If we had similar laws to US would you own a gun?

1874

Feisar wrote: »

Agreed on all yer stuff re fitness/situational awareness my point being though if one advocates weapons for self defence it’s a bit unfair to eliminate the best one.

Which in your opinion is? what? Nukes, take off and Nuke the entire site from orbit
If its the other thing, then spit it out and say it, that it is your opinion.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

No it is not,
for a start, lets clear this up. Firearms are not reasonable to carry as a self defense weapon, not here anyway. I have not said it nor am I advocating for that here.
Your assertion that the same problem that plagues having guns for defence would occur for non lethal items in that there would be an arms race for non lethal items by unsavoury characters to commit crimes is not identical, (edit in the scenario of non lethal items there wont be an arms race for items), that imo is incorrect.
Because,
While a gun may be a viable countering threat to another person with a gun (and as such an arms race can exsit) because they are capable of being used offensively.
For defensive weapons, if someone pulls a taser on me, run or block it, pulling out another taser like you are going to have some kind of lightsaber battle is ridiculous, the same for pepper spray, it may be possible to knock or brush away the physical can (unlike a knife or a bullet) or you could run.
I do not see 2 people squaring off to each holding cans of pepper spray, it even sounds laughable.
They still should be difficult to obtain and pepper spray is likely to have a useful life and if it is used its gone, and difficult to replace so I dont see criminals going out of their way to obtain it.

I said non lethal items should be strictly regulated, and even if someone gets their hands on them the level of offensive capabiliy is not significantly increased over a criminal or someone punching someone in the face or even threatening or using a knife, id actually say it is less dangerous, imo stun type weapons likely will never be permitted, but I think pepper sprays are reasonable for defense as they could deter or slow an attacker, they dont significantly aid an attacker anymore than the options available already, but it increases someones defensive capabilities and in any scenario it is non lethal, unless maybe someone has asthma.

So I dont belive there would be an arms race to obtain non lethal items.If someone threatened me with a can of spray Id try knock it out of their hand, always easy to say, if I saw someone with a knife Id run if that was an option.

i never said fireams were ok to carry as defensive weapons


yes if you have them available, in peoples homes cars etc, they will become easier to acquire, theres no getting away from it


People pick guns up this way all the time, they are looking for them


of course it can aid an attacker, if you try to knock it out of their hands, they will mace you or pepper spray you or taser you, they can be used at distance meaning you wont get to them even though you might thing=k you are bruce lee



then they can do what they want, at minimal danger to themselves


attacking with a knife or punching you entails way more danger for them

and they are threatening, who is going to not hand over a phone or empty a register if the threat is pepper spray in the face and losing what you have anyway


this is why they are banned in the first place

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

At the risk of going (slightly) off topic: what would you like to be able to do, legally, in Ireland that you can't at the moment?
And what would you still prefer to see forbidden, legally?

Guess I'm really asking is where would you draw the "happy medium" line?

I'd like to be able to licence a wider range of firearms such as centrefire pistols.

I'd also like the process we have for restricted firearms to be scrapped and have those types of firearms categorised the same as unrestricted firearms. There shouldn't be a pile of extra hoops and rules for those.

I'd like for it to be ok to set up a home shooting range if you are not causing a nusiance to neighbours and you had suitable backstops etc.

I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed to licence guns for self-defence.

I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed to licence fully-auto firearms although if we were, I'd get one.

I'm fine with the fact that we have a robust licencing system but I think the range of firearms that we can access is too restrictive.

Samsonsmasher

Most people in Ireland don't understand what the 2nd Amendment actually means

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It does not mean that the "well regulated militia" is necessarily the same as "the people." In fact it can mean the opposite.
It also does not mean that the "free state" and "the people" are one and the same. It can also mean the opposite.
The comma before "the right of the people" is the most important part of the amendment apart from "shall not be infringed."

The amendment means in plainer terms that because the state has an armed military and police force - in the 18th century the militia often played a dual role as both law enforcement in peacetime and during warfare as a military unit - the people - individual persons - have a right to bear arms also.

