Blanket Ban on Handguns

dresden8

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.

Eh, what?

Nodin

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, then any other handheld weapon.

You might provide a quote to back that up.

In any regard, thats not the use, outside of hunting, that licencsed owners here put them to.

Sparks

Firstly, I'm actually quite personally offended at the idea that we need to raise the age at which you can apply for a firearms licence for handguns in order to mitigate risk. Mainly because that's an explicit statement that there is a significant risk, and that it stems from people like me. People certified as safe by the Gardai. People subject to onerous inspections and who have to abandon several areas of privacy to obtain the licences they use. The perceived level of risk simply does not exist. The risk associated with licencing firearms is negligible and to argue otherwise is disingenous at best.

As to comparisons with "ridiculous" events like meteorite impacts, the simple fact is that both are comparable in terms of liklihood, and the reaction to the comparison is instructive.

As to ridiculing comparisons with cars, you've obviously completely missed my point, which was not that cars are a similar threat (they're not, cars are a far more dangerous risk, killing hundreds of people each and every year). My point was that the degree of familiarity with a risk has enormous impact on how it is perceived.

This is a proven fact - humans are appallingly poor at accurate risk perception. Observe the many examples throughout even modern history when society became concerned with a threat publicised in the media. SARS, bird flu, travellers, muslims, GM foods, global warming, ebola, HIV, MDR TB, MRSA, terrorism, airline crashes, and so on - every single one inaccurately assessed by the general population. Either very serious threats were not seen as serious threats (like TB) or things were seen as more of a threat than they actually posed (like ebola). Firearms in Ireland are in the same position - few are familiar with them, so the public's perception of risk with them is heavily overestimated. In Finland and in Switzerland, and indeed across the continent, the degree of familiarity is far higher and so the risk is perceived more accurately.

Lemming

lykoris wrote: »

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.

Actually, there was an incident about 4 (maybe 5?) years ago in Dublin. It was most likely not intentional per-se, but nonetheless highlights the absolute ease with which large loss of life could be carried out with a car.

A failed asylum seeker, in what I can only presume was panic and completely irrational thought after receiving his failed asylum & deportation notice, drove down a busy pedestrian-only street (Henry Street) at speed on a weekday morning. Thankfully nobody was killed but 32 people (if I recall) were put in hospital.

So how's that? He managed to hit 32 people in about 20 seconds ...


But as Sparks has said, we are aware of what cars are and their risks from an early age and hence we do not perceive them as a great risk. We don't just allow people use cars (well, we shouldn't be at any rate) either. You need to jump through several hoops in order to be allowed use a car and then you have to go through yearly monetary costs in order to keep using a car.

lykoris

Lemming wrote: »

Actually, there was an incident about 4 (maybe 5?) years ago in Dublin. It was most likely not intentional per-se, but nonetheless highlights the absolute ease with which large loss of life could be carried out with a car.

A failed asylum seeker, in what I can only presume was panic and completely irrational thought after receiving his failed asylum & deportation notice, drove down a busy pedestrian-only street (Henry Street) at speed on a weekday morning. Thankfully nobody was killed but 32 people (if I recall) were put in hospital.

So how's that? He managed to hit 32 people in about 20 seconds ...


But as Sparks has said, we are aware of what cars are and their risks from an early age and hence we do not perceive them as a great risk. We don't just allow people use cars (well, we shouldn't be at any rate) either. You need to jump through several hoops in order to be allowed use a car and then you have to go through yearly monetary costs in order to keep using a car.

This line of argument is poor at best.

firearms were designed to kill

just as cars were designed to transport from A to B

if you cannot discern the difference between the above or the fact that nobody has used a car to "kill" 32 (not injure) people within a university campus.

Shooters with these arguments are grasping at straws and desperate to deflect the deaths a firearm can call with extreme ease, instead you ought to be addressing the concerns of firearms and not deflecting the concerns of the public.

As a shooter it's an embarrassing argument to hear.

Lemming

lykoris wrote: »

This line of argument is poor at best.

firearms were designed to kill

just as cars were designed to transport from A to B

if you cannot discern the difference between the above or the fact that nobody has used a car to "kill" 32 (not injure) people within a university campus.

You asked the question. I answered with an example of just how easily it could have been carried out. The current proposed legislation is working off a lot of "ifs" and "maybes", and so I will use "if" and "maybe" to show just how short-sighted it is and ineffectual it will be. Why is it acceptable to claim that legal firearms must be banned on the possibility of something bad happening, when you can equally extend the same to cars to pick an obvious example. After all they are several tons of fast moving metal that can kill with alarming ease above 40mph - circa 60kph (and on Irish roads regrettably do all too frequently)

Shooters with these arguments are grasping at straws and desperate to deflect the deaths a firearm can call with extreme ease, instead you ought to be addressing the concerns of firearms and not deflecting the concerns of the public.

As a shooter it's an embarrassing argument to hear.

As I have already said; I. AM. NOT. A. Shooter.

