How to drop your crime rate 20% - issue gun permits to residents

Nino Brown

Billy86 wrote: »

HCSO: Minister shot & killed with his own gun during home invasion. Intruder wrestled gun away during struggle

He didn't shoot the burglar, if you're not willing to shoot them leave the gun where it is.
But in any case the number of cases where a firearm is effective far outweighs cases like this one, as I'm sure you noticed searching for that one. Also interesting is that the burglar was not armed, despite all the arguments that armed homeowners means armed burglars.

Witcher

Markcheese wrote: »

Are any laws relaxed in Switzerland ??
Are HANDguns easy to obtain legally there... Would have thought wandering around a Swiss city with a shotgun or rifle slung over your shoulder would bring down all kinds of trouble on you..

You'd have thought wrong, totally different attitude to firearms in Switzerland compared to here. A person carrying a rifle in public is not an unusual thing to see there.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Switzerland-Sig-SG-550-Apple-Store-Open-Carry.jpg

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/swiss_gun_owner.jpg

Here's a Swiss child learning to fire the same rifle, someone in Ireland would probably pass out if they even saw that rifle;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bmq7e7Z0QAk/TVqbQm8KEjI/AAAAAAAAAJs/7h7mKgSLQGI/s1600/swiss_rifle3.jpg

wicklowstevo

Blay wrote: »

You'd have thought wrong, totally different attitude to firearms in Switzerland compared to here. A person carrying a rifle in public is not an unusual thing to see there.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Switzerland-Sig-SG-550-Apple-Store-Open-Carry.jpg

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/swiss_gun_owner.jpg

Here's a Swiss child learning to fire the same rifle, someone in Ireland would probably pass out if they even saw that rifle;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bmq7e7Z0QAk/TVqbQm8KEjI/AAAAAAAAAJs/7h7mKgSLQGI/s1600/swiss_rifle3.jpg

dont think id pass out but there would be a rush of blood to a certain area :D:D:D:D niiiiiice

Ralphdejones

Blay wrote: »

Here's a Swiss child learning to fire the same rifle, someone in Ireland would probably pass out if they even saw that rifle;

wicklowstevo wrote: »

dont think id pass out but there would be a rush of blood to a certain area :D:D:D:D niiiiiice

A young girl along with a rifle, every jerk off gun nuts fantasy

Witcher

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A young girl with a rifle, every jerk off gun nuts fantasy

Again, shooters being insulted for no reason.

Nino Brown

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A young girl along with a rifle, every jerk off gun nuts fantasy

Hilarious, we like guns so much we masturbate over them! :pac: I thought it was slightly funny the first time you said it, then it was hilarious the second time, but the third time was the best you really landed it, so please keep saying the same thing over and over, it's comedy gold.

Shakespeare's Sister

http://simpsonswiki.com/w/images/thumb/9/93/Jugs_Ammo.png/250px-Jugs_Ammo.png

zetalambda

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/

Illinois used to have a ban on private handgun carrying, and Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, however following a Supreme Court decision, Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and private registrations are on track to ht 100,000 by the end of the year.

Whilst correlation is not causation, Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Time to rethink Ireland's gun laws?

Yeah, as we can see, that's solved all the problems in countries where gun laws are liberal.

The_Valeyard

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

http://simpsonswiki.com/w/images/thumb/9/93/Jugs_Ammo.png/250px-Jugs_Ammo.png

Id be tempted to actually see if this actually existed or a Rule34 situation. (not that ive a fetish for horny women with machine guns)

Billy86

Nino Brown wrote: »

He didn't shoot the burglar, if you're not willing to shoot them leave the gun where it is.

1. Where does it say he didn't shoot at the burglar?

2. You are also switching the goal posts, since you never mentioned shooting any burglars initially. Typically if you shoot someone, they won't

But in any case the number of cases where a firearm is effective far outweighs cases like this one, as I'm sure you noticed searching for that one. Also interesting is that the burglar was not armed, despite all the arguments that armed homeowners means armed burglars.

