Publicity in shooting sports

Sparks

I'm copying out these two posts from the examiner editorial thread because I think this is an important topic to look at on it's own...

bunny shooter wrote: »

The constant reference by the Gardai to Olympic standards and comps and firearms is what cheeses me off :mad:
It's as if there is no other type of shooting.

Ever seen a report in the public domain on a practical shooting match that had names and photos and pushed the sport actively, creating sporting figureheads to point at and follow? No, not until very, very recently (as in, this month). For years, several people in olympic shooting were doing just that, however, and it made it into the papers and the radio and the television, giving shooting the only positive coverage it was getting at the time. And that image stuck - so now you have gardai saying that some shooting is better than others, rather than what you had before, which was gardai saying all shooting was bad. It's progress. It's not done yet. And when practical and silhouette (who to be fair did push as well but seem to have died back now) and gallery and all the other disciplines start putting in years of focussed effort into PR and their shooters start buying into it and agreeing to be photographed and written about, then we'll see further progress.

But it's incredibly unfair to say the olympic people did something wrong. We did what we were supposed to do as the olympic NGBs, and we broke our backs doing it, and every other discipline benefitted from our work as well. Which is how it should be. Just because I do something for my discipline, does not mean that thing will only benefit my discipline. For example, the pistols case has benefitted olympic shooting enormously, but it wasn't taken by an olympic shooter.

bunny shooter

Publicity. We've been told to stay away from it.

My local gun clubs have for years published a list of members names, and names only in the local papers prior to the shooting season so farmers would have an idea who was in the club and had relevant insurance cover. Approx 2 x years ago a Garda request came via NARGC to ask clubs to cease this activity as criminals were robbing certain houses as they knew they held guns.

I would never allow myself to be photographed and it to be used in a public forum or magazine, newspaper as I am publicising to criminals that I have guns and maybe even what type. Even at comp's in Midlands we are given the option not to have our full name mention in results published in public places.

This is more important security than the two gun safes and monitored alarm fitted in my house. Whenever I take firearms out of my house they are ALWAYS in cases so no-body sees what I am taking out.

Sparks

Just to look at this on it's own, the publicity issue is something I've been shouting and banging my head off the wall on for years.

First off, your garda's wrong unless you're living in belfast in the 1980s. The National Crime Protection Unit's figures say 320 firearms stolen from homes a year - out of 230,000. Mostly from people who leave them lying about instead of in a gun cabinet - that's 0.1% and most of that is from those who wouldn't get a cert under the new secure storage requirements.

Secondly, I'm all for casing firearms and the usual precautions you talked about.

However - if we all lived by those rules, Derek Burnett and the other world champion clay shooters better cancel their Beijing trip now before they win a medal and risk becoming the most well-known sportsmen in Ireland for a few hours...

Thing is, you asked why the Gardai knew about olympic and not practical? The answer is the publicity. If you want the Gardai to know about your sport, you have to publicise it, it won't work any other way. And the publicity it's getting through the Examiner's coverage and the Star's coverage won't help your sport - in target shooting, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

There's a culture in Irish shooting going back to '72 which says sit down, shut up, keep quiet, don't let anyone know what you do.

And if we don't knock that culture on the head, it'll knock our sport on its.

patbundy

i can see your point sparks but i can see bunnys point too.its going to take a very big leap to go down that road.

dresden8

There are shooters who live in less than kosher areas who don't want the local scumbags knowing that there are guns there for the taking.

That's a failing of the garda, not the shooters.

Edit. Actually that's probably a little unfair, it's the governments fault.

Bananaman

On the question of peoples names AND ADDRESSES being put in the public domain in relation to court cases involving firearms licensing.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that practice. I would hope that, in future, the courts would require that the names and addresses of those individuals not be allowed to be published as part of the court report.

If someone enters a public competition and wins it by all mean their name and the name of their club should be published if they wish it to be.

