Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

Galway_Old_Man

Legalising guns to the extent that some here are advocating would undoubtedly raise our low gun death rate. I don't see why we would want to change that.

If you're living in Ireland and worried about home security, get a dog. It's a much better alternative.

AnGaelach

Shenshen wrote: »

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

I was mocking Graces7 excessive use of the word.

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

Because the context is what is key. The poster was saying she is afraid of guns, because she once saw the Army around the bank with them - which is absolute and utter rubbish. If someone is afraid of the Army having guns, that is that person's problem. A gun is a tool, and the context in which it is used is key. If I saw boys in a Balaclava in Belfast with AR15s then I'd be anxious. When I see the Army or some guys on the range with them, I certainly would not be.

jimgoose

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...

I saw three or four of them double-timing it through the local Centra a few years back. The rifles were shouldered and safetied though, and they were after sandwiches and Fanta, not paramilitaries. :pac:

whisky_galore

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

'It's their culture' to use a much bandied about phrase.
I think the frontier attitude has survived in the states long after the Old West ceased to exist, perpetuated by fear, a mythology and an entitlement to bear arms that you don't see anywhere else. Down Under, I knew people that kept guns for shooting non native animals and a few roos for eating, certainly not for "home defense" (sic.)

I don't see any good reason to have softer laws on firearms here. As far as I'm concerned the only people that should have access to them are gun club affiliated hunters, farmers and target shooters, all strictly vetted of course.

jmayo

AnGaelach wrote: »

That isn't how it works... Like, at all.

You're aware of a few little groups called Republicans and Loyalists, right? I love guns, but having strict control over guns (and especially calibre) makes sense here. There's no domestic production, whatever comes in has to be imported under license (or bought illegally), meaning it can be (relatively) controlled.

Sure the Republicans used explosives to a greater extent, but I've no doubt that they'd use guns as well if they had greater access to them.

Actually the laugh is you could get access legally to much more lethal weaponry in Northern Ireland than you could here and they are the ones with the most paramilitaries.

I think there has long been a mindset in Ireland that the general public should not have access to weapons.
It goes all the way back to the foundation of the state.
They brought in act in 1925.
It guess it made sense after civil war.

The Troubles were used as an excuse to tighten it up and the drug related gun crime was used recently as excuse to remove even more handguns.

It is the usual trite mantra trotted out by ministers that they will remove guns to protect the people, when really they mean they will remove legally held firearms that are used for things like target shooting.

It sounds good and it is easier to target (pardon the pun) law abiding people than actually the scrots with the illegal heavy weaponry. :rolleyes:

As if the major drugs gangs and dissident paramilitaries are going round robbing handguns used for target shooting in preference to glocks and the like that are it appears fairly freely available.

In 2004 Mr. Brophy a shooting enthusiast challenged a Garda decision to refuse him a firearm certificate for a Toz-35m which is a single shot sport shooting pistol allowed by the International Olympic Committee.
The High Court quashed an earlier finding, and was granted a firearm certificate for the handgun in question.



Yep I can see all the hitmen walking around with these on their drive by shootings. :rolleyes:
This is what goes for one of the most restrictive gun control in Europe.

And nobody is trying to emulate the US of A where insanity appears to be the best description for their gun laws.

BattleCorp

whisky_galore wrote: »

I don't see any good reason to have softer laws on firearms here. As far as I'm concerned the only people that should have access to them are gun club affiliated hunters, farmers and target shooters, all strictly vetted of course.

That is pretty much the way things are here now. Apart from the hunters. They don't have to be affiliated to clubs.

ohnonotgmail

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.

are they wearing a full set of webbing as well?

valoren

Mah cans! Mah precious antique cans! Aw, look what ya dun to 'um!

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Can_Owner

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

Actually the laugh is you could get access legally to much more lethal weaponry in Northern Ireland than you could here and they are the ones with the most paramilitaries.

I think there has long been a mindset in Ireland that the general public should not have access to weapons.
It goes all the way back to the foundation of the state.
They brought in act in 1925.
It guess it made sense after civil war.

