Would you keep a gun??

xzanti

Bambi wrote: »

better start banning those cars too so....

That's a bit of a silly statement to make in fairness..

A gun is designed to cause death or serious injury.. that's their soul purpose isn't it?

Yes, you could say that a car can cause death or serious injury but then you could say that about a lot of other things too in the wrong hands..

Cass

xzanti wrote: »

Nothing could convince me that it's 100% safe to own a firearm when you have children.

Nor would i try.

I have done so in the past to the detriment of my own sanity. Thing is i come, like most in shooting sports do, from a long line of family competitors/shooters. I grew up around firearms, and from the day i was old enough to walk it was drilled into me that every firearm is to treated as though loaded until you have shown it to be safe.

Poor education in firearm safety, the "throw it in the cornor of the hotpress" attitude that reigned for decades is dying out, but still alive in some poeples mind. With firearms any accident has the potential to be fatal. When you respect what it is you have, and treat it accordingly you will never have a problem.

Those that become complacent, relaxed, etc are the ones that suffer. Also in relation to a youngster finding a key or getting at a firearm. You could have a consaw, and a day of uniterupted time to try and get mine and you would fail. No-one knows where i have my keys. No-one knows the codes to my alarm system, etc. Why? They don't need to know.

Cass

Feisar wrote: »

The community is fairly fragmented to say the least with everyone looking to their own nest.

Without boring everyone else about the ins & outs of shooting politics we all still are under the same banner in the eyes of the government. ie - People with guns.

homerhop

xzanti wrote: »

That's a bit of a silly statement to make in fairness..

A gun is designed to cause death or serious injury.. that's their soul purpose isn't it?

Yes, you could say that a car can cause death or serious injury but then you could say that about a lot of other things too in the wrong hands..

Yes and cars were designed for public transport yet have branched out into motor sport, rally driving drag racing etc. The same applies to firearms, some are designed for sporting purpose. yes they can still kill the same as those cars can run over you, but as you said yourself in the wrong hands

It wasn't me!

xzanti wrote: »

That's a bit of a silly statement to make in fairness..

A gun is designed to cause death or serious injury.. that's their soul purpose isn't it?

Yes, you could say that a car can cause death or serious injury but then you could say that about a lot of other things too in the wrong hands..

Nope, my target rifle's sole purpose is to hit a 5mm circle 50m away, consistently. In about eight thousand rounds fired through it so far, it's not killed a single thing. It's for climbing onto podiums with, not killing. Could it be misused? Yeah, sure, but so could a litany of other everyday objects. All it is is a tool to fulfill a sporting purpose. I train just about every day, fire thousands and thousands of rounds a year and am focused and disciplined as an athlete in an amateur sport. I want to take it to the highest level, and yet I have to license the tools of my sport, while an Olympic archer doesn't, and nobody's calling for the licensing of bows, despite their having no legitimate purpose but sport (Can't hunt with them here) and being freely available over the counter.

Seachmall

xzanti wrote: »

A gun is designed to cause death or serious injury.. that's their soul purpose isn't it?

No. Many guns are designed for pest control. Others for sporting.

xzanti wrote:

Nothing could convince me that it's 100% safe to own a firearm when you have children.

Ironically enough someone with your mentality would be much a more responsible gun owner than those in the stories you're referring to.

Kudos.

DarkJager

I'm of the opinion we should be allowed to use home defence as reasoning for owning a firearm. Scumbags aren't afraid of carrying weapons or harming occupants if they decide to rob a house, so why shouldn't the occupants be allowed to keep something which might make such scumbag behaviour seem like a very very bad idea?

xzanti

Seachmall wrote: »

No. Many guns are designed for pest control. .

And how do they control the pests exactly? Tickle them off your premises?

I know guns have different levels of power etc.. but ultimately aren't they all weapons?

As for sporting.. are you referring to clay shooting etc? I've been clay shooting a couple of times and I quite enjoy it.. but the force in those guns leave me with a sore shoulder and I can feel the power in them.. you can't tell me that they wouldn't be lethal in the wrong hands.. whether or not they were produced with sport in mind..

Look I can see this argument going on til the cows come home and I'm not going to change my opinion.. keeping a gun in your house is just playing with fire.. and that's my last word on it tbh..

