Gun laws and individual freedom in Ireland

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I've had firearms of my own since 2001 and used them since 1994, I've trained hundreds of people to use them, I'm certified as an ISSF judge and I've represented my club and country abroad in the sport, and I don't have any health records in the system to begin with, and even if I had no GP will release them, not on the strength of the form I've signed.

The system doesn't work, basicly, it just provides you with ways to inadvertently commit a crime (by making a mistake on your form or filling it out incorrectly, or not being able to give an answer that's 'true' from the point of view of the form).

I'd argue that in this day and age someone should be compelled to keep a valid medical history on file with a doctor and that they should keep it up to date (i.e. have previous doctors forward on details to their new one). It should be kept private of course, but it should exist. For life assurance and similar it's very necessary.

But that's a separate debate.

Nodin

starbelgrade wrote: »

can I ask why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

Why not?

Some people enjoy the discipline of shooting, and firearms as works of engineering/tools in their own right. Some people watch trains for similar reasons. Only one bunch are the occassionally the subject of knee-jerk legislation though.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Were any of these people you talked to practicing psychiatrists out of interest?

Just one. The others were psychologists and nurses working in mental health.

The thing is, there's such an unhealthy stigmata around mental health in Ireland that anything, no matter how minor, is seen as permanently debilitating. Post-partum depression? Thought of as near-permanent. Depression over the death of a loved one? Erra, you never get over that, you're delicate for life afterwards. And so forth. And remember, you're not talking here about a qualified experienced psychologist or psychiatrist making the judgement, but the local Garda Superintendent. Who's not qualified in mental health. And the only one he's got permission to ask under the current act is your GP. Who's also unqualified, and who may not have seen you for as along as the local Garda has. Or in my case, may not even really exist in the sense assumes they exist in (the act is framed for the Ireland of 1925 where your GP delivered you at birth, knew you your whole life and might, were you unfortunate, be the chap signing your death certificate).

I'm not saying it's not a comforting thought; but it's just not workable because there's no way to objectively test mental health that doesn't take several weeks. Hell, even the Barr Tribunal's recommendation was a tick box on the form that asked you to tick it if you'd ever had a mental disorder that should preclude you from firearms ownership :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Nodin wrote: »

Some people enjoy the discipline of shooting, and firearms as works of engineering/tools in their own right. Some people watch trains for similar reasons. Only one bunch are the occassionally the subject of knee-jerk legislation though.

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.
Some specific guns are not of course, but for the most part, they are weapons.
While statistically it may be the case that it is not legally held firearms involved with crime, nevertheless they do get used in suicides and school shootings.
I haven't heard the same amount of concern for our "freedoms" when other weapons get banned, samurai swords for example.

All the other legal uses of these weapons can be replaced by other technologies. We don't need a gun to start a race for example.
We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

I'd argue that in this day and age someone should be compelled to keep a valid medical history on file with a doctor

Valid medical history of what? I've never had a serious illness or injury in my life. You might get my childhood innoculations, but that's about the most serious thing in there other than an allergy to penecillin, and that's a record that goes around your wrist or neck, not in a file.

Add to that the fact that I've moved from my home town to Greystones and now to Dublin, while most medical records can't be transferred from one floor of a hospital to another. So what hope have records kept by GPs on the back of index cards and old envelopes if you move clear across country? There is no standard for keeping medical records. Not on paper and not electronically. It's shockingly haphazard, even in hospitals (in the office of a GP it's out-and-out frightening).

Get the medical lads to tidy up their paperwork and then let's talk about keeping one file for one person for the whole country. Making it a legal necessity before it's practically possible is a really bad idea.

Nodin

RedPlanet wrote: »

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.

The emotive argument......

RedPlanet wrote: »

I haven't heard the same amount of concern for our "freedoms" when other weapons get banned, samurai swords for example..

(A) There was actually a great deal of similar comment on boards at the time.
(B) That legislation actually doesn't affect collectors of the genuine article (Katana, btw).

RedPlanet wrote: »

All the other legal uses of these weapons can be replaced by other technologies. We don't need a gun to start a race for example.
We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

...and I suppose we could get rid of bows, crossbows, and get the javelin out of the olympics as well.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Valid medical history of what? I've never had a serious illness or injury in my life. You might get my childhood innoculations, but that's about the most serious thing in there other than an allergy to penecillin, and that's a record that goes around your wrist or neck, not in a file.

