Certificate granted x 3

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Really cos you only answered my straightforward question in the rest of your post below.

And you shouldn't read a thread backwards. My comment was made to John's post where he made a disparaging reference to the entire DoJELR. To which I objected on the grounds that it is wrong to demonise an entire group.

And that still isn't the point. This discussion is about taking a swing at an entire group because you're unhappy with the decisions or actions of a small number of them. In my opinion that's wrong.

Not kinda like John said, he said this:

Which is what I objected to. And not very strenuously mind, I just said it was ironic that we can complain about being demonised as a group but are as quick to do it ourselves.

But you want to take that to mean that I applaud everything they do without qualification. That's a very binary view of the world.

I don't, but I don't stoop to abuse either because it's not productive, and life's too short.

rrpc I asked a simple question and it has been painful getting an answer but thank you for answering.

Sparks

Though, to be fair, it was Ahern setting the timetable on all this and even the best of us can't do the best job when the boss gives us a quarter the time we need to do it right (and it's even more fustrating when you know you didn't get the time purely for the good of the boss's image...).

I've met most of the people who had the job of implementing all of this, and frankly, **** flows downhill and they're not at the top of the hill, y'know? They're just a step or two further up the slope from us is all. Now the Minister and the Commissioner, that's a whole other contour line altogether.

Sparks

Though, to be fair, it was Ahern setting the timetable on all this and even the best of us can't do the best job when the boss gives us a quarter the time we need to do it right (and it's even more fustrating when you know you didn't get the time purely for the good of the boss's image...).

I've met most of the people who had the job of implementing all of this, and frankly, **** flows downhill and they're not at the top of the hill, y'know? They're just a step or two further up the slope from us is all. Now the Minister and the Commissioner, that's a whole other contour line altogether.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Really cos you only answered my straightforward question in the rest of your post below.

Eh??? I said I wasn't evading the question and you disagree with me by telling me the same thing??

Which I'd already answered in an earlier post if you'd taken the trouble to read them properly

rrpc I asked a simple question and it has been painful getting an answer but thank you for answering.

The pain is in your inability to either get my point or read my posts. It appears that that is still the case, so I won't bother any further.

Others such as ezridax and Sparks don't seem to have the same difficulty.

Vegeta

Add all the snide comments you want rrpc, I asked a question and you have answered it. I don't know why you went around the world to do so but you were making some bullshi1t point I don't really care about

I asked

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

A simple yes or no would have done.

You seemed determined however to impress upon me that it was not the average employee's fault.

A) I don't care
It's not what I was asking about.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Add all the snide comments you want rrpc, I asked a question and you have answered it. I don't know why you went around the world to do so but you were making some bullshi1t point I don't really care about

My original point was the bullsh1t point you didn't care about. You decided to persuade me to make the same prejudicial statement I was condemning. You'll forgive me if I refuse to go there.

You seemed determined however to impress upon me that it was not the average employee's fault.

No I didn't. If you can't understand that condemning an entire group of people because of the perceived actions of a small number, you really need to question your ethics. Apart from the fact that you obviously couldn't be bothered to do anything other than take an Orwellian 'four legs good, two legs bad' stance.

And you then try and and bully me into supporting you by insisting I respond in a similarly binary fashion.

Others have no problem with the point I was making and are mature enough to understand it. And I stick by my original statement whether you understand it or not.

And maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental either

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

My original point was the bullsh1t point you didn't care about. You decided to persuade me to make the same prejudicial statement I was condemning. You'll forgive me if I refuse to go there.

Don't know what you're going on about here.

No I didn't.

Ok so you're not trying to point out the old "majority suffer because of the few" rule. Except in the very next sentence you say.

If you can't understand that condemning an entire group of people because of the perceived actions of a small number,

So you're not trying to make this point, except you keep making it and making it and making it.

Despite being told I don't care, I don't disagree nor am I interested in debating the ethics of it.

