Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Statement from NASRPC
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Except that they've been pushing the public safety line since 1924.It still makes sense if the consultation was due, anyway and they latched on to what was said by the judge at a later stage.
It's not exactly a well-kept secret that the AGS range in opinion on a spectrum from "So long as it's very safe and strictly controlled, we tolerate private firearms ownership for a small group of the public for specific purposes and in places we know about" to "No. And what was your name again so I can inform C3?". And it's been that way for a long time.
Probably "oh, the EU's saying what we've been saying in public for years" or something like that. From the first public FCP conference six years ago for example:They were hell-bent on the idea that firearms could be stolen up until that point, but I'm sure they saw the document from the EU Commission also. Who knows what they thought of that. Probably a combination of things.Then the Firearms Safety talk, and this was probably the least well received (though again, noone shouted or booed
). The presenter was from the National Crime Prevention Unit, who issue guidelines as advice to supers (they do not issue standards or rules, only advice as the super is the persona designata).
I think his initial statement, repeated a few times through the talk, that firearms are designed to kill didn't endear him to anyone. That was cited as the need to have controls in place.
The bulk of the responsibility for safety falls on the licenced firearms holder and while the vast majority are responsible, there are a minority of exceptions who create the need for controls.
There are four main threats to safety -
Accidental Shootings: Mostly these are caused by people leaving firearms accessible to non-shooters who pick them up and "play" with them and have accidental discharges as a result. This happens regardless of the background of the non-shooter involved.
Acts of Passion: Described as a row in a domestic situation where the protagonists would pick up a knife and stab their spouse - and if a firearm was easily accessible would use that as well.
Suicides - About 30 per year, and while it's not possible to prevent a determined person from committing suicide, the twin points were made that (1) it's usually not the licencee who commits suicide, and (2) in some cases it's the 18-year-old filled with angst over breaking up with his girl who shoots himself, whereas if he hadn't, he'd have been fine the next morning.
(As we put it to each other over coffee, the reason we've not been granted licences for our .375H&H rifles is that we might have been devestated when our teenage girlfriends leave us for younger men and might have shot ourselves, and therefore the Gardai are really just telling us that they love and treasure us by refusing certificates)
Burglary & Theft - ~350 cases per year, ~30 of which are from cars. Stolen guns are used in crime. Cabinets are only rarely broken into, most thefts are from outside the cabinet.
In the case of Driving, we have controls - licencing, insurance, roadworthyness checks, the rules of the road. We need similar controls for shooting, but only because of a careless minority.
...
(Like I said, not the most well-received of talks, it was met with a measured but polite silence)
Two bad, one that didn't count (neutral) and PQs coming at the worst possible time (when the Minister is under severe political pressure and needs a distraction).So we've had 2 bad media articles and one neutral on this so far.
It feels to me like someone's playing amateur hour with the politics of this to be honest. And that usually ends up with us getting it in the fork as a result.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Supplemental mod note - For the record, the current legal ruling on copyright is that anything quoting 11 words or more - including the headline itself can violate copyright. The problem is that Minister Sherlock's ridiculous SI has left all this up to the courts so nobody properly knows where they stand in regard to the copyright line until someone steps over it and someone else sues (and if you think the NNI haven't been taking a stonking great interest in all of this, read this and weep).
So if you do see an article of interest, give the http:// link to it and talk about it, but you can't quote it directly.
Sorry, but this one's not something we get a say in
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,541 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 12240
So if you do see an article of interest, give the http:// link to it and talk about it, but you can't quote it directly.
Ok, here you go:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1385075.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_03_08Sorry, but this one's not something we get a say in
Understood.0
Advertisement