Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Blanket Ban on Handguns
Options
Comments
-
lostexpectation wrote: »come on people i want to get to the actual reason ahern doesn't want people to have hands guns, he doesn't want the public better armed then the beat cop and he doesn't want people taking the law into their own hands by shooting some they caught robbing their house or citizen vigilantes.
a Q best addressed to Mr. Ahern and those of his entourage.
he has an agenda,an objective to be met and as such will portray an issue in whatever light is best to get it put into legislation, if that involves discrediting those who participate in pistol shooting so be it, they are a minority.
if that means associating registered handguns to illegal firearms they will do it too - the end justifies their means.
If I was to consider their agenda, I would say the real agenda is to prevent the possibility of a similar incident to what happened in Finland earlier this year/Dunblane where innocent people are killed with handguns by mentally unstable individuals - of that there is no doubt there will always be a risk.0 -
We keep hearing this - the typical phrasing is "...we know it's bad for you, but if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?". It's an intellectually dishonest argument. The simple fact is, Ahern is reacting to two criminal acts of premeditated murder committed with illegally held handguns that were smuggled into the country; and he's doing it by engaging in group punishment of innocent parties who have fulfilled onerous requirements in order to pursue their chosen sport; and even if this measure had been taken years before the murders, it would not have prevented them. And most importantly of all, and strangely the most overlooked part of all this, it won't stop the next murder. It does not solve the problem..if that involves discrediting those who participate in pistol shooting so be it, they are a minority
How can you regard this action as anything but a reprehensible abdication of the duties of his office?0 -
We keep hearing this - the typical phrasing is "...we know it's bad for you, but if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?". It's an intellectually dishonest argument. The simple fact is, Ahern is reacting to two criminal acts of premeditated murder committed with illegally held handguns that were smuggled into the country; and he's doing it by engaging in group punishment of innocent parties who have fulfilled onerous requirements in order to pursue their chosen sport; and even if this measure had been taken years before the murders, it would not have prevented them. And most importantly of all, and strangely the most overlooked part of all this, it won't stop the next murder. It does not solve the problem..
How can you regard this action as anything but a reprehensible abdication of the duties of his office?
I'd suggest you take the time to actually read my post again(if in fact you read the entire thing at all), my supposition is that their real agenda is to prevent a Dunblane type incident. Politicians know banning legally held firearms will have no impact on illegal firearms(everybody knows this), the statistics are there within the context of the UK and Australia. And now I digress in responding to your post - ironic as that is.
I'm making the entirely valid point that there will always be a risk - period, however insignificant. There is no counter argument that will mitigate the (however small) risk that a law abiding citizen in possession of firearms decides to commit crimes such as the horrendous atrocities that reluctantly occurred in both the UK and Australia with legally held firearms. There is always a risk of somebody who has been screened is not suitable in the interest of public safety to be in possession of firearms.
In stating my point is "intellectually dishonest" I hold your response to not address the point I've made and to be emotive in context.
I'm a target shooter that thoroughly enjoys the sport but can understand the concerns of those that don't participate in the sport.
Some shooters are incapable of looking objectively from the valid concerns of those that hold an opposite point of view to the shooting fraternity.
Stand back for a few hours and think about it from the other side.
Regards.0 -
Gun crime is on the increase. There is nothing he can do to stem that tide but come July of next year he can issue a press release saying he has personally taken 1,800 guns out of circulation.
"Tough on crime, tougher on gun crime."
That's it. There is no other reason. He is an attention hungry media whore.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: We must look at this from a holistic point of view. The Garda has been very successful in seizing 2,200 firearms, a large proportion of which would be handguns. Will we allow the proliferation of licensed handguns to the other side? Not all illegal handguns are brought in with illegal drug consignments, although gardaí generally come across firearms in those hauls. It is possible that a large proportion of these illegal handguns are coming across the Border. It is probably one of the most accessible routes, because most of the ports and airports are manned by security. The Garda has been extremely successful with these seizures.
the bits not in bold is bull**** we're agreed now explain the other bit.0 -
lostexpectation wrote: »Deputy Dermot Ahern: We must look at this from a holistic point of view. The Garda has been very successful in seizing 2,200 firearms, a large proportion of which would be handguns. Will we allow the proliferation of licensed handguns to the other side? Not all illegal handguns are brought in with illegal drug consignments, although gardaí generally come across firearms in those hauls. It is possible that a large proportion of these illegal handguns are coming across the Border. It is probably one of the most accessible routes, because most of the ports and airports are manned by security. The Garda has been extremely successful with these seizures.
the bits not in bold is bull**** we're agreed now explain the other bit.