The Troubles were used as an excuse to tighten it up and the drug related gun crime was used recently as excuse to remove even more handguns.

...

The funny thing about that is that Gerry Adams was given a licence to carry a concealed weapon by the british government. for his personal protection. you couldnt make it up.

Johnboner

The brainwashing is real.

astrofool

Majority of people are happy with the status quo in Ireland, there's a low amount of gun deaths, and we've relatively low crime rates, so why change it.

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

The OP has a problem with the 'strict' gun laws in Ireland because he cannot hold a licence.
Maybe he is of unsound mind?
Maybe he has a serious conviction?
I think most people are happy enough with the laws as they are, If someone wants a licence they apply.

Nekarsulm

Most shooters are frustrated by the fact that the existing laws regarding firearms are often ignored by members of the Gardai.
Also some Gardai seem to have based their outlook on firearms on films they have seen.
I don't think watching Terminator, for example, is the best way to educate yourself on safe handling and use of a repeating shotgun, nor of reaching a judgment on the person looking to buy one.

Many court cases have been fought where a senior Guard has been found to be making up the law as he goes along. The judge in the vast majority of cases has found the Guard to be in the wrong, and awarded the sports person their licence (or directed that it should be granted, anyway) and awarded costs against AGS.

Titzon Toast

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

I never said it was, but it is certainly relevant. Guns are legal there, said legal guns kill thousands of people every year.
It's a pointless argument anyway, we'll never see legalised hand or machine guns in this country.
Stick to your .22 and your shotguns for sport.

Titzon Toast

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Most shooters are frustrated by the fact that the existing laws regarding firearms are often ignored by members of the Gardai.
Also some Gardai seem to have based their outlook on firearms on films they have seen.
I don't think watching Terminator, for example, is the best way to educate yourself on safe handling and use of a repeating shotgun, nor of reaching a judgment on the person looking to buy one.

Many court cases have been fought where a senior Guard has been found to be making up the law as he goes along. The judge in the vast majority of cases has found the Guard to be in the wrong, and awarded the sports person their licence (or directed that it should be granted, anyway) and awarded costs against AGS.

What about Bowling for Columbine then? Would that be a better example over Terminator perhaps? Ever seen it?
It's worth a watch.

jimgoose

Titzon Toast wrote: »

I never said it was, but it is certainly relevant. Guns are legal there, said legal guns kill thousands of people every year.
It's a pointless argument anyway, we'll never see legalised hand or machine guns in this country.
Stick to your .22 and your shotguns for sport.

Pistols (semi-automatic and revolver) are perfectly legal here, but like any other type of firearm certain criteria have to be met before a license can be obtained. Full-automatic is just as illegal here as it is in the U.S. to wit, completely.

eeguy

jimgoose wrote: »

Pistols (semi-automatic and revolver) are perfectly legal here, but like any other type of firearm certain criteria have to be met before a license can be obtained. Full-automatic is just as illegal here as it is in the U.S. to wit, completely.

There's a difference between legal and easy to obtain. To quote Battlecorps earlier post:

.22 handguns are allowed for target shooting. Some people have larger calibre handguns for target shooting but there are have been no new licences for those issued since November 2008.

BattleCorp

eeguy wrote: »

There's a difference between legal and easy to obtain. To quote Battlecorps earlier post:

.22 handguns are not much more difficult to licence than a shotgun or rifle. As long as you are of good character, mentally sound, no history of violence or substance abuse and are a member of an authorised range, you should have no major issues in getting a pistol licence.

The only major difference between getting a handgun licence or a rifle or shotgun licence is that you must be a member of an authorised range to get a handgun. If you aren't a member of a range, then forget about it.

One other thing I think I should add because lots of people here know feckall about guns or gun laws: Handgun licences are for target shooting only. That means that you can transport the gun to and from the range and use it as much as you like when you are on the range. You are not allowed to carry it around with you on your day-to-day activities, so no rocking around Tesco with it strapped to your hip.

