Friend fined for using a moderator

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Lets not go there please. You're as bad as the media and politicians of late, using something criminals may do as an excuse to prop up your argument. Come on, that's a pretty awful tactic among fellow shooters. Thought you would have been above that.

Whether or not you consider it above or beneath me, ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble. By the same yardstick, not having an alarm because that's admitting that criminals exist would be equally shortsighted. Superintendents have other duties besides issuing licences and it's definitely within their remit to take these into account.

Again that's your opinion and there is nothing in legislation to support that. Its not laid out like that. You can hunt without firearms you know.

It's not my opinion, the legislation states that a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'. That can be many things and in practice some of the conditions I've mentioned are used. You are very limited in what you can hunt with. Using other animals is possible, but not necessarily that useful where it comes to deer for example.

Me: I want a rifle to shoot rabbits.
Super: Get a ferret and some nets...NEXT

A ferret is not much use when the rabbits are above ground and a considerable distance from you. You might get a few when they do go to ground, but as a method of pest control, they are limited.

Just because there are alternatives that does not make the original reason invalid. That's very flawed logic.

I didn't say it was invalid, but it's certainly weakened. You can't make a black and white case on hearing protection using a moderator as the sole solution.

You: I want an air rifle to start a target discipline
Super: Take up archery or darts.......NEXT

There's no archery club in my area, and I want to take up a sport, not sport a beer belly.

EDIT: I would argue, having done a lot of hunting, that Moderator > ear defenders as a compromise of situational awareness and hearing protection

You see that's a better argument immediately than the plain: "the noise might damage my hearing" one.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Whether or not you consider it above or beneath me, ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble. By the same yardstick, not having an alarm because that's admitting that criminals exist would be equally shortsighted. Superintendents have other duties besides issuing licences and it's definitely within their remit to take these into account.

So when the media or government say that legally licensed handguns should be banned because criminals use guns, its wrong?

When you say Supers should restrict the issue/license of moderators because some poachers may be using them illegally, that's ok?

So are you saying that the Minister is right to ban (effectively) handguns because "ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble"

You are using the same type of argument as the people you have sent e-mails/letters to recently, with about as much proof as they have.

I am not for one second saying poachers don't exist, but how many bother to apply for authorisation for mods? Poachers are already using firearms outside the terms of their license so are in effect carrying unlicensed firearms.

I am going to ignore any further points on this as it is not a healthy debate in public but I am shocked at your logic in this.

It's not my opinion, the legislation states that a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'. That can be many things and in practice some of the conditions I've mentioned are used.

It is your opinion, you said "hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license" and now in your own words " a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'". Therefore he decides 'good reason' (unless you're a Superintendent of course ) and there is nothing in legislation that says hunting is one of those reasons. It is, as we agree at the Superintendents discretion. What if he doesn't think hunting is a good enough reason to own a firearm? EDIT: maybe its not a good idea to be pointing this stuff out here...hmmmmmm

Yes it makes logical sense that it is a valid reason but it is not set in stone (aka the firearms act). Am I wrong, have I missed a list of valid reasons in there?

Now the reason I bought this up was to counter Sparks' point that because there is no mention of H&S in legislation then its not a valid reason.

There is no mention of hunting as a valid reason either but its seen as common sense. I think that H&S is common sense.

You are very limited in what you can hunt with. Using other animals is possible, but not necessarily that useful where it comes to deer for example.

Good point on the deer

A ferret is not much use when the rabbits are above ground and a considerable distance from you. You might get a few when they do go to ground, but as a method of pest control, they are limited.

Ferrets are a much more effective method of rabbit control than firearms.

I didn't say it was invalid, but it's certainly weakened. You can't make a black and white case on hearing protection using a moderator as the sole solution.

There's no archery club in my area, and I want to take up a sport, not sport a beer belly.

You see that's a better argument immediately than the plain: "the noise might damage my hearing" one.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who applies half arsed and only puts down H&S as a reason is being very silly, it would still definitely go down on my application but not simply phrased as hearing protection. A moderator provides hearing protection (still not enough if you ask me but its better than nothing) while allowing one to be way more aware of their surroundings.

When lamping it causes less disturbance to anyone living near by. Ever have to endure a full bore rifle with no hearing protection. Its brutal to put it mildly

Two of the sheep farmers I shoot for also have horses, they do not like firearm reports at all. A moderator would allow me to control the fox numbers more effectively with out spooking the animals. Horses galloping around in the dark is not good.

I apologise if my tone seems very argumentative here, its not intended

Smiles all round

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

When you say Supers should restrict the issue/license of moderators because some poachers may be using them illegally, that's ok?