"Shall not be infringed" is worded that way because the right to bear arms is inalienable.
It cannot be taken away.

The right to bear arms is not just to hunt but to allow the citizen to protect him or herself from a tyrannical government that would prefer to monopolize the use of force.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own and defend himself with the same weapons as the police and the military.

PoisonIvyBelle

No. I really don't like them and I'd feel unsafe having one in my home even if it was legal.

Atlantic Dawn

I'd get a decent hand gun as a complete defensive weapon to protect myself in my own home it would never ever be taken outside the house. Additionally I would get an AR-15 as a purely attack weapon to take out anyone and his/her accomplice trying to rob the catalytic convertor on my car.

FileNotFound

1874 wrote: »

They should not be easily accessible, under strict licencing only,


What you are describing isnt a fault of tasers/sprays, its a fault of the justice system to (not) impose sentences for actual crimes.
So not allowing limited but effective self defence weapons under strict controls because other aspects of the criminal justice system already dont work is imo not a good argument, Im not criticising you, I think you are right, it is a valid reason, but still not a good argument and imo a much better approach to allow non lethal self defence items (tools) as means to defend against criminals where the Organisations charged with that are under pressure to carry out that role, I feel people should be allowed defend themselves in a non lethal way if they cannot escape an attacker.


imo laws need to be enforced, we probably dont need an overhaul if they were just enforced, maybe that requires an overhaul but there shouldnt be junkies or others out and about loose on the streets committing crimes, they really should be taken away from society, either locked up because they are dangerous and treated/rehabilitated or if they cant be rehabed just for the greater good of society serve time for actual crimes.

That was a very long winded rambling response.

All defensive weapons can be used offensively. Unless you're a mentally challenged redneck in the NRA, this is common sense.

Anything the public can get a criminal can get too.

What is the going rate for non lethal, no long term damage assault in Ireland for most cases? Say a punch in the gob. That is where these would most likely fall? Just more effective, less risk for the criminal. Increased risk for the Gardai to boot.

ILoveYourVibes

I would prefer to be allowed a tazer and or pepper spray.

But I would consider a gun yes. I would have to learn a lot more though and train to actually own one.

Maybe just an air gun.


But i would carefully look into it.

DoozerT6

I think the only scenario I would carry a gun or have one in my house is in the case of societal collapse, and as long as I learned how to use and maintain it properly. If there was a war, or some sort of complete societal breakdown, desperate people will do desperate things. I would like to think I would only use it for self-protection and never become the aggressor.

But that begs the question - would I even have the metaphorical ba!!s (I'm female) to use it, if push came to shove? There's that saying, never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to actually pull the trigger. Lots of people here saying they would shoot an intruder or attacker, but would you, really??? There is absolutely no way to know that unless you find yourself in a situation where you are highly panicked or in severe distress and suddenly your gun is in your hand. What next? Would you do it? You will absolutely never know unless it happens. As would I. I think I would GET myself a gun in an apocalyptic scenario - USING it against another person would be a different matter.

ILoveYourVibes

DoozerT6 wrote: »

There's that saying, never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to actually pull the trigger.

Maybe that would be enough though?

DoozerT6

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Maybe that would be enough though?

And what if it's not?

Witcher

DoozerT6 wrote: »

And what if it's not?

Then you'll have a third eye in your forehead pretty soon

DoozerT6

Witcher wrote: »

Then you'll have a third eye in your forehead pretty soon

lol unless I shoot first. But you have to be PREPARED to shoot and take someone's life. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it - I'm saying I won't know until I'm in that situation. Hopefully that never happens.

ILoveYourVibes

DoozerT6 wrote: »

And what if it's not?

Then you'll have a third eye in your forehead pretty soon

Gulp.:p

Heckler

I own a couple of guns, handgun included.

In relation to self defense/home protection firearms have to be secured in the house. Mine are in an alarmed gunsafe.

