Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

Poor Uncle Tom

222233 wrote: »

If we can justify unnecessarily giving people firearms to kill animals for "fun" and think that's okay than why not have guns on demand. I would personally prefer to see guns being accessed for protection than for "sport"

Whoa there father of humanity...

Who exactly is this 'WE' that needs to justify anybody else having anything? If you are putting yourself in a position where you decide what others should or shouldn't do or have you won't last long.

Presently, society dictates that we have laws and rules if you want to live within its communities. This also provides rules and laws for firearm ownership, which are different for each country.

If you want to dictate change in these areas you need to get elected to do so, otherwise its just perspicacious hot air.

222233

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Whoa there father of humanity...

Who exactly is this 'WE' that needs to justify anybody else having anything? If you are putting yourself in a position where you decide what others should or shouldn't do or have you won't last long.

Presently, society dictates that we have laws and rules if you want to live within its communities. This also provides rules and laws for firearm ownership, which are different for each country.

If you want to dictate change in these areas you need to get elected to do so, otherwise its just perspicacious hot air.

It is hot air because it makes me furious. it's easy to get a hunting rifle for the purpose of killing animals. If we don't want weapons and guns in the country than how is that reasonably justified? I'm not familiar with the law

On the note of getting elected, I would love that. Maybe one day....

Poor Uncle Tom

222233 wrote: »

If we don't want weapons and guns in the country ....

You're making huge assumptions there, speaking for everyone? regardless of how angry you are you don't take on the mantle of becoming a mouthpiece for everyone in the country.

222233

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You're making huge assumptions there, speaking for everyone? regardless of how angry you are you don't take on the mantle of becoming a mouthpiece for everyone in the country.

Sorry I should have altered my post to if "we" don't allow for. my issue lies with whatever current legislation exists.

goz83

Johnboner wrote: »

That's what I am saying, require strict vetting before being able to purchase a firearm.

We have this. It can be a PITA to get a license for s firearm.

Johnboner wrote: »

But occurred to shoot innocent birds or other animals in Ireland? As I am only aware of hunting licenses in Ireland.

As has been said, we can get licenses for target practice, but range membership is generally required.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Nothing stopping you shooting watermelons as long as you have a bit of land or are in a shooting club.

The law says otherwise. Target practice is only permitted at an authorised range. This includes zeroing for accurancy. Having hundreds of acres of land won't lawfully allow someone to shoot a single shot from a rifle, or pistol unless it's on a range. A shotgun however

uptherebels wrote: »

Imagine living next to a guy that spends all day shooting targets, the other side of your garden.

Obviously depending on the amount of land, if it was set up safely and only a .22 calibre rifle was used with sub sonic ammo and a moderator/silencer, it wouldn't be bothersome. But its not legal, so mute point.

mikeoneilly wrote: »

Some people keep them loaded beside the bed

We call them criminals.

Mr.S wrote: »

In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo.

True that not many people keep them at home. A few thousand licensed people do. And keeping ammo at home is usually part of it, which is perfectly legal as long as you keep to the requirements set out on the license.

WoolyJumper wrote: »

If you get your jollies from shooting a cardboard man or a piece of fruit, fine but do it in the safety of a shooting range.

Not allowed to shoot targets in the shape of a person. The range owners might also take isuue with fruit getting blasted all day. No need to invite vermin, even if you have the means to take them out.

MyStubbleItches

NiallBoo wrote: »

People having guns in a conflict dramatically increases the likelihood of someone getting killed - ie. If you try to defend yourself with a gun then you're more likely to die.

"Defending yourself with a gun" is also quite rightly considered murder in this country. Nobody has the right to take your stuff, but the criminal still has infinitely more right to life than you do to have a TV.

The criminal gives up all rights to any 'entitlements' when they decide that it's quite ok for them to walk into a home that you've worked hard for, to invade the lives of a family that you love and possibly/probably worried about being able to provide for before you started said family. They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for. It's fools like you who have most of civilised society where it is now. Fools like you who are apologists and excusers for those elements who aren't happy enough to leach off those of us who work for a living but think that it's ok to threaten us in our own homes and barefacedly steal from us safe in the knowledge that IF they are ever brought to task for it, a fool like you will be sitting in the elevated position and let them walk back out the door scot-free.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

The criminal gives up all rights to any 'entitlements' when they decide that it's quite ok for them to walk into a home that you've worked hard for, to invade the lives of a family that you love and possibly/probably worried about being able to provide for before you started said family. They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for. It's fools like you who have most of civilised society where it is now. Fools like you who are apologists and excusers for those elements who aren't happy enough to leach off those of us who work for a living but think that it's ok to threaten us in our own homes and barefacedly steal from us safe in the knowledge that IF they are ever brought to task for it, a fool like you will be sitting in the elevated position and let them walk back out the door scot-free.

