Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

Lelantos

allibastor wrote: »

to be fair, there was not a fine and safe person with the guns, the mother was not exaclty a shining example of clear mental health, and the fact she let her son with known mental problems access to the weapons is not exactly proving your point. also i beleive that nutcase had an assault rifle and 2 handguns. what i am talking about is a small guage rifle or a single/double barrel shot gun.

Quite the opposite actually, the mother was a well respected teacher who had been battling with school boards for proper education for her son who had aspergers,

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

Considering Zimmermans injuries it's safe to say Treyvon was a threat.

Have you not read about the case?

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

According to a police report, "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter".[8][9][10] While still on the phone with the police dispatcher, Zimmerman left his vehicle. After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman. The encounter ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range.[11][12][13][14][15][16]

Thomas20

Ush1 wrote: »

Have you not read about the case?

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

Good thing Zimmerman had a gun while on neighbourhood watch patrol after sustaining his injuries who knows what would have happened to him without his gun!

jmayo

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I have every sympathy for the man, but shooting someone in the back is hardly something to be applauded. It is the function of the justice system to administer justice, not private individuals. If the justice system hadn't failed, a man would be still alive today, banged up perhaps, but alive.

Out justice system fails a hell of a fooking lot.
Just ask the parents of Manuela Riedo, the family of Bettina Poeschel from Germany, the family of Nancy Nolan in Galway, to name a few.
All were muder victims of people who had already been found guilty of savage killings yet our justice system deemed them fit to be released into the community.
And just as these people were allowed reoffend by our so called justice system, so will the likes of larry murphy and some day some poor woman is going find that out to her cost.

CruelCoin wrote: »

The average Joe Bloggs has no official training in self-defence.

Joe cannot be assumed to be able to disable an intruder effectively, while not posing harm to himself or the intruder.

Given the above, when an intruder has a knife or a gun, the lack of training thrusts you into a kill or be killed situation. One where a centre-mass attack would yield the untrained the greatest likelihood of sucess.

Ask any rational person the simple question "them or you", how do you think they would answer? Then why the surprise when people voice it here?

Even highly trained police armed response teams and army special forces shoot to kill.
They don't do the bullsh** of shooting to disable as in the movies.
So if specially trained personnel don't take chances then why should a mere civilian do so ?

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Don't agree with shooting an injured man when he was no longer a threat however you you break into someones home and they shoot you well WTF did you expect?

If it's proved someone stood over a wounded burglar and shot them in the head from point blank they should face prosecution too, however if they shot once and happened to hit the intruder in the head / vital organ leading to death then tough titties.

What about when you know the criminal will be out in no time at all and they have promised they will get even ?

Are you jsut meant to wait to get it in the back some day in the future or do you end it once and for all ?

asherbassad wrote: »

That being the case then you would also advocate carrying a gun with you everywhere you go because of what people "might" fuckin do.

Bring your shooter to the pub because some bloke MIGHT attack you for talkin to his burd!

Bring it to the supermarket because some beggar might start on you if you don't give him tuppence.

Bring it to the outdoor rock concert because some drunks might take a dislike to you and decide to hang you from a tree.

Because who knows what they're capable of.

You forgot the threat of extremists from particular religions.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just a question for the pro gun advocates in the discussion - how do ye propose to prevent another Frog Ward getting his hands on one of these far more freely available guns? Or his son? Or his cousin? Or his wife?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have some unique problems with elements from certain sections of society here, and I couldn't support more liberal gun ownership laws until those problems were resolved. Because if they weren't armed before, they sure as hell would be afterwards.

Ahh FFS you do know criminals already have access to guns ?
Types of firearms in fact that our police don't have.
Or haven't you noticed the level of gang land murders in this country over the last number of years. :rolleyes:

Why the fook can't people differentiate between legally held firearms held by law abiding citizens and illegal firearms held by criminals ?

Or are you ex minister dermot "blasphemy" ahern who thought the solution to gun crime was to ban legally held firearms ?

Witcher

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Wouldn't support legalization of semi autos or handguns as they'll more often than not be used to facilitate a crime but I see no problem letting homeowners in rural areas possess a rifle or shotgun

You don't need to support civilian access to these firearms. The State has seen fit to allow people access to them without your permission and people regularly licence them, though the only pistol you may have is a .22lr. The centrefires were banned to prevent crime...despite not one licenced pistol ever having been used in a crime, I don't think one has ever even been stolen here.