It would be impossible to access it, assemble it (slide and ammunition are in a seperate part of the safe) and use it as a defense.

Far as I know its possible to use a firearm in defense (See Pádraig Nally case) but to have one readily available for such is a different matter.

If I knew there was an imminent life threatening event about to happen to me and mine and the Gardai weren't available and I had time to assemble and ready a firearm then yes I would use it.

dulpit

If the zombie apocalypse happened I've always said I'd go into town to the gun shop to tool up. My question, apart from video games and tv/movies, I've no experience with guns. If society was breaking down, so no internet/etc, would it be possible to get a gun and fire it? It seems relatively simple but I may be wrong...

BattleCorp

dulpit wrote: »

If the zombie apocalypse happened I've always said I'd go into town to the gun shop to tool up. My question, apart from video games and tv/movies, I've no experience with guns. If society was breaking down, so no internet/etc, would it be possible to get a gun and fire it? It seems relatively simple but I may be wrong...

It doesn't have to be a zombie apocalypse. Three days without food and water and we'd all be a pack of killers.

My cousin in America has an emergency pack in her car. Shotgun, water purification tablets, first aid kit and other survival stuff. And a pile of cash (not a fortune, just something in case of an emergency). I was asking her about the cash and she quite rightly pointed out that if civilisaton breaks down, the power goes, what good is your credit card then.

BattleCorp

Heckler wrote: »

If I knew there was an imminent life threatening event about to happen to me and mine and the Gardai weren't available and I had time to assemble and ready a firearm then yes I would use it.

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" as they say.

Deseras

Then you would have drive by shootings

Manic Moran

I live in a place with US type firearms laws. Yes, I own guns.

That said, as another poster pointed out, I can't imagine Ireland would turn into the US even if, for whatever odd reason, the laws changed. There is something in a lot of the American psyche which indicates it is acceptable to shoot someone for 'dissing' them, or to get a pair of runners. I don't think Irish people would suddenly change to that sort of behaviour even with greater access to firearms. Certainly there are plenty enough well armed countries which demonstrate this.

1874 wrote: »

I think it would make sense to have specifically non lethal weapons in a specific colour scheme to help distinguish them, day glow yellow/orange/green.

To what end? You can spray-paint a real gun day-glow yellow/orange/green. If you treat it as a less-lethal, it could end badly for you.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Wouldn't a nice big Rottweiler or 2 be better?

Three issues. Firstly, nobody in my house is allergic to metals. Dogs, however, are another problem. Secondly, a gun is cheaper overall than a rottweiler or two. Thirdly, a dog isn't just an asset, it's a part of the family which requires care, attention, time etc. It's a commitment. Not all people are inclined towards taking a pet. A tool is much more convenient.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Switzerland is generally considered to have a very liberal gun policy, but I'd say it has what I'd call the "Chris Rock" strategy - the ammunition is as carefully regulated as the weapons themselves. Up until recently the national service stuff was issued in a can you were only meant to open under Judgement Day conditions.

Sortof. It's actually in between the "it's American free-for-all" and "It's quite regulated" which most people go with. Firstly, just because the tin of ammo came with a warning saying "Only open in case of war", whatever the punishment is for opening it without authorisation, it's probably not much of a concern compared to the punishment of committing whatever mischief with a gun. However, as you say, it's no longer done, the gun is kept at home for whatever reason, but the government issued ammunition is now stored centrally.

However, people discussing this also forget that there is a healthy non-government-provided firearms scene in the country. Check out "Bloke on the Range" over on Youtube, a British chap in Switzerland.

The only other Western country I can think of which routinely permits citizens to be armed out and about is Czechia, and they're not doing too badly on the firearms crime side of things either. They have a few more hoops to go through to get a permit, but if you pass the hoops, you cannot be denied. About a quarter million people out of the population of 11million have a carry permit. (Well, they call it a Class E license, but close enough). Of course 'pistol' is a Czech word, so they're inclined that way. They also were very unhappy at the recent EU laws on certain semi-auto weapons.