Well your posts are suggesting the death penalty for theft. I don't think the poster is an apologist, or "excuser" as you say and I don't think anywhere did he say that thieves should get off scot free.

Killing a burglar is a little over the top, don't you think?

eeguy

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

The criminal gives up all rights to any 'entitlements' when they decide that it's quite ok for them to walk into a home that you've worked hard for, to invade the lives of a family that you love and possibly/probably worried about being able to provide for before you started said family. They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for. It's fools like you who have most of civilised society where it is now. Fools like you who are apologists and excusers for those elements who aren't happy enough to leach off those of us who work for a living but think that it's ok to threaten us in our own homes and barefacedly steal from us safe in the knowledge that IF they are ever brought to task for it, a fool like you will be sitting in the elevated position and let them walk back out the door scot-free.

Only if your name is Padraig McNally.

As I said before, having a gun for defence is a stupid idea and you will quite rightly be a murderer if you use it.

Although you've probably got a much greater chance of accidentally killing one of your own family before ever getting the opportunity to kill a burglar.

MyStubbleItches

Howard Red Explorer wrote: »

Well your posts are suggesting the death penalty for theft. I don't think the poster is an apologist, or "excuser" as you say and I don't think anywhere did he say that thieves should get off scot free.

Killing a burglar is a little over the top, don't you think?

No, your interpretation is that I suggest the death penalty for theft. I absolutely do not so please don't twist my words. A penalty for theft would be nice, however.

MyStubbleItches

eeguy wrote: »

Only if your name is Padraig McNally.

As I said before, having a gun for defence is a stupid idea and you will quite rightly be a murderer if you use it.

Although you've probably got a much greater chance of accidentally killing one of your own family before ever getting the opportunity to kill a burglar.

You won't necessarily be a murderer, that law has changed. I agree, having a gun solely for defence is a ridiculous notion. I owned a gun in the past and it scared the shīt out of me. It's a tool that was designed with one purpose in mind, there is no getting away from that.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

No, your interpretation is that I suggest the death penalty for theft. I absolutely do not so please don't twist my words. A penalty for theft would be nice, however.

Well you did say this;

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

They lose all rights when they decide it's ok to just take what you work hard for.

It's quite suggestive, and life is a right too, no? Or is that excluded in this case. Would they have a right to a fair trial or would you take that from them on the basis that they invaded your home?

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

You won't necessarily be a murderer, that law has changed. I agree, having a gun solely for defence is a ridiculous notion. I owned a gun in the past and it scared the shīt out of me. It's a tool that was designed with one purpose in mind, there is no getting away from that.

The law states that you are able to use reasonable force to defend your home. It doesn't give you the right to kill. I suggest you check out the details of that law a little more

Why would you buy something that scares the shít out of you? Odd.

Nekarsulm

Mr.S wrote: »

In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo.

In reality, Mr. S, probably 95% of all sporting firearms are kept in the owners home,here in Ireland.

The rest are kept in shooting range's safes.

All owners are perfectly entitled to keep in their possession whatever amount of ammunition their licence allows them. Be this the usual 100 rounds of rifle bullets or shotgun cartridges, or whatever higher amount the Gards Superintendent for your area grants you, as necessitated by your sport.
If you were not allowed keep it at home, where would you keep it?

If I am going to a clay pigeon competition on a Sunday morning, and I need 200 cartridges, where do you suggest I get them?

Also it is worth remembering that any gun owner needs references, good reason to own, Garda clearance, be of good character ( not coming to the attention of the Gardai for rowing, drunk, any fights or assaults etc) All gun owners in Ireland have to give Gardai permission to enter their home at any time to inspect the safe place were the gun is stored (no such thing as needing a search warrant) and all gun owners must sign away their right to their medical records being confidential.
The gun owner must go through his process every 3 years, and pay 80euro per gun each time. So every 3 years approx 16 million euro is paid to the State by sports men and women so that they can be profiled by a Garda of the rank of Superintendent.
As usual, the most highly regulated and law abiding citizens get blamed for the actions of criminals, and face calls for further sanctions from people with either no knowledge of safe practice and current legislation, or no interest in the facts.

