TV3 @ 20.30 Irelands Gun Crime Crisis

kildarejoe

I get the impression that since the court case went against the powers that be that there seems to be an increasing amount of air time and print space given to any negative image of guns, am I just paranoid or is the general public going to be fed a load of propoganda for a sneaky hit on gun ownership in september when all the licences that were renewed from the old to the new system will be due to go through the process again.

BattleCorp

I doubt that all the programmes are a co-ordinated attack on the licence holders in the country. At least I hope that they aren't.

I'd say that they seem more prevalent because of the amount of gun crime that is happening at the moment. Every two bit thug on the streets seems to be able to get his hands on a gun whenever he wants to.

The sad thing is that the law, the media, and sorry to say, the general public don't seem to be able to tell the difference between illegal guns and fully licenced legal guns.

We get them from licenced dealers, comply with all the rules, and don't go around shooting each other.

The scumbags buy them from drug smugglers etc, obey no rules and take a pop at anybody who pisses them off.

Is it our fault in the shooting community for not promoting ourselves a bit better?

marlin vs

kildarejoe wrote: »

I get the impression that since the court case went against the powers that be that there seems to be an increasing amount of air time and print space given to any negative image of guns, am I just paranoid or is the general public going to be fed a load of propoganda for a sneaky hit on gun ownership in september when all the licences that were renewed from the old to the new system will be due to go through the process again.

Thank's, but it seems to be on at 8-00 and not 8-30.

http://entertainment.ie/TV_Listing/84/TV3.htm

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is it our fault in the shooting community for not promoting ourselves a bit better?

Do you want the short or the long answer?

Longranger

DEAR GOD NNOOOO!;)

Tawny Owl

Theres a Programme just started on TV3 about Gun Crime it might be of intrest to ourselves as I am sure we the legal holders of Guns and Licences will be brought into it if you miss the Programme you can catch it on TV3's replays or web site.

pheasntstalker

well lads as above gun crime ireland is now on tv 3 ,des croften is bein interviewed interested to see if they show the difference between legal lads like us and scumbags:rolleyes:

Tawny Owl

We both posted the same information within a couple on minutes of each other

pheasntstalker

twawny beat me to it:o:o

pheasntstalker

just as i said in my simaliar post i hope they distingish between licenced an legal gun owners like us an the scumbags,be interesting to hear what des croften has to say;)

Concerned Shooter

After the break, how to control legal firearms.

Cass

Why the Christ didn't he show a copy of an FCA1. With 9 pages, doctors details, security requirments, referees, etc, etc. Far more "impressive" than a note with the dealers letter heading on it, and shows what we do have to go through to get a firearm. From the reporting any person looking at it that has no experience with a firearm application process will think you only need to pass an interview.

Also 3 - 8 weeks for a license. thats on the good end of the scale. What about the legal tmeframe of 3 months not to mention the year some people wait.

BattleCorp

Ezridax wrote: »

Why the Christ didn't he show a copy of an FCA1. With 9 pages, doctors details, security requirments, referees, etc, etc. Far more "impressive" than a note with the dealers letter heading on it, and shows what we do have to go through to get a firearm.

Yer man Cantwell was left with the impression that you could get a licence if you were clinically insane, mentally unstable etc etc.

rowa

Just seen the interview with the gunshop owner and des crofton, wtf was crofton talking about ? He took an unjustified swipe at the gardai again for no reason. The gunshop owner gave a very good summary of the firearms and the requirements.

bullets

So....Both RTE show the other night and the TV3 show tonight had nothing
negative to say about licensed firearms owners.

Other that the reporter using the term "weapons" in the interview piece
and not being corrected I could not see anything negative in either of the broadcasts for Irish gunowners.


~B

Cass

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is that. They managed, for the most part, to focus on gun crime.

pheasntstalker

well interesting to say the least ,but same old drivel, different programe:rolleyes:nothing we havnt heard before:rolleyes:

kildarejoe

Ezridax wrote: »

Why the Christ didn't he show a copy of an FCA1. With 9 pages, doctors details, security requirments, referees, etc, etc. Far more "impressive" than a note with the dealers letter heading on it, and shows what we do have to go through to get a firearm. From the reporting any person looking at it that has no experience with a firearm application process will think you only need to pass an interview.