What I want is action by the government that will actually f*cking work, not play a cynical PR game that amounts to precisely DICK

lykoris

No reputable shooting organisation be it hunting/target shooting orientated uses this line of argument in discussions with government vis-à-vis firearms legislation, it has never once been mentioned in anything I've read these past years from FACE, BASC or any other representative organisation of shooters in Europe.

It's beyond naive as a basis for arguing in favour of firearms.

dresden8

I'm confused.

You claim to be a shooter who is supportive of the right to shoot under certain restrictions.

We have the most restrictive hand-gun legislation in Europe and yet the minister is not happy and wants a blanket handgun ban, purely for short-term political gain because they have let the gangsters and street thugs take control.

The judges and police who have allowed this to happen are attacking legal handgun owners in the absence of a real criminal justice system.

Taking handguns (and possibly more, when the Criminal Justice Act is passed) out of the hands of those who have been passed fit to hold them is not going to solve our current gun-crime crisis.

jmayo

Heard discussion earlier on Marian Finucane show.
They were discussing East Wall shooting and how kids can get use of handguns so easily. Of course one of the muppets on the show said he thought the minister was right in banning all handguns, since there were so many in the country.
Then one said that the handguns were coming in with drugs shipments.
Affectively according to some RTE guests law abiding target shooters must be getting their hand guns with drugs shipments :rolleyes:
Of course Finnucane agreed there were too many guns in the country and something had to be done. Did anybody distinguish between legal and illegal handguns ? NO.
I' ll bet the text I send asking them to apologise to law abiding gun owners that are affectively now labelled drug dealers was filed under cranks :rolleyes:

So with this level of eejits be they politicans, journalists, commentators, etc believeing this sh***, then where the f*** is this country going.
Yet again the easy option is taken and all the smug know it alls can all go off happy knowing they have done something.

Of course the bleeding hearts all stated that the poor children were neglected and the parents needed to be taught parenting skills. One guest actually surprisingly mentioned how suspended sentence was bad in one case of 18 year old caught with 20 grands of herion.

Oh Finucane went on to mention how lots of tax payers money was wasted.
I would add that her own salary is a waste as well.

Sparks

Lykoris, you cannot on one hand say we are naive to say no risk exists when we in fact mean that the risk is so small as to be negligible; and on the other say that comparison with other, larger risks is ridiculous because Henry Ford wasn't inventing a weapon when he invented the model T. The fact is, my handgun isn't designed to kill and neither is either of my rifles. They're olympic target shooting firearms, and are as designed to kill as an olympic javelin or olympic recurve bow is (and in fact those would be far more efficient at killing someone than mine would be). And most firearms held in Ireland are designed for killing magpies and foxes. If you want to claim design purpose is relevant then the argument doesn't apply to 99% of the firearms licenced in Ireland; and if you say that killing foxes and killing humans is the same thing, then you're not looking at design use, but abuse, in which case you have to consider cars as possible weapons.

There's a logical inconsistency in your argument.

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

There's a logical inconsistency in your argument.

I suppose that is the polite way of saying he's full of sh1te.

Rovi

jmayo wrote: »

Heard discussion earlier on Marian Finucane show.

Here we go-
http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-marianfinucane-2008-12-14.smil

Needs RealPlayer, segment begins at 36:50.

jmayo

Thanks Rovi
listening to it again just infuriates me even more.
I think Finucane and RTE should apologise to gun owners who have legally held firearms.
They have affectively being labelled drug dealers and murderers by these half wits.
Nice to see Avril Doyle is trying to screw up sport shooting in this country like her and her gang screwed up the Irish showjumping team :rolleyes:

ART6

I don't own a gun. I never have. I have no interest in the ban. But I can only reiterate what many others have said in this thread. Banning legally held handguns is simply another example of the pathetic and simplistic thinking of the current government. If they do this in this case, what other infringement of people's freedon of decision will be next? Ban pizzas becuse some people might get fat and die of heart disease? Ban dogs because someone got bitten? While we're at it, let's fill in the Irish sea in case someone drowns in it.

It is said that the people get the government they deserve. Oh what sinners we must be!!

It wasn't me!

ART6 wrote: »

It is said that the people get the government they deserve. Oh what sinners we must be!!

I tend to believe that the people who vote for the government deserve it when they get screwed by it. When you didn't vote for it, having to smile while they screw you sticks in the craw somewhat.

lykoris

Sparks wrote: »

if you say that killing foxes and killing humans is the same thing

Sparks,

Where did I say the above ? Reread any of my posts and quote me where I said killing foxes and humans is the same thing. Obviously you'll state you said 'if' before and you're assuming that is what I meant. Any individual not looking to spin my words into their own convoluted meaning understands clearly what I said.

I've nothing further to add on this debate/forum - please delete my account as administrator.

Dresden,

I'd suggest you learn to be civil or simply learn to hold your uncouth tongue, stating I'm full of ****e as you so eloquently put it does nothing but highlight your level of 'intelligence'. I'd suggest you buy yourself a dictionary and a thesaurus for Christmas if you wish to converse in a civil debate among 'mature' adults. Until then crawl back under your rock where you belong.