I Googled 'man murdered in home robbery gun'. The first link was from less than an hour ago, a guy who pulled a be gun on burglars and was shot (along with the rest of his family) as a result. The second was to a guy killed outside his newly built home suspected to be connected with his criminal past. The third was the crime.ie homepage, then the journal.ie Garda page, then the criminal history guy again, then this story.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Nino Brown

Billy86 wrote: »

1. Where does it say he didn't shoot at the burglar?

2. You are also switching the goal posts, since you never mentioned shooting any burglars initially. Typically if you shoot someone, they won't

Your link didn't work, so read other articles, seems like he went out and had a chat with the guy
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Family-believes-minister-died-counseling-intruder-5600905.php

Billy86 wrote: »

I Googled 'man murdered in home robbery gun'. The first link was from less than an hour ago, a guy who pulled a be gun on burglars and was shot (along with the rest of his family) as a result. The second was to a guy killed outside his newly built home suspected to be connected with his criminal past. The third was the crime.ie homepage, then the journal.ie Garda page, then the criminal history guy again, then this story.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Okay, but to be fair it's not murder of you shoot a burglar, so the links will be limited. Try "Homeowner shoots intruder".

And the guy with the BB doesn't count, he was attacked by three armed men, and pulled out a BB gun and tried to beat them with it! That was only ever gonna end one way,

Ralphdejones

Nino Brown wrote: »

Hilarious, we like guns so much we masturbate over them! :pac: I thought it was slightly funny the first time you said it, then it was hilarious the second time, but the third time was the best you really landed it, so please keep saying the same thing over and over, it's comedy gold.

Oh look the angry gun lover wants to shoot me now. :rolleyes:

garv123

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Oh look the angry gun lover wants to shoot me now. :rolleyes:

He wudnt be able to shoot you because you and your mates with hammers would disarm him before he got a shot off :pac:

:rolleyes:

Ralphdejones

garv123 wrote: »

He wudnt be able to shoot you because you and your mates with hammers would disarm him before he got a shot off :pac:

:rolleyes:

If he was lucky he might get a shot off, but it would be his last.

Witcher

Ralphdejones wrote: »

He might get a shot off, but it would be his last.

As long as he takes two of you down with him he still wins:pac:

He'd probably manage to get all three of ya, he'd take one of you out and the other two would slip in their pools of piss as they run away..plenty of time for a reload:pac:

Ralphdejones

Blay wrote: »

As long as he takes two of you down with him he still wins:pac:

He'd probably manage to get all three of ya, he'd take one of you out and the other two would slip in their pools of piss as they run away..plenty of time for a reload:pac:

Oh look, another gun nut movie fantasy is whipped out. Killing three people dead with one shot.

Witcher

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Oh look, another gun nut movie fantasy is whipped out. Killing three people dead with one shot.

Three with one shot?

Where did I say that?:pac:

DS86

This thread in places must qualify as been the boards.ie ambassador for the Daily Mail crime reporting section, with comments that wouldn’t be too out of place on the comments section of the Mail Online. In fact it’s so comical in places that I’m still scratching my head as to whether people are been genuine, or subtlety taking the mickey out of right wing commentaries and their views on law and order, along with crime and punishment. We already have a right to bear arms in this country, but only for those who meet the strictest of criteria and have had background checks, e.g. no criminal record. Do we really want our legal system to reflect that of the American one and for gun crimes and homicides to become rampant? Of course not, but that is what many of the pro-gun advocates here would be responsible for creating if they got their way, perhaps not with the intention of doing so, but responsible for nonetheless.