What's there to explain? He's decided licensed shooters are "the other side", which is just a daft notion in itself. There's no "proliferation" as such. The word only makes it sound sinister or conspiratorial. The fact is, there are people who couldn't own pistols for target shooting or humane dispatch before 2004, who wanted to, and who now do, following the changes in circumstances at that time. It's not some sinister underworld plan.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you're dancing around a "Dunblane" type incident you don't need a gun to do that
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/seven-shoppers-murdered-in-tokyo-knife-horror-13507860.html
It's ironic that the Minister is worried about a "Dunblane" when a decision made by this government in the 2009 budget will lead to the deaths of about 50 or 60 current school going girls through cervical cancer every year.
That's 3 "Dunblanes" a year the Minister is prepared to accept every year just so he doesn't have to tax his rich friends.
Of course, they didn't have the 10 million for that. But they have pulled over 150 million out of their asses to save the pig sector.
Now that's hypocrisy and f*cked up priorities.0 -
If you're dancing around a "Dunblane" type incident you don't need a gun to do that
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/seven-shoppers-murdered-in-tokyo-knife-horror-13507860.html
It's ironic that the Minister is worried about a "Dunblane" when a decision made by this government in the 2009 budget will lead to the deaths of about 50 or 60 current school going girls through cervical cancer every year.
That's 3 "Dunblanes" a year the Minister is prepared to accept every year just so he doesn't have to tax his rich friends.
Of course, they didn't have the 10 million for that. But they have pulled over 150 million out of their asses to save the pig sector.
Now that's hypocrisy and f*cked up priorities.
I agree, you don't need a firearm to carry out a killing spree.
However, with two handguns a heinous individual managed to kill 32 people in Virginia, thats over four times your death toll. And other similar incidents exist.
one can argue that an illegal firearm can be purchased to carry out such a despicable act....but the vast majority of shootings/massacres involve licensed firearms, handguns to be precise due to practicality of carrying them hidden/pointability/weight/close quarter shooting within confined buildings.
I fail to see the relationship in debating a firearms related question by equating legislation regarding cervical cancer to 3 Dunblanes - it's a strange way of arguing a point.0 -
I fail to see the relationship in debating a firearms related question by equating legislation regarding cervical cancer to 3 Dunblanes - it's a strange way of arguing a point.
How so? The Minister is prepared to accept these deaths. In fact, they changed policy and thereby ensured that these deaths would happen.0 -
I fail to see the relationship in debating a firearms related question by equating legislation regarding cervical cancer to 3 Dunblanes - it's a strange way of arguing a point.
Not really; If you wish to invoke argument "in the name of Dunblane (et al.)", then essentially Ahern (and the rest of them in power) have stated by inference that they are prepared to accept, and ergo find acceptable, a yearly mortality figure three times that of Dunblane among the nation's youth by their own inaction and unwillingness to act.
In short; one form of child (in keeping with the emotive argument of Dunblane) mortality is more acceptable than the other since a gun isn't used; only an agonising, lingering death that could be easily prevented.
On a final note, I'm not a firearms holder and I can see through the bullsh*t being orchestrated by our "esteemed" Minister.0 -
If we're talking about someone committing acts of mass premeditated murder, can I point out a few instructional examples?
- The saudis who carried out the world trade center attacks. No guns, just knives
- Timothy J. McVeigh killed nearly 200 people in oklahoma city. No guns, just fertiliser.
- Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people by burning down the social club they were dancing in. No guns, just petrol.
- Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people (37 of them children) in Bath, Michigan. No guns, just explosives.
- Jack Gilbert Graham killed 44 people by blowing up the airplane they were travelling on along with his mother (whom he disliked). No guns, just dynamite.
- Humberto de la Torre killed 25 people by burning down the hotel they were sleeping in. No guns, just matches.
- Sadamichi Hirasawa killed 12 people during a robbery. No guns, just poison.
- Mamoru Takuma killed 8 children in an elementary school in Osaka. No guns, just a kitchen knife.
- Todd Hall killed 8 people including 2 children with a prank gone wrong when he ignited a box of fireworks in a fireworks shop. No guns, just a match and a lack of IQ points.
None of these would have been prevented by banning handguns. None of the same acts which we will see in the future will be prevented by banning handguns. The simple fact is that if you want to prevent these kinds of things, you have to do something more difficult than just writing words on paper - you have to recruit, train and field more Gardai, convince the judiciary to not give overly lenient sentences, improve both detention and rehabilitation facilities, improve community policing so that these things are reported earlier and so on.
