Irish Gun Control - To Strict?

garv123

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry to pipe up here but no, you can't replace your centrefire pistol. You are allowed to keep your centrefire pistol if you had it before Nov 2008 but you can't change it for another centrefire pistol.

This will cause serious problems when people start to get problems with their centrefire pistols or when they just simply wear out.

I'm open to correction but I think I'm correct in interpreting the legislation.

Very dumb fcuking law, seriously.

You probably are right. I'm not gonna argue

codex1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Protecting us from ourselves, eh? Not an argument I'm incredibly in favour of. Reckless endagerment laws already exists.

Someone who cleans their gun while its loaded deserves what they get...its stupidity defined in a nutshell.

Stupid people like this will always find ways to injure themselves and others, guns are not required.

codex1

crazy cabbage wrote: »

My problem is that from what i hear on the news here the people in america who get guns and then kill people such as at batman were sane and there backround checked out and all the rest of it.

I think this tread would have went more in your favour if you didn't mention america.

I am tired of this discussion and i dont think anything will be done in the short term so am leaving unfollowing this tread. We have much more important stuff for our goverment to be at. wish ya well

America is a vastly different culture though & we are not comparing like for like. Its nothing like Ireland, we might speak the same language, at least a little, but you have to live here to really understand what I mean....often times its living living on a different planet.

I did mention that I live in the US, but never advocated cloning their gun laws.

twinytwo

You are also required to now have a gun safe, i suggest you be very carefull on your choice of safe. Some of the ones that were recommended by the cops are unkown to them at the time complete and utter ****. Even though constructed of heavy duty steel etc, the locking hinge can be poped with a crow bar in under 30 seconds.

V_Moth

codex1 wrote: »

Do you think the cartels & criminals are buying their firearms legally?

Well, the BATF was more than happy to sell guns to them :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

codex1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm. No, they haven't.

I've been living here over ten years and have a modest collection. California has a terrible reputation, but it's nowhere near as bad as some of the Eastern States. About the only true annoyance the last few years which has been enacted is the .50BMG ban.

What is your buddy's county of residence? Check with this map for issuance.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Come on yes they have lol, Jerry Brown is not doing the pro-gun crowd any favors - last year banned the open carry of non-loaded guns, retaining sales records of long guns and is currently trying to require ID checks & thumbprints taken for the purchase of ammo.

The .50 cal thing is crazy, I don't know for sure but I would wager the number of people hurt.....eh...what am I saying.....killed by a 50 cal round compared to 9mm, 45 etc.. has to be minuscule.

Thanks for the link, he is in placer county & been denied at least once.

PieForPi

You're not intending on coming back, right?

BattleCorp

codex1 wrote: »

They should take my money, checkout my background & if all checks out give me a licence for my exotic guns - if I'm a dick, then take them all away, fair enough

I'm half on your side and half totally against your arguments.

Target shooting is my hobby so I have a huge interest in the types of firearms available here in Ireland.

I have to take issue with your comment above. If somebody is a dick, then it might be too late to take away their guns. You won't know that they are a dick until they do something dumbass with their firearms.

I believe that gun control is a little too strict here in Ireland. However, the powers that be are totally correct with their fully auto centrefire ban. These are military weapons and should not be available to the general public. There is no reason for me or anybody else in Ireland to have one.

That said, I do believe that the CF pistol ban is totally ridiculous. Never has a legally held CF pistol been used to commit a crime in the state (open to correction) so how banning them cuts down gun crime is totally beyond me.

I'm a responsible person, very safe with my firearms but because of the stupid CF pistol laws, I can't take part in some of the competitions held at my club because I didn't have a CF pistol before the ban came in.

I favour gun control because guns shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly to anybody that fancies having one. If I had to pick the US system of gun control or the Irish system, then I'd reservedly pick the Irish system. The Irish system isn't that bad, it just needs a bit of tweaking here and there to iron out some of the dumb rules that were put into legislation by people who hadn't a fcuking clue about firearms.