The fact that the OP chose After Hours rather than the Shooting forum speaks volumes.

eeguy

Howard Red Explorer wrote: »

The law states that you are able to use reasonable force to defend your home. It doesn't give you the right to kill. I suggest you check out the details of that law a little more

I'd imagine the only time you could reasonably kill someone would be if they also had a gun and were threatening you and your family.

How often has something like that happened in Ireland? Once a year, if even? Not worth arming the country over anyhow.

goz83

eeguy wrote: »

having a gun for defence is a stupid idea and you will quite rightly be a murderer if you use it.

If the intention of having a gun if for defence, then I agree, it is stupid. I would spend my money on other security measures to try prevent a break-in from happening.

I disagree that using a gun for defence is murder and thats quite frankly an absurd and highly dismissive statement. There are any number of circumstances during a burglary (being the context of your argument) where it woukd be prudent to use a gun if you have access to one. By use, i do not mean that shots must be fired. But if used where there is a real danger of members of the household being harmed, I say the intruder has given up any right to safety.

I personally would not confront an intruder with a gun. If I happened to have a gun in my hand with an intruder in the house, I would make my presence known from upstairs. If the intruder tried to come up the stairs, then it would not be a good idea for him. Only one warning would be given. Then it's a hole in the knee. I would only use necessary force and would never aim to take life.

But thats my over the internet opinion.

worded

Someone told me that if everyone had guns in Ireland, one half would be dead and the other half in jail

MyStubbleItches

Howard Red Explorer wrote: »

Well you did say this;



It's quite suggestive, and life is a right too, no? Or is that excluded in this case. Would they have a right to a fair trial or would you take that from them on the basis that they invaded your home?



The law states that you are able to use reasonable force to defend your home. It doesn't give you the right to kill. I suggest you check out the details of that law a little more

Why would you buy something that scares the shít out of you? Odd.

I'm on a phone and I'm not that good on tech anyway so please excuse my inability to quote/edit.


To your first point; Do you realise that there is a difference between the death penalty and impulsive reaction? That kind of responds to your second point too, I think.

To your third point; again you're trying to twist words (may I be so bold as to suggest that if you want to debate then you should do so on your own abilities), what I said was that you one not necessarily be a murderer in the eyes of the law. I certainly did not suggest that one would have the right to kill. I find that notion disgusting, that any one being would have 'a right' to kill another. So please take your own advice and read up on the law that you are evidently no more familiar with than I am.

To your final point; I didn't know that a gun would scare the shít out of me. It's like food, I don't generally know how I'll find a food that I've never tasted before until I taste it. But you know that already, don't you? it's Sunday night, you're bored. I understand.

soups05

I really do envy most of the posters on this thread, they obviously have never had to deal with the dregs of society. I was attacked last week in my on front garden, the 1st page of this thread contains my post quoted from that thread.I sit here now at 140 am, unable to sleep. My diet is liquid for the next 6-8 weeks, am on a variety of tablets for pain and swelling and I am waiting.
I am waiting for the scum to fulfill their promise of coming back to burn down my house, kill my family etc etc. I have been there and done that before, I suffered for many years while living in another location and now it seems like history will repeat itself. Just like serial criminals I know that there are serial victims, I know cos I have been one all my life.
My biggest regret from last week is that I let them walk away, scot free, to come back when they feel like it to terrorise us. Hold your moral high ground folks, just know that some of us down here in the gutter are afraid for our children,our wives,our lives. If they come back I have no means to defend myself. But if I get the chance, if luck is on my side for once, then keyboard warrior BS goes out the window and I will make them pay. I will make the purge look like a damn disney cartoon to protect those I love.

Its not about shooting watermelons, its about being able to live in safety, without fear.

Manic Moran

NiallBoo wrote: »

"Defending yourself with a gun" is also quite rightly considered murder in this country. Nobody has the right to take your stuff, but the criminal still has infinitely more right to life than you do to have a TV.

Umm.. No, it's not. Homicide, no matter the weapon used, is considered either justified or not justified. Nobody has every been done in for an otherwise lawful killing in self defense purely because he used a firearm. He may be done in for illegal ownership of a firearm, storage of a firearm, or even murder if it was not justifiable, but there is no crime of 'murder with a firearm,'
As to the OP, he does raise a good point. Of all the things I've shot at with a firearm, from paper to people, I don't think I've ever had a crack at a watermelon. I have no idea how I have managed to miss this life achievement. I shall go to the grocery store Friday week, I think I have a Saturday free...