Nekarsulm

Titzon Toast wrote: »

What about Bowling for Columbine then? Would that be a better example over Terminator perhaps? Ever seen it?
It's worth a watch.

Bowling for Columbine relates to the gun laws of a foreign country, and the various failures of the systems in that foreign country.
If anything, you are reinforcing my point. Why should a member of the Gardai take any more notice of Bowling than he does of Terminator in applying the laws of this State?
If you are seriously suggesting that the Gardai base their decisions on films, who gets to choose the film?
Paul Murphy? Michael Healy Rae? Gerry Adams? Yourself?
Apply the law as it stands, without prejudice, and stop treating vetted and screened and Superintendent approved sportspeople as if they were irresponsible volatile beings, to be trusted with a shotgun but not a target pistol.

munchkin_utd

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

seems like the gun traditions in Bavaria and wider germany are different, in that in Bavaria target shooting as a sport is predominant rather than chasing and shooting animals and birds.

Bavaria's target shooting association has just short of a half million members in 4680 clubs. Considering that the area of Bavaria is almost identical to Ireland, thats a club tally of over twice what the GAA has in the 32 counties , which shows just how popular the shooting as a sport is
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayerischer_Sportsch%C3%BCtzenbund

Bavaria is only a section of Germany with 12million out of the total population of 90, but it has political clout a little disproportionate to its size

jackwigan

NiallBoo wrote: »

Nobody wants to hurt you or your family, they just want your stuff.
Then if you shoot them then you must understand that its just because you value your stuff over a human life -nothing to do with your own safety.

People are people. They're not good or bad, just people. That person taking your stuff might be an asshole, but they're still a person with some absolutely basic rights. I'm very grateful that the law agrees with me on this one.

You're not judge, jury and executioner. You don't get to take the law into your own hands (and even the law doesn't choose kill or maim people).

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

riffmongous

I think the laws in Ireland are more or less fine, I would be interested though in seeing it become easier for people to take up target shooting, i.e. more ranges and a great access to weapons such as the possibility to rent them at the range, and for it to to become harder for people to get a hunting license, some sort of knowledge based test should be required first, some of the questions you see in the shooting forum from guys who already have guns are fairly bad, especially when it comes to the law.

The above is based on my experiences in Central Europe, where I live you need a license for hunting, but anyone can buy a shotgun or bolt action rifle from a shop. semi autos guns and hanguns are much more strictly controlled but still accessible to the average free citizen

Nekarsulm

jackwigan wrote: »

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

Going by NiallBo's argument, break-ins and rapes would still happen, its just that the people carrying out these crimes are not good or bad, just people, who may be assholes.
Well that's all right then.

Although I get the impression most of the people arguing for the divine rights of muggers, thieves and rapists probably never suffered the attentions of these fine upstanding citizerns.

soups05

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?

wrong, i did not go after them, they came after me. punched me to the ground and then kept kicking me in the face,head and upper body until my son and daughter came out and saved my ass.
If they had not been there I would most likely be dead. Think am wrong? you were not there.
As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

as before, too many on this thread are living in cloud cuckoo land where they never have to deal with scum who have no respect for others lives or property. You give me no respect, then you get no respect in return.

everyone in this thread can log off and walk away and not think about it again. I have to live with this **** for who knows how long.

The criminals in this country can carry guns whenever they choose, I want the right to do the same.

eeguy

jackwigan wrote: »

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read on here. Life is not that black and white.

And if that were true there would be no break-in assaults or rapes.

True enough, but how often is there a break in physical or sexual assault? Rare in this country. Would changing gun laws to allow people to own guns for personal defense change that? Very doubtful.

Would changing laws lead to accidental shootings or an increase in suicides? Judging by evidence from countries with more lax gun laws, probably.

soups05 wrote: »

As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

What would have been the outcome if you or your son or daughter had a gun?
What did the Gardaí do after you reported it?

somefeen

soups05 wrote: »

wrong, i did not go after them, they came after me. punched me to the ground and then kept kicking me in the face,head and upper body until my son and daughter came out and saved my ass.
If they had not been there I would most likely be dead. Think am wrong? you were not there.
As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

as before, too many on this thread are living in cloud cuckoo land where they never have to deal with scum who have no respect for others lives or property. You give me no respect, then you get no respect in return.

everyone in this thread can log off and walk away and not think about it again. I have to live with this **** for who knows how long.

