stolen firearms article

rowa

http://www.herald.ie/news/eight-guns-lost-or-stolen-every-week-30036954.html

The usual well researched unbiased article you have come to expect from the irish press :rolleyes:.

Sparks

Seems like exactly the same numbers as in 2005...

tac foley

You just know that the rest of the article is also total bullshirt when you read a sentence like this - 'But the poll also found that one in 10 gun owners in Ireland keep their firearm for personal protection.'

As a work of fiction it has nothing to commend it, but as a 'factual' document it is sheer tripe.

tac

Cass

If that looks familiar, look at this from only 2 weeks ago. The article is 5 months old. Other than the first paragraph or so the remainder is a "copy and paste".

Top notch reporting.

Rew

Here the survey they are quoting:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_383_en.pdf

rowa

Cass wrote: »

If that looks familiar, look at this from only 2 weeks ago. The article is 5 months old. Other than the first paragraph or so the remainder is a "copy and paste".

Top notch reporting.

Its the timing thats curious though, we all know whats in the wind with the review and what the ags are rumoured to be seeking this month.

Cass

Rew wrote: »

Here the survey they are quoting:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_383_en.pdf

That is the greatest work of fiction since .................... well i better not say as it might offend some people. Needless to say it's a poll of opinions/beliefs of only 1,000 people. OPINIONS and BELIEFS. Not fact, and more importantly not relating to Ireland only. Most of that survey, as i said in the other thread i linked to is European based and as such makes broad sweeping statements about the entire EU and not country specific.

rowa wrote: »

Its the timing thats curious though, we all know whats in the wind with the review and what the ags are rumoured to be seeking this month.

It's not a conspiracy. Someone has gotten wind of possible changes based on PMQs and has decided to do a rush piece to piggy back on the "popularity" of the topic. Well that's what i think. Plus there is never a bad time for them to do a "guns are bad m'kay" story.

valerossi

Pure sh!t and a pathetic attempt at journalism, this is blatant propaganda.
They refer to Irish registered firearms as weapons several times, purely as an attempt to get the do gooders pushing there glasses back up their noses and get them nodding at newspapers.

We can defend ourselves (with reasonable force) and if a lad can get the trigger lock off or the safe open in time to defend himself I say more power to him.

Fu€k sake if you have a legally help gun in Ireland your squeaky clean and not some greasy poorly educated pathetic excuse for a journalist. But this article and just about any article or organisation won't ever take away our guns, only other shooters can loose that for us.
There's 220,000 licenses say 2 guns per person that's 110,000 people 110,000 votes. With local elections coming up what do you say at the door to them when they ask for your vote? Better still the hand full of organisations that represent us are useless yet we tolerate them? Why not tell every organisation that represents us as sportsmen to get ta fu€k and have just one?

Chiparus

Spin , 8 legal guns a week? why did they not say there were 3 illegal guns seized every day?

Sparks

valerossi wrote: »

There's 220,000 licenses say 2 guns per person that's 110,000 people 110,000 votes.

220,000 is the figure from before 2009. The current number is 178,191.

Better still the hand full of organisations that represent us are useless yet we tolerate them? Why not tell every organisation that represents us as sportsmen to get ta fu€k and have just one?

This used to be in the boards.ie wiki until the machine that ran that fell over (it's a bit far down the priorities list of the devs to get it back up and running). It was written in 2009, but it's still true today.

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.

IRLConor

valerossi wrote: »

Why not tell every organisation that represents us as sportsmen to get ta fu€k and have just one?

Do you think there's even one person on the planet who could fairly, competently and intelligently represent all the shooters in Ireland? Never mind getting enough of these saintly, mystical creatures to actually be able to handle the workload...

valerossi

Sparks wrote: »

220,000 is the figure from before 2009. The current number is 178,191.



This used to be in the boards.ie wiki until the machine that ran that fell over (it's a bit far down the priorities list of the devs to get it back up and running). It was written in 2009, but it's still true today.

But my point is that between egos and back stabbing the ones that can merge won't because of a few rotting eggs, I'm not claiming to know all the ins and outs of the politics involved but I genuinely can't see why one governing body is not in place to represent common interest etc gun laws at a governmental level.

valerossi

IRLConor wrote: »

Do you think there's even one person on the planet who could fairly, competently and intelligently represent all the shooters in Ireland? Never mind getting enough of these saintly, mystical creatures to actually be able to handle the workload...