People having guns in a conflict dramatically increases the likelihood of someone getting killed - ie. If you try to defend yourself with a gun then you're more likely to die. 

Someone, yes. But who? Quoting a report the CDC commissioned after Obama told them to look into it

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

 https://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_RB.pdf

KingBrian said he'd rather trust a monkey with a gun?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

Mr.S wrote: »

Johnboner wrote: »

Should be relaxed, let's take a look at our European friends such as Germany and Switzerland, soldiers after serving get to keep their firearms at their homes in Switzerland and it is one of the safest countries in the world. 

In reality though, few people actually keep guns at home, and if they do, they aren't allowed keep ammo.

With regards Switzerland, that's a common misconception. They are allowed keep privately purchased ammunition at home. Government-issued ammunition is no longer permitted to be stored at home, and government-subsidised training ammunition must be used on the range when purchased, but non-government ammunition for privately owned firearms (or service weapons, or ex-service weapons purchased by the soldier upon release) is not subject to these restrictions.

Little CuChulainn

goz83 wrote: »

The law says otherwise. Target practice is only permitted at an authorised range. This includes zeroing for accurancy. Having hundreds of acres of land won't lawfully allow someone to shoot a single shot from a rifle, or pistol unless it's on a range. A shotgun however

Where does the law say that?

soups05 wrote: »

I really do envy most of the posters on this thread, they obviously have never had to deal with the dregs of society. I was attacked last week in my on front garden, the 1st page of this thread contains my post quoted from that thread.I sit here now at 140 am, unable to sleep. My diet is liquid for the next 6-8 weeks, am on a variety of tablets for pain and swelling and I am waiting.
I am waiting for the scum to fulfill their promise of coming back to burn down my house, kill my family etc etc. I have been there and done that before, I suffered for many years while living in another location and now it seems like history will repeat itself. Just like serial criminals I know that there are serial victims, I know cos I have been one all my life.
My biggest regret from last week is that I let them walk away, scot free, to come back when they feel like it to terrorise us. Hold your moral high ground folks, just know that some of us down here in the gutter are afraid for our children,our wives,our lives. If they come back I have no means to defend myself. But if I get the chance, if luck is on my side for once, then keyboard warrior BS goes out the window and I will make them pay. I will make the purge look like a damn disney cartoon to protect those I love.

Its not about shooting watermelons, its about being able to live in safety, without fear.

It's not a question of moral high ground. What would you actually have done with a gun last week? You went after them. Would you have brought the gun with you? Would you have gunned them down over a wing mirror? What if you'd been wrong about who did the damage?

Graces7

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where does the law say that?



It's not a question of moral high ground. What would you actually have done with a gun last week? You went after them. Would you have brought the gun with you? Would you have gunned them down over a wing mirror? What if you'd been wrong about who did the damage?

Thank you for this sound reasoning. Emotion and guns ? A bad combination.

MRnotlob606

BattleCorp wrote: »

Actually there's not much difference between the two examples that you gave. Both are sports with their own set of rules and regulations.

You see football boots as sporting equipment. I see a rifle or pistol as sporting equipment.

Guns are seen as weapons to most people, in fact a deadly weapon that can end up in the wrong hands. I think the comparison is quite factious to be honest. The laws we have here in Ireland are quite excellent and there something to be proud of, Relaxing gun laws would seem counter-intuitive considering the success we have with our current gun-laws, and the fact there's a high number of shootings in Ireland recent years. If you wanna go shoot clays, we're not in Tennessee.

Manic Moran

To your final point; I didn't know that a gun would scare the shít out of me.

Without denying how you felt about it, would you not agree that being scared by an inanimate piece of metal is a little irrational and not a particularly sound way of assessing government policy? It's not as if I don't understand where you're coming from, it certainly took me a little while to get used to the concept of my just having a pistol 'lying around' after I first purchased one about a year after I moved to the US, but over time once I got over the culture shock, as it were, and further educated myself on the larger background, I moved away from my 'Irish' mentality to a more 'American' one. 
In other words, I don't think anyone being 'scared' of an item is a particularly sound basis to make decisions which affect others when there are less emotional assessments which can be made. Even if moral assessments are hugely subjective in themselves, they're still better than emotional ones.

