There once was a man named Zumbo.

Manic Moran

If you don't hang out on any American shooting boards, you'll have missed this one.

About a week ago, pretty much every firearm board went Zumbo crazy. I'd never heard of the guy, but he's apparently a respected hunter, author on hunting issues, editor, and TV host, been in the hunting business for some fifty years. At least, he was.

Then he made the mistake of writing this on the website for the magazine "Outdoor Life", where he maintained a blog.

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

Then the world ended. The only times I've seen shooting boards light up like that is in cases of natural disaster or terrorist attack. It took me an age to figure out (a) just what a Zumbo was, and (b) what the big deal was. Responses came in from people who use military-originated rifles such as the AR-15, SKS or AK-47 for hunting, people who use them target shooting, and people who don't really care about such weapons themselves, but don't want to give any grounds at all, as if the 'terrorist weapons' get banned, then their 'high-powered scoped sniper rifles' that they -do- use, will be banned soon enough thereafter.

By the end of the first day, the editor put a note on the blog saying "This is Zumbo's opinion. We don't agree with him, but he can write what he wants and we implore you to recall that this is the same person who you've been reading and respecting for years." Outdoor Life apparently took quite a hit in cancelled subscriptions, and there were rumblings about shooters boycotting Remington as well. Pretty much immediately Zumbo realises that perhaps he made a 'whoops', and posts an apology on his blog, and a promise to go out and try hunting with an AR. By day 2, Remington make a statement saying pretty much the same thing as the magazine. The comments entry on the blog just didn't stop updating. By day 4, Remington announces it's severing its arrangement to sponsor Zumbo's column. Day 5, and Outdoor Life announces that it has accepted Zumbo's resignation. The archives on the website are removed and replaced with a simple statement. Gerber severed its ties too.

Mr Zumbo posted this today.

JimZumbo
Junior Member posted 02-22-2007 11:49 AM
The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.

Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

Jim Zumbo

Granted, he doesn't seem to acknowledge a legitimate use for a firearm other than hunting, be it defense or just target shooting, but still: If only shooters would gang up on anti-gun people as thoroughly as they do on their own, we wouldn't have a care in the world.

NTM

Sparks

I'm not sure which is the greater irony: that those defending the second amendment tore this man to bits because of his use of his first amendment; or that this gets posted here the day after the forum charter rules explicitly rule all RKBA and firearms-for-self-defense posts to be off-topic for this board.

Either way, the first post made the point of the thread quite well, and I can certainly agree with the last sentence in there MM, but I'm still closing the thread because it's off-topic.

edit:
After a request, I rethought this. There are aspects to this that are on-topic and that could be interesting, but there's also a lot of temptation to meander into RKBAland. I'm reopening the thread in the interest of the former, but warning against the latter. We want a sports forum, not a politics one...

Manic Moran

Whilst acknowledging that you have reversed your decision, I wonder about the background to the original decision as regards the charter.

With respect, although a lot of the 4,700 responses he received on his blog (and now on the NRA forum) are of the nature of '2nd Ammendment is not about hunting', the issue that started this is the concept of I don't think you should be able to hunt with that sort of rifle', even though they are perfectly suitable for hunting certain types of animal. This also totally ignores the (I think valid) target shooting aspect. There is most definitely applicability to the Irish scene without going anywhere near the concept of RKBA for liberty/defense purposes. I do not own my FAL/terrorist weapon for the purpose of shooting people, I'm a plinker, and that is definitely within the charter. I am not totally au-fait with the pending Irish firearms regulations, but would I be wrong in saying that some similar logic is going on with regards to what will or will not be restricted? (e.g. Mil-spec design = bad).

There may be lessons to be learned here, both on what to do, and what not to do. You people would know better than I exactly which ones realistically apply in Ireland, and which ones don't. I'm sure the Irish shooting community equally has people that hunt but don't target shoot, and vice versa, thus dividing yourselves.

