How to drop your crime rate 20% - issue gun permits to residents

Blay wrote: »

Here's a Swiss child learning to fire the same rifle, someone in Ireland would probably pass out if they even saw that rifle;

wicklowstevo wrote: »

dont think id pass out but there would be a rush of blood to a certain area :D:D:D:D niiiiiice

A young girl along with a rifle, every jerk off gun nuts fantasy

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A young girl along with a rifle, every jerk off gun nuts fantasy

Hilarious, we like guns so much we masturbate over them! :pac: I thought it was slightly funny the first time you said it, then it was hilarious the second time, but the third time was the best you really landed it, so please keep saying the same thing over and over, it's comedy gold.

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/

Illinois used to have a ban on private handgun carrying, and Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, however following a Supreme Court decision, Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and private registrations are on track to ht 100,000 by the end of the year.

Whilst correlation is not causation, Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Time to rethink Ireland's gun laws?

Yeah, as we can see, that's solved all the problems in countries where gun laws are liberal.

Nino Brown wrote: »

He didn't shoot the burglar, if you're not willing to shoot them leave the gun where it is.

1. Where does it say he didn't shoot at the burglar?

2. You are also switching the goal posts, since you never mentioned shooting any burglars initially. Typically if you shoot someone, they won't

But in any case the number of cases where a firearm is effective far outweighs cases like this one, as I'm sure you noticed searching for that one. Also interesting is that the burglar was not armed, despite all the arguments that armed homeowners means armed burglars.

I Googled 'man murdered in home robbery gun'. The first link was from less than an hour ago, a guy who pulled a be gun on burglars and was shot (along with the rest of his family) as a result. The second was to a guy killed outside his newly built home suspected to be connected with his criminal past. The third was the crime.ie homepage, then the journal.ie Garda page, then the criminal history guy again, then this story.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Nino Brown wrote: »

Hilarious, we like guns so much we masturbate over them! :pac: I thought it was slightly funny the first time you said it, then it was hilarious the second time, but the third time was the best you really landed it, so please keep saying the same thing over and over, it's comedy gold.

Oh look the angry gun lover wants to shoot me now. :rolleyes:

garv123 wrote: »

He wudnt be able to shoot you because you and your mates with hammers would disarm him before he got a shot off :pac:

:rolleyes:

If he was lucky he might get a shot off, but it would be his last.

Blay wrote: »

As long as he takes two of you down with him he still wins:pac:

He'd probably manage to get all three of ya, he'd take one of you out and the other two would slip in their pools of piss as they run away..plenty of time for a reload:pac:

Oh look, another gun nut movie fantasy is whipped out. Killing three people dead with one shot.

This thread in places must qualify as been the boards.ie ambassador for the Daily Mail crime reporting section, with comments that wouldn’t be too out of place on the comments section of the Mail Online. In fact it’s so comical in places that I’m still scratching my head as to whether people are been genuine, or subtlety taking the mickey out of right wing commentaries and their views on law and order, along with crime and punishment. We already have a right to bear arms in this country, but only for those who meet the strictest of criteria and have had background checks, e.g. no criminal record. Do we really want our legal system to reflect that of the American one and for gun crimes and homicides to become rampant? Of course not, but that is what many of the pro-gun advocates here would be responsible for creating if they got their way, perhaps not with the intention of doing so, but responsible for nonetheless.

Regarding Switzerland and their gun laws, has it occurred to anybody that (a) just because some random country has lax gun owner laws that work for them, why we in Ireland should too just because of that fact, and (b) has it occurred to anybody that perhaps what might work in Switzerland, wouldn’t work in Ireland? For instance I’d imagine that they have an extremely responsible and culturally ingrained attitude toward gun ownership, and a centuries old tradition of gun ownership and culture, and in light of these two facts, I’d imagine that’s why it’s safe for Switzerland to maintain lax legislation in relation to gun ownership. Also, I highly doubt that Switzerland has the same gurrier culture to the extent that we have here, nor the same lax approach and culture we have in this country when it comes to law and order. I’d imagine that the Swiss are similar to the Germans in their strict adherence to rules, e.g. if the traffic light is red, you do not cross the road, simple as.