Ah I detect sarcasm? Short answer YES

Sparks

valerossi wrote: »

But my point is that between egos and back stabbing the ones that can merge won't because of a few rotting eggs, I'm not claiming to know all the ins and outs of the politics involved but I genuinely can't see why one governing body is not in place to represent common interest etc gun laws at a governmental level.

For the reasons outlined above:

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.

We had something that did what you're looking for, it was the FCP, and it got thrown away.

Personally, I've just given up on this getting resolved so long as a few people are allowed in admin bodies (and we're talking less than a dozen really). But nobody in the sport gives enough of a fig to even know who the NGBs are, let alone who the incompetent troublemakers are, and until that changes, nothing else will.

Sparks

valerossi wrote: »

Ah I detect sarcasm? Short answer YES

Longer, more informed answer based on a decade or so of direct experience of the problem: No, there really aren't.

Cass

valerossi wrote: »

Short answer YES

Who?

IRLConor

valerossi wrote: »

Ah I detect sarcasm? Short answer YES

Actually no, I'm deadly serious.

I don't know anyone currently or previously involved in shooting sports administration who would be trusted by a majority of shooters. 50%+1 would be hard, never mind the 80%+ support you'd need to actually get stuff done.

And it's not because they're all evil or anything. It's simply that the shooting communities are too diverse for anyone to even know how to represent them all without accidentally screwing something up.

valerossi

Sparks wrote: »

For the reasons outlined above:

We had something that did what you're looking for, it was the FCP, and it got thrown away.

Personally, I've just given up on this getting resolved so long as a few people are allowed in admin bodies (and we're talking less than a dozen really). But nobody in the sport gives enough of a fig to even know who the NGBs are, let alone who the incompetent troublemakers are, and until that changes, nothing else will.

But that's my exact point that dozen your talking about, that's the sole reason no one body represents us to the law makers so as a result once the semi auto shotguns and handguns are gone attention will be turned to centerfire rifles then shotguns and rimfires followed closely by air guns.

Sparks

valerossi wrote: »

But that's my exact point that dozen your talking about, that's the sole reason no one body represents us to the law makers so as a result once the semi auto shotguns and handguns are gone attention will be turned to centerfire rifles then shotguns and rimfires followed closely by air guns.

That's not the sole reason that no one body represents us to the law makers.
As I said, we had a single body - the FCP - where the DoJ (representing the Minister), the AGS, the insurers, the Sports Council and all of the shooting NGBs were represented so that we could all sit at one table and discuss this sort of thing. The sole reason we no longer have that is that the NARGC pulled out of it in a way that made it impossible to continue. If they want better representation with the state, they shouldn't be trying to set up a new lobby group, they should be trying to mend bridges and go back in and sit down at the table and restart the FCP.

valerossi

Sparks wrote: »

That's not the sole reason that no one body represents us to the law makers.
As I said, we had a single body - the FCP - where the DoJ (representing the Minister), the AGS, the insurers, the Sports Council and all of the shooting NGBs were represented so that we could all sit at one table and discuss this sort of thing. The sole reason we no longer have that is that the NARGC pulled out of it in a way that made it impossible to continue. If they want better representation with the state, they shouldn't be trying to set up a new lobby group, they should be trying to mend bridges and go back in and sit down at the table and restart the FCP.

I no what I'm trying to say May seem simplistic if not idiotic sparks but the one common interest we all share is the will to keep our fire arms. That's the only thing we need in common for a reformed FCP or what every lobby group we send to DOJ with one goal to show government that every license holder and their family have a voice.
Then once that's sorted let everyone go back to bickering and nitpicking.

Sorry rowa I've dragged your thread to sh!t.

Dian Cecht

FCP, FCP, FCP :eek:

We know, we know :rolleyes: (for those wondering this is not sarcasm I'm just sick of hearing about "what was" & lads proposing "what could be" being shot down)

So are we to believe NARGC left the FCP for no valid reason?

Are you going to tell us why they left?

Or do you know?

"Irish Shooters Digest" readers will have a fair idea as Des wrote a few articles in it about the subject.

Not saying NARGC are the be all & end all but they do technically represent the largest group of shooters in this country possibly apart from those in IFA, some of who are probably in NARGC also, if my area is anything to go by.

Let's not forget if NARGC didn't take & put the money up for the court cases that basically made the Gardaí review their "policy" on firearms licencing there would be no fullbore pistols or rifles over .270 licenced here at the moment.

"Eaten bread is easily forgotten" :mad:

If there are only 12 people controlling & ****ing up shooting in this country maybe it's time there was a new organisation set up as most lads I know are sick of the current situation. Lots of us know who the trouble makers are. So how hard would it be to keep them away from the reigns?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So are we to believe NARGC left the FCP for no valid reason?
Are you going to tell us why they left?
Or do you know?