Doc Ruby

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh FFS you do know criminals already have access to guns ?
Types of firearms in fact that our police don't have.
Or haven't you noticed the level of gang land murders in this country over the last number of years. :rolleyes:

Oh right, maybe you can tell us so, Wyatt, why are they still using slash hooks, hammers and baseball bats since they're apparently all kitted out like the SAS? Maybe they're using the samurai sword because they want to be sporting?

Anyone like to take me up on my question and explain exactly which laws they'd like to see changed, and in what way?

MaxSteele

Innocents before criminals and scumbags. Always. You can dance around the model citizen approach, technicalities of the law and criminals rights all you like. Any rational person will have the "kill or be killed" instinct kick in when confronted like that in the case of a burglar refusing to stand down or threaten them.

Any intruder armed and trespassing is fair game. No one should be expected to anticipate they're intentions if they feel threatened. Most people in support of this aren't just going to blow the first shadow they see in their living room away. Hold at gunpoint and wait for the Gardai to arrive. Less messy and no chance of manslaughter.

Or if they are forced to pull the trigger, well then that's the risk taken on the burglars part. Their life is forfeit. No loss to society really. Just another dead scumbag with no chance of re offending.

It's quite simple. Don't invade someone's home while armed with the intention of thieving and assaulting the owner and there's nothing to worry about.

I'll never understand people who want to criminalize people who defend themselves in they're own home. Whether they pull the trigger or not.

Witcher

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Anyone like to take me up on my question and explain exactly which laws they'd like to see changed, and in what way?

Firearms laws?

- Purchase of air rifles, you shouldnt need a licence if you already possess other firearms. There are guys here with 3 or 4 .308's and if they wanted a break barrel air rifle they need another licence..utter bs.

- Remove ban on centrefire pistols

- Exempt .38 lever actions from being restricted under the Restricted SI.

- Most of the issues for firearms owners are how Supers and Chief Supers apply the law...some banning suppressors outright in their districts which they're not allowed do, others not allowing pistols etc. They should all be brought into line with the law...they're not sheriffs that can decide how they enfore the law.

Doc Ruby

Blay wrote: »

Firearms laws?

- Purchase of air rifles, you shouldnt need a licence if you already possess other firearms. There are guys here with 3 or 4 .308's and if they wanted a break barrel air rifle they need another licence..utter bs.

- Remove ban on centrefire pistols

- Exempt .38 lever actions from being restricted under the Restricted SI.

- Most of the issues for firearms owners are how Supers and Chief Supers apply the law...some banning suppressors outright in their districts which they're not allowed do, others not allowing pistols etc. They should all be brought into line with the law...they're not sheriffs that can decide how they enfore the law.

How does any of that make access to firearms easier for most people, which is what I thought we were talking about.

BattleCorp

Hamiltonion wrote: »

I don't own a gun so I really couldn't tell you. Unless you're at a gun range every day competing in events you shouldn't be let have a handgun. I'd like a system where if you have anything other than a shotgun or rifle it had to be left locked in your local range much like in Canada. In regards rifles and shotguns I think once you don't have a criminal record (not counting minor **** like speeding or smoking a joint) then getting a rifle or shotgun license should just be a formality.

There is a hell of a lot of misinformation regarding handguns.

You have proposed that people shouldn't have their own legally held handguns in their own home. I take part in target shooting, it's my hobby. There are plenty of times that I do stuff (legally) with my handgun at home. For instance, stripping it down and cleaning it. There's also a discipline called dry firing the gun. It's basically holding the gun and firing it with no bullets in the gun. I'm not one but all Olympic athletes do this for hours on end every day. It improves your skill no end. You can practice this every day at home but not many people have the ability to go to the range and do this daily.

For your information, NO LEGALLY HELD HANDGUN has been recorded as being used to commit a crime in the Republic of Ireland.

All the people being shot with handguns are being shot with ILLEGALLY HELD HANDGUNS. There's a big difference between the two.

So why you reckon it would be ok to have a rifle or shotgun at home and not a legally held handgun?

666irishguy

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh right, maybe you can tell us so, Wyatt, why are they still using slash hooks, hammers and baseball bats since they're apparently all kitted out like the SAS? Maybe they're using the samurai sword because they want to be sporting?

Anyone like to take me up on my question and explain exactly which laws they'd like to see changed, and in what way?