Stiffler2

I'm in the process of getting one, need 1 more landowners permission signed form.

Only getting it because of this new defence act which means I can shoot anyone in the genitalia as soon as they enter my premises.

just watching out the curtains for the TV license inspector dude

Seachmall

xzanti wrote: »

And how do they control the pests exactly? Tickle them off your premises?

I know guns have different levels of power etc.. but ultimately aren't they all weapons?

As for sporting.. are you referring to clay shooting etc? I've been clay shooting a couple of times and I quite enjoy it.. but the force in those guns leave me with a sore shoulder and I can feel the power in them.. you can't tell me that they wouldn't be lethal in the wrong hands.. whether or not they were produced with sport in mind..

Yes, you're correct in that but you're labeling the item based on the user's intent.

An axe in and of itself is not a weapon, but of course it could be used as one.

A .22 lr is not designed to kill a person but it is certainly capable of it.

The intent of the user defines the tool's purpose. So no, killing [people] is not the sole purpose of a gun.

Maximus Alexander

xzanti wrote: »

As for sporting.. are you referring to clay shooting etc? I've been clay shooting a couple of times and I quite enjoy it.. but the force in those guns leave me with a sore shoulder and I can feel the power in them.. you can't tell me that they wouldn't be lethal in the wrong hands.. whether or not they were produced with sport in mind.

I don't know why you keep coming back to this. Almost everything is lethal in the wrong hands. Even, oddly enough... hands.

Cass

DarkJager wrote: »

I'm of the opinion we should be allowed to use home defence as reasoning for owning a firearm. Scumbags aren't afraid of carrying weapons or harming occupants if they decide to rob a house, so why shouldn't the occupants be allowed to keep something which might make such scumbag behaviour seem like a very very bad idea?

This does not happen like in the movies.

Then done tests surveys, etc in other countries. The majority of the time, with people that could legally have firearms for the purposes of home defense, they either;

• Froze when confronted with someone.
• Failed to fire at them as they could not do it.
• Had the firearm taken from them and either used on them or (if lucky) simply stolen.

Its not always as clear cut as people think.

DarkJager

Ezridax wrote: »

This does not happen like in the movies.

Then done tests surveys, etc in other countries. The majority of the time, with people that could legally have firearms for the purposes of home defense, they either;

• Froze when confronted with someone.
• Failed to fire at them as they could not do it.
• Had the firearm taken from them and either used on them or (if lucky) simply stolen.

Its not always as clear cut as people think.

Depends on the person to be honest but I see your point. Personally I feel very strongly about scum illegally entering my home and trying to steal things which belong to me. I'd quite happily pull the trigger on such a person without a second thought.

M cebee

had a sibling murdered years ago when someone used another persons licensed firearm

is there a law regarding access?

xzanti

LeighH wrote: »

I don't know why you keep coming back to this. Almost everything is lethal in the wrong hands. Even, oddly enough... hands.

Oh I know that.. and of course you could argue the point that my partner shouldn't keep his tools in the house because a spanner could be used as a deadly weapon.. I get that!!!!! but referring back to my original argument..

I can't imagine a teenage boy, having his friends over and being like "hey lads, wait til you see what my dad has hidden in the attic"... and pulling out a big spanner.. and his friends being in awe of it and wanting to touch it and point it at each other etc..

Can you? That's my point.

Stercus Accidit

M cebee wrote: »

had a sibling murdered years ago when someone used another persons licensed firearm

is there a law regarding access?

They are mandated to be keep in steel safes bolted to the walls/floor.

M cebee

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

M cebee wrote: »

had a sibling murdered years ago when someone used another persons licensed firearm

is there a law regarding access?

They are mandated to be keep in steel safes bolted to the walls/floor.

my sister long time ago
innocent victim

suppose a knife could've done same thing
if firearm had been locked up

Cass

DarkJagger wrote:

. I'd quite happily pull the trigger on such a person without a second thought.

You think you would but i guarantee if in that position you would not react the way you think you would.

I personally believe a person should feel safe in their own home, and should be allowed to defend that safety by whatever means are appropriate, however i would not agree with guns for self protection.