NTM

Sparks

Dropping the RKBA parts there MM, it does look like the restricted list will be based on the original design purpose of the firearm. Police/Military designs would be on the list : but so will your Ruger Mk2 because it's a .22 pistol which comes under an EU classification that's also on the list.

As to "I own my assault rifle for plinking, not assaulting", it'd be impossible to draft a list like this based on intent. So they go with capability, not intent.

We still haven't seen the final SI, by the way.

civdef

It looks very much like the Dept is working on the basis of appearances, hence the apparent difficulties with Walther G22's and Benelli M3's neither of which are in any meaningful way different to more traditional looking firearms which seem to pose no problems at all.

Sparks

Which leaves you with the awkward question of whether you should focus your energies on getting specific functionality off the restricted list, or specific appearances.
Bah.
Bad place to be in.

civdef

It's a tough one, the Dept seems to have a list of features they don't like, and even if it doesn't have any of those, if they don't like the look of it, it's still bad.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

As to "I own my assault rifle for plinking, not assaulting", it'd be impossible to draft a list like this based on intent. So they go with capability, not intent.

Whilst I'll agree with the concept that 'capability' is what's important, there is still great issue over how that capability is to be defined. Take, for example, the Remington 7400 in .308. It's a semi-automatic centre-fire rifle with a drop-out magazine, and it's a fairly popular deer rifle. Compared to the (civilianised) FAL, which is also a .308 semi-auto centre-fire with a drop-out magazine, and what's the effective difference in capability? Or comparing the Remington to an AR-based rifle, which is more effective in terms of accuracy, range, or lethality? Yet which one is most liable to attract negative attention and why?

So, the questions to be asked here... One is 'will a rifle such as the Remington be acceptable', and if so 'why the one, and not the FAL/G3/M21/Whatever.' The next question is 'if the Remmie is to be legal, but not the FAL, how many hunters in Ireland will stand with their plinking/target-shooting counterparts, and how many will say "well, it doesn't affect me and my chosen firearm, so I'm not going to worry about it"? Just how unified are the Irish shooting organisations, and the members within them when it comes to educating the government, media, or anyone else about the objective facts behind weapons? What you need to have is a community which stands relatively close together, but which manages to avoid the nastiness/ostracisation that has occurred to Mr Zumbo should anyone dare not to toe the party line.

Zumbo touches on the rationale behind an AR in his 'whoops' post: He said that shooting the AR was a blast, and it is. That's why we do it, because we enjoy shooting. You can get cross-over: People who take up plinking/target-shooting because it's fun, then cross over to hunting, which is good for the hunting community, I would presume. There is incentive there. Looking at some posts on other fora, there is some thought that the incident is actually good for Black Rifle shooters as a whole: If Zumbo can get some of the other "Fudds" (I don't know who came up with the term) educated on the merits of the rifle, both for hunting and non-hunting purposes, greater weight can be brought to bear in support of the AR-style shooter. So there you have it: If you have a black rifle, and you know a chap who is a 'fudd' (i.e. pure traditional hunter only), get him to the range, try it out, and convert him. That way you stand a better chance to keep your fun as much as he can keep his.

NTM

Sparks

Just how unified are the Irish shooting organisations, and the members within them when it comes to educating the government, media, or anyone else about the objective facts behind weapons? What you need to have is a community which stands relatively close together, but which manages to avoid the nastiness/ostracisation that has occurred to Mr Zumbo should anyone dare not to toe the party line.

Hooo boy. Manic, have you ever actually read any of the threads that looked at the administration of the sport in Ireland?
We could give lessons in infighting to Mr Zumbo's detractors...


