RTE's Prime Time - Shooting/licensing to be featured Tuesday night...

thehair

bullets wrote: »

Since Limerick was mentioned...I was talking to a workmate in the stores
dept of my job. He said the UPS delivery guy that comes every morning was
in the Dooradoyle area making a delivery and some Foreign National (Female)
came out either pissed out of her brain or tanked up on drugs and pointed what looked like a real AK at him asking him for "papers" she then went back into the house. He nearly shat himeself called the cops and apparently she was arrested and the ERU took the front door of the house clean of the hinges when responding. Heard nothing on the news about it though.

it is off the wall stuff . f me were is the (man) that will sort it out for good:eek:

Grizzly 45

Hate to say it..you wont hear anything about it proably.Due to the fact it is a non national female.Cant have any bad press on all our guests now can we?:(

Sparks

And that's far enough down that road I think...

G17

I got my letter from the BCC acknowledging my Prime Time complaint, they are forwarding to RTE.

I complained to RTE once before about an article (not shooting related) they published and got an email from the top saying something like:
"Dear Joe Public, My editorial staff are beyond reproach, sure, we SAY the licence payers own RTE but seriously, go away. If we want your opinion, we'll give it to you. Is mise le meas etc........"
So I can't wait to see their reply when I'm one of many complainants.... I'll keep you posted.

Our man in Havana

They won't fob off the BCC, like they do with Joe Public.

Johnathon Swift

Rovi wrote: »

Right, can I ask everyone to tone down the vitriol towards Mr. Clonan?
Juvenile name calling and the like do nothing to further our cause and only serve to show us in a bad light.
He has shown himself to be 'anti' civilian ownership of firearms and much of his 'expert' opinion appears to be very much open to question; that's all fine, we now know where he's coming from and can view his future statements on the subject with this knowledge in mind.
Certainly argue his position and counter his 'facts' and opinions, but please, lay off the silly personalised stuff, it's unbecoming a community that presents itself as adult and responsible.

Most of the above also applies to discussions on the production values and editorial direction of the Prime Time programme.

Rovi (Moderator, one who presides over a meeting or forum in an impartial manner) Bollocky Bill and Karen02 were banned from the forum for simply asking reasonable questions of the shooting community, because you deemed them to be getting personal in their comments. Yet those who support the shooting community are allowed to tear Clonan apart with vile comments and you simply ask them to tone them down, without mention of a sanction against them. Moderator is this natural and impartial justice.

dresden8

Very good, yet strangely suspicious and very odd first post!

IRLConor

Johnathon Swift wrote: »

Rovi (Moderator, one who presides over a meeting or forum in an impartial manner) Bollocky Bill and Karen02 were banned from the forum for simply asking reasonable questions of the shooting community, because you deemed them to be getting personal in their comments. Yet those who support the shooting community are allowed to tear Clonan apart with vile comments and you simply ask them to tone them down, without mention of a sanction against them. Moderator is this natural and impartial justice.

For the record, the reason bollockybill was banned (not permanently mind) was for personal abuse not for getting personal. Saying "Joe Bloggs is wrong because he claims the sky is red, not blue" is personal but not abusive. Saying "Joe Bloggs has two or three synapses they seem to have borrowed" is personal abuse. Post number 214 was the reason for the ban, post 212 was acceptable (and since it presented an opposing view, conducive to further discussion).

The reason karen02 was banned was that it was pretty obvious to the moderators that karen02 was bollockybill re-registered under a different name. Re-registering to get around a ban is an automatic permanent ban. This is a well known boards.ie policy and exceptions are rarely made for this.

A moderator on boards.ie is more of a janitor than a moderator in the true sense. There is no strict requirement that we be impartial although we usually do try. We enforce the charter as best we can but, being humans we aren't going to get it right all the time.