How many people have been shot in America, etc by mistaken identity. Only recently there was an article in an American paper about a Father that shot a person in his home. Turns out it was his daughter back from college a few days early, and she used her key to get into the house late at night/early morning.

M cebee wrote: »

had a sibling murdered years ago when someone used another persons licensed firearm

is there a law regarding access?

Yes.

Its called the secure firearms storage SI. It sets out the MINIMUM standards a person must adhere to according to amount of firearms, area they live, crime rate in that area, etc. It can go from a simple gunsafe to an alarm system most banks would have trouble rivaling. and thats not an exaggeration.

Maximus Alexander

xzanti wrote: »

I can't imagine a teenage boy, having his friends over and being like "hey lads, wait til you see what my dad has hidden in the attic"... and pulling out a big spanner.. and his friends being in awe of it and wanting to touch it and point it at each other etc..

Can you? That's my point.

I can see where you're coming from in that respect. However you could say the same about a car, but I don't think teens joyriding their own parents' cars is a particularly widespread problem. This is also the reason why they must be very securely locked.

That said, if I was a gun owner and I had kids, I would probably keep them securely stored somewhere other than my home.

firefly08

Ezridax wrote: »

This does not happen like in the movies.

Then done tests surveys, etc in other countries. The majority of the time, with people that could legally have firearms for the purposes of home defense, they either;

• Froze when confronted with someone.
• Failed to fire at them as they could not do it.
• Had the firearm taken from them and either used on them or (if lucky) simply stolen.

Its not always as clear cut as people think.

To be honest, this is mostly anti-gun and anti-self defence propaganda. I know that's not your agenda, but a lot of that info like the above comes from the likes of Michael Moore, and they pull it out of their asses.

The first 2 points don't even relate to firearms at all. If you can't shoot someone to save your own life, then you sure as **** can't do by hand.

If you read the right sources you'd be amazed at how often people use guns in self defense. Try checking in on places like this from time to time.

I remember having an argument on another Boards forum where someone said something along the lines of "I can't imagine my Granny using a gun to fend off an attacker!", and it took me about 30 seconds to find half a dozen cases reported by mainstream media, of grandmothers using guns to scare away attackers and thieves.

It all comes down to whether you're willing to do what it takes to defend yourself, or not. If you are, having a gun is a no brainier. If you're not, a gun is fairly pointless, as is a baseball bat or a cell phone.

Seachmall

xzanti wrote: »

Oh I know that.. and of course you could argue the point that my partner shouldn't keep his tools in the house because a spanner could be used as a deadly weapon.. I get that!!!!! but referring back to my original argument..

I can't imagine a teenage boy, having his friends over and being like "hey lads, wait til you see what my dad has hidden in the attic"... and pulling out a big spanner.. and his friends being in awe of it and wanting to touch it and point it at each other etc..

Can you? That's my point.

In that sense guns are like sex.

Every kid wants one because he's told he can't.

I'm not suggesting we should allow kids to have sex own guns but it's more of a cultural thing as opposed to the danger of the gun.

Why you wouldn't have a gun in your house is completely reasonable and I'm sure many here agree with you (personally I wouldn't trust myself with a gun) but at the end of the day the gun itself poses little danger. It's the hands that hold it. Those who have shown themselves to be completely responsible in all matters of gun ownership shouldn't be denied their guns simply because of curious or, in my case, moronic hands.

xzanti

Seachmall wrote: »

IIt's the hands that hold it. Those who have shown themselves to be completely responsible in all matters of gun ownership shouldn't be denied their guns simply because of curious or, in my case, moronic hands.

Oh absolutely.. and my opening statement was that I wouldn't allow one in my home because I have a child..

People who hunt or clay shoot regularly etc as a hobby are well entitled to have whatever they want in their own homes and I don't doubt that they take great care of their equipment and take pride in them etc.. and hopefully have them locked away properly if there are kids present..

But I just wouldn't take the risk.. I would feel like I was inviting trouble by having one in the house..

But that's just me.

Cass

LeighH wrote: »

That said, if I was a gun owner and I had kids, I would probably keep them securely stored somewhere other than my home.