Also 3 - 8 weeks for a license. thats on the good end of the scale. What about the legal tmeframe of 3 months not to mention the year some people wait.

That wouldent make good watching now would it.

Also I noticed a sly dig at "smaller" guns and the ability to concealability of them, (did I spell that right) earlier they mentioned that criminals steal shotguns from farms etc.

Although they did actually mention that criminals do get their guns and drugs smuggeled in together.

Also dont forget the magic of editing, there might have been alot more to the actual interviews with des crofton and yer man from gorey but the sexy bits will be taken for viewing and the boring factual parts will be on the cutting room floor.

pheasntstalker

i suppose they did differentate between us and scrumbags

BattleCorp

I always fear when I see programmes on guns advertised as they tend to do us way more harm than good.

As these programmes go, it didn't seem to badmouth us so that has to be taken as a positive.

Pity that none of the panelists were from the shooting community though. If just one person on telly stressed the difference between legitimate licenced firearm holders and dirty rotten scumbags it would do us the world of good with the general public.

They still love to bring up Abbeylara and yer man in Norway though. Two nuts out of countless gun holders.

A few nurses have gone mad over the years and killed patients,........................ lets ban nurses

cavan shooter

I watched it ready to flick to another station.....I didn't, balanced is a word that jumps to mind

BattleCorp

pheasntstalker wrote: »

i suppose they did differentate between us and scrumbags

They did slightly differentiate between legitimate gun holders and illegal gun holders but it was a kind of blurred and you'd have to be paying close attention to notice it.

The point wasn't stressed enough in my opinion.

BattleCorp

cavan shooter wrote: »

I watched it ready to flick to another station.....I didn't, balanced is a word that jumps to mind

The one thing that did seem unbalanced was the info on the process of getting a licence for a firearm.

It seemed like all you had to do was rock up to the gunshop, pick out a gun, meet your Super and away you go 3 weeks later. No mention of medical checkups etc etc.

Not exactly that handy now, is it.

bullets

Was getting the feeling the show was more anti Limerick rather than anti Gun!
with the amount of times the place was mentioned.

~B

pheasntstalker

i hear ya on on the attention bit i was trying to watch an listen to it and 3 different conversions at the same time, lol,they should as already stated had someone from legitamite licenced hunting/shooting on the panel to stress the big differences between us and scrumbags,and explain in detail the licence process an medical checks etc

pheasntstalker

yeh bullets i got that impression tbh aswell, just because of a small no of criminal elaments, but its not just limerick, shootings are now starting to branch out countrywide slowly but surely, they also kept bringing up abbeylara as well,they just keep regurgating the some stuff everytime ,is a murder trail or gang or feud relateded shooting imho:rolleyes:its getting old news now

Vizzy

Whever I watch any of this type of documentary, I do so with a "take it with a grain of salt" attitude.
If there are no negatives towards legitimate gun licence holders,then i take that as the best we can hope for and tonight was no different.
I thought that the show was quite good and had no negative "leanings" towards us.
Bear in mind lads the show was entitled "Gun Crime Ireland" and there was no hope that it would do anything other than highlight that guns in the wrong hands would always lead to a bad outcome.
Me ?, well I'm off to walk the dog,safe in the knowledge that my firearm is fully licenced and f**k the begrudgers:D

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

They still love to bring up Abbeylara and yer man in Norway though. Two nuts out of countless gun holders.

A few nurses have gone mad over the years and killed patients,........................ lets ban nurses

Nah..Lets ban doctors...Considering Doctor Harold Shipman has killed more people than Micheal Ryan,Thos Hamilton, and Roual Moate and the few others in the UK than all the shooting sprees put together!!!

