Would you keep a gun??

jimpump

I keep one in my pants

Witcher

cavan shooter wrote: »

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....;)

+1

A lot of people will remove a component of their firearms too so you'd have to go get that and replace it, firearms as a defence against burglars in Ireland are a non runner, legally and practically.

Manic Moran

that having a gun for defense is dangerous because it can be used against you.

This strikes me as being one of those personal choices which the government shouldn't be making for you. If it turns out that I was wrong and somehow my opponent managed to shoot me with my own gun (hey, it happens to cops as well), that was because of my own failing. And I'm the one 'paying' for my own decision, so no great harm done, even presuming that the outcome wasn't going to be pleasant for me anyway had I not had a firearm to start with.

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.

Although your points are generally OK with respect to the position in Ireland, I was responding to someone questioning an American practice and should be taken in that context. With reference to the last bit, I beg to differ. It may not affect the overall problem of crime in the US, but it can have a very definite effect on specific incidents of crime within a few dozen yards of the person with the concealed handgun. Cases of unlawful activity involving firearms by persons legally carrying those firearms are so low in the US as to be insignificant. Example: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html Out of 2,031,106 permits to carry issued by the State since they started in 1987 as of last month, there have been 168 known cases of one of these individuals commiting a crime with a firearm of any sort or at any time. (i.e. not necessarily being concealed or in public at the time). That's 0.008%. How many people in Ireland have been convicted of a crime with a firearm since 1987? (Divide by 1.7 or so to account for population difference). My guess is that there have been over 200 in the last 23 years. Ergo, one may presume that people carrying guns in Florida are far more law abiding than those in Ireland.

With respect to kids and guns, it's a question I'm facing myself. I'm fine for now, I can barely rack my .45, a six-year old wouldn't have a chance and I've a few years before even a six-year-old is in my house.

Seachmall has it correct:

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 or own guns but it's more of a cultural thing as opposed to the danger of the gun.

If the kid is old enough to be able to get at my firearms and know how to load and chamber them, he's damned well old enough to understand dangers and responsibility. Instead of hiding the gun away and never talking about them, and thus increasing the 'mystery' and the 'cool factor', take the wind completely out of the sails, and treat them as just any other object which could be found in the house but is dangerous if misused. Ignorance is the single biggest cause of firearms accidents. The sex comparison goes beyond just the 'allowed' thing. There are parents who do not discuss sex (or more importantly, safe sex) with their kids because they fear that if they do, they will simply encourage promiscuity. End result? They go have sex anyway with the absence of guidance and catch STDs including pregnancy. Most people have accepted that hiding sex away is the wrong answer for parents, why should that be any different from the correct use of tools from firearms to car jacks?

NTM

Seachmall

Manic Moran wrote: »

catch STDs including pregnancy.

First time I've heard pregnancy referred to as a STD

cavan shooter

Have to agree with MM If kids are brought up around firearms (hunting and shooting etc) as I was and mine are, they ignore the guns and they learn very early on not to mess with them. (simples)

There is a hype out their that bring a firearm into a house and Kids start shooting themselves because they will play with them. Very sharp knives are to be found in houses......do we give carving knives to 6 yro

Dyr

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..

point being that the list of things that are'nt 100 per cent safe around kids is a long one indeed, so there's probably another reason that your singling out firearms for specific attention

Dudess

If those super rats come to fruition: yes.

GASMANN

woodoo wrote: »

Apparently there are 215,000 households in Ireland with a gun.

What do you think AH people. Would you keep one, do you keep one? Or do you think its a bad idea.

for who ? are you in a spot of bother

xzanti

Bambi wrote: »

point being that the list of things that are'nt 100 per cent safe around kids is a long one indeed, so there's probably another reason that your singling out firearms for specific attention

Maybe you missed this post??

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.

Witcher

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..

Haha

A metaphor I believe

:pac:

Dyr

xzanti wrote: »

Maybe you missed this post??