I don't know if there is a law against this, but I'd like to see all scumbags who have a certain number of convictions (maybe 2 or 3) for burglary or any crime tagged when released with a GPS tracker bracelet around their ankle for up to five years or more for a start. That would destroy their ability to do anything and associate with their fellow criminals. The technology is there to do it now. Anybody crying about personal rights can just remember how little respect the said scumbags have for the law and rights of others.

Witcher

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How does any of that make access to firearms easier for most people, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Most people don't need firearms here..I'm just pushing for firearms owners to get a break:pac:

jmayo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh right, maybe you can tell us so, Wyatt, why are they still using slash hooks, hammers and baseball bats since they're apparently all kitted out like the SAS? Maybe they're using the samurai sword because they want to be sporting?

Anyone like to take me up on my question and explain exactly which laws they'd like to see changed, and in what way?

Well Doc, Doc Holiday is it, you are making a few leaps there.
First off the above mentioned equipment, apart from being used in gardening/building and sports, is usually used by the travelling community when they have get togethers and they decide to settly old feuds.

Are you saying that the travelling community = criminals ?

Most hardened criminals do have firearms, you know armed robbery and the like.
Some others, like junkies, decide to use their easily accesible syringes and the like and a possible aids filled syringe can strike as much fear into someone as a loaded gun.

But you just go right ahead jumping and leaping to all sorts of facts doc.

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot of misinformation regarding handguns.

You have proposed that people shouldn't have their own legally held handguns in their own home. I take part in target shooting, it's my hobby. There are plenty of times that I do stuff (legally) with my handgun at home. For instance, stripping it down and cleaning it. There's also a discipline called dry firing the gun. It's basically holding the gun and firing it with no bullets in the gun. I'm not one but all Olympic athletes do this for hours on end every day. It improves your skill no end. You can practice this every day at home but not many people have the ability to go to the range and do this daily.

For your information, NO LEGALLY HELD HANDGUN has been recorded as being used to commit a crime in the Republic of Ireland.

All the people being shot with handguns are being shot with ILLEGALLY HELD HANDGUNS. There's a big difference between the two.

So why you reckon it would be ok to have a rifle or shotgun at home and not a legally held handgun?

Ah but shure isn't it well know the 22 single shot target pistol is not as good for the odd pub killing as a 9mm glock with a full clip. :rolleyes:

Doc Ruby

jmayo wrote: »

Well Doc, Doc Holiday is it, you are making a few leaps there.
First off the above mentioned equipment, apart from being used in gardening/building and sports, is usually used by the travelling community when they have get togethers and they decide to settly old feuds.

Are you saying that the travelling community = criminals ?

Most hardened criminals do have firearms, you know armed robbery and the like.
Some others, like junkies, decide to use their easily accesible syringes and the like and a possible aids filled syringe can strike as much fear into someone as a loaded gun.

But you just go right ahead jumping and leaping to all sorts of facts doc.

You didn't answer my question, because you can't, plain and simple. Crossbows are treated as rifles because they were used in a string of robberies; if criminals had access to firearms, why would they be using crossbows, maybe they run renaissance faires at the weekend and fancied a spot of impromptu re-enactment for the laughs?

Again, weakening firearms laws will simply put more guns in the hands of scumbags, who contrary to popular opinion don't have a sawnoff hidden in every pocket. If there was some way to be sure that weapons wouldn't fall into their hands, I'd be in favour of more liberal gun laws. As it stands, I can't in good conscience support the idea.

darkhorse

Ush1 wrote: »

Exactly, so they'll arm themselves! ...and around we go again...comprende?

Nobody is going around again. If you will just read the text in front of you.

If a burglar enters my house, armed or unarmed, he relinquishes any rights that he previously may have had.
I really cant make any clearer than that for you.

darkhorse

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

Off-duty Garda stabbed in Tallaght burglary · TheJournal.ie

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

Sure, have q gun shoot outside the bedroom, then find its your wife scurrying to the bathroom with a dose of the trots, a dog & a hurly have served me for many years, a gun leaves too much to go wrong, too many ifs & buts

Except my wife is lying beside me, and there's only the two of us living in the house.

Bruthal

Lelantos wrote: »

Sure, have q gun shoot outside the bedroom, then find its your wife scurrying to the bathroom with a dose of the trots, a dog & a hurly have served me for many years, a gun leaves too much to go wrong, too many ifs & buts

Well if you point the gun at the wife, that`s likely to induce the trots alright.