Add to that the fact that I've moved from my home town to Greystones and now to Dublin, while most medical records can't be transferred from one floor of a hospital to another. So what hope have records kept by GPs on the back of index cards and old envelopes if you move clear across country? There is no standard for keeping medical records. Not on paper and not electronically. It's shockingly haphazard, even in hospitals (in the office of a GP it's out-and-out frightening).

Get the medical lads to tidy up their paperwork and then let's talk about keeping one file for one person for the whole country. Making it a legal necessity before it's practically possible is a really bad idea.

Oh I agree that is a mess. I just think that it's necessary. I mean, look at it this way, can an adult be reasonably expected to remember every illness they had as a kid, what exactly they were hospitalised for etc.

Sparks

RedPlanet wrote: »

The 2 are not equittable.
Trains are designed to carry people and loads, most guns are designed for killing.

God I'm sick of that one. Some guns are designed for killing, yes. But they're designed for killing rabbits or foxes or deer or boar or other food or vermin animals. Very, very, very few guns (and frankly, you wouldn't get past thirty models) are designed for killing humans (AK47s, P90s, M-16s, M-4s, and purpose-built sniper rifles, and that kind of military hardware).

(And for the record, while you could conceivably kill someone with my firearms, you'd be doing it by grabbing the barrel and beating the person to death with the buttplate of the rifle - and in that, it's as dangerous as a hurley. You might be able to kill them by shooting them, but it'd take a while with the airguns. The .22 might do it, but the thing weighs nearly 8kg and only takes one round at a time so you're not going to be holding up a bank with the thing. Frankly, my car makes for a more dangerous prospect. Or my recurve bow, which requires no licence and is bought over the counter, and would happily put a rather unpleasantly solid arrow through you and out the far side anywhere within fifty metres or so).

While statistically it may be the case that it is not legally held firearms involved with crime, nevertheless they do get used in suicides and school shootings.

Suicides you can't prevent by taking away tools, you have to address the root cause - mental health. Which we are loath to do in Ireland because there's such a stigmata attached to it.

Taking away guns to stop suicide has been tried. It looks like you've done something, so people stop working on the root cause. And the next year, congratulations Minister for Justice, suicide by firearm is down 100%; but boo to you Minister for Public Works, suicide by jumping from tall buildings is up 100%, and boo to you, Minister for Lifeguards, why was there such a rise in the number of drownings this year?

As to school shootings, the only one that's happened near here was dunblane (you can't really compare the US shootings because the systems of firearms control are so diametrically opposed), and the firearms used in dunblane were illegally held because Hamilton had lied on his application about the club he was in - he'd been chucked out of it, and several others, because at the time everyone thought he was a paedophile. The scottish police never lifted the phone to confirm his membership as they were meant to, and here we are today, with people merrily calling any licenced firearms holder a paedophile waiting for a chance to go shoot up a schoolyard full of children :mad:

We don't need a gun to keep deer populations down (we could introduce other species that would do a better job).

Oh dear. Er, no. We couldn't (does the phrase "She swallowed a spider to catch the fly" ring any bells). And frankly, even with every hunter in Ireland hard at it, we can't control the deer population we have now. Lots of them are in for a cruel death by starvation this winter, and the pressure for food will drive them further towards populated areas, so the number of fatal car accidents is going to rise as a result.

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Oh I agree that is a mess. I just think that it's necessary. I mean, look at it this way, can an adult be reasonably expected to remember every illness they had as a kid, what exactly they were hospitalised for etc.

It might be necessary, but it's not the patient's fault that the doctor's recordkeeping is unbelievably poor. So if legislation was introduced, it should be aimed at the medical establishment, not the patients!

RedPlanet

Nodin wrote: »

The emotive argument......

It's a statment of fact.
Google "define: gun" (without the quotes)
•a weapon that discharges a missile at high velocity (especially from a metal tube or barrel)

Guns are weapons by design, they are rightly classed as such.
Because they are weapons, they get regulated and or banned.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Just one. The others were psychologists and nurses working in mental health.

The thing is, there's such an unhealthy stigmata around mental health in Ireland that anything, no matter how minor, is seen as permanently debilitating. Post-partum depression? Thought of as near-permanent. Depression over the death of a loved one? Erra, you never get over that, you're delicate for life afterwards. And so forth. And remember, you're not talking here about a qualified experienced psychologist or psychiatrist making the judgement, but the local Garda Superintendent. Who's not qualified in mental health. And the only one he's got permission to ask under the current act is your GP. Who's also unqualified, and who may not have seen you for as along as the local Garda has. Or in my case, may not even really exist in the sense assumes they exist in (the act is framed for the Ireland of 1925 where your GP delivered you at birth, knew you your whole life and might, were you unfortunate, be the chap signing your death certificate).

