Media after shooting

Dusty87

Just listening to i105 there, and they asked the public should there be stricter gun laws here. One said we should be physcology tested before we get a gun because 'they're not water guns'. A dublin lad comes on and says his uncle has a shotgun for hunting but he can get 'handguns or anything' because he has the licence already and he can get 'any gun' because he has the licence for the shotgun. FFS, why do they put on such **** when its not true. How many people listened to that lad and now think that one you have a licence you can get any gun. Ignorance is a dangerous thing.

Sparks

To be fair Dusty, the recent Supreme Court rulings were on cases that could have been summarised by that particular mindset ("My mates have handguns, you have to give me one" and "You're not allowed say I can't do certain things if I have a licence"). If shooters with legal teams in the High and Supreme Courts are taking cases like that, then a phone-in caller's misconceptions shouldn't be enough to get us annoyed. They should be corrected, yes, but I don't think we can call them stupid...

demonloop

I've been listening to various media all day, both on TV and radio (all UK) and to be fair, no-one is really calling for any legislation change yet. In fact there has been a fair bit of highlighting of the strict UK gun laws, and a comparison to the US laws, which puts a bit of perspective on things.

This was echoed on Al-Jazeera (sp) of all places.

Thankfully the Tories, as a general rule, are less likely to jerk a knee like Blair et al, but early days yet.

Of all the conspiracy theories doing the rounds, there does seem to be weight towards a combination of a family dispute and a work dispute.

WallysWorld

It seems to be there was a falling out in the family and he snapped, killed his own twin brother it's so sad.:(

I did hear a guy on Today FM earlier who was on the scene in England describe the (.22LR) rifle he had as: "massive, a sniper rifle like something you would see in a James Bond film"

Now I'm not doubting the guy having a weapon pointed at you in anger probably clouds the rational part of your brain, I'm sure it did look massive, but, at the end of the day it was a .22lr it cant have actually been too huge.

My rather rambling point here is that shooting in general is a very low profile sport, it's not on telly, you don't see guys out in public very much carrying guns and in fact to a none shooter theres an aura of mystery around the whole subject.

People really don't have any reference point when it comes to guns except for what is portrayed in the media (which is almost always negative, but thats prob as much to do with modern journalism as anything) and what is portrayed in movies etc. (Which is to a large degree ridiculously dangerous/unrealistic/misleading I could go on here but im prob preaching to the converted!)

So its not the guys fault when he calls a .22lr a "massive sniper rifle" he just literally has nothing to compare to except for Bond films when it comes to guns.

This is kind of a problem for shooting sports in general, people have no idea about them so through no real fault of their own take their references from the only sources they have which is dangerous to shooters everywhere.

The solution? None really, which is why I've been pleasantly suprised so far at the absence of a complete knee jerk "HURR Guns Are Killing People" reaction. I hope whatever org. in the UK represents sports shooters gets some airtime when the time comes to deal with this to represent the views of the largely silent shooters out there.

RIP to the victims of this, it's just so sad.

Tackleberrywho

WallysWorld wrote: »

It seems to be there was a falling out in the family and he snapped, killed his own twin brother it's so sad.:(

I did hear a guy on Today FM earlier who was on the scene in England describe the (.22LR) rifle he had as: "massive, a sniper rifle like something you would see in a James Bond film"

Now I'm not doubting the guy having a weapon pointed at you in anger probably clouds the rational part of your brain, I'm sure it did look massive, but, at the end of the day it was a .22lr it cant have actually been too huge.

My rather rambling point here is that shooting in general is a very low profile sport, it's not on telly, you don't see guys out in public very much carrying guns and in fact to a none shooter theres an aura of mystery around the whole subject.

People really don't have any reference point when it comes to guns except for what is portrayed in the media (which is almost always negative, but thats prob as much to do with modern journalism as anything) and what is portrayed in movies etc. (Which is to a large degree ridiculously dangerous/unrealistic/misleading I could go on here but im prob preaching to the converted!)

