Ownership of guns.

estebancambias

Lol, that is typical FG.

Manic Moran

biko wrote:

OP, when you look at it the amendment in the US is not even valid for private citizens to own guns. It's for arming militia, and also outdated. 1791 in America is a whole different world than 2007.

That is not the majority legal opinion these days. (Besides, the Militia is defined by US law as every able-bodied male between ages of 17 and 45, plus others). Neither is it the opinion of the US Dept of Justice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Keep an eye on Parker vs DC, which should be cropping up in the US Supreme Court in the next few months. This is the Court of Appeals ruling, and it's come down firmly on the individual rights side.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Investigation after investigation shows that guns in the hands of citizens increases innocent deaths, not the other way around.

It also increases deaths of those who could do with killing and increases numbers of lives saved which would not otherwise have survived. I note the interesting statistic involving the huge reduction of murders in Florida since they legalised concealed carry, vs the huge increase in murders in DC since they banned handguns.

There are other benefits, however. I live in California: California law allows me to shoot burglars. Burglary rates are very low around these parts for some reason. Can't imagine why. At a more normal level, however, there are plenty of examples of law-abiding folk using firearms for good as well as non-law-abiding folk using them for bad. Firearms sales in Connecticut shot up last week a result of this one http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html?_r=1&em&ex=1186891200&en=ee43803c7997cf45&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin. Similarly, one should note the spike in firearms ownership and pro-gun legislation (Such as 'The government cannot order the confiscation of weapons in an emergency) after Katrina. It's all very well to say 'nobody needs a gun' today..until you need one.

Then someone will say "But what about the shooting in the church in today's news? Three people were killed by easy firearms availability!" (Disregarding the fact that it seems none of the church's members were armed and able to defend themselves).

On the other hand, also in today's news, I see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/201303.html ("Bruce Flanders, 54, a clerk at the Super Stop Food Store in Pembroke Pines, stared down the barrel of a shotgun Sunday afternoon, then pulled the trigger of his own handgun and shot one of two would-be robbers."), http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=88918 ("Police say a man shot the owner of Avitar Graphics during a robbery. The owner shot back and hit the suspect. He died at Shands."). The day before, a chap with a firearm came to the aid of a policeman who was involved in a shootout.


Now, the distinction here is that Ireland is not the US. With a population of 4million, there are but a mere quarter-million legally held firearms in private circulation. There is generally much less chance of someone in Ireland being in a position wherin it would really be quite handy to be armed. Thus the current Irish system which is geared towards recreational and competition shooting is quite satisfactory for the conditions prevalent.

As ' democracy', we are entitled to own guns for our protection, but no, not in good ol' Eire

That's not an issue of democracy at all, unless you're talking larger scale, are worried that the government isn't really listening to you and you need to make a point. I seem to vaguely recall something of that nature happening in Ireland around 1920 or so. And 1916, while I think of it. Those in Ireland who would quickly disparage the concept of the private citizenry holding firearms to preserve their freedoms would be blithely forgetting that their grandparents or great-grandparents were doing precisely that in order to establish the country in the first place. It wasn't people holding signs and demonstrating outside of Dublin Castle that brought about Irish independence, after all. It was Paddy O'Shea, the farmer or banker, with a Mauser. You could doubtless argue that that was 80 years ago, we don't need to worry about this sort of thing any more. Which may be true today. But if it becomes not true tomorrow, what are you going to do about it if you've been disarmed?

The issue of personal defense is nothing to do with democracy, it's an issue of personal responsibilty vs communal responsibility. Police can't go everywhere at once and stop every crime. Their most common role is to show up after the crime is completed, draw a line around the body if required, then find out who did it. And usually, they're good at it. Which is fine for society at large, but not much consolation to the victim. It's a case of 'where do you balance the idea of letting the community agencies deal with the problem of crimes against the person compared to the chances of your being the statistic with reference to those crimes?' Indeed, US Caselaw up to the Supreme Court has solidly confirmed the concept that the police are not responsible for your (the individual person's) safety. After all, that would mean you could sue the police every time something bad happened to you. This leaves solely yourself to rely on.

I happen to be pretty capable with a firearm. I shot 'Expert' on my annual qualification with the Army on Saturday on the combat pistol range. Given that I am capable of defending myself and my family from those with fewer scruples than I, I see absolutely no reason why I, a law abiding citizen, should not be permitted to do so. If I'm going to be a statistic, I'd rather be a member of the group of people who used a firearm for a defensive purpose (estimates vary from 760,000 a year at the lowest end to over 3.5million a year at the top end) than the group of people categorised as 'minding their own business, but were killed anyway'

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp seems to be a fairly neutral crowd.

NTM

coyote6

Manic - Very well said, as usual!

BlitzKrieg

I happen to be pretty capable with a firearm. I shot 'Expert' on my annual qualification with the Army on Saturday on the combat pistol range. Given that I am capable of defending myself and my family from those with fewer scruples than I, I see absolutely no reason why I, a law abiding citizen, should not be permitted to do so. If I'm going to be a statistic, I'd rather be a member of the group of people who used a firearm for a defensive purpose (estimates vary from 760,000 a year at the lowest end to over 3.5million a year at the top end) than the group of people categorised as 'minding their own business, but were killed anyway'

While I agree with alot you said, I have one small question about the last bit.

Do you feel that your training and experiance in the US military has thought you to respect your ownership of a firearm?

I ask this because my main concern about laxed gun laws is that I believe that the vast majority of people who buy firearms legally fall into either the same catagory of the OP or into people who will turn to using it in the most idiotic of situations or of course use it for criminal gains.

the_syco

Manic Moran wrote:

I happen to be pretty capable with a firearm. I shot 'Expert' on my annual qualification with the Army on Saturday on the combat pistol range.

Respect:cool: Congratulations.