If anyone feels any post contravenes the charter or any of the boards.ie standard rules feel free to use the "Report Post" button () and all of the moderators will be notified. If after reporting a post you feel that the moderators are not doing their job then start a thread in Help Desk or Feedback (as appropriate, read the stickies) and it will be dealt with there.

Now, having said all that: Discussion of moderation on-thread is not appreciated. There are plenty of other mechanisms of discussing the moderating policy, use them and don't pollute discussion threads with meta-discussion.

kowloon

Talking about the "sniper rifle" and misrepresentation, check out this "chilling martial arts sword" :rolleyes:



Sorry if it's off topic, but it's a prime example of this $hite.

Johnathon Swift

dresden8 wrote: »

Very good, yet strangely suspicious and very odd first post!

And

Johnathon Swift

Now, having said all that: Discussion of moderation on-thread is not appreciated. There are plenty of other mechanisms of discussing the moderating policy, use them and don't pollute discussion threads with meta-discussion.[/quote]

or something as simple as the truth:(

Bananaman

From the point of view of the Prime Time staff an Irish Times Security/Defence analyst should know about guns, right?

What I actually find a bit worrying is that the he's an expert on Security and Defense. Neither of these are relevant to the Shooting Sports.

You may not, under any circumstances, own a firearm in Ireland, for either Security or Defense. You may join the army and be given a firearm, specifically for the purpose or security or defense but you cannot (correct me if I am wrong here) use it in sports outside of the army.

I suppose as someone said the expert was stating his opinion which is related to Security and Defence, which in bring irrelevant to the point at had, has made it look all the more mis-informed.

B'Man

chem

Lads. It looks like this prime time thing went under the radar. No radio station or paper took it up as a runner.

Jonty

kowloon wrote: »

Talking about the "sniper rifle" and misrepresentation, check out this "chilling martial arts sword" :rolleyes:



Sorry if it's off topic, but it's a prime example of this $hite.

That "sword" thing is a klingon replica off star trek. I'm in for some awful stick now.:D Er a friend told me, yeah.

astraboy

Bananaman wrote: »

What I actually find a bit worrying is that the he's an expert on Security and Defense. Neither of these are relevant to the Shooting Sports.

You may not, under any circumstances, own a firearm in Ireland, for either Security or Defense. You may join the army and be given a firearm, specifically for the purpose or security or defense but you cannot (correct me if I am wrong here) use it in sports outside of the army.

I suppose as someone said the expert was stating his opinion which is related to Security and Defence, which in bring irrelevant to the point at had, has made it look all the more mis-informed.

B'Man

Pretty much agree 100% here. The bit in bold is true, you cannot go and use an Irish Army Styer in a shooting competition. The PDF and RDF often hold inter company shooting competitions, so I suppose this would be classed as a shooting sport within the army, but you use army firearms and you do not get to 'own' the firearm. Certainly you could never use it outside an army range in a competition!

I do think bringing on a person that is classed as a defense expert immediately means the debate is going to lean towards the sensational and viewing firearms as deadly weapons in the hands of gun nuts, instead of implements we use in our sport. All well and good to bring on the guy if he was familiar with shooting sports in Ireland, but i think he would be more suited to a debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict then deer stalking.

Rovi

Johnathon Swift wrote: »

Rovi (Moderator, one who presides over a meeting or forum in an impartial manner) Bollocky Bill and Karen02 were banned from the forum for simply asking reasonable questions of the shooting community, because you deemed them to be getting personal in their comments. Yet those who support the shooting community are allowed to tear Clonan apart with vile comments and you simply ask them to tone them down, without mention of a sanction against them. Moderator is this natural and impartial justice.

IRLConor has already admirably explained the reasons for the bans, so I'll deal with the other issue you raise.

Tom Clonan has put himself forward as an expert on all things military and firearms related and has acquired a considerable media presence as the 'go-to guy' for opinion and expertise on these subjects.
As such, he is now a 'Media Personality' and is as viable a target for criticism as Joe Duffy, Pat Kenny, or any of the many politicians or columnists who deem their opinions to be worthy of consumption by the unwashed masses.