GreeBo wrote: »

How often is a gun successfully used to protect anything versus someone getting accidentally shot? How often does a gun stop a crime in the US versus facilitate one?

A quick bit of googling later, the figure for "Defensive Gun Uses" is anything from 800,000 to 6million a year, depending on who you want to listen to and what criteria are used. The last time the US Government took a look at it was quite a few years ago (Clinton era, maybe?) and they concluded 2.5million was about right.

The last figure for "crimes committed with a firearm" is a few years old, 420,000, but the NIJ shows an interesting trend down from the high of 1.5million in the mid 1990s.

Carrying firearms is not fun, it's a pain in the ass, tbh.

You just need the right holster. I never take mine off, be I armed or not. (It's an inside-waistband holster, and if I don't wear it to increase my effective waist size by 2", my trousers fall down). If it's in the right place, you don't notice it. The drop-leg I had in the Army was also very comfortable, just the right height to rest my hand.

All of the statistics from the US show that one way or another, owning a gun makes you or a family member more likely to be killed by a gun.

Yes, but there's also a matter of need. For example, if you live in a high crime neighborhood, you may feel the need to have a gun, the crime being high regardless of your own activities.

For those who say you are more likely to be killed by your own gun, that's a matter of personal responsibility. If you don't store it right, or don't know how to use it, that's your own fault. However, it's worth noting that in the CDC study commissioned after Sandy Hook, it stated that those who defended themselves with a gun were more likely to come out of an encounter unharmed than those who used any other defensive technique. So it really does come down to personal responsibility. Owning a gun doesn't make you safer. Owning a gun and taking the time to learn how (and when) to use it, however, is another matter entirely.

If you're in the US and someone breaks into your house, you pretty much need to take for granted that they're probably armed with a gun.

Indeed, and conversely, criminals also take it for granted that a homeowner is probably armed with a gun. This means that they tend to take pains to ensure that the homeowner is not present in the first place. Burglary rates between the US and UK are generally similar, but the 'homeowner present' (AKA "hot burglary) rate is far lower in the US.

Criminals get guns, the general public get bigger guns, the police get bigger guns, then criminals get even bigger guns

This line reminds me of the scene in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"...
"What's that?"
"It's my Bren gun..."

The overwhelming majority of crimes are conducted with handguns. The overwhelming majority of firearms purchased for defense are handguns. There is only so big a handgun will get before it gets impractical to use. Most folks settle for a 9mm semi-auto or a .380, and it's generally stayed there for both sides.

there are more guns than people and little old ladies thinking they need automatic weapons.

Well, not necessarily automatic, but another person suggested learning jiu-jitsu for a year. Your typical little old lady has more chance with a pistol than in hand-to-hand.

Most people in Ireland don't understand what the 2nd Amendment actually means

Most people in Ireland also don't understand that every State also has a Constitution, and in the vast majority (About 44 of them), they also contain an analogue. Some of them are extremely specific such as "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes"

Snickers Man

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Most people in Ireland don't understand what the 2nd Amendment actually means

I sense a burst of Gunmansplaining is about to break over us.....

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It does not mean.....
It also does not mean......
The comma before "the right of the people" is the most important part of the amendment .....

The amendment means in plainer terms that because the state has an armed military and police force- the people - individual persons - have a right to bear arms also.

"Shall not be infringed" is worded that way because the right to bear arms is inalienable.
It cannot be taken away.

The right to bear arms is not just to hunt but to allow the citizen to protect him or herself from a tyrannical government that would prefer to monopolize the use of force.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own and defend himself with the same weapons as the police and the military.

Wow! I was right!!

The logic of these last few points dictates that if the police were unarmed, the citizenry would have no right to bear arms either. So take the guns off the cops. We did. In the middle of a civil war.
But then we're tougher than Americans
We're braver than Americans.
And, despite our self image as a rebellious and non-deferential people, we have more faith in democracy and the rule of law than Americans do.

