Should civilians be allowed to have guns?

magpie

I'm interested in the general feeling on the politics board in this regard.

Some discussion has come about on the 'shooting' forum in the wake of the tragic death of a 2 year old in Scotland who was shot in the head with a 'sporting' weapon. Understandably, the people on the shooting forum (as it's their hobby!) are very opposed to the idea of banning firearms and have a variety of reasons to back up their case.

Reasonable: It's a sport, Irish Olympic Team are good, Vets need firearms to put down sick animals, farmers need them, its ok to hunt rabbits etc.

Unreasonable: 'We shoot guns because we want to, and you don't need any other reason'. 'Gun Control means hitting your target'. 'If you don't like guns you're a carrot-muncher'

Anyway, thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think guns should only be in the hands of the military, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

See thread here for reference

bonkey

magpie wrote:

Reasonable: It's a sport, Irish Olympic Team are good, Vets need firearms to put down sick animals, farmers need them, its ok to hunt rabbits etc.
...

I'm inclined to think guns should only be in the hands of the military,

I'm at a loss to understand how you can say that the arguments above are reasonable arguments to own guns, but then say that you feel only the military should have them.

If sport-shooting or pest-control is a reasonable argument, then why are you ruling it out as a valid reason for someone to own a gun?

Or did you mean "rational" more than "reasonable"???

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

MrPudding

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

How big a problem is it? Do you have figures? How many of these shootings are carried out by the registered owner of a legally held firearm?

MrP

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here a

What do you call a 'sporting' gun (seeing as you put it in quotes)? And what exactly is a real problem? Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

There are no registered owners for these types of weapons AFAIK... They can be bought over the counter in certain shops.

I would say that there is a shooting every week with these types of weapons. The people doing it mainly strat fires and then target the fire officiers that attend. The 27 year old that was caught for the killing of the 2 year old has been charged with murder and he had been firing at the fire brigade as they attended a fire.

I have been shot at with these types of weapons when I was working on the railway track running through a certain area of Glasgow (about 8 years ago). It is elevated and they take pot shots at the workers and at the signal heads.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

What do you call a 'sporting' gun (seeing as you put it in quotes)? And what exactly is a real problem? Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

jc

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

The real problem is that these lethal wapons can be bought over the counter by anybody AFAIK

magpie

Or did you mean "rational" more than "reasonable"???

Correct. Mea Culpa.

Like...more often than road-fatalaties cause by 'Sports' Utility Vehicles?

This argument is used a lot. However cars aren't specifically designed to kill things, whereas you'd have a hard time arguing that guns are designed for anything else.

Nuttzz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

I assume by here you mean Glasgow rather than in Ireland. Air rifles arent available here (ireland) like they are in the UK. TBH we should keep it that way

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

So what?

I don't know the particulars of the case, but consider this...

For it to be murder, then someone wanted to kill the two-year old. I very, very much doubt that had there not been an air-gun to hadn, that person would have said "gosh durnit....I really wanna kill this infant, but without my trusty airgun, its just not a runner".

The gun is not the problem in this case that I can see. The real problem is that someone (again, trusting your choice of words) wanted to end the life of an infant for some reason and carried out their desires.

Blunt trauma objects (e.g. a hammer), kitchen knives, strangulation and so on and so forth would all have achieved this just as well. Just like a firearm designed for sporting use, hammers, knives, ropes are not designed explicitly to kill something, but are directly related to a weapon which is. Should they all also be banned.

This argument is used a lot. However cars aren't specifically designed to kill things, whereas you'd have a hard time arguing that guns are designed for anything else.

Well, see, thats where we'd differ. I don't think I'd have a hard time at all.

If you want to categorise all arms as "designed to kill" because some are so designed, and/or you wish to categorise them thusly because they are derived from something who's original purpose was to kill....then I would expect you to be callnig for the banning of (as mentioned above) hammers and knives.

I would also point out that tanks are a form of vehicle explicitly designed for warfare, but that this has no relation to the purpose of a Toyota Prius (or any other example you want to choose).

If you are not going to apply the arguments consistently, then of course it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that which you may favour. Howver, if you look at it from a consistent point of view, then the first step is to explain why guns are all lumped into a single classification, while hammers, knives, vehicles, etc. all get broken down into "those designed explicitly for dealing death and those designed for something else but which could be used to kill".

To not do so is to presuppose the answer - in effect to create a circular argument.