I mean, the kids who shot Aidan O'Kane were known to people in the area for years. Hell, there are posters in the AH thread on this who could name them for you. So why wasn't the problem reported to Social Services? Or the Gardai? Why wasn't this fixed before it became a premeditated murder? And how would banning legally held handguns have prevented this?0 -
Advertisement
-
......0
-
Not really; If you wish to invoke argument "in the name of Dunblane (et al.)", then essentially Ahern (and the rest of them in power) have stated by inference that they are prepared to accept, and ergo find acceptable, a yearly mortality figure three times that of Dunblane among the nation's youth by their own inaction and unwillingness to act.
In short; one form of child (in keeping with the emotive argument of Dunblane) mortality is more acceptable than the other since a gun isn't used; only an agonising, lingering death that could be easily prevented.
On a final note, I'm not a firearms holder and I can see through the bullsh*t being orchestrated by our "esteemed" Minister. "
Dunblane was firearms related (an incident which illustrates the point I'm making) and is not an emotive argument because it is
firearms
related
and so fair game for a healthy debate.
legislation regarding cervical cancer which results in deaths is more a department of health issue.0 -
legislation regarding cervical cancer which results in deaths is more a department of health issue.
Collective cabinet responsibility.
Dermo Ahern is responsible for those deaths as much as Mary Harney.
Dermo Aherns pen is responsible for far more deaths than my gun ever will be.
Maybe we should ban pens?0 -
If you want to talk about dunblane, you have to talk about some aspects of it that always seem to get left out. Like how Hamilton had his firearms illegally. Like how he was thrown out of every club he joined, bar the last one who didn't have time to complete the throwing-out procedure. Like how the scottish police dropped the ball on several different occasions when Hamilton was being accused of paedophilia, assault, intimidation and so forth (and for not picking up the phone to call the club Hamilton said he was a member of when renewing his firearms licence, a call that would have shown he'd been thrown out of that club and that he wasn't a member anywhere else, which would have gotten his firearms confiscated).
If we're going to talk about dunblane, let's talk about the entire thing, eh?0 -
If we're talking about someone committing acts of mass premeditated murder, can I point out a few instructional examples?
- The saudis who carried out the world trade center attacks. No guns, just knives
- Timothy J. McVeigh killed nearly 200 people in oklahoma city. No guns, just fertiliser.
- Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people by burning down the social club they were dancing in. No guns, just petrol.
- Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people (37 of them children) in Bath, Michigan. No guns, just explosives.
- Jack Gilbert Graham killed 44 people by blowing up the airplane they were travelling on along with his mother (whom he disliked). No guns, just dynamite.
- Humberto de la Torre killed 25 people by burning down the hotel they were sleeping in. No guns, just matches.
- Sadamichi Hirasawa killed 12 people during a robbery. No guns, just poison.
- Mamoru Takuma killed 8 children in an elementary school in Osaka. No guns, just a kitchen knife.
- Todd Hall killed 8 people including 2 children with a prank gone wrong when he ignited a box of fireworks in a fireworks shop. No guns, just a match and a lack of IQ points.
None of these would have been prevented by banning handguns. None of the same acts which we will see in the future will be prevented by banning handguns. The simple fact is that if you want to prevent these kinds of things, you have to do something more difficult than just writing words on paper - you have to recruit, train and field more Gardai, convince the judiciary to not give overly lenient sentences, improve both detention and rehabilitation facilities, improve community policing so that these things are reported earlier and so on.
I mean, the kids who shot Aidan O'Kane were known to people in the area for years. Hell, there are posters in the AH thread on this who could name them for you. So why wasn't the problem reported to Social Services? Or the Gardai? Why wasn't this fixed before it became a premeditated murder? And how would banning legally held handguns have prevented this?
It's a good list of heinous crimes but none of them address the point I'm making but circumvent it/act as a distraction.
And it's a point that as I have already said is entirely valid within a handgun ban debate.
Humans are flawed, it is our nature, no matter how ingenious the legislative system and checks/controls/requirements there will "always be a risk" of an individual who is no fit to bear firearms getting through and having the means to commit shooting massacres with registered firearms. There is no denying it.
In my mind it is the only valid argument I've seen from anti-gun debates and whilst I'm pro gun and love shooting I could not imagine what it must feel like to have your child taken from you at the hands of a sociopath who has slipped through the net.
The probability of it happening is small and the deaths involved versus other 'non-firearms' related incidents are minuscule.
Evidently when it does happen the public outrage gives the knee jerk reaction of a ban, I suspect the Irish government in light of the killings in Finland in September in which a student used a .22lr handgun to kill 10 classmates at his college
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_shooting_incident
is the real reason the Irish government is going ahead with this ban on handguns.
I'm not going to write anymore, I've made my point repeatedly and nothing you've stated addresses it because as I've said it's the only valid point in the anti-gun side that I find is a valid point.
What I find sad is none of you target shooters(within the context of handguns) appear to acknowledge/recognise this risk.