Your argument is still flawed...I can imagine him doing it with a band saw, a drinks cabinet, an arc weld, a motor bike or whatever the f**k else some teenaged dolt thinks is cool.

xzanti

Bambi wrote: »

Your argument is still flawed...I can imagine him doing it with a band saw, a drinks cabinet, an arc weld, a motor bike or whatever the f**k else some teenaged dolt thinks is cool.

Yes, I see your point but lets see..

Probable scenarios:
A saw - some severed fingers
Drinks cabinet - Stomach pumped
An arc weld - Severe burns

I know the above can cause death, but a gun going off is a lot more likely to kill someone instantly than the above..

The motor bike, yes, I agree a motor bike or a car is probably just as dangerous as a firearm in the wrong hands.. But the family mode of transport is a necessity..

A gun in the home is NOT a necessity..

Dyr

xzanti wrote: »

Yes, I see your point but lets see..

Probable scenarios:
A saw - some severed fingers
Drinks cabinet - Stomach pumped
An arc weld - Severe burns

I know the above can cause death, but a gun going off is a lot more likely to kill someone instantly than the above..

The motor bike, yes, I agree a motor bike or a car is probably just as dangerous as a firearm in the wrong hands.. But the family mode of transport is a necessity..

A gun in the home is NOT a necessity..

Saw... death or injury or nothing
1 litre whiskey...death or injury or nothing
arc weld ...death or injury or nothing
bike....death or injury or nothing
gun....death or injury or nothing

There is no scale to measure the relationships of object-stupidity-lethality. You don't like the idea of guns and you're looking for a way to rationalise it, perfectly human and all that but somewhat silly when it's restricting other peoples choices on the matter.

Seachmall

xzanti wrote: »

But the family mode of transport is a necessity.. .

Just want to point out that a car is not a necessity. It's a convenience.

I'm not trying to counter your point, I more or less agree with it, but it's no more a necessity than a fridge.

"Important" in modern day life? Yes.
Necessary for modern day life? No.

Stiffler2

Ezridax wrote: »

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.

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.

ezridax - WTF - this is not my post. you quoted me and then completely changed what I said. People search this thread for Stiffler2 and see

xzanti

Bambi wrote: »

You don't like the idea of guns and you're looking for a way to rationalise it, perfectly human and all that but somewhat silly when it's restricting other peoples choices on the matter.

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.

^^^^^^Can you show me where in my posts I have tried to "restrict" other peoples choices??

Read all of my posts before you judge my intentions please..

Maximus Alexander

Particularly the part that says:

People who hunt or clay shoot regularly etc as a hobby are well entitled to have whatever they want in their own homes

Manic Moran

xzanti wrote: »

A gun in the home is NOT a necessity..

In the US I fully agree with you, until that one day when you decide you need one (usually at that exact moment and time, not five minutes from then), at which there is nothing else which can substitute for it.

Kindof like a fire extinguisher. Most houses do well enough without one. But once in a while, someone thinks "Bugger. I really wish we had one right now."

NTM

My temper is too bad, Im not allowed to have a gun

Doc Ruby

Batsy wrote: »

When it comes to the chances of being murdered or being shot, you are much safer in England and Wales than you are in Ireland.

Interesting, apparently Britain is by far the worst for violent crimes.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



No, I wouldn't trust that lot with guns.


I might see ownership becoming more lax here IF mandatory training at least equivalent to a driving licence were put in place, IF there were still stringent restrictions on ownership based on criminal and psychological records, IF there was a gun tax used to pay for the secure storage of firearms whenever people go away on holiday, and IF gun owners were legally held responsible for any crimes committed with their firearms, stolen or otherwise.


Really though, I'm not sure I see the need for it. It might be fun if we were all mature responsible sober citizens, but is there a strong case for loosening up the laws?


I have my doubts.

Witcher

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I might see ownership becoming more lax here IF mandatory training at least equivalent to a driving licence were put in place, IF there were still stringent restrictions on ownership based on criminal and psychological records, IF there was a gun tax used to pay for the secure storage of firearms whenever people go away on holiday, and IF gun owners were legally held responsible for any crimes committed with their firearms, stolen or otherwise.