I'm not saying it's not a comforting thought; but it's just not workable because there's no way to objectively test mental health that doesn't take several weeks. Hell, even the Barr Tribunal's recommendation was a tick box on the form that asked you to tick it if you'd ever had a mental disorder that should preclude you from firearms ownership :rolleyes:

Sure, but your statement was utterly false and as bad as the statement you're complaining about! Post-partum depression and actually most depression cases that GPs see are utterly different things to bipolar and schizophrenia. If anything we've a problem with a dual stigma, people after seeing someone with a minor depressive episode thinking that people with bipolar should be able to snap out of it as easily and other such crap.

There is a stigma and it is horrible, but surely you must realise how insulting statements like yours are to people like myself who after five to seven years of treatment are still faced with mental health problems on a near constant basis. Despite the best efforts of modern medicine we're still not living full and happy lives. It can be a lifelong problem and lumping us in with people who go through a minor depressive episode and then come out of it and never again have symptoms is, well, ridiculous!

Sparks

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's a statment of fact.

No, it's a statement of belief, and it's erroneous.

Guns are weapons by design, they are rightly classed as such.

"Weapon" is a thing used for the purpose of harming another person. The word carries an implied statement of intent. I do not own weapons. I own firearms. And frankly, I'd prefer it if you didn't slander me by calling them weapons. If you want to accuse me of intending to commit a crime, do so openly please. (And we've had to repeat that particular request to everyone from the Minister to the Commissioner down to the Gardai in the stations to the reporters covering this sort of thing, so you can understand why we don't see the humourous side to it).

(And firearms are regulated, six ways from sunday, and have been since the founding of the state. The point here is that many of the new regulations make no practical sense and serve no practical purpose).

Sparks

nesf wrote: »

Post-partum depression and actually most depression cases that GPs see are utterly different things to bipolar and schizophrenia.

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia would be the kind of thing I was referring to as where "real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place". They have biochemical causes in many (if not all) cases, and are pretty close to being the very definition of "serious" (and I'm pretty sure that counts as preaching to the choir).

The problem I was referring to is that there's no real delineation in most people's minds between those kind of serious issues, and minor issues when it comes to mental health in Ireland. And when people can't tell what's serious and what's not, the idea of legislating standards based on mental health is a very, very precarious one.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia would be the kind of thing I was referring to as where "real physical damage has been done or where the psychological damage was right off the charts in the first place". They have biochemical causes in many (if not all) cases, and are pretty close to being the very definition of "serious" (and I'm pretty sure that counts as preaching to the choir).

The problem I was referring to is that there's no real delineation in most people's minds between those kind of serious issues, and minor issues when it comes to mental health in Ireland. And when people can't tell what's serious and what's not, the idea of legislating standards based on mental health is a very, very precarious one.

Psychological damage =! inherent mental illnesses! The former implies something happened and that it was at some point undamaged rather than innate, you wouldn't describe someone born unable to walk as having a "damaged spine" would you?

RedPlanet

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's a statement of belief, and it's erroneous."Weapon" is a thing used for the purpose of harming another person. The word carries an implied statement of intent. I do not own weapons. I own firearms.

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.


Oxford English dictionary:
gun

• noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force. 2 a device for discharging something (e.g. grease) in a required direction. 3 N. Amer. a gunman: a hired gun.

Sparks

Well, it would rather depend on why they couldn't walk - Spina bifida for example, would be a damaged spine but it's a birth defect. And no, I'm not saying that psychological damage is the same as a biochemical problem, I'm saying those two causes are seperate from more easily treated mental health problems, from which a full recovery is possible.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.

Thanks. We've so far had apologies for the misuse of the word 'weapon' from the Minister, the DoJ and the various Gardai we've spoken to.

irish_bob

from listening to the story on the news of how a retired farmer in galway was beaten to death , it seems he put up a fight , sounds like he wouldnt have hesitated to use his index finger either had he been properly prepared

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well, you've one helluva hill to climb if you think you'll get folks generally agreeing that guns are not weapons. Good luck with that.


Oxford English dictionary:
gun

• noun 1 a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets or shells are propelled by explosive force. 2 a device for discharging something (e.g. grease) in a required direction. 3 N. Amer. a gunman: a hired gun.

Many months ago I had the exact same argument with him quoting the exact same dictionary. I really wouldn't waste your time on this.

nesf

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it would rather depend on why they couldn't walk - Spina bifida for example, would be a damaged spine but it's a birth defect. And no, I'm not saying that psychological damage is the same as a biochemical problem, I'm saying those two causes are seperate from more easily treated mental health problems, from which a full recovery is possible.