I'm off to bed, will be taking the 9 & 45 to the range in the morning.
Goodnight:)0 -
-
If you want to talk about dunblane, you have to talk about some aspects of it that always seem to get left out. Like how Hamilton had his firearms illegally. Like how he was thrown out of every club he joined, bar the last one who didn't have time to complete the throwing-out procedure. Like how the scottish police dropped the ball on several different occasions when Hamilton was being accused of paedophilia, assault, intimidation and so forth (and for not picking up the phone to call the club Hamilton said he was a member of when renewing his firearms licence, a call that would have shown he'd been thrown out of that club and that he wasn't a member anywhere else, which would have gotten his firearms confiscated).
If we're going to talk about dunblane, let's talk about the entire thing, eh?
I've read thoroughly about the Dunblane incident and am familar with all the faults of those involved (hindsight is 20/20) and have followed gun debates for years, it's taken as an example to illustrate my point.
Virginia Tech
Finland shootings
we could scrutinize each case.
Alright, this time it is goodnight:D0 -
emotive reasoning and your line of thought is fundamentally flawed as is the whole
cars kill X times more, lets ban cars.
naive and ill conceived argument
Hardly. The risk of death and killing is a price we're all prepared to pay to keep our cars.
Why pick on shooters when, if you want someone dead, you don't need to use a gun?
If I wanted you dead all I have to do is
Stab you.
Run you over.
Beat you to death with a hurley, baseball bat, hammer, cricket bat or toaster.
I could pour petrol through your letterbox.
Put dioxin in your sausages.
Polonium 10 in your tea.
Hold your head under water.
Shoot you with my ricin filled unbrella.
Box the head offa ya!
If you were a girl decide to let you get cervical cancer.
Give you a blood transfusion of Hepatitis C or AIDS.
Lots of choices out there for the crazed killer type. Seriously, no guns required.0 -
emotive reasoning and your line of thought is fundamentally flawed as is the whole
cars kill X times more, lets ban cars.
naive and ill conceived argument
Back here again.
Everybody knows cars kill. But they're good kills?
Define a good kill.
How is being killed by a car acceptable?0 -
There will always be a risk of a 50m wide rock falling out of the sky and destroying a city the size of New York in a kinetic energy blast larger than most weapons in the nuclear arsenal as well, but you don't seem to see that driving much in the way of legislative policy (and it is a real threat, quantifiable - indeed, quantified - and well researched and has been observed both on other planetary bodies and on our own).there will "always be a risk" of an individual who is no fit to bear firearms getting through and having the means to commit shooting massacres with registered firearms. There is no denying it.
The reason you don't see it driving much legislation is that it's so unfamiliar to everyone. The image now running through 95% of the readers here is either from Armageddon or from Deep Impact, because so few people have ever actually seen an impact crater for what it is, or comprehended the subject (outside of the professional field of study of these things that is).
Saying "there is always a risk" is a statement that means absolutely nothing. Acting on the mere presence of a risk, without regard to it's likelihood or to the efficacy of the proposed action to mitigate that risk, is simply an irrational waste of time and resources, and can be - as it is here - unethical.
I was in Finland for a week following that shooting. No-one though banning firearms was a suitable response.Evidently when it does happen the public outrage gives the knee jerk reaction of a ban, I suspect the Irish government in light of the killings in Finland in September in which a student used a .22lr handgun to kill 10 classmates at his college http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_shooting_incident is the real reason the Irish government is going ahead with this ban on handguns.
The fact is, we share a dark little secret with Finland - both us and them have enormously high suicide rates. Suicide is the leading killer of young people both here and there, outstripping accident, disease, foul play and everything else.
That was what every Finn I spoke to in that week wanted to see addressed.
Of course, the Finns are very used to firearms. Every Finn has seen one at least, and most own one and use it for hunting or target shooting. Same with the Swiss, and oddly, when they had their one firearms incident some years back, they didn't ban firearms either.
Look at it this way - when those joyriders drove into a Garda car, killing the Gardai in it on the N11 a few years ago, we were all shocked and saddened. There was a call for action to clamp down on joyriding, to tackle the problem of juvinile deliquency with better community support and policing, a monument was erected to the Gardai killed - and then we all got back into our cars and kept on driving. No-one suggested that we ban cars, nor that we make anti-theft devices mandatory, nor that we increase the difficulty of getting a driving licence, nor that we restrict the sales of cars, nor that we inspect roads more carefully, nor that we demand access to medical records of applicants for driving licences, nor that we have the army do traffic duty in their APCs, nor that we equip the Gardai with light tanks for their duties. Anyone suggesting these courses of action would have been laughed out of it - or treated as though they'd made a joke in very poor taste. And that didn't change when that Dublin Bus ran up on the pavement and killed several pedestrians last year.