No, I'm saying that may be a reason for them doing so, one that they may feel is valid.

So are you saying that the Minister is right to ban (effectively) handguns because "ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble"

No. I don't recall advocating banning anything.

You are using the same type of argument as the people you have sent e-mails/letters to recently, with about as much proof as they have.

I'm not, I'm just taking a devils advocate position on this. Sometimes it's useful to understand the reasons for something so that you can properly counter them.

I am not for one second saying poachers don't exist, but how many bother to apply for authorisation for mods? Poachers are already using firearms outside the terms of their license so are in effect carrying unlicensed firearms.

I didn't realise that there was a seperate category of license for poachers. Obviously in that case the Superintendent can refuse to renew those licences only. :rolleyes:

It is your opinion, you said "hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license" and now in your own words " a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'". Therefore he decides 'good reason' (unless you're a Superintendent of course ) and there is nothing in legislation that says hunting is one of those reasons. It is, as we agree at the Superintendents discretion.

It's still not my opinion. It is fact. I have a licence for hunting purposes, many people here have got licences for hunting purposes, ergo hunting is a valid reason. If nobody got a licence by stating hunting as a reason, then we would be saying the opposite. By the same token, if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own.

Yes it makes logical sense that it is a valid reason but it is not set in stone (aka the firearms act). Am I wrong, have I missed a list of valid reasons in there?

Many things in law are not set in stone, the variety of cases in the courts every day and the judgments handed down would attest to that.

Now the reason I bought this up was to counter Sparks' point that because there is no mention of H&S in legislation then its not a valid reason.

No, Sparks said that H&S legislation did not require you to have a moderator for sport shooting, so you can't quote it in defence of an application for one. H&S legislation only applies to the workplace which is why he pointed out that Rangers can use them under that legislation and are of the few that can use that as a reason.

There is no mention of hunting as a valid reason either but its seen as common sense. I think that H&S is common sense.

Your health and safety in what you do for sport is your own business. The law does not cover you here. As someone else pointed out, if you think what you're doing is damaging your health you can always give it up. You're not required to do it as you would be in your career.

You've just given three or four good supporting reasons for having a moderator which was the point that Sparks made at the start of this thread.

And which I agree with.

Sparks

ShowAndGo wrote: »

Sparks,
I am not disputing that health and safety legislation is work place related, what I am saying is that health and safety is an everyday issue and should not be confined to what is stated in legislation. Do you think Health and Safety is confined to legislation and people should not use their common sense when dealing with it?

I think that we're talking about different things. You're talking about generally looking out for people's health and their safety - I'm talking about Health and Safety Legislation.

As for the accusations, grumbling and bitching….it’s a bit much. Are you saying there are not Supers out there that take that approach?

Of course not, though they are a minority.

How do you win a debate when one side dismisses your points, does not offer any counter points and then gets to decides who wins the debate?

You don't walk in with weak arguments for a start.

Vegeta wrote: »

I don't think this logic holds up Sparks. Are there any reasons written in legislation for the granting of firearms? I cant think of any (am I missing them)

Other than for the army or police, no. But my point here was that there are better reasons out there - and you listed some in the end of your last post here - and they all had one common element, namely, the moderator was there to protect something other than the shooter.
If the sole stated purpose of the moderator is to protect your hearing, then that job is better done by not firing the rifle in the first place.
If, on the other hand, its purpose has to do with minimising the side effects of your shooting, especially where that shooting is done for a specific reason, it's a better argument. For example, your example of controlling fox numbers on a sheep farm where there are also horses.

So if you go and apply for shotgun/rifle for hunting (not mentioned in 4.2(e)) What if the Super says hunting is not a valid reason to grant a license. Are you up sh1t creek without a paddle?

No, you're in the District Court. Which is pretty much the same thing, I'll grant you.

To me it seems that "4.2 (a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for" falls under the realm of common sense rather than a list of pre defined reasons, surely it makes common sense to grant moderator license/authorisation for health and safety reasons.

It does - to us.
Three things though:

1. Common sense isn't.
2. We know more about firearms and shooting than pretty much every Garda Superintendent out there by dint of the sheer amount of time we spend doing it, so our bias here is going to be different to theirs, and what we see as obvious, they do not. And if - as we see here every week - even shooters don't always know the specifics of the law, we can't really expect Supers to, especially when they're given no support or training for the role of firearms licencing.
3. The Supers who refuse permits/authorisations/certificates for silencers are in a small minority. Same as those who refuse certificates for certain firearms. But, like airline crashes, when it does happen, you can be sure you'll hear all about it for weeks...