More drivel of the same kind to be expected by these shows!!Abbylara wasnt a shooting spree in the first place,more like death by cop..and what a terrorist incident in a country where there are stringent firearms laws has to do with gun crime in Ireland is beyond me!!
You will just always have this from the media whores...Dont expect ever a rational debate of this issue on the stupidifier in the corner of your living room.You are dealing with soundbites of info here,and people trying to hear their own voices rather than what the opposite opinion is!!
Looking at the way that dopey Miriam O Callaghan conducts herself on slimetime
I am amazed anyone ever gets a word not to mind answer in edgewise with her butting in halfway through.
[Fair dues to G Dubya Bush and Martin Mc Guinness for putting in her box when she kept interrupting them.]
So,I wouldnt be too upset anymore what a bunch of talking heads,talking turkey say in our media anymore.Its another rigged game.

rowa

Why in a program called "gun crime ireland" did they interview a woman whose partner was shot in spain ? I thought they did mention limerick too much also.

Farmlife

BattleCorp wrote: »

Pity that none of the panelists were from the shooting community though. If just one person on telly stressed the difference between legitimate licenced firearm holders and dirty rotten scumbags it would do us the world of good with the general public.

I think the majority of nation understand this with having to be told it. :rolleyes:

Cass

They believe they do/can until some tragedy occurs, and they seek to lash out at guns irrespective of their ownership status, legality, etc.

So who suffers? The legitimate gun owners because we are known, can be easily affected, and results of actions levied at us are almost immediate.

I agree that on a whole the programme kept pretty much to the topic, but when they introduced the legal firearms issue we should be putting on the best face/show we can. We did not get that. Irrespective of editing, pieces cut out, etc what we saw was once again not reflective of our position as legal gun owners.

stick shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

They believe they do/can until some tragedy occurs, and they seek to lash out at guns irrespective of their ownership status, legality, etc.

So who suffers? The legitimate gun owners because we are known, can be easily affected, and results of actions levied at us are almost immediate.

I agree that on a whole the programme kept pretty much to the topic, but when they introduced the legal firearms issue we should be putting on the best face/show we can. We did not get that. Irrespective of editing, pieces cut out, etc what we saw was once again not reflective of our position as legal gun owners.

In my opinion Des Crofton and Paul Walsh done quiet a good job of representing the shooting community , Who would you prefered spoke for the shooting community ???(ie. spoke and represented us better )

Sparks

The programme is now up on TV3.ie here; our section starts at 34:00.

stick shooter wrote: »

In my opinion Des Crofton and Paul Walsh done quiet a good job of representing the shooting community , Who would you prefered spoke for the shooting community ???(ie. spoke and represented us better )

The question is not who speaks, it's what they say. We need accurate details, presented clearly (and if Paul Walsh has a new, top-of-the-line .22 match rifle for €1500, buy ten of them; they usually go for the guts of €5000. And there were dozens of errors from both of them, I'm just choosing one at random there).

We need to push the image of target shooters and hunters as sportsmen in the minds of the public; not tie us to mass shootings in Norway. We need to critique the licencing system clearly, impersonally, factually, accurately and even-temperedly, not just get digs into the AGS or DoJ at any and every opportunity.

And frankly, I'm in two minds as to whether or not we should even be in programmes like that at all, where we haven't a shred of editorial control and the talking heads in the studio can then crap all over whatever you say without challange or correction.

stick shooter

Thanks for your opinion sparks . But my question was to EZRIDAX was simply who could have ie: spoke and represented us better ???(in his opinion)

Cass

stick shooter wrote: »

............... who could have ie: spoke and represented us better ???(in his opinion)

Apologies for the delay. Internet has been down since just before midnight.


Without purposely repeating what Sparks said my issue is not with who is speaking, but rather what is being spoken off. As per my first post in this thread.

