Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
UK Shooting Lobby (Split from Bisley Ram-Raid)
-
26-05-2005 10:14pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That's the NSRA, not the NRA.Away Team wrote:les45 has it pretty much spot on.
The NRA is supporting calls for the limited reintroduction of ISSF pistols of up to .32 non military calibre.
It's not a wrist brace, it's the weights for balancing the pistol:The 50m pistol shooting is with 'Long Barrel Revolvers'. These have barrels at least 12" long and a welded on metal wrist brace to make the overall length 24", and are 'technically' rifles.
I doubt they're opposed to their return, just that they have a fair idea of how much effect their protests would net them. Political lobbying groups cost money, don't forget, and spending the money that would have paid for coaching and national competitions on a campaign that has no hope of succeeding would be counter to the responsibilities the NRA and NSRA have. The current UK government, don't forget, got into power on the back of the promise to abolish the last of the .22 pistols (the conservatives banned them from private ownership, but you could still store them at the club, new labour banned them outright). And it wasn't a philosophical agenda, it was simply that their focus groups showed that banning guns got them more votes than not banning them. Thinking that that's changed after several people are shot by lampers and a toddler is shot and killed with an airgun, well, that's just incorrect, really.However, there is ZERO support from either the NRA or most shooters for the reintroduction of semi automatic centrefire rifles or full bore and rimfire 'standard' pistols.
And how many have replied to our own DoJ's request for comments on section 30 of the CJB I wonder? (The CJB, by the way, is up for second stage debates in the Dail next week, so evidently the Committee stage is now over and next week we see the remainder of the amendments...)The UK Home Office issued a 'Consultation Document' last year asking for views on further tightening of firearms laws and seeking 'opinions'. Of over 700,000 permit holders for shotguns and rifles, (who own an average of 6 guns each), only around 2,000 or so replied.
You wouldn't think so to read the official NSRA, NRA and BASC submissions to the Home Office, which were quite extensive, far more so than our organisations' responses to the DoJ call...Some of the 'suggestions' in the document were; A ban on semi automatic and pump action .22 rifles, a ban on pump action and semi automatic shotguns, a ban on 'materiel destruction' rifles (.338/.50 cal 'military' sniper rifles), a ban on Long Barrel Revolvers, a ban on 'Practical' shooting disciplines.
The idea of these 'bans' are quite popular with many target and sporting shooters who feel that supporting them will make the HO think they are 'good boys'.0 -
-
Yes, but that's not what the NSRA and Tom Redhead were taking court action to see returned, they were focusing on the ISSF 50m pistol event (and before anyone says it, they were doing so because that's their job - if they were to wade in on the fullbore stuff, you'd find that the "we must all stand together" chorus would rapidly become a serious of shouts centering on whose toes people were standing on...).Have a look at the Taurus revolvers that are sold in the UK.The back piece is definately a wrist brace ,not a counterweight.
You mean that a small group comprising a decided minority among the electorate were unable to convince the government that not banning AK47s would net them more votes than "doing something" after a nutter with a perfectly legal licence wandered the streets of Hungerford shooting people? Hmmm. Who'd have thunk it?They were the most established group in the UK,but were absolutely pathetic in response in any shape to the Hungerford incident.
Look, the NRA's job over there is similar to the NSRA's, but for fullbore shooters. It's to run the sport - not to do political lobbying. They're too small and too underfunded to do the latter, and spending money on lobbying when they could be spending it on maintainance of ranges or coaching or whatever, would be contrary to their duties as a governing body. And while shooters could in theory, fund and run a version of the US NRA's ILA body, few would do so. That's the nature of things. Hell, even in the US, that's the nature of things. The NRA may be enormous in the US, but it's still a small minority of shooters over there. Their numbers are just because there are more shooters to start with.
Same story in this country too. We comprise in total, about 5% of the electorate at best (150,000 shooters, 3 million in the electorate). But we don't all vote as a block, and for good reasons. If there was a vote on whether or not we wanted firearms banned, well, we would vote en masse - but we don't get choices like that, ever. It's always more complicated. It's a choice of voting for a person, some of whose views and agenda you support and some you don't, and trying to pick the best match to you - but the match is never exact and it gets complicated when other priorities have to be considered. Do you vote for the guy who wants to protect firearms users at all costs, but who also wants to see morgage rates go up at least 15%? What's more important, your sport or your house? What about their feelings on foreign policy? Healthcare? Education? Infrastructural development? The economy? Policing? The odds of getting 150,000 people, most of whom don't see shooting as a hobby or sport, to agree on whom to vote for, well, they're long odds. And since we're spread out over the entire country, we couldn't even pick two or three TDs and elect them on a single-issue mandate. So basicly speaking, a serious reality check is needed when you start talking about political lobbying!