I've never heard a pro-blanket-ban supporter explain knowledgeably and rationally why all guns are equal, but I've heard quite a lot of people who know quite a lot about guns explain why this is most certainly not the case.

The real problem is that these lethal wapons can be bought over the counter by anybody AFAIK

Then the real solution, surely, is to call for a requirement to register rather than to call for a ban?

if not, then consider this...

Last weekend I walked into a knife shop and bought a 15cm Gold Hamster kitchen knife. Its sharp enough to shave with, long enough to puncture any internal organ, and guess what....

I bought it over the counter....as an "anybody", with no license.

Just like a target pistol, this is an object which is potentially a lethal weapon but who's primary purpose is not the same as that of the weapon-type the object is derived from. It is not designed to kill, but can be applied to that purpose.

Whats the difference?

jc

magpie

If you're going to take that approach try at least comparing like with like.

A tank is an object modified from its original purpose (a vehicle to move persons/equipment) into one designed to carry armour and weapons.

A 'sports' gun is an objct modified from its original purpose (a means of propelling a piece of metal very fast into another person in order to kill them) into one designed for shooting targets.

See the difference?

hammers, knives, ropes are not designed explicitly to kill something, but are directly related to a weapon which is. Should they all also be banned.

Completely disingenuous argument. Hammers have a bona fide application for DIY, woodwork and skilled trades, Knives are necessary in every kitchen, rope is used in a variety of trades etc. You could easily have added 'bricks' 'hurleys' etc to this list.

Guns have no application other than shooting things, be they animate or otherwise.

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

Whats the difference?

Knives have a bona fide application for the preparation of food, and are used in millions of homes every day for that purpose. The fact that they can be used as a weapon does not detract from their original purpose.

Guns of any description are first and foremost weapons with absolutely no domestic application whatsoever. The fact that some people derive pleasure from shooting small animals / paper targets with them is not sufficient to outweigh the risk they pose.

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

This is presumably spoken as someone that has never tried to shoot something at a long distance? It is by no means easy.

Whether or not you happen to agree with it or not, some firearms are designed and produced with purely sporting applications in mind. Again whether or not you agree with it, shooting is a sport. It is an very difficult and skillfull sport practised by people who are generally very responsible and law abiding.

I do not believe that Bonkey's arguement are invalid. This is because I can see and accept that some firearms are created simply for sporting purposes.

I think the agrument that many day to day items can be used to kill is very valid. You will find it very hard to purchase a sporting firearm here in Ireland. I think you will also find that very few crimes are carried out using them.

MrP

magpie

I can see and accept that some firearms are created simply for sporting purposes.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not denying that. However they are still firearms, and as such aren't much use in a kitchen for slicing a loaf of bread. So firearms are not a sine qua non, whereas knives and other things that could possible be used as weapons are.

Therefore the argument suggesting that if you ban firearms you should also ban knives and hammers is inane, as there is absolutely no correlation between the two statements whatsoever. In effect, you might as well say 'if you want to ban firearms you should also ban Chinese people' and it would have as much intellectual rigour as the schoolboy debating standard riposte of 'if you say this, then you must also say that' that you seem to be relying on to support your argument.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

So what?

So what indeed

I don't know the particulars of the case,

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/34830.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4317423.stm

http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=6901&newsType=

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/34666.html

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5036278.html

For it to be murder, then someone wanted to kill the two-year old. I very, very much doubt that had there not been an air-gun to hadn, that person would have said "gosh durnit....I really wanna kill this infant, but without my trusty airgun, its just not a runner".

The gun is not the problem in this case that I can see. The real problem is that someone (again, trusting your choice of words) wanted to end the life of an infant for some reason and carried out their desires.

I have stated a fact that the man has been charged with murder nothing else. I was not involved in the decision to charge the guy with murder. It will up to the prosecution to prove the murder charge.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

A 'sports' gun is an objct modified from its original purpose (a means of propelling a piece of metal very fast into another person in order to kill them) into one designed for shooting targets.

So, by definition, a sports gun is not designed to kill - it is an object designed for another purpose, derived from something which was/is explicitly a weapon.

Ergo, not all guns are designed to kill, and not all guns are designed as weapons - exactly the point I was making.

Completely disingenuous argument. Hammers have a bona fide application for DIY, woodwork and skilled trades, Knives are necessary in every kitchen, rope is used in a variety of trades etc. You could easily have added 'bricks' 'hurleys' etc to this list.