I agree that people should have a need for a gun in order to get one. Irish legislation says that if you can prove that you need a high caliber rifle, you can get one. Why anybody needs a .50 cal rifle over here is beyond me. What would you be hunting with that? The longest target range here is 1300m. Plenty of smaller calibers (.308) would easily hit targets at that distance.

I don't agree with your "I want it so I should be allowed to get it" theory. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

codex1

PieForPi wrote: »

You're not intending on coming back, right?

Why, you afraid of a little fresh thinking and change?

codex1

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm half on your side and half totally against your arguments.

Target shooting is my hobby so I have a huge interest in the types of firearms available here in Ireland.

I have to take issue with your comment above. If somebody is a dick, then it might be too late to take away their guns. You won't know that they are a dick until they do something dumbass with their firearms.

I believe that gun control is a little too strict here in Ireland. However, the powers that be are totally correct with their fully auto centrefire ban. These are military weapons and should not be available to the general public. There is no reason for me or anybody else in Ireland to have one.

That said, I do believe that the CF pistol ban is totally ridiculous. Never has a legally held CF pistol been used to commit a crime in the state (open to correction) so how banning them cuts down gun crime is totally beyond me.

I'm a responsible person, very safe with my firearms but because of the stupid CF pistol laws, I can't take part in some of the competitions held at my club because I didn't have a CF pistol before the ban came in.

I favour gun control because guns shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly to anybody that fancies having one. If I had to pick the US system of gun control or the Irish system, then I'd reservedly pick the Irish system. The Irish system isn't that bad, it just needs a bit of tweaking here and there to iron out some of the dumb rules that were put into legislation by people who hadn't a fcuking clue about firearms.

I agree that people should have a need for a gun in order to get one. Irish legislation says that if you can prove that you need a high caliber rifle, you can get one. Why anybody needs a .50 cal rifle over here is beyond me. What would you be hunting with that? The longest target range here is 1300m. Plenty of smaller calibers (.308) would easily hit targets at that distance.

I don't agree with your "I want it so I should be allowed to get it" theory. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Given that no one can predict the future, the only gauge of a persons mental competency to own a gun is their past - both criminal history & firearms training. For this reason I stand by my original statement, if they get issued a licence are later found to violate the rules - take the guns away. How else would you determine this in an objective way?

I agree with you that a fully auto anything is not necessary for civilian purposes.

I don't agree with you on the .50 cals though, I love shooting a desert eagle & if I had the cash would absolutely have a barrett for hunting, both are a LOT of fun, sure they are a little excessive - but so what, why drive a Fiat if you can afford a BMW, not that I can - but would like the option to if I ever had enough spare money.

I draw the line at fully automatic weapons or anything larger than a .50

codex1

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm half on your side and half totally against your arguments.

Target shooting is my hobby so I have a huge interest in the types of firearms available here in Ireland.

I have to take issue with your comment above. If somebody is a dick, then it might be too late to take away their guns. You won't know that they are a dick until they do something dumbass with their firearms.

I believe that gun control is a little too strict here in Ireland. However, the powers that be are totally correct with their fully auto centrefire ban. These are military weapons and should not be available to the general public. There is no reason for me or anybody else in Ireland to have one.

That said, I do believe that the CF pistol ban is totally ridiculous. Never has a legally held CF pistol been used to commit a crime in the state (open to correction) so how banning them cuts down gun crime is totally beyond me.

I'm a responsible person, very safe with my firearms but because of the stupid CF pistol laws, I can't take part in some of the competitions held at my club because I didn't have a CF pistol before the ban came in.

I favour gun control because guns shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly to anybody that fancies having one. If I had to pick the US system of gun control or the Irish system, then I'd reservedly pick the Irish system. The Irish system isn't that bad, it just needs a bit of tweaking here and there to iron out some of the dumb rules that were put into legislation by people who hadn't a fcuking clue about firearms.

I agree that people should have a need for a gun in order to get one. Irish legislation says that if you can prove that you need a high caliber rifle, you can get one. Why anybody needs a .50 cal rifle over here is beyond me. What would you be hunting with that? The longest target range here is 1300m. Plenty of smaller calibers (.308) would easily hit targets at that distance.