=-=

Oh, and criminals just need to know how to shoot. They won't have to worry about not having a license, as they're f**ked anyhoo's if caught. Law abiding people need to have a license just to hold a gun.

tuxy

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I believe that the vast majority of people who buy firearms legally fall into either the same catagory of the OP or into people who will turn to using it in the most idiotic of situations or of course use it for criminal gains.

What do base this belief on?
Have you ever talked to people who are members of a gun club?
I joined a gun club this year and have found most gun owners to take it very seriously. The reason I own a gun is shooting(both target and game) is an enjoyable activity the same as golf or football ect..

Also if someone has ever spent time in jail they will not be granted a license for a gun.
It's easy to lose a gun licence but very difficult to get it back.
The vast majority of gun crime in Ireland is committed by someone who does not legally own the gun.

One thing I would change is that it should be mandatory to take safety course before buying a gun. But that's going off topic so I won't say any more about it here.

Manic Moran

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Do you feel that your training and experiance in the US military has thought you to respect your ownership of a firearm?

No.

Something to bear in mind is that I started out my firearms career as someone raised in Ireland. Outside of UCD's club shooting air rifles, and the occasional clay pigeon, I had no exposure to firearms. I certainly had no exposure to personal ownership of such. In the FCA I was introduced to centre-fire rifles, pistols and the belt-fed machinegun. Still, however, this had no bearing on the concept of civilian ownership and use, just it gave an appreciation for safe handling of weapons. After all, after a day at the range, all weapons were locked up and placed under guard in the arms building.

This also applies to the US military. Believe it or not, the US military as an organisation isn't too hot on people carrying guns around (though the members thereof almost universally support it). Those guys looking to shoot up Ft Dix a few months ago would have had about as easy a time of it as Cho had in Virginia Tech: State CCWs are not honoured on bases, and all weapons and ammo are locked away, leaving only scattered MP patrols who are armed.

As a result, when I purchased my first firearm, a pistol, it was almost a thing to be scared of. I'd handle it gingerly and with care, as if it might suddenly go off of its own accord. I would keep it locked up in accordance with standard military practise, and certainly would not have considered carrying one for defense. After a while, however, I began to realise that such an attitude was totally unfounded. It's a piece of metal and plastic, a tool which does nothing more than I make it do, and nothing less. As a tool, it can do good, or it can do ill, but since I am in sole control of it, I can control if it does good or ill. However, I cannot control if others do good or ill to me or others. I have since taken to leaving one of my weapons loaded at all times. Local county policy prohibits me from carrying in public, otherwise I would do so as well.

As a result, there are only two issues at play. One is morality: Am I going to go about doing illegal things with my firearm? The other is safety: Will I violate rules of firearm safety? The latter, the Army has helped with, but the rules of safety are so simple that military training is hardly a requirement. The former is something which the Army has no effect over.

I ask this because my main concern about laxed gun laws is that I believe that the vast majority of people who buy firearms legally fall into either the same catagory of the OP or into people who will turn to using it in the most idiotic of situations or of course use it for criminal gains.

On what basis do you have this belief? I sense some stereotyping going on. Again, I point out that there are nearly a quarter-million legally-held firearms in Ireland (OK, 225,000) Say 150,000 or so owners. How many of these Irish people do you honestly believe are trigger-happy or criminally-inclined? I've certainly not noted too many instances of legally-owned firearms use/display on RTE. A couple a year, perhaps. This also applies to the 50% or so of households in the US which have a firearm. As a newspaper pointed out after VA Tech: One gun owner went on a rampage that day. Almost 60 million gun owners did not. The illegal use of legally purchased firearms, though newsworthy when it happens, is so rare as to be a statistical blip.

NTM

eoin5

Good website that Manic.

Having guns for protection just seems odd to me. Theres just too much of a death threat with a gun using live ammo. Its utterly crazy in my view to even pull a gun on someone if he/she is just robbing your car/store etc. If the thief is carrying a gun also then chances are someone going to get shot whereas if the thief is the only one with a gun then theres considerably less risk of any loss of life. I dont know what kind of atmosphere thats like to live in but I dont think I'd enjoy it. Its also the mentality that would lead a country support a pre-emptive strike against another.

Saying that the death toll is offset by a higher contingent of "those who could do with killing" really doesnt justify anything. Who made average Joe Gunman judge, jury and executioner? Who wants a country full of self righteous potential killers? If Mr Bruce Flanders didnt have a handgun there would have been one less shooting probably. Surely the chances were Bruce wasnt going to be shot and armed robbery just doesnt warrant any sort of escalated risk such as armed clerks. The same goes for break ins and other material criminal activities.

There is a flaw in this pacifist approach, and that would be assault and rape. Again the answer shouldnt be personal handguns surely, tasers and/or mace perhaps? There must be some alternatives.

Socially its all too much on edge in my book. The risk of the temporally insane guy who shoots up his family or the son who steals his dads gun to shoot the guy who takes his lunch money or the wife who shoots the husband because he slept with her sister etc is just too great when just under half US households (in 93/94, probably changed since) have a gun. Then theres the accidents to take into account.

I have to mention that the drop of firearm homocide in Florida from '87 to '96 after the right-to-carry law was passed seems opposite to the statistics for America in general. Going by that website again in '86 there were 9 states with the right-to-carry law and by '98 there were 31 and the firearm homicide rate increased by 14%. I'm cherry picking there but who doesnt

Manic Moran

eoin5 wrote:

Theres just too much of a death threat with a gun using live ammo.

That's the whole point!

Its utterly crazy in my view to even pull a gun on someone if he/she is just robbing your car/store etc. If the thief is carrying a gun also then chances are someone going to get shot whereas if the thief is the only one with a gun then theres considerably less risk of any loss of life.

If a thief is pointing a gun at you, he has already indicated that he believes it's worth killing over. Further, if you don't believe the thief would shoot, why would you hand over the money/car keys/whatever? There are also ample examples of occasions where those who were totally compliant were still killed. To quote the English philosopher John Locke on being faced by a robber: "“I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else." In other words, you are suggesting that I leave my life fully in the hands of someone who has already proven immoral enough to rob me. I don't like that option much.

