Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Cal Ward on gun control in Ireland from his blog... Is it really this bad as he makes it out to be ?

Simple answer, no.

Long answer,

"When shooters seem capable of nothing more effective than anonymous online ranting"

Our online "ranting" got the brakes put on the illegal privatization by an unauthorized and uncredited group on mandatory deer stalking courses.

Our online "ranting" got the attention of those groups (our "own" groups) that sought to further restrict night time shooting, introduce time lock safes, ban certain firearms.

For a chap that complains about anonymous online ranting why is he running a blog, ranting about the state of firearm ownership? :rolleyes:

His second paragraph goes on an incoherent and somewhat vague RANT about corruption and host of other things with little to nothing to do with firearm ownership other than to point out that Gardaí don't want guns in civilian hands (or at least some types). Well d'uh.

On we go with more RANTING about genocide in African countries, mass shooting in America, and the Irish Famine. What has this got to do with firearm ownership. Also his reference to the legislators/law makers doing X, Y, and Z is ridiculous. In recent years the biggest threat we have faced is our own doing secret deals and pushing for legislation that will line their own pockets.

He continues to complain this time about home security. The more guns you have the higher your security so it's not a case, as he infers, that everyone be at or above level 4. Using his personal, and singular, case as a yardstick is not evidence nor a pattern. Also if i've spent thousands or tens of thousands on firearms i want security to protect them regardless of Gardaí designated levels.

Now we move onto his lack of knowledge. He talks about the "move to ban zeroing outside of a range". There is no move, it's ALREADY illegal to do so. Has been for a good few years. Yet he blames the authorities saying they know the effect a ban will have. A ban ALREADY exists.

He talks about night shooting and the own goal scored by the "shooting and hunting community". He blames irresponsible fox lampers for shooting near isolated dwellings while completely ignoring the fact that it was NOT the shooting community but the so called coalition and other vested interest groups that proposed this ban. Then through a strong letter/e-mail campaign organised here and other forums the shooting community let those proposing this what they felt.

Now onto the topic of courses. He reminisces about days gone by while listing his credentials (one of which he should consider removing "..... and i load all my own ammunition") and then once again blames the Government for all this. Now i'm all for "sticking it to the man", but this proposal has once again come form our own. First it was the NASRPC, and most recently the deer alliance with the hcap. So no wonder the Government might consider when once again vested interest groups keep asking for it to be made mandatory.

He goes on about Buzzards and his perceived decline in all wildlife. I won't comment here as his thoughts are his own and with no population checks no one can say for sure.

On the topic of legislation. He says people are given licenses for a rifle for either target shooting or hunting but not for both. Other than my FTR rifles all my firearms were for dual purposes. As were those held by pretty much everyone i knew. When he talks about people being prosecuted for shooting a rabbit with a "target" license or vice versa well two things jump to mind. What did the person apply for the firearm for (in section 4.2 did they tick both boxes?) and also where are all these cases. You cannot claim something without at least naming a few of the court cases as i've not heard of them.

He goes on, still about legislation, and talks about how ballistic testing has already been introduced. Since when? It was proposed, once again by our own, but never acted upon and other than the recent RFD SI there has been no new legislation. He then hints we would be considered criminals with any gun crime and subject to botched/faked forensics like the Birmingham six. I mean FFS, come on.

More talk about restrictions such as deer tagging and geo locating. When did this come in? Then about ranges installing cameras. Like about it has been a requirement since 2011 under the Range SI, and it's for the members protection as well as the ranges. Then a hint at drones being used to spy on hunters/shooters. The DoJ won't spend our license fees on proper license cards, to properly fund the NPWS, etc. but they'll pay for drones to monitor hunters.

He finishes his legislation section with a nameless story about a "sting" operation in the UK as told to him by his "informant". Without questioning the validity of the story no one should have access to your firearms other than the you (the licensee). However the laws in the UK work in Ireland the person calling out will be the CPO (Crime Prevention Officer) and other than that it'll be An Gardaí with a warrant.

He speaks of people with health (physical and mental) issues having their license revoked or denied. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but he says this is permanent and with no basis for appeal. Again a lack of how the law works shines through. You have recourse, it's called the courts because the Superintendent is no longer end stop or the Persona Designata. You can appeal any decision via the courts including revocation and refusal. Minister Shatter even gifted us the ability to seek expenses. Having a firearm revoked or refused DOES NOT make you a criminal as he says.