Regarding Switzerland and their gun laws, has it occurred to anybody that (a) just because some random country has lax gun owner laws that work for them, why we in Ireland should too just because of that fact, and (b) has it occurred to anybody that perhaps what might work in Switzerland, wouldn’t work in Ireland? For instance I’d imagine that they have an extremely responsible and culturally ingrained attitude toward gun ownership, and a centuries old tradition of gun ownership and culture, and in light of these two facts, I’d imagine that’s why it’s safe for Switzerland to maintain lax legislation in relation to gun ownership. Also, I highly doubt that Switzerland has the same gurrier culture to the extent that we have here, nor the same lax approach and culture we have in this country when it comes to law and order. I’d imagine that the Swiss are similar to the Germans in their strict adherence to rules, e.g. if the traffic light is red, you do not cross the road, simple as.

Unfortunately, Ireland has a completely different culture to say Switzerland in this regard. Not only are the Swiss well adapted to the responsibilities of gun ownership, but seem to have the ability to respect rules within greater society unlike in many sectors of Irish society where the law is taken with a grain of salt. I honestly believe given this factor, and given the enormous gurrier element we have in this country, that replicating Swiss gun laws would not be feasible.

Has it also occurred to anybody advocating gun ownership rights for all in this country to look at our other unique attribute within Western Europe, aka. having a volatile region – Northern Ireland – with religious and cultural hostilities that wouldn’t be out of place within a 17th century European History textbook, and a region that could explode into violence yet again at any given moment, and with an already shaky peace process keeping things calm and peaceful? Yet scratch under the surface of the already shaky foundations of the Good Friday Agreement, and it’s easy to see that hostilities could break out there at any given moment.

In light of the above, would it really be a good idea for firearms to be so easily available? What about the vigilante elements from both sides of the border and from both a Republican and Loyalist background availing and taking advantage of reformed gun laws? Between easier access to firearms for both, and with the potential for a black market economy in gun selling and distribution, along with gunrunning, it’s safe to say that Northern Ireland could easily explode into violence, just as it did so during the 1970’s, if not to an even greater extent. Does Switzerland have a problem on it’s doorstep such as Northern Ireland? The answer is clearly, that no it does not.

As for gun law arguments within the US, they are built on a very shaky foundation, aka. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution. Within the highly urbanised and populous United States, this 18th century text is clearly out of date, and if anything has been out of date for nearly a century at this stage. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution was written during a time when (a) the former colonies had poorly organised bands of militias that on their own would easily be overcome by well organised armies such as those of the British, French or Spanish, (b) an unsettled frontier whereby settlers were vulnerable to attacks from Native Americans, (c) absence of a police force and inefficient local attorneys and magistrates to deal with crimes, (d) a frontier bountiful in wild game, so that hunting was of equal importance to agriculture in the frontier diet, e.g. particularly during crop failures or harsh winters and (e.) in case of a foreign attack, that militias could be rapidly former in order to try and fend off any potential enemy.

Obviously none of the above situations apply to the modern United States, which make the pro 2nd amendment nuts seem ridiculous, not least because they are taking the amendment completely out its original context, and failing to see the reasons that it was put into force in the first place. These individuals do not seem to realise that while there may have been logic in the right to bear arms in a primarily agricultural society with an unsettled frontier, and with an absence of a military to rival the European powers, or a police force such as what is in place in modern times to maintain law and order etc., that within today’s United States, by sticking stubbornly to the right to bear arms, regardless of the logic behind the constitutional framers original intention, and the context in which it was written, are doing more damage than good.

Ironically though, and we have such individuals here in this country, as they do in other countries as demonstrated by the amount of ****e that the Daily Mail produces on a daily basis –these same pro- 2nd amendment individuals within America, who are often the loudest shouters for the right to bear arms are the greatest of hypocrites when it comes to the US constitution. They pick and choose which elements of the constitution they would like to see remain intact, aka. areas such as the right to bear arms. Yet ask those same individuals to respect the US founders wishes, most notably great enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson and Madison, when it came to the issue of separation of church and state, and they do not want to hear anything of it. How ironic, the same gun nut advocates that wax lyrical about their right to bear arms as protected by the constitution, are often amongst the same crowd of individuals that would have the US democratic and justice system based on principles that wouldn’t be too dissimilar to those of the Salem Witch Trials, as opposed to the Enlightenment ideals of the founders, of which the United States was essentially founded on. So it just goes to show as evidenced by their hypocrisy, that the pro-gun lobby in America are no group that we should be taking lessons from, not least regarding the issue of gun ownership.

