Why firearms are so strictly controlled in Ireland and UK

goz83

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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

OK, not the actual law, but a couple of discussions about it right here on boards.

First link is to the main discussion thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51304016

In the first post, you will see a link => http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51303566&postcount=342

The last few lines are of interest, where lenihan explains that a pistol or rifle are only to be used on a range when doing target practice. A shotgun is excluded.

Maybe battlecorp will link the legal end of it tomorrow.

mynamejeff

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though


if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

eeguy

mynamejeff wrote: »

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though


if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

I wouldn't say lack of training. They probably just have specialists who deal with this sort of stuff. Lads who'll know exactly what type of gun they're dealing with and how to make it safe.

Better to have that that a Garda who did a week long course 5 years ago try and deal with it.

somefeen

mynamejeff wrote: »

ordinary uniform gardai deal with fire arms certificate applications.
checking the fire arms and fire arms safes etc
there is a huge lack of training though


if a fire arm was found somewhere the first people called would be scenes of crime not armed plainclothes .
the firearm would be made safe and forensically and ballisticly examined

Really?
Found a sawn-off shotgun once and the guards we flagged down, if I remember rightly, just threw it in the boot and took it in town.

MadYaker

If Ireland had more relaxed gun laws there would be a lot more privately owned guns in the country and this would obviously result in a higher level of ilegally owned fire arms as guns would surely be stolen or sold on to the black market. There is a massive black market for guns in the USA and the vast majority of these which are seized by the police were originally legally owned fire arms that were stolen or bought ilegally.

The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot, so i think were better off with the gun laws we have.

goz83

MadYaker wrote: »

If Ireland had more relaxed gun laws there would be a lot more privately owned guns in the country and this would obviously result in a higher level of ilegally owned fire arms as guns would surely be stolen or sold on to the black market. There is a massive black market for guns in the USA and the vast majority of these which are seized by the police were originally legally owned fire arms that were stolen or bought ilegally.

The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot, so i think were better off with the gun laws we have.

I think it would depend on what laws were relaxed. As it stands, getting a license for a firearm is usually a drawn out process, often taking 6 months or more. Before a person can apply, they need to have all the necessary security in place and after going through that trouble and expense, you might be refused.

Some laws could be amended and other could be relaxed without encouraging more ownership. For example; after going through the process of getting a first firearms license, it should be easier and quicker to obtain subsequent licenses. The licensed person has been shown to be trustworthy and competent enough to be granted a license and so the process should be simplified after the first application. Instead, each application is dealt with by the local Firearms Officer (a made up, unofficial role) in the very same way as the first. They might not contact your references the second time around, but everything is the same and it takes the same long period of time.

So the bottom line cannot be "more guns = more people getting shot". It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of firearms legally licensed would not interest criminals...who can just buy illegally imported guns, rather than try to steal a bold action .22 calibre plinker.

Heckler

goz83 wrote: »

I think it would depend on what laws were relaxed. As it stands, getting a license for a firearm is usually a drawn out process, often taking 6 months or more. Before a person can apply, they need to have all the necessary security in place and after going through that trouble and expense, you might be refused.

Some laws could be amended and other could be relaxed without encouraging more ownership. For example; after going through the process of getting a first firearms license, it should be easier and quicker to obtain subsequent licenses. The licensed person has been shown to be trustworthy and competent enough to be granted a license and so the process should be simplified after the first application. Instead, each application is dealt with by the local Firearms Officer (a made up, unofficial role) in the very same way as the first. They might not contact your references the second time around, but everything is the same and it takes the same long period of time.

So the bottom line cannot be "more guns = more people getting shot". It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of firearms legally licensed would not interest criminals...who can just buy illegally imported guns, rather than try to steal a bold action .22 calibre plinker.

I own a bolt action .22 rifle (took 5 months for licence) and a .22 semi-automatic pistol (took 2 months)l, both used for target shooting.

I was put through the wringer by the Guards for my first ( rifle) license. I got the license granted for the pistol without ever meeting a guard.

Outside of war zones more people are killed by .22 calibre bullets than any other every year. While they are not a "man stopper" i.e. being shot by one won't automatically stop you in your tracks, you can easily bleed to death from a .22 gunshot.

"Plinker" makes it sound inoffensive and harmless. The .22 is used as a weapon because it can penetrate the skull and bounce around scrambling the brain without exiting the other side as opposed to a through and through shot.

The gun laws as we have it here are adequate but flawed. Its tricky but doable to get a license. I think If you have a license for say a year or so, have shown good character and no issues, you should be allowed have pretty much whatever you want up to a point.

Shotgun licences are pretty much handed out no problem. A license for a .22 pistol not so much. I can tell you now which I'd rather be shot with. It ain't the shotgun....

somefeen

Heckler wrote: »

Outside of war zones more people are killed by .22 calibre bullets than any other every year. While they are not a "man stopper" i.e. being shot by one won't automatically stop you in your tracks, you can easily bleed to death from a .22 gunshot.

"Plinker" makes it sound inoffensive and harmless. The .22 is used as a weapon because it can penetrate the skull and bounce around scrambling the brain without exiting the other side as opposed to a through and through shot.

That's a very interesting point

If I remember rightly a .22 is the proscribed humane method for culling seals for those reasons.
It can penetrate the skull and kill the animal instantly but wont come out the other side and fly off in a random direction endangering the shooter or anyone else nearby.
Also, because of the shape of a seal's skull if you shoot one right between the eyes the bullet will ricochet back at you. With a .22 fired within the 'humane distance' the ricochet is not likely to cause serious injury.

Just thought it was interesting aside. I suppose the lethal effectiveness of a gun can't really be measured by it's calibre. A 303 is probably more dangerous to the person pulling the trigger if they don't know what they are doing.