Madam_X

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

What I find weird is you seem to grasp his terrified mental state and yet claim it wasn't self defense. Yes, it was. Those animals were back yet again, on his property, in his home!

But the shooting didn't occur while Ward was attacking him; Ward was fleeing him. And as for Ward coming back - no doubt he would have, but again, that was going to be later; the self defence question would only concern mere moments before and during the shooting. I see your point, but legally, it wasn't self defence.

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they might tie you up and beat you,
because they might pull out your toenails,
because they might scald you with boiling water
because they might stab you
because who knows what they're capable of

It's actually disgusting that the "They're only taking stuff!" nonsense keeps being trotted out, especially in light of that lady in her 90s in Donegal.

freddiek wrote: »

He was held up as a hero by Traveller-hating racists. very disturbing now looking back on it

Yes, because he wouldn't have been held up as a hero if Ward wasn't a traveller - you keep telling yourself that. Yeh, Ward's intimidation of Nally was indeed disturbing.
Travellers are the same race as settled white people btw - caucasian is caucasian.

I don't think Nally should have ended another's life, but there is just no getting away from the fact that he had snapped - and that was due to Ward's own behaviour.

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

How would you do it now? You don't own a gun, so how do you protect yourself at the minute?

Can you prove that I dont own one?

wingsof daun

The thought of an old hag holding a double-barrel to a thief makes my stomach sick. Most of the old people in Ireland have faaaar too much money stashed up for themselves and will never spend 3% of it in their lives. Some leave nothing in their will, all for the bank/governement. :pac: For those that have very little to live on, yes, they should be protected in some way but please don't bring the gun back to Ireland! We should be ashamed of even considering it. Especially that the Brits are confined only to barracks now.

SilverScreen

No I don't think we should arm ourselves with weapons. If someone was to break into my house with a gun, I would only esculate the tension by throwing another gun into the mix and making the situation even more dangerous.

wexie

wingsof daun wrote: »

The thought of an old hag holding a double-barrel to a thief makes my stomach sick. Most of the old people in Ireland have faaaar too much money stashed up for themselves and will never spend 3% of it in their lives.

And therefore it's okay to rob them is it? Whether or not you're for or against stricter/looser gun control that's some seriously F*CKED up reasoning and I would immediately question the morals of someone who even thinks it's okay to say things like that.

Thomas20

wingsof daun wrote: »

The thought of an old hag holding a double-barrel to a thief makes my stomach sick. Most of the old people in Ireland have faaaar too much money stashed up for themselves and will never spend 3% of it in their lives. Some leave nothing in their will, all for the bank/governement. :pac: For those that have very little to live on, yes, they should be protected in some way but please don't bring the gun back to Ireland! We should be ashamed of even considering it. Especially that the Brits are confined only to barracks now.

4 year old account so i guess you are not a troll but wow...

Bruthal

wingsof daun wrote: »

The thought of an old hag holding a double-barrel to a thief makes my stomach sick. Most of the old people in Ireland have faaaar too much money stashed up for themselves and will never spend 3% of it in their lives.

That`s a thief`s point of view covered now at least.*





*Not saying you`re a thief

darkhorse

Thomas20 wrote: »

Or maybe he wanted to protect his neighborhood...

Or maybe he was KKK.

Ush1

darkhorse wrote: »

Nobody is going around again. If you will just read the text in front of you.

If a burglar enters my house, armed or unarmed, he relinquishes any rights that he previously may have had.
I really cant make any clearer than that for you.

Yes, as you've said, you obviously hold the view that if everyone is armed, the burglaries will just stop?

Thomas20

darkhorse wrote: »

Or maybe he was KKK.

Well considering he is hispanic i don't think the KKK would be very welcoming.

Ted_YNWA

I'm armed everywhere I go, cant take any chances these days.



































































I keep them attached to my shoulders

Quazzie

I've a shotgun which I store in my room. If ever I wake up with someone downstairs I'll make sure to inform of the gun's presence, and also that I count them taking even one step on the stairs as a threat against me and my family and I will use the gun to halt their progress. Due to the layout of our stairs, and the range of the gun any shot would be fatal.

The house is insured so they are welcome to what the want downstairs. The gun is to protect me and my family.

Witcher

Quazzie wrote: »

The house is insured so they are welcome to what the want downstairs. The gun is to protect me and my family.

Did ya tell the super that before he granted your licence?

