Should civilians be allowed to have guns?

bonkey

magpie wrote:

All the items you listed (prior to your description of an aborigine's arsenal!)

So what you mean is some of those items I listed.
OK. Tell ya what.

I'll accept that the knife, rope, and the domestic hammer are different, if you agree that you're now saying that the aborigine arsenal needs to be banned.

For clarification, that would include the Yoyo, the Boomerang, the Olympic javelin, the Olympic shot-putt, possibly all the olympic fencing and archery equipment.....

because you seem to be admitting that there is no difference there. Or, at least, you're not providing one.

Excellent. Never did like those fscking uppy-downy yoyos anyway. Weird things. We're better off wihout them.

So we'll just have to disagree cause I think some of the items you want banned should be controlled (licensing, education, etc.) with such controls determined by the realistically conceivable and demonstrable threats they pose as taken on a case-by-case basis.

I will point at the lack of fatality from specific item types where they are either purely non-deadly, or where they are potentially deadly but properly managed. This will be my reasoning why licensing is sufficient - because its been shown to work. You will point at the lack of a domestic use for it as the reason why licensing isn't enough and a ban is needed.

Guess thats the end of that line of discussion then...unless you're not infavour of the yoyo being banned and want to rethink the notion that a standard domestic use is all thats needed.

Incidentally...does pest control on a farm constitute standard domestic use?

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

I think the distinction between the type of gun you have chosen to base your example on, and a knife is quite clear. I think the conclusion that all guns should be banned rather than some merely being controlled is simply not borne out by it. Ireland has right control over target-pistols, and there has been a sum total of 0 fatalaties related to this gun-type.

I'm not foolish enough to suggest that this should mean Joe Bloggs can head in off the highstreet and buy himself a fully legal assault rifle....although this seems to be the reverse of what you're saying...that because dangerous weapons available without control are abused, all guns should be banned.

jc

<edit>
p.s. Seeing as you mentioned hurleys...I can't see a specific domestic use for which one is specifically intended for which wouldn't immediately involve classifying sports as a domestic use, which would once again re-qualify target-pistols/rifles
</edit>

DaBreno

"And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications."

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

MrPudding

DaBreno wrote:

"And that's without even going near the medical and sporting applications."

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

Not sure about human medical applications but I believe Vets use firearms to put down large animals.

MrP

Sparks

DaBreno wrote:

Just curious - what Medical applications does a Firearm have?

Air rifles are used in the rehabilitiation of stroke victims and spinal cord injury victims by the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Dublin.

DaBreno

MrPudding wrote:

Not sure about human medical applications but I believe Vets use firearms to put down large animals.

MrP

Cheers.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

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".

As a counter-example, I have an interest in guns - sporting and otherwise. I live in a country where I can legally own and use one. I have no interest in ever owning, or even firing one.

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.

Correlation and causation.....not the same thing.

I can guarantee you that every single one of the 'D-Fens' fans breathes air...without exception. The correlation between them and, say, males, is also significant. The correlation between them and males living in a city is probably even more significant. We can go on and create a profile which gives as strong a correlation as the one you are suggesting gives rise to 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.

Correlation in one direction does not imply correlation in the other.

You will find a strong correlation between those who commit knife-crimes and those who own knives not primarily intended as weapons.

Alternately, but just as validly in response...most people who buy sporting rifles don't go around comitting gun crimes.

I should mention (in the interests of fairness) that despite not owning guns, I intend to have a longbow made for me later this year after I get some more practice in, and my girlfriend (who has done fencing as a hobby in the past) has numerous daggers - both replica and real - and swords - both replica and real - which she considers to be an art-collection. Does this makes us likely killers?

I mention this because I heard from a sword-smith recently that there is a proposal in Scotland to curb an increase in violent knife-crime by banning large knives and swords. Given that the sword category has no connection whatsoever to the types of knife typically being used in violent crime, I find the parallel fascinating.

At a guess, you'd support the ban, whereas I (and the smith in question, who's Scottish) would say that banning swords would have little if any effect, and any effect it did have would be just as effectively achieved through registration.

jc

abccormac

I should have made it clear in my earlier post that I don't think a blanket ban on gun owner ship is necessary. Sorry for any confusion. I asked a question on the shootin g forum, but the thread was locked so I'll ask it again here.

Reading back through the shooting forum I have seen several posts about getting licenses for pistols. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are talking about "weapon" type pistols (ie "real" bullets designed to make big holes in people) as opposed to small calibre air pistols designed for target shooting. Why would anybody need one? How does legalising these pistols benefit society? I assume (again, perhaps incorrectly) that it was already legal to use target pistols, so why would anybody want to see guns of this sort more easily available?

