anything is not necessary for civilian purposes.

I don't agree with you on the .50 cals though, I love shooting a desert eagle & if I had the cash would absolutely have a barrett for hunting, both are a LOT of fun, sure they are a little excessive - but so what, why drive a Fiat if you can afford a BMW, not that I can - but would like the option to if I ever had enough spare money.

If I have earned the money, paid the tax, taken the training & proven myself responsible with smaller guns first - what's the problem?

(sorry for the double post - cannot see how to delete the dup)

It wasn't me! · 25-08-2012 12:33AM

Not a .50BMG, but the .50 calibre line has been crossed here, definitely, in the form of a .500 Nitro double rifle. Its owner has used it in Africa for big game.

Nodin · 25-08-2012 12:37AM

codex1 wrote: »

..........
Just wondering what people back home think about the current gun laws & the limitations such as the blanket ban on handguns, rifles limited to .22 & the slow / non-transparent process associated with obtaining a firearms licence?

Too strict.

gobnaitolunacy · 25-08-2012 12:40AM

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

Nodin · 25-08-2012 12:43AM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

Jaysus forbid somebody might want to shoot a target or two...

Manic Moran · 25-08-2012 12:52AM

Brown's not the worst person in the world. For example, his submission to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the State of California argued that the court overturn a handgun ban.

codex1 wrote: »

Come on yes they have lol, Jerry Brown is not doing the pro-gun crowd any favors - last year banned the open carry of non-loaded guns, retaining sales records of long guns and is currently trying to require ID checks & thumbprints taken for the purchase of ammo.

Actually, the banning of open carry is considered a good thing for us. It was a useless practice anyway due to (1) the fact that the firearm had to be unloaded, and (2) the fact that there were so many restrictions on it that it was impractical to begin with. Some 80% of the San Francisco was off-limits to open carry due to proximity to schools, for example.

On the other hand, this has now left concealed carry as the only even theoretically legal method to be armed. A recent court case in San Diego over the lack of CWP issuance was denied on the basis that the complainant still had the option of open carry. You'll never guess what the next court case is based on.

The thumb print thing was signed by Arnie, and cut down by the judiciary. I don't believe that Brown has ever made a statement on the concept. Long gun registration is not a massive inconvenience: We already have handgun registration, so he gets to appease his Democrats without really having major effect on those of us who want to shoot.

The .50 cal thing is crazy, I don't know for sure but I would wager the number of people hurt.....eh...what am I saying.....killed by a 50 cal round compared to 9mm, 45 etc.. has to be minuscule.

As I said, it's the only real balls-up which has occurred since I've been here.

MadsL · 25-08-2012 12:59AM

Nodin wrote: »

Jaysus forbid somebody might want to shoot a target or two...

Or win an Olympic medal.

Nodin · 25-08-2012 01:04AM

MadsL wrote: »

Or win an Olympic medal.

...but it would be a bad medal, won with a gun.....

Etm · 25-08-2012 01:05AM

Its not strict enough if you ask me

Nodin · 25-08-2012 01:06AM

Etm wrote: »

Its not strict enough if you ask me

Good thing we didn't then.

lorrieq · 25-08-2012 01:28AM

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

It wasn't me! · 25-08-2012 01:30AM

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

That's not really the point though, is it? The fact that you have no interest doesn't mean I don't want to go to Rio in four years, shooting for Ireland. Nor does your lack of interest signify that I shouldn't be free to pursue that goal.

MadsL · 25-08-2012 01:30AM

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

Sorry, what? Ban guns in Ireland because most people don't do shooting sports?
Should we ban professional chefs knives because most people are not chefs?

Nodin · 25-08-2012 06:32AM

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

Great. Lets ban everything that people don't like.

robindch · 25-08-2012 10:15AM

codex1 wrote: »

1. Strict gun control laws means that only criminals are then armed, law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

And criminals who know that their victims are likely to be armed, will arm themselves and will be prepared to use their weapon. That doesn't happen here in Ireland where most (all?) home-invasion crimes are done without firearms. Yes, I might get the sugar kicked out of me if I attack some thief in my hallway, but I'm not going to end up dead.

codex1 wrote: »

2. If a home-invasion occurs while you are at home, you can call the police, however while they are at best minutes away, seconds count during an a situation like this & you are on your own.

See response to (1).

codex1 wrote: »

3. A ban strips your rights & freedom, if you are not a criminal, are responsible & enjoy guns then why should you be prevented from legally owning them.

Rights: the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

Secondly, why shouldn't you own weapons? Because they're fucking dangerous, that's why.

The USA has gun-related deaths (suicide, mistakes, attack and defence) which are way, way, way beyond what any other developed nation suffers and the political power and financial clout of the NRA and the wider weapons-supply industry makes it impossible for the political class to deal with the issue. And so, the USA will continue to kill thousands every year for no reason. Still, at least they make good phallic substitutes.

MadsL · 25-08-2012 10:20AM

robindch wrote: »

the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

You do know what a militia is don't you? If you do, I wonder why you think the US army fills that role?

You might want to google "militia" before you reply, and consider the purpose of such a militia when the Constitution was written.

Darkginger · 25-08-2012 11:01AM

OP - when you lived in Ireland, did you worry about armed burglars breaking into your home? Did you feel under-protected without a gun in the house? Has this just become a concern since you moved to the US? If the answer's yes, you always worried about encountering an armed criminal in your home in Ireland, I would be surprised, and wonder whether it was in your nature to be paranoid. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, and you've only developed this fear since moving to the US, I'd wonder what you attribute that change to - it couldn't possibly be the fact that guns are more easily accessible over there, could it?