By the way how is that "defence against a tyrannical government" spiel working out for you? About a thousand people are shot dead every year by American cops. Who suffer, in return, some 50 "felonious deaths" every year?

20 to 1 kill ratio in favour of police?
Careful where you park on a double yellow in that place!!!!

Mules

If I lived in a high crime area I probably would. At the same time, my aim is so bad that if I ever had to use one I'd probably end up shooting myself.

Galwayguy35

An aul fella around here fired at the tinkers when they arrived to rob him back in the 80s, he fired at the van and heard shouts so he reckoned he got one of them.

The guards took the gun off him but he wasn't prosecuted because surprisingly the injured party didn't come back to make a complaint.

So yeah if the laws were the same I would own a gun.

Richard Hillman

Yes, of course. And I wouldn't be keen on giving it up to government.

Batattackrat

I'd probably play lets shoot the apple of someones head when drunk so No!

Strumms

Heckler wrote: »

I own a couple of guns, handgun included.

In relation to self defense/home protection firearms have to be secured in the house. Mine are in an alarmed gunsafe.

It would be impossible to access it, assemble it (slide and ammunition are in a seperate part of the safe) and use it as a defense.

Far as I know its possible to use a firearm in defense (See Pádraig Nally case) but to have one readily available for such is a different matter.

If I knew there was an imminent life threatening event about to happen to me and mine and the Gardai weren't available and I had time to assemble and ready a firearm then yes I would use it.

I’m just looking a somebody assembling and loading a Glock 23 on youtube...

If you had the gun safe beside or near your bed... at a leisurely effort as it is in the video all be it done by an experienced expert..it would be about 2 minutes from... ‘ohhh ****, I better grab my gun’ to accessing it, it being assembled loaded and ready to fire...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xw8t8glqZxc

The issue I guess is the ability or inability to ascertain and judge the type of threat...

Is the criminal going to...

A. On hearing you moving about, perceiving he has been discovered or is about to be discovered..flee the scene..?

B. Are they going to think... “hmmm I have a haul of a few grand in cash, jewelry, art, their nice car, not giving that up. .I’m going to defend myself with a knife, I have serious drug debts, I’m going to need to get out of here with my haul even if I have to defend myself with a deadly bladed weapon and the potential consequences of that..” ?

For you as the resident, it’s a lottery, you can’t read minds...you can’t afford to open dialogue..or wait and see.

Anybody breaking into a residential property should be considered a threat to the lives and wellbeing of the occupants... they have used force to enter, it’s reasonable to assume they will do the same to safely get away...

dulpit

Strumms wrote: »

Anybody breaking into a residential property should be considered a threat to the lives and wellbeing of the occupants... they have used force to enter, it’s reasonable to assume they will do the same to safely get away...

John Oliver did a piece about police raids the other week, and one of the points brought up was that when the cops burst in the homeowners may rightfully think it's a home invasion, and start shooting. Resulting in charges against the owner for shooting cops.

Just hand back the guns...

BrianD3

60 year old savagely attacked in aggravated burglary, Gardai believe theft of his 3 firearms was the motive.

https://www.independent.ie/news/gardai-recover-two-firearms-and-arrest-three-in-horror-burglary-probe-40203477.html

Mules

BrianD3 wrote: »

60 year old savagely attacked in aggravated burglary, Gardai believe theft of his 3 firearms was the motive.

https://www.independent.ie/news/gardai-recover-two-firearms-and-arrest-three-in-horror-burglary-probe-40203477.html

That's irony for you

rossie1977

If I could have a chain gun like Ventura in Predator I would have one in each room

jbv

I would, more then one.

Gorteen

Without a doubt. I'd opt for a 9mm Browning Hi-Power pistol

Manic Moran

Gorteen wrote: »

Without a doubt. I'd opt for a 9mm Browning Hi-Power pistol

Old school, are you? (I own one, but more for the sake of the collection)

Cheesey Cheese Hood Cheese

Probably a fully automatic with an extended clip as well as a glock in the bedside locker. Plus something light but powerful for my wife. Armed women turn me on. I'm not unsure how you could not not be armed over there.

