Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

Dyr

jmayo wrote: »

bar the paramilitaries who actually sourced their weaponary overseas, did not all have your proposed easy ready access to firearms.

Or from their local UDR barracks

oooh little bit of politics there /ben elton

darkhorse

Ush1 wrote: »

Lets not forget Nally beat the guy with a stick before he shot him the second time. It was in no way self defense at that point.

Do you know for a fact that the guy that you're talking about did'nt beat Nally with a stick anytime in the 20 years that he terrorized him and made his life a hell.

Lelantos

darkhorse wrote: »

Do you know for a fact that the guy that you're talking about did'nt beat Nally with a stick anytime in the 20 years that he terrorized him and made his life a hell.

Yes, we all do

Pottler

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.

There's a funny one, small little world we live in, because right after Ward was shot, the family moved, into a rented house, 200m away from me. That'd be sons, cousins, wife, the whole shebang. And the trouble they caused here? None. None at all. Moved on since. Were always scrupoulously polite and considerate towards me and mine. Very nice people as far as I'm concerned. You just can't tar them with the same brush.

The fact I'm a big rough cnut with pit bulls, guns(legal), loads of rough men working for me, more vans coming and going than most could ever muster and take very very little shyte irl probably had nothing to do with it though.. Armed me hole. The most robbed category are the elderly - that says it all. ie. Defenseless. The Gards have a job to do on that one, and they're not doing it, IMO. My own dear old Ma was living right next door to a lot of very rough lads for a long time, luckily enough, they were very very nice to her always, which is great, it's good to respect the elderly. In my case, you fcukin better respect my elderly.:)

Wibbs

Pottler wrote: »

There's a funny one, small little world we live in, because right after Ward was shot, the family moved, into a rented house, 200m away from me. That'd be sons, cousins, wife, the whole shebang. And the trouble they caused here? None. None at all. Moved on since. Were always scrupoulously polite and considerate towards me and mine. Very nice people as far as I'm concerned. You just can't tar them with the same brush.

+1 P. I'd say we all know right scumbags who come from otherwise nice families. I certainly do. One of the biggest wastes of oxygen I ever knew had family who were really bloody nice people. Defo a case of "where the hell did they get him from?".

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

Yes, we all do

Obviously you know both parties well.

Lelantos

darkhorse wrote: »

Obviously you know both parties well.

In all the incidents reported, Nally made no mention of being beaten with a stick

Doc Ruby

Pottler wrote: »

There's a funny one, small little world we live in, because right after Ward was shot, the family moved, into a rented house, 200m away from me. That'd be sons, cousins, wife, the whole shebang. And the trouble they caused here? None. None at all. Moved on since. Were always scrupoulously polite and considerate towards me and mine. Very nice people as far as I'm concerned. You just can't tar them with the same brush.

The fact I'm a big rough cnut with pit bulls, guns(legal), loads of rough men working for me, more vans coming and going than most could ever muster and take very very little shyte irl probably had nothing to do with it though.. Armed me hole. The most robbed category are the elderly - that says it all. ie. Defenseless. The Gards have a job to do on that one, and they're not doing it, IMO. My own dear old Ma was living right next door to a lot of very rough lads for a long time, luckily enough, they were very very nice to her always, which is great, it's good to respect the elderly. In my case, you fcukin better respect my elderly.:)

You missed my point, or made it rather, which was while Ward could never get a gun on his own, one of his family might be pressured into getting one for him.

Sparks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You missed my point, or made it rather, which was while Ward could never get a gun on his own, one of his family might be pressured into getting one for him.

Yes, because Garda Superintendents never know the people they're interviewing for firearms licences. They don't know their last names, they can't look up where they live, they can't read their own records of local scumbags, and they're never, ever allowed to refuse a licence on any grounds at all.

:rolleyes:

VEN

Yes

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

In all the incidents reported, Nally made no mention of being beaten with a stick

So that must mean it never happened.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Didn't he also say he didn't know Ward though?

darkhorse

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, because Garda Superintendents never know the people they're interviewing for firearms licences. They don't know their last names, they can't look up where they live, they can't read their own records of local scumbags, and they're never, ever allowed to refuse a licence on any grounds at all.

:rolleyes:

This, of course, is assuming they are going the legal route in the procurement of a gun.

darkhorse

VEN wrote: »

Yes

Yes we should, or Yes we should'nt.

Sparks

darkhorse wrote: »

This, of course, is assuming they are going the legal route in the procurement of a gun.

