Statement from NASRPC

Dian Cecht

Wait for it .................................................................

Sparks will mention FCP now

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Wait for it .................................................................
Sparks will mention FCP now

That, or he'll cite the FAQ he had to write up five years ago because people then kept saying the same thing then as they are now, and it's still as wrong today as it was then...

ShootingFAQ:Why don't we have a single body for all shooting?

This question (and its variants) is asked roughly once a month on the Shooting forums. You may find people somewhat brusque in their treatment of the question for this reason; please don't take it personally, some of us have been wrestling with the problem for decades.

There are many reasons why we don't have such a single body, but they tend to fall into one of five main categories:

• Historical reasons (bodies sprang up as new disciplines evolved and never got round to merging)
• Personal reasons (bodies split because individuals couldn't stand one another)
• Political reasons (bodies split or didn't merge because agendas conflicted)
• Regulatory reasons (bodies couldn't merge or had to split because of the requirements of their disciplines)
• Autonomy reasons (bodies didn't merge because one was much larger than the other which would mean the smaller body's voting rights in a merged body were diluted past the point where any degree of autonomy was preserved)

These reasons also prevent the forming of a single unified body to manage all the shooting disciplines in Ireland, despite the current rather complex governance situation:


There are some things to keep in mind when considering this state of affairs however:

• As sports, shooting disciplines are not merely different shades of the same colour. It doesn't necessarily make sense to have one governing body for sports as diverse as Olympic rifle/pistol/shotgun shooting and Gallery Rifle or Class F shooting. Just because all shooting sports use a firearm of one kind or another does not mean they're all the same, any more than the fact that Golf, Tennis and Soccer all use a ball means that they should have a single governing body.
• Several governing bodies are prohibited from merging by directives from their sports' international governing bodies. The NTSA, for example, could not have merged with the IPSA (while it existed) because a directive from ISSF prohibited such a merger, or even membership of the same federation.
• Several governing bodies cannot merge because they already are part of other federations - the Pony Club's tetrathlon body, for example, is both a shooting governing body and a member of the SSAI; and an equestrian governing body and a member of the Equestrian federation. Similar issues arise with Modern Pentathlon and Biathlon sports, amongst others.
• The personal issues which arose over decades between governing bodies are in some cases purely ego-based and are not good reasons on which to prevent a merger. Some, however, are based on past experiences where individuals proved repeatedly that they were not capable of behaving in an even-handed manner, and so long as they remain in office, such a merger is prohibited by common sense. Even when those individuals step down or are forced to, much mistrust remains. This is only trivial to those who do not give up the bulk of their free time to help run sports on a volunteer basis.
• Lastly, a single body governing all of shooting would be an exercise in conflicting interests. For example, if there is only sufficient funding to cater to the interests of one specific discipline, how should the appropriate course of action be decided? Who would accept that decision? What about cases where the interests of one discipline threaten the interests of others? Questions like this plague anyone attempting consolidation in any field, but in ours where many feel their sports are being threatened and persecuted, they are even more difficult to handle. Even in more even-keeled countries abroad, such consolidation efforts take years to complete, where they succeed at all.

Above all else, remember that this is not a simple problem. People have been working on it for decades and it shows no sign of getting any better. Believing there's a simple solution to it is very probably incorrect.

BattleCorp

yubabill1 wrote: »

This seems to be the survey in the newspaper articles; says 13% of Irish people either currently own a gun (6%) or used to (7%)

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_390_375_en.htm#383

This survey looks like it was totally made up.

17% have guns for work purposes (Army, Police etc.). So in a random poll, are you expecting me to believe that 17 out of every 100 people surveyed were in the army or were armed police. What a crock of sh1t. North Korea would hardly have that many in their army or police.

And 10% saying that they have their gun for personal protection - I call shennanigans on that figure too.

And 5% of people have their firearms for "other reasons". What other reason could you have apart from hunting, vermin control or target shooting (excluding that ficticious 17% who need them for their job)?

Q3. In your opinion, is stricter regulation of who is allowed to own, buy or sell firearms [in our country] the most effective way to reduce the level of crime using firearms or do you think that this would be more effectively achieved in other ways?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Someone better tell the criminals who are using illegal firearms that they aren't allowed to have them.

And 4% are collectors. I didn't think you could collect guns just for the fun of it. I thought you had to have a reason to have the firearm.

.270 remington

Above all else, remember that this is not a simple problem. People have been working on it for decades and it shows no sign of getting any better. Believing there's a simple solution to it is very probably incorrect.

Point taken sparks
But what if the minister does go ahead and ban everything except .22 and shot guns. all the bickering of the past will be meaningless.
Why cant every one of the organisations pull together for the good of All shooting sports and leave their own agendas aside before we end up with nothing.