So its not the guys fault when he calls a .22lr a "massive sniper rifle" he just literally has nothing to compare to except for Bond films when it comes to guns.

This is kind of a problem for shooting sports in general, people have no idea about them so through no real fault of their own take their references from the only sources they have which is dangerous to shooters everywhere.

The solution? None really, which is why I've been pleasantly suprised so far at the absence of a complete knee jerk "HURR Guns Are Killing People" reaction. I hope whatever org. in the UK represents sports shooters gets some airtime when the time comes to deal with this to represent the views of the largely silent shooters out there.

RIP to the victims of this, it's just so sad.

Well said Wally
You don't post often, but that was your best to date!

rowa

i thought we were ignoring this shooting , head in the sand time , didn't happen , issf .22 rifles are safe so lets not rock the boat ?

Tackleberrywho

rowa wrote: »

i thought we were ignoring this shooting , head in the sand time , didn't happen , issf .22 rifles are safe so lets not rock the boat ?

It's an emotive issue.
I hear all the guys I work with referencing "the country Muppets with guns, and not a clue"

That is their preception.
Most print media is written in the cities so the stories are tailored to suit the target audience.(no pun intended)

It is a terrible shame what happened, but the story biblical, Cain killing Able because he had something Cain wanted.....

The fact he used a rifle/shotgun is only incidental to the case. Not a major factor.
He wanted to kill the brother no matter what.
Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods.
Mr Bird did both...
The fact he used a rifle is what affects peoples preception. A man killed his entire family in westmeath some years back with a hurl amongst other things, they did not want to tighten up on Hurley control.
Get my point?

It wasn't me!

rowa wrote: »

i thought we were ignoring this shooting , head in the sand time , didn't happen , issf .22 rifles are safe so lets not rock the boat ?

I thought we were being respectful and not complaining about how this might affect us, when there are twelve people whose families were hearing about their murders last night, but that might be just me. A little perspective doesn't hurt.

rowa

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I thought we were being respectful and not complaining about how this might affect us, when there are twelve people whose families were hearing about their murders last night, but that might be just me. A little perspective doesn't hurt.

yep thats what happened after dunblane , no one wanted to talk about it and see what happened as a result.
as i type this the news is on and there is little talk of anything else but the gun laws in the uk especially on sky and the home secretary is also talking about gun laws, and i heard on the radio earlier that a doctors association in the uk are going to tell their members not to sign firearms application forms as they believe that only the police and army should have firearms.

Dusty87

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I thought we were being respectful and not complaining about how this might affect us, when there are twelve people whose families were hearing about their murders last night, but that might be just me. A little perspective doesn't hurt.

IWM, I didnt start this to bring back up about what happened. I brought it up after i heard the people being interviewed (irish people) who were asked what do they think of the gun laws here. One said because his uncle has a shotgun licence, he can get any gun (in ireland). People ignorant to the sport listening to that wil believe him, think god there should be stricter laws, and another bandwagon wil start rollin.

It wasn't me!

rowa wrote: »

yep thats what happened after dunblane , no one wanted to talk about it and see what happened as a result.
as i type this the news is on and there is little talk of anything else but the gun laws in the uk especially on sky and the home secretary is also talking about gun laws, and i heard on the radio earlier that a doctors association in the uk are going to tell their members not to sign firearms application forms as they believe that only the police and army should have firearms.

And yet nothing's happened yet, so it does no good to get shouty. This would need to be handled extraordinarily carefully, and to start moaning and complaining already is absolutely not the right way to go. What we need are shooting organisations who condemn events like this, with strength and emphasis, who will state their support for sensible controls and their consistent application, and who will emphasise the gulf between these events and legitimate shooting sports activities, all while emphasising above all else their sense of compassion and sympathy for those affected. That's a good image. Anything else is crude and unhelpful, indeed, distinctly damaging.

