Common sense gun laws in Ireland

[Union Label]

I have no problem with people hunting as long as the meat is used but I wish we could follow along with something like Ireland just passed.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has signed new gun control legislation into law.

The act bans handguns in Ireland and also introduces a requirement for referees, background medical checks and standards for the safe keeping of guns in the home for all firearms licence applicants.

It also makes it an offence to brandish a realistic imitation firearm in public.

Mr Ahern says the legislation is designed to halt the emergence of a gun culture in Ireland. http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/ahern-signs-new-gun-control-act-into-law-419908.html

[Irreverend IX]

1. Fat chance. nt

[rl6214]

29. Thank God

[rrneck]

2. How would you make that work here? nt

[Union Label]

5. I dont know

But did you see what happened in Chicago this last week? Its got to end.

[rrneck]

8. Guns are already banned

in Chicago if I'm not mistaken.

[iverglas]

46. and Chicago is an island

You thought that too, right?

[eqfan592]

9. Yeah it does, and "gun control" isn't even close to the answer.

What's got to end is this constant distraction from the real issues that plague a city like Chicago that lead to crime. Poor education, urban decay, unemployment and poverty, etc. THESE are the causes of violent crime. Guns don't project a magical field around them that cause people to do wrong.

Ireland has taken a step in the wrong direction, not the right one, and we'd be fools to follow in their footsteps.

[imdjh]

23. What happened in Chicago?

It has no bearing on the issue of gun control, but I'd like to know what happened.

[spin]

28. Lots of people get shot in Chicago...

despite the handgun ban.

Most shootings involve gangs and drugs.

Shootings wound at least 15 overnight
July 29, 2009 7:42 AM

At least 15 people were wounded in shootings on the South and West Sides Tuesday night and early this morning, according to police.

The attacks included the shooting of seven people in the East Garfield Park neighborhood, the shooting of two people in the Little Village neighborhood and the shooting of a carjacking victim on the South Side.

At least five people were wounded in other shootings, according to police.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/shootings-wound-at-least-15-overnight.html

[prostomulgus]

7. Start by getting one more Supreme Court appointment

We need to get one of the RW'ers to resign then we can get the Supremes to interpret the 2nd Ammendment in a way that makes sense in today's world.

[X_Digger]

10. Not likely.. (overturning Heller)

SCOTUS precedent is fairly 'sticky'. Good, bad, or ugly, precedent tends to stick for 40-60 years.

[eqfan592]

11. You mean exactly the way the way it's inturpreted now?

Because it still does make sense.

[rrneck]

12. That's not what I asked.

I didn't ask who you would try to hire to figure it out. Do you have a way to actually make a gun ban work in this country?

In today's world (in the United States) police response time can be up to a half hour or so. What do you plan to do for all the people who get assaulted when there is no civil authority nearby to help them?

edited for clarity ( I hope )

[imdjh]

25. That would be a huge mistake.

That would lead to a constitutional convention, and an absolute right to own and carry with no exceptions won't be the only thing to emerge.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

[rl6214]

30. You mean in a way that you like it.

[bossy22]

64. highly doubt it

first off, supreme courts rarely due a direct overturn of their precedents. Second, most courts do not like to go against something the overwhelming percentage of Americans believe. Courts rarely stray from overwhelming public opinion.

[safeinOhio]

3. I wouldn't want to be walking around Dublin

at one in the morning if they were all carrying.

[Statistical]

4. Hunting doesn't have jack fucking shit to do with the 2nd.

Ironically you could ban hunting and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Heller v. DC however has established that handguns are a protected class of firearms and that the 2nd protects an individual right unconnected with service in a militia.

If anything actions in England, Ireland, and Australia shows us that "sensible gun control" will not stop at licensing and registration. Eventually once everything else is tried the govt will move to ban firearms. To the antis there is no acceptable end game other than a complete ban. If they aren't advocating a ban today it is simply because they are smart enough to know it would fail. The end game has changed though.

[iverglas]

47. freedumb

Ironically you could ban hunting and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

You really believe that, do you?