Gorteen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Old school, are you? (I own one, but more for the sake of the collection)

Loved this weapon in army

Gorteen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Old school, are you? (I own one, but more for the sake of the collection)

Loved this weapon in the army

Nekarsulm

If we had similar laws to the US, I'd add to the few guns I already own.
There are a number of sporting shotguns I'd like to buy, and a half dozen or so historic shotguns as well.
Ones that were milestones in the development of the modern shotgun.
Now, there's little stopping me buying them as it is, except for lack of funds to install even higher levels of security and the Gardai's fondness of trying to make you sell one before buying another. ( not a legal requirement, but hey, they try it every time).
I'd like a AR 15, just because they are fun to shoot.
I can already buy the ammo for it, cause there are thousands of rifles in Ireland that are chambered for .223 Remington..
I'd like to try reloading my own cartridges, as you can do in the UK, Northern Ireland, and practically every other country in Europe.
Not allowed here, because the Government feared they would be overthrown by a well armed civilian force .....
If we ever come to the stage of having a peacefully transitioned United Ireland, hopefully the new gun laws will be to the NI standards, and we'll be trusted the same way most civilians both there and in most of Western Europe are.

Strumms

You could trust most people but...

Nekarsulm

Strumms wrote: »

You could trust most people but...

True, but that's where the existing procedures in both here and NI come into play.
If I am habitually drunk, fighting, a drug addict, have a criminal conviction, etc, etc, then it's highly unlikely I'll be granted a gun licence anyway.
As for reloading, what am I going to do only reload empty cartridges that I've already legally bought and fired, for the guns I have already legally bought.....
And hopefully save five or ten cent per cartridge.

peasant

That's me on "home defense" in the background

WrenBoy

I wouldn't want to be the only fella without one so Yes I would get one if I lived in America or in an Ireland with American laws.

BattleCorp

Nekarsulm wrote: »

T
And hopefully save five or ten cent per cartridge.

And have much more accurate and reliable ammo.

Probable but I would rather we not adopt their system because I think my desire to be ready for the zombie apocalypse probable isn't the reason everyone else wants one.

delboythedub

ShyMets wrote: »

Was that in Ireland. As handguns are banned

Handguns are not banned in ireland unless it's a centre fire

BattleCorp

delboythedub wrote: »

Handguns are not banned in ireland unless it's a centre fire

And even then they aren't banned. This is a bit simplified but if you had a licence for it before November 2008 you can keep it but no new licences are being given out. So, not quite banned, but grandfathered.

2011

I think that the fact that so many people in Ireland are under the impression that "guns are illegal in Ireland" demonstrates that legally held firearms do not cause any issues in this country. Having said that I would not like Ireland to have many of the firearms laws that they have in the US even though I am a keen target shooter.

ShyMets wrote: »

Was that in Ireland. As handguns are banned

This is not correct.
Here is a .22 semi auto pistol for sale in Ireland.

Wibbs wrote: »

If we could have firearms other than shotguns and small calibre hunting rifles I'd probably have a couple, but from the historic/collecting side of things. I'd definitely have one of these.

It is possible to license rifles other than "small calibre hunting rifles". You can licence a .303 Lee Enfiled for example. We even have a Lee Enfiled Association in Ireland.

It is also possible to license firearms such as a .300 Winchester magnum.

ShatterAlan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I live in a place with US type firearms laws. Yes, I own guns.

That said, as another poster pointed out, I can't imagine Ireland would turn into the US even if, for whatever odd reason, the laws changed. There is something in a lot of the American psyche which indicates it is acceptable to shoot someone for 'dissing' them, or to get a pair of runners. I don't think Irish people would suddenly change to that sort of behaviour even with greater access to firearms. Certainly there are plenty enough well armed countries which demonstrate this.



To what end? You can spray-paint a real gun day-glow yellow/orange/green. If you treat it as a less-lethal, it could end badly for you.



