Empty Chamber



Labour deputy Sean Kenny raises the spectre of Dunblane and Pakistan during the justice committee discussion on firearms licensing.

Prompting the following…


…from marksman Mark Dennehy:

Drawing Deputy Kenny’s fire:


It’s his JOB.

Correspondence continues here

Thanks Mark

109 thoughts on “Empty Chamber

  1. sickofallthisbs

    You can act as sanctimonious as you want, Mark – they are still deadly weapons and can kill. No amount of prissy emails will change that.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Mine sure can – if I hold you down and beat you about the head with them.
      If I shoot you with them though? Doubtful. I’d have to actually shoot you often enough to give you literal lead poisoning. Airguns just aren’t Hollywood Death Machines, sorry.

      And before you tell me that’s not what he was talking about, they thought – this is what was actually said – that we use assault rifles like the M16 in the Olympics and can licence them in Ireland.

      The lack of even basic knowledge of Irish firearms law from these TDs who will be drafting the next Firearms Act was shocking.

      1. jungleman

        What is incredible is when gun nuts like yourself think that their hobby should get even the slightest bit of consideration. Nobody cares about your stupid, lethal hobby.

        1. Jack Ascinine

          I’ve lived with and around guns my entire life. I’ve never once shot a person, had a misfire, or used a gun inappropriately. The difference between us “gun nuts” and people such as yourself is that we don’t carry on like children. We have respect for the equipment we use and not media generated fear for something we know nothing about, such as yourself. As it was said before, scurry away and let the adults talk.

          1. Artemis

            I’ve lived with and around guns my entire life. I’ve never once shot a person, had a misfire


  2. Paolo

    Any gun that is capable of firing a round that would kill a person or that is capable of holding more than one round should be very strictly controlled. I don’t really care if someone reckons he/she is a very safe gun owner.

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      Yup. The same type of person who used to claim they could drive home after a few points because they were a ‘safe’ driver.

  3. Mikeyfex

    Mark, there’s a lot to object to in your two letters. From the sensationalist subject at the top to the presumptuous inquiry at the bottom (of the first one). It’s clear you love what you do but it reads like you’re letting your emotions get the better of you in parts.

    Why on earth wouldn’t the deputy raise the concerns he raised? You can’t really get indignant about someone poking around in your area just because its lead a quiet life in this country up to now.

    Your faith in all other licensed firearms owners *may* show some naivety, no? Not possible?

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Twenty-odd years of experience is what leads to that Mikey.
      I get that it might seem odd to someone outside the sport, but this morning really was appalling. In more accessible terms, it was the equivalent of the banking inquiry TDs not knowing the names of the banks involved.

      The reason why the deputy shouldn’t have asked that question that way was that if the Gardai had any actual concerns like that, then they are legally required to revoke the licences. They don’t actually get a choice in it – if the worry is there, the licence must be pulled – it’s a legal duty of the Gardai, not an option. The way the law is set up, this sort of fear can’t be ongoing, not legally. If a Garda was honestly to say that he had an actual fear for public safety because of a licenced firearm and he didn’t pull the licence, he’d be in breach of the Firearms Act and it’s been that way for a long time.

      This isn’t advanced law. This is very, very basic stuff – it’s the fundamentals of the law that these TDs are about to redraft. It is their job to know this sort of thing. It’s not acceptable to sit on a Dail Committee to rewrite a law without even basic knowledge of that law.

    2. Jack Ascinine

      I know this TD well. He’s from my area. 1) He’s an idiot with no real exposure to anything in the real world. 2) He’ll do/ say anything to keep his seat.

      He’s got about 2 brain cells left and they’re trying to commit suicide as we speak.

    1. omegapi

      I guess you still call black people N22″”ERS or “wogs” do you you Jungleman??Seeing that you use offensive discriminitory terminology,you are aptly named ,now go back to the jungle where that kind of langauge is more in keeping prefably up a tree with your simian berthern

      1. smoothlikemurphys

        “offensive discriminitory terminology”

        If that’s the over-reaction that you make when called ‘Gun Nuts’, I’d be happier to see your license revoked.

