Gardai proposals to ban firearms

SVI40

yubabill1 wrote: »

There's nothing to discuss IMHO.

These proposals are egregious.

The proposers have tried to ignite a public outcry against us with misdirection, deflection and omission for almost all of 2014.

And after we've had our bite back, nobody will be in much form for sitting down with the other side.

Best thing for the AGS/DoJE WG report is a Zippo lighter.

Ends.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. The report is complete rubbish, and we need to have them see that. But, like it or not, the authors do have the ear of the decision makers.

yubabill1

SVI40 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. The report is complete rubbish, and we need to have them see that. But, like it or not, the authors do have the ear of the decision makers.

+1 on that.

There is only one decision maker - the Minister for Justice and Equality - committees are ultimately controlled by whoever is in government.

You might remember that Dermot Aherne initially proposed a complete ban on handguns, but when someone mentioned compensation, he drew back from his initial position and brought in the cheapest solution.

This wasn't motivated by lobbying from shooting interests, it was motivated by cost...in the middle of a financial boom.

My argument is that the Minister decides policy depending upon the prevailing wind and goes for the cheapest solution.

These proposals would have been put into effect by now if there was an atrocity (and unfortunately, the public have become inured to gang murders in the same way they did to killing during the Troubles).

OK, I think we all have done a reasonable job of rubbishing these proposals - it should become abundantly clear to even the most diehard anti-gun committee member that the "gun lobby" have a lot of difficulties with the WG Report.

We have done a reasonable job of questioning the credibility of the WG Report proposers.

We have done a reasonable job of indicating that we will require compensation and our history of DC, High and Supreme Court actions by people like Griz and many others lends a lot of credibility to this indication.

Now take the Minister's viewpoint

The Guards want some firearms banned. How much will this cost?

Are there any votes in this?

Do I owe AGS anything on this?

Why the ban? Are citizens at risk? Where is the hard evidence?

What is the position wrt public sentiment?

Is there any way to compromise, especially if the compromise means we don't spend money? (It's OK if the other side has to spend their money...)

Can we afford to ignore these people?

SVI40

Yuba,

I completely agree. Will there be any benefits for the Minister in implementing these changes? No, the only effect will be thousands of unhappy, voting, shooters. Plus loss of revenue to the exchequer.

yubabill1

SVI40 wrote: »

Yuba,

I completely agree. Will there be any benefits for the Minister in implementing these changes? No, the only effect will be thousands of unhappy, voting, shooters. Plus loss of revenue to the exchequer.

Some people estimate the cost to the taxpayer for the firearms litigation since 2009 could run to 5m.

That would have kept a few garda stations open.

We're high and dry where I am, big time.

SVI40

I've heard significantly more than €5m. Either way, that is a lot of new squad cars that could have been bought.

Grizzly 45

Only managed it to the DC guy's . I've YET to do the supreme and Europe.Btw didn't know that under new legislation you can by pass the supreme and go straight to Europe these days.
Might be helpful......

Grizzly 45

Only managed it to the DC guy's . I've YET to do the supreme and Europe.Btw didn't know that under new legislation you can by pass the supreme and go straight to Europe these days.
Might be helpful......

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Only managed it to the DC guy's . I've YET to do the supreme and Europe.Btw didn't know that under new legislation you can by pass the supreme and go straight to Europe these days.
Might be helpful......

+1




"5. Effects of a Ban


I will leave the majority of this to the Committee, except to say that 89% of Irish respondents to a 2013 Eurobarometer poll of 25,000 favoured setting EU minimum common standards for the types of firearms for civilian use.11
.



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

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Speaking of Japanese things.I wonder is death by comittee an option ?

It was. Lobbying every TD in the place while the review was dead in committee seemed to revive it. And here we are today.

tac foley

I'll just add my 2c, and point out that the end bill for the British taxpayer in the aftermath of the mainland handgun ban - after all the legal work, police work, documentation and disposal had taken place - amounted to no less than £103,000 PER HANDGUN.

Of course, there WERE about 57,000 legal handgun owners in mainland UK at the time, but even given the disparity of numbers, the net effect will will a huge bill for the Irish citizen taxpayer.