Also, as I keep saying, even if every single person with a licence was of one mind and voted en masse and so on and so forth, and even if you took the wildly optimistic estimate of 200,000 shooters in the country, we would still make up about 5% of the population, and around 7-8% of the electorate. That's just too low for us to be able to wield much weight over here. (And realistically, we have around 150,000 or so people, not 200,000). So we're in the unenviable position of having to choose the lesser of several evils when it comes to this kind of stuff. And our shooting administration organisations are very resistant to us organising grass-roots stuff for some wierd reason - just look at the CJB2004 thread, where it was directly opposed.

maglite

200,000 you say
i would think thay gun owners would fall into a demographic sectoir that would vote more than the average citizen,,
take farmers and so on ,,, most target shooters are educated and will vote
then you have their dependants and friends

you could be up to 50% in some areas averaging 15% in most!!!

Sparks

Well there's just over 200,000 licences in the state maglite. So to be wildly optimistic, say one firearm per person...

And no, it wouldn't be as good as you lay out - for a start, most firearms holders are farmers and they vote acccording to farming issues, not firearms issues because the farm pays the bills, not the single-barrel shotgun they keep for the foxes. Then there's the way that most people vote according to their own self-interest. And then there's the way that we don't agree on how to do things (a health thing, that, in my opinion).
What it boils down to is that we don't have the political clout a first glance at the numbers would suggest.

Dvs

All this,

"I don't like the look of it"

being used in relation to what is acceptable and what is not,
to issue firearms licenses to law abiding firearms owners,
is totally crazy.

Imagine if you will,
the idea being put forward,
that to deal with the amount of road deaths in Ireland every year,
all cars that look like they could be driven fast are to be restricted.

Only traditional looking cars such as those old favorites like,
the Ford Fiesta, Nissan Micra,Toyota Avensis and Renault Megane,
would be permitted on Irish roads.

No scary looking Jags, BMW, Mercedes,
And God help us All............



Semi auto black Ferrari's, because as we all know,
they just either turn the driver into a killer,
or have a mind of their own just like that car on Knightrider!

I mean I saw it on the telly so it must be true.....





If this came to pass,
does anyone believe that a Utopia would result,
where no road death took place,
the Garda traffic corp could be disbanded?

Would the drivers of cars such as the,
Ford Fiesta, Nissan Micra,Toyota Avensis and Renault Megane,
never break the speed limit because,
they just look so F**in traditional,
and not scary at all........


The answer is NO!

Drivers of quality cars,
that are capable of being,
driven fast,
driven badly,
driven drunk,
driven into other cars,
driven across pedestrians.

Are also capable of being driven safely.


Drivers of traditionally acceptable cars,
such as the,Ford Fiesta, Nissan Micra,
Toyota Avensis and Renault Megane,
that are capable of being,
driven safely.....




Are also capable of being,
driven fast,
driven badly,
driven drunk,
driven into other cars,
driven across pedestrians


It's all about individual intent and behaviour.
the bottom line is,

Being driven over by a car is bad no matter what car it is,
restricting access to certain types would not change this fact.

But it would stop a section of law abiding people,
from enjoying their passion for cars,
that most people either would not spend their money on,
or don't see the appeal of.

And most importantly it would serve no purpose whatsoever.

Restricting certain types of firearms,
is exactly the same flawed logic.

Dvs.

SteveS

While Zumbo may have exercised his 1st Amendment rights, it is clear that many in the shooting community exercised their market power to make it known what they think about his views. As of now, he has been dropped by all his sponsors, except for Swarovski. He has also resigned from Outdoor Life. I don't take any joy in this, as I have been reading him for years, but I just don't understnd why he wrote what he did.

Clare gunner

but I just don't understnd why he wrote what he did.

Call it journalistic arrogance.He sounded off about somthing he had obviously no knowledge of,didnt bother to research,had a blinkerd opinion of,and thought he was nice and comfy in OL and with sponsoprships etc,he could pontificate to the flock his opinion,and the flock would baaa in agreement,or get a few mildly dissenting voices .Trouble is he hit a very WRONG topic to take a cleaver to.Has happened to some damn good journalists over here too.
Better off saying;I have never fired one of these things,I really dont like the look of them,I am a traditionist,I cant see the purpose of having 40 shot mags for deer hunting.BUT I am damn well going to try one and see if my fears are justified.And all would be well inthe world for Zumo.