  4. Kieran NYC

    The TD is a) being ‘seen’ to be doing something. No one ever lost a vote by being ‘tough on crime’ (even though legal gun ownership and gun crime are two different things). And b) he’s covering his ass in case something does happen and everyone blames the government immediately. Because that’s what happens with everything. A country like Ireland that expects the government to baby them gets treated like babies.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Yeah, automatic firearms are category A firearms and cannot be licenced in the EU. They’re police and army issue only (and noone’s ever gone looking to change that in Ireland btw).

      That’s why the assault rifle comments this morning were nonsense as well.

  5. YourNan

    let’s not ruin this “sport” for these repressed men and leave a window open for every lunatic with a death wish in this country to go on a rampage. Makes perfect sense.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Yeah, the way we’ve been doing since 1850. It’s not like we’ve won the World Championships in Olympic shotgun three times in the last decade or anything…

      1. jungleman

        Its not really a sport though. Certainly doesn’t require any level of fitness whatsoever. It shouldn’t be in the Olympics.

        1. omegapi

          I’d like to see you hold out 3 kilos Jungle man dead straight with one hand for oh ten minutes ,without any wobbles in your arm, wrist or shoulder muscles.Give it a try with a domestic iron ,one of our training aids for arm and upper strenght.Then come back and tell us you dont need to be fit.Or try biathlon skiing and shooting.Go for a five kilometer ski and then drop and get your heart rate down enough that you can concentrate on shooting a target appx the size of a euro coin at fifty meters under a time limit of three minutes.Then tell us you dont need to be fit…

          1. Mark Dennehy

            Cool, now try holding a 7.5kg rifle on a target a half-millimeter across ten metres away without telescopic sights and tell me that that’s terribly easy to do and you don’t need fitness to do it.

    2. AOS

      The Olympic council consider it as a sport, but I guess you know better than them!!!
      I see your a tad on the sexist side what about all those “repressed” women who enjoy the sport of shooting?

  6. Spartacus

    Cars kill every day, let’s ban people from having them, too.
    Can’t risk a 9/11 – ban all aeroplanes and close our airspace forthwith.

    This is all horseshit. It doesn’t stop anyone from buying or using a gun, just takes away rights from the honest law-abiding citizens who like to play by the rules.

  7. redzer

    This Mark Dennehy fella states he’s written and edited the present Firearms Act – in other words, he’s more than a tad biased, because in all likelihood he’s a lobbyist on the issue, and while there’s nothing nessecarily wrong with that, in all fairness to him, he is not exactly objective as his legislation is being questioned.

    And also – “Mine sure can – if I hold you down and beat you about the head with them.” – that’s just scary, Mark. Why would you even think about that? With your hysterical and less than objective e-mails and comments like that, you are not doing your side of the argument any favours at all and I’d be inclined to think twice now about favouring any sort of legislation for gun owners to own a gun to shoot.

    As a law graduate, I have to say It’s good to see a TD doing what he’s supposed to be doing on an Oireachtas Committee – asking questions and scrutinising legislation and reports regarding legislative proposals. It might sound sanctimonious when he says it, but he is actually doing the job he was elected to do.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      “Mine sure can – if I hold you down and beat you about the head with them.” – that’s just scary, Mark. Why would you even think about that?

      Because he said it was a lethal firearm and I couldn’t think of any other way that they could be lethal.

      I mean, I could have assumed he was talking out of his arse, but you’re not supposed to do that, right?

  8. Maa

    For every 3 responsible licensed gun owners, there is one gobsh**e…like the one who left their high calibre rifle on view in their car in a CAR PARK.

    Also – Dunblane and Norway were carried our by licensed gun owners…you can understand the concern

    1. Stillwaters

      It was never stated that the rifle was ‘on view’, just that it was in the car and it was taken. We don’t know that the thief specifically targeted the firearm.

      The firearms used in the Dunblane and Norwegian cases are classed as restricted here and subject to even more stringent rules.