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

It's still not my opinion. It is fact. I have a licence for hunting purposes, many people here have got licences for hunting purposes, ergo hunting is a valid reason.

For your Superintendent and that of many others. Its not specified in legislation just like H&S is not specified for mods

If nobody got a licence by stating hunting as a reason, then we would be saying the opposite. By the same token, if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own.

And what about the people (who don't require them for their job) who do have moderator authorisations and listed hearing protection as a reason?

Vegeta

Clive you forget I am a mod and can read your deleted posts :P

Everyone here now knows not to put H&S as your only reason down on your permission, or at least I hope they do

Thing is though no matter what way you twist it mods on centre fire rifles are for H&S. Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too.

Just expand on the points I suppose.

bigred

Vegeta wrote: »

Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too..

Isn't that the key point - you, as the shooter, can have the very best hearing protection, but you can't be expected to control the noise exposure to others (and animals) in the area without a mod?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

For your Superintendent and that of many others. Its not specified in legislation just like H&S is not specified for mods

For it to be law, it doesn't have to be specified in the statutes Vegeta. Case law can also establish what is considered good reason. In fact in O'Leary v Maher, it was never in contention at any stage, that deer hunting was not 'good reason' to acquire a license for a full bore rifle.

And what about the people (who don't require them for their job) who do have moderator authorisations and listed hearing protection as a reason?

What of them? We are discussing people who have been refused on hearing protection grounds. From what I hear, those refused on those grounds alone are far more plentiful than those who are granted.

But the best way to test this, really test it and establish it for good one way or the other is to take a judicial review case to the high court.

Any takers?

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

What of them?

Well you said
"if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own"

So if people are getting authorisations do you agree that it becomes a valid reason?

But the best way to test this, really test it and establish it for good one way or the other is to take a judicial review case to the high court.

Any takers?

Not a chance

Vegeta

bigred wrote: »

Isn't that the key point - you, as the shooter, can have the very best hearing protection, but you can't be expected to control the noise exposure to others (and animals) in the area without a mod?

Well I personally agree

I do think hearing protection is a valid reason too (not on its own maybe)

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Well you said
"if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own"

So if people are getting authorisations do you agree that it becomes a valid reason?

Obviously it is for some Superintendents. But until you can get a judge to say that it's a valid reason on its own, you won't get all Superintendents to accept it.

Therfore, no is the answer

On it's own, I don't think it is either; on the same basis that if you're banging your head against a wall, the best way to stop the headache wouldn't be to get a softer wall.





Thanks fat_tony

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

on the same basis that if you're banging your head against a wall, the best way to stop the headache wouldn't be to get a softer wall.

yeah it would be to attach an impact deadening device to your head :P

edit: that way you can still enjoy the head banging without hurting yourself or damaging the plaster. Its a win all round

clivej

Vegeta wrote: »

Clive you forget I am a mod and can read your deleted posts :P

Everyone here now knows not to put H&S as your only reason down on your permission, or at least I hope they do

Thing is though no matter what way you twist it mods on centre fire rifles are for H&S. Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too.

Just expand on the points I suppose.

Caught out again it's like trying to lie to the misses -- to get away with anything here on boards.ie

And :P back :D:D

Vegeta

clivej wrote: »

Caught out again it's like trying to lie to the misses -- to get away with anything here on boards.ie

And :P back :D:D

Let us know how your application goes

bunny shooter

My local gun dealer told me the other day that two lads had rifles taken from them the other night while out fox shooting as they were stopped by gardai and had moderators with no "authorisations" for same.

Traumadoc

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.


That is why moderators have to be used by people who are using firearms for work such as culling.

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.


That is why moderators have to be used by people who are using firearms for work such as culling.

Don't come swanning in here with your medical facts. This is a discussion about authorisations, facts are irrelevant.

Traumadoc

rrpc wrote: »

The H&S argument for using a moderator won't wash when you can use active hearing protection.
:

Just that ear muffs are not as effective as moderators in protecting from noise induced hearing loss.

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

Just that ear muffs are not as effective as moderators in protecting from noise induced hearing loss.

Does that not depend on the type and quality of ear defenders?

Traumadoc wrote: »

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Does that not depend on the type and quality of ear defenders?

I know you highlighted standard ear defenders

What ones do you think could be better?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

I know you highlighted standard ear defenders

What ones do you think could be better?

Well that's what I'm asking really. Traumadoc specified 'standard' as being not as good as a moderator.