They must be securely stored. In a locked garage/shed, attic, etc. They cannot be stored in a "barn" a mile form the house though. Well maybe not. It would be up to the Crime prvention officer to determine the suitability of the location.

firefly08 wrote: »

To be honest, this is mostly anti-gun and anti-self defence propaganda. I know that's not your agenda, but a lot of that info like the above comes from the likes of Michael Moore, and they pull it out of their asses. .

Do me a favour. Never insult me again by comparing me to the likes of Michael Moore, and his like.

I am speaking from a personal point of view and you nor anyone will disuade me from my beliefs. As for you accusation that it propaganda. Its my personl opinion not some summarisation of randomn blogs, posts, articles from those too lazy or incompetent to actually do any sort of test or survey themselves.

People talk big when behind a keyboard or to their friends/family, but i assure you when placed in a situation their reactions are nowhere near as good or resolute as they think. Nor should it be. I would befend the safety of my family from anything, anyone at any time. However the decision to use force, such as a firearm, is one that should not be taken as lightly as some seem to think it is.

The first 2 points don't even relate to firearms at all. If you can't shoot someone to save your own life, then you sure as **** can't do by hand.

No idea what you're talking about. My first points relate DIRECTLY to the use of a firearm for self defense. As to using your hands i never made any mention of any such thing.

If you read the right sources you'd be amazed at how often people use guns in self defense. Try checking in on places like this from time to time

American site?

Has exactly what to do with Irish gun ownership/law?

See this is more of it. The constant comparison by our politicians, etc, and now you, between Ireland, and the USA. Our laws are different, attitudes toward gun ownership, rights, even their constitution is different. So comparing Ireland to the USA in terms of "right to keep and bear arms" (which is illegal here), guns for home protection (also illegal), etc is pointless, inaccurate, and somewhat moot.

Maximus Alexander

Ezridax wrote: »

They must be securely stored. In a locked garage/shed, attic, etc. They cannot be stored in a "barn" a mile form the house though. Well maybe not. It would be up to the Crime prvention officer to determine the suitability of the location.

That's not what I meant, I would store them at the gun club / shooting range assuming such facilities are legal and available. Unless it's a requirement, I see no reason to store them at home as they would be of no use to me there.

Seachmall

Ezridax wrote: »

People talk big when behind a keyboard or to their friends/family, but i assure you when placed in a situation their reactions are nowhere near as good or resolute as they think.

This is true for many things.

Most people think when confronted by a scumbag they'd become Bruce Lee. Most people wouldn't.
Most people think in a fire they'd become the hero. Most people wouldn't.
Most people think they'd approach a suspicious guy hanging around a playground. Most people wouldn't.*
Most people think they'd instinctively pull the trigger in a home invasion. Most people wouldn't.

And, finally, most people think they're the exception to the above statements.


*I'd trust a mother to approach this guy far faster than a man, father or not. Mothers might be the exception here.

Cass

Thats always an option. Some shooting ranges do provide those facilities for their members.

However, and i refer to myself here, i bring my firearms home to clean, adjust, check, etc. These would mostly be my target firearms. Also in the case of the guns i use for hunting they would be useless to me stored 5, 25, 50 miles away in a strong room on a range.

token101

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can think of a reason: A number of instances which would require the use of a weapon for self defense tend to happen at places other than the shooting range or the house gun locker. Further, one is not normally given advance indication that one is about to be involved in something unpleasant, from rape to robbery, so carrying it just means you're prepared for what are, unfortunately, not such uncommon events. It doesn't take much Googling to find practical examples of CCW holders finding legitimate needs.

So we arm our societies to the max and have a gun battle in the streets? You're turning streets into a potential war zone before anything has happened. Even if you have a gun, how likely is it that it will be wrestled from you and used against you if you hesitate momentarily in shooting someone dead? Robbery happens every day in this country, it is exceptionally rare that someone dies. The last two people of note that died were armed detectives. Why? Because thieves know ordinary people won't be armed and they don't need to fire at anyone, they walk in armed and cashiers hand over the money willingly. They can have the money, you get them later. You start making thieves think shopkeepers and bank clerks will be game for a fight and they'll be armed, they aren't going to think twice about the robbery. They'll think twice about taking a chance not killing the person first in case they fire on them. It doesn't stop anyone robbing anyone in the States where they have guns and the death penalty does it? It worsens an already bad problem.