Except that hammers and knives original purpose was as weaponry, and since then we have derivations which have bona-fide purposes.

But...given that you've just conceded (albeit with the use of apostrophes around the word sport) that a sports firearm is just such a derivation from the original purpose, I can only conclude that unless you feel sports is not a bona-fide use for an object then there is nothing disingenuous about my argument whatsoever.

I am simply asking why guns get "special" treatment, and are not broken down into "weapon" and "derived from weapon, but with other legitimate use", where every other case I've presented is.

Is sports recreation not a legitimate use of something? Shuold it not be sports that we ban then, rather than just guns? Or...less disengenuously....should it not be all sports which have derived from martial disciplines?

Guns have no application other than shooting things,

Now who's being disengenuous?

Knives have no application other than cutting things, but thats not how you made the distinction in their case. Then, it was the purpose - that there are things we could validly and reasonably want to cut. Same for hammers - there are things we validly want to deliver a powerful, focussed blow to.

But with guns, its the function, and not the purpose which you are looking at.

I started by asking why guns are a special case - why we don't classify them in the manner that we classify other things....and look how you're explaining it...by using different methods of classification for guns as for everything else.

If guns are onily for shooting, then knives are only for cutting, hammers are only for bludgeoning, and javelins are only for piercing things. Why is shooting inherently wrong, but not cutting, bludgening or piercing? Or, if cutting, bludgeoning and piercing are unfair simplifications of the uses of these items, specifically chosen to cast them in a bad light....why is that not also true for the term shooting?

Its also a lot easier to shoot someone from a long distance, even accidentally, than it is to walk up to them and pummel them with a hammer, stab them with a knife or strangle them with a rope.

I have never suggested otherwise. However, if you take a sports gun (e.g. target rifle), and shoot someone frmo a distance, then your chances of inflicting lethal damage are roughly zero. About the same as if you used an Olympic throwing-hammer as as weapon. Up close...you can bludgeon someone to death. At a distance, the chances of being lethal are almost non-existant.

Both are sports-related objects derived from weaponry. Both are designed for ranged use, but not as ranged weapons. Both are non-lethal at range except in the most exceptional of circumstances, and both are capable of being lethal at close range. Both have no practical use outside being used for sports, and being misused as weapons.

Where's the difference?

The fact that they can be used as a weapon does not detract from their original purpose.

(regarding a knife, in case the context isn't clear) A target-pistol was explicitly designed as a piece of sports equipment, not as a weapon. Why does the fact that it can be used as a weapon detract from its original purpose? As with the kitchen-knife, its a non-weapon with a legitimate use, derived from what was originally a combined weapon and piece of general survival equipment.

The first knives, just like the first guns were designed as tools and weapons. The first guns were used for hunting and survival as much (if not moreso) as for killing other people. The first knioves served to kill as well as cut.

Both have had non-weapon forms derived which are still capable of being used to deadly effect as weapons in the right circumstances.

Where is the difference?

Guns of any description are first and foremost weapons

I refer you back to the statement of yours which I quoted at the start of this post, where you acknowledge that a sports rifle is not designed as a weapon.

You see...this assertion that they are "first and foremost" weapons is exactly the circular argument I'm talking about. They're weapons because you classify them differently to everythign else which is a non-weapon derivation of a weapon. And why do you classify them differently? Because they're weapons.

So your argument (thus far, at least) appears to boil down to "they're weapons because....well...they're weapons".

with absolutely no domestic application whatsoever.

I've never suggested that they have a domestic application. I've suggested they have applications other than being a weapon. A piece of sportnig equipment is not designed nor intended to be a weapon. This holds true for the javelin. This holds true for the hammer. This holds true for the shot-putt. This holds true for the boomerang. All four are derived directly from weaponry, none have domestic application, and none of them are designed as weapons.

Whens the last time you - or anyone - called for their banning on the grounds that they are weapons with no domestic purpose?

So once again....why are target-pistols/rifles any different?

The fact that some people derive pleasure from shooting small animals / paper targets with them is not sufficient to outweigh the risk they pose.

"They"? What is "they" if not another "all guns are equal" assertion? Indeed, even putting paper and small animals together as you did shows that you're lumping target-shooting guns in with guns designed as weapons (even when the target is non-human, I'll concede that a gun is a weapon).

So, it still seems to boil down to "they're the same because...well...they're the same".