The damned thing is that I can actually never tell whether people who say totally idiotic things like that really believe them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Feel free to post something other than your opinion.

[X_Digger]

6. "a requirement for referees"??

Lots of crime committed by guys in striped shirts with starter pistols, eh? Well, I guess the stripes fit..

[iverglas]

48. okay, I *know* you aren't being serious.

[X_Digger]

50. No, tongue was planted _firmly_ in cheek.

But hey, if this is what folks think 'reasonable gun laws' look like, I'll be happy to remind folks when they bring up the topic.

[eqfan592]

13. There is nothing "common sense" about this law.

"Common sense" would dictate that we go after the actual root causes of crimes, but that's complicated and takes a lot of work. Laws like this, however, are essentially "feel good" laws that only hamper the law abiding and do little to actually stop violent crime. It's easy to slap a "guns are the problem" sticker on every problem, but the fact is that it's no more true now than it was 10, 20, 30, etc. years ago.

[baldguy]

14. Getting gun worshipers to embrace common sense is like teaching calculus to cows.

[rrneck]

16. If I may

I'll pose the same question to you.

From post #12 - In today's world (in the United States) police response time can be up to a half hour or so. What do you plan to do for all the people who get assaulted when there is no civil authority nearby to help them?

[eqfan592]

17. First of all, why must we be "gun worshipers?"

I worship nothing (I'm agnostic). Secondly, what's "common sense" about this law? Common sense would dictate we go after the root causes. Common sense would dictate that we make our policy decisions based on facts and hard data, not on emotional pleas and anecdotes. To do otherwise is purely irrational.

You call us "gun worshipers" but the anti-gun movement stinks more of a religious cult than any pro-2a organization I've ever seen, including the NRA. What's sad is that I'm used to having to deal with these types of arguments from freepers. I guess even "progressives" aren't above irrational behavior.

[baldguy]

24. Here's a clue:

If your firearm affectation is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans, you may be a gun-worshiper.

[proteus_lives]

27. How about an affection for our rights?

Or our reluctance to give into fear and ignorance?

[eqfan592]

32. By that reasoning...

....we should give up everything that may possibly harm another human being. That reasoning doesn't work in a free society. If you think that 100% safety should trump everything else, you may be a fascist. You may not realize it, but that is what you are in fact promoting.

[Union Label]

33. Shirley you can see that illegal handguns cause a shitload of problems

And yes I know that a lot of laws are being broken just getting these fucking things to places Like Chicago but as a civilized society I can hope that we do away with these small instruments of murder.

[Statistical]

35. Well if you passionately believe that then start the "citizens for repealing the 2nd".

At least be honest about it.

You can't ban handguns without repealing the 2nd.

[eqfan592]

36. Why does a socieity have to disarm itself....

...in the face of those who care not for society or it's laws in order to be considered "civilized?" You call it an instrument of murder, which means you are only capable of seeing one aspect of it. It's also an instrument of protection, an instrument of food gathering, an instrument of sport, etc. Illegal handguns do not cause problems magically by themselves, the criminals that use them do. Deal with the problems that lead to crime, and you will see a reduction in crime.

[cslinger59]

37. Did you mean Surely?

This is not a flame, or grammar Nazi moment or whatever. It is only in acknowledgment of that I now cannot get....

"Surely you can't be serious."

"I am, and don't call me Shirley."

out of my head. Thank you for that I will be chuckling all day with Airplane quotes.

Carry on.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

40. Irony strikes again!

"Shirley you can see that illegal handguns cause a shitload of problems"

So your solution is to make ALL handguns illegal. BRILLIANT!

[Statistical]

58. Of course the reverse is also true.

If you made all handguns legal then no illegal handguns would cause problems (just legal ones would). :)

[Indy Lurker]

55. Misconceptions

"Shirley you can see that illegal handguns cause a shitload of problems"

Posted by Union Label

That must be just like the way fast cars cause speeding.

and the way beer causes drunk driving.




You also call guns "small instruments of murder". Is that how you really see them?