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

I mention this because I heard from a sword-smith recently that there is a proposal in Scotland to curb an increase in violent knife-crime by banning large knives and swords. Given that the sword category has no connection whatsoever to the types of knife typically being used in violent crime, I find the parallel fascinating.

At a guess, you'd support the ban, whereas I (and the smith in question, who's Scottish) would say that banning swords would have little if any effect, and any effect it did have would be just as effectively achieved through registration.

jc

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=637&id=1345182004

• Banning the sale of swords. While the sale of swords would be outlawed under the proposals, the Executive has no plans to ban swords being kept in private homes. There would, however, be a ban on the possession of a sword in a public place.

bonkey

Ta for the link.

I guess tough noogis on my mate the smith then....self-taught, self-employed....and the swords that he's sold that are in ppl's homes are still legal. He just can't make and sell them more of them....in order to limit violent knife-crime.

Meanwhile, those who sell the knives that are causing the issues will be unaffected (in the case of domestic knives), or restricted/monitored (in the case of non-domestic knives).

I don't get it...it will remain legal to sell (under stricter conditions) the problem-causing implements, whilst the swords which aren't a problem must go.

That would seem to be like banning target pistols whilst still allowing 9mm handguns to be sold under license.....which I doubt anyone here would suggest is a good idea (he says, heading back topicwards).

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

I agree that tighter registration for swords would seem logical. The Scottish Execuitive have to be seen to be doing something though as the knife culture here (in Glasgow) is unreal. They would probably ban the sale of all airguns if they could but it is out of their hands (that matter is reserved to the UK government under devolution).

Sparks

abccormac wrote:

Reading back through the shooting forum I have seen several posts about getting licenses for pistols. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are talking about "weapon" type pistols (ie "real" bullets designed to make big holes in people) as opposed to small calibre air pistols designed for target shooting. Why would anybody need one? How does legalising these pistols benefit society? I assume (again, perhaps incorrectly) that it was already legal to use target pistols, so why would anybody want to see guns of this sort more easily available?

It wasn't legal to use target pistols for the last thirty-odd years. Or, to be more accurate, it was legal, but not possible because a policy decision by the gardai and DoJ was made in 1972 to not issue licences for any kind of pistol. Thus wiping out all shooting sports that used pistols in the country, but having lamentably little effect on the security problem they were facing from terrorism, and having equally lamentably little effect on criminal uses of sidearms. Which, even more sadly, is a rather normal end result of most firearms legislation, because most legislation addresses what is felt by legislators to be the easy solution to a problem - and while they're experts on law, they're rarely experts on firearms

As to why would anyone want sidearms to be legal in Ireland, the problem isn't as easy as it sounds - how do you define the difference between a target pistol and a sidearm other than through intent of use? There certainly is a line, and from far away it's obvious (an olympic air pistol isn't anything like an FN Five-SeveN, for example), but the closer you get to it, the blurrier it becomes. The largest target pistol shooting event in the US, for example, is NRA Bullseye pistol shooting. Looks a lot like olympic shooting - a standard paper bullseye target, shot from a set range in a set time, and so forth. But they shoot that event with three guns - the first series with a .22 calibre pistol, the third with a .45 calibre pistol and the second with a pistol of intermediate calibre. It is a legitimate sporting discipline, established for years with tens of thousands of participants; and the main pistol used for the event is the Colt 1911 pistol, for many years the standard pistol of the US military. Granted, it was often totally rebuilt for accurising, but a lot of people shot the event for recreation and couldn't invest the thousand dollars or more that that can cost, so they just shot a stock 1911. So the same pistol was both a target pistol and a sidearm, with only the intent of the user differentiating between them.

What seems most likely will be that a line will be drawn on the basis of calibre in the upcoming firearms legislation review, and those pistols under that line will be relatively easy to get, on the same par as .22 rifles and the like, and those over that line will be more difficult to get access to, the same way that most firearms legislation is in practise at the moment anyway. (You generally find that getting an air rifle for target shooting raises few eyebrows in the garda station, but getting a .308 rifle for hunting needs a few more forms to be filled and sees a few more questions asked).

MizzKattt

A gun is an inanimate object. Yes, dangerous in nature and with a high level of risk. Still, many inanimate objects may and have been used to inflict harm; guns, hammers, knives, cars, poisons, baseball bats, pipes, nail guns, cigarettes, greasy foods, etc. By banning the gun, blame is shifted away from the person handling the gun to an inanimate object.

abccormac

Nobody is suggesting that we shift blame for shooting incidents to an inanimate object, and to suggest otherwise is more than a little insulting.