Somtimes it is best to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool ,than open it and remove all doubt [Winston Churchill]

maglite

you have to feel sorry for him at the same time his career is pritty much ruined

sop much for free speech,ironic those who want their rights on guns critisise people soo baddly for expressing an opionion

That struck me as well...

civdef

The right to express an opinion also gives everyone else the right to criticise that opinion. Free speech does not mean there you can say what you like without fear of consequences.

maglite

" without fear of consequences"

Death?

Clare gunner

Do you have the right under freedom of Speech to shout FIRE! in a crowded theatre???

SteveS

Clare gunner wrote:

Do you have the right under freedom of Speech to shout FIRE! in a crowded theatre???

No, nor is libel protected. The first amendment is there to protect people from the gov't. It does not insulate people from criticism and there seems to be a long standing tradition of people making their feelings known, ranging from just complaining about some thing to organized boycotts.

I find several non-Constitutional things ironic about the whole situation:

1. How could a 40 year NRA member have no clue as to the large number of people that own military-style firearms?

2. Mr. Zumbo belonged to a group called the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA). There was a big split in this group several years back when some of the members wanted to distance the group from guns and gun hunting. Jim Zumbo was one of the people that expressed strong support for gun hunting and guns and received a fair amount of flak from his peers.

Double Barrel

SteveS wrote:

2. Mr. Zumbo belonged to a group called the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA). There was a big split in this group several years back when some of the members wanted to distance the group from guns and gun hunting. Jim Zumbo was one of the people that expressed strong support for gun hunting and guns and received a fair amount of flak from his peers.

NRA and Outdoor Writers Have Falling-Out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39731-2004Jul9.html

SteveS

Double Barrel wrote:

NRA and Outdoor Writers Have Falling-Out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39731-2004Jul9.html

Wow, that article seemed somewhat 'slanted.' I know a writer that was at that convention and she said that, despite the boards vote, many of the writers agreed with the NRA. One of those quoted in opposition of the NRA was Pat Wray, who also commented on the Zumbo fiasco and was critical of gun owners.

The state I live in, Michigan, allows deer hunting with any centerfire caliber .22 and up. If you want a semi-auto, you are limited to a 5 round magazine. I have always used a bolt action or a lever action, but I may try my Sig 556 this year.

Sparks

Dvs wrote:

Imagine if you will,
the idea being put forward,
that to deal with the amount of road deaths in Ireland every year,
all cars that look like they could be driven fast are to be restricted.
...
Being driven over by a car is bad no matter what car it is,
restricting access to certain types would not change this fact.
But it would stop a section of law abiding people,
from enjoying their passion for cars,
that most people either would not spend their money on,
or don't see the appeal of.
And most importantly it would serve no purpose whatsoever.

Imagine, if you will, restricting cars to a maximum speed, in all circumstances, of 120kph using some kind of device in the car. Not banning them, own a lotus elise if you want to, but you can't drive faster than 120kph.

See, that's a restriction that would actually make sense. It's already in place - it is illegal in this country to drive in excess of 120kph no matter where you are or what you are doing (including overtaking) - and it's relatively simple to do (most modern cars already have the mechanisms in place to do this) - and it would measurably reduce deaths on the road because excessive speed is a proven factor in a very large number of road deaths. Granted there are other factors such as drink, but excessive speed is right up there. All you're doing is enforcing an existing law.

So there's a restriction that can save lives and takes away nothing from what you currently have; so is that a good idea?

And if so, then restrictions cannot be inherently bad things in and of themselves; and if they are not inherently bad, then the problem with the restrictions we're looking at in our sport is not that there are restrictions at all, but that the restrictions proposed are badly thought out; and if that is the case, then isn't it in our sport's best interests to figure out what the restrictions are supposed to be doing, and come up with a better way to do that (assuming it's a bone fide concern they're addressing) and then agree to do it the better way in return for concessions elsewhere?

Or is that just a way to lose a popularity contests with the meatheads as Zumbo just did?

