Minister to tighten law on registered handguns (Ireland)

[davepc]

MINISTER FOR Justice Dermot Ahern is to clamp down on legally-held handguns after a High Court judge criticised the soaring number of registered weapons.

Proposals will be brought before the Cabinet in the autumn on tightening gun laws which were denounced as piecemeal last week by Mr Justice Peter Charleton.

Mr Ahern, speaking yesterday outside the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers meeting in Cannes, France, said he had ordered an intensive review on how to change the laws governing gun ownership.

Mr Ahern, who spoke to Attorney General Paul Gallagher and Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy about new legislation, said he was grateful to the judge for highlighting the trend.

The Department of Justice said there were about 1,700 legally-held handguns in the Republic.

...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0708/1215380381164.html

[SteveM]

1. 1,700 in the whole country. wow. (nt)

[iverglas]

2. great, isn't it??

[SteveM]

4. Yeah, gotta watch out for all those law-abiding Irish (nt)

[iverglas]

5. dunno what you're on about

It looked so simple to me.

You: 1,700 in the whole country. wow.
Me: Great, isn't it??

If there was something about my rhetorical question that confused you ...

[tburnsten]

3. Hmmm, people following the rules, so they want to "clamp down"?

What are they "clamping down" on? Are they going to start arbitrarily denying people's pistol applications just so they can "do something" about the "soaring number" of handguns in the Republic? Seems like they are really focused on the guns and not worried at all about facts or what is going on with the guns.

[iverglas]

6. the original story

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/judge-calls-for-tightening-of-law-as-handgun-use-spreads-1428000.html

(Garda = police)

A HIGH Court judge has said reasonable people are "entitled to feel alarmed" about the large increase in the number of pistols licensed for private use.

There was "a pressing need" for drawing together into a clear law the multiple "piecemeal" rules on the control of firearms, Mr Justice Peter Charleton urged.

... While the recent proliferation of pistols and larger calibre rifles may not have been widely noticed and may not be part of a general policy, a reasonable person was "entitled to feel alarmed" by their spread.

The judge refused a challenge by Ronan McCarron to the 2005 decision of Supt Peadar Kearney of Letterkenny Garda Station to deny him a certificate for a .40 calibre Glock model 22 pistol.

Mr McCarron said he wanted it for target practice, but the gardai did not believe it was suitable for this and considered it a particularly dangerous weapon.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/browse/FPG.HTM

The Glock 22 is an Austrian double-action only (DAO) semi-automatic pistol. The Glock 21 is chambered for the .40 Smith and Wesson cartridge which it takes from a 15-round magazine.

[pipoman]

7. ...

"gardai did not believe it was suitable for this and considered it a particularly dangerous weapon."

Sounds sort of subjective to me, reminiscent of bayonet lugs creating a more dangerous weapon than one without. What makes this gun "a particularly dangerous weapon"? It is chambered in probably the most common law enforcement round in the world and is likely one of the most (if not the most) carried by law enforcement models on the market. How is it any more dangerous than a .40 cal of another brand or model? How is it any more dangerous than any other gun of similar caliber .38, .357, .45, .44, 9mm? Just more ignorant people making arbitrary rulings/opinions.

[iverglas]

8. well, if the info I retrieved was accurate

it uses a 15-round magazine. This is not usual for target shooting. It comes in quite handy if you're wanting to do a lot of shooting without have to stop often for reloading. I can think of a few situations when that might be an issue. Like when Marc Lépine killed 14 women in Montreal. His were 30-round, but you see the point.

Mainly, though, isn't .40 rather more likely to cause serious injury than .22? Is there some reason *not* to call a .40 "more dangerous" than a .22?

The judge noted that from 1972 to 2004, "one of the most vicious periods in Irish history'', no revolvers, pistols or rifles above .22 calibre were licensed in Ireland except in the most "exceptional circumstances".

I do get such a kick out of hearing nobodies on internet boards describe someone like a High Court judge as "ignorant people making arbitrary rulings/opinions". Just tickles me.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. That's a pretty arbitrary guess.

15 rounds in a pistol of that type is quite normal, as it happens to be what generally fits inside the average person's hand, without sticking below the butt of the grip. Not so usual in .45 ACP, but .45 GAP does also fit 15 rounds in a double stack, within the average human grip. Fifteen rounds of .40 is quite manageable for most people.

This is perfectly normal capacity for all legitimate purposes. I would question whether it influences the outcome of most crimes committed with firearms, with maybe a few notable exceptions. I'm having trouble finding it at the moment, because I keep getting results on the total number of shots fired by police officers in instances when they had to use their firearm, but I believe the FBI did a study on the total shots fired in the commission of a crime, and that number, if memory serves, was quite low. I will continue searching for that study... if anyone else has seen it, or it rings a bell, a little help could save me some time.

[iverglas]

12. "normal"

Definitions do vary so, don't they?


Fifteen rounds of .40 is quite manageable for most people.