I think the attitude of most anti-gun people is that all guns are inherenrly designed to be dangerous, therefore why allow public access to them? They are only strictly neccesary to a tiny proportion of the population, most people don't need them The army needs heavy machine guns, and I'm sure firing one off at a static target would be great fun, but nobody would seriously argue that I should be allowed to own one. This is obviously an exaggerated example, but the principle remains the same. We control access to lots of inanimate objects and substances because the potential harm of allowing them outweighs the potential benefits of doing so, for example, drugs. I think that our current laws are good enough. We allow access to guns under certain circumstances, but only of a certain type, shotguns, target and hunting rifles, etc. I see no reason to allow easier access to othr types of guns, or to relax the laws as they stand.

Just out of interest, what exactly is legal here in Ireland, and what sort of license requirements are in existance? I have a vague idea that you need to get land owners signatures to get a gun for hunting but I'm not really sure. Anyone care to enlighten me?

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

Its kind of hard to ban rocks, Its much easier to ban guns!

A Dub in Glasgo

MizzKattt wrote:

A gun is an inanimate object. Yes, dangerous in nature and with a high level of risk. Still, many inanimate objects may and have been used to inflict harm; guns, hammers, knives, cars, poisons, baseball bats, pipes, nail guns, cigarettes, greasy foods, etc. By banning the gun, blame is shifted away from the person handling the gun to an inanimate object.

You know, that is very logical. The next step is to make AK-47s available to everyone and maybe some RPGs & SAM-7s just for that little extra oomph. After they are just inanimate objects, it is the people who kill!

Reminds me of Ordell in the film Jackie Brown

"AK-47. For when you absolutely positively have to kill every motherf*cker in the room! Accept no substitute!"

MizzKattt

abccormac wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that we shift blame for shooting incidents to an inanimate object, and to suggest otherwise is more than a little insulting.

I think the attitude of most anti-gun people is that all guns are inherenrly designed to be dangerous, therefore why allow public access to them?

Its kind of hard to ban rocks, Its much easier to ban guns!

abccormac, no insult was intended. Apologies to those I have insulted.

Simply, there will always be something around that will have the potential to harm, maim or kill another. Some of these items will serve no practical purpose except pleasure. Again, I repeat cigarettes, fatty foods, etc. However, I prefer the power to lay in my realm of whether I have access to them or not. Not some politician.

Should certain citizens be excluded from access to an item because a minority chooses to abuse it?

sceptre

MizzKattt wrote:

Should certain citizens be excluded from access to an item because a minority chooses to abuse it?

Might depend on what that item is. I'd rather access to plastic explosives and plutonium was left regulated for example. Obviously those are two extreme examples and I'm not seeking to draw a comparison. However as a simple question with a simple answer I'd have to say the answer can well be "yes". Simplistic answer, yeah. Far too simplistic for what you're discussing so I'll probably just keep schtum.

MizzKattt

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You know, that is very logical. The next step is to make AK-47s available to everyone and maybe some RPGs & SAM-7s just for that little extra oomph. After they are just inanimate objects, it is the people who kill!

Reminds me of Ordell in the film Jackie Brown

"AK-47. For when you absolutely positively have to kill every motherf*cker in the room! Accept no substitute!"

Dub, that is a very extremist take. I'm not sure how to respond to it without sounding petty or extremist myself.

I'm not exactly sure how drivers licenses work there, so please excuse any mistakes. It was explained to me when I was going for my motorcycle license, Europe has a level system where a person could not go beyond their skill level. Some bikes are just too powerful for some riders.

The same applies to guns. In the states, a course, a background check, fingerprints, a written exam, a practical exam is required before a license will be issued. This is to ensure the person carrying a gun is aware of the risks and responsibility required to wield a gun. It is a machine. I am the driver. It is my responsibility to ensure my machine will be used properly.

A Dub in Glasgo

MizzKattt wrote:

Dub, that is a very extremist take. I'm not sure how to respond to it without sounding petty or extremist myself.

I'm not exactly sure how drivers licenses work there, so please excuse any mistakes. It was explained to me when I was going for my motorcycle license, Europe has a level system where a person could not go beyond their skill level. Some bikes are just too powerful for some riders.

The same applies to guns. In the states, a course, a background check, fingerprints, a written exam, a practical exam is required before a license will be issued. This is to ensure the person carrying a gun is aware of the risks and responsibility required to wield a gun. It is a machine. I am the driver. It is my responsibility to ensure my machine will be used properly.