Here's an example from two days ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20230167/

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - A 41-year-old man stormed a beauty salon and bludgeoned four grandmothers with a hammer, fracturing one’s skull, before making off with less than $90, police said.

The women, aged 56 to 76, did not resist but were beaten anyway, witnesses said. At least one required surgery.

Yes, I can see how compliant defenselessness is so appealing.

Its also the mentality that would lead a country support a pre-emptive strike against another.

I think you're pushing it, there.

Who made average Joe Gunman judge, jury and executioner?

Joe Public, by way of the Constitution and the legislature. Castle Doctrine laws are being passed in more and more states as it is, for example. I point out that the right to use lethal force in self defense is quite enshrined in British law as well, and as a consequence (since Irish Common Law derives greatly from that of the UK), Irish. It just happens that US law makes it easier to carry out that right.

Surely the chances were Bruce wasnt going to be shot and armed robbery just doesnt warrant any sort of escalated risk such as armed clerks.

You can say that, as you're not Bruce. Here, I'll hand you a revolver. Would you play a game of Russian Roulette? Perhaps a one-in-six chance is too rich for you? What if it was one-in-100? Would you still pull the trigger? One in a thousand? You may recall the recent controversy of the execution of one Tookie Williams in California. The low statistics of being shot after full compliance certainly didn't come out in favour of his victims, did they? What if you were Mrs Bruce Flanders, would the low statistics have been much of a consolation had he been shot after the fact? As the old phrase goes, live by the sword, die by the sword. If you go around threatening people with lethal force during the carrying out of your illegal activities, I don't think it's unreasonable to receive equal treatment in return.

Again the answer shouldnt be personal handguns surely, tasers and/or mace perhaps? There must be some alternatives.

Little is quite as effective, either psychologically or physically, as a sidearm.

Going by that website again in '86 there were 9 states with the right-to-carry law and by '98 there were 31 and the firearm homicide rate increased by 14%. I'm cherry picking there but who doesnt

False conclusion: It's quite possible that a decrease in RTC states was over-ridden by an increase in Non-RTC states. This might particularly be the case since states with large cities (eg California, New York, Illinois, DC) are not RTC states (or indeed have outright bans), yet most murders happen in cities.

NTM

tuxy

Manic Moran what do you think of the fact that the police here do not carry guns?

Manic Moran

I think that's an issue for the Gardai. Such a thread has been done here before.

NTM

eoin5

Manic Moran wrote:

That's the whole point!

If a thief is pointing a gun at you, he has already indicated that he believes it's worth killing over. Further, if you don't believe the thief would shoot, why would you hand over the money/car keys/whatever? There are also ample examples of occasions where those who were totally compliant were still killed. To quote the English philosopher John Locke on being faced by a robber: "“I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else." In other words, you are suggesting that I leave my life fully in the hands of someone who has already proven immoral enough to rob me. I don't like that option much.

Manic Moran wrote:

You can say that, as you're not Bruce. Here, I'll hand you a revolver. Would you play a game of Russian Roulette? Perhaps a one-in-six chance is too rich for you? What if it was one-in-100? Would you still pull the trigger? One in a thousand? You may recall the recent controversy of the execution of one Tookie Williams in California. The low statistics of being shot after full compliance certainly didn't come out in favour of his victims, did he? What if you were Mrs Bruce Flanders, would the low statistics have been much of a consolation had he been shot after the fact? As the old phrase goes, live by the sword, die by the sword. If you go around threatening people with lethal force during the carrying out of your illegal activities, I don't think it's unreasonable to receive equal treatment in return.

In a robbery a theifs goal is to rob stuff. He/she would usually want to do this with as little problems as possible and would very rarely want to shoot the clerk for no good reason. There are many counter examples as you mention but again most of the time its probably not going to happen, and these big cases like Tookie tend to cloud rational judgement with fear.

If I'm a clerk and I'm faced with a gun to my temple the last thing running through my mind would be the word liberty. It is no time to think on principle, but thats not to say rational thought is out of the question. It is time to stay alive and the best chance of staying alive is to follow instructions from the theives, give them what they want and not pull out a gun and try to shoot one of them. What if Bruce missed or dropped his gun or any number of horrible possibilities and he got killed because of it? Yes I think the odds matter hugely and I think life comes before liberty.

A weaker counter argument but valid nonetheless is that if there is no armed clerks then there is less risk to theives from the clerks and so the theives have less of a reason to shoot. Of course this means that robbery is a more attractive proposition but there are other more effective means of combatting this without putting clerks on the front lines.

Manic Moran wrote:

I think you're pushing it, there.

Why?

Manic Moran wrote:

Joe Public, by way of the Constitution and the legislature. Castle Doctrine laws are being passed in more and more states as it is, for example. I point out that the right to use lethal force in self defense is quite enshrined in British law as well, and as a consequence (since Irish Common Law derives greatly from that of the UK), Irish. It just happens that US law makes it easier to carry out that right.

I dont doubt that, but it certainly doesnt make it right in my opinion. Telling Joe Public that you can use lethal force in self defence and then telling him that he can carry a gun is just going to end up in more shootings.

Manic Moran wrote:

Little is quite as effective, either psychologically or physically, as a sidearm.

I basically agree with you. The line to be drawn is wether or not the weapon is deadly or not. If a weapon is deadly people are afraid to use it so the psychological aspect of such a weapon works both ways. If the weapon is seized by an assailant then it can be a very dangerous situation. Again its all just too powerful and just increases the risk to loss of life all around.

Manic Moran wrote:

False conclusion: It's quite possible that a decrease in RTC states was over-ridden by an increase in Non-RTC states. This might particularly be the case since states with large cities (eg California, New York, Illinois, DC) are not RTC states (or indeed have outright bans), yet most murders happen in cities.