The criminals in this country can carry guns whenever they choose, I want the right to do the same.

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

Nekarsulm

somefeen wrote: »

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

Your argument supposes that these fine citizens have never come to the attention of the Gardai before, and are 18 years of age and have passed all screening requirements.
That is highly unlikely.
By the time these career criminals reach an age to apply under current regulations, they will have had dozens of contacts with the Gardai, thereby excluding themselves forever from LEGALownership.

jackwigan

eeguy wrote: »

True enough, but how often is there a break in physical or sexual assault? Rare in this country. Would changing gun laws to allow people to own guns for personal defense change that? Very doubtful.

Would changing laws lead to accidental shootings or an increase in suicides? Judging by evidence from countries with more lax gun laws, probably.

Never suggested the laws should be changed.

somefeen

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Your argument supposes that these fine citizens have never come to the attention of the Gardai before, and are 18 years of age and have passed all screening requirements.
That is highly unlikely.
By the time these career criminals reach an age to apply under current regulations, they will have had dozens of contacts with the Gardai, thereby excluding themselves forever from LEGALownership.

Well our poster would not pass the screening requirements either if his main reason to own it was 'defence'.
The scenario I described is one where the law is relaxed considerably from where it is now.

Even where the possesion for the purpose of defence was allowed, more licenced firearms means more firearms that are liable to be stolen by the aforementioned fine citizens.
The odds of either of them having a gun then increases.

Even if both the scumbags were unarmed and the poster was, what then. Is he going to go out to his driveway with a rifle over a wing mirror? If not the same thing would have happened and if he did then what? Is he allowed kill them? At what point does a man holding a rifle feel his life is in enough danger to justify killing?
"They were running at me so I shot them"
The implications of that are huge.

Nekarsulm

Well if we agree that the two who assaulted him were not legally entitled to hold a firearm, and the victims was, then the law will judge him on the merits of the case. This is the difference between an upright citizen and a criminal. The upright citizen knows his life will change from that instance, and that he will be subject to the courts and in an instant must make that enormous judgement call.
The criminal has long decided to do whatever it takes to evade the law.

Self defensive weapons are so unlikely in this country however, as to render their discussion pointless. Only senior judiciary figures and those at serious risk of abduction can reasonably expect to hold such a firearm.

soups05

somefeen wrote: »

But if you were allowed a firearm, then those scumbags would be allowed firearms.
If they approached you with the intention of harm chances are they would have shot you before you even had a chance to react because, as a reasonably minded man you would not have thought to escalate the situation to weapons over a wing mirror, right??
You would have stood there unarmed. A firearm would not have prevented that situation.
The alternative is you went outside with your firearm at the ready, over a wing mirror. What happens then? You scare them off or do they both, also having firearms bring them to bear on you and your family soon after?

I seriously feel for your situation but more guns is not the answer. When people talk about having a weapon for protection they never seem consider that the people they would be in conflict with would also be armed under those circumstances.

ah but your missing the point, they WERE armed, albeit with a knife. now I admit to being a little emotional at the moment and not my usual clam self. so lets say I went out with no weapon and still got a kicking, then I get my gun and shoot them and not worry about them coming back. I would be defending my kids who where tackling them at that point.

or say I took the gun out in the first case, I wave it around and they decide to never come back. Cos cowards like that will pick on the weak, not the armed.

eeguy

soups05 wrote: »

ah but your missing the point, they WERE armed, albeit with a knife. now I admit to being a little emotional at the moment and not my usual clam self. so lets say I went out with no weapon and still got a kicking, then I get my gun and shoot them and not worry about them coming back. I would be defending my kids who where tackling them at that point.

