Gardai proposals to ban firearms

daragh8008

Deaf git wrote: »

Earlier on in this thread I suggested full page ads in the national press as a possible method to put our case forward. Having listened to that prize ass Deputy Kenny, I think our email campaign will have zero effect. Any mails I've sent in recent weeks generated a generic reply or none at all.
What if the good Deputy bought his Sunday paper to find a full page ad asking him to explain his comments and general ignorance? That would expose him to media that enjoy ripping a dumb TD a new one.
Dail representation is a numbers game and we don't have sufficient numbers to directly influence election outcomes except in a few close run constituencies. But we could expose the ignorance, the half truths, the sheer BS we have to contend with - and that might influence a lot more votes.
I'm willing to contribute cash to that sort of campaign, maybe others would too.

Just looked at that Sunday Indo 34k for full page 17k for half page. Irish Times 29k full 14k half page. (all numbers are nabbed from the web so may not be up to date) Wouldn't do an attack myself, maybe just an info style to bring TDs and the general public up to date. If an organisation was fund raising For it then I'd chip in.

Sparks

A year's salary - enough to buy a club's entire armory for beginner shooters or outfit an entire range with electronic targets or send a whole squad abroad for a world championships - for one advert that's tomorrow's fish&chips wrapper.

I'd be sick if we could raise that much for that little given how many people have complained about range membership fees here over the years. And if it worked, I think I'd be even sicker - the thought that we'd have to give up that much to keep a sport purely because of some stupid proposals that ultimately we paid for through our taxes is just too damn unpleasant.

bpb101

I can see the point of the ads but it ain't worth it , for 35 grand you could kit out a nice range and a good few unelectric basic ranges.

Also 35 grand to give to the media and then get some artical the next day saying we won't give up our ak47 for the children

yubabill1

Eurobarometer report #383 - 25,000 citizens opinions on firearms from September 2013:

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


Most notably, Ireland tops the poll with support (89%) for adopting minimum common standards on types of firearms for private use (page 41)

And a few pages further...

"What is striking is the proportion of people across the EU who, irrespective of whether
they possess firearms themselves, believe that there is a high level of firearms-related
crime in their own country. This is clearly a matter of perception rather than of crime
statistics, and many people may be over-estimating the level of gun crime which really
occurs in their country. Nonetheless, the fact that a majority of people in 12 Member
States believe there is a high level of firearms-related crime points to the significant
public concern about this issue.

Most respondents believe that stricter regulation will be the most effective way to reduce
firearms-related crime, although it is important to note that a sizeable minority believe
other methods should be adopted. There is also strong support for the introduction of
EU-wide common standards governing various aspects of the owning, buying and selling
of firearms, against a backdrop of widespread public concern that firearms-related crime
is an increasingly serious problem."

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

And if it worked, I think I'd be even sicker - the thought that we'd have to give up that much to keep a sport purely because of some stupid proposals that ultimately we paid for through our taxes is just too damn unpleasant.

I'd take the opposite view. I'd be delighted if it worked.

Yes, it would be a high price to pay but at least we could continue with our sport.

Shocking that we are being unfairly targeted, but that's where we are.

The Gardai are losing some serious amount of respect from me over this.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, it would be a high price to pay but at least we could continue with our sport.

You misunderstand me. If we'd paid that price a few years ago when we had the money to do so, we'd have a stronger sport today that wouldn't be in this position. If the result of that was being forced to do so now, the sense of waste would be sickening.

yubabill1

yubabill1 wrote: »

Eurobarometer report #383 - 25,000 citizens opinions on firearms from September 2013:

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


Most notably, Ireland tops the poll with support (89%) for adopting minimum common standards on types of firearms for private use (page 41)

And a few pages further...

"What is striking is the proportion of people across the EU who, irrespective of whether
they possess firearms themselves, believe that there is a high level of firearms-related
crime in their own country. This is clearly a matter of perception rather than of crime
statistics, and many people may be over-estimating the level of gun crime which really
occurs in their country. Nonetheless, the fact that a majority of people in 12 Member
States believe there is a high level of firearms-related crime points to the significant
public concern about this issue.