And by the way, I don't care what Zumbo said, it's not as important as what happened afterwards and what it means for shooting as a whole. If you want to ever say that all shooters should pull together, then you can't ever do what was done to him by his own. Nor can you agree with it, nor can you support it, nor can you do anything but defend him.

On the other hand, if you think that he was wrong in what he said and that you'd have boycotted him as well, then you need to either accept that you're a hypocrite; or else accept that shooting is a diverse community with different groups that have different goals and needs and that those different groups won't always agree with one anothers agendas and that there's nothing inherently wrong with this.

And frankly, I think that to assume that the shooting community is a monolithic whole is as daft as assuming that there should be one body in Ireland to manage golf, hurling, gaa football, soccer and rugby because they're all played outdoors with balls of some kind.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

Imagine, if you will, restricting cars to a maximum speed, in all circumstances, of 120kph using some kind of device in the car. Not banning them, own a lotus elise if you want to, but you can't drive faster than 120kph.

See, that's a restriction that would actually make sense. It's already in place - it is illegal in this country to drive in excess of 120kph no matter where you are or what you are doing (including overtaking) - and it's relatively simple to do (most modern cars already have the mechanisms in place to do this) - and it would measurably reduce deaths on the road because excessive speed is a proven factor in a very large number of road deaths. Granted there are other factors such as drink, but excessive speed is right up there. All you're doing is enforcing an existing law.

So there's a restriction that can save lives and takes away nothing from what you currently have; so is that a good idea?

well the only place you can legally drive 120kph is the motorway.

So limiting a car to 120kph still gives the driver the ability to drive at excessive speeds on over 90% of Irelands roads. So I don't think it would be a good restriction

Sparks

Vegeta wrote:

well the only place you can legally drive 120kph is the motorway.So limiting a car to 120kph still gives the driver the ability to drive at excessive speeds on over 90% of Irelands roads.

Yes, but it's a workability issue. You could link a GPS, an accurate map and a speed limiter. Hell, my GPS is a basic entry-level one and it will flash your speed at you in big red numbers should you exceed the speed limit for the road you're on by anything more than one or two kph. But it would cost more and it would mean more things to go wrong in the car. Whereas a simple speed limiter, preset to 120kph, would be far cheaper and more reliable.

At any rate, this is getting into the practicalities of a hypothetical, which is rarely a good idea. What did you actually think about the point Veg?

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

Imagine, if you will, restricting cars to a maximum speed, in all circumstances, of 120kph using some kind of device in the car. Not banning them, own a lotus elise if you want to, but you can't drive faster than 120kph.

See, that's a restriction that would actually make sense. It's already in place - it is illegal in this country to drive in excess of 120kph no matter where you are or what you are doing (including overtaking) - and it's relatively simple to do (most modern cars already have the mechanisms in place to do this) - and it would measurably reduce deaths on the road because excessive speed is a proven factor in a very large number of road deaths. Granted there are other factors such as drink, but excessive speed is right up there. All you're doing is enforcing an existing law.

So there's a restriction that can save lives and takes away nothing from what you currently have; so is that a good idea?

And if so, then restrictions cannot be inherently bad things in and of themselves; and if they are not inherently bad, then the problem with the restrictions we're looking at in our sport is not that there are restrictions at all, but that the restrictions proposed are badly thought out; and if that is the case, then isn't it in our sport's best interests to figure out what the restrictions are supposed to be doing, and come up with a better way to do that (assuming it's a bone fide concern they're addressing) and then agree to do it the better way in return for concessions elsewhere?

Or is that just a way to lose a popularity contests with the meatheads as Zumbo just did?

And by the way, I don't care what Zumbo said, it's not as important as what happened afterwards and what it means for shooting as a whole. If you want to ever say that all shooters should pull together, then you can't ever do what was done to him by his own. Nor can you agree with it, nor can you support it, nor can you do anything but defend him.