Yes, because that's what Doc was talking about.
If you assume they don't, well, what's the point of lots of hoops to jump through for the law-abiding folks then? It doesn't make anyone any safer because they're being sidestepped by the criminals; and it just makes life harder for the law-abiding, which isn't really what law is meant to be doing...

darkhorse

Sparks wrote: »

Didn't he also say he didn't know Ward though?

Don't know about that, but I do know that he said Mr Ward visited a few times in the past. In fact, the last time he visited, Nally said "when the Traveller had called into the yard to ask what the fishing was like on the lake. With no fishing tackle in sight, Nally was suspicious and told the court that he didn't like the look of Ward.

darkhorse

Sparks wrote: »

If you assume they don't, well, what's the point of lots of hoops to jump through for the law-abiding folks then?

I agree with ya all the way.

Lelantos

darkhorse wrote: »

So that must mean it never happened.:rolleyes:

Yes, good boy, now you understand.

Doc Ruby

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, because Garda Superintendents never know the people they're interviewing for firearms licences. They don't know their last names, they can't look up where they live, they can't read their own records of local scumbags, and they're never, ever allowed to refuse a licence on any grounds at all.

:rolleyes:

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, because that's what Doc was talking about.
If you assume they don't, well, what's the point of lots of hoops to jump through for the law-abiding folks then? It doesn't make anyone any safer because they're being sidestepped by the criminals; and it just makes life harder for the law-abiding, which isn't really what law is meant to be doing...

I'm not sure how many ways this has to be pointed out before it finally sinks in.

We're talking about loosening firearms legislation to make getting guns easier.

I'm saying you can't do that in this country without banning people from having guns on the basis of their last name. Which you can't do full stop. Which is also why nobody from the pro gun brigade has answered which specific adjustments to the law they'd like to see towards that end.

Its really not that difficult to understand.

BattleCorp

Doc Ruby wrote: »

We're talking about loosening firearms legislation to make getting guns easier.

Which is also why nobody from the pro gun brigade has answered which specific adjustments to the law they'd like to see towards that end.

.

I'm a shooting enthusiast so I'll give you my opinion. I don't speak for anyone else, just myself.

I don't believe that guns should be freely available to everybody. All types of guns are safe if they are in the hands of responsible people so we have to do everything in our power to ensure that they end up in safe hands. If you have a valid reason for having a gun (hunting, target shooting, vermin control), can prove that you are capable of using it safely, pass any required background checks (no history of violence, substance abuse, mental issues etc), prove you have the correct storeage facilities etc etc, then I've no problem with a person getting a gun licence.

If you allow gun licences for self defence, then everybody will be entitled to a licence as even scumbags and mentally ill people have a right to the same level of protection as everybody else. You mightn't agree with that, but that's the way the law would look at it.

Doc Ruby

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you allow gun licences for self defence, then everybody will be entitled to a licence as even scumbags and mentally ill people have a right to the same level of protection as everybody else. You mightn't agree with that, but that's the way the law would look at it.

That's more or less along the same lines as I was saying.

I like the main American reason for having guns, so they can shoot politicians if they need to.

Sparks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm not sure how many ways this has to be pointed out before it finally sinks in.

Doc, take a peek over to the left there?
<

---

Do you think maybe I might have seen one or two cases of firearms licencing in Ireland before now?

I'm saying you can't do that in this country without banning people from having guns on the basis of their last name. Which you can't do full stop.

We have been doing that in Ireland since 1925.
Why you think we can't, I don't know.

Doc Ruby

Sparks wrote: »

Why you think we can't, I don't know.

Because we're talking about liberalising gun laws, not what's been done since 1925.

A Primal Nut

laoch na mona wrote: »

all that shows is that prisons don't work we need to come up with a better way to tackle crime all we do is label criminals which makes them criminals for life

Prisons work very well at stopping criminals from committing crime. The problems start when they are let out, in order words they should stay in for longer.

Sparks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Because we're talking about liberalising gun laws, not what's been done since 1925.

You realise we don't need to, right?
The prohibition on issuing firearms licences for self-defence is a Garda policy, not a law (albeit one with the full backing of the government). If things got so bad that we needed to let people own firearms for self-defence, we wouldn't need to change legislation to do so, just policy.
Honestly though, we're not there yet -- I'm not sure we can even see there from here, or if we're approaching there or not.

Doc Ruby

Sparks wrote: »

You realise we don't need to, right?
The prohibition on issuing firearms licences for self-defence is a Garda policy, not a law (albeit one with the full backing of the government). If things got so bad that we needed to let people own firearms for self-defence, we wouldn't need to change legislation to do so, just policy.