When it comes to civilian ownership of firearms, his attitude (as portrayed in the media, the only means most of us have of gauging it) seems to smack very much of the 'I'm the only one professional enough' attitude that really grates on the nerves of civilian shooters, and his lurch into breathless hyperbole about 'extremely dangerous 9mm semi-automatic pistols' does nothing to enhance any knowledgeable person's opinion of his 'expertise' either.

The pièce de résistance though, is his assertation that it's only a matter of time before one of us goes postal and shoots up a school.
That's an outrageous slur against the Irish shooting community and is fully deserving of all the criticism voiced against it.

This is a 'Shooting' forum, and such 'anti' sentiments are unlikely to meet with much approval here.

Sparks

And it shows up in the Dail questions...

meathstevie

And we all know the answer to that question and if Dermot Ahern has a sound angle on this issue we'll know straight away...

Johnathon Swift

"

The pièce de résistance though, is his assertation that it's only a matter of time before one of us goes postal and shoots up a school.
That's an outrageous slur against the Irish shooting community and is fully deserving of all the criticism voiced against it."

I actually watched and listened to the Prime Time report on the internet and this is what was said,

Mr.Crofton: “There are 235,000 legally held firearms, for sporting purposes in Ireland as we speak today. Now, the very fact that most members of the public, are simply not aware that there are that many, is indicative of how little problem those, the legal firearms cause.”

Mr.Clonan “I think that with those kind of numbers present, inevitably we’ll have a situation where a weapon will be taken and used inappropriately, for example in a school, or in a public place, by somebody who ought not to have had access to that weapon.”

Firstly, Mr.Clonan said we will have a situation where a weapon Will Be Taken and used. I dont see how you can conclude that refers to the Irish Shooting Community, to me it sounds like he is speaking about somone stealing a firearm and using it.

Secondly he said "by somebody who Ought Not To Have Access To A Firearm". As members of the Irish Shooting Community, as has been pointed out on this thread numerous times, have been passed fit and granted licences, I dont see how you can say he was reffering to same. Again I would suggest he was talking about someone getting their hands on a legally held firearm, illegally.

Sparks

JS, if you're going to say that Clonan said something, you probably should not quote what he actually said immediately above your assertion when it contradicts you.

Clonan, for a start, referred to these firearms as weapons continuously. We object to that word because it makes a character judgment about the person you're referring to as holding the firearm.

Clonan also spent the segment stating that we should not have access to these firearms, and in context, his closing sentence was very clearly referring to us when he was talking about someone walking into a school with a firearm.

Johnathon Swift

Sparks wrote: »

JS, if you're going to say that Clonan said something, you probably should not quote what he actually said immediately above your assertion when it contradicts you.

Clonan, for a start, referred to these firearms as weapons continuously. We object to that word because it makes a character judgment about the person you're referring to as holding the firearm.

Clonan also spent the segment stating that we should not have access to these firearms, and in context, his closing sentence was very clearly referring to us when he was talking about someone walking into a school with a firearm.

Sparks, now who is contradicting themselves, no matter what way you spin it, you cannot draw that conclusion from reading/listening to exactly what he said. Its just too big an ask of the english language.

Sparks

It most certainly is not JS.
It's how it was heard by every single person I've spoken to so far who heard it directly.
It's how it was presented in context.

Dvs

Hello Mr Swift,
I am a big fan of your book Gulliver's Travels.

I cannot help wondering exactly what your interest in this issue is ?

Are you a firearms owner?

Are you anti firearms?

Do you feel private individuals should not take part in shooting sports?

Your interpretation of Dr Clonans meaning when you state:

Secondly he said "by somebody who Ought Not To Have Access To A Firearm". As members of the Irish Shooting Community, as has been pointed out on this thread numerous times, have been passed fit and granted licences, I don't see how you can say he was reffering to same. Again I would suggest he was talking about someone getting their hands on a legally held firearm, illegally.