Three issues. Firstly, nobody in my house is allergic to metals. Dogs, however, are another problem. Secondly, a gun is cheaper overall than a rottweiler or two. Thirdly, a dog isn't just an asset, it's a part of the family which requires care, attention, time etc. It's a commitment. Not all people are inclined towards taking a pet. A tool is much more convenient.



Sortof. It's actually in between the "it's American free-for-all" and "It's quite regulated" which most people go with. Firstly, just because the tin of ammo came with a warning saying "Only open in case of war", whatever the punishment is for opening it without authorisation, it's probably not much of a concern compared to the punishment of committing whatever mischief with a gun. However, as you say, it's no longer done, the gun is kept at home for whatever reason, but the government issued ammunition is now stored centrally.

However, people discussing this also forget that there is a healthy non-government-provided firearms scene in the country. Check out "Bloke on the Range" over on Youtube, a British chap in Switzerland.

The only other Western country I can think of which routinely permits citizens to be armed out and about is Czechia, and they're not doing too badly on the firearms crime side of things either. They have a few more hoops to go through to get a permit, but if you pass the hoops, you cannot be denied. About a quarter million people out of the population of 11million have a carry permit. (Well, they call it a Class E license, but close enough). Of course 'pistol' is a Czech word, so they're inclined that way. They also were very unhappy at the recent EU laws on certain semi-auto weapons.



A quick bit of googling later, the figure for "Defensive Gun Uses" is anything from 800,000 to 6million a year, depending on who you want to listen to and what criteria are used. The last time the US Government took a look at it was quite a few years ago (Clinton era, maybe?) and they concluded 2.5million was about right.

The last figure for "crimes committed with a firearm" is a few years old, 420,000, but the NIJ shows an interesting trend down from the high of 1.5million in the mid 1990s.



You just need the right holster. I never take mine off, be I armed or not. (It's an inside-waistband holster, and if I don't wear it to increase my effective waist size by 2", my trousers fall down). If it's in the right place, you don't notice it. The drop-leg I had in the Army was also very comfortable, just the right height to rest my hand.



Yes, but there's also a matter of need. For example, if you live in a high crime neighborhood, you may feel the need to have a gun, the crime being high regardless of your own activities.

For those who say you are more likely to be killed by your own gun, that's a matter of personal responsibility. If you don't store it right, or don't know how to use it, that's your own fault. However, it's worth noting that in the CDC study commissioned after Sandy Hook, it stated that those who defended themselves with a gun were more likely to come out of an encounter unharmed than those who used any other defensive technique. So it really does come down to personal responsibility. Owning a gun doesn't make you safer. Owning a gun and taking the time to learn how (and when) to use it, however, is another matter entirely.



Indeed, and conversely, criminals also take it for granted that a homeowner is probably armed with a gun. This means that they tend to take pains to ensure that the homeowner is not present in the first place. Burglary rates between the US and UK are generally similar, but the 'homeowner present' (AKA "hot burglary) rate is far lower in the US.



This line reminds me of the scene in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"...
"What's that?"
"It's my Bren gun..."

The overwhelming majority of crimes are conducted with handguns. The overwhelming majority of firearms purchased for defense are handguns. There is only so big a handgun will get before it gets impractical to use. Most folks settle for a 9mm semi-auto or a .380, and it's generally stayed there for both sides.

Well, not necessarily automatic, but another person suggested learning jiu-jitsu for a year. Your typical little old lady has more chance with a pistol than in hand-to-hand.



Most people in Ireland also don't understand that every State also has a Constitution, and in the vast majority (About 44 of them), they also contain an analogue. Some of them are extremely specific such as "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes"

I've always asked this question and can never get a logical asnwer.


Why do one own a gun or guns? And you NEVER get an answer other than the usual excuses.


You own guns because (a) they make you feel somewhat empowered and (b) you like them.



