Article in Star on Sunday yesterday

MaxForce

Hi All,
There was an article in Star Sunday yesterday in relation to the young girl getting shot in the eye by an airsoft piece of equipment. I will try and scan the main part of it tonight and post the image but it basicly showed a picture of the guns which could be either springers or gas and bottles of BB's. It also stated that they had been confiscated from the shop in question and labelled as illegal by local guards.
Regards,
MF.

o1s1n

I'm glad to hear they were confiscated from the shop. Even though they're not illegal, there should be swift action taken against anyone found selling them to minors.

Idiots are ruining our sport.

A scan of that would be excellent.

kdouglas

hmmm.... hopefully some day soon we'll see a positive article about airsoft, but i guess bad news sells better...

Quillo

If it had been a hurley, a squash ball or even something nasty like a dart, do you think the Gardai would have gone and confiscated anything....?

Always amazes me how in somecases it's the fault of a careless individual but in any case involving anything remotely gun-like it's the objects fault

kdouglas

it's all down to public perception i guess, when they hear the word gun, they panic, despite not even knowing what they are panicking for...

Hivemind187

kdouglas wrote:

it's all down to public perception i guess, when they hear the word gun, they panic, despite not even knowing what they are panicking for...

Again.

not "gun". Airsoft device.

A Gun is a firearm. We dont use firearms.

Sparks

A Gun is a firearm.

Yeesh.
A gun is an artillery piece, usually mounted on a ship or some form of self-propelled or towed platform.
A firearm is a rifle or a pistol or a shotgun.

You can't lecture someone on terminology and then mangle someone else's in the last sentence!

kdouglas

Hivemind187 wrote:

Again.

not "gun". Airsoft device.

A Gun is a firearm. We dont use firearms.

a fair point, but we have to face facts, to the masses and sensationalist media, they are guns. like it or not, your average joe is not going to look at an airsoft device and call it that, they are going to say gun.

when talking about paintball, do you say paintball device? im pretty damn sure most people would say paintball gun.

hopefully though, we can publicise the fact that while our equipment may look similar to real guns, they are not and are unable to inflict serious injury to anyone

anyway, this is off-topic and has been discussed several times in various other threads... back to the topic at hand

MaxForce: would love to see a scan of the article when you get a chance, cheers

Hivemind187

kdouglas wrote:

a fair point, but we have to face facts, to the masses and sensationalist media, they are guns. like it or not, your average joe is not going to look at an airsoft device and call it that, they are going to say gun.

when talking about paintball, do you say paintball device? im pretty damn sure most people would say paintball gun.

hopefully though, we can publicize the fact that while our equipment may look similar to real guns, they are not and are unable to inflict serious injury to anyone

Actually the Paintball players refer to it as a "Paintball Marker".

As for changing the way people view our equipment it has to start somewhere. If it doesnt stat with us, then where, exactly, will it start? You made the arguement yourself, it wont start with the general public.

copacetic

just as an outsider who clicked in from front page, when you guys say airsoft, do you mean the same thing as what most people call a pellet gun or bb gun?

Can't see that changing in a hurry, have heard pellet gun or air gun for 20 years
but airsoft is a new one on me from this thread.

Hivemind187

daveym wrote:

just as an outsider who clicked in from front page, when you guys say airsoft, do you mean the same thing as what most people call a pellet gun or bb gun?

Can't see that changing in a hurry, have heard pellet gun or air gun for 20 years
but airsoft is a new one on me from this thread.

Airsoft, as we use it, refers to devices that appear to be replica firearms (usually the more well know pistols, assault rifles and other long arms). The devices we use operate with a power at or below 1joule of muzzle energy and use a 6mm plastic round that weighs 0.2grams.

Unlike pellet guns, some of which use metal rounds or airguns (some of which use CO2 to achieve far higher muzzle energies) which could potentially cause harm and are considered firearms under the law, Airsoft devices are used for sporting competition much like Paintball markers (which again operate at much higher muzzle energy of 4-5 joules and up).

The distinction needs to be made because these are no more a gun than the ratchet M16's and AK47's we all played with as children.

Hope that answers your question.

MaxForce

daveym wrote:

just as an outsider who clicked in from front page, when you guys say airsoft, do you mean the same thing as what most people call a pellet gun or bb gun?

Can't see that changing in a hurry, have heard pellet gun or air gun for 20 years
but airsoft is a new one on me from this thread.