I very much doubt that Irish non-shooters have been made aware of the inevitable down-the-line costs involved in ANY kind of firearms ban in which compensation is paid.

Perhaps it's time that they were advised?

Add to that, of course, the inescapable fact that every legal firearms owner is also a tax-paying voter.

tac

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

[/SIZE][/FONT]I will leave the majority of this to the Committee, except to say that 89% of Irish respondents to a 2013 Eurobarometer poll of 25,000 favoured setting EU minimum common standards for the types of firearms for civilian use.11

Problem is, we set EU minimum common standards for the types of firearms for civilian use in 1991.

The two groups I've seen lobbying for these proposals on twitter this week have had this in spades as well - no knowledge of the current law, but happy to see a crackdown on something they fear because the only knowledge they have of it comes from the AGS and Hollywood. And that's a surprisingly common theme.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Problem is, we set EU minimum common standards for the types of firearms for civilian use in 1991.

The two groups I've seen lobbying for these proposals on twitter this week have had this in spades as well - no knowledge of the current law, but happy to see a crackdown on something they fear because the only knowledge they have of it comes from the AGS and Hollywood. And that's a surprisingly common theme.

Who are the groups, Sparks and how are they getting on with their campaign?

Never got to grips with navigating Twitter.

Also, is there one person in Ireland who is afraid to leave their home for fear of being killed/injured at random in a rampage killing?

Very sad story last week about a young boy who got entangled in Venetian blind cord. Same happened a couple of years ago....you know where this is leading, by now.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Who are the groups, Sparks and how are they getting on with their campaign?

@UpliftIRL and @fecknvoters. Not sure how they're getting on, but they've been pinging the members of the committee on twitter, so I'd expect to hear something about it in the next meeting if the committee is set against listening to us.

Also, is there one person in Ireland who is afraid to leave their home for fear of being killed/injured at random in a rampage killing?

In a rampage killing? No. Drug shootings, yes, quite probably.

Grizzly 45

Already has been three high profile "collateral damage" drug related shootings in this country all with criminal held guns since 2008.
One that started this whole mess off and that Aherne used as his coat nail .
It should also be mentionedto this comittee that despite AGS being told to impliment the law as it stands pre review by the minister. Some divisions are acting like this is a done deal and already implimeting the policies..IOW well exceeding their authority..A clear case for GSOC complaints if GSOC could be botherd to check gunowners complaints that is.Would think thats actually newsworthy and somewhat a danger in a democracy that a police force is making up the law as they go along..

LATER
Thing is about the standards of what we can and cant own under the EU laws .None of what is being discussed is illegal to own and bar the UK isnt banned outright in any shape or form in any EU country.You might have "quirks" in national laws like France and Italy not allowing military calibers like 7.62 Nato but allowing 300win magnum or 10mm.Or Germany with pistol gripped front and rear pump actions but allowing a semi auto in the same configuration. Go figure... but a "idontlikethelookodatnow" law doesnt exist anywhere in the EU.Even the UK doesnt have that law.Plus they already have stuff inthe rifle dept that would by pass any ban here in Ireland as it is proposed within 24 hours as does the USA from the "safe act "states

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

@UpliftIRL and @fecknvoters. Not sure how they're getting on, but they've been pinging the members of the committee on twitter, so I'd expect to hear something about it in the next meeting if the committee is set against listening to us.

In a rampage killing? No. Drug shootings, yes, quite probably.

Thanks for the links, Sparks.

If that's all the organised opposition from the public, we needn't worry too much.

looking at some of their other tweets/campaigns, these guys will be too stoned to make a reasoned argument that holds water. Not that logic comes into it.

The drug shootings.....we'll win this one argument at a time - it's not as if we don't have reasonable arguments about this, too.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

LATER
Thing is about the standards of what we can and cant own under the EU laws .None of what is being discussed is illegal to own and bar the UK isnt banned outright in any shape or form in any EU country.

There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.


I've never been a great fan of Noam Chomsky, but I have to hand it to him on this one

Noam Chomsky: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum"

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2476.Noam_Chomsky

Remind anyone of any particular narrow-focussed report released lately?

OzCam

I read an excellent article recently by anthropologist Dr Laura Augustin which discusses some of the tactics being used in this debate. Specifically, why Antis have to spread soundbites and oversimplifications: to prime the public's attention for their arguments. First, convince people there's a big problem.