      1. Mark Dennehy

        The firearms used in Norway are banned here. And in Norway. Category A firearms.
        Actually, the existing law would have prevented both atrocities, if it had only been applied…

        1. Stillwaters

          I believe Breivik used a Mini 14, legal here in it’s semi automatic mode( which his was), albeit restricted.

      2. jungleman

        Like I suspected, you are pro guns. Puts your patronising comment above in context. Now, go ahead and make another patronising comment rather than attempting to explain why gun hobbyists should get any consideration when laws are being framed, considering the lethal nature and uselessness to society of gun ownership.

        1. Kieran NYC

          In general, I’d like there to be a reason TO ban something, rather than a reason NOT to.

          I’d like the government to make decisions with facts and scientific evidence, rather than scaremongering and vote-winning.

          I’d love to know the percentage of legally owned guns involved in deaths or crime over the past twenty years. I suspect it is small. The paramilitaries and criminal gangs have their own ways of getting firearms into the country and that is what we should probably be focusing on.

          1. jungleman

            Well a good sample to look at is the US, where legally owned guns have been used to kill many people. I’m sure they have also been used to murder in Ireland also. To focus on firearm use by paramilitaries is probably a mistake which serves to distort the figures as they apply to normal society.

          2. Kieran NYC

            The US is a horrible example to look at. Completely different situations. Mark isn’t looking to have everyone armed to the teeth.

            “To focus on firearm use by paramilitaries is probably a mistake which serves to distort the figures as they apply to normal society.”

            And that’s what I’m saying – they have distorted everyone’s perception of the legal gun owners in Ireland who will actually be subjected to the new law.

            Anyway, I don’t have really have a dog in this fight. I’m absolutely pro-gun restrictions in a US context, and have no desire to ever shoot one, or be around people who have them. I’m pretty opposed to them being used for hunting purposes in the Irish bill, too. I’d just like the law to be based on facts and rational arguments rather than a kneejerk response. For once.

          3. Spartacus

            @Jungleman. For a more relevant context you may wish to examine the stuation re gun ownership in Switzerland (rather than the US), and gun crime there involving both legally held and illegally held firearms. Hint: You won’t like the answers.

            Later, please list all murders committed in Ireland where legally held firearms were a factor. Hint: You won’t get blisters on your typing finger.

          4. jungleman

            Every member of society has a dog in the fight actually. I’m in favour of a complete ban on private ownership of guns for recreational use. Obviously Ireland is not in the dire situation that the US finds itself in. But it is not a stretch to imagine that this Dennehy guy is an admirer of their 2nd Amendment.

            As regards the facts, it is clear that an increase in guns leads to an increase in the chances of gun-related deaths.

          5. jungleman

            Any murder, attempted murder, manslaughter with a legally held firearm is one incident too many in my opinion.

          6. jungleman

            I’m sure there are facts to back up what I say above. But sometimes common sense is enough. Are you a gun enthusiast by any chance? Seeing as I have willingly declared that I favour a complete ban on private ownership.

          7. Spartacus

            You present your (presumably honestly held) beliefs as unsubtantiated “facts”, and *I* am called upon to justify any views I may hold?

            You haven’t really thought this through, have you?

          8. jungleman

            Are you a gun enthusiast? It is a simple yes or no answer. I’m looking through the stats now and it takes a little bit longer than it does for you to answer my simple question.

          9. Spartacus

            Since I have no idea what *you* mean by the term “gun enthusiast” I couldn’t answer your question even if I felt my personal views were in any way a factor in this debate. I won’t be drawn into making this about me, so please hurry back with your research.

          10. jungleman

            You won’t be drawn on the question because it will weaken any further argument on your part. Freddy below was happy to clarify that he is a gun enthusiast, as is Mark Dennehy. You are arguing with me over the ethics of private gun ownership but are refusing to clarify whether you are biased one way or the other.