Is flawed.

He tried to make the argument that firearms in his opinion were for the army,
and that anyone else was either not capable of safely using them or had not a legitimate use for them.

Both of which are incorrect and were not based on factual information,
but on his flawed opinion.

It is hard to believe that a man that chose the army as a career is afraid of firearms.

so it is a fair assumption that he just feels mere civilians are not capable of using safely or to be trusted with firearms.

Dvs.

F-ClassWillie

Gulliver describes to the King —we often put this powder into large great iron shafts and balls. All a load of Gunpower Dvs nothing more.:mad:

Johnathon Swift

Dvs wrote: »

Hello Mr Swift,
I am a big fan of your book Gulliver's Travels.
Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. I hope at your age though you have moved onto more mature reading by now.

I cannot help wondering exactly what your interest in this issue is ?
You should know as a man of god, a satirist, an essayist and a political poet, I love a good and balanced discussion about anything.

Are you a firearms owner?
No.

Are you anti firearms?
No.

Do you feel private individuals should not take part in shooting sports?
No. Each to their own.

Your interpretation of Dr Clonans meaning when you state:

Secondly he said "by somebody who Ought Not To Have Access To A Firearm". As members of the Irish Shooting Community, as has been pointed out on this thread numerous times, have been passed fit and granted licences, I don't see how you can say he was reffering to same. Again I would suggest he was talking about someone getting their hands on a legally held firearm, illegally.

Is flawed.

He tried to make the argument that firearms in his opinion were for the army, and that anyone else was either not capable of safely using them or had not a legitimate use for them.
As something of a minor expert on the english language and in listening once again to the piece, I cannot find where he actually said firearms were solely for the army and no one else was capable of using them or had a legitimate use for them.

Both of which are incorrect and were not based on factual information,
but on his flawed opinion.
I believe your opinion may also be flawed given the posiiton you are coming from

It is hard to believe that a man that chose the army as a career is afraid of firearms.
Once again, and despite using all my english language skills, I have failed miserably to find exactly where he said he was afraid of firearms or anything else for that matter.

so it is a fair assumption that he just feels mere civilians are not capable of using safely or to be trusted with firearms.
Assumption has been the downfall of many:rolleyes:

Dvs.

.

Sparks

Johnathon Swift wrote: »

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. I hope at your age though you have moved onto more mature reading by now.

More mature than a classic work of English literature and one of the finest, most seminal of all satirical works? That's like saying that Milton is up there with a script from Tellytubbies...

You should know as a man of god, a satirist, an essayist and a political poet, I love a good and balanced discussion about anything.

Indeed...:rolleyes:

Assumption has been the downfall of many

Indeed it has.

Bananaman

Kids,

We can squabble all day long about what the specific inflection in Mr. Clonans tone actually indicates according to the creators of the English Language.

However, in the end, he did infer, whether intentionally or through editing, that the fact that civilians in Ireland legally hold firearms is a danger to the greater good. That was the tone and intent of the piece. That is an incorrect statement and can only have been intended to inflame public opinion.

We, the aforementioned civilians, who legally hold firearms, find that offensive.

We can pick it apart for days and it is still offensive. To suggest that:

a weapon Will Be Taken and used.

or

somebody who Ought Not To Have Access To A Firearm

will end up in shooting up a schoolyard

is both a slur on us and on An Garda Síochána by insinuating that neither us, nor they, have taken all possible measures to ensure that that very situation will not arise.

No matter what way you cut it he was talking though his hole.

B'Man

Dvs

Bananaman wrote: »

No matter what way you cut it he was talking though his hole.

B'Man

Word!:D

Dvs.

Johnathon Swift

Bananaman wrote: »

Kids,

No matter what way you cut it he was talking though his hole.

B'Man

Obviously...............sure wasn't he expressing a differing opinion:rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

No. He was putting forth falsehoods as if they were fact, under the masquerade of expertise.