Pellet gun or air gun is commonly used to describe a wepon as described under law that fires a metal projectile over 1 joule. Airsoft on the other hand fires a plastic BB at a force of upto 1j there for is not classed as firearm.

copacetic

aha! cheers, wasn't sure if they were the same thing or not..

MaxForce

There was also a picture of the young girl and her mother and the headline read "One brave girl's battle to save her sight"

If any one wants the actual scanned image I will forward them to you zipped just PM me.

MaxForce

Hivemind187 wrote:

Airsoft, as we use it, refers to devices that appear to be replica firearms (usually the more well know pistols, assault rifles and other long arms). The devices we use operate with a power at or below 1joule of muzzle energy and use a 6mm plastic round that weighs 0.2grams.

Unlike pellet guns, some of which use metal rounds or airguns (some of which use CO2 to achieve far higher muzzle energies) which could potentially cause harm and are considered firearms under the law, Airsoft devices are used for sporting competition much like Paintball markers (which again operate at much higher muzzle energy of 4-5 joules and up).

The distinction needs to be made because these are no more a gun than the ratchet M16's and AK47's we all played with as children.

Hope that answers your question.

Rounds used are commonly .20g but they can also be .12g and .25g. Also there are airsoft available that use CO2 as a propellent and would not fire much higher then the 1j limit. A CO2 mag can be purchased for the HFC M92F GBB which would normaly use green gas but with the CO2 mag will shoot up to about 360 fps.

MaxForce

Hivemind187 wrote:

Again.

not "gun". Airsoft device.

A Gun is a firearm. We dont use firearms.

I think he was quoting it from the paper. They used the term gun a lot but we all know to just refer to them as airsoft or equipment.

kdouglas

Hivemind187 wrote:

Actually the Paintball players refer to it as a "Paintball Marker".

good point, forgot about paintball markers...

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for changing the way people view our equipment it has to start somewhere. If it doesnt stat with us, then where, exactly, will it start? You made the arguement yourself, it wont start with the general public.

i agree with you 100% on this, and in general i try to avoid the use of the word gun, but it does tend to pop up.


MaxForce: thanks for posting that, the main thing that stands out to me in that article* is the fact that it was 4 years ago, at a time when all airsoft equipment was actually illegal

again the same issues apply here as previous press, badly informed journalism and the need to ensure that airsoft remains legal while cheap springers or any other form of airsoft is not supplied to those under 18

* aside from the horrible inaccuracies regarding the legality of airsoft equipment and the laws of physics

Hivemind187

It is very interesting to note some of the points in this article. Well spotted and good man for posting it.

Being aware of an issue is half the battle.

SpitfireIV

Bloody 'ell! I didnt realise that guy was selling them! :eek: .....but then I've never gone into that shop :rolleyes:

On the topic of 'airsoft' in the newspapers, there was a write up of various complaints inside the front cover of last weeks Carlow Nationalist regarding a story they covered the previous week I think, in which they referred to Airsoft weapons as deadly dangerous, likely to bring about the end of mankind and providing an excuse for the Americans to invade looking for 'weapons of mass destruction' (ok, that was a little exagerated, but the Nationalist gave Airsoft some bad press), so in turn they printed some e-mails from airsofters etc.

I think I may have seen one of the reply's on here. I remember reading someones e-mail to a radio station on here in which they referred to 'crappy €5 bb guns you get in Spain' and reading the similar line in the Nationalist

kdouglas

wow, im actually very surprised they published those emails, i saw some posts on here with emails that people had sent in alright... any chance you have a copy of the paper it was in?

SpitfireIV

I dont have it kdouglas sorry, I seen the blasted thing and read through them and meant to get a scan, but someone made off with the paper before I could get around to it. It was last Wednesdays issue of the Carlow Nationalist I'm nearly sure.

kdouglas

no worries, just would have liked to have a flick through it... cheers

MaxForce

kdouglas wrote:

MaxForce: thanks for posting that, the main thing that stands out to me in that article* is the fact that it was 4 years ago, at a time when all airsoft equipment was actually illegal

* aside from the horrible inaccuracies regarding the legality of airsoft equipment and the laws of physics

Yeah the incident did occour 4 years ago but the reporter approching the shop and the response from the guards I think was more recent.

Dave!