I have my own opinions based on being fairly close to things for a long period of time.
I've also read the Defamation Act and I know posting here is legally publication.

"Irish Shooters Digest" readers will have a fair idea as Des wrote a few articles in it about the subject.

Would this be the article where he said that centerfire pistol owners were breaking the law regularly and shouldn't be allowed to own firearms at all? Or do you mean a different one?

Not saying NARGC are the be all & end all but they do technically represent the largest group of shooters in this country possibly apart from those in IFA, some of who are probably in NARGC also, if my area is anything to go by.

The IFA would have somewhere in the region of five to six times as many shooting members as the NARGC, more paid staff, and more time spent lobbying more effectively for their members than the NARGC (that's just the way of things - they're a larger, richer body with more political weight to chuck about the place).

The IFA did not pull out of the FCP.
Draw your own conclusions.

Let's not forget if NARGC didn't take & put the money up for the court cases that basically made the Gardaí review their "policy" on firearms licencing there would be no fullbore pistols or rifles over .270 licenced here at the moment.

Court case.
One, singular. Frank Brophy's olympic single-shot .22lr Toz-35 pistol.
Not all of us forget this morning's toast.

Thing is, some of us also remember being told of meetings where we were offered pistols a decade before that court case, and turned them down because we weren't offered everything. Instead of a modification of the policy, we walked away hoping we'd get the policy rescinded completely and that the courts would best the government.
Go apply for a centerfire pistol licence today if you want to check on how that went.

If there are only 12 people controlling & ****ing up shooting in this country maybe it's time there was a new organisation set up...
So how hard would it be to keep them away from the reigns?

Get 50% of your sport's shooters to show up for one AGM.
Just do that one, simple task.
Once.
After you've managed to do that, you'll understand the magnitude of the question you're asking here.

yubabill1

using this guy's figures, 284 firearms stolen every year, 900 illegal firearms seized by gardai every year.

Where would criminals get firearms if they could not steal them from us?

178,000 licensed firearms/ 284 stolen = 0.0016% per annum.

Must get that preposterously high figure down, somehow.

Dian Cecht

Fair points Sparks. We, as a community, are doomed by the inaction of the many & the few that do bother

Apparently, Mr Brophys' subsequent application for a 9mm on the strength of the winning the case for a .22lr really pissed off the DOJ. Any truth in that?

Wasn't Nicholas Floods' case 'fronted' by NARGC also?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Fair points Sparks. We, as a community, are doomed by the inaction of the many & the few that do bother

The inaction of the many, yes.
The action of the few, not so much.
The unwise actions of a tiny minority, yeah, I'd agree with that.

Apparently, Mr Brophys' subsequent application for a 9mm on the strength of the winning the case for a .22lr really pissed off the DOJ. Any truth in that?

Honestly don't know, but I thought it was a substitution rather than a new application. And from what I remember of the time, the main argument going on was between the Minister and the Commissioner because McDowell came into office making large promises about sweeping reforms of the Gardai. I can't rule it out, but I would be surprised if Frank was deemed important enough to be annoyed by in the Department (that's not a slur on Frank, none of us really ping the radar in the DoJ outside of the firearms unit. We're just not that big a concern to them, much as our egos swear it should be otherwise). His local Super, that might be another matter, but he'd just taken him to court so that might have been an unavoidable state of affairs anyway. But his local Super isn't the DoJ and doesn't answer to the DoJ and the size of the row that would break out if the DoJ tried to change that would be far bigger than the row we're seeing in the press right now.

Wasn't Nicholas Floods' case 'fronted' by NARGC also?

No, but Nicholas' case didn't bring back fullbore rifles. When Frank's case succeeded, the entire garda policy (of not licencing anything other than shotguns, airguns and rifles under .270 Winchester) stopped there and then, it wasn't just modified - so after Brophy, everything was again licencable.

How much of that was down to the court case and how much of that was down to the Commissioner seeing a way to use us to embarress the Minister, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure, but personally I believe there was at least a bit of the latter going on, though the former was still necessary at the time.

And there was a rather strident article in the Digest at one point regarding who had backed what court cases and what effect they had had, so all of this is not just fine detail in a historical footnote, it seems to matter personally to quite a few people.

2011

Sparks wrote: »

No, but Nicholas' case didn't bring back fullbore rifles.

Just to be clear Nicholas Flood's case did bring us rifles of .308 caliber and above.