In IPSC every competitor has an Alias which they can choose when the join (and can never change). If you see "FrJack" winning Irelands first presidents medal - it's me!!!! All publicly quoted information, such as your world ranking, is published with your alias.

If the individual, their club or indeed country wish to publish their actual name that is their perogative.

I just have a REAL problem with peoples addresses, even the name of their town, which in rural areas amounts to the same thing, being published in relation to news regarding firearms - unless of course it is in relation to firearms offences which is not relevant to the topic.

B'Man

patbundy

dresden8 wrote: »

There are shooters who live in less than kosher areas who don't want the local scumbags knowing that there are guns there for the taking.

That's a failing of the garda, not the shooters.

Edit. Actually that's probably a little unfair, it's the governments fault.

thats is why we dont want pr sparks

jwshooter

patbundy wrote: »

thats is why we dont want pr sparks

sure were the nargc not looking for all our particulars a few years ago .amount of firearms what kind ,what we work at etc .i was at the meeting in enniscorthy the night they came out with it ,no way dano were they getting mine .what if this data base was nicked were all f....ed

IRLConor

There's a difference between names and addresses in a court judgement and names and photos in a match report or publicity piece.

My name and my photo have been published here and several other places in connection with shooting. My address is not available to the public though and neither are details of how and where I store the firearm I use.

There's a balance to be struck. It's possible to be more publicly visible without compromising your security.

dresden8

Over the years when I lived in Finglas my celubrious neighbours included a rapist, a bank robber, a murderer, an IRA arms dump and numerous car thieves and petty robbers. We had junkies calling to the door trying to sell us stuff that they had nicked. That's out of approximately 16 houses on my road

Yeah, I should let them know I had guns.

Our man in Havana

I wholeheartedly disagree with that practice. I would hope that, in future, the courts would require that the names and addresses of those individuals not be allowed to be published as part of the court report.

I agree 100% with you. Judges can direct that names and addresses not be published. As well as not publishing the names and addresses, firearm licencing appeals should be heard on days other than the day of the criminal courts. That way there won't be scrotes in court absorbing the info. Maybe a more drastic measure would be for such appeals to be heard in camera.

Sparks

Bundy, sure it's a big leap. Olympic shooting took it. The rewards are self-evident. When people hide their identities, even if for reasons they believe to be utterly correct, the average Joe Q Public just sees it as suspicious. We've seen this time, and time, and time, and time, and time again.

For the record, by the way, if you really believe noone knows who you are or what you do, you're 99% certain to be wrong...


Banana, if you get the first president's medal, do you really want to be interviewed on the late late show about your achievement with your face pixellated and your voice disguised?

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

Maybe a more drastic measure would be for such appeals to be heard in camera.

District court hearings can't be in camera, according to Superintendent Noel Clarke at the FCP conference on thursday, who was pointing out that going to the DC entails everything hitting the public domain...

Our man in Havana

Family law is always in camera including district courts. As said the judge can direct the media not to report the names and addresses.

Sparks

Don't shoot the messanger, if you'll pardon the pun Bond.

IRLConor

IRLConor wrote: »

My name and my photo have been published here and several other places in connection with shooting.

And I might add, I and many members of both DURC and UCDRC have often been seen in public wearing hoodies or jackets with the names of the clubs in big letters on the back. Short of a few odd looks nothing has come of it.

Sparks

Actually, we've picked up a fair few new shooters that way.

Bananaman

I doubt if anyone has a problem with their name or the name of their club being made public. It's their address that is the problem as in the case of the Tuam court case.

In terms of peoples images. Again, I think it is up to the individual and will probably depend on the publication.

For example when you enter an IPSA shoot you stipulate whether or not you will allow your image to be used in publicity so you have the ability to opt out if you feel your security may be compromised.

I'd have no problem with my image being displayed, in relation to a shooting competition, in the Irish Shooters Digest. I would be concerned, however, if my image was to be displayed, in relation to anything to do with shooting sports, in the Sunday World.