Then I'd say that would be murder. You got a kicking and instead of calling the Gardaí, you got your legally held gun and shot them.

soups05 wrote: »

or say I took the gun out in the first case, I wave it around and they decide to never come back. Cos cowards like that will pick on the weak, not the armed.

So now you've escalated the situation. What if they come back with their own gun? What if they come back and you don't have a chance to get your gun out of the safe?
Seeing as you've threatened them back, they're more likely to want to put you in your place.

A gun isn't a replacement for the Gardaí, inefficient and hanstrung as they currently are.

soups05

so what is your solution to the problem then? Gardi will be the first to say they cannot be everywhere, so if (when) these two come back what am I to do? when they are kicking in my car, or worse my front door, what am I to do? sit back and hope the gardi get here in time?

DEFTLEFTHAND

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Why?

No one needs a gun unless you're a farmer, and if you need one you can legally get one here.

There is no need for the average person to own one.

We have gun clubs in Ireland. Shooting is a hobby for some people.

There's also a vibrant Hunting scene in the country.

Barry Badrinath

Shenshen wrote: »

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

I understand where people are coming from to a certain extent.

If you are not expecting it or have never been in a situation where the army are close to you, the sight of weapons may be a bit of a shock to some.

In most cases the soldiers are chatty and friendly to people while performing their task but are still observing and maintaining an alert posture.

"Armed to the teeth" is something they are not but that is a matter of personal opinion.

jimgoose

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

..."Armed to the teeth" is something they are not but that is a matter of personal opinion.

Only have the 30-round mag in the Steyers, do ye, instead of the 42? :pac:

goz83

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where does the law say that?

I can't go searching for it now, but it is illegal to even zero a rifle outside of an authorised range. I believe it has already been mentioned on this thread. Target practice is only allowed on a range. Some ranges can only accommodate .22 calibre rounds and to top it all off, a toy bow and arrow legally requires a firearms license

Very well written laws you see

Barry Badrinath

jimgoose wrote: »

Only have the 30-round mag in the Steyers, do ye, instead of the 42? :pac:

Well we dont perform that function anymore but even so, I couldnt be tellin' ye :pac:.

"Tschure, dem guns r plastk. Der no bulletses in dem guns, so der isnt".

jimgoose

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well we dont perform that function anymore but even so, I couldnt be tellin' ye :pac:.

"Tschure, dem guns r plastk. Der no bulletses in dem guns, so der isnt".

Little piddly bullets as well. Shure they're the same size as .22LR!

Barry Badrinath

jimgoose wrote: »

Little piddly bullets as well. Shure they're the same size as .22LR!

Id prefer the aul 7.62mm FN...b.b.b.buuut it'd be heavier

It would almost encourage you to fire a few rounds just to lighten the weapon :pac:

jimgoose

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Id prefer the aul 7.62mm FN...b.b.b.buuut it'd be heavier

It would almost encourage you to fire a few rounds just to lighten the weapon :pac:

You mean the FAL? 5.56mm NATO has a considerably faster muzzle velocity though, hasn't it?

Barry Badrinath

jimgoose wrote: »

You mean the FAL? 5.56mm NATO has a considerably faster muzzle velocity though, hasn't it?

Correct, by a few hundred fps.

I just prefer the 7.62 myself. Just love the kick to the shoulder.

Little CuChulainn

soups05 wrote: »

wrong, i did not go after them, they came after me. punched me to the ground and then kept kicking me in the face,head and upper body until my son and daughter came out and saved my ass.
If they had not been there I would most likely be dead. Think am wrong? you were not there.
As to what i would have done if I was armed? I would have shot them both as many times as I was able. **** their rights, I was defending my life, my families lives. They had at least one knife between them.
this was not a case of mistaken identity etc,

THEY ATTACKED ME. They don't deserve to get another chance to do it again.

as before, too many on this thread are living in cloud cuckoo land where they never have to deal with scum who have no respect for others lives or property. You give me no respect, then you get no respect in return.

everyone in this thread can log off and walk away and not think about it again. I have to live with this **** for who knows how long.

