MORE crap on the way.

Grizzly 45

Yup,and considering how much of Ireland is wetland and bog...

Brontosaurus

If they want to ban lead for hunting that's one argument, but using lead rounds at a range or for clays isn't going to get into the food web unless you're shooting directly into water.

Grizzly 45

Rain water leeching and carrying trace elements into the groundwater supplies is their answer to that.:(

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Rain water leeching and carrying trace elements into the groundwater supplies is their answer to that.:(

Yet half of the old houses in Ireland have lead pipes bringing drinking water to the tap inside.

gunny123

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yet half of the old houses in Ireland have lead pipes bringing drinking water to the tap inside.

And never done any harm as far as i know .

Gravelly

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yet half of the old houses in Ireland have lead pipes bringing drinking water to the tap inside.

Not to mention the fact that just about every roof in the country has lead on it, with the water running off it into the ground!

Grizzly 45

And not to mind our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors had more lead injested in their bodies in their day to day lives than we ever had and still seemed to have survived?

Wonder how us lot born in the 60's ever survived childhood? Lead paint on our toys and cribs,lead and asbestos pipes delivering our drinking water.To an outside school tap where we all 100 plus of us drank from?:)

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

And never done any harm as far as i know .

Can attest to that...Half the piping in my place is still lead.So long as there is a good thick coating of limescale on it.

Grizzly 45

Not happy with the 2014 directive. Brussels is trying again to go after semi-auto firearms. This time by mixing it in with illegal arms trafficking.
Consider 3 things here.
1] This is now the organisation that wants an EU army, that despite our neutrality,we are signed up to.[Courtesy of Maastricht.It was in the 800 odd pages,we were told not to bother reading by Aherne ]

2] Wants to ban in toto ALL EU subjects from owning firearms in the long-term

3] What could go possibly wrong with those ideas?:rolleyes:

THIS is why we in Ireland need to support an organisation like Firearms United Network. When would you hear about this from our native organisations??Probably when the guards rescind your license, as "its an EU directive,nuthin we can do about it!"
Don't think just because you don't want, don't like or ever want a semi-auto rifle, shotgun or pistol that it doesn't concern you what happens in Brussels. Lead shot in bullets and pellets concern you,and that is a major issue to us all here in Ireland. Ask yourself, when was the last update you got here about what is going on in Brussels from our organisations here?



Firearms United Network position on Council Conclusion on the Adoption of an EU Strategy Against Illicit Firearms, Small Arms & Light Weapons & Their Ammunition (November 19, 2018)

General comment:

The document presented by the Council can be understood twofold. On the one hand, in general and declarative aspect it touches on well-defined threat if illicit gun trafficking. On the other hand, while describing specific details and actions it includes into the analysis legal documents which influence law-abiding citizens. Such an action is ineligible in the best case. This approach makes the actual intentions of the document doubtful at the best.

Agreeing that illicit gun trafficking of SALW (Small Arms & Light Weapons) is a serious problem requiring international cooperation to combat, we are very concerned with mixing it with legal firearms ownership by law abiding citizens.
It begs to ask a question how serious European Institutions are in combating illicit gun trafficking and how much they use it as a cheap excuse to enforce legal changes aimed at legal firearms owners and shooting sport clubs.

It should be noted that the authors never presented any connections between legal and illegal firearms trade, but simply presented it as an axiom which doesn’t require any justification at all. Based on this, it seems to be a safe assumption that the above narrative is simply a farfetched manipulation.

Comments to appendix Council Conclusions on Adoption of an EU Strategy against illicit firearms, Small Arms & Light Weapons and their ammunition

It is a big surprise to observe an attempt to combine illicit fireamrs proliferation with disturbances in ‘sustainable growth’. SALW is named as one of the main obstacles in achieving goals like “peace, justice and strong institutions, poverty reduction, economic growth, health, gender equality, and safe cities and communities”. It is also appalling to observe an attempt to correlate between illicit firearms trafficking and regulations of legal firearms ownership by law abiding citizens.