B'Man

patbundy

na spark i wont shoot,i really do see where your coming from.all sports need pr but and a very big but.....we must protect our firearm first

bigred

I'm kinda caught between a rock and a hard place here. I shoot olympic stuff, yet, wouldnt dare tell any of my neighbours (my area is nice BTW, no real scumbags around). My reason for not telling is not security, it's the 'oh dear, scary man with gun(s) - might go nuts and shoot our precious children or fifi the cat. My child isn't allowed to play with your daughter in a house full of guns'.
As for security, if someone wants to rob you, they will. What's to stop a couple of bogeys from sitting in the Hilltop carpark and following someone home? As for names/faces in the papers I believe the risk to be small. I hope to represent Ireland this year, and would be quite happy with my name and town published. As for a photo, why not?

And finally I have one more question.. how many people who's name/photo/general details appeared in the paper in relation to olympic shooting have actually been targetted with the intent of stealing firearms? I think I know the answer already, but Sparks surely has the exact figures. In fact, or the couple of hundred thefts of firearms that we have, how many were sitting under a bed, or in the safe with the key in the lock?

Bananaman

What's to stop a couple of bogeys from sitting in the Hilltop carpark and following someone home?

Only limited by your imagination.

I have an image in my head of a millwheel, with a bogey strapped to either side of it, rolling down the hill into newtown.

B'Man

Bananaman

how many people who's name/photo/general details appeared in the paper in relation to olympic shooting have actually been targetted with the intent of stealing firearms?

In fairness - this was about peoples addresses being put in the public domain in relation to Firearms - I'm sure Sparks knows some stats on that one too.

If you live in Dublin, Cork or Galway and you picture appears in the local paper saying you won a medal for shooting, odds are nobody who knows you will see it unless you tell them.

If you live in a Rural area or small town and your picture appears in the paper for winning a medal in shooting. EVERYONE in the town will know it before you do.

Nobody has to be robbed to prove this is a bad idea.

Remember that when you get a license you accept a duty of care to keep that firearm out of the hands of those who should not have it.

Allowing the location of the storage of that firearm to become general knowledge, regardless of how you did it, is a dereliction of that duty.

In the case in point, a Court, who should know better, has put this information in the public domain.

B'Man

rrpc

This thread is about publicity B'Man, the other one was about the court case and matters arising. I certainly agree that court reports should not include the addresses of the litigants, especially as it's the local papers that pick this up first.

On the publicity issue, I would feel that if we don't publicise our sport you get ill-informed specualtion, a sense of something hidden and therefore dangerous, suspicious and shameful.

Whereas if there is a steady stream of positive, open and matter of fact news and information, most people will adopt the 'well that's alright then' approach.

People will always fear the unknown.

Bananaman

I agree that publicity is a good thing - as long as it is done with the permission of anyone who is named - or shamed.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

In fairness - this was about peoples addresses being put in the public domain in relation to Firearms - I'm sure Sparks knows some stats on that one too.

Actually, I've only ever heard of one olympic shooter being targeted by criminals because they had firearms and that shooter was a firearms dealer, and he'd never been in the press so far as I know until afterwards. So far as I know, the thugs involved knew he sold firearms, not that he was a shooter himself.

If you live in a Rural area or small town and your picture appears in the paper for winning a medal in shooting. EVERYONE in the town will know it before you do.
Nobody has to be robbed to prove this is a bad idea.

I wouldn't preach it if I didn't practice it. And yes, my neighbours saw this before I did. They were round to the house that day to congratulate me. I've never had anything but positive reactions from that article. My local FO now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm serious about my sport. I got my air pistol licence inside of two or three weeks over the new year holiday as a result of that knowledge. My neighbours know what I do and as far as they're concerned, it's great that a "local" does well, it's something to be proud of.

And frankly, if I thought I had to hide away to do this sport, I'd quit and take up archery or something else where when an Irish person wins a medal, we're able to celebrate without fear.