Even those of you who have seen most of it before might get some useful info about how Anti campaigning works, and therefore be ready with counter-tactics. Unfortunately neither counter-arguments nor counter-soundbites are enough on their own, you need both.

But with awareness-raising as goal, previously uninformed audiences tend to accept whatever messages claim to be the truth, so that when campaigners are unprincipled (as many anti-traffickers are), audiences are misinformed. Misinformation – or deliberate disinformation – usually comes in the form of over-simplified categories that reduce human complexities to a couple of black-and-white labels, accompanied by unfounded statistics.

The specific subject of the article is not relevant here (and some might find it a bit offputting), so I won't link directly - but the tactics are exactly the same. All the way back to Prohibition and beyond. Conflation, exaggeration, made-up "research", it's all there. If anyone would like the link, you can PM me.

Grizzly 45

Its called the big lie.Much used by a Dr Gobbles in 1930s Germany and acertin comrade Beriain Stalinist Russia.Tel l people lots of little lies and when they accept those little lies as evident truths you can then feed them a very big lie which they will swallow no problem.How many of these little lies have we the irish people and this comittee been fed sofar on this subject???

Search for a book online its called" Preventing Gun violence through effective messaging" .It can be download in pdf format.( Cant post a link at the moment .) Well worth a read as it has been described as the primer for anti gun argument's.Well worth reading for further submissions and arguements..

hurlsey

up early for work.....

Im trying to get a meeting with my local TD Martin Heydon reference the WG in the next week

besides the glaring holes in the proposal itself, im just trying to put together a bullet point list of the disingenuous(lies) provided to the WG by AGS
E.g. putting firearms ownership at 8.6% when in fact its 4.3%(which in itself is inaccurate a that licences not owners)

Any and all help appreciated

yubabill1

hurlsey wrote: »

up early for work.....

Im trying to get a meeting with my local TD Martin Heydon reference the WG in the next week

besides the glaring holes in the proposal itself, im just trying to put together a bullet point list of the disingenuous(lies) provided to the WG by AGS
E.g. putting firearms ownership at 8.6% when in fact its 4.3%(which in itself is inaccurate a that licences not owners)

Any and all help appreciated

I'm supposed to be compiling reports, accounts and projections for 2015, by I keep drifting onto boards.

As well as compiling the numerous "errors" in the report, keep in mind what we have been discussing the last few posts:

Selling the BIG LIE

Recipe;

You need a topic the public knows little about

Create a problem/fear the public don't know they have

Method;

Be a public organisation, NGO or government body
Leak out a drizzle of statistics supporting your case (the less-able media tend to print these more readily without question)
State the "problem/fear" in emotive language - the general public tends to believe the first to claim something
Stay silent on solid arguments against you
Set the boundary conditions for the debate within a narrow range that gives you advantage and encourage vigorous debate within this range ONLY.



That's the big picture.

My submission contains a list of news articles leaking stats from the WG Report in "Garda Advocacy"

If you want to see this big Lie in action right now, look at current news articles about either Direct Provision or Irish Government Aid. Then watch as they implement their policy unimpeded.

Incidentally, M Heydon might be supportive of us, he was instrumental in communicating our concerns to the Minister and in the Justice Committee involvement.

OzCam

yubabill1 wrote: »

Leak out a drizzle of irrelevant, exaggerated or just plain bogus statistics supporting your case (the ignorant, lazy & gullible media tend to print these more readily without question)

Sorry Yuba, had to fix that line for you

Sparks

hurlsey wrote: »

E.g. putting firearms ownership at 8.6% when in fact its 4.3%(which in itself is inaccurate a that licences not owners)

The statistic was the number of firearms per 100 capita, so the licences bit didn't come into it.
The points of interest there were that :