On the other hand, if you think that he was wrong in what he said and that you'd have boycotted him as well, then you need to either accept that you're a hypocrite; or else accept that shooting is a diverse community with different groups that have different goals and needs and that those different groups won't always agree with one anothers agendas and that there's nothing inherently wrong with this.

And frankly, I think that to assume that the shooting community is a monolithic whole is as daft as assuming that there should be one body in Ireland to manage golf, hurling, gaa football, soccer and rugby because they're all played outdoors with balls of some kind.

I don't get the point - how do you 'limit' all rifles? Insist on a mandatory .22 conversion kit for all non target shooting rifles???

Sparks

The point was that right now, the DoJ is drafting up how it wants to restrict all firearms. We're all agreed this is a Bad Idea. What I'm saying is that we should have been looking at why they want to do this, and how we could have achieved their end goal in a more effective way that would have been easier for us to live with (which might not have meant a restricted list at all), and then to have used that as our position when talking with them and sought concessions in other areas. Rather than simply going in and banging heads with them, which cost us dearly and bought us nothing in the long term. And if you're thinking that's why we have pistols back and that makes it worth it, consider the situation we're now in with the CJA2006 and the extra hoops we have to jump through, and the extra powers the authorities now have to shut us down or heavily restrict us.

In the old system, the local super was the line - if he said yes, you got it and if he said no, you didn't. Not great. Now you can go to district court - which means that in the 0.5% of contentious cases, the people with time and money to do so and the will to go to court when most people think of court as a place to avoid, well for them, that's a step forward. For the rest of us, not so much. On top of which, now the Commissioner, anyone he appoints, the Minister and anyone he appoints, the range inspector and one or two others, all have the right to say where and when we can shoot and what with, and they now have the backing of statute law.

To me, that's a giant step backwards. I can think of a few clubs that may not survive the new laws, and some that may lose parts of their shooting that they've had for decades. It's 1972 all over again, but this time brought on by shooters. Frankly, it's bloody depressing.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

Yes, but it's a workability issue. You could link a GPS, an accurate map and a speed limiter. Hell, my GPS is a basic entry-level one and it will flash your speed at you in big red numbers should you exceed the speed limit for the road you're on by anything more than one or two kph. But it would cost more and it would mean more things to go wrong in the car. Whereas a simple speed limiter, preset to 120kph, would be far cheaper and more reliable.

I agree I wanted to reply in more depth but busy at work today

At any rate, this is getting into the practicalities of a hypothetical, which is rarely a good idea. What did you actually think about the point Veg?

I agree restrictions are not always bad. I think a better system would be a progressive system of training. So instead of outlawing a particular firearm completely one would start training on smaller caliber firearms and work up, through training, competition and certification.

Honestly think everyone who applies for a firearm license should have to go through formalised testing, both practical and written, customised for each firearm type/calibre and of course funded directly by our license fees.

It is a gun and you should have to be trained how to use it before being allowed to own it. I do not think any particular firearm should be banned outright or restricted, we should have to prove ourselves to the powers that be that we worthy of owning a firearm.

For a shotgun or a rimfire rifle, a decent level of training would still be needed as this might be the starting point for a lot of people and their first formal training. For semi-auto center fire rifles/handguns and large calibre rifles a lot more training would be needed due to the dangers of incorrect use to both the shooter and people around the shooter.

I am not saying a person cannot get a handgun/.308 etc as their first license but they will have to go through the required training and practice before proving themselves fit.

Some will argue that a rifle is a rilfe and a rimfire or center fire will both kill a person so the training for both should be equal. Yes they will both kill people but what's the difference between a misplaced shot with a rimfire and a misplaced shot with a center fire? They are not the same and should not be treated the same. Each should be treated with respect and all aspects of both known, hence why i believe seperate training would be required.

Of course there'd always be the background checks and security issues for the granting of a license.

Personally I'd love to see a system like this, transparent and educational. Will never happen though.