The Star really is a disgusting paper. "Lethal weapons"

ugh, makes me so angry that they're allowed to print that sh*te.

extremetaz

it's all b*ll*x lads, don't worry about it.

papers like that are known for being sensationalist rags, nobody really puts any weight on anything they write.

on the other hand, i am glad to see that the retailer had his stock confiscated - selling airsoft toys to minors is just not on!!

extremetaz

actually, is there not some sort of regulatory body governing the media which is supposed to ensure that all reports are factual?

surely using the word lethal in association with airsoft is a prime example of bad reporting?

and in fairness, i can't imagine any eye injury sustained 4 YEARS prior to any form of surgery is actually relevant to the point at all.

it's all rubbish.

CrazyRabbit

Ban Golf! Ban Baseball! Ban Hurling! Ban them all to hell !!!!!


Deaths from other sporting equipment:

Beaten to death with a Golf club.
http://www.findmissingkids.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=204&sid=9fff403089b9e1c1e4275c81e91575e0

Beaten to death and stabbed with golf club by a 15 year old.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/national/moxley/031400_ctv.html

Beaten to death with baseball bat during fight.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/11114278/detail.html?subid=10100681

Family killed with Hurley. (site registration needed to view story)
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=483162&issue_id=4970

If anyone ever states how 'dangerous' airsoft AEG's / AEP's are, just refer them to the above links and remind them that nobody has ever been killed with an AEG / AEP.

Hivemind187

extremetaz wrote:

actually, is there not some sort of regulatory body governing the media which is supposed to ensure that all reports are factual?

surely using the word lethal in association with airsoft is a prime example of bad reporting?

and in fairness, i can't imagine any eye injury sustained 4 YEARS prior to any form of surgery is actually relevant to the point at all.

it's all rubbish.

Its called the court system.

Journo's vehemently resist governing bodies like that because of the abuse of power issues in herent to it.

The way it works is that if a paper says something like that and it is not true then you could prove in court that it is libel. If it defames you, brings you into disrepute etc then you have the right to complain.

If not then there is essentially jack sh1t you can do about it.

copacetic

Hivemind187 wrote:

Its called the court system.

Journo's vehemently resist governing bodies like that because of the abuse of power issues in herent to it.

The way it works is that if a paper says something like that and it is not true then you could prove in court that it is libel. If it defames you, brings you into disrepute etc then you have the right to complain.

If not then there is essentially jack sh1t you can do about it.

Well the new press complaints commission will be where people can complain to soon. Don't see the abuse of power you are talking about please explain? What power? It will be an independent body to investigate complaints without people having to go to court over it. It wouldn't be coming in if it wasn't for the farcical job a lot of 'journos' do.

You'll note the various papers are very careful of what they say about people they know have the money to sue them. They couldn't give a crap about your average person in the street.

Hivemind187

I am not getting into a row over the complaints commission and its merits/flaws etc nor am I going to get into verbal fisticuffs over the mores of free speach and free press in Ireland.

Incidentally the PCC is a UK organisation and it has its opponents amongst the journo comunity there as well.

copacetic

Hivemind187 wrote:

Power? I'm not going to get into the details of this but if you cant see the wood for the trees thats your own problem.

Any attempt to "control" or to "regulate" journalism is little more than another step towards a totalitarian police state. Thats EXACTLY what a press complaints commission is for, to control what we see, hear and learn.

HOWEVER, this is not the place for that particular discussion.

Ah good response, I disagree with you so I must be stupid?

There is massive public support for a PCC due to the constant lies, half truths and sensationalism printed in our national papers daily.

Journalists are now up there with lawyers and politicians as one of the most reviled professions, they didn't get there by accident.

Hivemind187

daveym wrote:

Ah good response, I disagree with you so I must be stupid?

There is massive public support for a PCC due to the constant lies, half truths and sensationalism printed in our national papers daily.

Journalists are now up there with lawyers and politicians as one of the most reviled professions, they didn't get there by accident.

Like I said, I am not going to get into a shouting match over this. And as you can plainly see I have replaced my original post BEFORE you had yours up (its called a revision).

As for whether journos are un-ethical or entirely without a code - stop blaming journalists and start looking at two places, the Murdochs and Bulesconi's who run the media and half-wits who think Jade goody is a role model and you will see why "journalists" are getting a bad rep. They arent actually Journalists, they are sensationalists.