• There was an opportunity to mention the FCA1, but it was not said. However a dealers letter/notebook was shown.
• Even if they "cut out" the FCA1 (if one was shown) then a mention of it at one or two other times during the interview would have given people an idea that we have to fill in applications. For example when the question was posed "If i wanted to get a gun whats the first thing/step i must do?". An answer i would have liked to hear wold have been "After you have chossen the type of firearm you want you need to make an application to An Gardai using an FCA1." This forces the interviewer to follow up as to what this FCA1 is or risk leaving a "gap" in the interview. As it stands i think people believe we need only meet the Super, have a chat, then we're "good to go".
• The issue of waiting between 3-8/11 weeks for a license. Stick to the official timeframe, and say 3 months. Say due to the background checks, contacting referees, home inspection for security, etc the process is not a fast one. Its not exaggerating nor is it saying we get them "over night".
• The subtle digs at the DoJ/Gardai. Accomplishes nothing except to further irritate them, and for no reason other than to say it. The DoJ/An Gardai will only suffer the "digs" for so long. We need to realise that while we should speak up for ourselves we rely on these bodies to give us the authorisation to have our firearms, and pissing them off is not the way forward.

We get so few chances to show who we truely are, and this programme was a chance to further distance ourselves from the criminal element that the show was focusing on, and in my opinion it was not capitalised on.

Now from the tone of both your first, and second post you seem to not only disagree with my opinon, but appear to know either Des Crofton or Paul Walsh personally, and you consider my "negative" opinon to be an attack on them personally.

Well allow me to clarify this before it gets a life of its own. I DO NOT know either man personally and AFAIK have never either man. I also said that whether it was an editing issue, their responses or a combination of both i felt it could have gone better.

If you do not agree with my asessment then you are free to point out why i'm mistaken and list the points in the programme where they made good and valid reasons that show legitimate shooting/shooters in a positive light. However if you are trying to provoke an argument from me out of some sort of "loyalty" to either/both men then please don't bother. I have kept my posts civilised, and to the point. So i would appreciate the same from yourself.

meathshooter1

its a pity the media don't highlight some off the great achievements that Irish shooters have made over the years.the public need to know that they have noting to fear from legally held firearms,they are not the problem,the program showed the drug trade is responsible in fueling this. and the illegal actions of SCUM are no way Representative of legally held firearms owners.

Grizzly 45

The old press adage,"It bleeds it leads!" applies here.Massacres wether with criminally aquired firearms or betterfor the story, legally held ones ,or gang related shootings will always sell more paper space or airtime than a good side of shooting..:(:(

When Irish shooters came back from the last batch of medal harvesting in which there were a few golds a good selection of silvers and ever so many bronzes.Did we hear a word in the TV about this???? Sure we got some press time in the sports section,somwhere in the middle to back pages.
But had it been in the over 75s tiddley winks or senior ladies pole dancing events ,it would have been all over the front pages!

It seems to be that we are some sort of prirah group in the eyes of the Irish media.Somthing to report on in gory detail if saomthing fuks up,but to be ignored if they are suceeding,or knocked as quickly as possible if they are.

Sparks

And the only way around that Grizzly, is to keep plugging away at it, to keep presenting our case accurately and clearly, via the sports pages and anywhere else we can be reasonably sure we won't be edited into an outtake from a rambo movie.

Like I said above, and like I've been saying since 2004 on here and for a few years before that in NGB committee meetings -

Sparks wrote: »

At the moment in this country, anyone who gets described as a shooter is thought of by the public in one of five ways : terrorist, armed criminal, army/ERU, hunter or nutter. I've been breaking my back trying to add a sixth category, that of olympic sportsman (yes, I know there are non-olympic disciplines, but the key here is simplicity of message and putting your best foot forward so I focus on the olympic side of things).

Sparks wrote: »

Look, right now you pick Joe Bloggs on grafton st. and ask him what's his first thought when you ask him to think of shooting. It'll be one of the following five: IRA/UDF, Armed Robber, Army/ERU, Hunter, Nutter.
The job I've been trying to do (but which Derek Burnett's performance did more for than anything I've done) was to add a sixth category - sportsperson. Now you can't do that if you don't give not only the reality of being Safe and Harmless, but also the appearance thereof.

Sparks wrote: »

Simple facts are that the majority in Ireland don't understand firearms. They've got five images in their head when you mention shooting:

1. Terrorism (IRA/UDF/whomever)
2. Army/ERU
3. Armed criminals
4. Hunting (not as in custodian of nature, but as in bastard who shot bambi's mother)
5. Nutter (as in Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur, etc)

That's the reality we have to deal with. And we can't eradicate those images, so what we have to do first is get a new image in place; that of Sportsperson (Safe and Harmless).