          11. Mark Dennehy

            To answer you jungleman, I’m not a gun enthusiast. I’m a target shooting enthusiast. It’s like liking golf without having a fetish for golf clubs.

            And no, I’m not a fan of the second amendment. I don’t think it’d work here. And nobody’s ever really called for it to be brought in here.

            Have you any actual arguments to make or did you just want to troll?

          12. Mark Dennehy

            I think you don’t actually know what it does in the US jungleman. I think you think it gives everyone there a right to have firearms.

            Sorry, but that’s not what that bit of law does. It gives the federal government the power to limit what they consider to be a preexisting right. If you deleted the second amendment, you’d undermine every piece of regulation they have to control firearms there. Walmart could be selling machine guns the next morning if you did that.

            But here, it wouldn’t work, it’s not compatible with our system of law or the way our sports are set up. And we don’t allow the ownership of firearms for personal protection, but that’s a huge thing in the US. It just wouldn’t work here.

    2. omegapi

      In comparison to the Well trained Garda who h left it and have had stolen in a house burglary their duty sidearm that they kept safely tucked under their BED PILLOW!Or the retired Garda who had the keys to the station armoury THREE weeks after he retired,and used his own personal full auto UZI to end it all downstairs in the stations jacks!Good job he didnt fancy a Mc Donalds before hand.
      But lets not pick on the Gaurds
      …the Elite SO19 in the UK are known for driving off and leaving their full auto machine pistols on the squad car roof… So your point being????

        1. omegapi

          I’m not mocking it Stilwater.I’m pointing out that this much vaunted trained police officers and army should only have guns as they know what they are doing with them arguement doesnt work in reality.They are fallabile and human too,and if they want to be preaching to us about how dangerous they are they should get their own houses in order too.

    3. wexformdman

      So, your saying that 25% of firearms licensees are gibshjtes ? Any figures to back that up, I mean with let’s say 25,000 gobshyes with firearms in the country, there must be some huge safety issue, accidents all over the place and stuff like that.

  9. freddy

    i’m a gun owner and a land owner, to licence a firearm to use on my own property to control pests and vermin as well as shoot game , i have to provide 2 referees to vouch for my character , i have to provide my medical practitioners details , i also have to have a secure approved gun cabinet installed in my house and by choice i have a monitored alarm .
    why am i labelled a ‘gun nut’ and construed by some as a danger to society i don’t walk about in cammo with a bandanna round my head lol , i shoot with lawyers, judges ,butchers bakers and candle stick makers ,bus drivers and school teachers in other words people from all backgrounds and walks of life, the one thing we have in common is that we have all had to provide the same level of information and personal details to AGS
    jungleman why would you wish to ban firearms from recreational users please elaborate

    1. jungleman

      The same argument was debunked further up by Mikeyfax: “Your faith in all other licensed firearms owners *may* show some naivety, no? Not possible?”

      I am sure you honestly believe you are perfectly safe to own a gun. The reality is that it is not a necessity for you to own one and guns are lethal weapons. You can spin it whatever way you like but it does not change the fact that guns are lethal weapons. What happens if your house is robbed and gun stolen? It is now an illegally held firearm which may be used in crime. What if you or some other decent gun owner has guests over, perhaps with children, and these guests come across the gun and proceed to injure themselves with the gun. There are many factors to take into account other than your personal suitability to own a gun for the purposes of an unnecessary hobby. There are other ways of dealing with vermin.

      1. John

        He already stated he has an approved gun safe and a monitored alarm which would negate the risk of guests and burglars being a problem.
        Your use of the term “gun nuts” is highly offensive. Do you call people who play golf “golf nuts” ?
        And yes I am a firearms owner. And like every other license holder in the country I have been Garda approved not just once but every time my licences are up for renewal. I have also surrendered my confidential medical records to AGS.
        I’m a target shooter and my firearms come out of a gun safe a couple of times a week to be used at an authorised range and then they go right back in.
        I don’t sit around at home stroking them while reading the latest issue of “Guns & Ammo” ffs.