I wouldn't inform them you had a gun if I were you, they'll target you specifically for it the next time.

Cora Mahoney

Lelantos wrote: »

Try it with a full state, Louisiana & Alabama, same arguement but with a poor & uneducated white population compared to the national average & 2 of the 3 highest gun death states in America, the poor race card cuts both ways

You have provided no sources nor stats to back up what you say here, so I think it's bunk tbh.

And you are dead wrong about Alabama, and probably Louisiana too:

The racial make up of Alabama is:

67% White
26.2 % Black
3.9 % Hispanic
(The rest Asian/Indian)

Robbery :

77% Black
23% White

Burglary:

41% White
59% Black


Murder:

62% Black
38% White


Rape:

45% White
55% Black

Interracial Rape:

91.5% Black Men raping White Women

8.5 % White Men raping Black Women



http://acjic.state.al.us/cia/2010_cia.pdf

woodoo

Madam_X wrote: »

But the shooting didn't occur while Ward was attacking him; Ward was fleeing him. And as for Ward coming back - no doubt he would have, but again, that was going to be later; the self defence question would only concern mere moments before and during the shooting. I see your point, but legally, it wasn't self defence.

It's actually disgusting that the "They're only taking stuff!" nonsense keeps being trotted out, especially in light of that lady in her 90s in Donegal.

Yes, because he wouldn't have been held up as a hero if Ward wasn't a traveller - you keep telling yourself that. Yeh, Ward's intimidation of Nally was indeed disturbing.
Travellers are the same race as settled white people btw - caucasian is caucasian.

I don't think Nally should have ended another's life, but there is just no getting away from the fact that he had snapped - and that was due to Ward's own behaviour.

I think Nally was right. I wouldn't care if it was a traveller or any other person with 80 convictions and a history of intimidation and robbery. Ward made his choices and paid the price. I support Nally fully on that. In fact he is a hero in many peoples eyes. People like Nally have ended up dead during rural robberies. Tortured in their own homes for money. Nally feared this and in his eyes was protecting himself.

MaxSteele

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

You have provided no sources nor stats to back up what you say here, so I think it's bunk tbh.

And you are dead wrong about Alabama, and probably Louisiana too:

The racial make up of Alabama is:

67% White
26.2 % Black
3.9 % Hispanic
(The rest Asian/Indian)

Robbery :

77% Black
23% White

Burglary:

41% White
59% Black


Murder:

62% Black
38% White


Rape:

45% White
55% Black

Interracial Rape:

91.5% Black Men raping White Women

8.5 % White Men raping Black Women



http://acjic.state.al.us/cia/2010_cia.pdf

Anything critical of non-white people is automatically debunked in AH. Evidence or not. You shouldn't waste your breath.

Thomas20

MaxSteele wrote: »

Anything critical of non-white people is automatically debunked in AH. Evidence or not. You shouldn't waste your breath.

Straight white people are so boring man, me personally i'm a pansexual female identifying genderqueer and aspire to raise my adopted african child in a one parent family.
If you disagree with my life choices you are a hateful bigoted racist.

Bruthal

woodoo wrote: »

I think Nally was right. I wouldn't care if it was a traveller or any other person with 80 convictions and a history of intimidation and robbery. Ward made his choices and paid the price. I support Nally fully on that. In fact he is a hero in many peoples eyes. People like Nally have ended up dead during rural robberies. Tortured in their own homes for money. Nally feared this and in his eyes was protecting himself.

Imagine sitting at home day after day, and day and night waiting for that fella to come back at any time. it was probably a life of hell. Only one person to blame for Ward being killed. That`s Ward himself.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just a question for the pro gun advocates in the discussion - how do ye propose to prevent another Frog Ward getting his hands on one of these far more freely available guns? Or his son? Or his cousin? Or his wife?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have some unique problems with elements from certain sections of society here, and I couldn't support more liberal gun ownership laws until those problems were resolved. Because if they weren't armed before, they sure as hell would be afterwards.

Have to agree with Doc here. More guns in the system will mean more guns in the hands of the scumbags. Not immediately but soon enough. Part of the problem the Americans would have with bringing in gun control, is that the vast majority of guns that would be handed in in such an event would be handed in by non criminals, the scum would keep theirs.

I would defo back the idea of mandatory GPS tracking of known criminals and scumbags. Far cheaper than locking them up and would curtail their criminal activity. Result for society. Result for the crim too. Keeps them less exposed to scumbag college/prison especially at the vulnerable ages(most scumbags are young men, who will often "grow out of it") If they then break that electronic curfew then throw away the key.