And once again in relation to Ireland and any proposed changes to the firearms laws, would it really make you feel better that you could own a handgun to protect your DVD player, Television or whatever other possessions, when every gurrier on the street, or provos on both the Republican and Loyalist sides could have an equal access to firearms? Would it really be worth mutilating Northern Ireland once again, and turning mere gurriers into experienced marksmen, just so you can protect your possessions? Think about all of above before uttering stupid statements such as, “I should have the right to have my gun in case Johno or Tomo break into my house to steal X, Y and Z”.

ardle1

I think a 4'(foot)surgically sharpened bladed sword is a better option :cool:

Witcher

DS86 wrote: »

In light of the above, would it really be a good idea for firearms to be so easily available? What about the vigilante elements from both sides of the border and from both a Republican and Loyalist background availing and taking advantage of reformed gun laws? B.

It's easier to get a gun in the North than it is here as it stands already.

WilyCoyote

I now understand what makes you tick OP. A neocon rabid republican organ. How quickly you've adapted.

MadsL

Blay wrote: »

It's easier to get a gun in the North than it is here as it stands already.

And you can get one in NI for the purpose of self defence..

MadsL

WilyCoyote wrote: »

I now understand what makes you tick OP. A neocon rabid republican organ. How quickly you've adapted.

So far from my politics you would not believe. No idea why gun advocacy immediately equates neocon?

ardle1

Blay wrote: »

It's easier to get a gun in the North than it is here as it stands already.

And so it should be!?
A lot of those poor people 'still' live and sleep in fear :mad:

Egginacup

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/

Illinois used to have a ban on private handgun carrying, and Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, however following a Supreme Court decision, Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and private registrations are on track to ht 100,000 by the end of the year.

Whilst correlation is not causation, Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Time to rethink Ireland's gun laws?

On Mars they passed a law to stop people **** one day a week. Amazingly it coincided with a drop in dust gathering near the poles. Now the dust gathers there whether people on the Red Planet are **** or not but it's plain to see that that it has to have had an effect.

Egginacup

MadsL wrote: »

There are approx 233,000 licences issued in Ireland for the possession of firearms, hardly introducing them.

Shouldn't you be down in Missouri singing the praises of clowns in kevlar instead of telling the rest of the world that they need to start "packing heat"?

Please, just take your howitzer and blow up some of those cacti that are about to invade your house and steal all your tupperware and leave the rest of us to determine how much power over life and death our agents of the state ought to have.

Egginacup

Lyaiera wrote: »

Are you genuinely saying that the situation regarding guns is as bad in Ireland as it is in America?

Christ Almighty, don't engage with this troll.

In 2011,85 bullets were fired by German Police....that's the entire force for a population of 80 million.
85 bullets!!! And 39 of those bullets were warning shots.

Not only that but all rounds had to be accounted for as a result of weapon discharge and written disclosure by the officer who fired.

In America, 85 rounds are frequently banged off by a pair of boneheaded cops who don't like how things are going at a traffic stop.
ZERO accountability or even explanation in the US.

Those German cops are either terrified of using their Hecklers or they are just brilliantly trained.

comongethappy

Egginacup wrote: »

Christ Almighty, don't engage with this troll.

As ironic as a boards post gets

Kermit.de.frog

o1s1n wrote: »

No guns, we're fine as we are

You think things are fine as they are?

fizzypish

No guns were harmed in the making of this thread.

renegademaster

legalise recreational cannabis too and watch it drop even further

El Guapo!

Egginacup, don't post in this thread again.

Wossack

If, for some outlandish unforeseen reason, the gun crime starts to creep up (I know, how random!), could we then consider legalising tanks?