Do you believe the police carry guns to murder civilians?

Do you not see that they can be used to preserve life?

[yost69]

63. I can't believe that is the answer

I know this has been brought up numerous times. But I can't see how banning all handguns is going to accomplish what you believe it will.

Your telling everyone that you think that banning handguns is going to cut down on homicides. Yet there are so many illegal handguns on the streets now that can not be controlled, how are you going to control them when they are all illegal?

I can't for the life of me figure out why people like you want to continue to add more gun laws to the books, that will be just as inadequate at stopping the criminals from possessing firearms, instead of putting your resources toward better enforcement of the laws that are already there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. How would a law banning handguns affect illegally possessed handguns?

[gorfle]

38. Are rights more important than the lives of your fellow humans?

If your firearm affectation is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans, you may be a gun-worshiper.

Our founders waged a war killing countless scores of thousands to secure our Constitutional rights. I'm quite certain they thought those rights were worth the lives spent to secure them.

Does this make them Constitution worshipers?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. For most law abiding citizens, we have guns BECAUSE we value human life.

But you go ahead and falsely frame other people's purposes. I'm sure no one will see right through you.

[krispos42]

61. Ah, that sounds familiar

If your privacy affectation is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans, you may be a warrant-worshiper.


If your free-press affectation is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans, you may be a free-press-worshiper.

If your legal represenation affectation is more important to you than the lives of your fellow humans, you may be a lawyer-worshiper.

If your presidental-critisism affectation ...

[Indy Lurker]

65. Patrick Henry thought so.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry

[yost69]

68. My right to defend myself is more important

than the life of the scum that means to do me harm. Am I a gun worshiper? After all without my firearm I have no means to fight back against deadly force.

Well I guess I could wait for the local law enforcement to come. Well that is as long as they don't have a more important call to respond to, assuming I am able to dial 911. After all they are there to protect the general public not the individual.

[rl6214]

31. Getting idiots to recognize it's a constitutional right

and that it's not going away is like teaching calculus to cows.

See, I can play that game too.

[guardian]

42. I own forks and spoons too.

Does that make me a "spoon worshiper"? Did you lose your reason along with your hair?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Yo, where the gun worshippers at? I wish to subscribe to their newsletter

being without any sort of faith myself...

[benEzra]

15. You are free to banish all handguns and nonhunting rifles from your home.

My wife and I choose to keep ours, though.

FWIW, fewer than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts; the vast majority of us are nonhunters.

[eqfan592]

18. ben, where did you grab that stat from? I'm also a non-hunting gun owner and would like to..

...be able to reference it. :)

[AtheistCrusader]

43. You can infer it from state hunting license applications.

I don't buy 1 in five either. It's a lot less gun owners than that, assuming the 80 million+ gun owners statistic.

[iverglas]

49. yup, those stats are quite important

Where once there was a hunting culture - firearms for subsistence - and a rural culture - firearms for controlling pests and predators - now there is just a gun culture - firearms for firearms' sake.

Hence the meteoric rise of handguns as a proportion of firearms possessed in the US since the mid-20th century.

Well, not quite just firearms for firearms' sake. Firearms for the sake of all the social and political hay to be made with firearms.

If you think that helps your case ... then you are indeed a devotee of the gun militant agenda.

Like I suspected otherwise.


typo fixed

[benEzra]

60. That red herring depends, of course, on the concept that in the past,

most hunters owned guns exclusively for hunting, which has never been true in the United States.

My great-grandparents were hunters; they also owned defensive firearms. One of my paternal great-grandparents wedding presents when they were married in 1900 was a matched set of concealed-carry revolvers. And even most hunting guns back then were less specialized and more dual-purpose.

[benEzra]

56. US Census Bureau, National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

which is based on hunting license data. The 2006 report: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf

According to that, 12.5 million Americans over the age of 16 hunted in 2006. Add a few for people who do hunt but didn't in '06, and for hunters under 16, and that will put you somewhere between 13 and 16 million.