Yes I was being flippant and using extreme examples but the principles are the same. What if person X has the 'skill' level to own an AK-47 and just happens to leave it lying around the house for his son (who happens to be a majorly fecked off teenager) to take into school and blast away. It is all about risk mitigation and allowing people to own those sorts of weapons does not sound like good risk mitigation to me.

I am aware that the US regards weapons as a god given right to own.

abccormac

No problem MizzKattt,
The difference between food, cigarettes and guns is all to do with time scales. Smoking and poor eating may kill me in the long run, but a gunshot to the head would probably kill me naow. And anyway, we already control access to dangerous items and substances such as drugs. You have to take everything on its own merits. I might derive great enjoyment from filling myself with e's every weekend, but as a society we have decided that the costs to society of people doing so are too large.

There is a similar issue with gun ownership. We have decided as a society that the risks to society as a whole are not balanced by the potential for some people to have fun with firearms. We therefore restrict access to them. AS a society we have also decided that the benefits of being able to carve the sunday roast with a razor sharp knife outweigh the costs of people occasionaly deciding to carve up other people instead.

We could go round and round in circles asking why, when we have strict control of gun ownership, we don't have such strict control over knives or yo-yos or boomerangs or sharp sticks, but it would get us nowhere. Until somebody lays out a way in which relaxing the gun laws would benefit society more than it would increase the risk of me being shot, Iwon't see any reason to relax them.

MizzKattt

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

just happens to leave it lying around the house for his son (who happens to be a majorly fecked off teenager) to take into school and blast away. It is all about risk mitigation and allowing people to own those sorts of weapons does not sound like good risk mitigation to me.

Unfortunately, that is not an implausible scenario. Still, as a licensed gun owner, it is the owner's responsibility to secure his gun. A MAJOR portion of ownership is limiting access of others less skilled/licensed. I believe if an owner is negligent with his/her weapon, he should be held accountable for damages the weapon may be used for.

Yes, I have guns in my home. Yes, I do feel that it is my right to possess them. I also have a ten year old daughter who has never and will never under any circumstances touch my gun(s) because of the education and experience I have provided her. Additionally, my car keys are within her reach. Yet, she knows my car and my gun(s) are off limits to her because they are powerful and potentially deadly machines.

abccormac wrote:

Smoking and poor eating may kill me in the long run, but a gunshot to the head would probably kill me naow.

Am I to assume the government is a better judge of how I should die and how long it should take and what is acceptable for me to use to kill myself?

My point is this: Everything with moderation, responsibility and sound judgement.

abccormac

Am I to assume the government is a better judge of how I should die and how long it should take and what is acceptable for me to use to kill myself?

If the government decides something should be banned, and people don't like it, they can vote for a different government. How you die is nobodies business but your own, and has nothing to do with gun control. My point was that if somebody else was to shoot me, it would kill me, I have no plans to shoot myself! I need to eat something or I will die of starvation. I don't need to smoke but I chose to start. I'm now on twenty a day and wish I hadn't. The main point of my argument is that society as a whole in Ireland has decided that the risks of widespread availability of guns outweigh the benefits. We are heading the same way with tobacco. Many products are banned from food for human consumption. All with good reason. You live in a country with very widespread gun ownership. Your country also has one of the worlds highest rates of gun crime. Do you believe that this is completely coincidental?

MizzKattt

abccormac wrote:

How you die is nobodies business but your own, and has nothing to do with gun control.

You're absolutely correct, abccormac. It was off topic and a cheap shot.

abccormac wrote:

You live in a country with very widespread gun ownership. Your country also has one of the worlds highest rates of gun crime. Do you believe that this is completely coincidental?

Below are some interesting facts. This is an old study but the best I could do on short notice. Please keep in mind these statistics are mainly from the point of view when a gun is used for the purpose of defense rather than guns used for the purpose of sport.

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.

* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals.

* When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances.

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually.

Source

abccormac

us non fatal firearms crime rate 1993-2003

us gun crime rate 1973-2003
Clinton tightened gun control when he came into office. Gun crime "plumetted" after 1993 according to the US bureau of justice. If you look at the second link you will see how gun crime rose steadily throughout the late eighties and early nineties until Clinton came into office and tightened gun control

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearms injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent

Off Topic: The suicide figure came as a real shock to me

Sparks

MizzKattt wrote:

Below are some interesting facts.