Dusty87 wrote: »

IWM, I didnt start this to bring back up about what happened. I brought it up after i heard the people being interviewed (irish people) who were asked what do they think of the gun laws here. One said because his uncle has a shotgun licence, he can get any gun (in ireland). People ignorant to the sport listening to that wil believe him, think god there should be stricter laws, and another bandwagon wil start rollin.

I didn't mean that as a criticism of the thread at all, Dusty. I think it highlights the important lack of information available to the public, and disinformation is one of the biggest problems in the sport.

Tackleberrywho

I didn't mean that as a criticism of the thread at all, Dusty. I think it highlights the important lack of information available to the public, and disinformation is one of the biggest problems in the sport.[/QUOTE]

I hear ya IWM.
Education is the key.

That man had to be displaying warning signs.
If problems exist between family members in Ireland, th efirst thing that happens is th eboys in blue take in the firearms.

Brothers have been killing brothers over land and property for years.
Perhaps it is the laws on inheritance at fault?

The guy had to be mentaly unbalanced to do what he did.
He need psychatric help.
Is it wrong that he had a gun, yes
IUs it worse that he felt strongly enough to take human life?

I believe that is the most important part.
Why was a Disturbed man out on the streets?

Dusty87

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Why was a Disturbed man out on the streets?

Because no one knew he was disturbed. People said he was a quiet man.
The same as people said for the man at Dunblane

Tackleberrywho

Dusty87 wrote: »

Because no one knew he was disturbed. People said he was a quiet man.
The same as people said for the man at Dunblane

The Dunblane Dude had serious issues, the problem here is society has failed.

Now Society would like to blame some one or some thing.
I've just spent the last 20 mins talking to a mate defending gun law in Ireland.

A dub born and bread asking me why that man had 2 guns, would 1 not have done him.

Then he said, could you not use 1 gun for everything?
That guy was the 7th or 8th with similar sentiments today.
Dunblane was carried out by a pedo, and Pedos are out there too. It's societys job to try and rehabilitate them.

Both these guys had deep psycholicical issues.
In Ireland a doctor has to sign you off as Safe for you NOW to have a licence.

I have no problems with this.

It is fair. What is unfair is recieving a backlash over the acts of an extreme minority.
Several Wackos have done crazy stuff in Ireland and the UK, including purchasing coffins for their families before they killed them...

There I say it again, it's society that failed....

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And yet nothing's happened yet, so it does no good to get shouty. This would need to be handled extraordinarily carefully, and to start moaning and complaining already is absolutely not the right way to go.

Yes,that was done post Dunblane,"dignified silences" were kept,and "wait to see what the outcomes of police inquirys" were the order of the day.End result?There was so much anti gun hysteria whipped up by the media whores that any rational discussion was impossible to hold or even get a word in edgewise from the pro gun side.
I'm sorry to say people,but if we insist on the Queensbury rules in a street fight we are going to get gut stomped again.If you think this is callous and not right,I suggest you start looking at Twitter ,online commentaries etc to see how quick the anti gun crowd have been off the marks.The people werent even dead 24 hours before they were out baying for gun bans.
Dont let them overrun the airwaves ,get a calm rational response in from ourside.

What we need are shooting organisations who condemn events like this, with strength and emphasis, who will state their support for sensible controls and their consistent application, and who will emphasise the gulf between these events and legitimate shooting sports activities, all while emphasising above all else their sense of compassion and sympathy for those affected. That's a good image. Anything else is crude and unhelpful, indeed, distinctly damaging.

Very much true there.But it has to be done NOW.Not wen there is too much head of steam,that we cant even get airtime that isnt loaded against us by the anti media and gun crowd.

I didn't mean that as a criticism of the thread at all, Dusty. I think it highlights the important lack of information available to the public, and disinformation is one of the biggest problems in the sport

Agreed,and on that point I think we only have ourselves to blame..

Grizzly 45

That man had to be displaying warning signs.
If problems exist between family members in Ireland, th efirst thing that happens is th eboys in blue take in the firearms.

