Grizzly 45 wrote: » Dont you think thats a bit of a double standard?? You support strict gun laws but it was OK for your family members to break the law with you all conspiring in possesion of an illegal firearm???:p Were we to apply that to the most common easily accessible killer in our society the motor vechicle .We should have zero road deaths and zero traffic accidents.But we dont, all a gun liscense or drivers liscense is,is a permit to show you are entitled to drive and use a gun after passing certain criteria,nothing else. You cant regulate stupidity or off kilter mental problems. How far do you want to go with legislation There is plenty there on the law books,enforcing it would be a good start.
My point is about my family is that they didn't see keeping guns illeagily because they came out of the lawlessness of the war of independance, a gun was just something you kept in case you got a pot shot at a peeler. The gun just tended to be around after that. This meant that my dad and his brothers grew up not affording keeping a gun much respect and we regularly took dads guns out, he didnt give a toss. This was wrong.
The car comparison is daft, Im sorry it just is non runner for me. Cars are fundamental tool of modern society, guns to me and most people are weapons(neccessery in times of war) or Tools(neccessery for for certain sports). No you cant regulate for stupidity or acute mental health issues but you can, through strict enforcement of stringent regulations make sure that those that keep guns are like us keeping them for proper reasons and respect them for what they are.
The previous post from Sparks is interesting, The Swiss have a tradition of Militia, those that keep weapons are therefore trained and aware of the due respect they should be afforded. Im sure there are more sociological reasons but thats for another day.
More importantly I think it should be as difficult as possible for events like the ones that occur in the US to happen in our country.
Dalken wrote: » The car comparison is daft, Im sorry it just is non runner for me. Cars are fundamental tool of modern society
LB6 wrote: » Tonight - Armed and Dangerous - 9pm TV3http://entertainment.ie/TV_Listing/1...013/84/TV3.htm
Dalken wrote: » Can anyone acknowledge here that I am being reasonable? Why is it when someone calls for(and Im not saying I am) strict gun controls it gets so many hackles up amongst gun owners? I personally have never had any problem as a shooter with the firearms legislation in Ireland, I do think the fees are a bit high, but I've no problem with the content of the forms.
Dalken wrote: » It's a TV3 "documentary" I don't envisage that many will be talking about it around the watercooler tomorrow.
Dalken wrote: » I however am glad, evan as a long time gun owner, that we have the types of controls here around firearms. The reason we have very responsible gun owners(mostly) is because we have responsible gun controls, most people take owning a gun seriously unlike in other countries where it is akin to owning a hurley. Lets just try and keep it that way and stop pretending that we're victims because the tools of our sport happen to be dangerous - they are thats just a fact of life we have to live with.
extremetaz wrote: » There's very little that's actually reasonable in Irish firearms law.
extremetaz wrote: » There's very little that's actually reasonable in Irish firearms law. Security requirements - sure, fair enough Handling course - absolutely Justification for ownership - no problem with that Vetting of applicant - perfectly sensible No CF pistols - insulting! - amounts to blaming law abiding shooters for the actions of thieves and drug dealers who can get them without any hassle anyway. Licensing the firearm and not the owner - nonesense - you're either safe and equipped to own firearms or you're not. Registration, certainly. Individual firearm licencing is nothing but a joke. Pistol grips on rifles/shotguns - come off it would you! Moderators requiring a seperate application/justification - rediculous. Scopes incorperating Rangefinder and NV technology requiring seperate application/justification - unnecessary given vetting processes. Superintendents discretion on any of the above - farcical. Superintendents discretion wrt security requirements - farcical. Automatic classification of bullpup as restricted - nonesense. ...to that point... the whole notion of the "restricted" classification in the first place (refer to licencing the individual rather than the firearm). ....so at this point I'm curious - how is it exactly that you find all of the above to be reasonable and in the interest of public safety when it is the *intent* of criminal elements in society (who don't pay any heed to ANY of the above) that is the primary factor leading to public endangerment? This, as opposed to the actions of legitimate, licenced, owners who simply want the firearm(s) of their choosing, in the caliber and "wrapper" that they prefer, for use in their safe and legal chosen hobby? Excepting the four initial points which I quoted, there is near nothing which could be described as reasonable in Irish firearms law.