In this context, statements like “to promote accountability and responsibility with regard to the legal arms trade” seems like a euphemism. Taking into consideration the fact that each EU Member State has professional systems of ensuring internal security, which consists of police, military and special forces, one can only wonder why someone tries to put all the blame on SALW.

The authors never presented reliable political diagnosis on the problems with problems with sustainable growth. They suggest that the crisis has been caused not by wrong political decisions nor scarce democratic support, but inanimate objects, like firearms.

What is extremely outrageous i san attempt to suggest existence of a link between legal gun ownership and armed violence, criminal activities and enhance terrorist attacks’ outcomes. It shows complete lack of understanding of the problem presented by the Council, as all available scientific research prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no connections between realm of legal gun ownership and reals of criminals or terrorists.

Based on the above it seems to be a safe assumption to state that the reason to shape the document in this manner is to increase the feeling of insecurity in the readers. Also, an indirect goal of this approach seems to be condemning and stigmatising of legal firearms owners. It is clearly observed in attempt to equalize legal firearms owners with criminals and terrorists, coupled with introduction of collective responsibility (based on the way the proposal to change regulation are being shaped), while at the same time presumption of innocence seems to be rejected.

It is worth to note that the Council reminds EU strategy from 2005, although at the introduction says clearly that the said strategy didn’t work. And then proposals included in the document reinforce this non-working strategy and demands it being repeated.

Comments to “Securing Arms, Protecting Citizens’:

Introduction shows that the authors’ concentrate mostly on terrorist threats which hurt international peace, humanitarian actions, stabilising actions in Africa and internal security of EU. Accepting this context, it is really hard to understand why it is being suggested that the proper solution can be achieved by later mentioned Directive 91/477 which regulates legal possession of firearms. It is very farfetched to state that introduction of further restrictions in legal firearms and ammunition purchase will improve humanitarian efforts in Africa. \
3
The next paragraph describes connections between organized crime and terrorists, which exist without any doubt. I would like to point you towards the clear statement on illegal origin of firearms used on recent terrorist attacks across Europe. This is a clear contradiction to Council’s position from 2015 and onwards, when Council used terrorist attacks as an excuse to introduce irrational restrictions on legal firearms owners via changes to Directive 91/477 voted in 2017.

On page 7 you can find the major manipulation of the whole document. The authors suggest that legal firearms transferred to illicit trafficking can’t be differentiated from military grade weapons which means that it should be treated in the same way as military grade weapons. The authors ‘forget’ to present any statistic in support of such a movement at all (legal firearms transferred to illicit market). And make no mistake. There is no support evidence presented, as such a movement does not exist.

Comments to „Countering illicit firearms and SALW: Objectives and Actions”:

Using the before presented thought train, the authors present very broad definition of SALW, which includes even revolvers. Such classification may seem meaningless at the first glance, but in practical terms it has far-reaching consequences. It suggests that such firearms should be available to military forces ONLY. The authors suggest that SALW is a separate firearms category, separate from firearms accessible for civilian use.

It comes as a surprise to see assumptions made at pt 2.2.1. „Control on firearms and SALW manufacturing”, where authors claim that one of the biggest threats to combat illicit firearms trafficking is „ the illicit re-activation of deactivated firearms, craft production and the illicit conversion of alarm or signal guns designed for blank ammunition or flobert guns, the illicit conversion of ammunition and the illicit use of reloading tools”.
Using simple terms, it means levelling light rocket launchers and grenade launchers with sport firearms
The above statement is the clear indication of lack of technical knowledge of the authors or decisive insincerity and camouflaged intentions of the authors.

Point 2.1.5 „Stronger EU norms” makes it clear that the last year update to Directive 91/477 was just a prelude to introduce further restrictions. It is clearly stated that Council would like to introduce further firearms marking scheme to increase firearms’ traceability. We need to remember that Council talks about illicit firearms here. It remains an open question how further regulations of legally held firearms will increase traceability of illicit firearms, especially in context of Africa, which authors concentrated upon in earlier parts of the document.