He goes on about transport of firearms in other countries and gives an "apparent" story about someone, again, in the UK. Another Story about someone done for having a knife while driving. Well that come sunder the 1990 offences weapons act which says if you have no lawful reason for having it then you shouldn't have it on you. More talk about, in his own words, unrelated to firearm corruption by the Government and law enforcement. Then more talk about police corruption, which i'm still wondering what it has to do with firearms.

He finishes his segment on the topic of Anti-gun EU. He starts with a parable on car owners and if they had to face the same restrictions there would be uproar. Well news flash, there already is the same restrictions. Drink driving, drug driving, dangerous driving are all offences. No seatbelt, don't use a phone, no smoking in your own car if there are kids, speed limits, traffic lights, rules of the roads are all restrictions designed to control what you can and cannot do. Then there is the tax on buying the car, tax on the fuel (three taxes actually) tax on importing, insurance, NCT, tax on the parts to keep it running, etc.

Here is a change of pace, i actually agree with him, to an extent, on the media bias we all see. However that is primarily in the US with its second amendment, but the rest of the world has no such right.

The attitude towards guns has never been favourable. It's not a new movement, the anti gun sentiment, but shooters account for 3% of the population with 80% of those not interested in the politics of it all, and the remaining 20% too busy trying to fight of attacks from our own to try and change the minds of those against it. However the majority of those not involved with guns/shooting are not that pushed to do anything to curtail it further. They're too busy with their own lives and as a nation we have a stellar safety record when it comes to firearm, all of which is self policed (more or less).

We have strict gun laws, but they should not be confused as attacks on our sport. We can license pretty any caliber, and most every type of firearm, some even our UK neighbours cannot. We haven't got everything other countries have, but we have the ability to discuss this with the PTB and attempt to change that via the FCP.

The biggest threat we face, as i've said umpteen times here and on other threads, is the threat from within. Those that seek to control or capitalize from shooting with no regard to the sport, only the power/money. In the last three years we have faced mulitple proposals and recently a new law/SI because of these vested interest groups.

If the Government keep hearing from those that, falsely, claim to represent us that we want more control, more restrictions, mandatory courses, less "rights", etc, etc then what possible reason would the Government have not to act given their already anti gun sentiment?

I see Youtube is, yet again, restricting gun content including how to videos, demos, etc.

Jesus wept.

See all the mis-informed snowflakes out marching to have their rights taken from them. Coming out the the same bullsh*t as usual:

• Ban assault rifles - Already done since 1986
• Background checks - already exist
• New laws - When the old ones are not enforced
• Raise the age limit - The Florida shooter and Maryland shooter were both 17 and had the guns illegally so how did that help
• No need for guns - I bet the kids at the Maryland school don't think so as the resource deputy (Gaskill) stopped that with a gun. Same with the Texas church shooting thanks to Willeford with an AR no less.

The murder rate with rifles (not just ARs, just rifles in general) is one of the lowest, statistically, there are. Pistols, knives, blunt objects, fists, are all much, much higher. Not to mention all the other causes of death.

The problem with America is not gun control, but their mindset. Have a problem with someone, shoot them. Annoyed by your boss, shoot them. Someone insults you, shoot them. Feeling bad, shoot someone.

Nothing will change until they address the cause of the violence, and not focus on the method used especially when that focus is on one brand of one of the lowest forms of murder there is. The buzz words of "assault weapons", and "its all the NRAs fault" won't change anything because when all the legally held guns are gone, and the NRA is disbanded and the murders continue they won't know who else to "pin the tail to".

What bothers me is they don't think before speaking, or at least do some research.

I mean here he is saying how the clear backpack program is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.



So he is unwilling to surrender this right yet he has no trouble, and sees no comparison, with taking away people's 2nd amendment rights because it won't actually affect him (IOW he won't lose any guns, etc).

I siad this earlier, before and on other threads. These kids are being used in a decade long war between two sides, but they don't know they are. They are being led down a path to take certain rights from them and whether they know it or not it doesn't seem to bother them because none of them are firearm owners or interested in that particular amendment.

However touch on something they do have a vested interest in and then it's "you can't do that".

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I can't get behind that. They're getting shot at, they get the right to complain about it. End of, far as I'm concerned.