Great, my point is that you can't change the legislation to exclude people related to criminals from firearms ownership. The nod and wink form of legal interpretation has worked well so far, but some in the thread seem to want to make it easier to get guns by the letter of the law. What I'm saying is that is a bad idea.

Sparks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Great, my point is that you can't change the legislation to exclude people related to criminals from firearms ownership. The nod and wink form of legal interpretation has worked well so far, but some in the thread seem to want to make it easier to get guns by the letter of the law. What I'm saying is that is a bad idea.

You're not fully understanding me. I'm not saying that we could go to a wink-and-nod system, I'm saying that if you needed to - and again, I don't think we're even close to that point yet - you could just revoke the policy, allow self-defence as a reason to licence a firearm, and completely legally and above board, allow ordinary people to have one but bar criminals from getting one, even via a family member.

If Paidraig hadn't finished him yer man may have come back armed to rob him again. If you were in a house with your family you'd do everything in your power to protect them. Having said that the gun would be the last thing I'd pick up if someone broke in.

Doc Ruby

Sparks wrote: »

You're not fully understanding me. I'm not saying that we could go to a wink-and-nod system,

I understand you just fine, you seem to be arguing with someone else however. We have a wink and nod system. It largely comes down to the Super's whim whether or not you get a gun.

Sparks wrote: »

I'm saying that if you needed to - and again, I don't think we're even close to that point yet - you could just revoke the policy, allow self-defence as a reason to licence a firearm, and completely legally and above board, allow ordinary people to have one but bar criminals from getting one, even via a family member.

How would you stop them? Legislating against people on the basis of who they're related to is discrimination, and wouldn't stand up in court. So what's to stop a Frog Ward from putting pressure on his first cousin with a clean record to get his hands on a few rifles for him far more easily than going through criminal channels?

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

If Paidraig hadn't finished him yer man may have come back armed to rob him again.

Which isn't something the law allows for. And honestly, I've never understood how that verdict got arrived at.

Sparks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I understand you just fine, you seem to be arguing with someone else however. We have a wink and nod system. It largely comes down to the Super's whim whether or not you get a gun.

Not for the application you're thinking of.
For farming, target shooting, hunting and the like, we don't have a nod-and-wink system at all, but the Super's whim is very nearly law (there are certain things he can't do like impose blanket preconditions, but there are always limits to everything and the limits here are set very much in the Super's favour).

How would you stop them? Legislating against people on the basis of who they're related to is discrimination, and wouldn't stand up in court.

Not only has it stood up in court in the past, it was defended by successive Ministers for Justice. From the firearms act, section 4:

(1) An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate.

(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant—
(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,
(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,

4(2) continues on in that vein for a while, but those first two subsections are all that the Garda Super needs. "Your family member has a string of convictions for assault. I'm not granting that licence. And I won't open myself up to a court case by giving you a written reason, I'll just wait the three months until section 15A(5) automatically refuses it."

Our problem isn't stopping scumbags getting licences; our problem is (and this is from the Garda Firearms Policy Unit) "problem Superintendents" who obstruct non-scumbags getting perfectly valid licences for perfectly valid reasons because they don't like firearms.

So what's to stop a Frog Ward from putting pressure on his first cousin with a clean record to get his hands on a few rifles for him far more easily than going through criminal channels?

C3.

Doc Ruby

Sparks wrote: »

we don't have a nod-and-wink system at all, but the Super's whim is very nearly law

That's what nod and wink means. Or at least it does to me. If you're a good and upstanding member of the community, not an alcoholic, not say recently divorced etc.

Sparks wrote: »

Not only has it stood up in court in the past, it was defended by successive Ministers for Justice. From the firearms act, section 4:


4(2) continues on in that vein for a while, but those first two subsections are all that the Garda Super needs. "Your family member has a string of convictions for assault. I'm not granting that licence. And I won't open myself up to a court case by giving you a written reason, I'll just wait the three months until section 15A(5) automatically refuses it."

Our problem isn't stopping scumbags getting licences; our problem is (and this is from the Garda Firearms Policy Unit) "problem Superintendents" who obstruct non-scumbags getting perfectly valid licences for perfectly valid reasons because they don't like firearms.


C3.

You keep talking about current legislation as if we weren't talking about changes to that legislation. You know what, forget it, we're having different conversations here.

Show Time

Deleted User wrote: »

If Paidraig hadn't finished him yer man may have come back armed to rob him again. If you were in a house with your family you'd do everything in your power to protect them. Having said that the gun would be the last thing I'd pick up if someone broke in.

Eh no.