Amonisis

yubabill1 wrote: »

This seems to be the survey in the newspaper articles; says 13% of Irish people either currently own a gun (6%) or used to (7%)

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_390_375_en.htm#383

Some "survey"!!!??? 26,555 people surveyed out of a European population of 503.5 million! One person out of every 21,000. That's the equivalent of basing an opinion of a population of 4,400,000 (Irish citizens) on the answers of 209 people. Totally ridiculous.

Sparks

.270 remington wrote: »

Point taken sparks
But what if the minister does go ahead and ban everything except .22 and shot guns. all the bickering of the past will be meaningless.

First off, that's an enormous if. We've still seen not one iota of anything and we've been promised we'll see proposals long before we get near the Dail and that there will be consultation (yes, I know, politicians and promises, but if you think anyone in any group can give you more - with or without courts - you're only fooling yourself).
Also, remember that the vast majority of those organisations and their differences sprang up in the 1972-2004 period and having been shooting and doing admin in that period, I don't ever remember the air/smallbore/shotgun-only rule having any more effect on the shooting politics than the 1972 TCO had on northern irish politics.

In fact if anything, things were worse back then, not better -- though I think that's more because the communications we had back then were far worse than what we have today and people could get away with far stupider stunts for far longer than they can today before everyone found out and jumped on them (which meant they could do more damage with the stupid stunts), and that's just based on what I saw personally.

Why cant every one of the organisations pull together for the good of All shooting sports and leave their own agendas aside before we end up with nothing.

That was exactly what the FCP was and that's exactly what was happening.
It wasn't the other organisations who left, it was the NARGC.
And now we're on the outside with far less leverage to avoid anything damaging.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

That was exactly what the FCP was and that's exactly what was happening.
It wasn't the other organisations who left, it was the NARGC.
And now we're on the outside with far less leverage to avoid anything damaging.

So why didn't it continue on without the NARGC?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

So why didn't it continue on without the NARGC?

• Nearly thirty thousand shooters in the NARGC. They're not the biggest shooting organisation (that's the IFA) but you couldn't claim to be representing all shooters with a straight face if they weren't there.
• They then started making pretty nasty statements in the media calling for people to be fired and so forth, and politicised the court cases that were going on at the time. So any will in the DoJ to try to get them to come back to the table was burnt away.
• Every other party at the table was now looking at the other shooting organisations wondering just how much good faith they were bringing to the table. If (say) the NTSA didn't like the next thing the AGS said, would they flounce out and start calling for firings and badmouthing people? And if so, why waste time on the whole thing? And it's not like AGS as a whole were cheerleading the process from the start either, so the NARGC leaving probably gave those in the AGS who were opposed to private firearms ownership a pretty nice present really.

yubabill1

yubabill1 wrote: »

Cecilia Maelstrom and the EU Commission are pushing all this

eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0716...

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2013/20131021_01_en.htm

the EU Commission is an unelected body.

Get this for indiscriminate crap

from your friendly EU press office ; http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-980_en.htm


"Over the last few years, tragic gun attacks in Europe have repeatedly caught our attention, notably in Norway, Belgium, Finland, France or Italy to mention but a few. No country is unaffected and in the EU as a whole, more than one thousand people are victims of homicide by firearms each year, and half a million firearms that have been registered as lost or stolen in the EU remain unaccounted for. "

It looks to me like this is an EU-wide thing and our minister/commissioner may want to impress their EU colleagues, as we already have the most draconian firearms legislation in the EU.

It wouldn't do for us to have mental health checks etc. and be the same as everyone else.

Longranger

Head......hurting......swelling.......vibrating......explodi......

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

First off, that's an enormous if. We've still seen not one iota of anything and we've been promised we'll see proposals long before we get near the Dail and that there will be consultation (yes, I know, politicians and promises, but if you think anyone in any group can give you more - with or without courts - you're only fooling yourself).
Also, remember that the vast majority of those organisations and their differences sprang up in the 1972-2004 period and having been shooting and doing admin in that period, I don't ever remember the air/smallbore/shotgun-only rule having any more effect on the shooting politics than the 1972 TCO had on northern irish politics.

In fact if anything, things were worse back then, not better -- though I think that's more because the communications we had back then were far worse than what we have today and people could get away with far stupider stunts for far longer than they can today before everyone found out and jumped on them (which meant they could do more damage with the stupid stunts), and that's just based on what I saw personally.


That was exactly what the FCP was and that's exactly what was happening.
It wasn't the other organisations who left, it was the NARGC.
And now we're on the outside with far less leverage to avoid anything damaging.

Where's the big diagram

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Where's the big diagram

Nine posts up.