The excuses for owning a gun in the US are (i) for personal protection and (ii) for "hunting"


I thought the original reason for being armed was to defend against a tyrannical government...even though that's a myth. It was codified so that supporters from the colonies wouldn't be left behind.


I haven't seen too many armed Americans take up arms no matter what happens to their fellow citizens.



If the need to have a gun is to hunt...show me a fat cnut with a 12 gauge blasting quail out of the air or sniping a buck, between swigs of beer as if he needs to do this to feed his family.



Hunting is for necessity not for fun. Innuits hunt seals. Indigenous jungle tribes hunt boars and monkeys and it takes a while to win the hunt. They don't catch they don't eat. Whether they are using traps, spears, arrows. The American "hunter" doesn't shoot a bear or a deer or a caribou, then he stops off with his mates on the way home for a steak and a load of booze.



If you need to kill an animal and eat it to survive then you are a hunter. If you do it for entertainment and try to say that you are some kind of rugged frontiersman...then you are just full of shit

Nekarsulm

Well Alan, I own guns for several reasons.
Firstly, target shooting is fun.
Be that clay pigeon shooting or target shooting.
Both are tests of skill, enjoyed with the camaraderie of like minded individuals, and if course you are always trying to better your own score from the last day out.
Do I feel empowered by having one?
No, and why would I?
How does it empower me in any way?
Do you think I fantacize about walking around town scaring people, and get off on their fear?
Sorry, never felt like that, and I suspect neither do 99% of legal gun owners.
Illegal gun owners on the other hand, that's exactly what they want.
Because they're criminals. And need to instill fear into others to progress in their criminal dealings.
They will never have a legally held firearm, because no Garda Superintendent would ever sanction it.
And do you really think they would sign away their right to privacy in their own home, by agreeing that a Garda may inspect their home at any reasonable time, without a warrant?
That's what every legally held gun owner agrees to in the course of getting their licence.
The legal owner also signs away their right to the privacy off their own medical records, allowing a Garda get them from the gun owners GP if they want to.
Again, not the kind of thing a criminal will agree to, nor most other citizens either.
Also, I am a Sheppard, and have two firearms specifically suited for contingencies that arise in the course of the year.
At the moment ewes are lambing, and foxes are an ever present danger to newborn lambs.
A rifle is the surest and most humane way of keeping their numbers down, and saving lambs lives.
Likewise its necessary with the risk of dog attacks on my flock, and the damage couple of dogs can do make foxes look like Mother Theresa....
And finally, I have a shotgun to keep vermin down in the farmyard, and fields.
It's a different one to what I shoot clay pigeons with, a cheaper more knock-a-bout model, suited to farm work.
By vermin I mean rats, mink, grey crows and magpies.
Poisoning rat is not something I like doing, they die needlessly protracted deaths, and there is the real risk of buzzards and hawks getting poisoned by eating the corpse.
Its illegal to poison any bird, so trapping and shooting is the only way to keep their numbers under control.
So that's why I have the guns I do.
They are both tools for work, and equipment for sports.
I like the test of skill, the history behind them, the engineering involved, and the design features.
Same as a golfer with his clubs.
He couldn't hit a clay pigeon doing 40 mph across his field of vision, 30 yards away, with a 9 iron, and I couldn't drive a ball 180 yards to a green with double barrelled Baikal.
Is it that difficult to understand?

bnt

I had a few chances to play with guns when I lived in South Africa, including shotguns and an automatic assault rifle. I sometimes watch YouTube channels centred on guns, such as Demolition Ranch. But there still seems to be a gap between a vague interest in guns and a desire to own one.

The idea of keeping a gun on me or in the house is a non-starter for multiple reasons, starting with having never been in a situation in Ireland where a gun would have helped. It would only have made things worse.

2011

bnt wrote: »

The idea of keeping a gun on me or in the house is a non-starter for multiple reasons, starting with having never been in a situation in Ireland where a gun would have helped.

I find myself in a situation where having a gun helps about once a week. This happens most Sundays at a round 10am on the range where I target shoot.