I don't agree with your "I want it so I should be allowed to get it" theory. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Given that no one can predict the future, the only gauge of a persons mental competency to own a gun is their past - both criminal history & firearms training. For this reason I stand by my original statement, if they get issued a licence are later found to violate the rules - take the guns away. How else would you determine this in an objective way?

I agree with you that a fully auto anything is not necessary for civilian purposes.

I don't agree with you on the .50 cals though, I love shooting a desert eagle & if I had the cash would absolutely have a barrett for hunting, both are a LOT of fun, sure they are a little excessive - but so what, why drive a Fiat if you can afford a BMW, not that I can - but would like the option to if I ever had enough spare money.

If I have earned the money, paid the tax, taken the training & proven myself responsible with smaller guns first - what's the problem?

(sorry for the double post - cannot see how to delete the dup)

It wasn't me!

Not a .50BMG, but the .50 calibre line has been crossed here, definitely, in the form of a .500 Nitro double rifle. Its owner has used it in Africa for big game.

Nodin

codex1 wrote: »

..........
Just wondering what people back home think about the current gun laws & the limitations such as the blanket ban on handguns, rifles limited to .22 & the slow / non-transparent process associated with obtaining a firearms licence?

Too strict.

gobnaitolunacy

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

Nodin

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

Jaysus forbid somebody might want to shoot a target or two...

Manic Moran

Brown's not the worst person in the world. For example, his submission to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the State of California argued that the court overturn a handgun ban.

codex1 wrote: »

Come on yes they have lol, Jerry Brown is not doing the pro-gun crowd any favors - last year banned the open carry of non-loaded guns, retaining sales records of long guns and is currently trying to require ID checks & thumbprints taken for the purchase of ammo.

Actually, the banning of open carry is considered a good thing for us. It was a useless practice anyway due to (1) the fact that the firearm had to be unloaded, and (2) the fact that there were so many restrictions on it that it was impractical to begin with. Some 80% of the San Francisco was off-limits to open carry due to proximity to schools, for example.

On the other hand, this has now left concealed carry as the only even theoretically legal method to be armed. A recent court case in San Diego over the lack of CWP issuance was denied on the basis that the complainant still had the option of open carry. You'll never guess what the next court case is based on.

The thumb print thing was signed by Arnie, and cut down by the judiciary. I don't believe that Brown has ever made a statement on the concept. Long gun registration is not a massive inconvenience: We already have handgun registration, so he gets to appease his Democrats without really having major effect on those of us who want to shoot.

The .50 cal thing is crazy, I don't know for sure but I would wager the number of people hurt.....eh...what am I saying.....killed by a 50 cal round compared to 9mm, 45 etc.. has to be minuscule.

As I said, it's the only real balls-up which has occurred since I've been here.

MadsL

Nodin wrote: »

Jaysus forbid somebody might want to shoot a target or two...

Or win an Olympic medal.

Nodin

MadsL wrote: »

Or win an Olympic medal.

...but it would be a bad medal, won with a gun.....

Etm

Its not strict enough if you ask me

Nodin

Etm wrote: »

Its not strict enough if you ask me

Good thing we didn't then.

lorrieq

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

It wasn't me!

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

That's not really the point though, is it? The fact that you have no interest doesn't mean I don't want to go to Rio in four years, shooting for Ireland. Nor does your lack of interest signify that I shouldn't be free to pursue that goal.

MadsL

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

Sorry, what? Ban guns in Ireland because most people don't do shooting sports?
Should we ban professional chefs knives because most people are not chefs?

Nodin

lorrieq wrote: »

Focus on people who don't do shooting sports, which is the vast majority!

Great. Lets ban everything that people don't like.

robindch

codex1 wrote: »

1. Strict gun control laws means that only criminals are then armed, law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

And criminals who know that their victims are likely to be armed, will arm themselves and will be prepared to use their weapon. That doesn't happen here in Ireland where most (all?) home-invasion crimes are done without firearms. Yes, I might get the sugar kicked out of me if I attack some thief in my hallway, but I'm not going to end up dead.

codex1 wrote: »

2. If a home-invasion occurs while you are at home, you can call the police, however while they are at best minutes away, seconds count during an a situation like this & you are on your own.