You declare I made a false conclusion, but you certainly havent proved it. I'd welcome it if you did (might save me some researching )

Manic Moran

eoin5 wrote:

In a robbery a theifs goal is to rob stuff. He/she would usually want to do this with as little problems as possible and would very rarely want to shoot the clerk for no good reason.

There you go with the 'rarely' again.

I reiterate: I do not like to leave my wellbeing solely to statistics, chance, and the good intentions of criminals.

If I'm a clerk and I'm faced with a gun to my temple the last thing running through my mind would be the word liberty.

When did I ever say anything about liberty? (Other than in reference to national uprising against an unresponsive government)

It is time to stay alive and the best chance of staying alive is to follow instructions from the theives, give them what they want and not pull out a gun and try to shoot one of them.

What makes you so sure? If I am unarmed, I have two choices: I can comply, and hope for the best, or I can resist, and probably lose. If armed, I have two choices: I can comply, and hope for the best, or I can resist, and possibly come out the better, possibly the worse. But that decision is mine to make: I can weigh the situation, and come to the conclusion of my chances on my own and make the decision on my own. If I think I couldn't come the better out of it, I could still passively comply just as you suggest. But I do not accept that I must always take that route.

What if Bruce missed or dropped his gun or any number of horrible possibilities and he got killed because of it?

But he didn't did he? Neither did the other guy yesterday. It seems they weighed their chances correctly. What if he complied completely and still got killed? There's no way of knowing, is there?

A weaker counter argument but valid nonetheless is that if there is no armed clerks then there is less risk to theives from the clerks and so the theives have less of a reason to shoot. Of course this means that robbery is a more attractive proposition but there are other more effective means of combatting this without putting clerks on the front lines.

I do not suggest that armed clerks are a panacea. They're just another line of defense against wrongdoing.

However, you are focusing purely on stand-offs/drawdowns. As I mentioned, California law presumes that a homeowner is in reasonable fear of his life if someone breaks into his house and may thus use lethal force. The nature of my house's design happens to be that my bedroom is easily defensible, with the door opening directly onto a straight staircase all the way down, funneled by walls on each side. There is no danger of trying to outdraw someone, and a firearm puts me in a position of great advantage, even if it's completely dark. (Or especially if it's completely dark) It's possible that the TV downstairs will get stolen, and maybe the dog killed/injured, but at least I'll be fairly secure and safe, with the odds highly in my favour if anyone starts up the stairs towards me. Nobody climbs the stairs, chances are nobody gets shot. I would not be in such a secure position if I were restricted in my right to have a firearm.

Why?

I'm talking about meeting the threat of lethal force, once made, with lethal force. You're talking about striking before threats of force are made.

I dont doubt that, but it certainly doesnt make it right in my opinion. Telling Joe Public that you can use lethal force in self defence and then telling him that he can carry a gun is just going to end up in more shootings.

And as long as the right people get shot, what's the issue? US laws are structured that going around shooting people for spurious reasons is generally frowned upon.

Or are you talking about people randomly going ape in cases of road rage and the like? From the justfacts website:

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense

That's a pretty decent law-abidingness rate. Find me a town in Ireland, size of over 200,000 persons, with 18 crimes in it in seven years.

If a weapon is deadly people are afraid to use it so the psychological aspect of such a weapon works both ways.

I've shot at people before, I see no reason to believe I should not be able to bring myself to do so again. Are you suggesting that because someone else might make the erroneous/irresponsible decision to arm themselves without being sure that they could shoot that I should be penalised and restricted from my possible courses of action?

If the weapon is seized by an assailant then it can be a very dangerous situation.

And if the victim is unarmed it can also be a very dangerous situation. The whole 'turned on yourself by the assailant' argument is rather overstated, and is actually fairly rare. But if it should happen that my firearm is turned upon me, it would be my decision and my actions which contributed to it, not some unknown person pontificating upon the concept.

Again its all just too powerful and just increases the risk to loss of life all around.

We may have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the tragedy involved in the loss of life of a criminal. The policy over here is simple: If you threaten to take a life, your life can be taken in defense. If you think that this is excessive, I would suggest that the solution is to convince people not to point guns at other people to try to rob them, not to turn people into mandatorily passive victims. The concept is, I would think, very simple and elegant: If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. How can anyone argue with that? As long as nobody threatens me, my firearms will happily kill nothing more than a paper target, bowling pin, or coke can. I don't even hunt.

You declare I made a false conclusion, but you certainly havent proved it. I'd welcome it if you did (might save me some researching )

I rephrase: Your conclusion may or may not be false, but the method by which you came to it is unsupportable. As for the actual answer, I'd need to hunt around a bit myself.

NTM

Victor

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense

And how many committed by unlicenced persons and / or formerly licenced weapons that fell into the hands of criminals?

Dr_Teeth

Victor wrote:

And how many committed by unlicenced persons and / or formerly licenced weapons that fell into the hands of criminals?

Criminals can get all the guns they want, even right here in good old Ireland.. along with metric tons of cocaine! Are we, the citizens to blame for this? Err no, we don't have any guns for them to steal.. the crims are importing them along with the drugs.

Ireland is a clear example that all the gun laws the politicians can think of do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Reku

estebancambias wrote:

Does anyone hate the way in this country, we are prohibted from owning fire arms? As ' democracy', we are entitled to own guns for our protection, but no, not in good ol' Eire. The thing which angers me is, that while the scumbags own guns in abbudance, we are just injured prey unable to defend ourselves. This needs to change in my opinion.

What do you think?

Problem here is then that it becomes a case of who has the most destructive gun rather than just who has a gun (making for even more mayhem and destruction than just who has a gun scenario), and then you give the gardaí yet another excuse to skive off and not do their jobs.