The number of U.S. gun owners is conservatively estimated at 80 million, so 16 million would be 1 in 5; 13 million would be a little less than 1 in 6.

[Statistical]

59. Bookmarked because hunting = 2nd amendment comes up at least once a week around here. n/t

[HeresyLives]

19. This is pretty much what we have in Canada.

And yes the idea was to prevent the emergence of a 'gun culture' here.

I think it's much too late for Americans to do that.

[eqfan592]

20. What difference does it make?

Guns are not the damned cause of violent crime, nor do they breed violent criminals. Anti-gun advocates even admit this much, yet they will NOT budge on this sorry excuse of an issue!

[rrneck]

22. Looks that way.

[Euromutt]

54. First, define "gun culture"

See, I've encountered that term in various contexts, and it can mean quite differing things. For example, I've encountered it in reference to persons involved in the illegal drugs trade settling disputes--both business and personal (such as "showing disrespect")--by murdering the offending party. Personally, I think "homicide culture" would be a more apt term to describe the problem, because when you're prepared to kill someone for stepping on your toes in a crowded nightclub (an one "yardie" did in London), something tells me the fundamental problem the utter lack of respect for human life on the part of the killer, not the specific weapon he uses.

Now, in the U.S., "gun culture" mainly consists of people keeping firearms for legal purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting, historical collecting, and self-defense. Such a "gun culture" can hardly be equated with the aforementioned culture of responding to the merest slight by killing the offending party.

Which leads me to my next question: if the formation of a "gun culture" expresses itself overwhelmingly in lawful behavior (of the estimated 270 million firearms in private hands in the U.S., over 269 million are not used for unlawful activity in any given year), then what authority does government have to attempt to prevent the formation of such a culture? If it's what people want to do, and they're not breaking any laws in the process, what business is it of the government's?

[eqfan592]

57. Great post! +1 (nt)

[imdjh]

21. How long ago was the Irish Revolution?

What did they use? Sticks? I mean, I only followed it in movies, and it seems the little people (no not those little people) got fucked over both before and after the revolution, but ..........never mind.

[Euromutt]

69. Just under 90 years now

At least, if you're counting the formation of the Irish Free State, rather than the declaration of the fully independent republic. And yeah, they used guns; guns stolen from the Royal Irish Constabulary and British army, guns supplied by Germany in an effort to provide Great Britain with a distraction during World War I, and admittedly open armed rebellion failed in 1916, while guerrilla warfare (with a rather terroristic bent) ultimately did the trick, but the bottom line is, they didn't gain independence using shillelaghs and empty pint mugs.

[proteus_lives]

26. Maybe for them.

But legislation like wouldn't pass in the US, thank God.

I'm not hunter but I own firearms. Why do you have a problem with that?

[Amos Moses]

34. I have no problem with people hunting as long as the meat is used

You do know some deer hunting is done to avoid overpopulation, right? If hunters didn't kill some of them, they would starve to death instead.

[Xela]

39. "...the legislation is designed to halt the emergence of a gun culture in Ireland."

Too late for that isn't it?

The country's history is filled with historical events where firearms have played a significant part (primarily events of resistance) in their cultural development.

As for this type of legislation in our country? No way. They can do whatever they want on the other side of the ocean. I wouldn't buy that for our country.

Xela

[derby378]

41. I thought handguns were already illegal in Ireland

Hunting rifles and shotguns only, and even those require a permit. Or did I miss something when reading through Ireland's gun laws?

[PavePusher]

51. This phrase "common sense gun laws"....

I do not believe it means what you think it means...

HA! Second time today I've been able to use that. One more for the hat trick...!

Seriously though, you actually think "handgun ban" equals "common sense gun laws"? Really.

[iverglas]

52. I'll answer!

Seriously though, you actually think "handgun ban" equals "common sense gun laws"?

Yup.

Really.

Really.

[PavePusher]

53. Color me suprised. Or not... n/t

[JonQ]

62. I didn't realize gun rights were primarily concerned with hunting

it's odd then, that hunting is mentioned exactly 0 times in the constitution.