The legislation will never be relaxed here, if anything it will be tightened. On your other points:

1. You have to do a safety/competency course to get a licence.
2. There are restrictions based on criminal/psychological records.
3. People generally leave them with a RFD if they're going to be going away for a period of time.
4. Held responsible for what a ciminal does with a stolen firearm? Seriously? Lets say for instance someone steals your car and is involved in a hit and run, should you be prosecuted just because it's your car? That's utter bs:pac:

Doc Ruby

Blay wrote: »

1. You have to do a safety/competency course to get a licence.
2. There are restrictions based on criminal/psychological records.
3. People generally leave them with a RFD if they're going to be going away for a period of time.

Yeah but I'd like to see those tightened up further, maybe in exchange for firearms being available without the nod from the local super.

Blay wrote: »

4. Held responsible for what a ciminal does with a stolen firearm? Seriously? Lets say for instance someone steals your car and is involved in a hit and run, should you be prosecuted just because it's your car? That's utter bs:pac:

Possibly, possibly, but it does underline what a serious responsibility owning a gun really is, and make people think hard about their duty to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

garv123

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I might see ownership becoming more lax here IF mandatory training at least equivalent to a driving licence were put in place,

There is already a required course to prove your competence handling firearms safely

IF there were still stringent restrictions on ownership based on criminal and psychological records,

You need to referee's on the licence to vouch for you who the Firearms officer can ring up and quiz about you. If you have a record for violence chances are you wont get a licence unless it was years ago and you proved you changed. You must also provide your doctors name and nuber who can get rang up and quizzed about anything

IF there was a gun tax used to pay for the secure storage of firearms whenever people go away on holiday,

The 80euro per firearm is enough of a fee already. they changed it 2-3 years ago to make the fee per firearm. If you leave the country for a while your local firearms dealer will store the guns for a small fee
and IF gun owners were legally held responsible for any crimes committed with their firearms, stolen or otherwise.


Really though, I'm not sure I see the need for it. It might be fun if we were all mature responsible sober citizens, but is there a strong case for loosening up the laws?


I have my doubts.

...



Edit,Damn you blay and my slow typing

Dyr

xzanti wrote: »

^^^^^^Can you show me where in my posts I have tried to "restrict" other peoples choices??

Read all of my posts before you judge my intentions please..

where did i say that you said that you want to restrict other peoples choices?

Read all of my posts etc etc

perfectly human and all that but somewhat silly when IT's restricting other peoples choices on the matter.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Possibly, possibly, but it does underline what a serious responsibility owning a gun really is, and make people think hard about their duty to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Maybe enforcing a time period within which you must report the theft of the weapon. Fall outside that time period without a valid reason and you are open to fine and/or prison.

firefly08

is there a strong case for loosening up the laws?


I have my doubts.

Yes, there is: the laws are unfair.

Witcher

Seachmall wrote: »

Maybe enforcing a time period within which you must report the theft of the weapon. Fall outside that time period without a valid reason and you are open to fine and/or prison.

Already exists too.

Most shooters go to every effort to secure firearms. In my case, I've met the legal requirements for my number of firearms and have taken further precautions to ensure a criminal wouldn't get a working firearm, I would say it is almost common practice for shooters to remove a critical component of each firearm for extra security.

woodoo

I'd like one for protection in the house. But i know that's not allowed. I'd like the option of busting a cap in the ass of any burglars who thought it a good idea to break into my house.

Doc Ruby

Blay wrote: »

I would say it is almost common practice for shooters to remove a critical component of each firearm for extra security.

What worries me is the question of whether or not it would be so common if guns were more widely available.

eth0

What really needs to be got rid of over here is the rediculous requirement for safes if someone has 4 or more guns and per-gun license fees.