      2. wexformdman


        What happens if your car is stolen and the their uses it for jiyriding and kills a pedestrian ? What happens if your guest brings kids with him and they tskenthe handbrake of your car and roll over a toddler ? What happens if your toddler gets under the sink and drinks detergent solution ?

        Every single on of those results in a tragic outcome, you prevent them happening by taking preventative measures, lock your car and keys away, don’t store poisons under the sink, dont leave your car unlocked for the kids to play.

        The same logic applies to pretty much every physical item in your house, if its dangerous, you lock it away or keep it in a safe place.

      3. delacaravanio

        You say that he had no necessity to own a gun, but he points out he’s a farmer. Sounds like a necessity to me.

        I’m not a fan of guns, but I recognise they serve a purpose. Try catching a fox that’s attacking chickens, or a dog that is worrying livestock. What about crows?

        You say there’s other ways to deal with vermin. There may well be, but few are more practical than a shotgun, and rarely are they more humane.

      4. funman

        What about knives? I think if someone want to commit a murder, the absence or otherwise of a suitable firearm is never a dealbreaker. People kill because they choose to do so, its not based on available weaponry.

        1. delacaravanio

          Available weaponry definitively has an impact.

          The Israeli army massively reduced (40% drop) the suicide rate amongst youths doing national service when they took their guns of them while off for the weekend: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034205

          Also having a single barrel shotgun versus a revolver means one shot or six before stopping and reloading. Makes a huge difference if on a killing spree. That guy in the Sydney cafe only had a shotgun. God help us if he had access to something more potent.

          The laws we have work: strong restrictions on availability along with strict rules and psychiatric evaluations involved in licensing. The argument is why we need to restrict them. Makes no sense to me.

          1. Spartacus

            Taking that by way of an illustration:

            A potential mass murderer takes control of a packed coffee shop, intent on killing everyone inside, he is resolved to losing his own life in the process.

            For maximum effectiveness, does he use:

            a) A revolver

            b) A shotgun

            c) $10 of unleaded and a Bic lighter?

          2. AOS

            Does that report take into consideration the mental stress, bullying in the service,fear that they suffered? or the fact that national service is a given there for everybody there. You cannot compare that to sports shooters here.
            You are right though, the laws we have here on firearms are the strictest in europe,
            If you had an understanding of ballistics I would wager he would do as much damage with his shotgun as he would with any other firearm.

          3. funman

            So Israeli soldiers are largely indolent would-be suicides. Fair enough.

            You can ban guns all you like, from spud guns and upwards, but you wont stop people who want to kill from killing. We don’t have mass killings here too often, due to the restrictive laws that we already have.

      5. Mark Dennehy

        “Debunked” implies that proof was provided.
        Being cynical isn’t the same thing as proving something.
        And when there’s a 165 year history of a sport in a country without the kind of thing you’re saying is unavoidable, I think the onus is on you to provide proof.

  10. freddy

    but that argument could be made about a drawer full of screwdrivers in my garage the axe or slashook or the bottle of bleach or drain cleaner under the sink or any one of a myriad of devices that could if in the wrong hands cause injury or death
    just because an item can cause harm is no reason to ban it that is small minded and ill thought out
    if every legally held gun was removed from irish society in the morning there would still be gun crime on the streets if criminals can smuggle in kilos of heroin/cocaine and bales of cananabis a few pistols is easy for them

        1. John

          Why don’ t you shout about banning archery as your at it ? Surely bows and arrows were originally designed to kill be it animals or humans ?

        2. Mark Dennehy

          Really?? Because mine were specifically designed to compete in the Olympics and I don’t think you could kill someone with them. Unless, as I said above, you held them down and beat them to death with them. So basically, my firearms are as dangerous as a rolling pin.

      1. Spartacus

        Some guns were designed for use as weapons – they are comprehensively prohibited. Some guns (some shotguns, some rifles) are designed for hunting, they are very tightly controlled at present. Many other guns (including some shotguns and some rifles) are totally unsuitable for hunting, and they too are very tightly controlled at present, even though you’d be better equipped with a rock if you were of a mind to kill anything other than a very small slow-moving mammal.