See response to (1).

codex1 wrote: »

3. A ban strips your rights & freedom, if you are not a criminal, are responsible & enjoy guns then why should you be prevented from legally owning them.

Rights: the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

Secondly, why shouldn't you own weapons? Because they're fucking dangerous, that's why.

The USA has gun-related deaths (suicide, mistakes, attack and defence) which are way, way, way beyond what any other developed nation suffers and the political power and financial clout of the NRA and the wider weapons-supply industry makes it impossible for the political class to deal with the issue. And so, the USA will continue to kill thousands every year for no reason. Still, at least they make good phallic substitutes.

MadsL

robindch wrote: »

the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

You do know what a militia is don't you? If you do, I wonder why you think the US army fills that role?

You might want to google "militia" before you reply, and consider the purpose of such a militia when the Constitution was written.

Darkginger

OP - when you lived in Ireland, did you worry about armed burglars breaking into your home? Did you feel under-protected without a gun in the house? Has this just become a concern since you moved to the US? If the answer's yes, you always worried about encountering an armed criminal in your home in Ireland, I would be surprised, and wonder whether it was in your nature to be paranoid. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, and you've only developed this fear since moving to the US, I'd wonder what you attribute that change to - it couldn't possibly be the fact that guns are more easily accessible over there, could it?

MadsL

Darkginger wrote: »

OP - when you lived in Ireland, did you worry about armed burglars breaking into your home? Did you feel under-protected without a gun in the house? Has this just become a concern since you moved to the US? If the answer's yes, you always worried about encountering an armed criminal in your home in Ireland, I would be surprised, and wonder whether it was in your nature to be paranoid. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, and you've only developed this fear since moving to the US, I'd wonder what you attribute that change to - it couldn't possibly be the fact that guns are more easily accessible over there, could it?

The crime rate wouldn't have any influence? The availability of guns the only possible factor? Please.

robindch

MadsL wrote: »

You might want to google "militia" before you reply, and consider the purpose of such a militia when the Constitution was written.

You might want to read the second amendment again which defines the purpose of the militia. And then note that there are no militias in the USA preserving the "security of a free state".

MadsL

Nope, but when "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." there is no barrier to the citizens forming one. That I would suggest was the intention to be able to keep government nicely mannered. Now, the US Military can never perform that function.

Mickey Dazzler

If I had a gun I would place it inside your bottom and pull the trigger.

MadsL

robindch wrote: »

You might want to read the second amendment again which defines the purpose of the militia. And then note that there are no militias in the USA preserving the "security of a free state".

Are you sure about that? Final Answer.

Irish_Elect_Eng

I would not like to see "US Style" gun laws here for many of the reasons that are outlined by other posters.

We also have 4 particularly Irish issues that need to considered:

(1) Our terrible relationship with alcohol.
(2) Our tragically high suicide rates among young males.
(3) High rates of gang crime in certain areas
(4) Our recent republican terrorist problems


How do you think that these 4 issues would be impacted by making guns easier to purchase/own?

Darkginger

MadsL wrote: »

The crime rate wouldn't have any influence? The availability of guns the only possible factor? Please.

It's a question, not a statement of fact - and what does the crime rate (which includes things like credit card fraud, vandalism, drunk and disorderly) have to do with feeling the need to be armed in your own home?

Heckler

Dear christ the misinformation and nonsense being spouted in this thread makes my head hurt. Thank god for Manic Moran and one or two others who actually know what they are talking about and can back it up.

BattleCorp

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The laws are fine.

IMHO if you're not a farmer or a hunter you've no business owning a gun.

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

I must say I'm with battlecorp. I think even enthusiasts should be allowed access to decent weapons, but they should abide by the "know what your f*cking doing or expect to be shot" rule.

Fuinseog

codex1 wrote: »

Dublin native now living in Montana for the last 6 years.

I used to have no interest in guns when I lived in Ireland apart from the odd Saturday clay pigeon shooting, so this was a non-issue for me.