You have no explained why a target pistol carries a risk, what risk it carries, and why that risk is unacceptable over and above the myriad of other weapon-derived, non-domestic-utility objects that we have in our lives.

Oh - and if you're not going to distinguish between targetting paper and targetting live animals, then I put it to you that letter openers are no different to swords.

jc

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have stated a fact that the man has been charged with murder nothing else.

I beg to differ:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The gun used in the murder was an air gun

This is where I took your assumption that it was murder from.

I was not involved in the decision to charge the guy with murder. It will up to the prosecution to prove the murder charge.

Ah, so. The gun used in the alleged murder was an air gun. Well, then I'll rephrase slightly...

Should it be decided it was murder, my point still stands about the rifle not being the problem, but rather the murderer....and that had guns been banned, we'd still most probably be hearing of a dead two-year-old only we'd be arguing over whether some other murder instrument should be banned.

Should it be decided it was not murder, but rather manslaughter or death by misadventure, I would suggest that gun education and/or stricter gun control would be sufficient to resolve the problem. Again going back to sports shooting, I believe Sparks pointed out at some point that there has never been a fatality in Ireland where a target-shooting gun was involved.

I fail to see why, then, we'd want to ban them here because of an accident in Scotland. It would be like saying Aer Lingus (perfect or almost-perfect) safety record should be grounded because some other national airline has a dodgy record, instead of saying that the solution for the other national airline should be to be more like AL.

jc

Sparks

magpie wrote:

However they are still firearms, and as such aren't much use in a kitchen for slicing a loaf of bread.

As pointed out in the shooting forum, knives are derived from daggers, which are edged weapons - so your argument is that "if it has a useful purpose then its background shouldn't matter". Thing is, the firearms used for hunting put meat on the table in the kitchen. The ones used by farmers for agricultural purposes keep dogs off sheep and other pest animals under control so that you can have grain for the bread you're slicing with the knife (and meat on the supermarket shelf). I'd count that as a useful purpose, so the whole "it's designed as a weapon" shouldn't matter, by your argument.

By the way, I don't recall anyone actually using the phrase "carrot muncher" But their argument that "we're not hurting anyone and we enjoy the sport, so what other reason do we need" is one that is protected in the constitution (personal liberty meaning you have to do something illegal before you can be hauled up for it).

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ:



This is where I took your assumption that it was murder from.




Ah, so. The gun used in the alleged murder was an air gun. Well, then I'll rephrase slightly...

lol I did not see you, as mod, give advice to others in this forum that they should not describe something as 'murder' because nobody has been convicted of 'murder'.

What do you call the ending of Robert McCarnteys life? Murder? Killing? Manslaugher? accident?. Nobody has even been charged yet and there have been plenty of threads describing it as murder (I am not arguing it was not murder, I have described it as murder myself).

Are you really advocating such nitpicking?

When a person is charged with murder, the vast majority of people descibe the killing as murder, not a 'killing'.

magpie

1)

Im going home to chop up my 5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns, I have seen the light , Im taking up paper folding . Magpie , go munch a carrot somewhere else , your arguments are lame and uninteresting.
We shoot because be want to and thats the only reason we need.

2) Find me an archaeologist who states categorically that hammers originated as weapons, and I'll consider taking your points on board. You seem to take the view that all blunt/edged objects are fundamentally weapons which betrays a fairly bleak view of humanity. Albeit a possibly accurate one.

Agent Orange

Irish citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns, no question. The streets have gotten more dangerous and we have a right to defend ourselves with lethal force.
However, there should be a test to decide whether someone is allowed to carry a gun or not. If the person is wearing a baseball cap, has silver/gold teeth, has a NAFF jacket or just a plain obvious SCUMBAG then they should NOT be allowed to carry a gun. This ensures only careful, conscientious citizens would be allowed to shoot someone.
Think about it: would that skanger hanging outside your local shop should 'YOUR MUDDER' after you if he knew you were carrying a Desert Eagle? Of course not. And if he did, he wouldn't be doing it for very long.

Horeb

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

Would that include your TERRORIST idols aswell.

I legally hold several weapons for hunting target shooting and self defence if god forbid I ever had to use them.

Sparks

Agent Orange wrote:

Irish citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns, no question.

Please tell me that's sarcasm in action? Look, being able to own a firearm and being able to carry one around concealed are rather different things entirely. And since Lott's statistics have been found to be unsafe, I'd not be a supporter of CCW as a right. We already have legislation to permit people at risk to carry personal protection weapons on licence, that's sufficent.