BattleCorp wrote: » Don't forget the 5 round rule for an unrestricted pistol. Especially dumb since most of the smallbore pistol competitions have shooting strings of 6(multi target and T&P) . Especially since nearly all revolvers in the world are made to take 6. If a rifle is considered safe with 10 rounds in the mag, why isn't a pistol considered the same? And also making target shooting illegal outside of a range but not actually saying what target shooting is. Technically it's illegal to set your sight outside of a licenced range. That's one law that if it was being followed 100%, would actually made it more dangerous to shoot.
Dalken wrote: » I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population,
juice1304 wrote: » Only because they are told to think that, When have you ever read anything positive about shooting. Alot of people don't like to have an opinion for themselves they like to read the local rag and regurgitate the drivel they have read, Instead of looking at it from both prospectives. Just like the lawmakers like to make laws based around james bond fantasy instead of reality.
Dalken wrote: » To be fair I dont think that shooting (and I am referring to game and deer shooting here) has got a hard time in the media in Ireland of late.
I have read a number of features on shooting in national newspapers over the past few years which definitley highlighted the positive aspects of the sport.
I also read one piece in the Times over Christmas which was critical of game shooting, which is fair enough people are entitled to different view points.
I take exception to the fact that you assume just because people dont agree with your sport that they are ignorant and being manipulated. 27 people shot dead in a school is not fantasy, nothing that horrific was ever written into a James Bond movie.
Dalken wrote: » Well Dermot Ahearne said he didnt want an American style gun culture and he's made right sure we won't have one. Not that a slight bit of realism in comparisons between like and like ever hurt anyone either!:rolleyes::rolleyes: I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population, they want as few high power weapons(this is gonna bite me) in the country as is possible so the legislation just sets out to make Ireland a particularly 'cold house' for those who wish to acquire them by legal means. Rubbish!!! Most people cant even differiante between a assault rifle and a semi automatic shotgun.Or know that a sniper rifle[read a deer rifle with a decent scope] cannot shoot five miles as assured by one Govt firearms expert in a cout of law in Limerick about three years ago. They just Baaa what opinions on "Weapons" the press and media tells them to have. Or what they know from Tour of Duty or Vice City, " Mutha fka killah in da Hood " game. Just look at The Sun[who else!:rolleyes:] a couple of weeks ago they were trying to scare the uninformed that the "Sandy Hook weapons " were on sale in the UK.Full cal semi auto rifles havent been available since 1988 post Hungerford,of which the Murdochian press inc The Sun were cheerleading . In fact what they had pics of were .22lr Ruger and AR lookalikes made by GSG. Of course the usual suspects started like GCN about the "need" to ban these,etc,etc. In short;most out there are fed an opinion on guns and that is formed by the media and Hollywood.Bad enough if people think that's reality,worse if they start making political policy with it. I going to keep playing devils advocate with this one cos I think it's an interest debate at the moment... Just remember what the fate was of that Scottish lawyer after the trial of Humanity Vs Lucifer:D:D:D:D:D
Well Dermot Ahearne said he didnt want an American style gun culture and he's made right sure we won't have one.
I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population, they want as few high power weapons(this is gonna bite me) in the country as is possible so the legislation just sets out to make Ireland a particularly 'cold house' for those who wish to acquire them by legal means.
I going to keep playing devils advocate with this one cos I think it's an interest debate at the moment...
Dalken wrote: » My comment on Sandyhook was referring to Juice1304's claim that public opinion was based on 'fantasy'. I am in no way trying to imply that anyone wasnt upset by those events. I think it's established that the opinion of the general public is staunchly anti gun for one reason or another, and that rag media will try and sensationalise or shock the public which only makes things worse and that politicians will jump on the band wagon and do what they do. If I can take this thread further then I'd like to ask people what regulations they would see as fair and workable in Ireland?? Ive stated that I am a shooter, I have shotguns, I had a center fire rifle until 6 years ago when I sold it, I do believe in regulation but I've put my hands up and say that the strict and sometimes daft regulations that Ive read about here dont neccessarily apply to me. So what would be a sensible level of regulation?
Sparks wrote: » I have to stop watching the programmes you lot recommend, it'll give me an ulcer. I wonder what that "criminologist" (is that to "legal expert" what "toothiologist" is to "dentist"?) would say if we passed on a link to the big red sticky at the top of this forum to him, or any of the guides on what you have to do to get a licence?