Sparks wrote: »

The problem we're running into at all levels in this sport, from recruiting new members, to working with the Gardai and DoJ, to soliciting commercial sponsorship, is that in Ireland, there is a long and established public image of guns being used by:

1. The IRA (or other terrorist group)
2. Armed criminals
3. The Army or armed Gardai
4. Hunters (as in the miscreant who shot Bambi's mother, not the positive image we'd have of hunters)
5. "Nutters" - meaning anyone who ever used a firearm in an incident like Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur or "lesser" (and I use that word under protest) incidents like Abbeylara or the more recent Nally case.

Those are very negative images and our priority, for the community as a whole, regardless of any and all splits - and hell, if even Declan Keogh and I can agree on this principle, it must be universal - must to create and promote a more positive public image of the shooting sports if we ever want to see things get any better.

None of those statements, even though they go back a few years, are any less accurate or true today. We still face the same problems, last night's programme was proof of that, as are the recent court cases and all the fun and games we've had with the PTB in the last few years.

We still need to push the image of target shooters and hunters as sportsmen in the minds of the public. That's more important than getting in petty personal digs at DoJ or AGS personnel or the Minister. It's more important than splits in the administration, it's more important than one insurance provider having a public dig at their main competitor, it's more important than almost anything in the long term.

Succeed at it, and we'll be a known quantity, afforded funding and recognition and legislation that doesn't crucify us. Fail at it, and... well, basicly, we'll be where we are now, with none of that. This is the kind of situation you cannot fix through the District, Circuit, High or Supreme courts - this is one that has to be won in the court of public opinion. And that's not a court that takes well to people getting shouty or shirty.

Suffering Jbox

Very disappointed in Des Crofton. In effect, he is implying that the guards are responsible for killings with licensed firearms because they don't visit every gun club twice a year.

No sign of him showing some real leadership on the issue. How about NARGC doing all that they can at club level to ensure any suspect behaviour that could lead to these tragedies will be notified to the guards.

No, it's the guards' fault every time. And he's not going to sit down with "these people".

stick shooter

WE get so few chances to show who we truely are

When you say WE , Who are you representing ?



The subtle digs at the DoJ/Gardai. Accomplishes nothing except to further irritate them

Please explain.



but appear to know either Des Crofton or Paul Walsh personally, and you consider my "negative" opinon to be an attack on them personally.

Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .



However if you are trying to provoke an argument from me out of some sort of "loyalty" to either/both men then please don't bother

Just because i disagree with you on something , does not make it an argument , you are just being paranoid .

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

When you say WE , Who are you representing ?

Stick, what agenda are you grinding on here?
It's blatently obvious from the comments above that "we" in this context does not refer to any specific group.

Please explain.

It should be self-evident that taking swipes at personnel within the DoJ, AGS or other groups is counter-productive when you will have to sit down at a table with these people and work with them in order to achieve your stated goals.
Criticising agendas, policies, tactics - that's one thing, that's fair game. But the confrontational approach that we've seen dominating the media appearances of the NARGC for the last few years not only go beyond that, they actively hinder achievement of the NARGC's stated goals.
It's not only completely possible to criticise the AGS or DoJ or Minister in a way that's civil and professional (and even polite) - but it's more effective to do it that way.

Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .

Because you're taking issue with the criticism of a professional's choice of tactics as if the criticism was of the professional themselves; which it patently is not.

Cass

stick shooter wrote: »

When you say WE , Who are you representing ?

That question is redundant.

You highlight "we" then ask who i represent. When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting.

Please explain.

Do you not understand how any finger pointing, whether justified or not, at the authorities that can take away all our firearms is, IMO, non productive?

Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .

Due to the "vigor" with which you have singled out my posts even after Sparks replied you still "dismissed" his response and sought a reply from me. It's my inference so please explain. Do you know either man personally? This will clear it up immediately.