        Your hyperbole isn’t going to help you to convince anyone to your point of view.

  11. freddy

    no it’s not there are thousands of target shooters on this island who would have no interest in shooting anything other than pieces of paper or clay pigeons would you deprive them of their sport and pastime too ?How about the lads and lassies that represent their country on an international level in olympic shooting sports
    where do you personally draw the line between what is acceptable to own and what is a lethal instrument , a knife?? how big ?how long a blade? a hurl? a golf club? how about a javelin ????yes guns can kill but so can nearly anything in the wrong hands

    1. AOS

      Really? or are you just one of those individuals who doesn’t like the fact that there are people with different views than you? You don’t like firearms, you are quiet obnoxious in your opinion to those of us who enjoy target shooting, You are one of those people that everyone throws their eyes to the heavens the minute you open your mouth.

    2. freddy

      jungleman you haven’t attempted to reply to any of my questions or are you too orwellian to put your case across
      there are over 100,000afaik licensed firearm owners in this country would you really deny all those people a pastime they love and enjoy just because you feel firearms are ‘unacceptable’ would you decide at the stroke of a pen that our property becomes illegal and valueless and confined to the furnace or irish sea would you demand i give up a family heirloom that has passed through 3 generations of my family to see it destroyed
      i await your reply

      1. jungleman

        I would happily ban individual private ownership of recreational firearms. There would of course be an allowance for retaining possession once the weapon has been decommissioned. Also there would be provision for recreational use of firearms at licensed safe zones where the firearms would be dispensed for the designated recreation period. So you can still have your fun but you don’t get to bring the weapon home with you.

        As regards farmers, I believe in most cases their gun ownership falls into a different “functional” category and should have less restriction. But I do not consider that shooting vermin is a good enough reason to have a gun on a farm.

        The argument that knives and detergents are just as dangerous is a red herring, considering these items have other intended uses whereas guns are designed to kill.

          1. jungleman

            I addressed Freddy’s questions in an honest and frank manner. I was not trolling in the slightest. In my opinion, what I suggest above is rather reasonable. You disagree of course but then again I have seen you on here in the past trying to argue that tighter gun laws will not save lives.

        1. freddy

          so you’d have my 4k+heirloom firearm turned into a worthless piece of scrap would you, that’s very kind and generous of you, to add insult to injury you’d leave me no way to deal with grey crows and magpies that take the eyes and tongues from our lambs at lambing time
          pray tell what you consider is a ‘functional’ category that would allow me to retain my firearms

          1. jungleman

            When I say vermin I am talking about rodents, rather than any wider meaning. So you would qualify as having a functional use for a firearm.

        2. omegapi

          “Also there would be provision for recreational use of firearms at licensed safe zones where the firearms would be dispensed for the designated recreation period. So you can still have your fun but you don’t get to bring the weapon home with you.”

          They are called shooting ranges belive it or not jingleman.Right so your brilliant plan is keep all the guns in one area for any determined criminal gang or terrorist group to go and help themselves.. Genius!!

          “As regards farmers, I believe in most cases their gun ownership falls into a different “functional” category and should have less restriction. But I do not consider that shooting vermin is a good enough reason to have a gun on a farm.”

          Didn’t think this out too much did you??Or read the contradiction in your statement?
          Shooting vermin is 99.9% reasons farmers have firearms that is their main function on a farm.So what other reason would you accept for your” functional category?”

          “The argument that knives and detergents are just as dangerous is a red herring, considering these items have other intended uses whereas guns are designed to kill.”

          Another strawman…Knives in various shapes or forms have been killing people long before guns were ever invented and you are more likely to be stabbed to death here than shot anyday of the week.Dont say that is a better option as it most certainly is not and a skilled blades man will injure or kill more people in a crowd than a person with a handgun could ever do in a quicker period of time..As have poisions, be it bleach or arsenic.try and get over the simplistic idea of blaming inanimate objects,and blame the person and their intent for the use or misuse of the object

  12. seaniefitsuckle

    What if a person licensed and trained with a firearm just happened to have been at the schools in Scotland or Pakistan ? Its not as simple as I’m reading here .