If i had a gun it would be the first thing i would go for if i caught any f**ker inside the doors of my family home without an invite or if i was under the impression that myself or my family were in trouble i would not think twice about sending some scumbag to meet their maker.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

You realise we don't need to, right?
The prohibition on issuing firearms licences for self-defence is a Garda policy, not a law (albeit one with the full backing of the government). If things got so bad that we needed to let people own firearms for self-defence, we wouldn't need to change legislation to do so, just policy.
Honestly though, we're not there yet -- I'm not sure we can even see there from here, or if we're approaching there or not.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here as I don't want a gun for self defence purposes, but seeing as it's only policy and not law, has anybody ever tested this out in the courts?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm just playing devil's advocate here as I don't want a gun for self defence purposes, but seeing as it's only policy and not law, has anybody ever tested this out in the courts?

Not that I know of, but frankly, they might as well set fire to their money as pay the barrister for that one. You'd be appealing in a district court, then probably up the chain through circuit, high and supreme courts; and frankly, I don't think much of your chances in any of those.

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

Yes, good boy, now you understand.

Oh I understand alright. Been living beside some of these people for more than ten years, and seen them in action.

tayto lover

Burglaries are certainly on the increase and this article from the Irish Examiner today has left me worried about my own security as I live in the worst area for burglaries.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/one-in-every-222-people-a-victim-of-burglary-219814.html

If this trend increases and it will with even less Gardai about then i can see an increase in licensed firearms in the near future.

darkhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Having said that the gun would be the last thing I'd pick up if someone broke in.

Even in this case?




.news-tbn-con{width:72px}.news-tbn-desc{overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;color:#999;text-align:center;width:70px;white-space:nowrap;padding:0 6px}<h3 class="r">Masked men threaten to murder children in video

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

Witcher

tayto lover wrote: »

Burglaries are certainly on the increase and this article from the Irish Examiner today has left me worried about my own security as I live in the worst area for burglaries.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/one-in-every-222-people-a-victim-of-burglary-219814.html

If this trend increases and it will with even less Gardai about then i can see an increase in licensed firearms in the near future.

They're not licenced to defend your home, you could lie but I would hazard a guess that when most people see the rigmarole of getting land permission/joining a range, safety course, secure storage, forms etc. they would think again.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

They're not licenced to defend your home, you could lie

Lying on the application form is a specific offence under the Firearms Act. So if you did so, and used the firearm in self-defence, the subsequent "why wasn't it in the safe" questions could make life quite unpleasant.

dan dan

When a person decides to burgle, or worse. They decide that law is not for them,neither is respect for anything. They opt for no rules they earn no rules.
Criminals have plenty guns ,both small arms and ak47 type,automatics.
The only fish in the barrel are the law abiders. The shooters can somehow get law ,benefits.

darkhorse

Sparks wrote: »

Lying on the application form is a specific offence under the Firearms Act. So if you did so, and used the firearm in self-defence, the subsequent "why wasn't it in the safe" questions could make life quite unpleasant.

Unless, of course, if you had had a leg blown clean off by a by a burglar armed with a sawn-off shotgun. Mitigating circumstances maybe?

Boombastic

Sparks wrote: »

..........................."why wasn't it in the safe" questions could make life quite unpleasant.

I was just cleaning it at the time, your honour, when I they burst through the door;)

Witcher

Boombastic wrote: »

I was just cleaning it at the time, your honour, when I they burst through the door;)

Cleaning it in the early hours of the morning, without the gun broken down...with no cleaning supplies around but ammunition to hand?:pac:

The guards are payed to smell horsesh1t lads.

Boombastic

Blay wrote: »

Cleaning it in the early hours of the morning, without the gun broken down...with no cleaning supplies around but ammunition to hand?:pac:

The guards are payed to smell horsesh1t lads.

Well you see the thing was, I thought I heard a mouse in the safe. I had just opened and removed the gun to check when they burst in the door:pac:

Show Time

Half the time reading this thread you get the feeling that more posters on AH would side with a burglar instead of a home owner defending their property.

How many would change their tune if they caught some f***er breaking into their own home.

RUSTEDCORE

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A man with over 80 convictions, many of them for assault. The man in question was a violent criminal.

he didnt know that

Show Time

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

he didnt know that

Would you take the time to question a person if you caught them robbing in your home??

Garzard

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

he didnt know that

He knew exactly what he was doing though. I would have done the same rather than risk Ward coming back again, which he probably would have.

RUSTEDCORE

only stating that the argument of the guys criminal past as a reason to kill him is irrelevant... sure id beat him with a shovel and throw him in a slurry pit