A very hard thing to judge as a pro not to mind a normal Joe Soap.
How many times have we all used the expression here" I'll kill that little so and so." We know it is an Irish expression of punishment or simple codding around. It literally doesnt mean we are going home to take an axe to whomever.But the problem is Bird said "there is going to be a massacre..."
Was anyone going to take him seriously??A massacre of what???Unless you had a deep insight into his personal problems and home life.How was anyone going to think that was seriously meant?Are we going to become so paranoid about every comment in society that an off the cuff remark can bring the ERU to your dooor??
Careful of the "family problems" idea.I know innocent men who have lost their firearms because they were going thru a messy divorce,and the wife has claimed the husband had threatened them and the kids with the guns.Call this sexist if you want.BUT in EVERY CASE the Woman was belived by the Gardai.In one case it was so ridicilous,the guys guns had been stored in an attic for seven years,that the bolt had rusted solid on one and there were cobwebs growing on the barrels.Not everything in "family dispuites" might be what it seems.

Brothers have been killing brothers over land and property for years.
Perhaps it is the laws on inheritance at fault?

And as for as many and varying reasons too for those two items.It is more humanities drive for possessions or whatever compulsion rather than the inheritance law.

The guy had to be mentaly unbalanced to do what he did.

Was he a classic case of a nutter in the Ryan,Purdey,Harris &Kleebold,Kretschmer etc classic " wanna be Rambo gunman"
IE pre planned it down to the last detail,got the best equipment for the job and went out and did it??
Because he certainly doesnt fit the pattern of a white young male,[he was in his 50s] a loner[had plenty of mates ]unmarried[he was a grandad],social misfit[seems to have been liked in the town]
He sounds more like a "William Foster" [the chacter played by Micheal douglas in the film Falling Down].simply put,somone who modern life and society has finally pushed over the edge.

He need psychatric help.
Is it wrong that he had a gun, yes

Maybe we should also ask ..why did a hospital refuse him admittance two days ago,when he wanted to check himself in for help in some shape??
That he had a gun was wrong,but was he disturbed when he was liscensed??Life can change for all of us within days,not to mind 5 years of a cert in the UK.Maybe we should be thinking "There but for the grace of God go I"

daveob007

Firstly I want to send my sympathy to the victims and their families on this awful event.
My point is ,after every tragedy such as this one people seem to blame the tools used and never question the causes.
Maybe its because its easier to blame the guns,knives etc without probing deeper into the person who did the crime and the general problems in society that causethe person to do the crime in the first place.
Also, now that its been talked about on radio shows I would like to urge caution for anyone who might want to go on the radio or tv in order to defend our corner.
Please get your facts right and remain calm.
Explain yourself and your sport in a dignified manner.

I just hope that there will be no kneejerk reaction to this here or the uk,but you never know.

kay 9

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I didn't mean that as a criticism of the thread at all, Dusty. I think it highlights the important lack of information available to the public, and disinformation is one of the biggest problems in the sport.

I hear ya IWM.
Education is the key.

That man had to be displaying warning signs.
If problems exist between family members in Ireland, th efirst thing that happens is th eboys in blue take in the firearms.

Brothers have been killing brothers over land and property for years.
Perhaps it is the laws on inheritance at fault?

The guy had to be mentaly unbalanced to do what he did.
He need psychatric help.
Is it wrong that he had a gun, yes
IUs it worse that he felt strongly enough to take human life?