In short, there's only so much the bodies can do with the resources they have, and trying to fight 95% of the electoral vote isn't a good use of those resources. They do fight small battles that they have a good shot at winning - the court case over licencing 50m pistols, for example - but a Charge of the Light Brigade type of case wouldn't just be hopeless, it'd be an abdication of their primary responsibility - to run the sport. (In fact, if you check the NRA website you'll note that their "mission statement" is tied heavily into being loyal to the UK government and has been since the 1870s. For them to turn around and start lobbying against them would be a major thing - their charter is to work within the system, not call for it to be brought down).
Maybe if we could improve the odds, there'd be a point in trying. That's why the PR is such a big deal - over here 95% of the electorate don't know much about firearms and all they do know tells them that there are five kinds of people in Ireland that use them - terrorists, armed criminals, army/armed gardai, hunters (as in, the-bastards-who-shot-bambi's-mom, rather than the conservation part of hunting) and "nutters". They don't think sportsmen and they definitely don't think "harmless fun". They don't know enough about firearms to do so. Now that we could address, but until we do (and I mean professionally, hiring a PR company to do the job), forget about making any political impact unless you win the UK lottery and feel like handing a few million over in brown envelopes!
(and the fact that good PR makes getting money into the sport easier through sponsorship and advertising and grants is a nifty byproduct...)
Yup, life's unfair, isn't it?Dont seem to learn over there.The gun bans worked really well,yet gun crime is now higher than before the ban.
Mind you, I've yet to hear of a law being overturned on it's logical merits. Even things like book-burning (which we were still doing here not too long ago) wasn't overturned on it's merits, but because public opinion swung against it. And even that's not enough here sometimes - just look at the history of bin taxes!0 -
Hmmm ,well maybe a group that was biased already against a specific type of weapon and it was good appeasement to sell it down the river? bye bye semi autos and lage capacity shotguns.You mean that a small group comprising a decided minority among the electorate were unable to convince the government that not banning AK47s would net them more votes than "doing something" after a nutter with a perfectly legal licence wandered the streets of Hungerford shooting people? Hmmm. Who'd have thunk it?
Next atrocity,maybe it would be a good appasement to sell down the river the "rambo style" practical pistol shooters that olympic style target 22 pistol shooting survives.Adios large calibre pistols,one month later sayorna 22 pistols.Next appasement will be.....??not much point then in training programmes or whatever if you havent got anything to shoot.What I am saying is that there was no flexibility in thought or reaction to the causes,execpt dignified silences or throwing somone else to the lions.
Whose fault is that??The members of the board in not preciving the winds of change and preparing for it or those who vote them onto the board?Look, the NRA's job over there is similar to the NSRA's, but for fullbore shooters. It's to run the sport - not to do political lobbying. They're too small and too underfunded to do the latter, and spending money on lobbying when they could be spending it on maintainance of ranges or coaching or whatever, would be contrary to their duties as a governing body
.And while shooters could in theory, fund and run a version of the US NRA's ILA body, few would do so. That's the nature of things. Hell, even in the US, that's the nature of things.
Have this question EVER been put to the members of any shooting organisation in the last decade.In this litigation happy society maybe it is a point worth mentioning,and maybe the answer might be very surprising.
What do they see it as then?The odds of getting 150,000 people, most of whom don't see shooting as a hobby or sport,So basicly speaking, a serious reality check is needed when you start talking about political lobbying
Oh I'd say a few of the ol brown paper envelopes would work wonders in the right pockets :rolleyes: Sure,havent we the best politicans money can buy in Europe??? :rolleyes:
Isnt it the way busisness is done in this great little county of ours? From land zoning to squishing DUI charges? If you cant beat them,join them. :rolleyes: Might as well be pragmatic about it.Money talks...BS walks.you'll note that their "mission statement" is tied heavily into being loyal to the UK government and has been since the 1870s. For them to turn around and start lobbying against them would be a major thing - their charter is to work within the system, not call for it to be brought down).
So their attitude to semis was all the more surprising,since they were originally set up as an organisation to foster markmanship with the general British public and for the yeomanry with "the current military arms of the day".[So the SMLE was still current issue in 1986? :rolleyes: ]The UK NRA in it's thinking seems to have been back in the turn of the last centuary.It was nothing to do with going against HM govt,it was a question of sticking up for a certain section of their organisation.It was unfortunate that when Hungerford happend it seems the NRA was filled with hide bound traditionals,who had never had to handle anything like it before.There was no contingency plans,just run for cover.As one editorial had it in guns review."yesterdays men"Maybe if we could improve the odds, there'd be a point in trying. That's why the PR is such a big deal - over here 95% of the electorate don't know much about firearms and all they do know tells them that there are five kinds of people in Ireland that use them - terrorists, armed criminals, army/armed gardai, hunters (as in, the-bastards-who-shot-bambi's-mom, rather than the conservation part of hunting) and "nutters". They don't think sportsmen and they definitely don't think "harmless fun". They don't know enough about firearms to do so. Now that we could address, but until we do (and I mean professionally, hiring a PR company to do the job), forget about making any political impact unless you win the UK lottery and feel like handing a few million over in brown envelopes!