A Dub in Glasgo

Horeb wrote:

Would that include your TERRORIST idols aswell.

Really sad

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

lol I did not see you, as mod, give advice to others in this forum that they should not describe something as 'murder' because nobody has been convicted of 'murder'.

I'm no longer a mod...but if someone calls something murder, then I assume its because they believe it was murder. You called it murder, so I assume you believe the guy was murdered. Then when I mentioned that you said it was murder, you got all defensive on the "I never said that" line. All I did subsequently was point out that yes, you did in fact say that he was murdered.

Are you really advocating such nitpicking?

I took issue with you saying firstly that the gun was used in a murder and then saying that you never claimed the child was murdered. If you see that as nitpicking, then yes....that is the level of nitpicking I'm advocating.

I've no objection to ppl referring to it as a murder, if thats what they believe happened. My objection comes when they call it a murder and then say that they never claimed a murder took place.

jc

Captain Trips

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Shootings with 'sporting' guns is a real problem here and I would support any ban that may be proposed.

No it isn't mate. That's just confabulation.

Give us some stats. We have virtually *no* guncrime in Ireland. I'd like to keep it that way but unfortunately someone is making the news every week having been shot these days. It wasn't like this 2 years ago.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

2) Find me an archaeologist who states categorically that hammers originated as weapons, and I'll consider taking your points on board.

Because if I'm wrong about hammers, then boomerangs, spears, and all the rest of it also has no relevancy, right? If hammers weren't originally weapons, then there's no issue with boomerangs, spears, and....ohhhh...I know....yoyos.

You seem to take the view that all blunt/edged objects are fundamentally weapons

I believe they are all fundamentally derived from what would - in modern terms - be described as dual purpose objects. Bludgeoning objects were fine both for opening nuts and for bashing your neighbour's skull in. Edged objects were fine for scraping fur etc...and cutting your neighbours throat. Piercing objects were fine for punching holes in leather...and taking your neighbour's eye out.

Which came first in any of these? Tool or weapon....well...who can say.
But given that the gun is descended from earlier projectile systems, which are in turn descended from piercing objects....so the question of whether or not it is descended from something which was fundamentally a weapon or a tool first is just as relevant/irrelevant there as it is with a knife, hammer, or any other object.

You seem to take the view that everything except guns can apparently exist legitimately in weaponised and non-weaponised forms, but for guns, its somehow different and the non-weaponised forms should be banned, because, well, its different.

All I've asked for is why you make this distinction. So far, every time you've clarified it for me, you've used the distinction itself as a basis for the explanation - you treat them differently to explain why you should treat them differently.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Captain Trips wrote:

No it isn't mate. That's just confabulation.

Give us some stats. We have virtually *no* guncrime in Ireland. I'd like to keep it that way but unfortunately someone is making the news every week having been shot these days. It wasn't like this 2 years ago.

I am talking about the Glasgow killing and events in Glasgow. If the laws in the Republic are such that you have to go through a registration process to get an airgun, that is good. Unfortunatey, the situation here (in Glasgow and the rest of the UK) means that anybody can walk into a shop and buy an airgun.

SkepticOne

Agent Orange wrote:

However, there should be a test to decide whether someone is allowed to carry a gun or not. If the person is wearing a baseball cap, has silver/gold teeth, has a NAFF jacket or just a plain obvious SCUMBAG then they should NOT be allowed to carry a gun. This ensures only careful, conscientious citizens would be allowed to shoot someone.

LOL.

magpie

You seem to take the view that everything except guns can apparently exist legitimately in weaponised and non-weaponised forms, but for guns, its somehow different and the non-weaponised forms should be banned, because, well, its different.

All I've asked for is why you make this distinction. So far, every time you've clarified it for me, you've used the distinction itself as a basis for the explanation - you treat them differently to explain why you should treat them differently.

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!) have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households. As I said each item is a Sine Qua Non. This is what makes them different from firearms.

Also, judging by the punters on the shooting board those with an interest in 'sporting' guns have an interest in owning "5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns". The fact, as evinced on boards, that there is substantial cross over between the sports shooters and the 'D-Fens' types is reason enough for me to suggest a blanket ban.