I believe that is the most important part.
Why was a Disturbed man out on the streets?[/QUOTE]

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

A very hard thing to judge as a pro not to mind a normal Joe Soap.
How many times have we all used the expression here" I'll kill that little so and so." We know it is an Irish expression of punishment or simple codding around. It literally doesnt mean we are going home to take an axe to whomever.But the problem is Bird said "there is going to be a massacre..."
Was anyone going to take him seriously??A massacre of what???Unless you had a deep insight into his personal problems and home life.How was anyone going to think that was seriously meant?Are we going to become so paranoid about every comment in society that an off the cuff remark can bring the ERU to your dooor??
Careful of the "family problems" idea.I know innocent men who have lost their firearms because they were going thru a messy divorce,and the wife has claimed the husband had threatened them and the kids with the guns.Call this sexist if you want.BUT in EVERY CASE the Woman was belived by the Gardai.In one case it was so ridicilous,the guys guns had been stored in an attic for seven years,that the bolt had rusted solid on one and there were cobwebs growing on the barrels.Not everything in "family dispuites" might be what it seems.


And as for as many and varying reasons too for those two items.It is more humanities drive for possessions or whatever compulsion rather than the inheritance law.



Was he a classic case of a nutter in the Ryan,Purdey,Harris &Kleebold,Kretschmer etc classic " wanna be Rambo gunman"
IE pre planned it down to the last detail,got the best equipment for the job and went out and did it??
Because he certainly doesnt fit the pattern of a white young male,[he was in his 50s] a loner[had plenty of mates ]unmarried[he was a grandad],social misfit[seems to have been liked in the town]
He sounds more like a "William Foster" [the chacter played by Micheal douglas in the film Falling Down].simply put,somone who modern life and society has finally pushed over the edge.


Maybe we should also ask ..why did a hospital refuse him admittance two days ago,when he wanted to check himself in for help in some shape??
That he had a gun was wrong,but was he disturbed when he was liscensed??Life can change for all of us within days,not to mind 5 years of a cert in the UK.Maybe we should be thinking "There but for the grace of God go I"

+1 on that. Was talkin to a close relative today who happens to be a psychologist, we spoke briefly about the situation and she said that anyone can just flip/lose it/ or whatever one wants to call this. So no matter how stringent the U.K. or Irish laws are such things will continue to happen one way or another. People are a very complex and tempermental animal;)

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

.............In Ireland a doctor has to sign you off as Safe for you NOW to have a licence..........

I was under the impression the Super/Chief Super could check with your Doctor IF he/she/they wanted to. Don't think it's mandatory they do so.

We may have, and I fear we already have, a situation where nobody supposed to sign off on an application is going to be willing to sign one for fear of being held responsible for a tradegy like this. The Super, Chief Super, the doctor, the 2 x references and in the event of a refusal a DC judge will all refuse to 'sign off' on an application if this situation is not dealt with correctly.

All the people who agreed that this man was fit to hold firearms are going to be in a very awkward position now ?

kay 9

Bit of readin for ye lads for when boards is on the quiet side;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html

patsat

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

That man had to be displaying warning signs.

The guy had to be mentaly unbalanced to do what he did.

Why was a Disturbed man out on the streets?

I have seen first hand how unpredictable the human mind can be, nobody would have been able to predict this so I don't think anyone could be blamed for allowing him have a gun as it could happen to everyone. The issue about him being refused treatment however is a bigger concern.

I don't think the fact that this person had guns is as big an issue as he would have found some other way to take out his frustrations anyway.

Tackleberrywho

kay 9 wrote: »

Bit of readin for ye lads for when boards is on the quiet side;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html

thats not happy reading.
And yeah, very little of interest on boards tonight.

Grizzly 45

bunny shooter wrote: »

I was under the impression the Super/Chief Super could check with your Doctor IF he/she/they wanted to. Don't think it's mandatory they do so.

They have the OPTION to do so,as per the GG.But as it states it must be for extreme good reason and handled correctly and cannot be just an arbitary checkup[no pun intended].It is really a CYA situation and recommendation from the Barr tribunal.But not very helpful as a GP isnt a trained psychologist,and he would be in no position to say what your mental health is.All he can say is that mr Bs is on anti depressants for X number of months /years..But is he a raving nutter or likely to be one???

We may have, and I fear we already have, a situation where nobody supposed to sign off on an application is going to be willing to sign one for fear of being held responsible for a tradegy like this. The Super, Chief Super, the doctor, the 2 x references and in the event of a refusal a DC judge will all refuse to 'sign off' on an application if this situation is not dealt with correctly.

