Public poll on firearms ban

Chopperdog

www.sundayherald.com


Morning all,

The homepage of the Sunday Herald (U.K. based paper) are conducting an on-line poll asking the public whether they would like to see a total ban on firearms.
I am sure that you will check out this site and do what is required.
Cheers....

TomBeckett

I dont think that we should be too concerned about the goodie goodies who will vote on some paper poll F**K them sure cars kill poople in the wrong hands too sure we will have a poll tomorrow on banning all cars im sure in this country there are more people killed on our roads every year than are shot!!

Chopperdog

TomBeckett wrote:

I dont think that we should be too concerned about the goodie goodies who will vote on some paper poll F**K them sure cars kill poople in the wrong hands too sure we will have a poll tomorrow on banning all cars im sure in this country there are more people killed on our roads every year than are shot!!

Possibly so, Yet wouldn't it be alot better for us if these paper polls were actually showing results in favour of us shooters, and the way to achieve this is to vote in them rather than going off on a goodies versus 'us' tirade.

Do bear in mind that politicians and legislators quite often listen to the greater public opinion and why shouldn't we use this to our benefit for once?
( P.S. Have you viewed the poll results so far ?, they are not looking too bad at all.)

Sparks

TomBeckett wrote:

I dont think that we should be too concerned about the goodie goodies who will vote on some paper poll

im sure in this country there are more people killed on our roads every year than are shot!!

True. Equally true (and far less palatable when expressed so coldly, I suspect) is that far more children were killed on the roads than in schools by sociopathic child molesters armed with legally-held firearms in 1996 and that therefore the car was the item in need of more legal controls; but in the court of public opinion, cold fact doesn't always seem to carry the day. And we can bemoan that fact indefinitely, but it'd be more productive to take it into account.

Look on the poll as an opportunity to point out that we don't agree with their proposition instead of remaining the silent, overruled majority.

seamusgi4szw

Re' Sunday Herald vote,
I think it is very important that we take part in surveys such as this, we must make our voices heard otherwise we will wake up some morning to hand our firearms in to the local station.:eek:
A lot of people take a very simplistic view of things and would be willing to believe the propaganda of the No Guns lobby. The atrocious crime at Dunblane was committed by one man, a man who did not slip through the net as often reported, but who was allowed to have guns through the ineptitude of his local Scottish police force. The Scout Association removed this man years before the atrocity. The way forward is through strict vetting by applicants both by the police on a national register and with the local gun clubs, who should have first hand knowledge of any applicant.
I see nothing wrong with with stricter controls such as we now have in N.I. The 5/6 months wait, the vetting through your doctor, referees etc, will actually make our hobby more secure in the long run if it keeps the lunatics at bay. We are not responsible for the criminals in our midst but we must make ourselves responsible for our membership.
We must police our own organisations, to sit back and wait is to lose the battle.
Anyway, nough said, go to www.sundayherald.com and vote, vote, vote.:)

Vegeta

done

Sparks

Going well so far:

Mufflets

just done.
Why not ban high buildings to prevent people falling to their deaths?:D
M

Clare gunner

The way forward is through strict vetting by applicants both by the police on a national register and with the local gun clubs, who should have first hand knowledge of any applicant.
I see nothing wrong with with stricter controls such as we now have in N.I. The 5/6 months wait, the vetting through your doctor, referees etc, will actually make our hobby more secure in the long run if it keeps the lunatics at bay. We are not responsible for the criminals in our midst but we must make ourselves responsible for our membership.
We must police our own organisations, to sit back and wait is to lose the battle.
Anyway, nough said, go to www.sundayherald.com and vote, vote, vote.:)

[/QUOTE]

And what happens when the next nutjob gets thru all these controls.Goes gets his gun and checks out the nearest Mc Donalds????What more of your personal freedom or stricter controls will you submit to or say this will work??
It comes a point where the invaseivness will become too much.What we really should be saying is;show us that these new intrusions on our privacy and liberty will work,then we will support them.If not work with the law as it stands.More law does not equal less crime.After all if the law had been enforced properly on Hamilton,Dunblane wouldnt have happened.

Sparks

It does have to be noted that stricter controls on firearms licencing were put in place after Hungerford; they didn't prevent Dunblane. The problem was, and remains, the lack of resources and training the police were, and are, forced to operate with.

johngalway

I voted no, obviously

It was 10% yes and 90% no at the time of my post.

I wasn't expecting such a large majority, but I'm very happy to see it!

John

Edited to add that I agree with Mufflets, also add electricity and the wheel to the ban, just incase like.