Most respondents believe that stricter regulation will be the most effective way to reduce
firearms-related crime, although it is important to note that a sizeable minority believe
other methods should be adopted. There is also strong support for the introduction of
EU-wide common standards governing various aspects of the owning, buying and selling
of firearms, against a backdrop of widespread public concern that firearms-related crime
is an increasingly serious problem."

Was going to keep this bit from the Eurobarometer for myself, but thought it better to share;


"
The socio-demographic results show that men are more likely than women to own a

firearm now (8% vs. 1%) and to have previously owned a firearm (9% vs. 2%). Older

people are more likely to own or to have previously owned a firearm. People who live in

rural areas are more likely to own a firearm than those who live in large towns (7% vs.

3%). Self-employed people (8%) are also more likely to possess a firearm than those in

other occupations (4%-5%)."

There it is in black and white - the Authorities are seeking to impose controls on better-off middle-aged men in rural areas (not exactly candidates for criminal activity) in order to protect public safety.

From a survey of 25,000 EU citizens.

*****Gold*******

Sparks

I would have loved to have seen a comparison in that study between the perceptions of people surveyed and the actual reality and what the study classed as reality (for example, 7% of Irish people have firearms? 4.5 million of us means 315,000 of us have licences but there are only 200,000 firearms. Also, what's a firearm in Croatia and what's a firearm in Ireland are two radically different things...)

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

I would have loved to have seen a comparison in that study between the perceptions of people surveyed and the actual reality and what the study classed as reality (for example, 7% of Irish people have firearms? 4.5 million of us means 315,000 of us have licences but there are only 200,000 firearms. Also, what's a firearm in Croatia and what's a firearm in Ireland are two radically different things...)

Have spent the last few weeks wrecking my head trying to sort the wheat from the chaff on things like those above - decided to stick with common sense supported by fact, because it's possible to argue anything with statistics but common sense is just common sense when backed by fact.

The nugget in what you say above is that the public perception of gun crime is exaggerated - not surprising when your subconscious is battered daily by Hollywood and the red tops, or even "Love/Hate" (am I the only person in Ireland who hasn't watched it?)

Have structured my submission along these lines;

1. Preamble

2. Credibility of AGS/DoJ in firearms-related matters and these proposals

3. Discussion RE; civilian utility of handgun/SA rifle/ Pump + SA shotgun

4. Consequences of implementing the proposals.

Sparks - didn't you mention something like a .32 C/F Olympic pistol category while back?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Sparks - didn't you mention something like a .32 C/F Olympic pistol category while back?

Yeah, ISSF fullbore pistol goes up to .38 calibre. Was in the Olympic programme until 1972 and was dropped because of the cost of building new ranges and the pressure on space in the Olympic Village. Same year that fullbore rifle was dropped from the programme as well. Both continue today to the World Championships level though. It used to be all .38 stuff when revolvers were the most common pistol used in the event:



These days it's mostly .32 semiautomatics though:



One of the disciplines I've always wanted to try but didn't have the money to get the kit for before the ban on new restricted short firearm licences came in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VnWVdu_DKA

yubabill1

cheers

need to get my head clear before I finally construct this - I've got a serious chunk of A4 sheets with scribbles on them at the moment, some cut-and-paste stuff on my hard drive and a load of stuff in my head at the minute.

Once I get the structure organised (did that finally last night) then I put the meat on the bones, followed by a good edit.

Definitely ready before the deadline.

hexosan

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd take the opposite view. I'd be delighted if it worked.

Yes, it would be a high price to pay but at least we could continue with our sport.

Shocking that we are being unfairly targeted, but that's where we are.

The Gardai are losing some serious amount of respect from me over this.