If I had it I would,and I would certainly see to it being more proactive and trying to be more umbrella and rigidly run than what is here at the moment.
This perpetual bitching and infighting,and me fein attitude that seems to plauge EVERY Irish organisation from the word go,is keeping a small enough force disorganised and scatterd,and easily run over by those in power.Wouldnt we think that by now we are all shooters no matter what we shoot we are stronger united than seperate.OK have the seperate entities looking after their disiplines but at least have some coherance when it comes to national policy on the law or threat to one paticular disipline.Yup, life's unfair, isn't it?
Mind you, I've yet to hear of a law being overturned on it's logical merits
Errr the Volstead act AKA prohibition?
.0 -
Or anyone else who took a cold look at the actual situation. The only way it could have been averted would have been a very expensive, very nasty campaign against the people who were shot and the police force.Flattop 15 wrote:Hmmm ,well maybe a group that was biased already against a specific type of weapon and it was good appeasement to sell it down the river?
I think you'll probably find that that's totally out of whack with what went on. Did the NSRA do all they could theoretically have done? No. Did they do all they could afford to do, however, isn't so simple a question. Especially when you consider that they're labouring under a million-euro debt at the moment. Plus, the NSRA's job is to look after ISSF shooters. Not practical shooting, not fullbore rifles, not shotguns, just ISSF rifle and pistol shooters. It's a very clear demarcation and had they stepped outside it, they would have been stepping on toes. There were already bodies there to look out for the interests of practical pistol and just about every other kind of shooting going.Next atrocity,maybe it would be a good appasement to sell down the river the "rambo style" practical pistol shooters that olympic style target 22 pistol shooting survives.
And if you think that anyone in sports administration today has the moral high ground needed to accuse other bodies of selling people down the river, you'd be sorely misinformed.
What would you have suggested that they do then, given the limitiations on their resources, and the responsibilities and duties they were legally obliged to discharge?What I am saying is that there was no flexibility in thought or reaction to the causes,execpt dignified silences or throwing somone else to the lions.
Peceiving the winds of change? What, you mean they were meant to predict Hungerford?Whose fault is that??The members of the board in not preciving the winds of change and preparing for it or those who vote them onto the board?
And don't forget, the NRA, unlike some Irish bodies, is bound by law to adhere to its charter. It couldn't just turn around and completly change the rules, goals and makeup of the organisation and decide to expend resources on whatever its committee wanted to.
It was - that's how FLAG got set up. Last time I looked, they had raised about four to five month's salary at the average industrial wage, from all the shooters in the country. That's about one thirtieth of how much cash you'd get if every shooter in the country gave one euro to a central fund. Does that give you pause for thought at all?Have this question EVER been put to the members of any shooting organisation in the last decade.In this litigation happy society maybe it is a point worth mentioning,and maybe the answer might be very surprising.
A way to keep crows off crops or dogs/foxes off sheep or whatever - in other words, the meat farmer's version of spraying with pesticide.What do they see it as then?
Yup. Money - or votes. Seems that realistically, we don't have much of either to offer. And righteous logic on our side isn't much of a substitute for either, I'm afraid.Might as well be pragmatic about it.Money talks...BS walks.
...at a time when a fully legal, fully paid-up member of that section had just walked through a town with an AK-47 and shot sixteen people.it was a question of sticking up for a certain section of their organisation.
I'm at a loss as to how you successfully defend that section after that kind of incident. In fact, the pragmatic "cut 'em loose to save the rest" approach actually has merit. Remember, a total ban was a possibility at the time. Ryan had used pistols, an AK-47, even an air rifle in the days before the shooting. And, even though it was because the people in the area hadn't reported him to the cops, he was a fully licenced shooter with all the right paperwork at the time. The response of "well, in that case, it's obviously too dangerous even with the controls" would have been far too easy for government to have taken, and all that would have been left would have been shotguns and starting pistols and maybe airguns.
The simple fact was that the only way to have defended that section was to have enforced their self-policing before Hungerford and to prevent the accident. But you can imagine the response that would have brought on!