The reason for this is that Irish people know cars. They own them, they use them, they're familiar with them, they allmost all have one. But they don't have that familiarity with firearms. So when there's an incident involving a firearm, they do make statements like the above (which are basicly the current law for firearms, transposed to vehicles), and take them seriously even though they're as ridiculous for a firearm as they would be for a car.
So not only is it group punishment of innocent parties, it's motivated by ignorance and fear and mental laziness.
That's downright immoral and unethical, and Ahern's acquiescence to it is an abdication of the duties of his office.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sh1t, I wish I could post like that.0
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »What's there to explain? He's decided licensed shooters are "the other side", which is just a daft notion in itself. There's no "proliferation" as such. The word only makes it sound sinister or conspiratorial. The fact is, there are people who couldn't own pistols for target shooting or humane dispatch before 2004, who wanted to, and who now do, following the changes in circumstances at that time. It's not some sinister underworld plan.
but i don't think ahern is focussed on stolen handguns which is what everybody else on the boards is obsessing about.
ahern is trying to patriarch. a father to the nation by taking those dangerous things away from us.0 -
this is long so I'll have to work on the font for your site0
-
There will always be a risk of a 50m wide rock falling out of the sky and destroying a city the size of New York in a kinetic energy blast larger than most weapons in the nuclear arsenal as well, but you don't seem to see that driving much in the way of legislative policy (and it is a real threat, quantifiable - indeed, quantified - and well researched and has been observed both on other planetary bodies and on our own).
The reason you don't see it driving much legislation is that it's so unfamiliar to everyone. The image now running through 95% of the readers here is either from Armageddon or from Deep Impact, because so few people have ever actually seen an impact crater for what it is, or comprehended the subject (outside of the professional field of study of these things that is).
So now that you have finally managed to recognise my point (albeit reluctantly having side-stepped it repeatedly) you resort to ridiculing that risk by comparing the probability of a shooting spree to that of a meteor hitting New York in order to strengthen your case. Personally I find you do yourself injustice as again your argument is inherently flawed as the probabilities of occurrence between the two are incomparable.
Evidently as common sense would predicate, legislation never will, in any shape or form, inhibit meteors from falling into the earth's atmosphere.
When was the last time a meteor that didn't burn up in earth's atmosphere hit a densely populated area such as New York?? It's a bit of a rhetorical question - never.
In the last year in Finland there have been two separate shootings in education facilities involving legally registered handguns(not meteors).- Nov 07 an 18 year old kills 9 people with a handgun.(a .22lr smallbore pistol – Sig Mosquito)
- Sept 08 a 22 year old kills 10 people with a handgun. (a .22lr smallbore pistol, Walther P22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_shooting_incident
The incidents in the US to my mind indicate that invariably these shooting sprees are done by the hands of a mentally perturbed youth.
Evidently, as a parent of a child in a college/high school it is a question that needs to be asked and answered within their own good conscience.
Saying "there is always a risk" is a statement that means absolutely nothing. Acting on the mere presence of a risk, without regard to it's likelihood or to the efficacy of the proposed action to mitigate that risk, is simply an irrational waste of time and resources, and can be - as it is here – unethical.
The difference here (unlike your supposition that a legislative ban is futile in mitigating this risk) is that in banning legally held handguns the risk of such an event like the two above (“legally held handguns being used to kill fellow classmates”) is “zero” following a ban.
To repeat, if there are no legally held handguns in Ireland, a youth cannot obtain a license for one and use it to kill as occurred in both cases above and the virginia tech massacre etc.
And if they had been banned, 19 people would be alive in Finland today and neither would have had received a license to hold a handgun.
I sincerely fail to see the relevance of ethics, I'm curious as to why you believe anything I've mentioned is unethical. To categorically dismiss the risk of a shooting spree within a school with a legally held handgun as 'an irrational waste of time and resources' is irresponsible and disrespectful for those parents who have lost their children to such atrocities.
I was in Finland for a week following that shooting. No-one though banning firearms was a suitable response.
Then I presume you didn't speak to the parents who lost their children to the lunatics in the above two incidents. As a shooter I presume it was either for a competition or you went hunting and as such your company were no doubt also shooters and even for holidays with 1.8m firearms and only 5.4m people it is not difficult to find fellow shooters.
Of course, the Finns are very used to firearms. Every Finn has seen one at least, and most own one and use it for hunting or target shooting. Same with the Swiss, and oddly, when they had their one firearms incident some years back, they didn't ban firearms either.