• The units chosen were number of firearms per 100 capita, so the numbers look larger than the numbers per capita (for some reason people see 8.6 per 100 capita and think it's bigger than 0.086 per capita).
• The 8.6 comes from a document prepared by Oxford where they used the smaller population in 2005 (4.1 million vs today's 4.6) and a number of firearms that was made up of both the legally held firearms (for which they used the right number) and an estimate of the number of illegal firearms in the country (for which they could have used any number because nobody knows how many of those there are and the Minister said so some years ago - if the Gardai knew where they were well enough to count them, they would have confiscated them). So as statistics go, 8.6 is effectively a made-up number with no facts or data behind it.
• If you use today's population and today's total of legally held firearms, you get 0.043 firearms per capita, which is the fifth lowest in the EU -- The Netherlands (0.039), Poland (0.013), Romania (0.007) and Lithuania (0.007) coming below us in that survey, but...
• None of those countries count airguns as firearms, nor do they count any of the other things we have in our firearms definition, such as decommissioned or broken firearms. So direct comparisons are not simple even here. You'd have to go through the firearms definition in each EU member state and a highly detailed breakdown of the statistics from each EU state in order to be able to compare like with like and nobody I can find has done that.

Grizzly 45

@11:00 today
Grizzly thank you for your submission which will be read and considerd by the dept of justice
regds C4 dept.

Happy reading C4.
You proably wont like what I hav said about you lot as well.

yubabill1

hurlsey wrote: »

up early for work.....

Im trying to get a meeting with my local TD Martin Heydon reference the WG in the next week


Any and all help appreciated

I don't know how much help we've been so far, but the essence of the WG Report is

1. Minister Aherne said


"I will, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, keep
the situation on firearms licensing under review in the interests of public

safety".


and on page 9 of the report it states



"...At the time the Minister indicated that if the outcome of such a review into

firearms licensing leaves a situation which still poses an unacceptable risk to

the community then new powers could be used to ban outright any type of

firearm."


2. And AGS/DoJE say

(in the section discussing the study of injuries)

The Commissioner stated that:

“these handguns are primarily designed to kill human beings and

having carefully considered all of the information available to me, it is my

opinion they pose an unacceptable risk to society and should no longer be

licensed in this jurisdiction”.

And elsewhere

"The concerns of An Garda Síochána are also based in part on a forward looking

assessment of the dangers of an atrocity being carried out with weapons

primarily designed to kill human beings, as has unfortunately happened in

other jurisdictions."




So the Minister promised a ban if an unacceptable risk arose in the future and the departed Commissioner simply stated that there is an unacceptable risk, so ban them.

Then they threw in the atrocity threat for good measure.

clivej

I got to meet my local TD on Monday to discuss all this.
Went very well and he took on a lot of our thoughts on the AGS proposal.

What did come out was that as many people need to do the same with their LOCAL TD's

I also had another visit from my CPO, that's 5.

knockon

Deaf git wrote: »

Just for the hell of it, I googled 'corbally brothers murder weapon'. I found an article from herald.ie dated 13th July 2010 by Cormac Byrne. Can't post the link for some reason.....
It appears both guns used in this double murder originated in the 6 counties.
Why lie Chief Super?

Would anyone have an opinion on whether CS Healys answers at the Committee could be described as misconduct?

Grizzly 45

Good question.But the next question is;Did he speak under Absolute privilidge at that Dail comittee ? If that is the case he could have called us all potential murderers and loons and everything should be banned and there wouldn't be a thing that could be done about it.Remember however,that also applies to us when we are making an oral submission.You have absolute Dail privilidge to say whats what.
Thats another slight problem with these comittees in Ireland. Unlike the US ,you dont swear an oath to tell the truth,etc like in court,which is the only other place in Ireland where you have absolute privilidge.

If he didnt have that privilidge,then it certainly could be viewed in a different light.Take a WAG how he got that rubbish thru as well as those pics and how former politicans and bankers can spoof at these comittees about winning their money on the ponies or not having bank accounts.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

the next question is;Did he speak under Absolute privilidge at that Dail comittee ?

From the transcripts:

Chairman: ... Before we begin, I draw the attention of witnesses to the situation regarding privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009 you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give to the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence.

In other words, yes he did.

You have absolute Dail privilidge to say whats what.

Up until they ask you to stop talking; at which point the privilege changes from absolute to qualified.

yubabill1

clivej wrote: »

I also had another visit from my CPO, that's 5.

Did you need 5?

meathstevie

Under the same blanket of privilege his half baked facts can be challenged as well.