Dian Cecht

Personally, as has been stated here in various threads I think there are changes coming. However, I reckon only certain categories eg pistols, s/a rifle & bigger calibres will be under the microscope.

Ahearn promised he'd stop "the proliferation of firearms", which has happened, but not because any illegal ones were confiscated.

Thousands of firearms have not been licenced here in last few years for what we can assume is financial meltdown, licence fee increase (limited shotguns went from €18 to €80 for 3 x years), lack of interest, spurious refusals by Gardaí & people unwilling and/or unable to take court cases, emigration etc.

I reckon Gardaí/DOJ see these reductions and reckon they can reduce it further by further changes to the current situation, all under the guise of "public safety".

.270 remington

I would love to know how many illegal /un licenced firearms have been seized by the guards and how may of these have been used to commit crimes since the new regulations came in

yubabill1

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Personally, as has been stated here in various threads I think there are changes coming. However, I reckon only certain categories eg pistols, s/a rifle & bigger calibres will be under the microscope.
QUOTE]

Wrong.

Everyone is going to get squeezed.

Think- the EU are looking for heightened home security, limits on ammunition purchase/magazine capacity and are considering restrictions on handguns/semi autos/pumps.

got an alarm? got a safe? got safe alarmed? monitored?

Ans = no to any of above, then think....read what EU want once more

Ans = yes to any above, then you're going to have problems holding on to what you have.

Dian Cecht

If this is the Government blindly following EU stance on firearms then I fear us worrying or lobbying here will do us no good

I still reckon this time there will only be certain categories "hit" but I do agree that it won't be the end of it. There will be future "reviews" with further restrictions.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot we can do about it as no matter what party or coalition of parties is in power here none of them will be firearm friendly :mad:

ace86

Just seen this on facebook via N.A.R.G.C

http://www.nargc.ie/news-container/irish-sports-shooters-oppose-further-restrictions-by-gardai.aspx

https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC/190104431023958?hc_location=timeline

Sparks

...what the literal feck? Last straw? Representative what now? European and local elections? Independent inquiry?

What?

/facepalm

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Personally, as has been stated here in various threads I think there are changes coming. However, I reckon only certain categories eg pistols, s/a rifle & bigger calibres will be under the microscope.
QUOTE]

Wrong.

Everyone is going to get squeezed.

Think- the EU are looking for heightened home security, limits on ammunition purchase/magazine capacity and are considering restrictions on handguns/semi autos/pumps.

got an alarm? got a safe? got safe alarmed? monitored?

Ans = no to any of above, then think....read what EU want once more

Ans = yes to any above, then you're going to have problems holding on to what you have.

Be really intresting to see how they would "harmonise" EU laws on security. As it is as diverse as the countries itself. EG Germany you dont need an alarm system at all.You need a gun safe,[not a glorified tin box like here] meeting a certain standard for the amount of guns you have.And the willingness to have it inspected at any given time of day by a appointed security inspector @200 euros a pop.:mad:
Wonder how likely the EUrocrats are going to be to push this on countries where shooting bodies number it their hundreds of thousands and can put literally thousands on the streets or outside their parliments if need be? Even in France where there is literally a pro shooting political party in govt? Italy ,where shooting is the third national sport .Remember the EU leaves most countries decide their own gun laws anyway,so alot of them would give the EU the finger on this anyway
.By and large the EU mainlands laws are pretty much standardised as it is in possesion,application and what you need to do to own whatever already.The only places that are out of sync is the UK and here and proably the new East blockers. IOW this could be good or bad for us.Would you rather all do written,oral and practical tests to own firearms of whatever type and caliber.Or would you rather be left with the status quo of doubt and the whims of your local Superintendant every three years??
Knowing us we'll take the complete Irish approach and make it harder and not get anything in return for making it harder. A fine example is the game handling course. IF you have that you can sell from field to resturant on the Continent..Here you must have a useless bit of paperwork that goes nowhere and you must sell into a monopoly irrespective.

TBH folks this has been going on for the last three years this EU study on gun laws and we are now just playing "catch up " on this here in Ireland now.
The EU proposed al this three years ago and are now asking the subjects...er...citizens their" opinions" on this.
Lets not get too bent outta shape by this article,which was a chopped and hacked and badly presented article, full of mistakes that would make a cub reporter look ashamed and isnt even factually or statistically straight.

Witcher

Peddling the same crap in the Irish Shooter's Digest this month too.

.270 remington

What a load of sh*t
last week a friend of mine has his licence granted for his previously licenced center fire pistol
And we are waiting for them to tell us to contact our local TD again to further antoganise the minister Will these people ever F***ing learn

rowa

"it has been revealed"

What ? Where ? And by whom ? I haven't seen anything released apart from the nargc and nasrpc stuff.