Ralphdejones

Wossack wrote: »

If, for some outlandish unforeseen reason, the gun crime starts to creep up (I know, how random!), could we then consider legalising tanks?

If you've got a tank, I'm getting a Nuke

WILL NEVER LOG OFF

just came across this in a fancypants arts magazine

It's by Billy Collins.

He's kinda like the Steve Martin of American poetry

Another reason why I don't keep a gun in the house

by Billy Collins

The neighbors' dog will not stop barking.
He is barking the same high, rhythmic bark
that he barks every time they leave the house.
They must switch him on on their way out.

The neighbors' dog will not stop barking.
I close all the windows in the house
and put on a Beethoven symphony full blast
but I can still hear him muffled under the music,
barking, barking, barking,

and now I can see him sitting in the orchestra,
his head raised confidently as if Beethoven
had included a part for barking dog.

When the record finally ends he is still barking,
sitting there in the oboe section barking,
his eyes fixed on the conductor who is
entreating him with his baton

while the other musicians listen in respectful
silence to the famous barking dog solo,
that endless coda that first established
Beethoven as an innovative genius.

MadsL

DS86 wrote: »

This thread in places must qualify as been the boards.ie ambassador for the Daily Mail crime reporting section, with comments that wouldn’t be too out of place on the comments section of the Mail Online. In fact it’s so comical in places that I’m still scratching my head as to whether people are been genuine, or subtlety taking the mickey out of right wing commentaries and their views on law and order, along with crime and punishment.

This is AH after all...maybe your expectations are too high?

We already have a right to bear arms in this country

No, there is no such right. Only a very subjective set of criteria decided upon on a county by county basis by the local superintendent.

, but only for those who meet the strictest of criteria and have had background checks, e.g. no criminal record.

...and those that manage to negotiate one of the most complex sets of legislation in Irish law.

Do we really want our legal system to reflect that of the American one and for gun crimes and homicides to become rampant?

Huh? The logical outcome of following the US legal justice system is that gun crimes and homicides to become rampant?? How so?

Of course not, but that is what many of the pro-gun advocates here would be responsible for creating if they got their way, perhaps not with the intention of doing so, but responsible for nonetheless.

You haven't shown the inevitable nature of this outcome, plenty of other European countries have much less draconian gun laws than Ireland, and yet have lower crime rates.

Regarding Switzerland and their gun laws, has it occurred to anybody that (a) just because some random country has lax gun owner laws that work for them, why we in Ireland should too just because of that fact, and (b) has it occurred to anybody that perhaps what might work in Switzerland, wouldn’t work in Ireland? For instance I’d imagine that they have an extremely responsible and culturally ingrained attitude toward gun ownership, and a centuries old tradition of gun ownership and culture, and in light of these two facts, I’d imagine that’s why it’s safe for Switzerland to maintain lax legislation in relation to gun ownership. Also, I highly doubt that Switzerland has the same gurrier culture to the extent that we have here, nor the same lax approach and culture we have in this country when it comes to law and order. I’d imagine that the Swiss are similar to the Germans in their strict adherence to rules, e.g. if the traffic light is red, you do not cross the road, simple as.

That explains Switzerland, so care to explain the Czech Republic or Norway?

Unfortunately, Ireland has a completely different culture to say Switzerland in this regard. Not only are the Swiss well adapted to the responsibilities of gun ownership, but seem to have the ability to respect rules within greater society unlike in many sectors of Irish society where the law is taken with a grain of salt. I honestly believe given this factor, and given the enormous gurrier element we have in this country, that replicating Swiss gun laws would not be feasible.

No-one has advocated replicating Swiss gun laws.

Has it also occurred to anybody advocating gun ownership rights for all in this country to look at our other unique attribute within Western Europe, aka. having a volatile region – Northern Ireland – with religious and cultural hostilities that wouldn’t be out of place within a 17th century European History textbook, and a region that could explode into violence yet again at any given moment, and with an already shaky peace process keeping things calm and peaceful? Yet scratch under the surface of the already shaky foundations of the Good Friday Agreement, and it’s easy to see that hostilities could break out there at any given moment.