Are you losing respect for the Gardaí on the ground or Garda management who are the actual ones pushing this. Can't tar them all with the one brush

Grizzly 45

Love/Hate am proud to say never watched an episode of this trash either and no intention of ever doing so .So Yuba you aint alone in discerning TV viewing.
What has come out of intrest for me in this whole thing is the fact Ireland within the EU
Has got the most restricted legislation on firearms ownership anyway and thats going by all the antigun /neutalish sites out there.But our gun crime stats are next to the UK perhead per capita.The Uk still allows more stuff to be liscensed than we do and despite its bans still had two "mass shootings"using approved sporting shotguns . Cyprus has the most gun ownership in the EU next to the Czech Republic and both have little to nomurders with guns. 8people in the Czech Republic in five years were shot.unknown in Cyprus..How many were shot here in Ireland with illegal firearms in that time period??Or with legallyheld arms of the restricted kind??
Short story long...If you have the most restrictive legislation in the EU at your fingertips as politicans and police and your ilegal gun crime is going through the roof and its easier to get an illegal gun than a legal one.Well your problem isnt civillian gun ownership..

Should also add that all the countries where it is claimed on these websites that you needa special permit to own semi auto firearms is nothing more than eye washing.Click on anyof these little numbers behind the statements and it leads back to the EU firearms category definitions...Nothing more than word play making the ownership sound more difficult thanit actually is but sounds good for a superfical read over by the uninitiated.

Deaf git

Sparks wrote: »

A year's salary - enough to buy a club's entire armory for beginner shooters or outfit an entire range with electronic targets or send a whole squad abroad for a world championships - for one advert that's tomorrow's fish&chips wrapper.

I'd be sick if we could raise that much for that little given how many people have complained about range membership fees here over the years. And if it worked, I think I'd be even sicker - the thought that we'd have to give up that much to keep a sport purely because of some stupid proposals that ultimately we paid for through our taxes is just too damn unpleasant.

Yep, I'm sick too.
But if these measures go through a good number of us will have no further need for targets. And complaints over club fees will be moot.

I still favour highlighting the disgraceful misuse of public monies, half baked Clouseau style statistics, inappropriate behaviour etc. And if a judge has commented on the antics of some individuals there is nothing wrong with repeating those comments in the public domain. Bullies hate being publicly confronted and named.

If I were cynical I'd suggest some reporters might be more careful how they report on regular advertisers with their own paper. But that couldn't be true in Ireland.

yubabill1

Was looking for original judgement telling AGS

"I don't know why you don't pursue these cases on ground of public safety?" - a little help, anyone? - and I found this hilarious story;

Newly-appointed Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald 21/7/14

"...a series of systemic failings have caused massive controversy and generated mistrust in our police service," she says

gunhappy_ie

yubabill1 wrote: »

Was looking for original judgement telling AGS

"I don't know why you don't pursue these cases on ground of public safety?" - a little help, anyone? - and I found this hilarious story;

Newly-appointed Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald 21/7/14

"...a series of systemic failings have caused massive controversy and generated mistrust in our police service," she says

No point giving GSOC more powers ....Having made several complaints to no avail.... there cops (or ex cops) looking after cops .... !!

GH

bravestar

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

No point giving GSOC more powers ....Having made several complaints to no avail.... there cops (or ex cops) looking after cops .... !!

GH

Looking after... Haha Quite the opposite actually and the most recent example can be seen when a Garda was prosecuted for theft after sorting out a taxi fair.

bravestar

hexosan wrote: »

Are you losing respect for the Gardaí on the ground or Garda management who are the actual ones pushing this. Can't tar them all with the one brush

I believe battlecorp is referring to management.

yubabill1

Lads, I have some free time and I think I have read almost every post in every thread and we've been going on about this for a solid year - but I still can't find the last DC Judgement, where the judge sparked the whole thing off again, just as it had died down - encouraging AGS to pursue public safety (the 6 year old kid had been injured by a handgun discharge in Dublin)

Found a Sparks post about Minister Fitzgerald stating AGS reducing gun crime by 7% recently, in the meantime,

Ok found what I was looking for - it was the Mansfield judgement

Cass

I've spent the last week reviewing my submission. I've cut an awful lot of chat, non relevant drivel, personal opinions, and preaching out of it. Just have to re-read the summation where i recapped, in point form, ll the facts and then provide a very, very short personal statement. It's still coming in at 20 pages. Is that too much, not enough?