The safe needs to be some big massive expensive yoke with GSM monitored alarm and installed by a qualified professional who has to visit the place once a year to put a drop of oil on the hinges because a mere mortal can't do that himself.

Buying an air gun should be made way simpler in Ireland and shouldn't involve a 80e per 3 years license. Really as a nation we are over-cautious and too worried about the children. There are too many people trying to child-proof the world and these are being egged on by parents who'd rather watch the telly than mind the children

Witcher

eth0 wrote: »

What really needs to be got rid of over here is the rediculous requirement for safes if someone has 4 or more guns

You need a safe if you have even 1 rifle, the only firearm you can hold without a safe is a one shotgun. If you have 4 or more firearms you move up another security level. A safe is really the bare minimum of security one should have.

The average persons safe doesn't need to be GSM monitored either, that's the top security level.

eth0

Blay wrote: »

You need a safe is you have even 1 rifle, the only firearm you can hold without a safe is a one shotgun. If you have 4 or more firearms you move up another security level. A safe is really the bare minimum of security one should have.

Nothing against the requirement for a safe, but the whole tie-in with some 3rd party security company and the fact that such a safe would be extremely costly. All just to hold 4 guns some of which could be air rifles

Just seems to me like the person who wrote that law did with the intention of "lets make sure no ordinary person has more than 3 guns"

Witcher

eth0 wrote: »

Nothing against the requirement for a safe, but the whole tie-in with some 3rd party security company and the fact that such a safe would be extremely costly. All just to hold 4 guns some of which could be air rifles

Just seems to me like the person who wrote that law did with the intention of "lets make sure no ordinary person has more than 3 guns"

A GSM monitored security system is only need for 3+ restricted or 6+ unrestricted firearms. You could hold 4 firearms with a standard alarm on the room and a certain standard of lock on the door. Though issuing super/C.super can specify any security level they see fit, the above are only guidelines.

LighterGuy

Is this gun legal?

... its technically one gun.

micropig

After a lot of consideration,
No: Because after reading some posts and arguments in After Hours I couldn't guarantee I woouldn't use it:o:D

Cass

Stiffler2 wrote: »

ezridax - WTF - this is not my post. you quoted me and then completely changed what I said. People search this thread for Stiffler2 and see

Stiffler2 wrote: »

ezridax - WTF - this is not my post. you quoted me and then completely changed what I said. People search this thread for Stiffler2 and see

Settle petal.:rolleyes:

It was a simple mistake when multi-quoting. I quoted Darkjagger and yourself, but when editing out the bits i didn't want to quote i deleted DarkJagger's name and left yours in its place. It has now been corrected.

All is well in the world again.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yeah but I'd like to see those tightened up further, maybe in exchange for firearms being available without the nod from the local super.

Do you realise how self contrdictory that statement is?

You would like to see the existing lawsade stricter, by "loosening" the process a person must go throug to get a gun - ie. by cutting out the Super. It's not even possible. The Chief Supers, and Supers are the designated authorities for issuing licenses. You cannort bypass them or omit them. Otherwisse the Garda Commisioner/Minister would have to deal with each license personally.

Possibly, possibly, but it does underline what a serious responsibility owning a gun really is, and make people think hard about their duty to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

We have stricter safety requirments thn any other sport. However no matter how well you protect your property if someone wants in they will get in. All you can do is make it as difficult as possible to deter them. hence the gun safes, alarms, locked rooms, etc.

Seachmall wrote: »

Maybe enforcing a time period within which you must report the theft of the weapon. Fall outside that time period without a valid reason and you are open to fine and/or prison.

As was said ............

Blay wrote: »

Already exists too..

Correct. A stolen firearm must be reported in no later thn 3 days otherwise the owner is liable to fines, and/or imprisonment.

LighterGuy wrote: »

Is this gun legal? .

Absolutely. Send all applications to Chief Wiggum, Springfiled Police Dept. He'll sort you out.

rsole1

Blay wrote: »

Already exists too.