Regardless of your personal feelings towards the quality of Journalism and reporting in ireland (which admitedly is so poor that it actually physically upsets me) there is no need or use for a PCC-like body. The beef on this forum is with a particular story that has been re-run a number of times which is damaging the credibility and public image of a sport we havent even got off the ground yet - not with journalism in general (although from many of the posts you could be forgiven for thinking that).

extremetaz

methinks we need an "off-topic" smilie...

..or in this case maybe the resultant train wreck...

copacetic

Hivemind187 wrote:

Like I said, I am not going to get into a shouting match over this. And as you can plainly see I have replaced my original post BEFORE you had yours up (its called a revision).

I can't plainly see anything, according to the timestamps you edited your post after I wrote mine..

edit: You are right the PCC is english, I thought that;s what we were calling ours too but apparently it will be PC.

We have gone off topic but I am sure some users on here would use the Press Council to complain about stories
like the above but are hardly going to go to court over them.

Dave!

The beef on this forum is with a particular newspaper (in fact more than one) reporting completely misleading and patently FALSE information, but presenting it as fact. Having a body to which you can complain about media outlets displaying physics-defying information about airsoft does not constitute a threat to democracy.

Hivemind187

daveym wrote:

I can't plainly see anything, according to the timestamps you edited your post after I wrote mine..

Troll elsewhere.

copacetic

Hivemind187 wrote:

Troll elsewhere.

how is stating that 16.57 is before 17.03 a troll?

N.O.I.P.

Far be it for me to act as mod but would you two mind taking your petty little argument elsewhere, I'm pretty sure the title of this thread wasn't watch Hivemind and davym try to verbally bitch-slap eachother.

Cheers

o1s1n

N.O.I.P. wrote:

Far be it for me to act as mod but would you two mind taking your petty little argument elsewhere, I'm pretty sure the title of this thread wasn't watch Hivemind and davym try to verbally bitch-slap eachother.

Cheers

What he said.

Hivemind187

DaveMcG wrote:

The beef on this forum is with a particular newspaper (in fact more than one) reporting completely misleading and patently FALSE information, but presenting it as fact. Having a body to which you can complain about media outlets displaying physics-defying information about airsoft does not constitute a threat to democracy.

You are missing the point. Any organised group that seeks to impose judgement on what can and cannot be said is inherently and by its nature antagonistic to freedom of speach. We have laws covering libel and slander, we dont need a pseudo-independant body to nanny the media. Its only a stones throw from that to Goebels (Goering?) and his mob.

And the information in the Star is not "patently false", the accustations of the items being illegal were quotations which is not a statement of fact but rather of opinion and as such is not covered by the libel laws, but by those of slander. Whether the piece itself was slanted or not is unfortunately a matter of opinion.

I didnt read the Nationlists article for myself but where claims about legality and the damage that BB's can do are made I would assume that they are quotations of a individual and not a statement by the paper. if they are then that paper has an obligation to set the record straight and print a statment indicating that the information was incorrect or misleading.

The rules of what you can and cant print are stringent enough (even if they are flouted) but seeking to control them even more is oppression.

Hivemind187

oh and that time thing was my bad.

I clicked again when I shouldnt have.

Dave!

Didn't realise those claims were quotes, gotta love unnamed Garda sources!

Still not sure I agree with you about media being allowed to report whatever they want, but it's for another day.

o1s1n

Less of the overall implications of media censorship, more about the article at hand please. It's starting to turn into a pro/con argument. Which is not what this thread is about.

Rags will always print articles of this nature. It is just up to us to try and inform the public that they are not true facts. A hard task, but an important one.

Harekin

Can I just point out that regardless of the argument at hand, it is EXTREMELY uncool to edit a post after someone has replied to it...hence why most forums take away the edit option after a few minutes have gone by or someone replies.

Just out of courtesy guys please dont edit posts to make yourself look better after you've posted them. I got banned for a month and still never edited my posts to deny what I said. I said something stupid, think about it first time before you click the "Post Quick Reply" button, dont edit it afterwards.

kdouglas

i think in this case with the time being so close that the reply may have been submitted while the post was being edited? but i agree with what you said, edit should be used if you have an extra something to add that you didnt think of or if you wanna correct a typo, not change your entire post

CrazyRabbit

DaveMcG wrote:

Didn't realise those claims were quotes, gotta love unnamed Garda sources!

Still not sure I agree with you about media being allowed to report whatever they want, but it's for another day.

Seems that at least some of the complaints need to be aimed at the gardai in this case, and not the newspaper. Can't blame the newspaper if they are simply quoting what should be a reliable source.