Clare gunner

Sparks,
Without trying to play Devils advocate here.
But WHEN was it going to be a good time to introduce all these nice things with a DOJ/Min of Justice/Garda force???
We were blatantly ignored for 30 odd years,under a laughable excuse of "the troubles in NI".While in the actual war zone of NI ,there was never any restrictions or bans on firearms.
10 years after the peace agreement the govt forces in the South were still ignoring us,and proably would still be if your old nemisis FLAG and others hadnt stood up and said enough is enough.Ok we havent got everything,which I doubt we ever will have here,but we have a damn sight more than six years ago.
Life never hands you the ideal moment,you got to take what is thrown at you and make the best of it.

Sparks

But WHEN was it going to be a good time to introduce all these nice things with a DOJ/Min of Justice/Garda force?

Before the CJB was drafted. Probably in the middle of the Dunne case.

10 years after the peace agreement the govt forces in the South were still ignoring us,and proably would still be if your old nemisis FLAG and others hadnt stood up and said enough is enough.

The NARGC, according to their column in the Irish Shooters Digest, getting pretty bloody annoyed at FLAG claiming that FLAG got pistols back. I'm guessing from your post that they've reason to be getting annoyed.

Ok we havent got everything,which I doubt we ever will have here,but we have a damn sight more than six years ago.

That's unequivocal horse hockey CG. We're worse off than we were six years ago. What have we gotten? Stuff that less than 0.5% of all shooters use. What have we paid in return? Damn near everything. You might not see it now, but believe me, others do, and those that don't will be getting rude wake-up calls over the next few years when they find that even the bad old route through the high court is now blocked to them and the district court wants to go near ministerial or high level garda matters about as much as you want to give up target shooting.

Clare gunner

Vegeta wrote:

I


I agree restrictions are not always bad. I think a better system would be a progressive system of training. So instead of outlawing a particular firearm completely one would start training on smaller caliber firearms and work up, through training, competition and certification.

Honestly think everyone who applies for a firearm license should have to go through formalised testing, both practical and written, customised for each firearm type/calibre and of course funded directly by our license fees.

It is a gun and you should have to be trained how to use it before being allowed to own it. I do not think any particular firearm should be banned outright or restricted, we should have to prove ourselves to the powers that be that we worthy of owning a firearm.

For a shotgun or a rimfire rifle, a decent level of training would still be needed as this might be the starting point for a lot of people and their first formal training. For semi-auto center fire rifles/handguns and large calibre rifles a lot more training would be needed due to the dangers of incorrect use to both the shooter and people around the shooter.

I am not saying a person cannot get a handgun/.308 etc as their first license but they will have to go through the required training and practice before proving themselves fit.

Some will argue that a rifle is a rilfe and a rimfire or center fire will both kill a person so the training for both should be equal. Yes they will both kill people but what's the difference between a misplaced shot with a rimfire and a misplaced shot with a center fire? They are not the same and should not be treated the same. Each should be treated with respect and all aspects of both known, hence why i believe seperate training would be required.

Of course there'd always be the background checks and security issues for the granting of a license.

Personally I'd love to see a system like this, transparent and educational. Will never happen though.

Move to France or Germany.That is near enough the system if you want a sporting gun liscense.Trouble is there they are paragons of organisation,and getting things done quickly and without fuss in the paperwork.Our lot would wither and die if they had to do the amount of firearms paperwork a french or german clerk[not police officer] does in a day as compared to ours in a month.
It's not 100% either,both countries have had nutters as well who went to check out their local schools.But at least it is open ,fair and transparent,with much paperwork.But at least you give the paperwork in,you get.And it it is yours for life!!!No annual renewals or anything like that.
Plus you are restricted tocertain types of guns ,that only have "sporting purposes" IE you can have say a 16.5in AR 15 barreled rifle,for sporting shooting.But not a12.5 version as it has no sporting purpose,but you can have it as a hunting rifle for a brush gun or search gun for wounded game.
Hunting.Well, you had better be ready to take up a lifestyle choice rather than a sport.It is a different bucket of fish than here.Arestriction that makes sense????