The criminals in this country can carry guns whenever they choose, I want the right to do the same.

You went out to them when they were still there. If you had a gun you would have shot them dead over a wing mirror. You are why people cannot have guns for self defence.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well if we agree that the two who assaulted him were not legally entitled to hold a firearm, and the victims was, then the law will judge him on the merits of the case. This is the difference between an upright citizen and a criminal. The upright citizen knows his life will change from that instance, and that he will be subject to the courts and in an instant must make that enormous judgement call.
The criminal has long decided to do whatever it takes to evade the law.

Self defensive weapons are so unlikely in this country however, as to render their discussion pointless. Only senior judiciary figures and those at serious risk of abduction can reasonably expect to hold such a firearm.

If he had a gun and shot them he would be charged. You cannot bring a weapon to a dispute, whether it be licensed or not. It's a separate serious charge.

soups05 wrote: »

so what is your solution to the problem then? Gardi will be the first to say they cannot be everywhere, so if (when) these two come back what am I to do? when they are kicking in my car, or worse my front door, what am I to do? sit back and hope the gardi get here in time?

Yes. Get a stronger door if you are worried about it.

goz83 wrote: »

I can't go searching for it now, but it is illegal to even zero a rifle outside of an authorised range. I believe it has already been mentioned on this thread. Target practice is only allowed on a range. Some ranges can only accommodate .22 calibre rounds and to top it all off, a toy bow and arrow legally requires a firearms license

Very well written laws you see

I would love to see that law that prohibits target practice. I wonder how people practiced before ranges.

soups05

i went back out cos my kids were out there. I would not have shot them over a wing mirror, if anything it would have been either to save my kids or cos they broke my jaw BY REPEATABLY KICKING ME IN THE HEAD.
A stronger door? so i have to go to the time,trouble and expense cos some scrote thinks he can walk the streets doing what he likes.
I am fed up trying to make people understand what its like, i really do hope you never find out for yourself

BattleCorp

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I would love to see that law that prohibits target practice. I wonder how people practiced before ranges.

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

eeguy

BattleCorp wrote: »

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

Probably none. More of a "look it up when you come across it" I'd say.

Nekarsulm

BattleCorp wrote: »

People did target shooting in fields before ranges as there were no laws that said you had to do it on ranges.

I only have my phone here but I'll search for the relevant legislation tomorrow.

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

When you come across a Guard in the local sports shop/gun room trying to get his head around why a .17 centrefire is bigger than a .22 Magnum, and the shop owner was reduced to getting one of each bullet and showing him the difference, and the Guard kept saying "but 22 is bigger than 17"

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

This isn't a dig at the Gardai, it's a genuine question. How much time is dedicated to learning about firearms, the licencing process, European Firearms Passes etc. when training in Templemore?

When training in templemore you are taught about all legislation, which as you can imagine, is extremely large and varied.
You do exams, about what you have learned.
As the years go on, you learn more about the things you deal with everyday.
Therefore, if you move into the fraud unit, for example, you know more about fraud, etc etc
If you become the local firearms licence officer, then you learn about that.
I doubt very much that the ordinary Garda have a huge knowledge off firearms & their licensing. Garda members in charge of firearms licences, however, I would imagine should have good knowledge of firearms legislation.

jimgoose

Nekarsulm wrote: »

When you come across a Guard in the local sports shop/gun room trying to get his head around why a .17 centrefire is bigger than a .22 Magnum, and the shop owner was reduced to getting one of each bullet and showing him the difference, and the Guard kept saying "but 22 is bigger than 17"

...or why a .243 Winchester will go through a wall at 500 yards, yet a .38 S&W won't. Gaaaahhh!!

TBH lads, the ordinary uniform guard wouldn't really have a lot to do with firearms.
Plain clothes members who carry, would obviously have more knowledge.
For example, if a call came in that someone had found a firearm, then uniform members don't have knowledge about guns, they have been taught to call a guard who carries, to make the gun safe & deal with it.