After moving to Montana, I quickly learned that most homes around here have at least one gun & gun ownership is very common, a lot of locals believe it is a head of households responsibility to to own a gun in order to protect ones family & property - both as a deterrent & as a last resort.

Some of the common themes in the pro-ownership argument are:

1. Strict gun control laws means that only criminals are then armed, law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves. Lives could have been saved during the recent tragic shootings in the US, if just one armed & trained individual was present.

2. If a home-invasion occurs while you are at home, you can call the police, however while they are at best minutes away, seconds count during an a situation like this & you are on your own.

3. A ban strips your rights & freedom, if you are not a criminal, are responsible & enjoy guns then why should you be prevented from legally owning them. Being responsible means extensive mandatory training & passing a exam before being issued with a licence. Committing a felony over here strips you of the right to ever legally own a gun, as it should be.

I'll admit when I first got here, we where a little concerned about just how many guns where in circulation & how easy it was to get one (background check + training + cooling off period), after listening to the pro / con arguments I am more in favor of "relaxed" gun laws - within reason. I believe people should have a right to defend themselves, their families & their property, they should not be forced into submitting to thugs who can act without any worries.

Self defense aside, hunting & time spent at the range is a big family and community bonding experience over here, a lot of people go to the range after work for sport & to de-stress....sending a few dozen rounds down range is great to make you forget about work.

Just wondering what people back home think about the current gun laws & the limitations such as the blanket ban on handguns, rifles limited to .22 & the slow / non-transparent process associated with obtaining a firearms licence?

if some junkie breaks into your house here you are expected to lock yourself into your bedroom and call the guards. maybe tell the junkies where you keep the coffee or the tea while they help themselves to whatever they want.

the ban on firearms here only harms law abiding citizens. target shooters for example. the drug lords get guns anyway.

in america scumbags think twice before robbing you or breaking in if they think you are armed. granted they will be armed but if they think they are going to meet resistance where they could get hurt it would be no harm.

Fuinseog

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about sports shooting such as target shooting and the like. Should they be banned? I'm not a farmer or a hunter but I love target shooting.

Do you reckon my guns should be taken away? :mad::mad::mad:

it all depends on your local super.you might be allowed a certain weapon and your mate in another part of the country be denied the same weapon.

Witcher

Fuinseog wrote: »

it all depends on your local super.you might be allowed a certain weapon and your mate in another part of the country be denied the same weapon.

They're not weapons and there are processes to deal with applications which have been denied for no good reason. They can't just refuse it because they don't like firearms.

Fuinseog

Nodin wrote: »

Jaysus forbid somebody might want to shoot a target or two...

what gives Nodin? you normally espouse the lefty argument and here you are advocating more guns for our little island?

Fuinseog

Blay wrote: »

They're not weapons and there are processes to deal with applications which have been denied for no good reason. They can't just refuse it because they don't like firearms.

whats not a weapon? a sports rifle that discharges a fatal projectile is a weapon.

the guards are being taken to court for treating certain target shooters unfairly.it seems to depend on the individual super.


the funny thing is the a musket is classified a s a dangerous weapon. sure it can kill but do criminals really try to hold up a bank with a musket? fire a warning shot and then ask them to wait patiently while you spend a minute reloading.

knives are also dangerous so let us ban all kitchen knives.

Nodin

Fuinseog wrote: »

what gives Nodin? you normally espouse the lefty argument and here you are advocating more guns for our little island?

Since when has been being anti-gun "left wing"? Thats some US notion.

Witcher

Fuinseog wrote: »

whats not a weapon? a ports rifle that discharges a fatal projectile is a weapon.

the guards are being taken to court for treating certain target shooters unfairly.it seems to depend on the individual super.

It's a firearm..even the guards don't call them weapons, a weapon is an item used to cause harm to someone.

I'm not saying it doesn't depend on the super but they are the ones in the wrong and they are dealt with.

MadsL

Nodin wrote: »

Since when has been being anti-gun "left wing"? Thats some US notion.

And a not very accurate one, Obama has relaxed some gun controls.