As it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Republic why would this have a bearing. It is actually easier as it stands to get a firearms permit in NI than in the Republic.

In light of the above, would it really be a good idea for firearms to be so easily available? What about the vigilante elements from both sides of the border and from both a Republican and Loyalist background availing and taking advantage of reformed gun laws? Between easier access to firearms for both, and with the potential for a black market economy in gun selling and distribution, along with gunrunning, it’s safe to say that Northern Ireland could easily explode into violence, just as it did so during the 1970’s, if not to an even greater extent.

Do you really think the violence of the past decades in NI was restricted in any way by lack of access to firearms??

Does Switzerland have a problem on it’s doorstep such as Northern Ireland? The answer is clearly, that no it does not.

I honestly fail to see the relevance. The Swiss have issues with militant islamist that the Irish don't have. Neither political situation is relevant to law-abiding citizens being able to hold firearms.

As for gun law arguments within the US, they are built on a very shaky foundation, aka. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution. Within the highly urbanised and populous United States, this 18th century text is clearly out of dateand if anything has been out of date for nearly a century at this stage.

,
Really? The vast majority of Americans disagree.

The 2nd amendment of the US constitution was written during a time when (a) the former colonies had poorly organised bands of militias that on their own would easily be overcome by well organised armies such as those of the British, French or Spanish, (b) an unsettled frontier whereby settlers were vulnerable to attacks from Native Americans, (c) absence of a police force and inefficient local attorneys and magistrates to deal with crimes, (d) a frontier bountiful in wild game, so that hunting was of equal importance to agriculture in the frontier diet, e.g. particularly during crop failures or harsh winters and (e.) in case of a foreign attack, that militias could be rapidly former in order to try and fend off any potential enemy.

Obviously none of the above situations apply to the modern United States,

a) citizen militias still exist in many states.
b) Remote areas still exist in the US where it is advisable to bring a firearm.
c) 20% of the population of the US live in rural areas where 911 response times are almost laughable, whilst even in NYC a 911 call involves an average 9 minute reponse.
d) Hunters still hunt.
e) refer to a)

which make the pro 2nd amendment nuts seem ridiculous, not least because they are taking the amendment completely out its original context, and failing to see the reasons that it was put into force in the first place. These individuals do not seem to realise that while there may have been logic in the right to bear arms in a primarily agricultural society with an unsettled frontier, and with an absence of a military to rival the European powers, or a police force such as what is in place in modern times to maintain law and order etc., that within today’s United States, by sticking stubbornly to the right to bear arms, regardless of the logic behind the constitutional framers original intention, and the context in which it was written, are doing more damage than good.

Nuts? Is it necessary to insult those holding a differing view? You utterly fail to take account of the fact that American citizens took arms against the government as late as 1967, one of the key arguments for retaining the 2A as a protection against over zealous government. [source]

Ironically though, and we have such individuals here in this country, as they do in other countries as demonstrated by the amount of ****e that the Daily Mail produces on a daily basis –these same pro- 2nd amendment individuals within America, who are often the loudest shouters for the right to bear arms are the greatest of hypocrites when it comes to the US constitution. They pick and choose which elements of the constitution they would like to see remain intact, aka. areas such as the right to bear arms. Yet ask those same individuals to respect the US founders wishes, most notably great enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson and Madison, when it came to the issue of separation of church and state, and they do not want to hear anything of it. How ironic, the same gun nut advocates that wax lyrical about their right to bear arms as protected by the constitution, are often amongst the same crowd of individuals that would have the US democratic and justice system based on principles that wouldn’t be too dissimilar to those of the Salem Witch Trials, as opposed to the Enlightenment ideals of the founders, of which the United States was essentially founded on. So it just goes to show as evidenced by their hypocrisy, that the pro-gun lobby in America are no group that we should be taking lessons from, not least regarding the issue of gun ownership.