BattleCorp

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Guns are seen as weapons to most people, in fact a deadly weapon that can end up in the wrong hands. I think the comparison is quite factious to be honest. The laws we have here in Ireland are quite excellent and there something to be proud of, Relaxing gun laws would seem counter-intuitive considering the success we have with our current gun-laws, and the fact there's a high number of shootings in Ireland recent years. If you wanna go shoot clays, we're not in Tennessee.

I would have thought that shooting clays would be a bit tame for Tennessee.

I'm not advocating giving out guns to everybody. There should be strict controls regarding gun licences. I do think there are parts of our legislation regarding firearms that are bullsh1t and need to be tidied up but wholesale changes aren't needed.

You mention the high number of shootings here in Ireland in recent years. How many of them are carried out with legal firearms? I doubt the lads who went into the Regency Hotel with the AK47's had licences for them. Once again law abiding firearm owners are being incorrectly tarred with the brush of criminality. The problem isn't legal guns, it's illegal guns.

munchkin_utd

getting back to the original premise, why isnt Ireland like Germany or Switzerland, thats easy.

Theres a tradition in those countries of shooting clubs (at targets). It goes back to before the wars and in the mountainy regions its the centre of the community, probably the nearest equivalent to what the GAA is to rural Ireland.

Bizarely, at the Oktoberfest in Munich (large festival attended by 6 to 7 million people each year) you arent allowed to bring a bag bigger than a handbag onto the grounds for security reasons BUT thousands of people taking part in the bavarian national shooting competitions can bring guns and bullets and crossbows with them!
According to the official site, that's 9742 competitors including 500 underage . http://www.altronik.de/oktoberfest/?s=5

And back to tradition, at the Oktoberfest at least three of the "tents" have shooting related names with only one of them currently housing a shooting range. But again, thats the thing. If you have a shooting range at a community festival you have to admit that shooting must be a fairly integral part of that regions tradition/ culture.

Shenshen

munchkin_utd wrote: »

getting back to the original premise, why isnt Ireland like Germany or Switzerland, thats easy.

Theres a tradition in those countries of shooting clubs (at targets). It goes back to before the wars and in the mountainy regions its the centre of the community, probably the nearest equivalent to what the GAA is to rural Ireland.

Bizarely, at the Oktoberfest in Munich (large festival attended by 6 to 7 million people each year) you arent allowed to bring a bag bigger than a handbag onto the grounds for security reasons BUT thousands of people taking part in the bavarian national shooting competitions can bring guns and bullets and crossbows with them!
According to the official site, that's 9742 competitors including 500 underage . http://www.altronik.de/oktoberfest/?s=5

And back to tradition, at the Oktoberfest at least three of the "tents" have shooting related names with only one of them currently housing a shooting range. But again, thats the thing. If you have a shooting range at a community festival you have to admit that shooting must be a fairly integral part of that regions tradition/ culture.

Just to add a bit here, the tradition around shooting in Germany is entirely hunting-related. The clubs will all be hunting clubs (traditional prey being deer, wild boars, and mountain goats). But it is very heavily regulated, the number of members each club is allowed is limited and as far as I know, the guns are kept under lock and key in the club buildings and can't be taking into private homes.

Tornaxx

El Tarangu wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Op - Switzerland has the 3rd highest firearm-related deaths in Europe, precisely because of the fact that soldiers bring their weapons home with them.

If you check the stats from your link, most of the Swiss firearm-related deaths are suicides. Sort by 'suicides', and then by 'homicides'. They are 5th in the world for suicide by gun, but 48th for homicides.

If they didn't have the guns, most of those suicides probably would have happened by another method.

Having said that, I'm happy with the current gun control laws in Ireland.

Parchment

Firearms should be very strictly controlled. I would not be in favour of an relaxing of the laws.

Little CuChulainn

Tornaxx wrote: »

If they didn't have the guns, most of those suicides probably would have happened by another method.

What makes you think that? I've attended lots of failed overdoses, hangings and wrist cuts but I've never seen a failed gun to the head.