Sparks

Just to be very clear, it did not. The policy had been removed following Brophy and Nicholas's case was never heard, it was settled out of court and set no precedent.

2011

Sparks wrote: »

Just to be very clear, it did not. The policy had been removed following Brophy and Nicholas's case was never heard, it was settled out of court and set no precedent.

So if Nicholas Flood did not take his case we would have .308 rifles within the same timeframe?

Are you saying that ther is no connection between these events?

Sparks

Yes, because for all intents and purposes relating to licencing (apart from the stress it put him under personally), the case didn't happen. It was settled, so no hearing and no verdict and no precedent and thus no effect. The policy the AGS were using had been dropped over the Brophy case before the settlement happened (and may well have been a factor in that settlement with Nicholas' super being told the policy behind the refusal he'd given now having changed and so the court case being unnecessary - though obviously that's just my opinion since I haven't bugged any garda offices :pac: ).

Dian Cecht

I stand corrected so.

yubabill1

we were consulted on this last year,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056933761

Obviously that was a wasted exercise when they didn't get the answer they wanted.

Maybe the results are useful? Sample size much larger, so should have some weight.

All you need is a journo with an open mind.......but I don't remember meeting one lately.

yubabill1

BTW, can we have ONE thread that doesn't end up in chaos?

It's like a broken record.

Mods - can you just pull any comment likely to drag down a thread?

yubabill1

I've found the EU consultation report, I know the link is on Boards previously

ec.europa.eu/dgs/home.../public-consultation/.../consulting_0026_en.htm‎

"A total number of 85 673 responses were received."

"The vast majority of responses (95.6%) were from individual citizens, with 4% were from private organisations and 0.3 % from members of public authorities."

"Hunting and target shooting associations were well mobilised to participate in the survey:"

"Overall, respondents were opposed to the suggestion of further action on EU level in this area. For instance, 92% of respondent opposed extending the list of prohibited firearms, as defined in Annex I Part II of Directive 91/477/EEC."

yubabill1

Final instalment of rant:

Don't think these phone surveys pull people randomly from the phone directory.

They are carefully chosen.

So, you bury a report from an open consultation with 85,000 respondents and rig a phone survey with 1,000 respondents to fit the white paper you already had compiled in advance of the consultation.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

we were consulted on this last year

Except that we weren't - that was a different consultation by a different group in a different jurisdiction for input into a different set of laws. Still important because it feeds back into us, but not quite the same thing as a local consultation. (And the people who were pushing it were supposed to be anti-private-firearms-ownership so I'm not sure we can hold it up as an example of how it should be done)

All you need is a journo with an open mind.......but I don't remember meeting one lately.

There are a few, we've had some good coverage over the years from them, but the paul williams eejits can write more sensationalist stuff faster and sell more, so it's an uphill slog.

1shot16

yubabill1 wrote: »

using this guy's figures, 284 firearms stolen every year, 900 illegal firearms seized by gardai every year.

Where would criminals get firearms if they could not steal them from us?

Most of them are probably just sub 12ftlb air rifles and pistols from the north that are bought without a licence up there and brought down...

A 2j or 3j air pistol is considered a handgun for us :rolleyes:

juice1304

1shot16 wrote: »

Most of them are probably just sub 12ftlb air rifles and pistols from the north that are bought without a licence up there and brought down...

A 2j or 3j air pistol is considered a handgun for us :rolleyes:

You need a licence for an air rifle in the north also. Just not in the uk itself.

yubabill1

Had a good rant this morning - needed to blow off some steam.

Think I looked up this survey from the OP article the other day- remember reading 900-odd people interviewed by phone - hardy a representative sample of 500million EU citizens:

"The Eurobarometer survey showed 71pc of the population expect an increase in gun violence in the next five years, compared to an average of 58pc across the continent.

But the poll also found that one in 10 gun owners in Ireland keep their firearm for personal protection."

Also see the EU consultation report has lost its Appendix, where the breakdown of answers was supplied.

You know they are struggling when they quote selected single opinions in a survey of 85,000-odd - but that type of thing hasn't stopped them before.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Final instalment of rant:

Don't think these phone surveys pull people randomly from the phone directory.

They are carefully chosen.

So, you bury a report from an open consultation with 85,000 respondents and rig a phone survey with 1,000 respondents to fit the white paper you already had compiled in advance of the consultation.