Remember that when you get a license you accept a duty of care to keep that firearm out of the hands of those who should not have it.
Allowing the location of the storage of that firearm to become general knowledge, regardless of how you did it, is a dereliction of that duty.

That's a dangerous line of reasoning to go down though, because if the only way to keep your firearm secure is to ensure noone knows you have it, then it's very easy for someone to say you really shouldn't have one in the first place in the interests of public safety.

rrpc

You do prone rifle a bit different from everyone else Sparks, most of us lie down .

pullandbang

Nothing wrong with publicity for shooters if they've achieved something or done something worthwhile in their community. All too often we read the bad publicity in relation to guns/shooting usually accompanied by ill informed editorials (Examiner!)

The profile of the sport needs to be highlighted to promote it to the younger generation and to encourage them into it. Articles like the one in the Wicklow Times do just that. Obviously home addresses should be ommitted.

Hopefully we'll be reading plenty about Derek Burnett on his return from the Olympics:)

It wasn't me!

rrpc wrote: »

You do prone rifle a bit different from everyone else Sparks, most of us lie down .

I was going to say much the same when I saw the photo.

To be entirely honest, most of my friends would know I shoot at this stage. I don't make a secret of it; don't see the point. I know others who are very private about the fact that they shoot, and won't tell anyone unless asked, for their own reasons, and that's fair enough, but not something I want to do.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

You do prone rifle a bit different from everyone else Sparks, most of us lie down .

True, true. Still kicked your ass though

Our man in Havana

Obviously home addresses should be ommitted.

+1 Positive publicity is always good, but common sense should prevail.

WRT court cases I don't see any reason why the applicant or their legal team don't make an application to the judge to order the media not to print/report names and addresses.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

True, true. Still kicked your ass though

By five points if I remember correctly. Not entirely sure that qualifies as an ass-kicking

Sparks

Was passed on this interesting bit from the ICPSA website on briefing the media and such. Very clearly lays out the sport, the competitors and their support team. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

By five points if I remember correctly. Not entirely sure that qualifies as an ass-kicking

I'm happy enough to take 0.5 of a point these days Though now that I'm back in college, I might take the smallbore rifle back out of storage again. At least it never mangled my arm like the archery does

rrpc

pullandbang wrote: »

Nothing wrong with publicity for shooters if they've achieved something or done something worthwhile in their community. All too often we read the bad publicity in relation to guns/shooting usually accompanied by ill informed editorials (Examiner!)

The profile of the sport needs to be highlighted to promote it to the younger generation and to encourage them into it. Articles like the one in the Wicklow Times do just that. Obviously home addresses should be ommitted.

Hopefully we'll be reading plenty about Derek Burnett on his return from the Olympics:)

I wholeheartedly agree. There was an article in the Sports supplement of the Turbine recently on Derek and I thought it was a very well informed, well written, positive article.

The more of those we have, the better the imgae of the sport. I really am praying that shooting brings home a medal this year from the Olympics. The positive impact that would have would be incalculable.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I'm happy enough to take 0.5 of a point these days Though now that I'm back in college, I might take the smallbore rifle back out of storage again. At least it never mangled my arm like the archery does

Oh do please, we've kinda missed you being around for the last couple of years. Standards have improved a lot recently as well. In the last twelve months, the number exceeding 570 has gone from 31% to 45% on average and that's with an increase in numbers as well.

Good shoot in DRC yesterday, I made a horlicks of the first three series (over 30 off :eek:), but picked it up for the last three (12 off). I'm blaming it on the lack of practice at that moving around the target thingy . Weather was great and a very good turnout as well.

Grizzly 45

Folks,I'll throw my 2cents in here.