In contrast most people who buy kitchen knives don't also hoard WW2 Nazi daggers and SAS punch daggers because they're 'interested' in knives.

abccormac

I yhink the distinction between a gun and a knife is quite clear. The scumbag who killed the two year old in Glasgow would , I believe, have been very unlikely to run up to a bunch of firemen and start stabbing them for a bit of fun. Unfortunately, quite a few people seem to think firing a "harmless" (in their eyes) air rifle at people is a legitimate way to spen their evenings. I for one am very grateful that the laws in relation to firearms of any kind in this country are extremely stringent. Unfortunately, it is still possible for scumbags to get their hands on powerful weapons. I have seen some posts on the shooting forum advocating that a distinction should be made between low powered air guns and more powerful "real" guns. I cannot agree with this. Some people are too stupid to realise that these weapons are not toys. That they are extremely dangerous. And that given the correct circumsatnces they can kill. And as for agent orange? Well considered argument. :rolleyes:

Sparks

abccormac wrote:

I yhink the distinction between a gun and a knife is quite clear.

Indeed, but distinguishing between them doesn't make either one less potentially dangerous. If you don't think I'm correct on this, read these and remember that I can wander down to Tesco here and get a 17-piece knife set as a bonus gift for shopping there on their loyalty cards system, that's how uncontrolled they are:

Eight teenagers killed in school knife attack in China.
Alaska School Knife Attack Leaves 4 Injured.
Student Slashes Five Classmates in Indiana
At least eight dead in Osaka school rampage.

The scumbag who killed the two year old in Glasgow would , I believe, have been very unlikely to run up to a bunch of firemen and start stabbing them for a bit of fun.

No, it's more likely that he'd have thrown rocks or glass bottles like his ilk do in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, quite a few people seem to think firing a "harmless" (in their eyes) air rifle at people is a legitimate way to spen their evenings.

Indeed, and these people need to be locked up. There is no debate on that point.

I for one am very grateful that the laws in relation to firearms of any kind in this country are extremely stringent. Unfortunately, it is still possible for scumbags to get their hands on powerful weapons.

Indeed, as the IRA have shown for many decades. Unfortunately that merely proves that gun control laws merely control those who obey the law already and are by definition not the cause of the problem.

I have seen some posts on the shooting forum advocating that a distinction should be made between low powered air guns and more powerful "real" guns.

It depends on where you draw the line in terms of muzzle energy. Airsoft guns are made to shoot at humans in a paintball-style game, they are limited to one joule of muzzle energy. ISSF air rifles are made for the olympics, they're limited to seven joules. The kind of rifle that criminal used in Glasgow would have been limited only by UK law to 16 joules. At some point along that path, there is a point where an airgun becomes potentially lethal. It's probably somewhere around the seven joule mark but it's hard to draw a line because no proper study into the lethality of airguns has been done. And of course people who shoot things like airsoft guns would like them to be deregulated, firearms licencing is akward, and not well understood by the Gardai who administer the system so there are a few people who've found the process fustrating and confusing. For example, airsoft guns don't generally have serial numbers, so how do you licence them when the licence requires a serial number?
And saying that the very idea is daft isn't right either because under Irish Firearms law, virtually anything remotely shaped like a firearm can be legally held to be a firearm and requires a licence - down to those suction-cup dart guns that every kid in the country seems to get at some point in their childhood.
That's why there's a lower limit on muzzle energy before something is classed as a firearm in UK law and most of the other european countries in the first place!

magpie wrote:

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!) have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households. As I said each item is a Sine Qua Non. This is what makes them different from firearms.

Again, this is incorrect as firearms have genuine, regular, domestic applications for millions of households, because millions of households eat bread, lamb, mutton, beef, vegetables and so on, and firearms are used in the production of all of these, not to mention meats which are hunted like rabbit and venison.
And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications.

Also, judging by the punters on the shooting board those with an interest in 'sporting' guns have an interest in owning "5 rifles 2 pistols and shotguns".

That's one quote from one person - there's more than just one person on the shooting forum.

The fact, as evinced on boards, that there is substantial cross over between the sports shooters and the 'D-Fens' types is reason enough for me to suggest a blanket ban.

There is already a de facto blanket ban on owning firearms for self defence or defence of property in Ireland (at least in cases of defending from humans).

In contrast most people who buy kitchen knives don't also hoard WW2 Nazi daggers and SAS punch daggers because they're 'interested' in knives.

Nope, but frankly I've yet to see anyone successfully argue that a Sabatier chef's knife isn't a lethal weapon if abused. And yet, I've two in my kitchen that need no licencing, no training and no controls of any kind when purchasing.