You've just described many of the Irish organisations as well, of course, but there you go...It was unfortunate that when Hungerford happend it seems the NRA was filled with hide bound traditionals,who had never had to handle anything like it before.There was no contingency plans,just run for cover.As one editorial had it in guns review."yesterdays men"
And that would make you a rather unique individual!If I had it I would
I mean, if I had that amount of cash, I can think of many things I'd do with the money, but precious few of them would have anything to do with political lobbying. I've put my hand in my pocket for that before when FLAG was set up over here, and in return got no information on what was being planned, done, thought about, or anything else. Hand over more money to that kind of a setup? No thanks. Cash prizes in competitions, sending people to coaching and training courses, buying equipment for clubs, sponsoring shooting teams, that kind of thing, yes. But just handing over cash for a war chest with no accountability, no plan, no information given back? No thanks.
I don't know why. Umbrella groups just don't work. Community setups do. That way there can be several groups with different agendas who are equal, not subservient to an umbrella body whose committee are not elected by general vote as with the NRPAI in Ireland at the moment. The whole idea of umbrella groups came about because governments wanted one contact point anyway, it's an administration thing rather than a good idea for the sport. Just look at the other umbrella sporting groups in Ireland today and you'll see a lot of what we see on our end of things. It's not just us, y'know...,and I would certainly see to it being more proactive and trying to be more umbrella and rigidly run than what is here at the moment.
Nope. I've got nothing to do with guys like Hamilton or Ryan, but guess what - in an umbrella group, they were of the same status as olympic champions and ordinary club shooters, and so everyone hung together.Wouldnt we think that by now we are all shooters no matter what we shoot
I'd suggest a quick perusal through Irish history on the topic of uniting Irishmen in any endeavourwe are stronger united than seperate.
Plus, I'd point out that even if all shooters voted en masse, we'd still be only 5% of the electorate.
Plus, ever tried getting shooters to part with cash to pay for all this? There are some who'll give all they have, but they're rather rare. Quite a lot, well, let's say they're very thrifty And quite a lot just don't have it to give. This is their hobby, as opposed to their sport. They do it for fun, for recreation. And they do it on a strict budget because putting food on the table for the kids is more important.
Coherence at the price of autonomy? No thanks. For a start, it's technically illegal for groups like the NTSA who have a legal duty to look after ISSF shooting first.OK have the seperate entities looking after their disiplines but at least have some coherance when it comes to national policy on the law or threat to one paticular disipline.
Repealed because the public liked beer. Not because it was illogical. At the root of it, all laws that get repealed are repealed because the majority wish it, not because of their inherent logic or lack thereof.Errr the Volstead act AKA prohibition?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
[QUOTE]Repealed because the public liked beer. Not because it was illogical. At the root of it, all laws that get repealed are repealed because the majority wish it, not because of their inherent logic or lack thereof
Nope,in the end it was costing the US Govt too much in lost revenue,it was impossible to enforce anyway and costing too much socially and politically in the US.So it was done away with logically.
FECK!!!!! I have just lost a 2 hour worth of typing of a reply to this!.(*&%$Computor!!
We can trash out to the end of days the ability or inability of the UK shooting groups to respond or not respond to tragdys.What happened on those days,is now history and tragedy for both shooters and the families of the killed.How big or how small Irish shooting groups are,who or what is right and who is wrong,who is the best rep of us all,and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin??
But I think I can sumerise this all by saying.Which way now for Irish shooting???Do we continue on our seperate autonomus ways,me feining it as we go?Or what?One thing I do know ,whatever way we go we will have ONE CHANCE only to do this right.If this is screwd up we might as well look forward to another 60 years of gunwithdrawal or outright bans.I really hope that the committies of ALL shooting sports in this country are going to be up to this.[From what I have seen of the infighting,bitching and moaning about them all amongst themselves,I am worried
]Otherwise the blame game will be somthing really intresting to watch!! 0 -
-
[PHP]Sparks wrote:And that will be a hard choice, because it will in effect mean that we'll have to report serious problems to other people; and that's something our national psyche has a massive taboo on. [/PHP]
And how exactly do you propose to do this?Apart from the "tout"image,you would be leaving us open to be reported by anyone who has grudge against you or shooting sports in general.Ex spouses have in my experiance used this to get their husbands out of the house as well as deprive them of their guns and use this as evidence in family law courts to get terms of seperation.As you have said before we arent professional shrinks ,and even they cant say wether somone has a few screws loose unless they have them under observation for three plus weeks. It's a good idea but there are going to have to be some serious checks and balances put in place.Otherwise we will be living in a society where everyone is ratting on everyone else.Shades of the 3rd Reich.Not as if we arent doing this already with insurance rat lines,driving rat lines,litter rat lines, smoking in public places rat lines,whats next?Eating one burger too many in Mac Donalds rat line?
Plus what do we do if we have reported somone who might be going postal and officaldom does nothing??Apart from making lots of excuses after the fact and banning firearms anyway?