Rovi

As of 6.25pm-

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]YES - [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]9%[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]NO - [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]91%

[/FONT] I presume this is NOT the desired result :rolleyes::rolleyes:

.

Umiq88

most of deaths by firearms would have happened by illegal firearms i would have tought i can hardly think of more than 2 or 3 recent deaths by leagally held firearms

i better policing and stricter punishments should be inforced first degree murder should be given death sentence then a few people would think twice before doing it not just life where they get out after 10 years on good behaviour because they've been "rehabilitated" and say they're sorry criminals get off far to easy in this country. They're better off than alot of people the way they're treated

i cant remember the figure but it was some huge amount of the tax payers money to keep a prisoner ever week

Sparks

most of deaths by firearms would have happened by illegal firearms i would have tought i can hardly think of more than 2 or 3 recent deaths by leagally held firearms

Stipulate that the death has to be as the result of a crime rather than a hunting accident or similar, and the number falls even lower!

first degree murder should be given death sentence then a few people would think twice before doing it

Seriously doubtful. Most murders are not committed with a great deal of forethought and consideration. And most of our violent crime tends to be relatively unpremeditated. Planned, considered, and executed murders are exceptionally rare, thankfully; and usually done by those with mental health problems. Basicly, the deterrent either does not have time to take effect, or the offender is immune to it.

Besides which, the events in Donegal related in the Morris Tribunal should put the thought of an irrevocable sentence out of everyone's head pretty quickly.

Riggser

Just voted. Yes-9%, No-91%.

Clare gunner

YES 8% NO 92% just voted on this .QED methinks.:D

Clash

Ten years on from the Dunblane tragedy, should all firearms be banned?
Response Votes

YES 7%
NO 93%

99% would be a good target

jaycee

08:33 AM


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]YES[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]7%[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]NO[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]93%[/FONT]

seamusgi4szw

YOUR SPORT NEEDS U

Vote now,

Make your voice heard, even with the massive support the hunts had, they lost out, not to mention the hand gun ban in the UK. We COULD still go the same way.

www.sundayherald.com

Still 93% no
7% yes

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

Stipulate that the death has to be as the result of a crime rather than a hunting accident or similar, and the number falls even lower!


Seriously doubtful. Most murders are not committed with a great deal of forethought and consideration. And most of our violent crime tends to be relatively unpremeditated. Planned, considered, and executed murders are exceptionally rare, thankfully; and usually done by those with mental health problems. Basicly, the deterrent either does not have time to take effect, or the offender is immune to it.

Besides which, the events in Donegal related in the Morris Tribunal should put the thought of an irrevocable sentence out of everyone's head pretty quickly.

Have you ever read any news articles about limerick, practically every murders here is planned, by planning i mean, "I hate Mr. X so lets call over to his house or where-ever X hangs out and stab/shoot/beat him to death" Thats all the planning it takes.

Also the shooting in Dublin over the weekend, would you call that premeditated or not.

Sparks

Vegeta wrote:

Have you ever read any news articles about limerick

Like everyone else in the country, yes; but I'm not daft enough just yet to believe everything I read in the press
Plus, as brutal, offensive and subversive to our way of life as the gangland killings are, they can't be considered in with "ordinary" murders, their nature is vastly different; and that nature, by the way, also mitigates the deterrent effect you're looking to see imposed by harsher sentences.

Also the shooting in Dublin over the weekend, would you call that premeditated or not.

No. I'd call it reckless disregard for human life, or manslaughter; but unless it can be proven that he wanted to specifically kill who he killed, a person can't be convicted of premeditated murder. Which means that had he lived, he would have been convicted of manslaughter.
So long as he got the maximum sentence for the crime, and so long as the DoJ let him serve the full term, that wouldn't have been so horrendous though.

Cravez

Done

Vegeta

But Sparks i'm sure you'd agree that the majority of the murders in this country are gang-land or sectarian which makes them the "ordinary" murders.

My main point is that i don't agree when you say that most murders in this country are not premeditated, especially when it comes to firearms.

If those guys in dublin left the pub/club to go home and get a gun to come back and fire through the windows, i think its a little more than manslaughter, because they had time to think about it/plan it, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing and secondly if they just wanted to break the windows of the pub they could have just used a brick, using a gun indicates a much more lethal purpose.

also if a guy put a bomb in my home which was intended to kill me but killed all my family instead would that be manslaughter

oh and to be honest i have never bought a newspaper in my life, everything i read about limerick news was on a web site called alive in Limerick (as i live in limerick), which has since closed down, where a guy would actually give very good accounts of crime in limerick and even go to court to watch the trials

Sparks

But Sparks i'm sure you'd agree that the majority of the murders in this country are gang-land or sectarian which makes them the "ordinary" murders.