Uh ... so what?

I believe the FBI did a study on the total shots fired in the commission of a crime, and that number, if memory serves, was quite low.

Uh ... so what?

The major problem that firearms control laws in the UK, for instance, have sought to address is mass murders by people in lawful possession of firearms.

If you try considering the decision in that context, you might get the idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. It does nothing material to address that.

I can cite mass murders involving absurdly low capacity bolt action rifles. Anecdotes are troubling in this capacity. It's not hard to reload, when you are the only one in the room with a gun, and you intend physical harm towards everyone else.

Even a revolver can be reloaded at astonishing speed with a little bit of practice. I don't see 'address mass murders' outweighing all the other common, even casual, legal uses of firearms. I would like to see hard evidence that it does something to curb the victim rate of these crimes.

[iverglas]

14. oh, lordy

"Normal" ... such variations ...

common, even casual, legal uses of firearms

The idea that there is a "casual, legal" use of the firearm in question in this discussion just boggles the mind, I'm afraid.

I can assure you that there is not, where the subject matter of the discussion occurred.

I would like to see hard evidence that it does something to curb the victim rate of these crimes.

Can you tell us when the last mass firearms homicide was in the UK, for instance?

What the firearms homicide rate is all round?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Dunblane Massacre would be the most prominent.

The perpetrator used 4 pistols during the course of the crime, though he did reload at least a couple times. 2 13-shot capacity Brownings, and two revolvers. He fired over 109 times. I doubt even a 10 or even 7 round cap on the magazines would have significantly changed the outcome. Even though he had multiple pistols of the same type, he still had to reload several times.

Is the Telegraph an acceptable source for the UK? I'm more familiar with the Guardian:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/08/14/ngun114.html

I get the impression from this that the Government was not in favor of banning pistols at the time, and the capacity of the pistols doesn't even seem to be mentioned. I think I track closer to the content of this article. I am concerned in this case about his ability to obtain the weapons, not the particulars of the weapons. Seems like access at all, is the best limiting factor. Either allow them or not, I don't see how minor functionality differences are going to have a positive impact. And there will always be the black market. If you have any skill with working sheet metal, you can make any low-capacity pistol into a high capacity pistol, and even sell the magazines. It will just protrude further from the bottom of the grip. This fellow from Dunblane seems as though he did some planning.


As for 'normal' in the UK, at the time, I think a 15 shot would have been, just thinking of a couple products manufactured there at around that time, but clearly not now.

They have every right to enact such legislation if they want, but I seriously doubt it's going to have any positive impact, and can easily imagine the inconvenience of what will now be restricted to current owners.

On the up side, the UK Firearms homicide rate is quite low.

[iverglas]

17. there seems to be some confusion

Dunblane is one of the reasons that handguns *were* then banned in the UK. Not high-capacity handgun, handguns. Access was precisely the issue.

The story that is the actual subject of this thread isn't about the UK, it's about Ireland. Handguns are not prohibited there, but access is heavily regulated.

The handgun in question was regarded as not being one that would ordinarily be acquired for target shooting, as I understand it. Both calibre and capacity would seem to be factors in that assessment.

[tburnsten]

18. Neither caliber nor capacity has any impact on target suitability

There is an there is a competition known as the International Practical Shooting Competition, and the International Defensive Pistol Association, both of which have a minimum caliber requirement for their competitions. Hot loaded 9x19mm barely squeeks in. Both also place a premium on speed when moving through the courses of fire, and so capacity is sought after by competitors as well. In both, Glocks in .40 S&W are quite popular, especially the two models developed specifically for target competitions, the 24

www.teamglock.com/Glock-Buyers-Guide/Glock-24.htm


and the 35

A bad picture, but note the compensator on the muzzle of the top one and the large mag well attachment on both. I bet the one on top is for the "Limited" or "Open" class, while the one on bottom is for one of the closer to stock classes. Especially note the holographic or red dot sight on the top Glock, and the adjustable sights on the lower Glock, as well as the pronounced extended magazine release and changes to the grip of the pistol. These are both pure competition guns, just about useless for anything but sport and recreational target shooting.

http://www.teamglock.com/Glock-Buyers-Guide/Glock-35.htm

[iverglas]

19. without looking it up

I believe the relevant standard in Canada is "Olympic", for qualification as a sports shooting handgun.

I'm sure somebody could invent a sporting event at which hand grenades are lobbed. Wouldn't mean that hand grenade possession should be permitted to be widespread.

The International Practical Shooting Competition and the International Defensive Pistol Association don't sound to me like the kind of thing most people have in mind when they think of sports shooting. "Practical" and "Defensive" are kind of by definition not covered.