[PHP]But - had that been done in Hungerford when Ryan shot at his neighbours with an air rifle, or when he came to work with a pistol in his belt and knife in his boot - it's probable that he'd have had his cert revoked and while he might still have gone on a spree, it wouldn't have been with an AK-47, and the resulting ban wouldn't have come about. [/PHP]
well,maybe another reason nothing was done about this was there was no independant witness of Ryan shooting at the neighbour?Their word against his.Ryan was working on a farm at the time,and whilst it is an odd place to carry a knife,it wasnt at the time illegal to do so as he wasnt in a public place and he would have had "good reason" even if stopped.The gun I cant comment on,but again remember the law wasnt as stringet or paranoid as it is now.Plus one other thing,all this came out after the incident,and there is a tendency after such events to exeggerate,make up and blow out of proportion things that happend in the past by sensationlstic books and media personel,[Hungerford,one mans massacare ,springs to mind]not to mind demoniseing even further the perperator.Got to ask yourself,if everyone was so concerned why wasnt there a bunch of complaints in the station,and if there was why didnt the police act on them?Saying I thought somone else would report it just does not wash.
[PHP]Autonomy does not mean taking a Me Fein attitude. Example; clubs are independent and autonomous, yet they manage to get along together most of the time[/PHP]
Good, I hope to see then all of the independant organisations rowing in to help each other if somthing goes wrong or the govt decides to ban or restict some type of shooting disipline ortype of gun.
Why d I have a feeling I will be disappointed,and the response will be "me fein,it has nothing to do with OUR shoting disipline."0 -
A damn good question. And one that noone's actually sat down and looked at. We don't have any mechanisms other than going straight to the gardai, and with the degree of general firearms law knowlege that most gardai accumulate, "interesting" results might well ensue!Flattop 15 wrote:And how exactly do you propose to do this?
Seriously though, picture this. Someone's expelled from a rifle club or gun club for repeated unsafe behaviour, or something equally serious. It's quite rare, thankfully, but it has happened. They go to a new club to join up. That club has no way of checking this person's background. That's the kind of thing that led to Hamilton bouncing from club to club to club prior to the Dunblane shooting. And even better, we can't get the Gardai to do background checks (which is needed for coaches because of the Code of Ethics for Children in Sport and the associated legislation). And even better still, the libel laws and a dozen other lovely legal nightmares raise their heads when you actually act on any information you receive on someone's background.
And yet, if we don't do something, we may (though we all hope we won't) one day wind up in the same situation that the NRA found themselves in after Hungerford, with the entire electorate screaming for blood and every political group out there trying to write the most stringent set of anti-firearms legislation possible, with votes as the prize. And with all the best will in the world, in that situation you're pretty much sunk before you start and damage limitation is the only realistic solution that's available.
And the choice of language and metaphor illustrates the problem that I was talking about!Otherwise we will be living in a society where everyone is ratting on everyone else.
You'd find your starting position was far better though. That's the problem the NRA had - they'd no way to say "it's the police's fault" after Hungerford, either in the press or in the courts, because the police had never been told there was a problem. And while the NSRA might have done so after Dunblane, they unfortunately believed that New Labour wouldn't break the agreement to wait for the outcome of the enquiry. Instead, they got made a scapegoat. Easy to see with hindsight, perhaps not so at the time.Plus what do we do if we have reported somone who might be going postal and officaldom does nothing??Apart from making lots of excuses after the fact and banning firearms anyway?
It wouldn't automatically save the sport, in other words, but it would improve your odds significantly.
But he was officially disciplined at work for showing up with a pistol in his belt and a knife in his boot. And he admitted to having done so in an official context as a result of that disciplinary process.well,maybe another reason nothing was done about this was there was no independant witness of Ryan shooting at the neighbour?
Not really. He wasn't so much working on a farm as near one, putting up fenceposts if I remember correctly. And he specifically claimed the knife and gun were for self-defence, not any practical purpose when disciplined by his employer, who never mentioned the incident to the cops.he would have had "good reason" even if stopped.
Actually it was, it was sufficient to have seen his FAC revoked.The gun I cant comment on,but again remember the law wasnt as stringet or paranoid as it is now.
And yet, it seems to have been what happened - that and the taboo against "ratting out" someone even when they're actually doing something as exceptionally irresponsible as actually shooting at people with an air rifle.Got to ask yourself,if everyone was so concerned why wasnt there a bunch of complaints in the station,and if there was why didnt the police act on them?Saying I thought somone else would report it just does not wash.
You might be right - but how are you proposing to stop that? Enforcing a particular "party line" to be taken? And how would that work? If a national body tried to enforce a set party line on anything that a club or individual was sufficiently opposed to, they'd just quit that national body. It's happened before to the NRPAI with at least three major clubs in this country in recent years, on less contentious issues.Good, I hope to see then all of the independant organisations rowing in to help each other if somthing goes wrong or the govt decides to ban or restict some type of shooting disipline ortype of gun. Why d I have a feeling I will be disappointed,and the response will be "me fein,it has nothing to do with OUR shoting disipline."