Unfortunately, Ireland has a completely different culture to say Switzerland in this regard. Not only are the Swiss well adapted to the responsibilities of gun ownership, but seem to have the ability to respect rules within greater society unlike in many sectors of Irish society where the law is taken with a grain of salt. I honestly believe given this factor, and given the enormous gurrier element we have in this country, that replicating Swiss gun laws would not be feasible.

Has it also occurred to anybody advocating gun ownership rights for all in this country to look at our other unique attribute within Western Europe, aka. having a volatile region – Northern Ireland – with religious and cultural hostilities that wouldn’t be out of place within a 17th century European History textbook, and a region that could explode into violence yet again at any given moment, and with an already shaky peace process keeping things calm and peaceful? Yet scratch under the surface of the already shaky foundations of the Good Friday Agreement, and it’s easy to see that hostilities could break out there at any given moment.

In light of the above, would it really be a good idea for firearms to be so easily available? What about the vigilante elements from both sides of the border and from both a Republican and Loyalist background availing and taking advantage of reformed gun laws? Between easier access to firearms for both, and with the potential for a black market economy in gun selling and distribution, along with gunrunning, it’s safe to say that Northern Ireland could easily explode into violence, just as it did so during the 1970’s, if not to an even greater extent. Does Switzerland have a problem on it’s doorstep such as Northern Ireland? The answer is clearly, that no it does not.

As for gun law arguments within the US, they are built on a very shaky foundation, aka. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution. Within the highly urbanised and populous United States, this 18th century text is clearly out of date, and if anything has been out of date for nearly a century at this stage. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution was written during a time when (a) the former colonies had poorly organised bands of militias that on their own would easily be overcome by well organised armies such as those of the British, French or Spanish, (b) an unsettled frontier whereby settlers were vulnerable to attacks from Native Americans, (c) absence of a police force and inefficient local attorneys and magistrates to deal with crimes, (d) a frontier bountiful in wild game, so that hunting was of equal importance to agriculture in the frontier diet, e.g. particularly during crop failures or harsh winters and (e.) in case of a foreign attack, that militias could be rapidly former in order to try and fend off any potential enemy.

Obviously none of the above situations apply to the modern United States, which make the pro 2nd amendment nuts seem ridiculous, not least because they are taking the amendment completely out its original context, and failing to see the reasons that it was put into force in the first place. These individuals do not seem to realise that while there may have been logic in the right to bear arms in a primarily agricultural society with an unsettled frontier, and with an absence of a military to rival the European powers, or a police force such as what is in place in modern times to maintain law and order etc., that within today’s United States, by sticking stubbornly to the right to bear arms, regardless of the logic behind the constitutional framers original intention, and the context in which it was written, are doing more damage than good.

Ironically though, and we have such individuals here in this country, as they do in other countries as demonstrated by the amount of ****e that the Daily Mail produces on a daily basis –these same pro- 2nd amendment individuals within America, who are often the loudest shouters for the right to bear arms are the greatest of hypocrites when it comes to the US constitution. They pick and choose which elements of the constitution they would like to see remain intact, aka. areas such as the right to bear arms. Yet ask those same individuals to respect the US founders wishes, most notably great enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson and Madison, when it came to the issue of separation of church and state, and they do not want to hear anything of it. How ironic, the same gun nut advocates that wax lyrical about their right to bear arms as protected by the constitution, are often amongst the same crowd of individuals that would have the US democratic and justice system based on principles that wouldn’t be too dissimilar to those of the Salem Witch Trials, as opposed to the Enlightenment ideals of the founders, of which the United States was essentially founded on. So it just goes to show as evidenced by their hypocrisy, that the pro-gun lobby in America are no group that we should be taking lessons from, not least regarding the issue of gun ownership.

And once again in relation to Ireland and any proposed changes to the firearms laws, would it really make you feel better that you could own a handgun to protect your DVD player, Television or whatever other possessions, when every gurrier on the street, or provos on both the Republican and Loyalist sides could have an equal access to firearms? Would it really be worth mutilating Northern Ireland once again, and turning mere gurriers into experienced marksmen, just so you can protect your possessions? Think about all of above before uttering stupid statements such as, “I should have the right to have my gun in case Johno or Tomo break into my house to steal X, Y and Z”.