First off,the papers publishing addresses,names etc.As it is in the DC,as I suggested before try and get your legal counsel to have your application heard in the afternoon sessions,or on liscensing days.Usually a DC will try and finish off the scumbag cases and drink driving ,etc in the AM,and concentrate on the more sensitive cases in the PM.Also usually the press has sodded off to the pub or whereever,unless it is a noteworthy or intresting case that they have been tipped off on.

Second,your counsel can put in an application due to the sensevity of the case regarding your personal security and of your family that your address and possibly name be omitted from press reports of court proceedings.Any competant judge will/should agree with such an application.As should counsel for the Gardai.

Third,should it emerge that the papers will publish the report,you can apply for an injunction to prevent the article being published.Thing is;your solr needs to be a bright boy/girl who can move fast on such things.But it is doable.

There is the reverse psychology too of if somone of the scumbag class knows there is a gun in the house.Will they want to risk getting the contents of the magazine first??? Criminals are not generally known for heroics,and surely there easier ways of getting a shooter these days down in the Glass and Face bar ?

It wasn't me!

I shouldn't think, in the vast majority of cases, that in cases where firearms are stolen, that the house was targeted because firearms were known to be kept there; I'd expect that the majority of the time at least, it's very much an incidental find, a bonus for them. There are easier ways to get less easily traceable firearms for criminal purposes, so it's not worth the hassle, and I imagine they're gotten rid of the same way everything else is, not kept by the original thieves for criminal purposes.

Our man in Havana

First off,the papers publishing addresses,names etc.As it is in the DC,as I suggested before try and get your legal counsel to have your application heard in the afternoon sessions,or on liscensing days.Usually a DC will try and finish off the scumbag cases and drink driving ,etc in the AM,and concentrate on the more sensitive cases in the PM.Also usually the press has sodded off to the pub or whereever,unless it is a noteworthy or intresting case that they have been tipped off on.

Second,your counsel can put in an application due to the sensevity of the case regarding your personal security and of your family that your address and possibly name be omitted from press reports of court proceedings.Any competant judge will/should agree with such an application.As should counsel for the Gardai.

Third,should it emerge that the papers will publish the report,you can apply for an injunction to prevent the article being published.Thing is;your solr needs to be a bright boy/girl who can move fast on such things.But it is doable.

+1

Yes Grizzly 45, try and get it heard on the licensing court day (journos are not interested in pub licences) or on the civil court day. In my local DC the journos don't attend for civil cases and as said seek an adjournment to the afternoon sitting.

Sparks

An approach that goes out the window when the journalists hear a firearm is involved. "Guns sell papers" might have been the saying...

Our man in Havana

Journos won't know what is on the civil list, unless they have people inside the clerks office. Also there are ways (procedural) to keep such a case off the list until as late as possible. Also in any case an application to suppress the info should be made in any case.

Sparks

unless they have people inside the clerks office

I'd have thought that would have been a fairly basic requirement for a court reporter. Hell, if I can call up the clerk's office of the supreme court to ask about a judgement, or check the daily legal diary, then any court reporter who doesn't do that over his morning coffee isn't going to last a week.

Also, I've asked about and I'm told that there is no reason why DC cases couldn't be held in camera if the judge is willing. However, I haven't found a way to require a case to be held that way, so you're down to the whim of the judge. Mind you, most of them should be amenable - but then, I've heard horror stories from DCs over shooting cases as well. I think we may see over the next few years a situation where the "problem Superintendent" scenario evolves into the "problem District Judge" scenario

Grizzly 45

Geez Sparks,
you have fierce helpful court clerks in your neck of the woods.:D

Sorry, misread the post,thought you said DC,not Supreme court.Different planet & animals altogether.

Our DC lot will tell you nothing by phone and reluctantly so if you call in in person.Attitude is; if you are involved,you will know your date &time.If not just spend the day/week in court there to find out about it.:eek:

Good reason is personal security or threat to damage,to life&limb of you or family.Most judges will accept that,but proably wont order an in camera session,if they are up the walls.Best hope is just that the press whores are asked to depart.