The simple fact is, either people will freely agree to work on something together, or they won't. You can't force them into doing so by enforcing a structure on them, you have to show them what they gain by doing so. You want competitions to be more popular? You can't order people to go, you have to run the competitions better, provide better prizes, publicise them more and so on. Same story with political stuff. You want them to do a certain thing, you can't order them to do so, you have to show them why doing it is in their best interests. Likewise, you can't order them not to do it. Take the fullbore rifle organising that's going on right now. A few years ago, the NRPAI stomped on the idea of a new body to look after things like Class F and NRA-style shooting when they came to the NRPAI AGM to ask to be recognised. Did it stop fullbore being organised? I haven't seen the sport die since, have you? This myth that a single body governing the sport would solve all our problems is a pretty silly one, when you look at it... 0 -
Why not just simply put in a notice to the police that X has left,been dismissed for xyz reasons after the club appeal procedures of course,or has moved to another club?covers the club nicely and gives the police a reason to review of the liscenseAnd yet, if we don't do something, we may (though we all hope we won't) one day wind up in the same situation that the NRA found themselves in after Hungerford, with the entire electorate screaming for blood and every political group out there trying to write the most stringent set of anti-firearms legislation possible, with votes as the prize. And with all the best will in the world, in that situation you're pretty much sunk before you start and damage limitation is the only realistic solution that's available.
And the choice of language and metaphor illustrates the problem that I was talking about!
Informing,ratting,touting,doing public duty as a good citzen,denouncing anti social activities in the collective.Call it what you will it is the same thing.Just a common metaphor for informing.They unfortunately believed that New Labour wouldn't break the agreement to wait for the outcome of the enquiry. Instead, they got made a scapegoat. Easy to see with hindsight, perhaps not so at the time.
Not saying I had a crystal ball,but when I heard the news on that March13th.I was going to apply to the SRA for club membership to get the Glock to Wales.I promptly tore up my application as I then knew the pistols were gone in the UK.The trend unoffically after Hungerford was in the UK to restrict ALL firearms in any possible way.That was another coffin nail or better still the stake in the heart. Now if some gobdaw like me could see that one coming,I am amazed the organisations didnt see it.
As for Conservative or Labour or whatever,how anyone can trust a political party to not vote against the public will on a vote gathering,we are doing somthing emotive issue.Well,thats like asking sharks not to bite a certain person in a feeding frenzy.But he was officially disciplined at work for showing up with a pistol in his belt and a knife in his boot. And he admitted to having done so in an official context as a result of that disciplinary process.
Not really. He wasn't so much working on a farm as near one, putting up fenceposts if I remember correctly. And he specifically claimed the knife and gun were for self-defence, not any practical purpose when disciplined by his employer, who never mentioned the incident to the cops.
See what I mean by bad over zealous reporting?
[/QUOTE]You might be right - but how are you proposing to stop that? Enforcing a particular "party line" to be taken? And how would that work? If a national body tried to enforce a set party line on anything that a club or individual was sufficiently opposed to, they'd just quit that national body. It's happened before to the NRPAI with at least three major clubs in this country in recent years, on less contentious issues.
The simple fact is, either people will freely agree to work on something together, or they won't. You can't force them into doing so by enforcing a structure on them, you have to show them what they gain by doing so. You want competitions to be more popular? You can't order people to go, you have to run the competitions better, provide better prizes, publicise them more and so on. Same story with political stuff. You want them to do a certain thing, you can't order them to do so, you have to show them why doing it is in their best interests. Likewise, you can't order them not to do it. Take the fullbore rifle organising that's going on right now. A few years ago, the NRPAI stomped on the idea of a new body to look after things like Class F and NRA-style shooting when they came to the NRPAI AGM to ask to be recognised. Did it stop fullbore being organised? I haven't seen the sport die since, have you? This myth that a single body governing the sport would solve all our problems is a pretty silly one, when you look at it...
Sparks,
I am not saying that there should be a dictatorship of ein body,ein organisation ,ein furhrer!And have never said that. All I am saying is is it possible for the collective bodies repsenting shooting sports in Ireland to come up with a joint statement of mutual support if there is a attack on a paticular section of the sport, or it in general? IE that one organisation doesn't back stab or run down another to get some teneous or political gain???Nothing more or nothing less!! That would be somthing already.Or did I just answer my own question???0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well now… I've started something here now! This will be a bit of a rant, so bear with me! This sort of discussion is impossible in England were most gun owners now accept that all guns will be banned in the next 10 years and do not want to do or say anything to hasten that day, and attack anyone who stands up and says NO!