Finns have military service and belong to a culture that is rich in tradition with hunting/firearms that goes back centuries, in many ways they are similar to the Swiss. Your conclusion that Ireland is comparable with either the Swiss or Finns is yet another flawed argument, Finland/Switzerland rank within the top 5 for gun ownership and hunters/shooters maintain significant power and political leaders both within Swiss cantons and at the federal level are active target shooters. Irish shooters are a minority and are a minuscule % of the population in comparison to the Swiss/Finns.
Look at it this way - when those joyriders drove into a Garda car, killing the Gardai in it on the N11 a few years ago, we were all shocked and saddened. There was a call for action to clamp down on joyriding, to tackle the problem of juvinile deliquency with better community support and policing, a monument was erected to the Gardai killed - and then we all got back into our cars and kept on driving. No-one suggested that we ban cars, nor that we make anti-theft devices mandatory, nor that we increase the difficulty of getting a driving licence, nor that we restrict the sales of cars, nor that we inspect roads more carefully, nor that we demand access to medical records of applicants for driving licences, nor that we have the army do traffic duty in their APCs, nor that we equip the Gardai with light tanks for their duties. Anyone suggesting these courses of action would have been laughed out of it - or treated as though they'd made a joke in very poor taste. And that didn't change when that Dublin Bus ran up on the pavement and killed several pedestrians last year.
The reason for this is that Irish people know cars. They own them, they use them, they're familiar with them, they allmost all have one. But they don't have that familiarity with firearms. So when there's an incident involving a firearm, they do make statements like the above (which are basicly the current law for firearms, transposed to vehicles), and take them seriously even though they're as ridiculous for a firearm as they would be for a car.
So not only is it group punishment of innocent parties, it's motivated by ignorance and fear and mental laziness.
That's downright immoral and unethical, and Ahern's acquiescence to it is an abdication of the duties of his office.
Again it's the 'ignorance, fear, mental laziness, immoral, unethical' accusations thrown at those with any divergence of opinion, you become so entrenched in your position you refuse to take the blinkers off – even in discussing the issue with another shooter. Perhaps we're more open to discuss the issues on the continent and not stick our heads in the sand, immune to listening to another point of view.
Cars are a means of transport to get from A to B...it is without doubt the most retarded argument in favour of guns I've ever heard.
when was the last time a licensed permit driver drove their car around a university campus on a deliberate killing spree?? Never.
0 -
There will always be a risk of a 50m wide rock falling out of the sky and destroying a city the size of New York in a kinetic energy blast larger than most weapons in the nuclear arsenal as well, but you don't seem to see that driving much in the way of legislative policy (and it is a real threat, quantifiable - indeed, quantified - and well researched and has been observed both on other planetary bodies and on our own).
The reason you don't see it driving much legislation is that it's so unfamiliar to everyone. The image now running through 95% of the readers here is either from Armageddon or from Deep Impact, because so few people have ever actually seen an impact crater for what it is, or comprehended the subject (outside of the professional field of study of these things that is).
So now that you have finally managed to recognise my point (albeit reluctantly having side-stepped it repeatedly) you resort to ridiculing that risk by comparing the probability of a shooting spree to that of a meteor hitting New York in order to strengthen your case. Personally I find you do yourself injustice as again your argument is inherently flawed as the probabilities of occurrence between the two are incomparable.
Evidently as common sense would predicate, legislation never will, in any shape or form, inhibit meteors from falling into the earth's atmosphere.
When was the last time a meteor that didn't burn up in earth's atmosphere hit a densely populated area such as New York?? It's a bit of a rhetorical question - never.
In the last year in Finland there have been two separate shootings in education facilities involving legally registered handguns(not meteors).- Nov 07 an 18 year old kills 9 people with a handgun.(a .22lr smallbore pistol – Sig Mosquito)
- Sept 08 a 22 year old kills 10 people with a handgun. (a .22lr smallbore pistol, Walther P22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_shooting_incident
The incidents in the US to my mind indicate that invariably these shooting sprees are done by the hands of a mentally perturbed youth.
Evidently, as a parent of a child in a college/high school it is a question that needs to be asked and answered within their own good conscience.
Saying "there is always a risk" is a statement that means absolutely nothing. Acting on the mere presence of a risk, without regard to it's likelihood or to the efficacy of the proposed action to mitigate that risk, is simply an irrational waste of time and resources, and can be - as it is here – unethical.
The difference here (unlike your supposition that a legislative ban is futile in mitigating this risk) is that in banning legally held handguns the risk of such an event like the two above (“legally held handguns being used to kill fellow classmates”) is “zero” following a ban.
To repeat, if there are no legally held handguns in Ireland, a youth cannot obtain a license for one and use it to kill as occurred in both cases above and the virginia tech massacre etc.