[tburnsten]

22. Slowfire bullseye then?

So now the Olympics are the guidelines for legal firearms? Kind of silly, doesn't seem any more legitimate to me than IPSC IDPA competition shooting, except that IDPA and IPSC does not require every competitor to use pistols costing thousands of dollars as an entry level gun. IDPA and IPSC both have equivalents of "Stock" or "service" pistol categories, which limits the amount of modification and super-competition features a competitors gun can have. Not sure why a "practical" shooting competitions wouldn't be covered by sport shooting, since that is what it is. And most people don't have a clue what sport shooting entails, they just picture 25 meter slow-fire bullseye. Sport shooting covers far more than that.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I apologize

North Ireland/UK and the rest of Ireland are indeed separate. I treated Ireland as part of the UK for the purposes of this discussion.

As for .40 caliber target shooting, it's actually an excellent caliber. No pistol is a tack driver, compared to a rifle or any other long arm, but it does shoot very flat, recoil is quite manageable for follow-up shots. Probably my preferred caliber for any competitive shooting with pistols. Higher muzzle velocity, compared to 9mm in the same weight bullet, which translates into a longer, flatter trajectory.

Capacity may be an issue there, here, 15 rounds are normal. Might be influenced by local tradition. I have no idea what would be traditionally normal there. It certainly doesn't sound exotic to me.

[57_TomCat]

23. Some info on Irish shooting sports and such...

it uses a 15-round magazine. This is not usual for target shooting. It comes in quite handy if you're wanting to do a lot of shooting without have to stop often for reloading. I can think of a few situations when that might be an issue. Like when Marc Lépine killed 14 women in Montreal. His were 30-round, but you see the point.

I see your point but that is not the point of the original purchaser. The Glock 22 is a popular pistol for IPSC target competitions and the .40 caliber is the minimum required in Limited Division for "major" power factor (more points for scoring) and the 15 round magazine is important for speed in the competition. In fact the rules allow for extended magazines no longer than 140mm in the Limited Division where the Glock 22 shines.

Mainly, though, isn't .40 rather more likely to cause serious injury than .22? Is there some reason *not* to call a .40 "more dangerous" than a .22?

Neither is "more dangerous". Both are capable of being dangerous when misused. The .40 does have the ability to be more powerful than many .22 caliber weapons BUT many other .22 calibers are more powerful. The .22 caliber 5.56 mm NATO service cartridge for example will make a .40 look like a wimp. The 5.7mm round now being developed in NATO for pistols and automatic weapons is quite a bit more dangerous as it in common form easily pierces bullet resistant vests.

The judge noted that from 1972 to 2004, "one of the most vicious periods in Irish history'', no revolvers, pistols or rifles above .22 caliber were licensed in Ireland except in the most "exceptional circumstances".

Well the point here is it is no longer 2004 and since then the IPSC has blossomed in Ireland with more and more active participants. Some excellent info can be found at www.ipscireland.org . This "sport is one of the reasons far more licenses are being requested and issued. I might also mention that during the troubles in Northern Ireland where Ireland was not licensing most larger caliber guns irregulars in NI still routinely had a host of illegal guns of larger calibers being used for criminal activities. The licensed .22's in Ireland were not the guns used in the criminal activities up north by licensed users.

I do get such a kick out of hearing nobodies on internet boards describe someone like a High Court judge as "ignorant people making arbitrary rulings/opinions". Just tickles me.

Tickles me also but this magistrate seems to be a bit lacking in practical knowledge of the current state of pistol competition in Ireland. Sounds like ignorance to me.

[Indy Lurker]

9. FYI: Glock 21 is .45 ACP

the standard magazine holds 13 rounds.

[iverglas]

10. there seems to be a mistake there

The Glock 21 is an Austrian double-action only (DAO) semi-automatic pistol. The
Glock 21 is chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge which it takes from a 13-round magazine.

The Glock 22 is an Austrian double-action only (DAO) semi-automatic pistol. The Glock 21 is chambered for the .40 Smith and Wesson cartridge which it takes from a 15-round magazine.

That boldface "Glock 21" is supposed to say "Glock 22", I would think.

Pretty shoddy for "The Probert Encyclopaedia of Warfare".

[spin]

16. Glock model guide....

http://www.glockfaq.com/guide.htm

Shooters either love them or hate them. Those who dislike them often refer to them as "Blocks" because of their appearance. They are reliable with the correct ammunition (hard lead or jacketed projectiles) and widely used by law enforcement and civilians in the U.S.

[old mark]

20. But they are not confiscating guns.

They are making it impossible to own one, but not confiscating any, well,maybe some really offensive guns, like the handguns, or the really evil black plastic ones that werve no purpose.

Sounds familiar, like what they tried to do in Canada.
(I undrstand a lot of folks in Canada have guns hidden away in case they ever need them againse their repressive government.)

Could happen here, too.But no one wants to confiscatthem here, right?

mark

[spin]

24. Perhaps you need to move to someplace like Florida...

some people call it the "Gunshine" state.

[Endangered Specie]

25. Question is, how many *ILLEGALY* held handguns?

[57_TomCat]

26. That is key...

The legal guns most often are not the problem.