Throw our alcoholic tendencies into the mix, along with the resulting stupid fights and are you really sure Irish people should be allowed to get guns so easily?

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

That's not an issue of democracy at all, unless you're talking larger scale, are worried that the government isn't really listening to you and you need to make a point. I seem to vaguely recall something of that nature happening in Ireland around 1920 or so. And 1916, while I think of it. Those in Ireland who would quickly disparage the concept of the private citizenry holding firearms to preserve their freedoms would be blithely forgetting that their grandparents or great-grandparents were doing precisely that in order to establish the country in the first place. It wasn't people holding signs and demonstrating outside of Dublin Castle that brought about Irish independence, after all. It was Paddy O'Shea, the farmer or banker, with a Mauser. You could doubtless argue that that was 80 years ago, we don't need to worry about this sort of thing any more. Which may be true today. But if it becomes not true tomorrow, what are you going to do about it if you've been disarmed?

Put it down.

Come on.

Drop it.

Drop...it...

Please.

Come on. There's really no need for this.

Put it down.

Just put down the ****ing remote control, step away from the TV and stop watching fox news.


You come across as extremely paranoid in all your posts in this thread.

Fair enough, you live in a place where people have plenty of guns, but that is not the case here.
You can't just walk into a shop and buy a gun.

Sing it with me:
This is not America

Nobody is going to invade Ireland. We are completely safe. We do not need guns. The drug dealers have guns, but they tend to shoot each other. Leave them to it.

Wacker

tuxy wrote:

Are all people that go to a school in Blackrock like this?

I don't know the OP at all, so I'm only guessing. I'm fairly sure the answer is 'no'.

Dyr

Terry wrote:

Put it down.

Come on.

Drop it.

Drop...it...

Please.

Come on. There's really no need for this.

Put it down.

Just put down the ****ing remote control, step away from the TV and stop watching fox news.


You come across as extremely paranoid in all your posts in this thread.

Fair enough, you live in a place where people have plenty of guns, but that is not the case here.
You can't just walk into a shop and buy a gun.

Sing it with me:
This is not America

Nobody is going to invade Ireland. We are completely safe. We do not need guns. The drug dealers have guns, but they tend to shoot each other. Leave them to it.

Paranoid? This island is one of the most likely areas in western europe to flare up into sectarian violence or civil war.

It's really odd that people think that banning readily available technology is a good idea.

Tar.Aldarion

Giblet wrote:

You hear that? Us mods are ARMED!

I only have a sword, should I ante up?
Couple of low slung sandalwood grip guns maybe. Mmm, that's good modding.
I wonder do other mods arm themselves when modding.

nice1franko

If every twit like the op had a gun the place would be like america.

gurramok

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Criminals can get all the guns they want, even right here in good old Ireland.. along with metric tons of cocaine! Are we, the citizens to blame for this? Err no, we don't have any guns for them to steal.. the crims are importing them along with the drugs.

Ireland is a clear example that all the gun laws the politicians can think of do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Crims are a tiny tiny minority of the population who can access guns, the rest of us can't unless licensed hence less people having guns, less gun crime.

The gun laws are there for a reason, to control the amount of guns in circulation.
If every one had a right to access/carry a gun legally, everybody would just buy guns out of fear 'coz the skanger next door has one who might steal my car/mug me' hence you'd guarantee the gun crime rate would skyrocket just like in USA as guns would replace fists as a way of settling scores.

And then the Gardai will need guns to enforce the law on the baddies who have the guns, its a viscous circle.

Thats a valid reason why European countries have a dismal gun crime rate when compared to USA and i for one want the status quo to stay here as it is.

Terry

Bambi wrote:

Paranoid? This island is one of the most likely areas in western europe to flare up into sectarian violence or civil war.

It's really odd that people think that banning readily available technology is a good idea.

Not really.

Let's be honest here. Nobody is really that bothered.
The whole Catholic Vs Protestant thing has been done. They have stormont now. All is well.
France is a lot more volatile.

cooperguy

A huge amount of people have been hurt or killed with their own weapons that they have for "defence" in America. Your just asking for trouble owning a gun you dont need.

nice1franko

Bambi wrote:

Paranoid? This island is one of the most likely areas in western europe to flare up into sectarian violence or civil war.

It's really odd that people think that banning readily available technology is a good idea.

Terry wrote:

Not really.

Let's be honest here. Nobody is really that bothered.
The whole Catholic Vs Protestant thing has been done. They have stormont now. All is well.
France is a lot more volatile.

She was talking about the north and south of dublin. it's a tinderbox.

Terry

nice1franko wrote:

She was talking about the north and south of dublin. it's a tinderbox.

Ahh, I see.
They can kill each other for all I care.
I live in Kildare.

Jesus Wept

estebancambias wrote:

Does anyone hate the way in this country, we are prohibted from owning fire arms?

No.

estebancambias wrote:

As ' democracy', we are entitled to own guns for our protection, but no, not in good ol' Eire.

Says who.
Surely as a democracy, the majority should decide, it shouldnt' be a random entitlement?

estebancambias wrote:

The thing which angers me is, that while the scumbags own guns in abbudance, we are just injured prey unable to defend ourselves.

If someone wants to shoot you, you will likely be shot before you can do anything about it.

estebancambias wrote:

What do you think?

That random yokels don't need firearms and the less of them in the country the better.

Collie D

Bambi wrote:

This island is one of the most likely areas in western europe to flare up into sectarian violence or civil war.

Exaggerating a bit, aren't you... You could also say that Sunderland are the most likely of the three promoted teams to win the Premiership. Could possibly be true but it ain't going to happen. BTW I think if it was any country it would be France.

And even if that were true, surely that would be an even bigger reason NOT to make gun ownership easier.

Dragan

There are gun clubs etc in Ireland, it's just hard to get a license with good reason.

Hrududu

Little boys and their toys.