I'm trying to follow your argument here, but it seems that it is simply a tirade against a cartoonish version of your opposing viewpoint.

And once again in relation to Ireland and any proposed changes to the firearms laws, would it really make you feel better that you could own a handgun to protect your DVD player, Television or whatever other possessions, when every gurrier on the street, or provos on both the Republican and Loyalist sides could have an equal access to firearms? Would it really be worth mutilating Northern Ireland once again, and turning mere gurriers into experienced marksmen, just so you can protect your possessions? Think about all of above before uttering stupid statements such as, “I should have the right to have my gun in case Johno or Tomo break into my house to steal X, Y and Z”.

It's not about protecting possessions, it is about protecting people. Do you not support the right of the homeowner to protect his/her home and the people in it? What restrictions do you place on that right? Since the law allows up to lethal force to be used, why shouldn't Irish gun laws fall into line with that right?

wicklowstevo

Egginacup wrote: »

Christ Almighty, don't engage with this troll.

In 2011,85 bullets were fired by German Police....that's the entire force for a population of 80 million.
85 bullets!!! And 39 of those bullets were warning shots.

Not only that but all rounds had to be accounted for as a result of weapon discharge and written disclosure by the officer who fired.

In America, 85 rounds are frequently banged off by a pair of boneheaded cops who don't like how things are going at a traffic stop.
ZERO accountability or even explanation in the US.

Those German cops are either terrified of using their Hecklers or they are just brilliantly trained.

you know in ireland every time a garda uses a can of pepper spray or asp baton there has to be a written justification. accountability isnt a issue, the issue is the public perception that anyone who pulls a trigger is wrong.

there are very few cases of lawful shootings in Ireland and those that do happen are meticulously dissected in the courts and media.
remember the casein Lusk where two post office robbers were caught red handed, one raised a gun to garda was shot and killed rightfully the other goes for the gun was shot again rightfully all on cctv yet there was out cry of garda murders etc .

the world is a violent place folks , even little old ireland sometimes guns are just a tool that can help us sometimes . saying that vet gun owners to excess to try and keep them away from nutters

Bongalongherb

What about this...

For a home-owner to be allowed have a hand-gun licence for home protection only, the home-owner has to pass stringent tests regarding how to use it and also how to safely store it within a safe with the clip always removed from the gun.

If the home-owner is caught with this gun outside of their property they receive 10 years prison-time. The gun can only be held in their home/private property. If found to be outside of their property they receive the prison sentence and also a life-time ban of ever owning a gun again.

This is only for home protection for yourself and family, the hand-gun can never leave the home. At least the parent or home-owner can protect themselves or their children for a change.

Go on then...blast me with you know what for my comment

Tail Docker

Bongalongherb wrote: »

What about this...

For a home-owner to be allowed have a hand-gun licence for home protection only, the home-owner has to pass stringent tests regarding how to use it and also how to safely store it within a safe with the clip always removed from the gun.

If the home-owner is caught with this gun outside of their property they receive 10 years prison-time. The gun can only be held in their home/private property. If found to be outside of their property they receive the prison sentence and also a life-time ban of ever owning a gun again.

This is only for home protection for yourself and family, the hand-gun can never leave the home. At least the parent or home-owner can protect themselves or their children for a change.

Go on then...blast me with you know what for my comment

Hold on while I get my gun. I'll be a minute or two..just let me wake up properly first though..

Witcher

Bongalongherb wrote: »

What about this...

For a home-owner to be allowed have a hand-gun licence for home protection only, the home-owner has to pass stringent tests regarding how to use it and also how to safely store it within a safe with the clip always removed from the gun.

If the home-owner is caught with this gun outside of their property they receive 10 years prison-time. The gun can only be held in their home/private property. If found to be outside of their property they receive the prison sentence and also a life-time ban of ever owning a gun again.

This is only for home protection for yourself and family, the hand-gun can never leave the home. At least the parent or home-owner can protect themselves or their children for a change.

