nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Willie O'Dea Posing With Firearms

spitfier

How in God's name can anyone be offended by the Minister For Defence posing with with a gun? If he's not allowed do it, who is? The cameramen asked him to pose with the gun. This issue has all been exaggerated for no other reason then to make a stab at the government. I'm not an especially pro-govt supporter but surely no one can logically argue that the minister did anything wrong?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ajnag

Sparks and Civdef have pretty summed up much of my thoughts, but just to elaborate further.

If you are going to restrict me as an adult for my own safety you bloody better well know what your doing. It is highly insulting to see that O'Dea had no concept of gun safety after telling gun owners he knew better.

Cork

Ajnag wrote:

If you are going to restrict me as an adult for my own safety you bloody better well know what your doing. It is highly insulting to see that O'Dea had no concept of gun safety after telling gun owners he knew better.

Politicians often pose along side models, babies and cars - they are not required to have knowledge what the are posing beside.

No wonder people are not getting involved in politics.

Many have no sense of fun. Should we start analysing photo opportunitys?

pete

Cork wrote:

Politicians often pose along side models, babies and cars - they are not required to have knowledge what the are posing beside

i presume people would take issue if said politicians were being photographed having unprotected sex with models, dangling babies out windows or driving cars without a seatbelt.

Cork

So pictures in army tanks are out?

It was only a photo opportunity.

Where is our sense of fun?. There is a thing of taking life too seriously.

pete

Cork wrote:

So pictures in army tanks are out?

It was only a photo opportunity.

Where is our sense of fun?. There is a thing of taking life too seriously.

politicians in tanks = fine
politicians in tanks adopting "i'm going to blow the crap out of you" pose = not so fine

Cork

pete wrote:

politicians in tanks = fine
politicians in tanks adopting "i'm going to blow the crap out of you" pose = not so fine

What journalists felt thretened?

We had no pictures of journalists fleeing Willie & the gun.

Victor

HybridTech wrote:

D'you think he'd have been allowed get anywhere near them, never mind handle them if there was anything up the breech or in the magazine?

"I counted six bullets and six holes. I still shot the fridge"

Wicknight wrote:

Do people think when Blair or Bush get into a tank in Iraq people around them start running for cover in case they accidently blow up a building?

(a) The tank wouldn't be loaded. (b) loading and firing the main gun on a tank isn't very easy, seeing as the ammunition needs to be manually loaded. (c) Bush has firearms training (I don't know about Blair). (d) We don't have such pictures of anyone but the Corporal. (e) The Corporal is steadfast in his anti-war stance.

magpie wrote:

Sure what's wrong with the Minister for Defence pretending to be Dirty Harry with a stupid sh1t-eating grin pointing a gun at the press corps?

Do you think you'd find Dirty Harry with an automatic?

HybridTech

HybridTech wrote:

Were these safe?

http://www.targetshootingireland.org/Photos/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=1

various posters wrote:

there is no such thing as an unloaded gun..........you look at that photo again and tell me how you know there's nothing in the breech..........This isn't a toy we're talking about don't forget, that thing is a sidearm................A civilian shooter would get banned from a range for life for doing something like that.

Do all of these comments apply to the weapons & people in the photo above? Or is just to Ministers who didn't grant licenses for pistols when they were in DoJ?

civdef

Do all of these comments apply to the weapons & people in the photo above?

Yes, it applies in all circumstances.

Sand

Christ I cant believe this got to 4 pages!

It was a Minister of Defence, at an army demonstration, surrouned by photographers ffs. Rambo poses were going to be adopted. Photos were going to be taken. I dont like O Dea one bit, but people need to get a sense of perspective over the whole thing.

A political front for an illegal terrorist/crinimal force elected to the Dail? Democracy in action.

Minister of Defence larks about a bit whilst out inspecting the lawful army of the land, shock horror, the world stops turning.

I really dont know whats wrong with our supposed political opposition, its like they deliberately try to humiliate and undermine themselves.

Barry Aldwell

Sparks wrote:

And therein's the first assumption that'll get you shot; relying on someone else to check your firearm is unloaded. I know you're thinking "their the rangers, sure they'll never make a mistake". I've seen rangers make mistakes and have accidental discharges on the range. They make mistakes just fine, just like you and me.