No one, as far as i can see, is objecting to their ability to protest. Do you see anyone on the conservative side wearing masks, rioting, and inciting violence against them or their right to protest? NO. Because it's their first amendment right to protest and no one is interested in taking that away from them.

They might not be right about the "how" part of fixing it, but they're completely right about there being a problem

Again those on the opposite side of the argument agree there is a problem, but protesting the NRA, gun control, and specifically focusing on one particular type of firearm is not a solution.

Their time and energy would be better spent identifying the problem and attacking that head on.

- you can't look at the US and say they're right in the head over there. The rest of us have firearms since the 1600s and we didn't start shooting up schools the way they do. There's definitely a problem there.

Now me, I think the problem isn't the guns, it's the americans, but that's into the mechanics of it

Exactly, as i said above:

Cass wrote:

The problem with America is not gun control, but their mindset. Have a problem with someone, shoot them. Annoyed by your boss, shoot them. Someone insults you, shoot them. Feeling bad, shoot someone.

Nothing will change until they address the cause of the violence..........

After the Parkland shooting the Sheriff, the school commissioner, the Governor, and a host of concerned faces stood outside the school and condemned (rightly) the act. In the following weeks we find out that a systematic failure of the school, the Sheriff's department, mental health services and the FBI allowed this tragic and mindless act to happen.

Weeks later, again, and we find that the Sheriff has a political history against guns, he instructs his deputies to do things counter to the oath they took, and still he is invited to town halls organised by the liberal media, namely CNN, with an audience that is loaded with people of the same mindset and the questions are prepared/loaded to attack only one aspect. Firearms.

Where is the outrage towards the Sheriff, the school, the mental health services, the FBI? Why are they and their premises not being protested/picketed?

In all the time from the shooting i've heard almost nothing about Cruz (the shooter) and/or the failings of the various departments. Instead its all about ARs and gun control. Thing is the gun controls were in place, but failures on behalf of the Sheriff and the FBI allowed Cruz to get firearms when he shouldn't.

So tell me how more gun control will solve this when the current laws are not properly enforced? Why are ARs being targeted when they account for a tiny percentage of total gun deaths per year? Why do those opposed to firearms not educate themselves instead of sounding ignorant by protesting things which are already banned?

And taking pot shots at a bunch of kids who're protesting because they're actually being shot at? Yeah, no, count me right the **** out of that please.

Name calling is petty, but they're fair game in terms of challenging them.

The majority of kids involved in that are trying to get over their trauma and move on. They protest, for whatever side they fall on, and they're more than free to do so however the two who are the front of the media's push are picked out for various reasons which will appeal to a larger audience. You have Emma Gonzalez an ethic bisexual. You cannot be seen to argue against her because to do so would mean you're automatically a racist, sexist, bigot and uncaring towards the trauma she suffered.

It shouldn't be about her or one child, but all of them.

Its like here at home. Gun control is an emotive subject (although no where near as big an issue as in the states) but look what happens when something happens regarding suicide. If we bring it up we're heartless and insensitive, yet whenever the situation is on "their" side it's fair game.

Sparks wrote: »

Well, actually, yes. They've been called everything from "crisis actors" to attention whores.

This is a product of a news media with an agenda that has lost all credibility. CNN (most prominent) has lied, cheated and made up facts/stories to suit their narrative and if these children think by using them they will get a genuine message out then they're sadly mistaken.

I've been watching the US coverage of this and some of the bile coming off Fox over there is ****ing horrendous.

And all the bile, bias, lies, "tactical" editing, and bastardisation of the truth by CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. is even more stomach churning.

And that's not even counting things like the counter-protestors in Albuquerque showing up armed to yell at the kids until the police had to step in and cordon them off.

Is this the march from Saturday? If so it was a couple of dozen, if that, against over 8,000 and they have as much right to counter protest as the other side do.

If not i've not heard of any other protest except the anti Trump protests in 2016 where the liberals wrecked the place because they were "offended".

I'd also point you to my comment above about perspective. You say people with guns shouting at kids. Because they have guns they're somehow worse? Did they shoot anyone? No, because they have cop on, and self control. Kinda makes their point for them.

The US is going completely nonlinear over this and it's ****ing ugly.

Yup, but ask yourself why now, why lately. 30, 40 years ago shooting was an activity in most schools as a sport, but now it's schools being shot up. What changed?