.270 remington

What ? Where ? And by whom ? I haven't seen anything released apart from the nargc and nasrpc stuff

Exactly Rowa:o:o

yubabill1

Agree we need to keep our powder dry.

Pretty certain it will get crappy very quickly, though.

I believe shooters in France and Finland are not happy about this Left Wing Social Economy unelected EU Commission rubbish.

We need to start preparing our arguments about "public safety" that will be palatable to Joe Public.

Dian Cecht

https://www.facebook.com/NASRPC

Was posted on NASRPC FB page yesterday

BillyBoy13

yubabill1 wrote: »

Agree we need to keep our powder dry.

Pretty certain it will get crappy very quickly, though.

I believe shooters in France and Finland are not happy about this Left Wing Social Economy unelected EU Commission rubbish.

We need to start preparing our arguments about "public safety" that will be palatable to Joe Public.

You know, Im just thinking, someone recently posted a video on here with an English Olympian taking out a journalist for a few shots.

I think we need to do something similar and fast. We need to work on getting some good articles printed right now.

Does anyone have any brothers, sisters, cousins working in media we can utilise?

I'm not an Olympian by any stretch of the imagination, but I have emailed a local radio show host asking him to come out to the range for a few shots. Basically his show every week he spends half an hour talking about all the different things he got up to that week. So hopefully he'll take up the offer.

I think it would be an idea if people on here could do something similar- especially you lads that actually have won medals We need as much good press as possible.

Witcher

The public don't give two shits about the good side of shooting. Wasting your time even trying to change people's minds, you're not trying to turn them onto tennis or something, they're strongly set against shooting.

As I always say..check out some threads about firearms here on After Hours to see what the average person thinks of firearms and shooting. Sparks, Battlecorp, myself and a few others regularly speak up for shooters over on AH only to be subtley accused of supporting the killing of schoolchildren by defending firearms.

BillyBoy13

Blay wrote: »

The public don't give two shits about the good side of shooting. Wasting your time even trying to change people's minds, you're not trying to turn them onto tennis or something, they're strongly set against shooting.

As I always say..check out some threads about firearms here on After Hours to see what the average person thinks of firearms and shooting. Sparks, Battlecorp, myself and a few others regularly speak up for shooters over on AH only to be subtley accused of supporting the killing of schoolchildren by defending firearms.

I know. I have had these arguments before. However Im not proposing we get on a radio and tell people "hey you should support guns, guns are good"

If this guy comes out, has a few shots, goes home and tells people- 'hey I tried it, I enjoyed it, it was great craic, I really loved it, I would do it again some day' and then moves onto the next topic. And if enough radio show hosts, newspaper journalists do this and say this. Slowly but surely people will see that yes shooting can actually be a hobby and an enjoyable one at that.

I dont mean to offend you or mean it an offensive way, but Im sure the people in AH see you coming along all the time and think "heres this gun nut now again".

They need to see "regular every day people" trying it and enjoying it. They are sick of hearing from us crazies

rowa

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

I know. I have had these arguments before. However Im not proposing we get on a radio and tell people "hey you should support guns, guns are good"

If this guy comes out, has a few shots, goes home and tells people- 'hey I tried it, I enjoyed it, it was great craic, I really loved it, I would do it again some day' and then moves onto the next topic. And if enough radio show hosts, newspaper journalists do this and say this. Slowly but surely people will see that yes shooting can actually be a hobby and an enjoyable one at that.

I dont mean to offend you or mean it an offensive way, but Im sure the people in AH see you coming along all the time and think "heres this gun nut now again".

They need to see "regular every day people" trying it and enjoying it. They are sick of hearing from us crazies

That can backfire bigtime too. In the immediate aftermath of the dunblane massacre a shooting club in the uk invited jonathan ross to their range for a mornings shooting to show the good side of shooting.
He wrote his article or piece and f**ked them all over, said they were all wannabe rambos, nutters with guns, and he was in fear of his life while on the range and uncomfortable with children being taught how to shoot.

Witcher

You see most people here think firearms are only for farmers, if you start advertising it to the general public that regular people can have them you're risking people thinking 'Jesus I don't want just anyone having them, my neighbour could have a gun and I don't know..they could shoot up a school'.

A person over on AH suggested that there should be a list of all firearms owners online so you could check if your neighbour had one...this is the kind of attitude you're fighting against. There's no point even trying imo, firearms are one of the few things you can't bring people around to.People live in ignorance of firearms laws here, I don't know how many times I've heard 'thank god pistols are banned here', 'thank god you can only have shotguns', 'I'm glad guns are banned here' over on AH. If you start informing them that all of that is wrong then you're risking making more enemies.