    1. Mark Dennehy

      What would they have done? Pretty much the same thing the teachers did.
      You’re thinking we train for combat and to shoot people. We don’t. We take part in a sport, same as every GAA, soccer and rugby player, same as every golfer and sailor. Our sport just looks different to you.

    2. omegapi

      They might have had a chance in a Dunblane situation against one or four gunmen.The evil ol Israelis have had since the 1970s under cover armed teachers and parents or personel knocking about their schools since the PLO did a few school yard shootings.Six dead PLO freedom fighters later,the PLO gave up on those soft targets and went back to human bombing busses.
      But the Pakistan atrocity was a full scale military RAID involving over an estimated twenty plus gun men and six human bombs.Unless they were well dug in and prepared for this to happen and were expecting this.You would have needed a tooled up army battalion to stop this.

        1. freddy

          you don’t have a clue about what happens on a sheep farm do you? in the last 5 years we have had 3 attacks by stray dogs that were shot in the act of killing pregnant sheep .
          every year we have newborn lambs blinded and maimed by corvids again the gun is the best option it allows the exact culprits to be accounted for .Rodents would be way down the list of predators that cause problems
          what options would you leave me
          you still have dodged the issue of valuable firearms becoming instantly valueless , as mentioned earlier there are 100,000 firearm owners in the state with 160,000 ish firearms most of those would be worth in the region of 1k a piece average

  13. jungleman


    Just had a quick read of the comments in the above post and realised I am completely wasting my time trying to argue with you, Mark Dennehy. You’re basically a broken record who will never ever accept that gun culture has anything to do with mass shootings. It’s rather disconcerting to see educated people like yourself can have such a warped view of the world. I realise you and your ilk are not part of the solution to gun crime, but rather part of the problem and so I am done with this thread.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      So you think that the gun crime problem in Ireland, which the Gardai have said time and again stems from the drug gangs and their ilk, is actually down to licenced firearms owners; and the Gardai aren’t looking up those owners’ addresses in PULSE and going out and arresting them en masse because… Reasons?

    2. wexformdman

      White flag of surrender from jungleman who has realised that he has no credible argument. Well doneto mark et all for putting together such a Stein and sensible argument

  14. freddy

    we are all against gun crime, the trouble is you and your ilk link legally held and legally used firearms kept for sporting purposes with the scum that roam our towns and cities using illegally held firearms to commit gangland hits and maimings we are not as you put it part of the problem we are carefully screened and licensed owners of firearms who just because we own and use them are targeted and used by politicians as vote winning election tools , when we are bracketed with child murders and terrorists you wonder why we stand up and comment with outrage

  15. Spaghetti Hoop

    I have a legally-held gun for sporting use. Even if / when I was faced with an intruder, I wouldn’t have time to unleash the rifle from the cabinet. But if the scum-bags know you have one……

  16. El Friendo

    Hey Mark……just because you keep putting the word “Olympic” into your correspondence as many times as possible doesn’t make your point any more valid. It doesn’t really impress people when it comes to this topic.

    Plus, any chance you might teach your two year-old to take up a different hobby? Something that doesn’t involve deadly weapons that were conceived of, and built in order to kill would be good. Or maybe, like the more dickheaded Americans, you think it’s his birth right to be able to operate these killing implements?

    Reading your letters has actually persuaded me to support the other side. Soz.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      For a sport that uses ” deadly weapons that were conceived of, and built in order to kill”, we seem to be doing quite badly, given that in 160 years of operation in Ireland we’ve never actually killed anyone and that in the average GAA football match you get more injuries – and more serious ones at that – than we’ve seen in over a century…

    2. wexformdman

      El friendo,

      Are you opposed to archery also, seeing as the only case you are putting forward is that the implement in question was origionally conceived to kill animals or humans ?

Comments are closed.