Over the last 5 years everything is now suddenly a hot button topic. Sexual abuse in Hollywood has being going on for decades and was ignored, accepted and even covered up. Now the same "victims" are coming out because it's trendy to do so and drowning out the voices of true victims. Yet their double standards are sickening when you see the same so called victims praising Roman Polanski, a convicted and on the run paedophile.

Same thing with Hillary Clinton. Talking about woman's rights and equality when she ignored and covered up sexual assault within her own campaign staff. Why has no one come out and against her for actual recorded attacks yet jump all over accusations of the same against conservatives? Bias, and an agenda.

Yup, I'd agree and I'd argue that with them all day long. But pointing out that there's a problem and it's not being solved? That's 100% legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

But how is protesting and attacking an item that is NOT the actual centre of the problem a solution? Some of those protesting it probably know this too, but why is no one actually tackling the issues that will help or at least start on the road to resolution?

They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on - but they're kids. They're not expected to.

That is one of the most ridiculous comments i've heard. "They don't have to know about the thing(s) they are protesting".

YES THEY FECKING DO.

You cannot use age as an excuse for not knowing what they are protesting then in the same mouthful expect anyone to take them seriously. You might as well be doing this if thats the case:

And getting shot at gives you a free pass for life to say there is a problem, even if you don't know how to fix it.

Yep, but not to go on TV and be a puppet for a larger agenda.

I think there was a fair amount of that when it came out that they'd been bringing the shooter to their attention for years and when it turned out that the deputy involved on the day didn't enter the building.

For a day or two and only for minutes at a time, then the focus quickly shifted back to "guns are bad, m'kay". Also it was the Sheriff's office, and rightly so, that got what little was shown. The Governor, the School Commision, those in mental health services all got very quiet, very quickly and not one media source has chosen to chase down why.

They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on ................

Because they're kids and they're being shot at and that's not going to make them sit down in a library and go study the problem.

I wouldn't expect them to become PhD's on the subject but for the love of God at least know that what you want banned is already banned. At least know that background checks exist, there are laws to prevent everything they want to prevent and checks in place to stop or at least highlight possible problems before they happen.

However when they fail is when the shtf. Look at the most recent shooting. A 17yr old with a Glock. You don't hear too much about it on TV, a bit on Social media, etc. because the school resource officer stopped him dead, literally, before he could do more harm. In Maryland it's illegal to own a pistol if you're under 21, there is a long cooling off period, limit on amount of guns you can buy and how often, etc. All those failed miserably.

The question that should have been asked was why the Father did not have it locked up.

As more and more politicians jump on this bandwagon it becomes more out of control and about something else (in some cases getting elected because you're seen to be on the "right" side of the argument). One Democrat seeking to win the next Governor election in New Mexico is releasing an 8 point plan to combat gun violence which includes background checks (already exist) and taking guns from people with mental health issues (which is also coverd by the constitution). So in other words she wants to make what is currently the law, into law.

She is not the only one:

• Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally surrounded by 8 ARMED men.
• The anti gun protests protected by armed police.
• A California Democratic senator with serious anti gun stances, arrested and jailed for gun smuggling
• Obama's "Fast and Furious" scheme.

The list goes on and on.

It's going to make them ask "how the hell has this not been fixed in the last century of it happening

There has been more shootings (school) in the last 15 years than in the previous 150. So i'll ask again what has changed. The guns or the attitudes of the "kids" you keep pointing to as needing to be listened to.

and what the hell are you yahoos doing with our taxes to say it's this bad?"

They don't pay taxes, and for that matter they don't vote.

As i asked above why is the second amendment so malleable or open to be repealed when the same talk of any other right been taken away is absolutely not on the cards. I reference the "Hogg" and the clear backpack and student ID cards as being infringements on his 1st amendment right (his exact words).

Honestly, I think they have a pretty solid point there as well.

No for the reasons above.

No, they're not. There's no "fair game" in taking ad hom attacks on kids, there just isn't.

Yes there is, however distasteful you think it is. They are the face and voice of an agenda that while they might have similar views, is at the core of other groups agenda.

They cannot, and should never be allowed to, think they can have their say without rebuttal or dissent simply because you or anyone else thinks its off limits. That is not a discussion or debate, that is preaching/dictating.

Yup, because they've no problem in being assholes.
Me, I'd prefer to try not to be one.

Then you are surrendering reasoned debate and mechanism to possibly achieve change because of an emotive reaction and not a common sense one.