The doc isnt a referee here.He is just a option for the Gardai to consult if they feel the necessity.
The CS and Super,unfortunatly thats part of the responsibility of the job.
Great power,great weight of responsibility.
However,if the rules are followed IMO they are coverd by the law and procedure.He ticked the boxes,was fine and no problem.You cannot be held responsible for somthing that MIGHT or might NOT happen. We cant see the future,and there has to be some form of trust in Govt/people for society to function.

All the people who agreed that this man was fit to hold firearms are going to be in a very awkward position now ?

Well unless they knew the guy was going around dressed as Napoleon,in a tutu and pink wellies,gibbering and drooling and going woo woo wooo at a full moon,er no.Because he was proably as normal as you and me.He doesnt fit the profile of the usual spree killer.No cammo,no walter mitty war stories[sofar],not a loner,no obsession with firearms,or threats of doing this.No mental test firing of guns on the range... This is whats got everyone.He was a normal guy that finally lost his dog.Not many spree killers go off to buy a roast chicken before they go down to shoot up the place.
The more we find out about the family affairs.I bet we will find out he was getting more than his share of lifes major fecal sandwich with extra turd filling.Everyone has a breaking point,its how they handle it s the problem.

Tackleberrywho

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They have the OPTION to do so,as per the GG.But as it states it must be for extreme good reason and handled correctly and cannot be just an arbitary checkup[no pun intended].It is really a CYA situation and recommendation from the Barr tribunal.But not very helpful as a GP isnt a trained psychologist,and he would be in no position to say what your mental health is.All he can say is that mr Bs is on anti depressants for X number of months /years..But is he a raving nutter or likely to be one???


The doc isnt a referee here.He is just a option for the Gardai to consult if they feel the necessity.
The CS and Super,unfortunatly thats part of the responsibility of the job.
Great power,great weight of responsibility.
However,if the rules are followed IMO they are coverd by the law and procedure.He ticked the boxes,was fine and no problem.You cannot be held responsible for somthing that MIGHT or might NOT happen. We cant see the future,and there has to be some form of trust in Govt/people for society to function.



Well unless they knew the guy was going around dressed as Napoleon,in a tutu and pink wellies,gibbering and drooling and going woo woo wooo at a full moon,er no.Because he was proably as normal as you and me.He doesnt fit the profile of the usual spree killer.No cammo,no walter mitty war stories[sofar],not a loner,no obsession with firearms,or threats of doing this.No mental test firing of guns on the range... This is whats got everyone.He was a normal guy that finally lost his dog.Not many spree killers go off to buy a roast chicken before they go down to shoot up the place.
The more we find out about the family affairs.I bet we will find out he was getting more than his share of lifes major fecal sandwich with extra turd filling.Everyone has a breaking point,its how they handle it s the problem.

Although a GP is not a psychologist, they would know more about the individual than most, substance abuse, violence etc.One can tell a lot about an individual by their medical profile.

A doctor is required to commit a person after all.
a psychologist tries to treat them through therapy.

So a Doc's opinion on a person has to have more weight than most, also the referees have to be of good character so it's a fairly good reference.

A person being treated for depression or anger mgt may not be public knowledge but the Doc would be more aware than joe soap or even Joe Duffy

Grizzly 45

Although a GP is not a psychologist, they would know more about the individual than most, substance abuse, violence etc.One can tell a lot about an individual by their medical profile.

I see,so "substance abuse" which would include alcohol rather more commonly in Ireland would prohibit you from owning a firearm?Well then there at least 10 odd people I know then who should never have been liscensed with a firearm.Yet they have been safe drivers and shooters all their lives.Violence??More a question for the Gardai in the form ao a record?
And what happens if maybe ,you see like me your doc once every two years for an annoying cough or a odd irratating rash?Hardly great insights into my mental state of mind??