Pete M.

I currently maintain a legally held firearm and would use it if necessary.

Although I'd prefer to beat the everloving sh1te out of any intruder with a big stick instead tbh :cool:

BattleCorp

Wibbs wrote: »

Have to agree with Doc here. More guns in the system will mean more guns in the hands of the scumbags. Not immediately but soon enough. Part of the problem the Americans would have with bringing in gun control, is that the vast majority of guns that would be handed in in such an event would be handed in by non criminals, the scum would keep theirs.

Why would more legally held guns in the hands of responsible people lead to more guns in the hands of scumbags, bearing in mind that we have laws etc that insist on secure storage of firearms?

Lelantos

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why would more legally held guns in the hands of responsible people lead to more guns in the hands of scumbags, bearing in mind that we have laws etc that insist on secure storage of firearms?

Because that would make house robberies more attractive to some people, a gun would be highly prized in the underworld, especially one that is not traceable to them, only back to an honest owner.

wexie

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why would more legally held guns in the hands of responsible people lead to more guns in the hands of scumbags, bearing in mind that we have laws etc that insist on secure storage of firearms?

Because, unfortunately it wouldn't be below many scumbags to threaten/hurt/or worse your family/wife/kids until you take the gun out of the secure storage and hand it to them.

Secure storage or not, they'll get their grubby mitts on them somehow. Same way as GPS tracking, immobilisers etc. hasn't stopped car theft.

As much as I regret it not all scumbags are thick.

Pottler

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Good luck to you, you'll have to hope there is some technicalityweapon similar to Nally's that will get you off the slash hook.

fyp. Don't come clocking or ma triggers a rocking. I respectfully reserve the right to not be nice to people who are robbing me. I doubt they'll be wishing me well at the time, and I won't wish them well either.

Difference Engine

Its not just a simple fact of buying a gun to defend yourself. You need to be trained properly to use it, not just in handling the firearm itself but in the situation you may need to use it in.

There is a world of difference between hunting or clay pigeon shooting in the field and discharging a firearm inside a house, at close range, when you've just been woken up, under stress with little time to assess the situation.

A firearm can't be held for self defence purposes in Ireland so that kind of training isnt available here. Far more family members and innocent members of the public would be injured and killed than criminals.

I do agree that everyone should be able to defend their family, home and property but unless we revise how firearms are licenced and the training available to the public, more firearms with a view to self defence is a bad idea.

CruelCoin

Thomas20 wrote: »

Straight white people are so boring man, me personally i'm a pansexual female identifying genderqueer and aspire to raise my adopted african child in a one parent family.
If you disagree with my life choices you are a hateful bigoted racist.

Angelina Jolie, is that you?

jmayo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, because you can't, plain and simple. Crossbows are treated as rifles because they were used in a string of robberies; if criminals had access to firearms, why would they be using crossbows, maybe they run renaissance faires at the weekend and fancied a spot of impromptu re-enactment for the laughs?

Crossbows are very powerful weapons and have the added luxury of been relatively compact.

Why can't you get it that at this very moment in Ireland there are a fair chunk of criminals with some very high powered weaponary.
And get this little fact, they didn't nick them from Irish citizens and they were never legally held in this country. :rolleyes:
Of course every criminal, every gouger like the local boyos down the road don't have firearms, but there are a fair few within the criminal community.
Hell even in the states not every burgular or mugger would have a gun.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Again, weakening firearms laws will simply put more guns in the hands of scumbags, who contrary to popular opinion don't have a sawnoff hidden in every pocket. If there was some way to be sure that weapons wouldn't fall into their hands, I'd be in favour of more liberal gun laws. As it stands, I can't in good conscience support the idea.

What are you on about weakening firearms laws ?

Fooks sake you would swear with the tale you are spinning that pump action shotguns and 9mm sigs were going to be handed out at macra na feirme and ICA meetings every other week.

I hate this hyperbolic sh*** about how immediately all firearms will fall into the hands of criminals and criminals will just be beating down the doors of people to now get a firearm.
When there were legally held handguns in this country were there spades of robberies trying to source them.

Oh and what about in Northern Ireland, where people and gun clubs even have such items as .357s.
Does every scumbag in NI (lets leave out the paramilitaries) have these weapons ?