Most shooters go to every effort to secure firearms. In my case, I've met the legal requirements for my number of firearms and have taken further precautions to ensure a criminal wouldn't get a working firearm, I would say it is almost common practice for shooters to remove a critical component of each firearm for extra security.

I only have a single shotgun but have taken it upon myself to fit a BS standard gun cabinet. It sits in the cabinet assembled - is there a legal requirement to say remove one of the three parts ? Though I have to say having read what you say that it does make sense.

garv123

rsole1 wrote: »

I only have a single shotgun but have taken it upon myself to fit a BS standard gun cabinet. It sits in the cabinet assembled - is there a legal requirement to say remove one of the three parts ? Though I have to say having read what you say that it does make sense.

No not when its in the safe, with the rifle its just handy to take the bolt out and hide it or store it in a separate safe, Without it, it's just a fancy piece of wood stuck onto a pipe.

daveob007

woodoo wrote: »

Apparently there are 215,000 households in Ireland with a gun.

What do you think AH people. Would you keep one, do you keep one? Or do you think its a bad idea.

that quote is wrong,there 215,000 legally held guns not homes,many shooters have many guns for different sporting or hunting reasons,,the only way you can licence any gun is for these purposes only and home defence is not a good reason for wanting a gun,,the proccess for getting a licence is very complicated and its not easy to get one.
that quote came from one of the newspapers who love scaremongering and very often get the facts wrong..

x_Ellie_x

My uncle has hundreds of guns in his house. He collects them. They are all in five safes in his spare bedroom. He started collecting them 30 years ago (when he entered the British army). He's got a bunch of guns from WW1 and 2, both German and Allied guns, guns from the American Civil War, a bunch of Russian guns, the majority of the guns he's got are worth 1000's of euro each. I think he's got some sort addiction to the guns because he's mortgaged his house twice already just so he could buy more guns. I've fired some of them. He used to take me and my cousins (his kids) out to a shooting range in Tipperary when we were teenagers.

V Eight

x_Ellie_x wrote: »

My uncle has hundreds of guns in his house. He collects them. They are all in five safes in his spare bedroom. He started collecting them 30 years ago (when he entered the British army). He's got a bunch of guns from WW1 and 2, both German and Allied guns, guns from the American Civil War, a bunch of Russian guns, the majority of the guns he's got are worth 1000's of euro each. I think he's got some sort addiction to the guns because he's mortgaged his house twice already just so he could buy more guns. I've fired some of them. He used to take me and my cousins (his kids) out to a shooting range in Tipperary when we were teenagers.

holy crap!

rsole1

x_Ellie_x wrote: »

My uncle has hundreds of guns in his house. He collects them. They are all in five safes in his spare bedroom. He started collecting them 30 years ago (when he entered the British army). He's got a bunch of guns from WW1 and 2, both German and Allied guns, guns from the American Civil War, a bunch of Russian guns, the majority of the guns he's got are worth 1000's of euro each. I think he's got some sort addiction to the guns because he's mortgaged his house twice already just so he could buy more guns. I've fired some of them. He used to take me and my cousins (his kids) out to a shooting range in Tipperary when we were teenagers.

Does he have to pay €80 every three years for each firearm, or is he a RFD?

Kells...

I have one already,I really don't see the point of this thread.

There's a hunting forum on Boards so....

aurin07

There are only 2 enemies of guns. Rust and politicians..

Some of the comments in this thread are pathetic air headed fairy thoughts..

Didn't realise there were guns in Ireland

..

Christ on a bike..

Gun is not for home protection. End of.. Its the Attitudes of folk that think a 12 gauge is best for this is what makes it hard for guys like me (I'm merely 24) to get hold of them.

I just received my 3rd license the other day. Took nearly 5months to get hold of it and a few grand sunk into the rifle too.. as for people who think its "too easy" and laws are "too soft"..

Long walk..

Short pier...


A

treborflynn

In a word YES.

In 2........I Do

treborflynn

In a word YES.

In 2........I Do

lastlaugh

I'd love a real Luger to go with my uniform.