A doctor is required to commit a person after all.
a psychologist tries to treat them through therapy.

A doc might be able to recognise overt sympthoms of mental illness,as we all can do,but he or we are not qualified to say Mr Grizz is suffering from paranoid delusions of granduer.. After all we can all recognise if somone is dead,but we cant pronounce it,even if it is blatantly obvious...

So a Doc's opinion on a person has to have more weight than most, also the referees have to be of good character so it's a fairly good reference.

Define a "good character" anymore??? It used to mean somone of well standing in the community or a professional .
Not to mind the patient has to admit to the Doc he has or feels he has a few screws loose before the Doc can even consider dealing with it.

A person being treated for depression or anger mgt may not be public knowledge but the Doc would be more aware than joe soap or even Joe Duffy[/QUOTE]

He would if the patient tells him of the problem and wants help for it.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

i thought we were ignoring this shooting , head in the sand time , didn't happen , issf .22 rifles are safe so lets not rock the boat ?

No, we were showing a measure of human decency by trying to be better than the Daily Sun or the other red-tops by waiting until the families had been notified before using this as a political football to scream about perceived possible future legislation which might be introduced in another country.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

yep thats what happened after dunblane

No it isn't, and the UK PM has already come out and stated that new firearms legislation isn't on the cards; and unlike Dunblane, the UK election is already over with so this won't become a political one-up-manship issue to gather votes.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

No it isn't, and the UK PM has already come out and stated that new firearms legislation isn't on the cards; and unlike Dunblane, the UK election is already over with so this won't become a political one-up-manship issue to gather votes.

We shall wait and see , will we???
Remember politics...Its all about lying.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We shall wait and see , will we???
Remember politics...Its all about lying.

Grizzly, a bit of perspective please.
First off, twelve families are currently less than a day from learning that they'd lost loved ones. Ordinary human decency says to wait a day or two before treating the incident as a specimen in an academic political debate. And before you cite Dunblane, nobody in the UK, on either side of the shouting match said a thing about more restrictive legislation for a few days after the incident. The whole shoving match happened much later, and in the throes of a general election when vote-grabbing was going on in a wholesale and cynical manner (which can't happen here, as the UK elections are just over and their new PM isn't a wet week in the job - and has already spoken out against the labour position of "more laws!").

Secondly, even if they decide to bring in new legislation, you live in Ireland. Worrying about this is like worrying about whether or not Obama is pro or anti-gun; it just doesn't affect your day-to-day life directly and even when it does indirectly (which is rare), you have no say in it anyway.

To be honest, I'm finding it very hard to see what possible use this thread and the other one on the same subject can be, or what positive contribution they can make to the shooting sports in Ireland.

bunny shooter

Sparks there is no way you are as naive as to believe some of what you said in your last post about us living here and events or legislation in UK not directly affecting us. Irish copy everything UK does especially it's mistakes ffs :rolleyes:

homerhop

Standing around earlier and happened to flick through the star newspaper. My god do these media journalists write some load of bull****. the writer in question is called Phil Mason.
Quotes from his article go as follows
"before arming himself with a high-calibre hunting rifle capable of killing from a mile away"

"Bird thought to be armed with a .22 rifle fitted with a telescopic sight that could take out a dinosaur"

I am very sorry for the families of the innocent vicitms that were brutally murdered but Mr Mason is a disgrace to his profession with his blatant hype and want to be sensationalisim.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

.........To be honest, I'm finding it very hard to see what possible use this thread and the other one on the same subject can be, or what positive contribution they can make to the shooting sports in Ireland.

This wasn't there a minute ago

More of the shut up and let 'em screw us advice :rolleyes:

Dusty87

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks there is no way you are as naive as to believe some of what you said in your last post about us living here and events or legislation in UK not directly affecting us. Irish copy everything UK does especially it's mistakes ffs :rolleyes:

Agree 100per cent with that bunny.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

More of the shut up and let 'em screw us advice :rolleyes:

And on that note...