People compare the possible scenario here to the states, where in some cases there is shag all legislation and there is a huge black market of available weapons.
And just any weapons but high powered military grade weaponary.

Difference Engine wrote: »

Its not just a simple fact of buying a gun to defend yourself. You need to be trained properly to use it, not just in handling the firearm itself but in the situation you may need to use it in.

There is a world of difference between hunting or clay pigeon shooting in the field and discharging a firearm inside a house, at close range, when you've just been woken up, under stress with little time to assess the situation.

A firearm can't be held for self defence purposes in Ireland so that kind of training isnt available here. Far more family members and innocent members of the public would be injured and killed than criminals.

I do agree that everyone should be able to defend their family, home and property but unless we revise how firearms are licenced and the training available to the public, more firearms with a view to self defence is a bad idea.

I think a lot of people would take that chance.
If you are elderly and living in remote area, would you rather not have a shotgun when a couple of scumbags break in your door.

I don't think a lot of people on here have a fooking clue how many people out there in rural Ireland live in absolute fear that some night they will find a few guys in their house and they will end up like that lady in Donegal or worse like Eddie Fitzmaurice or Tommie Casey who were found tied up, beaten and dead.

It is about time a lot of people in Ireland wised up to the fact people are going to start protecting themselves, since no one else is going to, and if that means using shotguns and the like then so be it.

CruelCoin

jmayo wrote: »

Crossbows are very powerful weapons

This can be confirmed with a quick search on google.

Crossbows are regularly used to hunt bears in the states.

jmayo

CruelCoin wrote: »

This can be confirmed with a quick search on google.

Crossbows are regularly used to hunt bears in the states.

That would want to be a) one high powered crossbow with a pretty big draw weight and b) a small bear.

Using anything bar a big bore rifle against something like a grizzly could be suicidal.

Also crossbow hunting can result in poor kills where the poor animal is left in pain.

Doc Ruby

jmayo wrote: »

Crossbows are very powerful weapons and have the added luxury of been relatively compact.

So what you're saying is that criminals had a choice between guns and crossbows, and picked crossbows.

Right.

jmayo wrote: »

Why can't you get it that at this very moment in Ireland there are a fair chunk of criminals with some very high powered weaponary.
And get this little fact, they didn't nick them from Irish citizens and they were never legally held in this country. :rolleyes:
Of course every criminal, every gouger like the local boyos down the road don't have firearms, but there are a fair few within the criminal community.
Hell even in the states not every burgular or mugger would have a gun.



What are you on about weakening firearms laws ?

Fooks sake you would swear with the tale you are spinning that pump action shotguns and 9mm sigs were going to be handed out at macra na feirme and ICA meetings every other week.

I hate this hyperbolic sh*** about how immediately all firearms will fall into the hands of criminals and criminals will just be beating down the doors of people to now get a firearm.
When there were legally held handguns in this country were there spades of robberies trying to source them.

Oh and what about in Northern Ireland, where people and gun clubs even have such items as .357s.
Does every scumbag in NI (lets leave out the paramilitaries) have these weapons ?

People compare the possible scenario here to the states, where in some cases there is shag all legislation and there is a huge black market of available weapons.
And just any weapons but high powered military grade weaponary

Of course introducing more guns into society will make access to guns easier for criminals, many of whom do not have access to guns right now, and would probably find it difficult to get them. It's simple, logical and obvious.

jmayo wrote: »

What are you on about weakening firearms laws ?

How would you propose to make access easier for citizens without weakening firearms laws?

jmayo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So what you're saying is that criminals had a choice between guns and crossbows, and picked crossbows.

Right.

Did I say that or are you just acting like a spanner making sh** up and then claiming I said it ?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Of course introducing more guns into society will make access to guns easier for criminals, many of whom do not have access to guns right now, and would probably find it difficult to get them. It's simple, logical and obvious.

Again see Northern Ireland where people even during the height of the troubles had legal access to firearms that we could never dream of owning down here.
Yet criminals or others who wanted firearms for illegal uses, bar the paramilitaries who actually sourced their weaponary overseas, did not all have your proposed easy ready access to firearms.

Show Time

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

He shot dead an injured man crawling away from him on a public road.

Who if he had not been injured would have murdered Mr Nally who was trying to defend his home.

With 80+ convictions the Frog Ward was never going to be a model citizen and is no loss to the world.


If a few more of the scumbags were shot dead it might actually bring down the number of house and farm robberies.