Sparks

Oh *bangs head on desk* for *bangs head on desk* the *bangs head on desk* love *bangs head on desk* of *bangs head on desk* small *bangs head on desk* furry *bangs head on desk* animals.

/me wishes he could get back the time he just wasted reading this thread.

0ubliette

this is why we shouldnt have guns in ireland

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Plug

estebancambias wrote:

Does anyone hate the way in this country, we are prohibted from owning fire arms? As ' democracy', we are entitled to own guns for our protection, but no, not in good ol' Eire. The thing which angers me is, that while the scumbags own guns in abbudance, we are just injured prey unable to defend ourselves. This needs to change in my opinion.

What do you think?

I have a handgun for target practice.

o1s1n

Sparks wrote:

Oh *bangs head on desk* for *bangs head on desk* the *bangs head on desk* love *bangs head on desk* of *bangs head on desk* small *bangs head on desk* furry *bangs head on desk* animals.

/me wishes he could get back the time he just wasted reading this thread.

It's like picking a scab, isn't it?

Terry

Welcome ot AH.
Just be thankful we didn't send this thread your way.

Tar.Aldarion

Really fun and satisfying?
Naughty but nice?

J.S. Pill

Bambi wrote:

This island is one of the most likely areas in western europe to flare up into sectarian violence or civil war.

Terry wrote:

Not really.

Let's be honest here. Nobody is really that bothered.
The whole Catholic Vs Protestant thing has been done. They have stormont now. All is well.
France is a lot more volatile.

I think he may be talking about the Wexford/Kilkenny rivalry - the writing's on the wall

phantom_lord

Sparks wrote:

Oh *bangs head on desk* for *bangs head on desk* the *bangs head on desk* love *bangs head on desk* of *bangs head on desk* small *bangs head on desk* furry *bangs head on desk* animals.

/me wishes he could get back the time he just wasted reading this thread.

*phew* u saved me there!

You Suck!

Manic,

As was said, this is not america. The us has had freely available firearms for over 200 years now including lax laws in many states on automatic weapons and weapons of a large caliber. The us reached a saturation point long ago in the past where its now irrelevant weather the weapon is legally registered or not becuase so many unregistered weapons might also be considered legally held as they were bought before registration.

In the us, you have a requirement for self defense.
In Ireland we do not.

Which of the two of us is the happier and luckier for the fact?

You Suck!

Also, for some fun we could ban cigarettes and make automatic weapons freely available simultaneously for epic lulz

eoin5

Manic Moran wrote:

There you go with the 'rarely' again.

I reiterate: I do not like to leave my wellbeing solely to statistics, chance, and the good intentions of criminals.

No-one would, but its what make most sense (if you wish to stay alive that is) when youve got a gun in your face. As I said before, when a theif has a gun hes probably not going to use it on you. When you pull a gun on a theif hes probably going to try to shoot you first. Its excalating the chance that someone will die just on your principle.

Manic Moran wrote:

When did I ever say anything about liberty? (Other than in reference to national uprising against an unresponsive government)

In your Locke quotation.

Manic Moran wrote:

What makes you so sure? If I am unarmed, I have two choices: I can comply, and hope for the best, or I can resist, and probably lose. If armed, I have two choices: I can comply, and hope for the best, or I can resist, and possibly come out the better, possibly the worse. But that decision is mine to make: I can weigh the situation, and come to the conclusion of my chances on my own and make the decision on my own. If I think I couldn't come the better out of it, I could still passively comply just as you suggest. But I do not accept that I must always take that route.

Wether your armed or unarmed if you resist vs an armed foe the chances you will die will jump and the chances that someone will die will jump even higher. What your talking about is taking your life into your own hands and trying to gain some level of control in the situation in a way that increases that chance that you will die. I think that is selfish for someone to do, especially to that persons family.

Manic Moran wrote:

But he didn't did he? Neither did the other guy yesterday. It seems they weighed their chances correctly. What if he complied completely and still got killed? There's no way of knowing, is there?

Theres no way of knowing so what should you do? Do you try to shoot the theif for fear of the unknown or think of what are the actions that have the best chance of getting out of here alive?

Manic Moran wrote:

I do not suggest that armed clerks are a panacea. They're just another line of defense against wrongdoing.

I think clerks can do without that pressure to be honest.

Manic Moran wrote:

However, you are focusing purely on stand-offs/drawdowns. As I mentioned, California law presumes that a homeowner is in reasonable fear of his life if someone breaks into his house and may thus use lethal force. The nature of my house's design happens to be that my bedroom is easily defensible, with the door opening directly onto a straight staircase all the way down, funneled by walls on each side. There is no danger of trying to outdraw someone, and a firearm puts me in a position of great advantage, even if it's completely dark. (Or especially if it's completely dark) It's possible that the TV downstairs will get stolen, and maybe the dog killed/injured, but at least I'll be fairly secure and safe, with the odds highly in my favour if anyone starts up the stairs towards me. Nobody climbs the stairs, chances are nobody gets shot. I would not be in such a secure position if I were restricted in my right to have a firearm.

What about putting remote tear gas (or a similar device) canisters in the stairwell? Less risk to you and less risk to the theif, but unfortunately more risk to your dog . Seriously the gun is too powerful when you have other options.

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm talking about meeting the threat of lethal force, once made, with lethal force. You're talking about striking before threats of force are made.

Theres a difference alright but I think that having the public psyché that I mentioned is still conducive to a country willing to attack another pre-emptively if administered with the appropriate media.

Manic Moran wrote:

And as long as the right people get shot, what's the issue? US laws are structured that going around shooting people for spurious reasons is generally frowned upon.

Or are you talking about people randomly going ape in cases of road rage and the like? From the justfacts website:

That's a pretty decent law-abidingness rate. Find me a town in Ireland, size of over 200,000 persons, with 18 crimes in it in seven years.

The issue is firstly that more people die this way, and thats simply unjustifiable in my book.