And you're wrong in that depression primarily caused by genetic factors isn't necessarily difficult to treat. You're drawing a distinction that isn't really there it's bloody impossible to say where genetic factors end and psychological factors begin to be the prime causal factor.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

Many months ago I had the exact same argument with him quoting the exact same dictionary. I really wouldn't waste your time on this.

Typical.
I recall before the last Olympics he was trumpeting about this Darren somebody and how this irish shooter was our best chance of a medal.
While i don't give much a sh*t about the Olympics i just peeped up an said that if were a betting man i'd put my money on our boxers, since that is where most (51%) of irish Olympic medals come from..
Anyway he wouldn't go away, but it did pique my interest that Ireland actually does have a shooter in the Olympics (talk about a niche sport!)
Anyway the result was predictable.

Our boxers did themselves (and Ireland) proud.
Our "shooter" must have had an off day.

OldJay

Irish people aren't trusted to handle chewing gum properly in Dublin Airport or to not smash the glass of a bus shelter . . . yet one or two in this thread want more 'freedom' for use of firearm/weapons/whatever irrelevant reference you wish to use ?? lol

SeanW

starbelgrade wrote: »

can I ask why you would want to own a gun in the first place?

1. Sport. Some people participate in shooting competitions, e.g. hitting targets at a shooting range. This sport is in the Olympics AFAIK.
2. Hunting. Self evident.
3. Self defense, while it's unlikely that we will face a government slaughter like what Overheal outlined, a more immediate problem in Ireland is a legal framework that favours criminals. Between the gun bans that guarantee exclusivity of certain guns to the criminals, and a justice system that is soft on scumbags, significant parts of this country are efrfectively under scumbag law. An example is in this thread in Ranting and Raving http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055734520 one of the peope mentioned in the thread was found guilty of stealing/vandalising cars FOR THE 13TH TIME and got probation! I also remember a Des Bishop show where he was retelling his experiences in poor neighboorhoods, in South Hill in Limerick, he told a story about a man who, the previous night, had stopped some scobes from robbing his car. They then came back the following night, and evicted him from the house. i.e. a gang of these scumbags ripped the front gate out of its mooring and rammed down the front door, while the guards stood by (in terror presumably).
   
   I doubt I'm the only one that thinks that a few MORE guns, not less, would help sort some of these problems out, by giving law abiding citizens a means to defend themselves and deal quicker, fairer and cheaper justice.
   
   In the U.S. all the crazy shooters go to places where they know their victims will be unarmed and thus defenseless. Amish schools, Unitarian (left wing) churches, no-gun army buildings.
   They don't target NRA meetings and police stations, for some inexplicable reason. The highest crime rates are almost exclusively in cities with tight gun control.
   
   In the U.K. they've had a total gun ban for some time now, and gun crime has not gone down AFAIK. In fact it's as easy as ever for a lawbreaker to get a gun.

Gun control is one thing government should stay the hell away from. Because let's be clear about this. Gun control laws only stop law abiding citizens from having guns, noone else.

ivanthehunter

Its is obvious to anyone involved with firearms that these laws are being introduced by politicians who have no understanding of practical firearms usage, they are only involved for political gain and self satisfaction. They spin their yarns and false hoods to and audience which is by demographics mainly an urban one, most of which are living lives that are completely disassociated with country pursuits and countryside issues.
It is through such demographic groups that the anti-hunting groups recruit their rank and file members. At this very moment another child is watching Bambie or some other animal that is personified and emotionalized through the magic of the TV. Its seems that our political masters also developed their world view through a TV in an urban house!! The demographic shift in our populous is seen by the master's of spin and they see votes by encouraging people to develop an unnatural fear for one of the safest sports in the land..
I'm probably given them too much credit! its prob their spin advisers that do the deceitful planning.

We have seen this government wipe away center fire pistol and revolver shooting from the sporting calender for good! They state that there is no need for such firearms as these are only killing machines and nothing more!!

Yet we are allowed keep our shotguns and rifles as these are seen as more realistic and genuine items related to marksmanship and hunting. Yet this government still imposes unrealistic restriction on use of these items and related items in sport. Such are these restriction that one's health might suffer as a result, simply because we are not afforded the right to use certain types of sound protection as the Health and safety act does not cater for activities outside of that which is deemed work! I make reference to sound moderator or as An Garda like to call them 'silencers'.

Neither are we allowed manufacture our own ammunition, which for some is seen as the zenith of rifle shooting yet or counterparts north of the border are allowed to load their own ammo!
Even though the garda have identified the fact that night time shooting can be more dangerous the government still have badly written laws in place that restrict shooter from using NV scopes but never fear the garda are here! here with their guild lines which suggest that fox shooters should inform them as to when and where such fox shooting is going to be carried out! What are the garda going to do? Sweep the field for campers and issue shooters with cones!! Where will this madness stop.

Ireland is an international joke when it comes to guns.

No secure storage of a standard single barrel or double barrel or 3 shot repeating shotgun is required here but if you own an air rifle that a 14year old can buy in Spain with out a licence or an air rifle that an 18y old can buy in Britain with out a licence then you're required to have a safe.

4 air rifles of low power here require the same home security as 4 .308 rifle!
One fires pellets the size of barley and the other fires ammo similar to that which an AK47 fires. Wheres the common sense approach now?

A crossbow requires similar security to a 50cal target rifle or an AK47 yet they are sold openly just north of the border with no licence needed. A crossbow is indeed a powerful firearm but its not comparable to other in the above class!!

With each amendment to the firearms act the picture become more distorted and the rope become even tighter.
Gun owners will have to stand together if we are to be awarded any recognition, we will all have to put aside our own micro theories and bond and speak through one orginization....

Overheal

starbelgrade wrote: »

Well, that's a loaded reply if ever I heard one. NB: Every argument henceforth shall be gunned down.

Metaphor much?

OldJay

SeanW wrote: »

The highest crime rates are almost exclusively in cities with tight gun control

You need to look up your sources from places other than gun-nut sites such as official government crime statistics from the FBI and relevant state depts.
Crime rate in CCW states dropped initially but then rose steadily subsequently.
There is nothing to prove that gun possession prevents crime.

As someone with five and a half years military service behind me (not in Ireland or UK), I'd like to ask how brave these proponents of guns for personal safety are to actually fire their weapon if need be. Do they realise the psychological implications of having hit someone regardless of circumstances? This isn't a case of just shooting someone to cause a 'flesh wound' thus disabling them and other myths. Are you actually prepared for what happens should you fire upon someone? I am 99% sure you are not.

SeanW

Justind wrote: »

You need to look up your sources from places other than gun-nut sites such as official government crime statistics from the FBI and relevant state depts.
Crime rate in CCW states dropped initially but then rose steadily subsequently.
There is nothing to prove that gun possession prevents crime.

I'll admit there may be places where good policing has generally replaced the need for individual gun ownership, but that's not always the case.

I'd like to ask how brave these proponents of guns for personal safety are to actually fire their weapon if need be. Do they realise the psychological implications of having hit someone regardless of circumstances? This isn't a case of just shooting someone to cause a 'flesh wound' thus disabling them and other myths. Are you actually prepared for what happens should you fire upon someone? I am 99% sure you are not.

You're right, I probably would not. Then again, I live just outside Longford town, where there aren't really huge social problems and we Longfordians have, for the most part, a live and let live attitude.
I also do not participate in shooting sports and have no inclination do so.

So for me personally, the issue does not arise. It's not a question of me being a gun nut.
I have no personal interest in gay marriage, cannibis or a few other things too, and I believe the government should get out of the way of those as well.

Oh, and, If I were living in South Hill, or some other sh1thole, and were constantly living in terror of roaming mobs of scumbags, I can quite assure you that I would be ready to do whatever it took to protect myself, my family and property.

Sparks

On the self defence tangent, noone gets a licence for a firearm in Ireland for self defence or defence of property. It's not a valid reason to have a firearm in Ireland.

As to the "More guns, Less crime" idea, the current scientific consensus on this is that there's no evidence to support it and no evidence that refutes it (at least, no evidence that you could depend on). To me personally, it's irrelevant, it's nothing to do with why I have firearms.

BTW SeanW, we didn't take an olympic medal this year; but in the last three years shotgun shooters have taken more medals for Ireland internationally than boxing, so raspberries to you my good man.

Overheal

Less to do with guns, more to do with Psychology then?

Sparks

Overheal wrote: »

Less to do with guns, more to do with Psychology then?

More ideology than psychology I think - it's a very american thing really.

RedPlanet

Sparks wrote: »

we didn't take an olympic medal this year; but in the last three years shotgun shooters have taken more medals for Ireland internationally than boxing, so raspberries to you my good man.

Yeah but c'mon, boxing isn't it one of those elitest niche sports where everyone gets a medal.