Go on then...blast me with you know what for my comment

So they can never take it out to practice, whatever skill they built up during their testing stage will degrade and should they ever have to use the firearm it will be ineffective at best and dangerous at the worst.

Makes complete sense.

Firing a pistol accurately requires regular training, you can't teach someone and then have them fcuk it in the safe, pull it out months or years later and expect them to have the same skill they once did.

Markcheese

Okay ,you get a gun to protect your kids from bad guys, (when was the last time that someone you know was threatened by intruders in the home) .
Now what are you going to get to protect your kids from the gun ... ( I can think of three instances of people I know having gun accidents luckily no one hurt, 2 were overseas, 1 here)

Witcher

Markcheese wrote: »

Okay ,you get a gun to protect your kids from bad guys, (when was the last time that someone you know was threatened by intruders in the home) .
Now what are you going to get to protect your kids from the gun ... ( I can think of three instances of people I know having gun accidents luckily no one hurt, 2 were overseas, 1 here)

Children wouldn't need any protection from the gun in those instances, the dopes holding them were the danger.

I'm regularly around firearms and I've never felt in danger from a firearm, it's an inanimate object. It becomes dangerous when idiots mess with it which can be said for any number of other items.

Bongalongherb

Tail Docker wrote: »

Hold on while I get my gun. I'll be a minute or two..just let me wake up properly first though..

You cannot have a loaded gun on you when children are around, one walk into the toilet or downstairs and a kid can come in and see it lying on the drawer or somewhere and boom. It has to be in a safe in your bedroom. it would only take a few seconds to open the safe and stick the mag in, simples.

Bongalongherb

Blay wrote: »

So they can never take it out to practice, whatever skill they built up during their testing stage will degrade and should they ever have to use the firearm it will be ineffective at best and dangerous at the worst.

Makes complete sense.

Firing a pistol accurately requires regular training, you can't teach someone and then have them fcuk it in the safe, pull it out months or years later and expect them to have the same skill they once did.

Again, you cannot take the gun outside ever, this is the rule. If you want to practice shooting, you will have to join a firing range using their guns, as you will not be carrying said gun home with you as it belongs to the range. It's not that hard to understand this scenario.

Witcher

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You cannot have a loaded gun on you when children are around, one walk into the toilet or downstairs and a kid can come in and see it and boom. It has to be in a safe in your bedroom. it would only take a few seconds to open the safe and stick the mag in, simples.

So if you have no children you can stick it in a holster?

Tail Docker

Blay wrote: »

So if you have no children you can stick it in a holster?

Or, radical I know, -tell the kids they're not allowed touch the gun? Ever.

Bongalongherb

Blay wrote: »

So if you have no children you can stick it in a holster?

No. Because your safety is important as well. You leave it in the safe until needed. Believe me, you would be super-fast in getting to it upstairs in the bedroom before burglars get up the stairs when you are under pressure.

Tail Docker

Bongalongherb wrote: »

No. Because your safety is important as well. You leave it in the safe until needed. Believe me, you would be super-fast in getting to it upstairs in the bedroom before burglars get up the stairs when you are under pressure.

I have visions of that scene in No country for old men when he emerges from the river, dog close behind, and has to clear the gun so he can fire...

Bongalongherb

Not all parents would have the brainpower to be able to pass many stringent tests regarding my point, but the ones that do would be competent and fully understand the safety issues and how to properly deal with a situation like this.

Not everyone would be able to pass, or feel confident in this situation but the ones that are... well they get the licence of competence.

Witcher

Bongalongherb wrote: »

No. Because your safety is important as well. You leave it in the safe until needed. Believe me, you would be super-fast in getting to it upstairs in the bedroom before burglars get up the stairs when you are under pressure.

So a person is automatically considered unsafe to carry and use a firearm..the best thing in that case is to not give them one at all.

If you're under pressure and fumbling with a firearm you are unused to handling ( because under your system you can never practice with it) you will definitely have an accident.