There are many types and levels of ear defenders, Peltor make three standards: I, II and III, so obviously they are not all the same.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Well that's what I'm asking really. Traumadoc specified 'standard' as being not as good as a moderator.

There are many types and levels of ear defenders, Peltor make three standards: I, II and III, so obviously they are not all the same.

Ok lets take peltors as an example, they have 3 ranges low, med and high attenuation but they are recommend by usage. Or RNR as they call it.

So the ones recommend for shooting (high attenuation) seem to have similar classification. So when he says standard I would assume he means standard ones recommended for shooting.

There is even variation among the ones recommended for shooting too (all high attenuation I believe). The sportac (active ones, designed for shooters apparently) are rated as 84dB and above whereas their passive bullseye III are rated for 95dB and up. The best hearing protection is offered by the passive ones (even their ear plugs are better than the actives) but passives in my opinion are not the best idea as it is very hard to listen to commands or warnings from others.

I am looking at getting the sportacs asap due to the constant ringing in my left ear which has developed over the last month while duck shooting. Not nice at all

clivej

I'm looking at buying these ear defenders from Enviro Safety products @$47.68
http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/product/howard-leight-impact-sport-earmuff.html
They are getting great reviews.

I have a code to put in for "USPS freight will be $36.26"

Total = $83.94 about €68

rrpc

There actually was report floating around here on a thread a good while back, I think Traumadoc put it up.

It basically dealt with the whole moderator/ear defender issue and perhaps that would give you an idea as to what level of ear defender they tested to compare with a moderator.

To my mind, as a moderator will not deaden the sonic crack from a full bore or even supersonic round, that can have an adverse affect on your hearing as well.

Sparks

I'm still mistrusting of the ANC ear defenders. I know that it's possible for them to work with the kind of impulse noises that shooting produces, but even the best have attack times of around 1.5 milliseconds; but the rise time for a gunshot noise is between 5 and 30 microseconds - which is about 0.8% of the attack time. And the muzzle blast transmits most of its energy in 3 milliseconds - so you're left with ear defenders that don't even know to turn on the active ear protection until half the energy from the muzzle blast has already walloped your inner ear, but it then muffles the rest. And because it takes your ear 200ms to register a noise, you don't hear the full wallop of the shot. So you think you're fine, but in fact your ear's been damaged, you just don't know it yet (and won't until you realise you can't hear high frequencies anymore).

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

I'm still mistrusting of the ANC ear defenders. I know that it's possible for them to work with the kind of impulse noises that shooting produces, but even the best have attack times of around 1.5 milliseconds; but the rise time for a gunshot noise is between 5 and 30 microseconds - which is about 0.8% of the attack time. And the muzzle blast transmits most of its energy in 3 milliseconds - so you're left with ear defenders that don't even know to turn on the active ear protection until half the energy from the muzzle blast has already walloped your inner ear, but it then muffles the rest. And because it takes your ear 200ms to register a noise, you don't hear the full wallop of the shot. So you think you're fine, but in fact your ear's been damaged, you just don't know it yet (and won't until you realise you can't hear high frequencies anymore).

Its perfectly plausible that there is an in built delay between the noise reaching the headphone/ear defenders and the headphone transmitting that noise to your ear via the internal speaker. Specifically to counter what you describe above.

There would be law suits a plenty other wise I'm sure

They're too expensive to go butchering but did anyone ever look in their peltors to see what type of circuitry they are using?

Traumadoc

I talked to my father who was one of the authors of the green book on noise induced hearing loss as a result of occupational exposure to gunfire in the Irish Defence forces and he tells me that hearing protection provided by ear muffs are determined in the laboratory and that they are not actually tested in the field.
I read a conclusion in "Scientific Basis of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss" Axlesson et al (Pub Thieme 1996) page 375
" The conclusions remain the same: real-world performance of HPDs, especially earplugs, demonstrates less attenuation and greater variability than currently standardized laboratory tests would predict"
Sorry about the crappy iphone image.

Image1.jpg

Sparks

There's actual field trial data from the Finnish army Trauma - they were finding massive variations even in things like custom-moulded earplugs (2 out of 9 subjects showed absolutely zero attenuation). Combinations of hearing protection methods were the advised solution.

Linky goodness here and here. Note that they do recommend ANC headsets as the best choice - but that's because they're considering soldiers on the battlefield where not hearing your radio comes under Health&Safety quite aggressively

Traumadoc

Thanks for those - I will pass them to my father for translation:)



Found that report::


http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2004/hsl04-01.pdf

dimebag249

Sorry if this is off topic, but why don't the army use moderators? They have to fire rifles without any hearing protection sometimes, presumably.