Sorry MizzKattt, but Lott's studies have been shown to be wholly incorrect because the maths in his statistical work was woefully poor, and he fabricated a lot of the things he quotes
If it helps any, I believed what he wrote as well for nearly a year before I found the criticisms of his work.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What if person X has the 'skill' level to own an AK-47 and just happens to leave it lying around the house for his son (who happens to be a majorly fecked off teenager) to take into school and blast away.

Part of having the skill level to own a firearm is having the skill level to always secure it, so it's not exactly a properly phrased question.

abccormac wrote:

Just out of interest, what exactly is legal here in Ireland, and what sort of license requirements are in existance? I have a vague idea that you need to get land owners signatures to get a gun for hunting but I'm not really sure. Anyone care to enlighten me?

How to get a gun licence. Basicly, any firearm you can safely own and use, you are permitted to have. The final decision is purely down to the local Garda Superintendent. About the largest that would be "commonly" owned would be .308 rifles which are used for both hunting and target shooting (long range target shooting like the ISSF 300m event - though 6mm is a more common round for this event - which was an olympic event until 1972, or the La Palma event whose origins date back to the 1870s, use these kind of rifles because .22 calibre rounds just won't go that far - La Palma is shot at a thousand metres). There are some larger ones - the largest I've heard of being a .375 which a hunter in Wexford is seeking to get (he goes safari hunting, you wouldn't be hunting rabbits with that kind of rifle ).

You do need landowner signatures to get your licence if you are planning on hunting; if you're just target shooting it's more relaxed if you're in a known club because you'll be shooting on their range.

The licence requirements are covered in the Firearms Act 1925, Section Four:

Conditions of grant of firearm certificate.

4.—Before granting a firearm certificate to any person under this Act the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána or the Minister (as the case may require) shall be satisfied that such person—
( a ) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for, and
( b ) can be permitted to have in his possession, use, and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace, and
( c ) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate.

Part (c) there has a specific meaning and it's covered in Section Eight:

Persons disentitled to hold a firearm certificate or a permit.
8.—(1) The following persons are hereby declared to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate, that is to say:—
( a ) any person under the age of fifteen years, and
( b ) any person of intemperate habits, and
( c ) any person of unsound mind, and
( d ) any person who has been sentenced by any court in all Saorstát Éireann for any crime to penal servitude for any term which has not expired or has expired within five years previously, and
( e ) any person who has been sentenced by any court in Saorstát Éireann for any crime to imprisonment for any term of not less that three months which has not expired or has expired within five years previously, and
( f ) any person who is subject to the supervision of the police, and
( g ) any person who is bound by a recognizance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, a condition of which is that such person shall not have in his possession, or use, or carry any firearm or ammunition.

(2) Any person who is by virtue of this section disentitled to hold a firearm certificate shall also be disentitled to hold a permit under this Act in relation to any firearm or ammunition.

There's a fourth condition to be added to section four, contained in the Criminal Justice Bill 2004:

(d) in the case of an application for a firearms certificate made to a superintendent of the Garda Sıochana, has provided, to the superintendent’s satisfaction, secure accommodation for the firearm concerned at the address where it is to be kept.

There's also a background note on licencing on the DoJ website, here. There are some minor inaccuracies in it though (it's not been updated in a while), for example you can get a rifle of calibre greater than .22 without needing a hunting licence, if it's for target shooting.

Balfa

To the insane people who say some guns are okay because they're designed for competition, is it okay if we take your tools of murder away and replace them with laser pointers with pistol grips? In that case, the competition is absolutely unchanged, the person with the best aim is still going to win, and the tools of murder can be taken out of the equation. then everyone's happy, right?

Feel free to come up with something i can use to cut broccolli for dinner tonight, so we can take these other tools of murder out of the equation, too.


See the difference?

RE*AC*TOR

If the government turns to oppressive. We will need suitable tools to overthrow them. I'd say laser-pointers probably won't cut it.

Balfa

MizzKattt wrote:

My point is this: Everything with moderation, responsibility and sound judgement.

Except humans by nature don't have 100% sound judgement, so just take the gun out of the equation instead.

Balfa

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

If the government turns to oppressive. We will need suitable tools to overthrow them. I'd say laser-pointers probably won't cut it.

I'm going to assume that was a joke...

RE*AC*TOR

Balfa wrote:

I'm going to assume that was a joke...

How else would you propose to overthrow the government?

Balfa

MizzKattt wrote:

By banning the gun, blame is shifted away from the person handling the gun to an inanimate object.

No it's not. banning the gun means the person didn't handle the gun, no one was shot, no one died, and there is no blame to shift.