Ok so what causes people to go and hold up a store or go steal someones jewelery at gunpoint? Its just not black and white. As Naom Chomsky said in a recent visit to Ireland "Everything is gray". It might be drug related or maybe to pay back a loan/rent or to have money for food or whatever. The point is what has driven them to that extreme, hardly a good life.

If you think of it as a system, the poverty, branding (just do it!), drug culture, stereotyping, police brutality, racism, gang wars, all of it very easy to get caught up in, and the predictable output of this system is people who do extreme things like armed robbery. Is it justifiable to shoot them because theyre the bad guys? Where does the blame lay if not on the country as a whole. Its the countrys responsibility to provide better lives for these people and arming other people just to shoot them is totally unjust.

As for the gun nuts who shoot people because theyre angry, its a pretty small fraction of people but its still not a good thing. Its these outlier cases that make the news and help to make everyone scared of each other. It reminds me of bad habit by the offspring, must dig that out again

Manic Moran wrote:

I've shot at people before, I see no reason to believe I should not be able to bring myself to do so again. Are you suggesting that because someone else might make the erroneous/irresponsible decision to arm themselves without being sure that they could shoot that I should be penalised and restricted from my possible courses of action?

If it will endanger more lives, yes. I would reckon most firearms owners have not shot at anyone before, how can they make sure they can if they have never been in that situation.

Manic Moran wrote:

And if the victim is unarmed it can also be a very dangerous situation. The whole 'turned on yourself by the assailant' argument is rather overstated, and is actually fairly rare. But if it should happen that my firearm is turned upon me, it would be my decision and my actions which contributed to it, not some unknown person pontificating upon the concept.

By unarmed you are reffering to a deadly weapon? I think having a manditory self defence course in schools and arming people with tasers and mace is a more civil and rational approach. Forgive me for pontificating your civil rights .

Manic Moran wrote:

We may have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the tragedy involved in the loss of life of a criminal. The policy over here is simple: If you threaten to take a life, your life can be taken in defense. If you think that this is excessive, I would suggest that the solution is to convince people not to point guns at other people to try to rob them, not to turn people into mandatorily passive victims. The concept is, I would think, very simple and elegant: If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. How can anyone argue with that? As long as nobody threatens me, my firearms will happily kill nothing more than a paper target, bowling pin, or coke can. I don't even hunt.

I'm glad you call it a tragedy. As I've said the fact that there are people who steal at gunpoint is a predictable outcome of the system in place, and the solution is to address the issues that cause this through progress. In the meantime the Joe Citizen should be passive when faced with such danger in order to preserve life. This "If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone" argument has all sorts of problems from sectarianism to family feuds and to revenge in general. If you rephrase it you could say "If you dont leave me alone, I'll take my personal justice to you". Its a dangerous code to live by.

Manic Moran wrote:

I rephrase: Your conclusion may or may not be false, but the method by which you came to it is unsupportable. As for the actual answer, I'd need to hunt around a bit myself.

Well all I said is that the situation in Florida seemed the opposite to America as a whole in terms of the correlation between firarms homocide and the gun-carrying laws. Basically it is a lot more complicated than just the gun-carrying laws. I would suggest that the level of poverty, drug abuse and gang culture, alienation of the youth etc would all need to be examined before any conclusion (as opposed to correlation) can be drawn.

eoin5

0ubliette wrote:

this is why we shouldnt have guns in ireland

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Dont diss the rick, hes my hero:

Dyr

You Suck! wrote:

In the us, you have a requirement for self defense.
In Ireland we do not.

eh?

You Suck!

Do you lie awake at night in fear of armed burglars?
Drive bys?
Random shootings?

Do you have any consevable reason that you would wish to have a gun in case you were attacked in ireland?

Last time a burglar shot someone in ireland was?

unreggd

Just get a samurai sword

no bother with a license and you'll look wayyy cooler defending the honour of palace estebancambias

Vegeta

You Suck! wrote:

Do you lie awake at night in fear of armed burglars?
Drive bys?
Random shootings?

Do you have any consevable reason that you would wish to have a gun in case you were attacked in ireland?

Last time a burglar shot someone in ireland was?

That's beside the point anyway, if you used a gun to defend your home against a burglar here in Ireland you would probably go to jail

unless of course you are Padraig Nally

You Suck!

That's beside the point anyway

No that is the point, I was responding to manic moran in that the realitys between us and the us are worlds apart. We live in a society where at the moment there is no feasable need to keep guns for self defense.

Be happy we live in such a society, because it probably won't last

Dr_Teeth

gurramok wrote:

The gun laws are there for a reason, to control the amount of guns in circulation.
If every one had a right to access/carry a gun legally, everybody would just buy guns out of fear 'coz the skanger next door has one who might steal my car/mug me' hence you'd guarantee the gun crime rate would skyrocket just like in USA as guns would replace fists as a way of settling scores.

And then the Gardai will need guns to enforce the law on the baddies who have the guns, its a viscous circle.

Thats a valid reason why European countries have a dismal gun crime rate when compared to USA and i for one want the status quo to stay here as it is.

The statics are cold comfort for someone being beaten or stabbed to death in the street. I'm sure they're thinking before they die "you know, it's a good thing I didn't have a gun, because statically that would have made it more likely that my attacker would have had a gun and we would have had a fair fight. oh snap.."

But yes, in general things are pretty good here.. since we don't have any guns, the criminals don't need guns to hurt us (just for internal "discipline" problems in the drug gangs) and so the Gardai don't need guns to arrest them. As long as you're not one of the people beaten or stabbed to death because you're defenceless, it's a good situation.

However I do think the law should be totally on our side if someone breaks into our house. If someone broke in and came at me, I should be able to use whatever means necessary to stop him, including a gun, and not be sued or imprisoned for it.