Stones85

OP, I think Australia's handgun laws are pretty sensible - basically you are not able to own or buy and hangun unless you are a registered competition shooter, even then you must visit an official shooting range 3/4 times a month and document it, otherwise you loose your gun lisence and all your guns.

I see no reason for someone owning a handgun unless they are some sort of competition shooter. Why would you need that style of weapon?

Manic Moran

Stones85 wrote: »

I see no reason for someone owning a handgun unless they are some sort of competition shooter. Why would you need that style of weapon?

Since sporting purpose is the only thing that handguns are currently licensed for in Ireland (and also requires club membership and recommendation) I don't much see the practical difference between the Australian and Irish philosophies on the issue.

NTM

Stones85

If thats the case, then it does seem a bit of an immature, short-sighted decision.

Do we have the regular documented visits to a shooting range legislation in order to keep the gun and lisence in place here in Ireland?

It wasn't me!

Stones85 wrote: »

OP, I think Australia's handgun laws are pretty sensible - basically you are not able to own or buy and hangun unless you are a registered competition shooter, even then you must visit an official shooting range 3/4 times a month and document it, otherwise you loose your gun lisence and all your guns.

I see no reason for someone owning a handgun unless they are some sort of competition shooter. Why would you need that style of weapon?

That's actually very similar to the regulation we have at the moment. All handguns are licensed either for target shooting or for humane dispatch of deer, though those cases are very rare. I wouldn't agree with writing it in law that you need to attend a range 3/4 times a month, as that's simply very difficult to do. I get to my range every couple of weeks if I can, but it might be less if I'm busy in college (which I am, fairly constantly). As is, the authorisations for ranges usually stipulate that a detailed record of who's there with dates has to be kept and is available to the Gardai at any time. People want pistols because they want to shoot pistol disciplines, is the only way of looking at it. It's no use telling them they can go off and shoot shotgun or rifle instead, because that's like telling someone who loves driving cars that there are always horses to ride instead; the two are just so different. Frankly, I think our current legislation with regard to firearms is practical and effective, and I think that to presuppose a boom in the numbers of pistols licensed and a threat arising as a result undermines the licensing procedure we do have and the position of Garda superintendents who've signed off on the licensees as being safe and competent. Legislation introduced in respect of this is unnecessary, will not tackle the crime problem it professes to tackle and undermines the authority of those Garda superintendents who've previously decided that those holders of licensed pistols had *good reason* and were of *suitable character* and could hold them *without posing a threat to public security or the peace*. Given the persona designata status of the Garda superintendent in matters of firearms licensing, it's a rather serious thing to allege that the superintendents have licensed these firearms despite the fact that they pose a threat to the peace. In my mind, either the minister is either suggesting that the issue of pistol licences is in contradiction of the firearms act (if, by their nature, pistols pose a threat to the public security or the peace) and accusing superintendents of wrongfully issuing them, or he is allowing that no pistol cert granted to date has been wrongfully granted, but suggesting that one will be, which again undermines the position of the Garda superintendent.

dresden8

lykoris wrote: »

Dresden,

I'd suggest you learn to be civil or simply learn to hold your uncouth tongue, stating I'm full of ****e as you so eloquently put it does nothing but highlight your level of 'intelligence'. I'd suggest you buy yourself a dictionary and a thesaurus for Christmas if you wish to converse in a civil debate among 'mature' adults. Until then crawl back under your rock where you belong.

If you wanted to be a licensed hand-gun holder in Ireland you'd want to develop a thicker skin than that.

I only said you were talking sh1te and you throw a strop.

The judges, police and Justice Minister have branded licensed hand-gun holders as drug dealing, street thug hit-men.

Welcome to the "outraged" club.

lostexpectation

i think target shooters are bit self obsessed the ban isn't about you

It wasn't me!

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think target shooters are bit self obsessed the ban isn't about you

Well, the ban proposes to tackle gun-crime, by targetting legally held firearms, so target shooters being the only ones affected by the ban, it really is about them.

Unless you have information nobody else does to suggest that it will in fact tackle gun-crime? Or remove illegally held handguns from the streets?

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think target shooters are bit self obsessed the ban isn't about you

Who else would be? The only people the thing is going to affect will be target shooters.

NTM

Nodin

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think target shooters are bit self obsessed the ban isn't about you

???????

Wertz

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think target shooters are bit self obsessed the ban isn't about you

lol

On a side note, I wonder if Minister Roche's assailants were carrying licensed firearms today?

lostexpectation

and they care even less about airsoft

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Who else would be? The only people the thing is going to affect will be target shooters.

NTM

yes 'target shooters'

dresden8

No, seriously, what are you trying to insinuate? Get it on out there.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes 'target shooters'

If one counts that very small number of 'coup de grace' pistols used in hunting, unless I miss my guess about 99.9% of legally-owned handguns in Ireland are used on a club range, at targets set up on the range for the purpose. Be they steel plates, pieces of paper, or bowling pins and so on depending on the discipline, but targets none-the-less.

NTM