MadsL · 25-08-2012 11:05AM

Darkginger wrote: »

OP - when you lived in Ireland, did you worry about armed burglars breaking into your home? Did you feel under-protected without a gun in the house? Has this just become a concern since you moved to the US? If the answer's yes, you always worried about encountering an armed criminal in your home in Ireland, I would be surprised, and wonder whether it was in your nature to be paranoid. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, and you've only developed this fear since moving to the US, I'd wonder what you attribute that change to - it couldn't possibly be the fact that guns are more easily accessible over there, could it?

The crime rate wouldn't have any influence? The availability of guns the only possible factor? Please.

robindch · 25-08-2012 11:15AM

MadsL wrote: »

You might want to google "militia" before you reply, and consider the purpose of such a militia when the Constitution was written.

You might want to read the second amendment again which defines the purpose of the militia. And then note that there are no militias in the USA preserving the "security of a free state".

MadsL · 25-08-2012 11:19AM

Nope, but when "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." there is no barrier to the citizens forming one. That I would suggest was the intention to be able to keep government nicely mannered. Now, the US Military can never perform that function.

Mickey Dazzler · 25-08-2012 11:33AM

If I had a gun I would place it inside your bottom and pull the trigger.

MadsL · 25-08-2012 11:35AM

robindch wrote: »

You might want to read the second amendment again which defines the purpose of the militia. And then note that there are no militias in the USA preserving the "security of a free state".

Are you sure about that? Final Answer.

Irish_Elect_Eng · 25-08-2012 11:46AM

I would not like to see "US Style" gun laws here for many of the reasons that are outlined by other posters.

We also have 4 particularly Irish issues that need to considered:

(1) Our terrible relationship with alcohol.
(2) Our tragically high suicide rates among young males.
(3) High rates of gang crime in certain areas
(4) Our recent republican terrorist problems

How do you think that these 4 issues would be impacted by making guns easier to purchase/own?

Darkginger · 25-08-2012 12:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

The crime rate wouldn't have any influence? The availability of guns the only possible factor? Please.

It's a question, not a statement of fact - and what does the crime rate (which includes things like credit card fraud, vandalism, drunk and disorderly) have to do with feeling the need to be armed in your own home?

Heckler · 25-08-2012 12:59PM

Dear christ the misinformation and nonsense being spouted in this thread makes my head hurt. Thank god for Manic Moran and one or two others who actually know what they are talking about and can back it up.

BattleCorp · 25-08-2012 04:14PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

25-08-2012 05:15PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

I must say I'm with battlecorp. I think even enthusiasts should be allowed access to decent weapons, but they should abide by the "know what your f*cking doing or expect to be shot" rule.

Fuinseog · 25-08-2012 06:37PM

codex1 wrote: »

Dublin native now living in Montana for the last 6 years.

I used to have no interest in guns when I lived in Ireland apart from the odd Saturday clay pigeon shooting, so this was a non-issue for me.

After moving to Montana, I quickly learned that most homes around here have at least one gun & gun ownership is very common, a lot of locals believe it is a head of households responsibility to to own a gun in order to protect ones family & property - both as a deterrent & as a last resort.

Some of the common themes in the pro-ownership argument are:

1. Strict gun control laws means that only criminals are then armed, law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves. Lives could have been saved during the recent tragic shootings in the US, if just one armed & trained individual was present.

2. If a home-invasion occurs while you are at home, you can call the police, however while they are at best minutes away, seconds count during an a situation like this & you are on your own.

3. A ban strips your rights & freedom, if you are not a criminal, are responsible & enjoy guns then why should you be prevented from legally owning them. Being responsible means extensive mandatory training & passing a exam before being issued with a licence. Committing a felony over here strips you of the right to ever legally own a gun, as it should be.

I'll admit when I first got here, we where a little concerned about just how many guns where in circulation & how easy it was to get one (background check + training + cooling off period), after listening to the pro / con arguments I am more in favor of "relaxed" gun laws - within reason. I believe people should have a right to defend themselves, their families & their property, they should not be forced into submitting to thugs who can act without any worries.

Self defense aside, hunting & time spent at the range is a big family and community bonding experience over here, a lot of people go to the range after work for sport & to de-stress....sending a few dozen rounds down range is great to make you forget about work.

Just wondering what people back home think about the current gun laws & the limitations such as the blanket ban on handguns, rifles limited to .22 & the slow / non-transparent process associated with obtaining a firearms licence?

if some junkie breaks into your house here you are expected to lock yourself into your bedroom and call the guards. maybe tell the junkies where you keep the coffee or the tea while they help themselves to whatever they want.

the ban on firearms here only harms law abiding citizens. target shooters for example. the drug lords get guns anyway.

in america scumbags think twice before robbing you or breaking in if they think you are armed. granted they will be armed but if they think they are going to meet resistance where they could get hurt it would be no harm.

Fuinseog · 25-08-2012 06:39PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

it all depends on your local super.you might be allowed a certain weapon and your mate in another part of the country be denied the same weapon.

Witcher · 25-08-2012 06:41PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

it all depends on your local super.you might be allowed a certain weapon and your mate in another part of the country be denied the same weapon.

They're not weapons and there are processes to deal with applications which have been denied for no good reason. They can't just refuse it because they don't like firearms.

Irish Gun Control - To Strict?

Comments