Just because i disagree with you on something , does not make it an argument , you are just being paranoid .

Ah, the name calling. Was only a matter of time i suppose.

I did not say you WERE trying i said IF you are trying then please don't. If you are not trying then it needs no rebutal.

stick shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

That question is redundant.

You highlight "we" then ask who i represent. When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting.

Do you not understand how any finger pointing, whether justified or not, at the authorities that can take away all our firearms is, IMO, non productive?

Due to the "vigor" with which you have singled out my posts even after Sparks replied you still "dismissed" his response and sought a reply from me. It's my inference so please explain. Do you know either man personally? This will clear it up immediately.

Ah, the name calling. Was only a matter of time i suppose.

I did not say you WERE trying i said IF you are trying then please don't. If you are not trying then it needs no rebutal.

After going back true some of your posts, i was not sure when you said WE , you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .
If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

After going back true some of your posts, i was not sure when you said WE , you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .
If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .

Stick, you might not notice it from your end, but from outside that kindof looks like an attempt to start a currently non-existent MNSCI-NARGC spat...

Cass

stick shooter wrote: »

............. you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .

Other than the fact i was not speaking for the MNSCI i have no authority to speak for them. Also if you read my last post that you thanked you'd read ...............

Ezridax wrote:

......... When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting ........

As you like to pick on points may i ask you to point out where i say i am speaking about the MNSCI and name them specifically.

If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .

US?

Who do you mean when you say "US"?

Also could you answer my previous question as i have been polite enough to answer your's.

Ezridax wrote:

............point out why i'm mistaken and list the points in the programme where they made good and valid reasons that show legitimate shooting/shooters in a positive light.

............. and ..............

Ezridax wrote:

Do you know either man personally?

Thank you.

Hibrion

I'm inclined to agree here, that we could have been represented better, but that's what we got and it could have went a lot worse. You will always be at the mercy of the editor when it comes to television, so we don't really know what was said in these interviews

Personally, I would have liked to see them going to a more established range, rather than a new, small air rifle range. I also didn't like that there was a rifle randomly on the counter or that Paul went straight for the shotty with the pistol grip!

stick shooter

Who do you mean when you say "US"?

When i say US i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting .

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

When i say US i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting .

Which is the same sense Ezri's comments (and mine) were using as well...

Cass

Ah. I only ask because when i say it you accuse me of speaking on behalf of the MNSCI, but its good to know you are on the same page now.

Now thats all sorted perhaps you might answer the above questions by me to yourself?

Vizzy

This is great lads
We( and I mean all legal gun licence holders) are getting agitated because we might be seen in a bad light by the general public on some show that made no allegations towards us.

Yet,we are arguing amongst ourselves as to who we represent.

As I have been reminded by a Mod on here not so long ago,Boards is widely read by everyone from the DoJ to the Anti's.
What impression does "disquiet in the ranks" portray ?

Sparks

We don't care about who represents us so much as we care about how they represent us.

And the show didn't make specific allegations against us because that would have been actionable. However, when the only appearance we make is one where

• we don't highlight the already existing legal controls on firearms ownership in Ireland;
• we do bring up mass shootings like Norway and shootings like Abbylara (and don't get the facts across about those correctly);
• we do say that you can't prevent mass shootings by tweaking our existing firearms legislation;
• we don't show the vast numbers of farmers who use shotguns for agricultural reasons so we can all eat;
• we don't show target shooting - of any kind as an organised sport - at all;
• we don't show the other uses of firearms from Vets to starting races to preventing bird strikes at airports and so on; and
• we don't show shooters as Safe&Harmless;

Well, then in that case the programme didn't need to make specific allegations, because we painted ourselves on national television as a group of disorganised lads messing about shooting deer without any controls or safeguards to keep the general public safe, with no real investment in what we're doing (ie. if they shut us down we'd bitch about it but eventually move on to something else), generating nothing and with the ever-worrying spectre of Norway, Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford and every other mass shooting all hanging over us.

I don't know about you, but I'm not well pleased that that's the image that got painted on national television about what I do.