And if they had been banned, 19 people would be alive in Finland today and neither would have had received a license to hold a handgun.
I sincerely fail to see the relevance of ethics, I'm curious as to why you believe anything I've mentioned is unethical. To categorically dismiss the risk of a shooting spree within a school with a legally held handgun as 'an irrational waste of time and resources' is irresponsible and disrespectful for those parents who have lost their children to such atrocities.
I was in Finland for a week following that shooting. No-one though banning firearms was a suitable response.
Then I presume you didn't speak to the parents who lost their children to the lunatics in the above two incidents. As a shooter I presume it was either for a competition or you went hunting and as such your company were no doubt also shooters and even for holidays with 1.8m firearms and only 5.4m people it is not difficult to find fellow shooters.
Of course, the Finns are very used to firearms. Every Finn has seen one at least, and most own one and use it for hunting or target shooting. Same with the Swiss, and oddly, when they had their one firearms incident some years back, they didn't ban firearms either.
Finns have military service and belong to a culture that is rich in tradition with hunting/firearms that goes back centuries, in many ways they are similar to the Swiss. Your conclusion that Ireland is comparable with either the Swiss or Finns is yet another flawed argument, Finland/Switzerland rank within the top 5 for gun ownership and hunters/shooters maintain significant power and political leaders both within Swiss cantons and at the federal level are active target shooters. Irish shooters are a minority and are a minuscule % of the population in comparison to the Swiss/Finns.
Look at it this way - when those joyriders drove into a Garda car, killing the Gardai in it on the N11 a few years ago, we were all shocked and saddened. There was a call for action to clamp down on joyriding, to tackle the problem of juvinile deliquency with better community support and policing, a monument was erected to the Gardai killed - and then we all got back into our cars and kept on driving. No-one suggested that we ban cars, nor that we make anti-theft devices mandatory, nor that we increase the difficulty of getting a driving licence, nor that we restrict the sales of cars, nor that we inspect roads more carefully, nor that we demand access to medical records of applicants for driving licences, nor that we have the army do traffic duty in their APCs, nor that we equip the Gardai with light tanks for their duties. Anyone suggesting these courses of action would have been laughed out of it - or treated as though they'd made a joke in very poor taste. And that didn't change when that Dublin Bus ran up on the pavement and killed several pedestrians last year.
The reason for this is that Irish people know cars. They own them, they use them, they're familiar with them, they allmost all have one. But they don't have that familiarity with firearms. So when there's an incident involving a firearm, they do make statements like the above (which are basicly the current law for firearms, transposed to vehicles), and take them seriously even though they're as ridiculous for a firearm as they would be for a car.
So not only is it group punishment of innocent parties, it's motivated by ignorance and fear and mental laziness.
That's downright immoral and unethical, and Ahern's acquiescence to it is an abdication of the duties of his office.
Again it's the 'ignorance, fear, mental laziness, immoral, unethical' accusations thrown at those with any divergence of opinion, you become so entrenched in your position you refuse to take the blinkers off – even in discussing the issue with another shooter. Perhaps we're more open to discuss the issues on the continent and not stick our heads in the sand, immune to listening to another point of view.
Cars are a means of transport to get from A to B...it is without doubt the most retarded argument in favour of guns I've ever heard.
when was the last time a licensed permit driver drove their car around a university campus on a deliberate killing spree?? Never.
Lykoris, are you really arguing that your guns should be taken off you?
That's what is about to happen here. Taken off us by a Minister who is happy to sign the death warrants for 50 or 60 children a year, so you'll have to excuse us being a little "emotive".
Maybe you're unsafe with your guns, I'm not.0 -
I think perhaps raising the age for handgun license would do a lot to mitigate risk here. Most people settle down around 25-26, there are real reasons for this, like hormonal changes, and pschological ones, such as making peace with your childhood or "getting over" issues. As far as I know at the moment there is a rapist on the loose in Athlone who is able to strike with impunity. Many of these type of characters kill their victims with their bare hands - what to do here? This is a regular problem in Athlone, when I was in college there years ago the same crap was happening - you will never remove risk from society.The incidents in the US to my mind indicate that invariably these shooting sprees are done by the hands of a mentally perturbed youth.
Evidently, as a parent of a child in a college/high school it is a question that needs to be asked and answered within their own good conscience.
There is no arguing with that, handguns and in fact ALL firearms pose a risk. My age related suggestion could surely help hugely. I think youths could be allowed supervised access to club guns after a period of 3 months regular attendance for other shooting related disciplines like clay or benchrest rifle.The difference here (unlike your supposition that a legislative ban is futile in mitigating this risk) is that in banning legally held handguns the risk of such an event like the two above (“legally held handguns being used to kill fellow classmates”) is “zero” following a ban.