Graces7

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without denying how you felt about it, would you not agree that being scared by an inanimate piece of metal is a little irrational and not a particularly sound way of assessing government policy? It's not as if I don't understand where you're coming from, it certainly took me a little while to get used to the concept of my just having a pistol 'lying around' after I first purchased one about a year after I moved to the US, but over time once I got over the culture shock, as it were, and further educated myself on the larger background, I moved away from my 'Irish' mentality to a more 'American' one. 
In other words, I don't think anyone being 'scared' of an item is a particularly sound basis to make decisions which affect others when there are less emotional assessments which can be made. Even if moral assessments are hugely subjective in themselves, they're still better than emotional ones.

Not at all irrational. A large knife in someone's hands would have the same effect. It is a weapon.Period.An aggressive item.

Until I came to Ireland around 16 years ago I had never seen a gun in life.
One day I was waiting in the car for a friend who had gone into the bank. The car was suddenly surrounded by armed soldiers. I did not know then re cash deliveries that were then protected by soldiers.

There is no way of expressing the terror I was in.

Moral? What is moral about guns?

Little CuChulainn

Graces7 wrote: »

Not at all irrational. A large knife in someone's hands would have the same effect. It is a weapon.Period.An aggressive item.

Until I came to Ireland around 16 years ago I had never seen a gun in life.
One day I was waiting in the car for a friend who had gone into the bank. The car was suddenly surrounded by armed soldiers. I did not know then re cash deliveries that were then protected by soldiers.

There is no way of expressing the terror I was in.

Moral? What is moral about guns?

Did you think you were an enemy combatant?

jimgoose

Graces7 wrote: »

...The car was suddenly surrounded by armed soldiers. I did not know then re cash deliveries that were then protected by soldiers...

Yep, that is the actual army, the hardware in question is the Steyer AUG military rifle chambered in 5.56mm NATO, full-metal-jacket, yes they are loaded. Impressive, isn't it? That's one thing you don't even see in Texas. Needless to say, cash-in-transit robberies are rather rare here. :pac:

AnGaelach

Graces7 wrote: »

Not at all irrational. A large knife in someone's hands would have the same effect. It is a weapon.Period.An aggressive item.

You feel afraid when you see someone carving the meat for dinner?

Nekarsulm

Graces7 wrote: »

There is no way of expressing the terror I was in.

But why?
Had you previously lived in a country where the Army were to be feared?
Or was it simply due to ignorance/TV show based information?

jimgoose

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But why?
Had you previously lived in a country where the Army were to be feared?
Or was it simply due to ignorance/TV show based information?

You are far more likely to get a thump from a Garda (i.e. not particularly) than for a member of the Defence Forces to raise his or her weapon against you. This unique setup is because of the difficulties with various paramilitary organisations peculiar to this neck of the woods. The prospect of these characters getting their hands on serious amounts of cash presents a significantly larger pain-in-the-arse than a handful of geezers leaping from bush to bush up around the border. Hence this "Don't even think about it. Seriously, just fuck off!" approach to cash-in-transit security.

Graces7

None of the above. Guns are killers; period. That is their role. Period.

AnGaelach

Graces7 wrote: »

None of the above. Guns are killers; period. That is their role. Period.

Period.

Shenshen

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But why?
Had you previously lived in a country where the Army were to be feared?
Or was it simply due to ignorance/TV show based information?

I don't think you need to have lived somewhere where the army is to be feared to become nervous if you find yourself suddenly and unexpectedly surrounded by people armed to the teeth.

Nekarsulm

Graces7 wrote: »

None of the above. Guns are killers; period. That is their role. Period.

I fear, Graces7, that Hollywood rather than reason has been your educator.
I have several guns. They were designed and built for one purpose, and one purpose only, to be used in competition, shooting at fast moving clay targets.
If a criminal were to somehow steal one from me and shoot someone during a robbery, which is to blame, my gun or the criminal?
Should we ban guns, because criminals exist?
Or should we give every support to our Police force (and indeed Army) to help them apprehend criminals?

Either way, becoming "terrified beyond words" at the sight of our countries Army is not a rational reaction.

AnGaelach

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't think you need to have lived somewhere where the army is to be feared to become nervous if you find yourself suddenly and unexpectedly surrounded by people armed to the teeth.

Yes, that's exactly what the Army is just a bunch of people with no assumed moral and legal framework to use their weapons.

If you're afraid of the army having guns solely because they have them, then that's nobody's fault but your own.

Titzon Toast

Johnboner wrote: »

Then millions of people around the world tht like shooting are on the watch list according to you. That's the first part of ignorance, condemnation of something that an ignorant person does not understand. Countless videos on YouTube people shooting watermelons and targets or are you understanding shooting people? I guess people see what they want to see not what is actually being said.