Fuinseog

MadsL wrote: »

And a not very accurate one, Obama has relaxed some gun controls.

obama would sell his own grandmother to get votes. the gun lobby in america is too strong for him to go against.

MadsL

Fuinseog wrote: »

obama would sell his own grandmother to get votes. the gun lobby in america is too strong for him to go against.

So he hasn't relaxed some gun controls? Are you disputing that?

ScumLord

Fuinseog wrote: »

obama would sell his own grandmother to get votes.

Can you name a politician that wouldn't?

Reindeer

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

Regardless of anyone's stand on the 2nd amendment, the US Supreme Court has ruled it is an individuals right. Neither Congress nor the President can change, ignore or reject a US Supreme Court decision or order short of modifying the Constitution itself, or a new review by the Supreme Court itself. This is extremely rare(but has happened). However, the US Justice System operates upon the 'Stare Decisis' principle, and places very heavy weight upon US Supreme Court precedents. So much so that lower court cases are often thrown out if they are not in step with previous Supreme Court decisions on the subject in review, and thus the Supreme Court rarely sees a case for review.

I might add that the 2nd amendment does not say the militia has the right to bear arms, but clearly states that it is 'the people' whom have the right. In order to reinterpret it as other than a peoples right, you would have to reinterpret every other right guaranteed to 'the people' in every other amendment in which they are cited as a right belonging to the state instead. This would make the 10th amendment very confusing:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

A militia argument implies that the state and the people are one and the same if it bases it's principle upon the second amendment being a states right. It would have to accept that 'the people' and 'the state' are semantically the same. Which, of course, they are not. The state is a representative of the people. The "or" in the 10th Amendment is a bit of a clue.

Even if one sticks to the militia argument, The Constitution does not allow the military to interact with the public except in the most extreme cases, and requires a presidential order or Act of Congress. It only allows the militia to freely organize within the civilian population. The militia was only legally defined as a loose force in the Militia Act of 1903. Until then, every American was considered part of the militia. The act itself specifies every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45(basically those of draftable age) whom are NOT members of organized state militias or military. This does not remotely nullify the Second Amendment, nor does it replace it as it is an Act and not an amendment.

And perhaps most to the point is the Declaration Of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The passage in bold is not something an unarmed, non military populace can really accomplish. Some would argue that freedom from oppression is ageless and not really open to reinterpretation.

robindch wrote: »

And criminals who know that their victims are likely to be armed, will arm themselves and will be prepared to use their weapon. That doesn't happen here in Ireland where most (all?) home-invasion crimes are done without firearms. Yes, I might get the sugar kicked out of me if I attack some thief in my hallway, but I'm not going to end up dead. See response to (1).Rights: the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

Secondly, why shouldn't you own weapons? Because they're fucking dangerous, that's why.

The USA has gun-related deaths (suicide, mistakes, attack and defence) which are way, way, way beyond what any other developed nation suffers and the political power and financial clout of the NRA and the wider weapons-supply industry makes it impossible for the political class to deal with the issue. And so, the USA will continue to kill thousands every year for no reason. Still, at least they make good phallic substitutes.

Reindeer

The only issue I really see is the arbitrary application of the laws. I mean, you can technically own a firearm for sport and hunting. And, yeah, it's a bit restrictive on leisure like clays or trap, let's say. I was told by a trap shooter that you apply for a permit on huntinng grounds, then use it for trap(or maybe I am getting the UK and Ireland confused on that subject, my apologies if this is the case). But it is my understanding that the reason it is arbitrary is because the local constabulary must assess the person applying for the firearm on an individuals basis. Even if given clear guidelines such as a background check, health and psychological tests, etc, that local officer could have reservations and deny the permit based upon his own personal feelings. Maybe they are warranted, or maybe not. The US laws are actually fairly similar aside from that one thing. The local officers can not deny you if you have fulfilled every legal aspect required by law. You can not have any violent offenses or felony convictions, must not have an adverse psychological record(and they are getting better at sharing this information), must be of legal age, etc. I other words, the difference is your issuing officer gets to ask himself "Do I feel confident granting this person a permit". We do not have that option in the US because it is a right. Do we want to remove this option from the local constabulary?