Spend much time on the range with the Army Ranger Wing, then? I'm sure they just love inviting random civilians along to watch them.

Yes, it was stupid. He's the Minister for Defence, it's probably the first time he had ever held a pistol. All the people expressing outrage because he wouldn't let you have air pistols all those years ago should remind themselves that the pistol is owned by the army. Willie, as Minister for Defence, occasionally gets to inspect troops and ordinance. At a display of ARW weapons, he picked up a pistol. Having no training whatsoever, he didn't know any better than to comply with the photographer's request to aim it at the camera. Whoops, he made a mistake, he'll learn from it, and will probably won't be picking up another pistol anytime soon.

Personally I find it disgusting that while this molehill continues to be made into a mountain, the event where it happened, the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the ARW, is being almostly completely ignored.

Sparks

Barry Aldwell wrote:

Spend much time on the range with the Army Ranger Wing, then? I'm sure they just love inviting random civilians along to watch them.

Actually, there are several members of the Army Ranger Wing who are also civilian target shooters. I happen to know a few of them because we're shooting on the same ranges at competitions.

Sparks

HybridTech wrote:

Were these safe?
http://www.targetshootingireland.org/Photos/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=1

Yes. It's a bit fuzzy in the photo (lousy cheap camera), but not only are the two national air rifle champions (one an olympian) in that photo aiming away from the camera, both have their breeches empty and actions open (checked by the photographer before taking the photo, and with the rest of the range on a cease-fire with rifles open and untouched).
We occasionally take shots like that for training purposes (to document position so you can see if your elbow is in the right place or whatnot); in those cases, both photographer and shooter are experienced and know what they're doing, the actions are left open or bolts left up or even removed, and the chamber/breech is verified as being open by both people. We don't just wave about a firearm that you can't immediately see is unloaded for PR purposes.

HybridTech

What about the one pointed at the camera?

Sparks wrote:

Now look at the photo and tell me how you know that there's no round in that ........ breech.

I agree with you that they were safe because the photoshoot was being managed by highly-trained amateurs who handle guns on some weeknights and at weekends. Willie O'Dea's photoshoot was being managed by highly-trained professionals who handle weapons daily.

Sparks wrote:

there is no such thing as an unloaded gun

Strongly agree with you on this which is why I posted that pic from the website for Olympic Shooting in Ireland, a body which you

Sparks wrote:

the National Target Shooting Association, (are) the national governing body for

You seem to be saying "Do as I say, not as I do!"

I strongly agree with Barry Aldwell's middle paragraph and think it should be left at that.
Have a good weekend,

HT.

Sparks

HybridTech wrote:

What about the one pointed at the camera?

Neither is. (Yes, the one on the left looks close, but it isn't at the camera. like I said, cheap camera).

I agree with you that they were safe because the photoshoot was being managed by highly-trained amateurs who handle guns on some weeknights and at weekends. Willie O'Dea's photoshoot was being managed by highly-trained professionals who handle weapons daily.

I'm strongly in disagreement with you on the implication that the Rangers are safer than civilian shooters, mainly because believe it or not, civilians spend more time shooting than even the rangers (with the possible exception of those rangers that are also civilian target shooters). Shooting is basicly only a small part of the training for rangers. It's the only part of the training civilian shooters go through. We log hundreds if not thousands of hours on the range - far more than the Army can pay for its soldiers to spend there. Which is why you'll often find RDF and PDF personnel who learnt more on shooting on civilian ranges than on army ranges.

Strongly agree with you on this which is why I posted that pic from the website for Olympic Shooting in Ireland, a body which you You seem to be saying "Do as I say, not as I do!"

A better analogy would be a surgeon telling a member of the public not to cut someone with a knife...

gaf1983

In my own opinion I think that William O'Dea is a cretan, a knave, a creep and a rogue. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with the parish-pump politics that holds sway in Our Illustrious Nation.

However, just from the sheer value of entertainment he has given us and his neck in his defence of Wednesday's stunt, I'd be tempted to vote for him.

I love his retort to Fine Gael's defence spokesperson, Deputy Billy Timmins- simply to "get a life." That's the kind of reasoned argument not scene since the days of the playground in primary school in the early nineties. He added: "I wasn't to anticipate that there would be a spate of murders in the days before this. I respect the intelligence of the electorate, and they know that I do not in any way condone gunfire." (Limerick Leader, Saturday 19th November)

However he does give us one good reason not to vote for him - isn't it remarkable that we are so misfortunate in this country that we have politicians that aren't able to anticipate events that occur in the past?

Capall86

Sparks wrote:

Neither is. (Yes, the one on the left looks close, but it isn't at the camera. like I said, cheap camera).

I'm strongly in disagreement with you on the implication that the Rangers are safer than civilian shooters, mainly because believe it or not, civilians spend more time shooting than even the rangers (with the possible exception of those rangers that are also civilian target shooters). Shooting is basicly only a small part of the training for rangers. It's the only part of the training civilian shooters go through. We log hundreds if not thousands of hours on the range - far more than the Army can pay for its soldiers to spend there. Which is why you'll often find RDF and PDF personnel who learnt more on shooting on civilian ranges than on army ranges.

A better analogy would be a surgeon telling a member of the public not to cut someone with a knife...

I smell a whole load of B.S in that post....
Are you willing to put yourself up to the test of beating a ranger sparks?
to me you just sound like a spoilt kid, crying now coz willie got to hold a pistol and you ahve no licence for one.

Sparks

Capall86 wrote:

I smell a whole load of B.S in that post....
Are you willing to put yourself up to the test of beating a ranger sparks?

In a civilian target shooting competition? You're under a mistake illusion as to the area of competency of the Rangers. Civilian target shooting emphasises hitting the geometric centre of the target. Ranger training emphasises a different skillset completely. Here are the results from the 2002 Air Rifle Nationals, just after the rangers entered civilian target shooting. That's them down around 37th place, that's me in 15th. And I was no great shooter at the time. This didn't mean that the Rangers were bad soldiers; just that they didn't need that level of precision (when you're firing a fully-automatic fullbore rifle, that kind of precision isn't possible, so you don't worry about it. Civilian shooting is different).

to me you just sound like a spoilt kid, crying now coz willie got to hold a pistol and you ahve no licence for one.

Was that a deliberate trolling attempt? Yes, I'm irate because Minister O'Dea publicly misused firearms denied to the rest of us until recently, despite our perfect safety record and our ownership of far more powerful and potentially dangerous firearms, purely on the grounds of a policy made up in '72 and never re-examined. We had to take the DoJ to court to get it rescinded. What kind of state of affairs is that, when you have to sue your own government to get to compete in the Olympic Games, while Ministers in that Government fool about like that?

muletide

Sparks wrote:

In a civilian target shooting competition? You're under a mistake illusion as to the area of competency of the Rangers. Civilian target shooting emphasises hitting the geometric centre of the target. Ranger training emphasises a different skillset completely. Here are the results from the 2002 Air Rifle Nationals, just after the rangers entered civilian target shooting. That's them down around 37th place, that's me in 15th. And I was no great shooter at the time. This didn't mean that the Rangers were bad soldiers; just that they didn't need that level of precision (when you're firing a fully-automatic fullbore rifle, that kind of precision isn't possible, so you don't worry about it. Civilian shooting is different).

Was that a deliberate trolling attempt? Yes, I'm irate because Minister O'Dea publicly misused firearms denied to the rest of us until recently, despite our perfect safety record and our ownership of far more powerful and potentially dangerous firearms, purely on the grounds of a policy made up in '72 and never re-examined. We had to take the DoJ to court to get it rescinded. What kind of state of affairs is that, when you have to sue your own government to get to compete in the Olympic Games, while Ministers in that Government fool about like that?

Your friend in the ARW will be extremely grateful that you highlighted his name and what unit he is in considering they go so far to protect their anonymity (sp)

Sparks

Yup. Especially the way that I've listed his address, phone number, date of birth and a photo the way I did. Besides, last time I asked how they felt about their names being in the public domain results sheet like that, the response was "why do you think that's his real name"

HybridTech

What about the one pointed at the camera?

Sparks wrote:

Neither is. (Yes, the one on the left looks close, but it isn't at the camera. like I said, cheap camera).