Equally strange ideas can be found at point 2.2.3 „Secure SALW and ammunition stockpile management”. This section claims that SALW and ammunition stockpiles in Member States has such low security levels, that allows for transfer from the said stockpiles into illicit market. It means that Member States do not execute proper control over SALW and ammunition stockpiles. Which one more time begs for reconsideration if the before mentioned Directive 91/477 is the proper control measure.

Point 2.2.4 “Responsible disposal of SALW and their ammunition” is also very controversial. Council suggest that SALW and ammunition surplus should be destroyed. The text does not provide any guidance of what stockpile levels are sufficient and what consist a surplus. So it seems as a safe assumption that the European bodies would like to have a say in this respect on case by case basis.

Link to the document:

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/…/document/ST-13581-…/en/pdf

solarwinds

I seem to recall having a temporary custody order here in the 70's to stop certain organisations getting their hands on firearms, that was about as effective as a chocolate teapot.
These organisations managed to get their hands on some firearms we could only dream about, and a lot coming from other countries with I imagine help from their politcal powers that be.

gunny123

The whole situation is vexing, not only do we have our own village idiots trying to restrict legitimate shooting sports and the firearms we use in them, but we have a second tier in the bloody eu. The terrorists and criminals do not obey laws, thats why they are called terrorists and criminals, but the eu seems to think the more laws they pass, the safer things will be. But as ireland knows first hand, that simply is not the case.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Link to the document:

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/…/document/ST-13581-…/en/pdf

Your link is not working Grizz.

Grizzly 45

Another 404 ...:rolleyes: "They" are after us lads!!;)

Grizzly 45

A study confirms what we know all along. Gun owners are the most law-abiding people in a community. In future I'll just post the entire article or doc,as there are too many broken links for some reason,so apologies for longish posts in the future.
With thanks to Pierangelo Tendas[FUN Italy]

*** GREAT NEWS FROM ITALY ***

On December 12th, the largest Italian University (Università La Sapienza of Rome) announced the completion of a study titled "Sicurezza e legalità: le armi nelle case degli italiani" ("Safety and legality: firearms in Italian households") whose drafting took three years.

The first study of this kind to be carried on and completed in Italy by an impartial entity, it was spearheaded by Professor Paolo De Nardis – one of Europe's most eminent sociologists – and it returned results thar completely destroy the anti-gun narrative (https://www.gunsweek.com/…/sicurezza-legalita-convegno-sull…)

The study will be published in its entirety in January and will hopefully be translated in English – Firearms United will be happy to distribute it! – but in the meanwhile, please enjoy some highlights.

The purpose of the study was originally to verify the consistency of gun ownership in Italy, collecting reliable data and analyzing it, to understand the mechanisms that are at its roots and determine the strategies to raise the level of security, if necessary.

The data collected covers 11 years, from 2007 to 2017, and shows a very limited incidence of murders committed with legally owned firearms: only about 5% of all gun murders in the Country see the use of legally-held firearms. Of this 5%, about 12% are euthanasia acts, made with the intent to alleviate the sufferings of the victim (generally a family member), almost always with the victim's own consent.

68% of the murders are homicides, and in almost half of the cases the killer committed suicide afterwards.

In over 45% of these specific cases, however, the research has shown that the behaviour of the future perpetrators raised "red flags" that could have allowed to foresee the risks of a murder and prevent it: in 5.6% of cases the killer had been the subject of complaints or public security warning notices, and in one case even an involuntary psychiatric commitment.

In 22% of cases the murderer had indicative behaviors (ill-treatment or acts of physical or verbal violence against spouse or other family members, disorderly behaviour, etc.) while in more than 15% of cases showed significant mental health problems (depression, paranoia, etc.).

It must be pointed out that in Italy a gun license holder who is involountarily committed for mental health issues, diagnosed with a mental disorder or reported for violent behaviour automatically loses his/her license and may be forced to turn his/her guns in to the Authorities or sell them away to licensed individuals or entities.

Thus, virtually all the (few) above-mentioned cases can be blamed to a failure to act by the relevant Authorities.

Financial difficulties are also a factor, having been reported in over 15% of cases of homicides committed with legally-held firearms and sometimes being the trigger for particularly bloody events (generally family murders).

Only 2.45% of the murders object of the analysis can be described as "excessive use of force in legal self-defense" – a fact that curtails the discussion on the overhauling of self-defense laws that is currently very heated in Italy (with anti-gunners labeling personal and home defense as "Far-West style DIY vigilante justice" and the like).

One of the most striking results returned by the research is that the rate of homicides among licensed firearm owners is 20% lower if compared to the rate among the general population, and the recent increase in firearms licenses corresponded to a decrease in events.

Thus the research shows that the current vetting and check system on legal gun owners is clearly effective, and while there may be room for improvement, the positions of anti-gun advocates and politicians who constantly call for tighter gun control rules are questionable at best.

Needless to say, the anti-gunners here in Italy are going absolutely INSANE since these results were announced, with one in particular (a self-appointed sociologist and researcher whose name we won't report here because we won't give him any visibility whatsoever!) even going so far as stating on Twitter that "Prof. De Nardis should have taken murders committed with illegal guns in consideration to prove that legal gun owners are dangerous."

This led to a huge flame between him and the Comitato Direttiva 477 – the Italian national association federated to the Firearms United Network – which the anti-gun in question is of course losing and that's taking some frankly hilarious turns (https://www.facebook.com/comitatodirettiva477/posts/1022991927898102 -- https://www.facebook.com/groups/1013953488622810/permalink/2677286158956193/ -- www.facebook.com/comitatodirettiva477/posts/1022978744566087), just going to show how anti-gunners have literally no sense of shame.

Please note that currently around 4 million Italian citizens hold firearm licenses, and that all firearm licenses give access to firearms such as handguns or modern sporting rifles (so-called "assault weapons") or even firearms that would be restricted under the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act in the United States (short barrel rifles or shotguns, handguns with stocks or foregrips, etc.).

It is assumed that a person vetted to own firearms will be trustworthy regardless of whether he/she owns a shotgun, a pistol, or an AR15.

All licenses also allow for all these firearms to be transported all through the national territory without additional red tape.
Shooting can be practiced at either indoor or outdoor shooting ranges, or on private land if it's reasonably distant from permanently-inhabited buildings or major roads.

Now, once and for all (hopefully) an impartial research carried on with scientific criteria reveals that licensed gun owners are not a threat to public safety.

And the comments of the anti-gun crowd prove once and for all how stupid or outright evil they are, willing to twist the truth to pursue their liberty-suppressing agenda.

ACT TOGETHER, FEEL FREE AND MAKE CHANGES

tac foley

The same might be said of the US of A. Those states with the highest rates of legal possession are the lowest in terms of gun-related crime. And you can take that to the bank. Take the example of Kennesaw, GA, where the local sheriff, tired of sudden influx of 'visiting crime', made it a city ordnance for citizens who had a clean record [not felons] to carry either openly or concealed - their choice, but it was compulsory unless the person was actually blind, or had strong religious convictions concerning the turning of the other cheek. The result, in a short period of time, was that the 'visiting crime' very quickly decided to visit their 'brothers' back in wherever it was up North that they came from. Especially after one of their number, held up an eighty-eight-year old lady coming back home after a DoA bake-up. She was accosted on her porch by a 'brother' with a knife. He asked her to give him the contents of her purse. She obliged. There was some change and roll of fruit pastilles, but the main content was a .38cal Smith & Wesson Chief's special airweight, which she stuck under his chin and emptied in short order.

One city where handguns are NOT permitted is Chicago, where almost 600 fatal shooting had taken place so far between 1 January and 1 October this year alone.

meathstevie

So the summarise the Italian study above. Only 5% of all illegal killings with firearms during the life of the study were with legally held guns.

More importantly, in quite a sizeable number of those cases existing legislation to remove guns from owners that had flagged up as no longer suitable to hold a firearm has not been enforced.

I think the study in question clearly demonstrates that creation of new legislation to restrict gun ownership is not necessary. Definitely not if the powers that be are failing to use existing legislation to deal with problematic gun ownership.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

One city where handguns are NOT permitted is Chicago, where almost 600 fatal shooting had taken place so far between 1 January and 1 October this year alone.

On that point alone. London has had 100 shooting deaths in 2018 sofar. Triple the body count of Dunblane and Hungerford put together. Wasnt the UK law introduced to stop gun deaths and massacres with handguns?? or assault rifles??

Doesn't seem to be working very well...Yet the "gun mad Yanks" are actually consistently, not shooting each other every year. And haven't been for the last two decades according to CDC and the FBI.Strange that!

Grizzly 45

It is coming towards the annual check-up time for me in January.I am going to do the same, get one multiple blood test done and see what amount of lead is in my blood? That should be interesting after 53 years of being in direct contact with lead, as a kid making lead soldiers, drinking water from a house with lead pipes, handling scrap and roofing lead, wearing lead as scuba diving weights.indirectly from 45 years of shooting. I should be full of the stuff by now!



//www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/culture/the-myth-of-poisonous-lead-ammo/?fbclid=IwAR1TSexSTbyxp_21QpeYGR5GlZeNu39G9i_2JmILIqEvuzfa5hYMzsmaXMQ




Let's start from the end: metallic lead in ammunition (bullets and primers) has no significant impact on human health. It's a fact proven by several scientific studies and research papers. Yet, anti-gun and anti-hunting movements spread the wrong assumption among public opinion that hunters and shooters are the most affected by lead poisoning because of their high exposure to lead contained in ammunition. Even if disguised as a public health concern, the underlying message is always the same: guns are evil and should be prohibited.

To clarify the truth an article by Gloria Martini, secretary-general of AFEMS (the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition) tells the story of Danka Barteková, a Slovak professional skeet shooter and a member of the IOC Athletes Committee. The article has been published on Euractiv, the media platform focusing on European policymaking.


Has metallic lead in ammunition (bullets and primers) any significant impact on human health? The answer is “no”.
One of the most well-known athletes in her country and flag bearer for Slovakia at the Rio 2016 Olympics Games opening ceremony, Barteková started to shoot in 1998 at the age of 13, winning lots of medals from many European and World Championships. Among them, 5 medals from the World Cup Final, 9 medals from the World Cups and a bronze medal from the Olympic Games 2012 in London. Barteková is also a two-times European Champion, a 14-times Slovak champion in skeet and at the European Championships held in Nicosia, Cyprus in 2008, she set a world record by hitting 99 targets out of 100.

In the process, Barteková fired many, many “poisonous” cartridges, of course. So, as Gloria Martini informs us, “Earlier this year, the Slovak shooter decided to undergo a blood test to measure lead level in her body. One, if not all, would expect to find an elevated blood lead level in the body of an athlete that for two decades has been shooting an average of 200 rounds a day five days a week and that has, in her career, some 500 thousand targets under her belt.”

Ideology vs. reality
The results of Barteková's test? Well, as you may have guessed, they are not what anti-gun zealots would expect. In Martini's words, “Her blood test result showed no significant concentration of lead in her blood just like any other individual in good health that has never shot a single round in his life."

Is Barteková a lucky girl? Well, human exposure to other forms of lead may cause health problems – even very serious ones. But once again evidence proves that metallic lead in ammunition does not have any significant effect on human health. Actually, this is a well-known fact to anybody who takes a non-ideological, unbiased approach to the matter, since scientific proof has long been available. In 2015 AFEMS even organized in Brussels the symposium “The Sustainable Use of Lead Ammunition in Hunting and Sports Shooting: Facts and Emotions” with a panel entirely focused on the effects of lead ammunition on human health.

Just as we are certain that Barteková's case is a further confirmation, however, we can be sure that scientific evidence won't affect the anti-gun movement at all, since the latter is too often ideology-based rather than evidence-based. And as the saying goes, if reality does not fit the concept – too bad for reality!

tac foley

I'm very nearly 73. I started shooting lead when I was six. Since around 1984 or so I've been making/casting my own lead bullets, a few hundred at a time, for my BP guns, which I then go and shoot. I shoot two, often three times a WEEK. So I'm cooking lead, I'm handling lead, and I'm shooting lead projectiles - an ounce at a time, note, two or three times a week. On a guest day I probably handle about a hundred shots in revolvers and rifles.

Note that I'm not including the huge amount of .22cal rimfire LEAD stuff I shoot, and the seven calibres I shoot regularly - all handloaded.

I have my blood tested every six months as a matter of course. It's great stuff to have, for sure, especially when it's as pure as mine has shown itself to be since the six-month testing began back in 2000.

Another person who shoots a lot of lead in the air is the redoubtable and VAST George Digweed - look him up if you care to do so. His shooting career makes Miss Barketová's look like an abject beginner, and a more healthy-looking 6ft 6in-cher would be hard to imagine.

yubabill

Just to add, once lead enters your body it is there for good - i.e. the levels are cumulative over a lifetime. Lead exposure from shooting is a red herring, of course.

And as for lead pipes carrying drinking water, they are dangerous when new, but a coating eventually forms inside the pipe from contact with the water, which eventually prevents the lead from dissolving. Not that I'd like to have them.

Nekarsulm

The proposed banning of lead has nothing to do with the safety of shooters, the "powers that be" claim that its to protect wading birds from picking up shot and ingesting it.
As if the general public eat a lot or wigeon etc.......

Zxthinger

This constant erosion is why we need rights and not half backed privileges
A lead ban is rubbish talk and they need telling

Grizzly 45

I await with great anticipation the Irish political party who will change the Irish constitution to a US-style bill of rights that can be summed up in 4pages and is understandable to the average ten-year-old.Unlike the EU version that runs to 15, 700-page books that only a lawyer might make sense of.:rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Emmmm, it can be pretty harmful if it enters the body at high speed. :-)

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I await with great anticipation the Irish political party who will change the Irish constitution to a US-style bill of rights that can be summed up in 4pages and is understandable to the average ten-year-old.Unlike the EU version that runs to 15, 700-page books that only a lawyer might make sense of.:rolleyes:

Dunno Grizzly but I reckon the European Court of Justice sometimes struggles to come up with unanimous decisions.

Grizzly 45

So does the US supreme court.Wonder why they are avoiding any hearings or pleas on 2A?? But at least we can see the politics as to who appoints them in the US.

Who appoints the EU Supreme court judges??
And they have come up with some right doozies in recent times too.
Making offending "the religion of peace" a crime is not one of their better decisions.:(

tac foley

Ah yes, the 'Religion of Peace'.

Riiiiight.

That's the one where, if you offend them, they cut your head off, or put out a death warning notice that tells ALL their co-religionists to cut your head off.

Very peaceful, that.

Grizzly 45

Yeah,them Church of England vicars...:rolleyes:

Nekarsulm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,them Church of England vicars...:rolleyes:

You don't get a machine gun named after you for nothing ...

Grizzly 45

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/over-100000-guns-could-be-banned-under-new-eu-rules-38117388.html?fbclid=IwAR1Tr37NTCy7UkZTDb5Yw1SfmcQAwAus9pOZlAQUBaOQfIp-eFgmR6KxIxg