Right, I can't speak for what's happening on the DoJ front as I'm not up to speed on the internal politics, it's been 30 years now since I lived there, but I can look in and see what has happend.
What you have achieved is something no other countries shooters have, you wound back the clock! When I heard last year that one chap had applied for and got a .22 free pistol I thought wow! No look at it, you got the lot back, even high powered self loaders!!!! Now that is absolutely bloody amazing!!!
You have 150,000 shooters in a population of 3,000,000, that's a much higher percentage than we have, we only have 700,000 in a population of 60,000,000. 5% can swing elections… you're not such a 'small minority' in Ireland.
So don't lose the plot squabbling over the fine points… you won the lottery so to speak. I see many shooters in Ireland complaining they have to licence their air pistols, to you I say, I would love to be in the situation were I could complain about the paperwork for my Pistol Permit. It's a small price to pay for the good of the sport. Here to shoot PP, we use CO2 pistols or Airsoft now…
Now 'Self Policing'… I don't see a problem in that, after all, if someone started showing up at the club dressed like rambo and blazing off 100's of rounds at Figure 11 targets but never shot scored cards I would report him to the club secretary who would tell the Police they might want to keep an eye on him.
Hungerford… the problem with Hungerford was there was no Public Enquiry to find out what went wrong. Things like the Police had a Tactical Firearms Unit just up the road but no way of contacting them to tell them there was an incident never came out. My personal opinion is that offering up the Hi Powered self loading rifles as a sacrificial lamb to buy off further restrictions on ALL shooters by the NRA indirectly gave us Dunblane. A major tightening across the board at the time would have meant Hamilton would never have been allowed to join a club or get a permit.
And as for Dunblane!!!!! Hamilton was banned from all the local clubs because they thought he was a nut, but the Police did nothing. He threatened a neighbour with a pistol, the Police came and did nothing. He had an unregistered pistol, the Police restrospectivly put it on his licence. He could not shoot at least three time that year to keep his licence current as no club would let him on their ranges, so the Police let him use their range. Concerns were raised repeatedly about suspicions of paedophiliac tendencies, the Police did nothing. He even asked at the local Police station just before the massacre how long it would take a Police Firearms Unit to respond to an incident and no alarm bells sounded! He asked at his local station if all Police station kept firearms available, and no alarm bells sounded He visited the school repeatedly and asked where and at what time the children had assembly and were where the fire exits to the gym, and nobody sounded alarm bells. He was trying YET AGAIN to set up another boys club after getting in trouble with his last one, he wrote to all the local school heads saying that the rumours about him being a pervert were untrue and accusing them of spreading them, but nothing happened.
What did he have to do to get attention??? Short of putting up a sign in big neon lights he could not possibly have made it more obvious he was a nutter!!!!!!
At at the end of it all, the Police walked away without blame, we all lost our guns, and the Deputy Chief Constable who reauthoried his licence took early retirement and went to live in Australia and has never spoken a word about the incident to anyone. And much of the secret evidence of Police blunders has been hidden away under the 100 year rule so we will never know the true story………
Rant over now!
Jimbo
0 -
-
-
Well Flatop 15…
It's a hard one as you say, but at least you are starting off from a 'clean sheet of paper'… in that respect the 30 year ban did some good. We have 1987 and 1996 being dragged up and we get beaten over the head with it constantly.
It IS important to establish a proper monitoring system, the one we have now is the one we should have had after Hungerford but it was allowed to slip. I suppose your advantage is the Supreme Court allows you to challenge a government rulling, we can't. Here they banned all handguns and crime with them shot through the roof, so with a proper Judiciary (which we don't have), we could ask for a Judicial Review on the grounds that the ban was supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and it did nothing of the sort.
Now as to the system, it's not for me to poke my nose in, all I can offer is the system we have here that seems to have weeded out the 'nutjobs' quite successfully.
To apply for a licence for target shooting we need to be a member of a club for 6 months.
We need 2 referees, the Club Secretary and a 'Responsible Person' , such as a Priest, Bank Manager, Doctor.
We need a report from your Doctor that you are of sound mind with no mental illness.
We have too shoot regulary and log attendence, the Police check on this.
If the Secretary thinks you are behaving oddly, such as start talking lots of Rambo type nonsence, your attendence stops or you leave the club he has to report you to the Police.
You have to fit a gunsafe in your house, and have 'good' security on the house, deadlocks and stuff, no big problem with that, it provides somewere to keep the wifes jewellery as well! The Police do check it and sign it off.