Dr_Teeth

eoin5 wrote:

Ok so what causes people to go and hold up a store or go steal someones jewelery at gunpoint? Its just not black and white. As Naom Chomsky said in a recent visit to Ireland "Everything is gray". It might be drug related or maybe to pay back a loan/rent or to have money for food or whatever. The point is what has driven them to that extreme, hardly a good life.

If you think of it as a system, the poverty, branding (just do it!), drug culture, stereotyping, police brutality, racism, gang wars, all of it very easy to get caught up in, and the predictable output of this system is people who do extreme things like armed robbery. Is it justifiable to shoot them because theyre the bad guys? Where does the blame lay if not on the country as a whole. Its the countrys responsibility to provide better lives for these people and arming other people just to shoot them is totally unjust.

His motivation and background are irrelevant to the situation at hand. You can say statically.. overall.. in the long run.. in theory.. etc that making the country a better place will result in less armed robberies. But in the course of an actual armed robbery, all that is beside the point. If someone came at me with a weapon I would want him stopped immediately, and a gun, if I owned one, would be safest method (for ME, you know, the person that matters) to do it.

Manic Moran

You come across as extremely paranoid in all your posts in this thread

Do I perhaps sense a little projection here?

Paranoia is the belief that there is a threat everywhere. At least, in the colloquial usage of the term. I do not believe that everyone is a threat to me. I happen to think most people are decent, law-abiding folk. I also do not believe that most people with guns are a threat to me. I believe that they are also usually decent, law-abiding folk. I do not believe that people who ascribe to the same theories of personal responsibility as I do are a threat to me, as I believe they are generally decent, law-abiding folk. Can you say the same about yourself? Or are you simply knee-jerking to a point of view which you find unfamiliar and concluding that everyone who has indicated a willingness to use a firearm if required is in fact a threat to society or yourself? The only people I concern myself with here are those who actively indicate a threat to safety by pointing weapons at people without legal or moral cause.

I believe that the chances of my encountering a burglar in my home are very slim. I also believe that the chances of my being burned in my sleep when my house catches fire are also very slim. Yet I take insurance steps against the latter: I have smoke detectors. I have fire insurance. Is this paranoid, or sensible? Why is it suddenly less rational/more paranoid to take an insurance step against the former?

In the us, you have a requirement for self defense.
In Ireland we do not.

Which of the two of us is the happier and luckier for the fact?

I would modify that statement by saying that in Ireland there are fewer instances to indicate a requirement for self defense. Which is fine, statistically, but if you're one of those (much fewer in number) people who are killed, raped, or otherwise would very much rather they had the option, would that fact make you feel better?

As I said before, when a theif has a gun hes probably not going to use it on you

That's not what he's saying to you. If he's threatening you with a gun, knife, or even a syringe, he's saying that "I want what you have, and I will kill over it." If you don't believe that he'll use it on you, then why would you bother complying with his demands? If you're going to bluff, you'd better be prepared to have your bluff called.

When you pull a gun on a theif hes probably going to try to shoot you first

Probably. Success rates, on the other hand, are another issue entirely. Please acquaint yourself with the OODA loop, and the various studies showing that just because you 'have the drop on someone' does not mean that you will get first shot. This is where the judgement call on the part of the citizen comes into play.

Its excalating the chance that someone will die just on your principle.

On the contrary. It increases the chance that somoene will die on his principle. He would the one to escalate to the threat of lethal force first.

In your Locke quotation

Fair enough, though I believe that in early 18th Century English, the term 'liberty' had a slightly more broad meaning than we give it today.

What your talking about is taking your life into your own hands

And this is worse than leaving your life in someone else's hands how, exactly? Who do you trust with your own life more? Yourself, or someone you don't know?

I think that is selfish for someone to do, especially to that persons family

I would submit that that person probably should take their family into account before embarking on a lifestyle choice.

Do you try to shoot the theif for fear of the unknown or think of what are the actions that have the best chance of getting out of here alive?

The latter, personally. If, in my judgement, the best chance of survival comes from active defense, then that's the route I shall take. I need not take that route, but it's nice to have the option if appropriate.

think clerks can do without that pressure to be honest

Is that not a choice for the clerk to make? Obviously some are quite capable of handling the pressure, it doesn't take too long bouncing around Liveleak or youtube to find CCTV footage of clerks handling themselves (and their firearms) quite well.

What about putting remote tear gas (or a similar device) canisters in the stairwell?

Not very effective, is it? I've done my time in the tear gas chamber, I have no false expectations. (Besides, it could affect me as much as him)

Seriously the gun is too powerful when you have other options.

"Too powerful" is something which will go through walls and hit people on the street. The presumption is that anyone breaking into the sanctity of your home is a threat to your life, and a handgun is simply an equal level of response.

Is it justifiable to shoot them because theyre the bad guys?

Not at all. It's only justifiable to shoot people if they're indicating a threat to life. I'm not suggesting that if you come out of the store and see someone breaking into your car that you should immediately gun them down. Neither would I submit that if you come home from work, and see someone scarpering from your home with your laptop under their arm that you should blow them away.

I would reckon most firearms owners have not shot at anyone before, how can they make sure they can if they have never been in that situation

By and large, they seem to be doing rather well in their baptisms by fire.

I think having a manditory self defence course in schools and arming people with tasers and mace is a more civil and rational approach

The cop around the corner from me has been given a self defense course. He's also armed with a Taser. And spray. If, as you suggest, it is merely necessary to have one of the above, and a cop has all three, why does he need a sidearm?

"If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone" argument has all sorts of problems from sectarianism to family feuds and to revenge in general.

I don't accept that the one follows from the other when it comes to simple daily life.

Last time a burglar shot someone in ireland was?

Are you only accepting 'shot', or will you accept any lethal force?

I was responding to manic moran in that the realitys between us and the us are worlds apart.

I agree, and mentioned as such in my very first post on the issue. As a result, I have been generally confining myself with US law and principle, only referring to Ireland when attempting to make a comparison or put things in perspective.

NTM