How much have others done? i realise it's not about length as sometimes too much can cause someone to glaze over especially when a point turns into a personal tirade. However i also don't want to leave it too short and make it seem like it was a last minute thing. However i believe i have covered everything, or more to the point everything i can easily and comfortably discuss.

My format was:

• Glossary (i numbered the pages of the e-mail as i wrote it in word first then attached. Makes it easier for someone reading)
• Introduction (my reason for writing, and about me)
• Background (My sporting background)
• Main categories in Garda proposals (pistols, semi auto, shotguns, blanket bans, etc)
• Rebuttal to them
• Systematic/point by point rebutting of errors, falsehoods in the rest of the proposals (this took up a lot)
• Explanation of what we do, what we use, and very (half a paragraph) on the history of sports
• Short discussion on safety record in shooting
• Refuting of allegations of public safety issues and mass shootings
• Faults in comparisons to other jurisdictions.
• Short summary on legal issues, cases, definitions. (Not too much because as i said before i don't have the expertise to discuss this at length so don't get roped into something i cannot answer or leave myself open to questions i cannot answer)
• Reputation of An Gardaí, stats, etc.
• Providing statistics throughout the rebuttal/submission, when and where appropriate. Actual facts, not best guess. If in doubt i left it out. Again don't say something you cannot prove.
• Comments by Minister, judges, etc. on the court cases.
• The cost to the revenue in past cases, and current ones (now with costs being awarded)
• The application of the proposals already (i know, no proof, but i touched on it), and the revoking of current licenses (actually is happening)
• Recap of main points of rebuttal in point form
• Short personal statement while remaining factual. No "please think of the children" type speeches.
• Signed off and included contact info, address, willingness to be called for further questions (that is part and parcel of submitting something. That you may be called an must be willing to go in and back up" your statements)

I done my best to avoid discussing the current legislation from the point of view of how wrong it is. We are not trying to repel any laws, MUCH harder thing to do and outside the remit of the review committee, just counter and stop the current proposals. So no point in moaning how unfair some things are. I only referenced the current laws when it was appropriate and to provide information on a point i was making.

daragh8008

Being very new to the sport I was planning on putting in a short submission myself on friday. However, not wanting to do more damage than good I was wondering if there was any "tin foil hat police" willing to give it a quick read and make sure that it is OK and that it is technically sound and not too affronting. If a more experienced person would be willing to take a read (only 8 pages) I would appreciate it. I'll happily proof check for typos in return. PM me if you can.

Thanks
Daragh

Deaf git

bravestar wrote: »

Looking after... Haha Quite the opposite actually and the most recent example can be seen when a Garda was prosecuted for theft after sorting out a taxi fair.

Ah but that is such an Irish thing, crucify some gob****e over a minor sum but turn a blind eye to the management throwing away hundreds of thousands.

Having said that, if 'sorting out' equates to not 'paying for' this would constitute an abuse of position.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

IIt's still coming in at 20 pages. Is that too much, not enough?

Anything over 10 pages ought to have an executive summary but there's no upper or lower limit. Mine's at nine pages in the main body and then about 20 in the appendices (I took my 60 problematic statements and put point-by-point comments in an appendix and just commented on the worst ones in the main body).
I'm still editing and writing, but I'll post it here once it goes off and hopefully that'll be in a day or so. I'd have finished faster, but you know, toddler.

BTW, don't forget the cover letter (and that's where your full address goes, the submission is a public record so some folks don't want their address on it for security reasons).

I done my best to avoid discussing the current legislation from the point of view of how wrong it is.

I've been thinking about that a fair bit. There are definitely problems with the law, but the main one is that nobody knows what it is, beyond the bones of the thing. Until they do a restatement and bring it all into one single document we can all read, most amendments aren't worth proposing because how can you decide where to go if you don't know where you are?
So I've kept my recommendations to two:
1) Reject the review in its current form and send it back to the FCP for further discussion;
2) Don't change the law again until after a restatement is done.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

BTW, don't forget the cover letter (and that's where your full address goes, the submission is a public record so some folks don't want their address on it for security reasons).

This has to be sent separately for this very reason, right? Even if not for this reason, it still has to be sent separately?

So I've kept my recommendations to two:
1) Reject the review in its current form and send it back to the FCP for further discussion;
2) Don't change the law again until after a restatement is done.

Good point.

No point is countering or arguing their proposals if you cannot make some of your own. IOW no point in saying "down with this sort of thing" and leaving it at that.

Also important not to go into detail of what you think should happen as anything said, for better or worse, could bee taken at face value, may not represent the needs of everyone, could open more doors than it closes, and frankly none of use are suitable to propose any changes. Anything that is currently in law is not on the cards in so far as discussion on how to change or amend them.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

This has to be sent separately for this very reason, right? Even if not for this reason, it still has to be sent separately?

Well, it has to be a seperate document. One email, two attachments. If you send it hardcopy, it would have to be in the same envelope, but as a seperate sheet.

Good point.
No point is countering or arguing their proposals if you cannot make some of your own. IOW no point in saying "down with this sort of thing" and leaving it at that.

Yeah, but "the review has not proven its case" isn't invalid as a position.

Also important not to go into detail of what you think should happen as anything said, for better or worse, could bee taken at face value, may not represent the needs of everyone, could open more doors than it closes, and frankly none of use are suitable to propose any changes. Anything that is currently in law is not on the cards in so far as discussion on how to change or amend them.

Yup. If we're going to do a review, do it via the FCP - everyone at the one table, nobody going off in a back room and then showing up with a fait accompli at the Joint Committee.

yubabill1

In any submission that any of us make, I'd be in favour of an outright statement rejecting these proposals being up front and centre.

There are also problems with interpretation of the law as is, which could be mentioned also.

Proofs, supporting information, rebuttals, corrections, opinions etc at your own discretion.

N.B. The "do nothing" option leaves us with the existing law and a new set of Commissioner's guidelines......

Grizzly 45

bravestar wrote: »

Looking after... Haha Quite the opposite actually and the most recent example can be seen when a Garda was prosecuted for theft after sorting out a taxi fair.

Yeah the little fish get caught and are dealt with.
But when it comes to dealing with the big fish with the trophy value. GSOC doesnt seem to have the tackle to go fishing for sharks or the stomach for dumping out the chum buckets.BTWwe are not saying this out of nastiness but from practical experience of having dealt with GSOC on five different cases in rhe Limetick area alone.

bpb101

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah the little fish get caught and are dealt with.
.

wasent there some trafic cop a few years ago and he pulled over the cheif supper and gave him a speeding ticket or he was drinking or something and gave him a ticket , and the traffic cop was "relocated" to the back arse of donegal

bravestar

Deaf git wrote: »

Ah but that is such an Irish thing, crucify some gob****e over a minor sum but turn a blind eye to the management throwing away hundreds of thousands.

Having said that, if 'sorting out' equates to not 'paying for' this would constitute an abuse of position.

By sorting out I mean, the taxi driver was paid. The garda was prosecuted, and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing, for theft and assault at the behest of GSOC because he took the money from the fare who refused to pay and gave it to the taxi driver. Eur 6.25.

Cops looking after cops my ass.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-cleared-of-theft-and-assault-after-sorting-out-dispute-between-taxi-and-passenger-over-625-fare-30843018.html

knockon

bravestar wrote: »

By sorting out I mean, the taxi driver was paid. The garda was prosecuted, and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing, for theft and assault at the behest of GSOC because he took the money from the fare who refused to pay and gave it to the taxi driver. Eur 6.25.

Cops looking after cops my ass.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-cleared-of-theft-and-assault-after-sorting-out-dispute-between-taxi-and-passenger-over-625-fare-30843018.html

It was a disgrace that the DPP even brought that case to court. A mans good name was sullied as he was dragged through the courts. GSOC seem to have a set of priorities and work to a standard that doesn't seem to be either fair and/or easy to understand. Thankfully the Judge did. "Cops looking after cops"? Not a hope. With the amount of frivolous complaints being launched against members I have friends who hesitate to use their ASP for fear of the trouble they could get themselves into. The treatment of them by GSOC is not great by all accounts. Chiefs and Supers? Now that's a different story.