Then you get a 'Home Interview' with your FEO who has a long talk with you about yourself, asks you about your views on things and that sort of thing to get a feel of the sort of person you are on your 'home ground'. Obviously, if you apply for a licence for Target Shooting and he comes to your house and finds copies of "Vigilantie Weekly" or "Combat Shooting for Beginners" he's going to be suspicious. Another reason for the home visits was that both Ryan and Hamilton would have stood out like sore thumbs at home, grown men living on their own or with their mothers in a very 'odd' domestic situation, lots of 'militaristic' paraphenalia and the like.
I hope it all goes well over there for you guys, and I'm sure it will. Although I must admit I have a bit of a vested interest as I hope to come home when I'm a bit older… and it would be nice to shoot a 'proper' handgun again.
Jimbo 0 -
-
Paddy applying for an FAC!
Stick down O'Bradaigh on an FAC application and see the reaction you get over here… :eek:
Yes, we are having a bit of bother getting forms signed off now, Bank Managers usually won't now or Doctors.
The clubs will come, It will just take time. We have clubs closing regularly now from falling attendences as it gets harder to get a licence… one of our best club shots has just handed in his licence, he said he was fed up jumping through all the hoops now and has given up shooting for good. I think that is part of the long term Government plan, to kill off shooting by regulating it to death.
Security for up to 6 guns is a standard gunsafe, window locks on all windows (standard Double Glazing ones are fine) and two deadlocks on all outside doors, if you have more rifles than that you usually need an alarm.
By 'Rambo Talk' I mean the sort of clown who starts saying if anyone messes with him he would 'blow them away' and bangs on about how we should be allowed to shoot intruders on sight… you can imagine the sort.
The home visit… It is a pain in the arse and very intrusive, but I suppose I'm lucky, my FEO is a good guy who is pro shooting. It's not 'us' they are after, it's people who seem above board on the application, but when you check you find they are 'Billy no Mates' living in a squalid flat on their own and their bedsit is a mountain of What Nazi Weekly, Soldier of Fortune and Combat & Survival. You would be surprised how stupid some of them can be. I've heard tell of one local wannabe Rambo who applied for a Shotgun Certficate, when the FEO called to his flat he answered the door dressed in combat fatigues… real smart!
We are all bracing ouselves for the results of the Home Office Consultation Document. I expect to see all semi auto & pump actions guns banned or highly restricted along with the long barrelled revolvers banned. If anything happens again all guns will be banned in a heartbeat… so we are a bit paranoid at Policing ourselves now, we know the next 'incident' will be the last one.
As to coming home, the final straw for me will be when they bring in the ID cards over here… I have no time with that nonsence! They say up to 10 years to bring them in… I'll be gone before they do, I was born a free man in a free state… I intend to stay that way and this place is turning more and more into one big Police State.
Jimbo0 -
Aint that a fact!!I think that is part of the long term Government plan, to kill off shooting by regulating it to death.
Oh..ok that type.More replaced nowadays by the hoodie wearer and gangsta attitude.By 'Rambo Talk' I mean the sort of clown who starts saying if anyone messes with him he would 'blow them away' and bangs on about how we should be allowed to shoot intruders on sight… you can imagine the sort.
Why do they keep come back then?The home visit… It is a pain in the arse and very intrusive, but I suppose I'm lucky, my FEO is a good guy who is pro shooting. It's not 'us' they are after
,
Jeeze are they STILL as paranoid about SOF magazine in the UK??it's people who seem above board on the application, but when you check you find they are 'Billy no Mates' living in a squalid flat on their own and their bedsit is a mountain of What Nazi Weekly, Soldier of Fortune and Combat & Survival. I thought it was banned over there,it is here in Ireland
I used to read it ,havent seen a copy in ages.Apart from it's obvious right wing slant,it did do good no BS firearm articles,plus had some weird and wonderful gadjets for sale.
Need I say you neednt look for anything positive there :mad:We are all bracing ouselves for the results of the Home Office Consultation Document. I expect to see all semi auto & pump actions guns banned or highly restricted along with the long barrelled revolvers banned. If anything happens again all guns will be banned in a heartbeat… so we are a bit paranoid at Policing ourselves now, we know the next 'incident' will be the last one.As to coming home, the final straw for me will be when they bring in the ID cards over here… I have no time with that nonsence! They say up to 10 years to bring them in… I'll be gone before they do, I was born a free man in a free state… I intend to stay that way and this place is turning more and more into one big Police State.
Read before the next general election,and unfortuneatly it will proably follow you over here as well,due to the massive interchange of people between the Republic,NI and the UK.The UK will try and foist it on us as well,and knowing the Uk has the sniffles ,we get double penemonia.We will go for it hook line and sinker,as no doubt some clown will package it nicely as a great anti terrorist,anti crime or other such BS. :mad: I'll be moving to some place more free and gun friendly,like Serbia maybe,even Germany is more free and liberal on its gun laws these days . :mad:0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement