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

Shooting in Cumbria [READ MOD NOTES IN POST #1 BEFORE POSTING OR READING]

Sparks

Mod Note:
This is the merged thread on the shootings in Cumbria and their aftermath, re-opened after a week or two, the moratorium being for the purposes of basic human decency.

We'd just like to remind everyone to take a re-read of the charter before posting here and to keep things civil. While we may face calls for legislative change as a result of this tragedy, many families have lost far more, and it would be appreciated if noone posted anything that they would never say face-to-face about this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bosco boy

Sparks wrote: »

Not really bunny. Saying that licences were refused over Dunblane or Hungerford or Cumbria is ignoring the oft-repeated statement that "problem" Supers have made up their minds already and just grab anything for a made-up reason. So whether or not Cumbria happened has no real effect on licencing here; if it wasn't on those grounds, they're refuse on some other grounds - hell, we had an entire sport banned on made-up worries that something might, someday, maybe, happen (ie. no grounds at all). If the PTB don't need a reason, then worrying about a new possible reason is... well, a waste of effort really.

If you personally were tasked with the job of regulating firearms in this country and who gets them would you not think that what happended in the likes of Dunblane, Hungerford and cumbria might be considerations or do we have to wait for our own tradgey for the penney to drop!!! I'm not at all against gun ownership but not for every tom dick or Derek. Good strict regulation is good for everyone except people who dont meet the requirements. The laws here are adquate but if some people had their way lidl and aldi would be doing specials in shotguns. Good regulation wont always prevent it but it will reduce the chances of it happening.

Sparks

Bosco boy wrote: »

would you not think that what happended in the likes of Dunblane, Hungerford and cumbria might be considerations

No, since the circumstances in each of those cases were wildly different to those which exist in Ireland, and so were the laws regarding what can and can't be licenced and how licencing is carried out.

The laws here are adquate

The laws here are more than adequate in terms of strictness - they are amongst the strictest in Europe. Applicants - before being granted a licence - are required to give up their rights to medical confidentiality, privacy, freedom from search without due process, and a host of other lesser rights; the Gardai have had the authority since the foundation of the state to refuse a licence with impunity, and only recently was the court system allowed to have veto over their decisions, which are not required to be objective. Firearms ranges are required to be built to some of the highest standards in the world and must be licenced by three seperate authorities (the firearms range inspector - who has the authority to inspect any place in the country without requiring permission or warrant; the local Garda Superintendent; and the local council for planning permission). We could go on in this vein, but a simple search or even a quick browse over past threads in this forum would show you exactly how onerous the application process is.

By comparison, any sociopath who wants to kill someone can walk into TK Maxx and buy a two-foot-long butchers scimitar, or onto a second-hand car lot and buy a three-ton car to drive down grafton street at speed. And these don't require any form of evaluation of the end user.

but if some people had their way lidl and aldi would be doing specials in shotguns. Good regulation wont always prevent it but it will reduce the chances of it happening.

People have issues with our licencing system not because they want lidl to stock purdeys, but because the system is overly complex, has no checks or balances to the authority of the Powers That Be - a situation which has never failed to lead to abuses in Irish history, and because those implementing the system are insufficiently trained - it would seem a cent spent on firearms licencing is regarded as a cent wasted by those at the highest level.

Grizzly 45

Bosco boy wrote: »

If you personally were tasked with the job of regulating firearms in this country and who gets them would you not think that what happended in the likes of Dunblane, Hungerford and cumbria might be considerations

Er quite frankly NO!! We are supposed to be in independant republic,not still part of the British empire[what little there is left of it].So it should be irrevelant as Sparks has pointed out what has happened in another country.Going by the same logic,since we like to compare unlike and like we could very well argue that then concealed carry permits should be introduced in Ireland as it has been proven by the FBI stats that CCWP States have had a consistent crime rate fall over the last five years.

or do we have to wait for our own tradgey for the penney to drop!!! I'm not at all against gun ownership but not for every tom dick or Derek.

Good strict regulation is good for everyone except people who dont meet the requirements

Nothing wrong with that in theory..So long as those who make and enforce them dont decide that THEY arethe final arbitraters and are entitled to enforce the rules as they see fit and over exceed their authorithy.As has happened with 500 odd pistol shooters.

.

The laws here are adquate but if some people had their way lidl and aldi would be doing specials in shotguns. Good regulation wont always prevent it but it will reduce the chances of it happening.

Oh for the day...In a parallel universe.....:D.Yeah great load your good strict regulation did over in cumbria wasnt it..Guy held the liscenses for 20 odd years.How do you regulate against that??:rolleyes:

Bosco boy

Sparks wrote: »

No, since the circumstances in each of those cases were wildly different to those which exist in Ireland, and so were the laws regarding what can and can't be licenced and how licencing is carried out.

why are the circumstances different?

The laws here are more than adequate in terms of strictness - they are amongst the strictest in Europe. Applicants - before being granted a licence - are required to give up their rights to medical confidentiality, privacy, freedom from search without due process, and a host of other lesser rights; the Gardai have had the authority since the foundation of the state to refuse a licence with impunity, and only recently was the court system allowed to have veto over their decisions, which are not required to be objective. Firearms ranges are required to be built to some of the highest standards in the world and must be licenced by three seperate authorities (the firearms range inspector - who has the authority to inspect any place in the country without requiring permission or warrant; the local Garda Superintendent; and the local council for planning permission). We could go on in this vein, but a simple search or even a quick browse over past threads in this forum would show you exactly how onerous the application process is.

I have gone through the process and never said it was'nt strict, I am glad it is strict and there yes there should always be a right of appeal.

By comparison, any sociopath who wants to kill someone can walk into TK Maxx and buy a two-foot-long butchers scimitar, or onto a second-hand car lot and buy a three-ton car to drive down grafton street at speed. And these don't require any form of evaluation of the end user.

Yes, but why do you think it happens so often in the USA, its because the availability is to easy!

People have issues with our licencing system not because they want lidl to stock purdeys, but because the system is overly complex, has no checks or balances to the authority of the Powers That Be

who do you think should be in charge of licencing firearms so???

- a situation which has never failed to lead to abuses in Irish history, and because those implementing the system are insufficiently trained - it would seem a cent spent on firearms licencing is regarded as a cent wasted by those at the highest level.

what abuses in Irish history??.

Grizzly 45

Seeing that your entire post is a giant quote.I'll try and pick out what are the revelant poits;

I have gone through the process and never said it was'nt strict, I am glad it is strict and there yes there should always be a right of appeal.

No one has a problem with the "strictness" Bosco.They have a problem
with the arbitary,non coherent way it is enforced, from district to district,and that the only way to sort out a massive problem is to take it to a DC,tying up further resources and taxpayers money.
The whole idea of the law change was to make the decision process equal across the board.It did.The people who are seemingly not answerable to anyone,decided to refuse to issue on the most spurious grounds,and with no need to elaborate on their decisions either...That is not acceptable in a democratic state.Anywhere else you have to justify your decision to the person applying for a liscense.There are no "OTHER" box to tick and call it a day.Under that box you would find a section with the words OTHER reasons.... Specify reasons of refusal.Note we dont have that here on our applications..:rolleyes:

Yes, but why do you think it happens so often in the USA, its because the availability is to easy!
But not comparing any way like and like..The US has over 250 million refisterd handguns and 500 million est longarms.We have what 450 handguns,give or take now?? It is always the lazy Irish anti gun arguement the "look at America" statement.Seeing that we could turn this around and say well then we should issue conceald carry permits to reduce crime.Suace for the goose and all that..

who do you think should be in charge of licencing firearms so???

Certainly not the Gardai anymore.They dont even want this themselves.It is a costly waste of manpower better deployed on our streets and resources that would be better in crime fighting.
Their only function as most European countries should be simply to audit the applicant for criminal records.The liscensing of firearms is generally carried out by the European countries equivlent of their county councils. Germany the Landratsamt, the French the local Marie,Italy it is the local council and the Military commander for the area.
A private company that has knowledgeable people on the firearms law and do not have the anti gun bias that affects the Gardai would be more cost efficent and fairer too.However before that happens in Ireland we will be dead and buried:rolleyes:

Sparks

Bosco boy wrote: »

why are the circumstances different?

Different jurisdictions, different licencing laws, different implementations of those laws, different national psyches and different traditional responses to mental stress.

Yes, but why do you think it happens so often in the USA, its because the availability is to easy!

Or maybe it's because the USA has americans living there?
After all, there are several places in the world which have comparable or higher levels of firearms ownership, but far far far lower rates of abuses of legally held firearms.
The problem is not as simple as the tool used; it's the far more difficult one of mental health - but our political system is set up in such a way that the sole route any politician can take and keep their job, is the one that looks best in the short term. Any route that doesn't look good quickly - regardless of how effective it actually is, or how long it will take to complete - is not one our system will take. So addressing mental health, which is a long-term unsexy approach, gets ignored (which is why these shootings keep recurring) while short-term impressive-looking (but completely ineffectual) approaches are consistently taken (like banning firearms).

who do you think should be in charge of licencing firearms so?

I've no problem with the decision being down to the gardai. It works perfectly well in well over 99.98% of cases in our system. But we do need to consider the rights of the applicant as well - I'm deeply unhappy at being forced to give up my rights to medical privilege, freedom from search and so forth, in order to partake in an Olympic sport. I regard it as ridiculous that I can stand at the Busaras LUAS stop outside my local Garda station and know that the guy smoking dope six feet away from me will have less hassle from that station than I will about my air pistol. Our system is good - but that doesn't mean it's perfect and doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to improve it.

what abuses in Irish history??.

Seriously? Take your pick - the way the religious orders treated children, the way certain politicians took corruption as being a way of life, the way certain employers treat workers (both foreign and domestic), the way certain doctors treated patients - the list is both extensive and heartbreaking.

Bosco boy

Sparks wrote: »

Different jurisdictions, different licencing laws, different implementations of those laws, different national psyches and different traditional responses to mental stress.

Or maybe it's because the USA has americans living there?
After all, there are several places in the world which have comparable or higher levels of firearms ownership, but far far far lower rates of abuses of legally held firearms.
The problem is not as simple as the tool used; it's the far more difficult one of mental health - but our political system is set up in such a way that the sole route any politician can take and keep their job, is the one that looks best in the short term. Any route that doesn't look good quickly - regardless of how effective it actually is, or how long it will take to complete - is not one our system will take. So addressing mental health, which is a long-term unsexy approach, gets ignored (which is why these shootings keep recurring) while short-term impressive-looking (but completely ineffectual) approaches are consistently taken (like banning firearms).

I've no problem with the decision being down to the gardai. It works perfectly well in well over 99.98% of cases in our system. But we do need to consider the rights of the applicant as well - I'm deeply unhappy at being forced to give up my rights to medical privilege, freedom from search and so forth, in order to partake in an Olympic sport. I regard it as ridiculous that I can stand at the Busaras LUAS stop outside my local Garda station and know that the guy smoking dope six feet away from me will have less hassle from that station than I will about my air pistol. Our system is good - but that doesn't mean it's perfect and doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to improve it.

Seriously? Take your pick - the way the religious orders treated children, the way certain politicians took corruption as being a way of life, the way certain employers treat workers (both foreign and domestic), the way certain doctors treated patients - the list is both extensive and heartbreaking.

Any system that works well in 99.98% of cases speaks for itself, the medical aspect of the form is to weed out people who may have mental health issues and who may be a danger if in possession of a firearm, the search powers you have a difficulty with are rarely enforced with legit firearms holders and Sec 30 OASA would always have covered the gardai when dealing with anyone in possession of a firearm anyway, licensed or not.

Sparks

Bosco boy wrote: »

Any system that works well in 99.98% of cases speaks for itself, the medical aspect of the form is to weed out people who may have mental health issues and who may be a danger if in possession of a firearm

That's a cheap cop-out of an answer on the part of the PTB, and we both know it. I don't have a single GP. In the last decade I've gone to maybe six GPs in total, never more than once to any individual. I've just never found a GP whose judgement I trusted all that much and who was within travelling distance. So how are any of those six GPs supposed to testify to my mental health when (a) they've met me for a total of maybe 30 minutes each over a decade; (b) they're not qualified to assess mental health anymore than I am; and (c) you can't (from what I've read on looking this up) be reliably assessed without multiple sessions over an extended period with a trained psychologist.
All my GP can tell the Gardai is that I'm allergic to penicillin and have nerve damage in my leg - neither of which is particularly helpful in determining my mental state.

the search powers you have a difficulty with are rarely enforced with legit firearms holders

I don't care if they're never enforced at all, the point is that by taking part in an olympic sport, I have to give up constitutional rights by a backdoor. That's not an acceptable way to treat a citizen in my mind.

and Sec 30 OASA would always have covered the gardai when dealing with anyone in possession of a firearm anyway, licensed or not.

In my honest opinion, the range of freedom afforded the Gardai and others in searching your person, premises, land, vehicles and anywhere else they want to on the basis that you hold a firearms licence, is far in excess of even Sec.30 because you don't have to be suspected of one of the OASA's scheduled offences.

Mind you, given that the Firearms Range Inspector has power of search without a warrant of absolutely any premesis, land or vehicle in the State on the suspicion that target shooting has been taking place there (and don't forget, "target shooting" is not really defined properly in law), maybe misery could love company...

Odysseus

Bosco boy wrote: »

Any system that works well in 99.98% of cases speaks for itself, the medical aspect of the form is to weed out people who may have mental health issues and who may be a danger if in possession of a firearm, the search powers you have a difficulty with are rarely enforced with legit firearms holders and Sec 30 OASA would always have covered the gardai when dealing with anyone in possession of a firearm anyway, licensed or not.

There is no definition as such that I am aware of that a GP can use to determine the mental status of an applicant and their ability to possess a firearm. I know quick a bit about psychodiagnostics and tbh I would be not be comformable with any form of psychological testing around this issue.

A person can have psychological issues and just not speak about them to their GP, so really I think in most cases this is a mute point. I know of depressed people who have firearms, I also posted here recently about a client on the methadone programme where I work would was passed for his .22 and o/u. A lot of psychological issues apart from the severe cases can easily pass under the radar of most professionals, if the person wants to hide it.

Sparks

There's also the point which at least one GP who is also a shooter has made; which is that the form as is would not be readily accepted by many GPs as being sufficient to allow the release of medical records - so even the little that's there may well have issues working the way it's supposed to work, even setting aside the argument over it's efficacy.

Odysseus

Sparks wrote: »

There's also the point which at least one GP who is also a shooter has made; which is that the form as is would not be readily accepted by many GPs as being sufficient to allow the release of medical records - so even the little that's there may well have issues working the way it's supposed to work, even setting aside the argument over it's efficacy.

As an aside to that Sparks, I used my boss and GP as referees. I was embarrassed about asking my boss she is female for her DOB. So I thought I would ask one of the GPs I work with, I get on very well with this chap. Anyway it turns out he is against gun ownership, so I had to ask my boss for her DOB.

However, my point is after this guy refused [which I had no problem with he is entitled to his belifes], I was telling him about the new forms, his answer was "I won't be signing them for any of my patients". I sure he is not the only GP with opinions like this, thank good mine is a shooter himself.

Sparks

That's a quibble I hadn't heard before, and a rather worrying one at that.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

That's a quibble I hadn't heard before, and a rather worrying one at that.

Doctors Differ and patients die, my local lad has the perscription written out before you say hello, sign anything if you pay him, sick cert for a year lol

So not to worry Spark!

Sparks

Well, the worry was more that we've gone from having areas which differ in what you can and cannot licence because of the vagaraties of individual Garda Superintendents; to having to worry about the vagaraties of individual Garda Superintendents and individual GPs...

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Doctors Differ and patients die, my local lad has the perscription written out before you say hello, sign anything if you pay him, sick cert for a year lol

So not to worry Spark!

Bit deep for him to comprehend :rolleyes:

As you point out Sparks this has a whole lot of ramifications that we haven't even begun to comprehend yet :eek: Some very clever thinking went into this legislation :mad:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Some very clever thinking went into this legislation :mad:

Not really into the mental health guarantee part of it though.
Which, ironically enough, didn't start in the DoJ or the Minister's noggin, but with one of us...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Not really into the mental health guarantee part of it though.
Which, ironically enough, didn't start in the DoJ or the Minister's noggin, but with one of us...

"us"

To me, it's "ye"

So not only were "they" trying to shaft "us" but some of "ye" were helping "them"

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

"us"
To me, it's "ye"

Given who first brought up the idea, it's very very much not "ye" and very very much a "we". Unless you'd like to be on the receiving end of the "ye", of course, but I thought we all stood together :rolleyes:

So not only were "they" trying to shaft "us" but some of "ye" were helping "them"

None of "us" were involved Bunny...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=229162

bunny shooter

Thanks for that history lesson

Wasn't aware of that :eek:

My apologies,

so "he" did it and "we" have to endure the consequences :rolleyes:

Will listen to the MP3 thingy.............but it's gone

Sparks

I'll just say that "he" is where I first saw the idea mooted.
I think Justice Barr might be held more as the source of the "give us all your medical records" idea.
But yes, now "we" all suffer it, and that's the most inclusive "we" there is in this little community...

dCorbus

Hmmmm interesting....Kinda puts a different gloss on current events, nez pas?:(

Sparks

An accurate history often does

dCorbus

Funny thing though, didn't read anything about that in the IS Digest?;):rolleyes:

Sparks

Shocking that, given their long history of insightful investigative journalism and unbiased and balanced commentary on the inner workings of the legislative process...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Shocking that, given their long history of insightful investigative journalism and unbiased and balanced commentary on the inner workings of the legislative process...

Meow !!!!

Grizzly 45

However, my point is after this guy refused [which I had no problem with he is entitled to his belifes], I was telling him about the new forms, his answer was "I won't be signing them for any of my patients". I sure he is not the only GP with opinions like this, thank good mine is a shooter himself.

[/QUOTE]

Dont understand what has he to sign off on??All he is is bein asked for a reference,not your medical files.

Sparks

That's the signoff in question Grizzly, if I understood that right.

Grizzly 45

ASFIK,t is just a reference,If your doc isnt going to give you a reference,you can always ask somone else for a reference.Be a different story if he had to sign you off as medically of sound mind.Not to mind that would be proably medically unsound and unethical.
As to wether your doc has to give out that info there is a good post on this on Cybershooters.co.uk. Re the cumbria shootings,and apprently coming from a specialist in medical law in the UK.It is not adviseable to to hand out medical records on request,unless under warrent from the courts.

dCorbus

I was telling him about the new forms, his answer was "I won't be signing them for any of my patients".

Two points on this:

1. The GP doesn't have to sign anything on your form. You just put down your GP's address and contact details.
2. His personal, rather than medical, opinion is irrelevant and quite possibly a massive breach of medical professional ethics. And one for the Medical Council IMHO. Whether he is anti- or pro-firearms ownership is irrelevant to their role as your medical professional.

I'm not an expert in this side of medical neglicence and professional conduct - but I know a man who is and will see if I can get some more information on this!

Now..... if and when the Gardai contacted the GP, the GP refused to divulge your medical details, that wouldn't / couldn't justifiably be used to refuse your licence.

And if the GP stated that you, in their medical opinion, where unfit to possess and use as a firearm, and that was then used to justify a refusal, the GP would want to be pretty sure of his PL Cover, coz they'd be stating and drawing into disrepute your character, based on an opinion rather than medical evidence. They could also be held to have acted in an unprofessional manner and medical misconduct may kick in at that point.

That's all assuming that your GP doesn't have a genuine reason to believe, on medical grounds, that you are indeed unfit to possess a firearm.

But of course, any GP expressing an opinion in their professional capacity in relation to the psychological or psychiatric condition of a patient would indeed be very brave, if they had not undergone specialist training in these areas.

So it's all a bit of a nonsense really!

That's my 2c's worth.

Odysseus

dCorbus wrote: »

Two points on this:

1. The GP doesn't have to sign anything on your form. You just put down your GP's address and contact details.

.

On that dCorbus, I asked another Gp to keep informed about this. He was sent a form in two cases to fill out stating his opinion. so in some cases they have something to fill out, just not on your form. I have not been able to get my hand on a copy of one of these yet, but I am trying.