Look at it again. I've enlarged it a bit and posted it here: Attachment not found. That is definitely pointing at the camera person!

Sparks wrote:

the implication that the Rangers are safer than civilian shooters

The implication was to amount of time handling weapons, as in experience not safety. One or two weeknights and weekends v. daily.

Nuttzz

Sparks wrote:

In a civilian target shooting competition? You're under a mistake illusion as to the area of competency of the Rangers. Civilian target shooting emphasises hitting the geometric centre of the target. Ranger training emphasises a different skillset completely. Here are the results from the 2002 Air Rifle Nationals, just after the rangers entered civilian target shooting. That's them down around 37th place, that's me in 15th. And I was no great shooter at the time. This didn't mean that the Rangers were bad soldiers; just that they didn't need that level of precision (when you're firing a fully-automatic fullbore rifle, that kind of precision isn't possible, so you don't worry about it. Civilian shooting is different).

So who is that in 8th then

Sparks

Artillery. (He'd been shooting with us for some years at that stage). As I said, a different set of skills. I'll bet you I couldn't cover forty-odd miles of rough terrain without being spotted, for example.

magpie

The Rangers are puffs.

RainyDay

magpie wrote:

Sure what's wrong with the Minister for Defence pretending to be Dirty Harry

So can we call him Dirty Willie from now on?

magpie

So can we call him Dirty Willie from now on?

Its got a ring to it alright

oscarBravo

HybridTech wrote:

What about the one pointed at the camera?

Look at it again. I've enlarged it a bit and posted it here: Attachment not found. That is definitely pointing at the camera person!

I'm no expert, but it looks to me like that gun is pointed (from the perspective of the person holding it) about 10 degrees to the right of the camera.

Sparks

magpie wrote:

The Rangers are puffs.

Actually, they're among the physically toughest people I've ever met; it's just that their training didn't make them the best civilian target shooters ever born. Which is perfectly reasonable, really.

Sparks

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm no expert, but it looks to me like that gun is pointed (from the perspective of the person holding it) about 10 degrees to the right of the camera.

About that. She was aiming at a point a bit less than a metre to the right of the camera, which was around six metres away. Given that her rifle was empty (and inspected by shooter and photographer as such) and uncharged (and tested as such) and that she was a national champion whose accuracy was sufficient to let her hit a target 5mm across at a range of 10 metres, 60 times in a row, it was felt to be an acceptable risk. None of that could be said about the photo in the Times, where neither the Minister nor the photographer were qualified with that weapon, where the weapon's action is closed and the breech is not visually checkable as being empty, and the firearm is pointed directly at the photographer.

Freelancer

Capall86 wrote:

I smell a whole load of B.S in that post....
Are you willing to put yourself up to the test of beating a ranger sparks?
to me you just sound like a spoilt kid, crying now coz willie got to hold a pistol and you ahve no licence for one.

Sparks response seems to be the finest bit of pwnage I've seen on a message board in some time.

Not only in the original post did he not claim to be better than a ranger he just said he was as safe as. You took this to mean he was claiming he was a better shot, challenged him and Sparks was able to prove that actually yes, he is a better shot than at least one Ranger, but thats beside the point.

Game set and match I'd say.

muletide wrote:

Your friend in the ARW will be extremely grateful that you highlighted his name and what unit he is in considering they go so far to protect their anonymity (sp)

Theres a type of man who becomes a slurry factory when the rangers are mentioned (elite trained ninja killers who know eighteen ways to kill a man with a BurgerMac bun (compare to the one the rest of us know, feeding someone one), completely lethal, the best fighting force ever in the history of human achievement, not many people know the rangers actually captured and killed hitler 20 years before they were even created thats how good they are!)

Yes they are a superior fighting force, but give it a rest.

And Hybridtech. Give it up. Run don't walk away from the thread. Sparks and the young ladies in the photo took what sounds like incredible care with their weapons, unlike O'Dea and his sh*t eating grin and unchecked breach.

You've arguing with the one group of people who have a serious case with the minister over his behaviour. Its alright to be morally disgusted with O'Dea for posing in such a stupid pose, but Sparks has a legimate grievance with the Minister and it should be respected.