Statement from NASRPC

Sparks

Said it above, about the best PR we have coming up is that the Rio Olympics Chef de Mission for Ireland is the ICPSA high performance director. You get a clay pigeon guy in that role and a PR team who have their heads right, and that's a very positive thing for our sports.

The problem with the smaller PR ideas is that they work really well if you know and can trust the journalist; but if you can't, well, we've seen hatchet jobs before from what were supposedly very reputable journalists, and being informal and friendly with them on the range (which is just being polite for us) can be twisted in some truly nasty ways by the unscrupulous. So please, nobody ask Paul Williams out for a day's clay pigeon shooting

yubabill1

Glad to see potential arguments being discussed.

Some thoughts since my last post

- we are immediately on the back foot because we are forced to explain why we are not a threat to public safety: This is not the way to go.
We need to counter this assertion with an assertion of our own.

- we do not need to convince the public of our point-of-view; we just need to show DoJ/AGs are unreasonable.

And will someone PLEASE tell me how to stop journos linking licensed firearms holders with drug murders.

I mean, if lots of journalists listed the number of AIDS cases every time they mentioned the word "gay" how would that go down?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

- we are immediately on the back foot because we are forced to explain why we are not a threat to public safety: This is not the way to go.
We need to counter this assertion with an assertion of our own.

I wouldn't start off explaining why we're not a threat to public safety as a first line. I'd start off by pointing out that we've been doing formal target shooting in Ireland since 1850 and the public's never been less safe because of it before now.

Then, you can do the explanations if you want, but that's a fairly important point to establish and always has been.

we do not need to convince the public of our point-of-view; we just need to show DoJ/AGs are unreasonable.

The DoJ/AGS viewpoint remains an unknown at this point, don't forget...
(And technically, the DoJ viewpoint is set by the Minister...)

And will someone PLEASE tell me how to stop journos linking licensed firearms holders with drug murders.

Sue them for defamation and win with large punitive damages.

I mean, if lots of journalists listed the number of AIDS cases every time they mentioned the word "gay" how would that go down?

Ask John Waters, he seems to make a good living doing that kind of thing.

.270 remington

And will someone PLEASE tell me how to stop journos linking licensed firearms holders with drug murders[/QUOTE


As i asked earlier has any one statistics of illegal firearm seizures by the guards and what crimes they were used in ????
not legally held fire arms if any journos are reading this There is a Difference

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

I wouldn't start off explaining why we're not a threat to public safety as a first line. I'd start off by pointing out that we've been doing formal target shooting in Ireland since 1850 and the public's never been less safe because of it before now.

Then, you can do the explanations if you want, but that's a fairly important point to establish and always has been.

The DoJ/AGS viewpoint remains an unknown at this point, don't forget...
(And technically, the DoJ viewpoint is set by the Minister...)

Sue them for defamation and win with large punitive damages.

Ask John Waters, he seems to make a good living doing that kind of thing.

What I'm angling at is that the proposals we are all awaiting are paying particular attention to public safety.

This is a trap: we will be at a disadvantage from the outset, because we will spend much of our time/energy proving why we are safe etc. and zero time/energy criticising the proposals.

Agreed, the proposals are a phantom right now, but they ain't gonna GIVE us anything, they will TAKE, so the attitude of AGS to firearms legislation is an Achilles heel and would make interesting news for some people after certain recent big news stories about mavericks/whistleblowers. Plus the minister is a lame duck. If we make them look unreasonable, no-one will take them seriously.

Look at Phil Hogan.


Finally, I have been wondering to myself whether shooters could sue for defamation. I mean, being lumped in with mass-murderers and gangland executioners sticks in the throat of your average, vetted, refereed, permissioned shooter, already proven to be of "good temperament" etc. etc.

BillyBoy13

rowa wrote: »

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.

Well that's up to us to make sure we get someone we can trust. The chap I have invited out does a lot of fishing and he did some great pieces on the lads who hunt fox on horseback with the dogs. And he was the first one to defend that girl a few years back (Rachel Allen?) she was a chef and shot a pheasant. And then was it last year we had that girl win the biathlon? He talked about her in a very positive way. Id say its a safe bet that he'll give us a good story- if he accepts my offer that is.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Finally, I have been wondering to myself whether shooters could sue for defamation. I mean, being lumped in with mass-murderers and gangland executioners sticks in the throat of your average, vetted, refereed, permissioned shooter, already proven to be of "good temperament" etc. etc.

The problem is that "group defence" one, in that you have to be defaming an identifiable individual.

On the other hand, that's a solvable problem - find a high profile shooter with an absolutely squeaky clean record (as in, above even our normal standard which is far higher than the norm), and convince them to take a test case. But you'd have to fund that to be fair.

BillyBoy13

yubabill1 wrote: »

Glad to see potential arguments being discussed.

Some thoughts since my last post

- we are immediately on the back foot because we are forced to explain why we are not a threat to public safety: This is not the way to go.
We need to counter this assertion with an assertion of our own.

I really disagree with you here yubabill. I think we need to stop fighing and arguing about how the papers pull these statistics out of their asses, how we arent like the US, how we actually are safe etc... We need to forget that for now.

I think we need to make shooting look like a fun sport the whole family can enjoy. I think that should be our main priority here.

We need to stop coming across like a bunch of old cranks that are always fighting and at each others throats.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

The problem is that "group defence" one, in that you have to be defaming an identifiable individual.

On the other hand, that's a solvable problem - find a high profile shooter with an absolutely squeaky clean record (as in, above even our normal standard which is far higher than the norm), and convince them to take a test case. But you'd have to fund that to be fair.

Yes agreed. Have been thinking something along those lines.

Not looking to take a case, just how to explain to Herald.ie/Indo how it might work against them.

BillyBoy13

yubabill1 wrote: »

And will someone PLEASE tell me how to stop journos linking licensed firearms holders with drug murders.

I don't think there is any practical way to do that.

Perhaps maybe every time a journalist does make a link between us and criminals if everyone on here emailed asking him to explain and clarify it he might be more cautious next time- maybe.

yubabill1

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

I really disagree with you here yubabill. I think we need to stop fighing and arguing about how the papers pull these statistics out of their asses, how we arent like the US, how we actually are safe etc... We need to forget that for now.

I think we need to make shooting look like a fun sport the whole family can enjoy. I think that should be our main priority here.

We need to stop coming across like a bunch of old cranks that are always fighting and at each others throats.

Open to any opinions.

Looking for ideas.

Grizzly 45

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xWZaX_x5M

This was somones good idea for PR five years ago....This was the hatchet job done on it that was presented on Irish media. FOUR people on boards.ie complained about it here and if anyone wants to read the broadcasting complaints authorithy decision and see an ass covering exercise Irish style...I'm only too happy to send you or post here the paperwork.:rolleyes:

What was even more sickening was the grovelling and snivelling " make it up article a two weeks later in the Irish Times.When his big trap had done great damage on air to the shooting sports.:mad:

ace86

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xWZaX_x5M

This was somones good idea for PR five years ago....This was the hatchet job done on it that was presented on Irish media. FOUR people on boards.ie complained about it here and if anyone wants to read the broadcasting complaints authorithy decision and see an ass covering exercise Irish style...I'm only too happy to send you or post here the paperwork.:rolleyes:

What was even more sickening was the grovelling and snivelling " make it up article a two weeks later in the Irish Times.When his big trap had done great damage on air to the shooting sports.:mad:

After watching it Grizzly 45 the only fellow I have a problem with is that tom clancy as some sort of secruity fellow and prime times reporting inaccuracies on certain guns and capabilites of them. From what I know with media and television crews interviewing people on different subjects and the likes especially on a few occasion they interviewed people around my own area and things are cut and edited as you see in the video, when des croft said one thing which we all know made sense and accurate im my opinion and it flips over to tom then and he starts rambling on you would swear we were in sierra leone especially 8rds of a 9mm pistol in 3 seconds bcos if its the army's ammo it will probaby jam after the 1st shot

BillyBoy13

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xWZaX_x5M

This was somones good idea for PR five years ago....This was the hatchet job done on it that was presented on Irish media. FOUR people on boards.ie complained about it here and if anyone wants to read the broadcasting complaints authorithy decision and see an ass covering exercise Irish style...I'm only too happy to send you or post here the paperwork.:rolleyes:

What was even more sickening was the grovelling and snivelling " make it up article a two weeks later in the Irish Times.When his big trap had done great damage on air to the shooting sports.:mad:

Honestly, thats not the worst video ever. You had Des Crofton giving the pro side, you had Paul Mc Dermot giving a neutral (but leaning more to the pro-side) and then you had tom clonan with some anti sensationalist claims. But overall I think it wasn't too bad.

Kryten

Let's invite George Hook out for a shot Overall, I think there is no smoke without fire. Something is coming. I don't get a good feeling about it.

rowa

Kryten wrote: »

Let's invite George Hook out for a shot Overall, I think there is no smoke without fire. Something is coming. I don't get a good feeling about it.

No point kryten, even if he loved it he would make the most outrageous comments he could to keep himself in the public eye. Thankfully the bloated gasbag is retiring shortly. He won't be missed.

Grizzly 45

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Honestly, thats not the worst video ever. You had Des Crofton giving the pro side, you had Paul Mc Dermot giving a neutral (but leaning more to the pro-side) and then you had tom clonan with some anti sensationalist claims. But overall I think it wasn't too bad.

Point is... this not to bad video could have been 100% better too,and that what seemed a good idea at the time unless well thought out.Isnt!
There is no way in Hell anyone in the shooting world would let that air as it was shown.But once it is in the can and in the cutting room.YOU have no say whatsoever..Been involved in one documentary on Irish TV ,about my work and I can definately tell you what goes in on the camera lens has no bearing whatsoever to the finished product going out into your TV set.
I was horrified as how much I was misquoted or things were taken out of context or chopped to fit into a theme that wasn't revelant and what we thought would be cutting floor material was used and revelant stuff wasn't.

The media is a great tool,but you most certainly need experiance to handle them well to get your POV across.Is it any wonder many of the global top politicans and countries take media management lessons??
All I'm saying is look before you leap.

Kryten

rowa wrote: »

No point kryten, even if he loved it he would make the most outrageous comments he could to keep himself in the public eye. Thankfully the bloated gasbag is retiring shortly. He won't be missed.

Michael Graham would sow it in to him, if he found out anti gun George was out on a range shooting glocks

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Point is... this not to bad video could have been 100% better too,and that what seemed a good idea at the time unless well thought out.Isnt!
There is no way in Hell anyone in the shooting world would let that air as it was shown.But once it is in the can and in the cutting room.YOU have no say whatsoever..Been involved in one documentary on Irish TV ,about my work and I can definately tell you what goes in on the camera lens has no bearing whatsoever to the finished product going out into your TV set.
I was horrified as how much I was misquoted or things were taken out of context or chopped to fit into a theme that wasn't revelant and what we thought would be cutting floor material was used and revelant stuff wasn't.

The media is a great tool,but you most certainly need experiance to handle them well to get your POV across.Is it any wonder many of the global top politicans and countries take media management lessons??
All I'm saying is look before you leap.

You could send Des Crofton on as many media courses as exist and he still won't come across as a reasonable, balanced, well-adjusted person you'd like to have a pint with.

We need someone like that.....and clever as a fox.

Plus, now we know who our friends are from this video.

Also, 2006 and 2009 Acts etc were primarily for public safety, according to this.
Seems logical that future debate should concentrate entirely on how effective this legislation has been.

Grizzly 45

Was looking at their statement again last nite,and I noticed one pertinent point that we seem to be missing. To paraphrase "
Ban all these types of guns without paying compensation."
A most intresting concept and one that is very unconstitutional and proably illegal under EU law as well.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Was looking at their statement again last nite,and I noticed one pertinent point that we seem to be missing. To paraphrase "
Ban all these types of guns without paying compensation."
A most intresting concept and one that is very unconstitutional and proably illegal under EU law as well.

Winning your case in the district court and not being able to recover your costs is probably unconstitutional too.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Winning your case in the district court and not being able to recover your costs is probably unconstitutional too.

Proably,but the thing is here this would set a more serious and dangerous precedent..What could "the state" or AGS suddenly decide next that could be confiscated without recompense in the view of "public safty"??

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Plus, now we know who our friends are from this video.

Also, 2006 and 2009 Acts etc were primarily for public safety, according to this.
Seems logical that future debate should concentrate entirely on how effective this legislation has been.

Well they certainly are NOT in RTE,Prime time,the Irish times or the broadcasting complaints authorithy.Or the big Irish media outlets in general.

Indeed we should concentrate on that point quite abit on how much both here and in Europe gun bans have been dismal failures.

Another thing I have been thinking of is..Why are we hiding ourselves in the closet so to speak??
Am thinking of some of the tactics the gay folk used here in Ireland to make themselves pretty much an accepted norm nowadays in Irish society.Whether you approve or not of their lifestyle choice is not the issue,its how they made themselves acceptable from the dark image of somthing hideous and possible a danger to children and society in general.
It seems we are now in that situation they were 40 years ago.
Ridicilous as it might sound ,maybe we need somthing like a " shooters pride week" or somthing like that to show we aren't a bunch of mass killers either.
"Gunowner and proud" might be a good mindset for us to start adapting and displaying more publicly.

meathstevie

If public safety was such a pressing issue it can't be that hard to convincingly argue the point and act on it immedeately without having to start nitpicking over whether it is a side by side shotgun or a 3 round semi that is a danger to the public or whether it is a .25-06 or a .308 repeater rifle that is a scourge on society.

As Des Crofton said in that video, the last time I checked the skies were still firmly in place.

Some people can't be let out on the street with a blunt spoon or they try to use it as a weapon in a robbery and others can be trusted to have and use high velocity center fire rifles without there ever being any problem.

Preventing members of the first category getting their hands on firearms of any kind in the first place and if that fails getting them from them asap is what the DoJ and Gardai should concentrate on and not nitpicking over a few grains or a cartridge more or less in the hands of the law abiding gun owner.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Winning your case in the district court and not being able to recover your costs is probably unconstitutional too.

It very definitely is constitutional, it was ruled on in the high court.
It might not seem fair or just to us, but to quote Holmes, "This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice"...

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"Gunowner and proud" might be a good mindset for us to start adapting and displaying more publicly.

Where's your blog? Your twitter account? Your letters to the editor? Your articles in the local newspaper about the local club's latest success?

We don't need a float in the paddy's day parade, and we've already proven that each and every one of the above work, but we don't do them and people like ICABS do and all we do is grumble every time ICABS or someone like them gets the coverage we didn't ask for...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Where's your blog? Your twitter account? Your letters to the editor? Your articles in the local newspaper about the local club's latest success?

We don't need a float in the paddy's day parade, and we've already proven that each and every one of the above work, but we don't do them and people like ICABS do and all we do is grumble every time ICABS or someone like them gets the coverage we didn't ask for...

Cant fault you there,but anyone of us willing to stick our grishs out on our FB with our latest kill pic without having to worry about blanking out our faces or wearing an extra thick Ex SAS balaclava? Are we willing to risk every sort of god awful abuse,and **** and death threats and proably physical violence directed at us our property and family??Willing to wear a BORN TO HUNT T shirt down to the local Vegan open day book fair or just into town?? That's the kind of openness we have to be about our lifestyle..
Social media and letters are all fine,but unless it is concerted it makes you just look like a John Fitzgerald of the shooting side of things doing his annual cycle of letters to the Editor.:( BTW the articles to the press,good luck if you arent a journo and there is maybe a inch free after the obituary notices, you might get a word in,on a blue Tuseday.

We are a long way from any sort of Paddy days float.Takes a fair bit of work to get to that point and a lot of oppression and brave folks to stand up for themselves.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Cant fault you there,but anyone of us willing to stick our grishs out on our FB with our latest kill pic without having to worry about blanking out our faces or wearing an extra thick Ex SAS balaclava? Are we willing to risk every sort of god awful abuse,and **** and death threats and proably physical violence directed at us our property and family??Willing to wear a BORN TO HUNT T shirt down to the local Vegan open day book fair or just into town??

So take photos of the deer before the season.
Take photos of the landscape.
Take photos on the range.
Take photos of the dinner after the shoot, drag, butchering and so forth. Post recipes.
Yes, people are squeamish, so don't rub their noses in it. They're not actually dumb enough to think that beef comes from Tesco instead of from cows. Well. Most of them anyway
And the target shooting lads, well, take photos of everything (and most do).

makes you just look like a John Fitzgerald of the shooting side of things

By which you mean "shows up in the letters page every other week".

BTW the articles to the press,good luck if you arent a journo and there is maybe a inch free after the obituary notices, you might get a word in,on a blue Tuseday.

How many threads proving you wrong do you need?

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

By which you mean "shows up in the letters page every other week".

By which I mean "Ho hum its that loon again on his single minded one man mission for the last 30 years regurigating the same letters as almost as predictable and intresting as my tax return letter in every local and national paper......Oh here's an article on the sex lives of clothes moths!!"

getting printed one thing and fair dues to his determination,but if it hasnt netted him one solitary recruit to CACS.......
Look at it another way ICABS will be 50 years in 2016....Despite all their pro media coverage,of which they actually claim WE get the better coverage in the press,the two rain forests that must have been used by them sending letters to all and sundry.The many personalities that have been "presidents" of their organisation including the current dweller in the Park,the justice minister,the former enviroment minister...The grand total of achivements they have got sofar of their list of about 70 different campaigns.

Muzzling greyhounds, banning Stag hunting... Well, maybe in 200 years they might actually ban foxhunting:rolleyes:

Point is ,you can simply over egg the pudding too,by being simply boring to your prospective audience.



Ok so we all wrote,write are writing letters since 2011 when we started this experiment....Reckon my name must be on a black list with the papers in Munster on this topic.As I see damn all of mine being published.Please dont tell me I'm the only one writing??

Witcher

www.thejournal.ie/gun-licensing-laws-control-ireland-review-compensation-1339959-Mar2014/