Sparks

Here's the thing Grizzly - the local DC clerk won't know you, but he will know the journos.

Our man in Havana

That all depends on the DC clerk concerned.

Terrier

Two young Men granted licences for Assault pistols all over the Connaught Tribune, Galway First and the Tuam Herald this week after a Sig and Beretta Storm 9mm were granted to two men from Tuam after being dragged through the district court.. both names and address were listed of course!!:mad:

Sparks

Terrier, the coverage in the Tuam Herald at least was quite positive compared to that in the Examiner (it was posted up here in another thread), and they weren't dragged in there, they chose to go in there to appeal the Super's decision. And yes, I know, they wouldn't have chosen to do so had he not said no in the first place, but that's the nature of the beast at the moment. Calling it something else is not going to help fix things.

Grizzly 45

By rights,this is actually a job now for the press council.
Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??
Do the general unwashed need to know if somone was in court and sucessfully won a firearms liscense grant?
Child molestors have now seemingly more rights to privacy than gun liscense applicants.:(
It comes to a point where the public has a right to know vs somones saftey and privacy.

Sparks

Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??

It wasn't necessary to publish the case at all to be honest. But the level of detail in the home addresses was over the top. Names, well, if you're going to be doing this you can't reasonably expect that your name will be kept secret.
And the "right to know" versus "privacy" argument died in the 70's Grizzly. "Right to know" won the day Woodward and Bernstein heard about a few lads up in the US version of a district court on minor burglary charges.

Our man in Havana

sparks wrote:

Names, well, if you're going to be doing this you can't reasonably expect that your name will be kept secret.

I don't accept that. What will be the next thing? A list of all FAC holders will be available for viewing at your local Garda Station alongside the electoral register?

Grizzly 45 wrote:

Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??
Do the general unwashed need to know if someone was in court and successfully won a firearms license grant?

No they have no business knowing. You never see in the local rag, "Johnny Murphy granted a publicans licence" or "Ballydehob N.S. granted a lottery licence". These are applications heard at a typical DC.

In my view there needs to be a judgement on the right to know against security of the gun owner.

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

I don't accept that.

That may be; but it doesn't change the fact that your name is on the docket and the diary and as such is requestable under the FOI act, secret trials being a really bad idea.

No they have no business knowing.

To your mind, yes. To theirs, not so much. You'll need a better reason to give in court to earn you special treatment, especially given the workload of the DCs and the extra amount that in camera hearings add to it.

You never see in the local rag, "Johnny Murphy granted a publicans licence" or "Ballydehob N.S. granted a lottery licence". These are applications heard at a typical DC.

You don't see them because the public's not interested - but you do see massive amounts on Johnny's planning permission applications and the like. What's news will sell papers, so until gun licence appeals cease to be interesting (ie. when people get used to them), we'll be seeing press coverage of them.

In my view there needs to be a judgement on the right to know against security of the gun owner.

I agree in principle, but not in practise. Certain things are always going to hit the public domain. Maybe not your home address and phone number, but your name will be out there almost immediately and if it's on the docket for a DC, it's not hard to get the home address from it. So if you are going to the DC, to my mind, you'd better be prepared for all this stuff to land in the public domain because you can't get a guarantee that it won't. And complaining about how morally wrong it is won't solve the problem.

Grizzly 45

[And the "right to know" versus "privacy" argument died in the 70's Grizzly. "Right to know" won the day Woodward and Bernstein heard about a few lads up in the US version of a district court on minor burglary charges.[/quote]

Ahh.but that is the United States Sparks,with article 1 of freedom of press,expression etc.
We dont have freedom of the press enshrined in our constitution,or in a very grey ,maybe,but if way.And it looks like this is being somwhat curtailed further under the press council courtsey of mr Mc Dowel and Co getting a bit peed off about nosey journalists reporting on his son getting digged in the head. So yes this could be argued that this was intrusive reporting not in the best public intrest.