Maximus Alexander

Ezridax wrote: »

Thats always an option. Some shooting ranges do provide those facilities for their members.

However, and i refer to myself here, i bring my firearms home to clean, adjust, check, etc. These would mostly be my target firearms. Also in the case of the guns i use for hunting they would be useless to me stored 5, 25, 50 miles away in a strong room on a range.

I completely understand that. I was only speaking from my own perspective since, if I ever do own a gun, it would be purely for shooting targets. I don't see myself as much of a hunter!

Also, I would probably store them at home unless I had kids (which was my original point!)

Cass

@ Seachmall - Precisely. I've done multiple safety, first aid courses over the years. I would like to think i am fairly competent in basic first aid. Yet recently while at hospital a young girl collapsed (fainted). I stood there staring at her, and her worried mother. It felt like an eternity, but was actually 10 seconds, until the nurses pushed pass me.

Now while she was in good hands, and in a hospital the point i'm making is i froze, and all the training, etc i have received was as uselful as a chocolate ashtray, because i did not ract as i thought i would when it mattered.

not quite the ame thing a using a firearm in a home defense situation, but the principle remains the same.

token101

Seachmall wrote: »

In that sense guns are like sex.

Every kid wants one because he's told he can't.

I'm not suggesting we should allow kids to have sex own guns but it's more of a cultural thing as opposed to the danger of the gun.

Why you wouldn't have a gun in your house is completely reasonable and I'm sure many here agree with you (personally I wouldn't trust myself with a gun) but at the end of the day the gun itself poses little danger. It's the hands that hold it. Those who have shown themselves to be completely responsible in all matters of gun ownership shouldn't be denied their guns simply because of curious or, in my case, moronic hands.

Or because every single American movie which is watched universally has the hero killing all around him! We sell cap guns to kids, that's how much guns are glorified worldwide. Do you really trust a child with a deadly weapon when you wouldn't trust them to drive or drink? I wouldn't trust any teenager with a gun around friends. Kids mess around no matter how much you educate them, alcohol. drugs, sex. Difference being that none of those (with the possible exception of drugs) is going to kill anyone by accident.

firefly08

How many people have been shot in America, etc by mistaken identity. Only recently there was an article in an American paper about a Father that shot a person in his home. Turns out it was his daughter back from college a few days early, and she used her key to get into the house late at night/early morning.

Very sad, but the problem here is not that he had a gun, it's that he was unable to distinguish between friend and foe. Not having a gun, he might have used some other weapon, resulting in the same outcome.

I think there is an implication behind the use of examples such as this one: that it's better to use less force, so that, if you turn out to be mistaken, at lest you won't have killed anyone.

The problem with that is that you cannot effectively defend yourself if you take the safety of your opponent into consideration. Maybe champion fighters can do that, but most of us only stand a chance of surviving if we fight with everything we've got. Acceptance of this fact leads people to realize that you had better be absolutely sure, and you had better have absolutely no alternative.

If the father could see no alternative to attacking the person he thought was an intruder with every fiber of strength, he'd have done her serious harm anyway.

Maybe he could have seen an alternative, but he didn't think he had to take it because, hey, he had a gun, right?. That's a terrible mistake on his part, but it's not a reason why the rest of us should be left defenseless.

firefly08

Do me a favour. Never insult me again by comparing me to the likes of Michael Moore, and his like.

I am speaking from a personal point of view and you nor anyone will disuade me from my beliefs. As for you accusation that it propaganda. Its my personl opinion not some summarisation of randomn blogs, posts, articles from those too lazy or incompetent to actually do any sort of test or survey themselves.

Apologies - I didn't mean any offence and didn't mean to suggest that you were being lazy or incompetent. I shouldn't have said that. It wasn't intended as a comparison between you and him - what I meant was that in my opinion the sources of these statistical studies are not trustworthy. I was operating on the assumption that you had not carried out such a study yourself, in which case I would not call it into question.

Quote:
The first 2 points don't even relate to firearms at all. If you can't shoot someone to save your own life, then you sure as **** can't do by hand.
No idea what you're talking about. My first points relate DIRECTLY to the use of a firearm for self defense. As to using your hands i never made any mention of any such thing.

The 2 points I'm referring to there relate to people freezing up, and not having the ability to carry out the action they had planned on. That is nothing to do with having a gun or not having a gun. The fact that you might not have the nerve or whatever to use it cannot be used as a rational argument against having a weapon as a precaution. Not using it, by definition, cannot possibly do anyone any harm.

Quote:
If you read the right sources you'd be amazed at how often people use guns in self defense. Try checking in on places like this from time to time
American site?

Has exactly what to do with Irish gun ownership/law?

Nothing -this is to contrast the idea that guns are not useful the "majority" of the time due to human factors. Nothing whatsoever to do with politics or laws. People are people wherever you go.

See this is more of it. The constant comparison by our politicians, etc, and now you, between Ireland, and the USA. Our laws are different, attitudes toward gun ownership, rights, even their constitution is different. So comparing Ireland to the USA in terms of "right to keep and bear arms" (which is illegal here), guns for home protection (also illegal), etc is pointless, inaccurate, and somewhat moot.

Our laws may be different but we will be just as dead if someone breaks into our homes and kills us. I didn't say anything about any right to keep arms etc.

What makes comparing the US to Ireland from the point of view of personal self defence (without regard to legal and political culture) pointless, inaccurate and moot?

Cass

token101 wrote: »

So we arm our societies to the max and have a gun battle in the streets? You're turning streets into a potential war zone before anything has happened. .

Jesus, calm down.




You're over exaggerating a situation that;

1. Does not exist
2. Given our current firearms laws could not exist.

Discussions about what other countries do, should not concern us so why get worked up about it.

Difference being that none of those (with the possible exception of drugs) is going to kill anyone by accident.

If a shild is thought the proper use of a firearm, how it works, how dangerous they can be if treated wrong then they will learn. The 215,000 firearms out there are proof of this. We all were thought by Father, family, friends.
Also shooting sports has one of the best, if not the best, sefaety record of most any sport out there. Now before you start on about the murders, suicides, etc i'm talking from a sporting point of view, and if children were introduced to firearms at a younger age and allowd to take part in shooting in a controlled environment they would be better aware, and more vigilant.

firefly08 wrote:

Not using it, by definition, cannot possibly do anyone any harm.

We'll have to disagree. If you were legally allowed to own a gun for such a purpose, and found yourself in a position to need to use it and did not react. What do you think would happen. Best case scenario the perosn in your house sees the gun and legs it. Worst case they advance and things get real bad real fast.

What makes comparing the US to Ireland from the point of view of personal self defence (without regard to legal and political culture) pointless, inaccurate and moot?

The ratio of guns per capita for a start. Some 700,000,000 firearms that they know off. Thats 2 guns per person.
In Ireland its 215,000 in a population of 4,000,000. Thats 1 gun per 18 people.
They have a constitutional right to guns, we do not. You can say leave out the political aspect but thats an inaccuracy. Its part of parcel of what bothers me about such comparisons.
Its the process to get a gun. In the sates long arms are not registered in most states, handguns have between 3-10 day waiting period.
In Ireland every single gun must be registered. For christ sake we have to register pellet guns as a firearm. We have to wait between 3-12 months of for a decision.
The NRA in the states has political backing with its own lobby group and host of celebrities as their public face.
We have no such exposure here, and are entirely at the "mercy" of the government.

I could go on. The fact is we are NOWHERE near the same level as countries like America, etc, and the differences are so large that any comparison does not hold up.

firefly08 - As a shooter/firearm owner of some 25+ years believe me when i say i love shooting. Hunting, targets, the entire sport of shooting, and will defend our ability to take part in it for as long as i draw breath.

What i am getting at is there are certain topics where i do not follow the "mainstream" opinion. Certain people for whatever reason should not have a firearm. TBH i think its a waste of a discussion as it will never be allowed here anyway. RKBA that is.

RDM_83 again

One thing nobody has mentioned is that from what I've heard is (and know of two examples of houses being targeted for them).

If a house in Ireland is known to have guns their more likely to be robbed, guns are portable and have a high value to criminals, think how much more money (or use) Mr.S Bag is going to get for a shotgun or .22 pistol than he is for a PS3 or a TV.

annascott

No. I've used a gun for clay pidgeon shoots and am not a bad shot, but I'd never be able to use one in a crisis. Even in self defence, I'd be too afraid that (a) the intruder would overpower me and I would get shot with my own gun or (b) I would end up in jail for shooting an intruder... killing someone who broke into my house, I could deal with. Sharing a prison cell and bathroom, I could not.

Seachmall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

One thing nobody has mentioned is that from what I've heard is (and know of two examples of houses being targeted for them).

If a house in Ireland is known to have guns their more likely to be robbed, guns are portable and have a high value to criminals, think how much more money (or use) Mr.S Bag is going to get for a shotgun or .22 pistol than he is for a PS3 or a TV.

I'd be sceptical of that. Knowing that A) the owner has access to firearms and I'd have an extremely difficult time actually getting to the guns I personally wouldn't even try (not that I'd rob a house anyway :pac:).

garv123

RDM_83 again wrote: »

One thing nobody has mentioned is that from what I've heard is (and know of two examples of houses being targeted for them).

If a house in Ireland is known to have guns their more likely to be robbed, guns are portable and have a high value to criminals, think how much more money (or use) Mr.S Bag is going to get for a shotgun or .22 pistol than he is for a PS3 or a TV.

Thats why people dont go bragging about owning firearms in public where people know who they are A lot of people dont even know their friends have guns.


Guns must be stored in a safe which must be bolted to the wall and most people put alot of money into their firearms so they are even more secure to keep them safe.

idunnoshur

My old man has a shotgun and as well as being useful for pest control it's also great sport.

Today for example myself, the brother and his friend went shooting together. I took the old mans gun, the brother used his friends shotgun and his friend had his own rifle. We spent two hours going through the two hundred acres at home and the hundred acres next door. Our hunt yielded six rabbits, nine pigeons and about twenty crows. The rabbits and pigeons will make a nice meal tomorrow! We plucked the crows and tied them to stakes to keep the rest of them away.

Witcher

idunnoshur wrote: »

My old man has a shotgun and as well as being useful for pest control it's also great sport.

Today for example myself, the brother and his friend went shooting together. I took the old mans gun, the brother used his friends shotgun

You both could have got in serious sh1t there. Are you licenced to have your fathers gun? Is your brother licenced to have his friends?

idunnoshur

Blay wrote: »

You both could have got in serious sh1t there. Are you licenced to have your fathers gun? Is your brother licenced to have his friends?

No we're not but we've done it a few times and gotten away with it. What do you mean by serious trouble?

Local-womanizer

idunnoshur wrote: »

No we're not but we've done it a few times and gotten away with it. What do you mean by serious trouble?

Only the person who is licensed is allowed to use the firearm.

You could be charged with possession of a firearm and the license holder could lose his license.

idunnoshur

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Only the person who is licensed is allowed to use the firearm.

You could be charged with possession of a firearm and the license holder could lose his license.

What about when the old man is with me? Can I not use it then either?

Witcher

idunnoshur wrote: »

No we're not but we've done it a few times and gotten away with it. What do you mean by serious trouble?

Possession of an unlicenced firearm, even if the licence holder is there. I believe that you can do it in Britain with the licence holders permission? but here we live under ill thought out laws.

idunnoshur

Blay wrote: »

Possession of an unlicenced firearm, even if the licence holder is there. I believe that you can do it in Britain with the licence holders permission? but here we live under ill thought out laws.

That seems ludicrous, are you sure about that?

firefly08

No. I've used a gun for clay pidgeon shoots and am not a bad shot, but I'd never be able to use one in a crisis. Even in self defence, I'd be too afraid that (a) the intruder would overpower me and I would get shot with my own gun or (b) I would end up in jail for shooting an intruder... killing someone who broke into my house, I could deal with. Sharing a prison cell and bathroom, I could not.

This is a common fear - that having a gun for defense is dangerous because it can be used against you. But that doesn't bear out for me - having a gun doesn't change a person's character. And being shot with your own gun is no worse than being killed by whatever means the intruder had in mind.

The ratio of guns per capita for a start. Some 700,000,000 firearms that they know off. Thats 2 guns per person.
In Ireland its 215,000 in a population of 4,000,000. Thats 1 gun per 18 people.
...
...
I could go on. The fact is we are NOWHERE near the same level as countries like America, etc, and the differences are so large that any comparison does not hold up.

All of that is a perfectly good set of reasons why the situation is not the same. But "not the same" does not equal "not comparable". Unless I'm mistaken the premise of the thread is the question of keeping a gun, for defence i.e. whether it's appropriate etc. The laws in any free country are merely a consequence of what's deemed proper and appropriate by that society, so quoting differences in the law doesn't help to explain why you think something is not appropriate here.

It strikes me as impossible to hold a rational debate on the pros and cons of a particular practice that we're not doing, while completely ignoring a vast country where the people are actually doing it. It's like trying to reason that drinking wine is good or bad without paying any attention to the French, on the grounds that they are not the same and therefore not comparable to us?

And indeed you yourself employed these comparisons with other countries, including the US, at least twice before I even wrote the reply that you quoted above. How could you have gotten you point across if you hadn't?

LB6

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I'm in the process of getting one, need 1 more landowners permission signed form.

Only getting it because of this new defence act which means I can shoot anyone in the genitalia as soon as they enter my premises.

just watching out the curtains for the TV license inspector dude

Thats a really stupid comment to make if you're in the process of getting your licence and land permissions. I hope somebody knows you and reports your stupidity. It's idiotic statements like that, that the Gardai should be told about and a refusal wouldn't be long coming your way!:mad:

Seachmall

LB6 wrote: »

Thats a really stupid comment to make if you're in the process of getting your licence and land permissions. I hope somebody knows you and reports your stupidity. It's idiotic statements like that, that the Gardai should be told about and a refusal wouldn't be long coming your way!:mad:

The following sentence,

"just watching out the curtains for the TV license inspector dude"

Would indicate that it's a joke, no?

Witcher

idunnoshur wrote: »

That seems ludicrous, are you sure about that?

I am indeed, check out this thread, lists the legalities of it, check out Ezridax's post in the thread:)

Cass

idunnoshur wrote: »

That seems ludicrous, are you sure about that?

Its called possession of an unlicensed firearm. Carries a fine, and/or imprisonment.

You need either a training cert or a full license on the same firearm to have or use it.

firefly08 wrote: »

It strikes me as impossible to hold a rational debate on the pros and cons of a particular practice that we're not doing, while completely ignoring a vast country where the people are actually doing it.

You are right. All this is academic as it is not, nor can i see it being, allowed here - ever.

My only concern about comparison between Ireland, and other countries such as the US, is the negatives people choose to focus on. Hence my hatred of such. By all means we should turn to other countries as examples and to learn from their mistakes, and successes. The thing that bothers me is when people speak of a "gun culture", and "proliferation of guns" like in the states, etc. We do not have a gun culture. We have a set of strict laws that "ruthlessly" regulate firearm ownership. We have National Governing bodies that impose higher regulations than what is set out by the authorities.

Guns are, have been, and will continue to be a part of our way of life.
Least we forget how this little country of ours was founded. Alot of our gun laws came from England, some from the states, Canada, and even Europe. They are carbon copies of laws imposed elsewhere so your point is well taken and i cede to your point. I would not have an issue if guns were allowed to be used in such circumstances. I would say though, that i would like there to be some sort of training, safety course so not everyone can buy a gun without at least knowing the basics.

Shooting as a sport has one of if not the best record, and any action by any person in any situation would have ramifications for all firearm holders. Such is the way the law works here. Over re-action after an event/action.

cavan shooter

People forget that most guys into shooting and hunting for sport are very careful about secure storage of their firearms and ammunition. to obtain a license most of us had a visit from the guards to inspect the security set up. When not in use it will always be locked as its a condition.

Its been said before if your burglar is still hanging around while you locate the keys, open the safe, get the keys to the ammunition safe open that load the gun. Then: either he is very stupid or you are in the position were you will have to use it for this lad is so brazen he will take it of you and stick it where the sun dont shine.....and probably pull the trigger.

You leave a gun accessible for use in the scenario described in the thread, then its in the best scenario "negligence" or worse case "intent" and you will not be able to argue reasonable force.

So, if you want to defend your house home and family, forget about firerams.....defend with a hurley, base ball bat, childs toy, poker or strangle him with a bra or underpants. Anyway you will ruin the paint work and the carpet....;)