In America, you are more likely to be shot by your own gun than by someone else's.
How many children are shot and killed every day over there too? Off the top of my head it's around 10 a day. Think about that for second.
It's a foolish notion to want to have more guns in our little country too.
If you want more fun, go play football or something.

jimgoose

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't think you need to have lived somewhere where the army is to be feared to become nervous if you find yourself suddenly and unexpectedly surrounded by people armed to the teeth.

We're talking about professional soldiers of the standing army of a Western European republic. They are there as a visual deterrent (the loaded magazines are "visible") to certain paramilitary elements and as such are extremely effective. The last thing they are is armed thugs.

Shenshen

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what the Army is just a bunch of people with no assumed moral and legal framework to use their weapons.

If you're afraid of the army having guns solely because they have them, then that's nobody's fault but your own.

I certainly would be apprehensive if I found myself surrounded by armed soldiers when I was just dropping down to the shops.
And I don't honestly think that that's entirely unreasonable, either.

I can't speak for the details of the situation, I wasn't there, but assuming I was waiting outside a bank and a bunch of people appeared in military outfits and armed, my first thought would most likely not be "Ah, look at those good chaps from the armed forces, out on duty within the legal and moral framework, bless them".

AnGaelach

Titzon Toast wrote: »

In America, you are more likely to be shot by your own gun than by someone else's.
How many children are shot and killed every day over there too? Off the top of my head it's around 10 a day. Think about that for second.
It's a foolish notion to want to have more guns in our little country too.
If you want more fun, go play football or something.

Again, most of us don't want something like the US. Why do you always go to the US as the example of deregulating gun laws? We have some of the most pervasive gun laws in Europe. The Czech Republic has fewer gun-related deaths than Australia (who also have rather pervasive gun laws) despite having a much more relaxed regulatory framework.

"b-but the US" isn't the end-all be-all of an argument.

Shenshen

jimgoose wrote: »

We're talking about professional soldiers of the standing army of a Western European republic. They are there as a visual deterrent (the loaded magazines are "visible") to certain paramilitary elements and as such are extremely effective. The last thing they are is armed thugs.

Yep, cause most people would instantly be able to see the difference.

AnGaelach

Shenshen wrote: »

I certainly would be apprehensive if I found myself surrounded by armed soldiers when I was just dropping down to the shops.
And I don't honestly think that that's entirely unreasonable, either.

The military were outside a bank. It's not the same as seeing a dozen of them marching through Centra with rifles at the ready.

Shenshen wrote: »

I can't speak for the details of the situation, I wasn't there, but assuming I was waiting outside a bank and a bunch of people appeared in military outfits and armed, my first thought would most likely not be "Ah, look at those good chaps from the armed forces, out on duty within the legal and moral framework, bless them".

Well that's your problem then, isn't it? You being afraid of people with firearms is not justified cause for nobody having guns. "Period".

jimgoose

Shenshen wrote: »

Yep, cause most people would instantly be able to see the difference.

Most people don't take a blind bit of notice of them. Why would they? It's not as if they don't look authentic enough!

AnGaelach

Shenshen wrote: »

Yep, cause most people would instantly be able to see the difference.

The uniform probably gives it away.

Shenshen

AnGaelach wrote: »

The military were outside a bank. It's not the same as seeing a dozen of them marching through Centra with rifles at the ready.



Well that's your problem then, isn't it? You being afraid of people with firearms is not justified cause for nobody having guns. "Period".

I resent you assuming I'm on my period, that remark is uncalled for.

And I really don't see it as such an unusual thing being apprehensive of an unexpected group of people with arms showing up in a normal, everyday situation. I understand why that poster would have been scared.

I have also never claimed that nobody should have guns, I'm not entirely sure where you got that from, either.

Shenshen

AnGaelach wrote: »

The uniform probably gives it away.

To be honest, I see too many people day in, day out in some sort of camouflage. If they're all soldiers, the Irish army is a formidable force indeed.

jimgoose

Shenshen wrote: »

To be honest, I see too many people day in, day out in some sort of camouflage. If they're all soldiers, the Irish army is a formidable force indeed.

Do you mean to tell me that you have difficulty telling the difference between a soldier, in full uniform and equipment, on duty on the street, and some clouster in a "combat" jacket??