Nope it seemingly IS random selection done by a computorised random phone number selection. I was actually called by the Red C company about four months ago to take part in a phone survey.Spent more of the survey questioning the pollster [who was in the UK] about how this works.
However the questions are so ambigiously worded that a smart pollster could make it sound like the exact opposite to your opinion,and you then also have the option of being kept on record for further opinion polls...Read,if it was an anti gun survey,and you were an anti,whats the betting YOU will be called again on a topic thats dear to your heart?

sfakiaman

Back in the day when I was studying sociology as part of a degree course with the London School of Economics, we were shown how questionnaires could be worded so as to lead the respondent into the answer desired. Politically based pollsters are very adept at this.

tac foley

yubabill1 wrote: »

...But the poll also found that one in 10 gun owners in Ireland keep their firearm for personal protection...

That statement just has to be an outright lie.

I'm betting that the question was along the lines of 'if attacked, and you had the option of doing so, would you use a legally-owned firearm to defend your life?' OR, 'would you like to be able to use your legally-owned firearm to defend yourself?'

As we ALL know, possession of a firearm for personal protection is NOT permitted in the RoI.

It IS permitted in the north, and around 3000 people whose lives are KNOWN to be at risk have permits to possess a personal handgun to defend their lives if necessary. The UKNI Department of Justice figures are -

•A total of 2,924 licenses have ‘Personal Protection Weapon’ among the conditions of use. These holders include ex-PSNI, civilians and prison officers.

Remember the old saying - 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics'.

tac

Sparks

What odds that the 1 in 10 is somehow tied to a "loose" definition of what "Ireland" means?

padmundo

From that article:

"Two methods being looked at by the Commission are specific "deactivation techniques"" to ensure firearms cannot be used once taken off the street, and marking guns with serial numbers when they are manufactured."

The latter is hardly a new method now... total hogwash.

Sparks

Yeah, that last one's been in Irish firearms law since 1924 (the principal act is 1925 but there was a tide-us-over-till-the-first-dail-sorts-itself-out act in 1924). Even firearms not made with serial numbers (like, say, paintball markers) are covered - you make some sort of identifying mark on them and that gets used as the serial number.

So if they had that much figured out and settled in 1924...

tac foley

Most firearms made since the introduction of mass-production methods in the early part of the 19th century have had serial numbers on them.

This is hardly rocket science.

In most countries that have firearms' laws, removal or defacing a serial number is a criminal offence. In the USA it is a Federal Offence attracting a long prison term if you are found with such a gun in your possession. However, it IS permitted to 'de-farb' a black powder firing muzzle-loader in order to make it look historically correct, or HC as it is known among re-enactors, but this is only because in most states a black powder gun is not actually classed as a firearm as the term is understood in the most of the rest of the free world. As such, firearms of this kind are exempt from any kind of licensing procedure. No convicted felon in the USA may possess ANY kind of a firearm that fires a cartridge, but they ARE able to own a muzzle-loader.

It used to be that single-shot muzzleloading guns of all kinds - rifles, shotguns and pistols - could be sold without any form of licensing requirement in Germany, France and Belgium, providing that you are over 18 and have no criminal record. However, this has recently changed in Germany - the rest I don't know about.

tac

rowa

tac foley wrote: »

As we ALL know, possession of a firearm for personal protection is NOT permitted in the RoI.



tac

Well it used to be until fairly recently, that you could. For instance Ben Dunne the supermarket owner had a .38 revolver for personal protection, and that was long before the brophy case when pistols became generally available 10 years ago. Maybe since the good friday agreement this has been stopped.

tac foley

I am corrected.

TVM

tac

Sparks

It was never anywhere even remotely within an asses roar of 1 in 10 though, and those pistols weren't licenced - they were issued. Different mechanism completely, different kind of oversight, different set of people involved, different decision making process and so on. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and - you guessed it - the 1957 bolivian world cup soccer team.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

It was never anywhere even remotely within an asses roar of 1 in 10 though, and those pistols weren't licenced - they were issued. Different mechanism completely, different kind of oversight, different set of people involved, different decision making process and so on. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and - you guessed it - the 1957 bolivian world cup soccer team.

You mean a different set of rules for the higher-ups, well i am surprised :rolleyes:. I presume sparks some sort of training was given to people issued with personal protection firearms ? Surely they weren't just allowed to wander off into the public with a loaded gun ?

Sparks

Couldn't tell you rowa, almost everything I know about that programme comes second-or-third-hand at best and is strictly anecdotal.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope it seemingly IS random selection done by a computorised random phone number selection. I was actually called by the Red C company about four months ago to take part in a phone survey.Spent more of the survey questioning the pollster [who was in the UK] about how this works.

I am particularly suspicious as to whether they include all the people polled in the final result.