I'm not so sure Veg. I'd want to check the statistics first. The gang-land and paramilitary murders get far more press time, but that doesn't make them the majority.

If those guys in dublin left the pub/club to go home and get a gun to come back and fire through the windows, i think its a little more than manslaughter, because they had time to think about it/plan it, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing

Not unless they were targeting the person killed. The fact that they went away and came back with a firearm is not something that affects whether it was murder or manslaughter (you can go from self-defence to murder in the space of a few seconds, don't forget, the defining characteristic of murder is that you must plan to kill a specific person, not how much preperation the offender went through before committing the offence); but it would reflect heavily on the sentencing.

As I said, if the maximum sentence was imposed, it makes no odds if you call it murder or manslaughter; because in both cases, the maximum sentence is life. From the point of view of what effect it has, they're equivalent. (From the point of view of seeing justice done, though, manslaughter is the better charge to bring because it's easier to prove).

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

I'm not so sure Veg. I'd want to check the statistics first. The gang-land and paramilitary murders get far more press time, but that doesn't make them the majority.


Not unless they were targeting the person killed. The fact that they went away and came back with a firearm is not something that affects whether it was murder or manslaughter (you can go from self-defence to murder in the space of a few seconds, don't forget, the defining characteristic of murder is that you must plan to kill a specific person, not how much preperation the offender went through before committing the offence); but it would reflect heavily on the sentencing.

As I said, if the maximum sentence was imposed, it makes no odds if you call it murder or manslaughter; because in both cases, the maximum sentence is life. From the point of view of what effect it has, they're equivalent. (From the point of view of seeing justice done, though, manslaughter is the better charge to bring because it's easier to prove).

I have very little experience with Irish law so I'd take your word on it Sparks

But I just have a hard time believing they would get convicted of manslaughter after firing a gun through the window. After all most guns are designed to kill, he shot through the window intending to kill someone. Surely it cant matter who he killed it should be murder.

As i said what if someone put a bomb in my car intending to kill me but my wife got in the car first and she died, is that manslaughter because you said for it to be murder one must plan to kill a specific person.

I know this is probably just the harsh reality of the system we live in but i cant believe they'd get manslaughter. You point out that the sentence is the same so i suppose justice gets done at the end of the day

civdef

Whatever about the ins and outs of reckless disregard for human life and the definition of murder (an issue that has made it to the Supreme Court more than once), this thread is not the place to discuss it - perhaps Legal Discussion?

Double Barrel

94%
That's also the probability for the poll NOT to be reported accurately...:(
Vote early and .......:D

Sparks

True DB, but better 94% against banning than 94% for, even in such an unrepresentative poll!

Clare gunner

[

But I just have a hard time believing they would get convicted of manslaughter after firing a gun through the window. After all most guns are designed to kill, he shot through the window intending to kill someone. Surely it cant matter who he killed it should be murder.

All guns are designed to kill.Cant think of using mine for hammering in nails.:D

As i said what if someone put a bomb in my car intending to kill me but my wife got in the car first and she died, is that manslaughter because you said for it to be murder one must plan to kill a specific person.

Nope,that is premediated murder.Reason ;you sat down, planned the hit,aquired
and built the bomb,planted it ,or conspired with somone to plant it,detonated it,and killed somone with it.It is a murder charge.It is the actual intent and planning to kill that makes it a murder,not whom it kills.Even if it misses the internded target.

As for Limerick,the Keane murders,were tried as murders because a group sat down and planned to do the two Keanes in.The rest of the shooting here at houses,etc are if they killed somone would be classified as manslaughter,because the gurrier would only have to say I was only goin to frighten them.Ditto the idiot who shot the girl in a night club here in town five years ago,he was aiming at his ex wife,but hit an innocent.He went down for murder.Brendan O Donnel ,the same thing ,but he claimed insanity,thus it was reduced due to his mental capacity.

Logically that scumbag would have been, or should have been done for murder,had he lived.But it would be argued down here by a good defence counselthat he hadn't set out to kill somone,just scare them,as he was drugged up,etc etc.It would have proably ended up with reckless discharge,possesion and manslaughter.
Anyway,he got INMO summary and final justice,and no great loss,as he saved us the taxpayers alot of money with trials,jail time etc.A hole in the ground is still cheap.