To repeat, if there are no legally held handguns in Ireland, a youth cannot obtain a license for one and use it to kill as occurred in both cases above and the virginia tech massacre etc.
And if they had been banned, 19 people would be alive in Finland today and neither would have had received a license to hold a handgun.
You're not wrong....I sincerely fail to see the relevance of ethics, I'm curious as to why you believe anything I've mentioned is unethical. To categorically dismiss the risk of a shooting spree within a school with a legally held handgun as 'an irrational waste of time and resources' is irresponsible and disrespectful for those parents who have lost their children to such atrocities.[/COLOR]
In Ireland firearms are associated with the troubles. IIRC all handguns were collected in the 70's, and only .22lr or shotgun was licensed though there maybe were very rare exceptions. We have an aversion to guns, following the troubles I'd say we are keenly aware of the risks of firearms as weapons, but not so aware of the sporting nature of them.Finns have military service and belong to a culture that is rich in tradition with hunting/firearms that goes back centuries, in many ways they are similar to the Swiss. Your conclusion that Ireland is comparable with either the Swiss or Finns is yet another flawed argument, Finland/Switzerland rank within the top 5 for gun ownership and hunters/shooters maintain significant power and political leaders both within Swiss cantons and at the federal level are active target shooters. Irish shooters are a minority and are a minuscule % of the population in comparison to the Swiss/Finns.
We have a bunch of lawless thugs running around on the street every day who are reminding people of the dangers every day. But why aren't they housed in a nice cheap prison in the bog of Allen?
Why restrict the argument to Universities? There have been recorded killings in Ireland where (I think last year) a guy was delibarately ran down by a car. The US, and Israel have also seen many successful vehicle related attacks.Cars are a means of transport to get from A to B...it is without doubt the most retarded argument in favour of guns I've ever heard.
when was the last time a licensed permit driver drove their car around a university campus on a deliberate killing spree?? Never.0 -
Lykoris, are you really arguing that your guns should be taken off you?
That's what is about to happen here. Taken off us by a Minister who is happy to sign the death warrants for 50 or 60 children a year, so you'll have to excuse us being a little "emotive".
Maybe you're unsafe with your guns, I'm not.
Dresden,
Perhaps I'm at fault by not being coherent enough.
my personal views on target shooting
1) I'm passionate about firearms and have spent over EUR 15k this year alone in acquiring firearms/reloading equipment/optics to add to my collection. I'm what many would consider a passionate shooter while others unfamiliar with firearms would consider a 'gun nut'.
2) I love this sport and get immense pleasure in continuously trying to improve. It's this continuous challenge in my search of ultimate accuracy that drives me to continue my participation in target shooting. I also enjoy hunting.
However, I can see the point I've mentioned above as a valid concern by those who do not participate in any form of firearms related activity as can all my friends with whom I go to the range to shoot.
Every licensed holder of firearms throughout Europe is shocked, sickened and abhorred by the senseless loss of life from these tragic shootings. We all live under the imposition of such a ban should such a terrible event occur.
I think you are unfair to insinuate in your post that I use firearms in an unsafe manner
"Maybe you're unsafe with your guns"
you do not know me from adam and this is a comment to which I take great offense. I'm paranoid about firearms safety(handling, storage, transport) and take the responsibilities of having a state granted privilege of a firearms license with extreme seriousness.0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »My age related suggestion could surely help hugely. I think youths could be allowed supervised access to club guns after a period of 3 months regular attendance for other shooting related disciplines like clay or benchrest rifle.
An age related restriction for a handgun is one that I would support and 26 would be the age I would consider as many students in Europe finish their university studies later than the UK/ROI. I'd like to see a psychological examination as part of the process and a 6 month probationary period of regular supervised sessions under two separate handgun owners to assess the individual.
No doubt I will be accused of being too stringent.
I also have the personal believe that Europeans should be allowed to carry a handgun for self defense in much the same way as the US - the equivalent of their concealed carry permit.0 -
i can't believe shooters who come on here and deny the purpose guns are for to kills things more easier, more rapid, and repeatable, from a distance, then any other handheld weapon.0
-
Advertisement
-
lostexpectation wrote: »i can't believe shooters who come on here and deny the purpose guns are for to kills things more easier, more rapid, and repeatable, from a distance.
There is no denying that guns are used to kill. I don't recall any shooter stating otherwise in this thread or have I overlooked or misunderstood something
in war conflicts they are used to kill humans.
within a hunting context to kill boar/deer
farmers for vermin control against foxes, rabbits to protect their crops/livelihood.
They are also used by millions for target shooting and as a means of defense but I fully agree with your point - the primary use is to kill.0
Advertisement