Apart from the fact that you obviously couldn't be bothered to do anything other than take an Orwellian 'four legs good, two legs bad' stance.

Point out one place where I condemned the entire group. Go on, quote me. Oh wait I didn't.

And you then try and and bully me into supporting you by insisting I respond in a similarly binary fashion.

This is pathetic, as someone who is closer to the FCP and who has had personal meetings with some of the people involved I was hoping for answers such as the following:

Yes, I think the guys on the ground handled it well given the time line they were forced to endure by their bosses. The form may not be perfect and involves too much duplication but what can we expect given the pressures put on them

OR

No, I think they could have done better. The form is very awkward, the Gardai processing them hate them because of all the duplication. They are inefficient. Also with their knowledge of the licensing system they could have tried harder to avoid the limbo we are in now. After all the 3 year license was meant to benefit shooters not make unwilling criminals out of many.

You answered the question and I didn't want to draw it further

Instead we have a pissing competition where you will not accept that asking

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

Does not equal having a go at the majority

You are the one with the binary view rrpc, in your eyes the question I asked == having a go at every employee.

It isn't.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Don't know what you're going on about here.

You have to read my first post in response to johngalway's one. It was an observation on something said about the DoJ in general which I said was ironic because... well I've said it enough times now.

Ok so you're not trying to point out the old "majority suffer because of the few" rule. Except in the very next sentence you say.

I wasn't talking about average employees, that's more specific than the general comment made.

Despite being told I don't care, I don't disagree nor am I interested in debating the ethics of it.

If so, why did you jump on my comment and try and twist it around to something other than what I'd originally said?

Point out one place where I condemned the entire group. Go on, quote me. Oh wait I didn't.

You said this:

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

As I was speaking generally and you didn't specify, yes you did indeed. Read the posts in order and show me where you made a specific reference so that I could understand that you weren't making a general accusation.

Yes, I think the guys on the ground handled it well given the time line they were forced to endure by their bosses. The form may not be perfect and involves too much duplication but what can we expect given the pressures put on them

Because you're referring to the Gardai who were the people who had to roll out and apply the legislation, the form, the applications etc., not the DoJ.

Instead we have a pissing competition where you will not accept that asking "Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?" Does not equal having a go at the majority

It did in the context, especially as you were directing your question and implied criticism at the wrong group of people.

And if you want a proper target for your ire, you could start with the Minister who insisted on rolling out unnecessary legislation, faffed around with it for six months and put everyone under pressure in wanting it implemented less than one month after it was signed by the President. And you don't need to be anywhere near the FCP to understand that.

So pointing fingers at either the DoJ or the Gardai is definitely missing the point.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

You have to read my first post in response to johngalway's one. It was an observation on something said about the DoJ in general which I said was ironic because... well I've said it enough times now.

I wasn't talking about average employees, that's more specific than the general comment made.

If so, why did you jump on my comment and try and twist it around to something other than what I'd originally said?

You said this:
As I was speaking generally and you didn't specify, yes you did indeed. Read the posts in order and show me where you made a specific reference so that I could understand that you weren't making a general accusation.

Because you're referring to the Gardai who were the people who had to roll out and apply the legislation, the form, the applications etc., not the DoJ.

It did in the context, especially as you were directing your question and implied criticism at the wrong group of people.

And if you want a proper target for your ire, you could start with the Minister who insisted on rolling out unnecessary legislation, faffed around with it for six months and put everyone under pressure in wanting it implemented less than one month after it was signed by the President. And you don't need to be anywhere near the FCP to understand that.

So pointing fingers at either the DoJ or the Gardai is definitely missing the point.

So I was correct when I said

You are the one with the binary view rrpc, in your eyes the question I asked == having a go at every employee.

And with that I'm out, there is no point in continuing a conversation with you because no matter what I say or tell you I'm wrong because you hold the opinion above.

John I apologise for turning your thread into a train wreck.

Bananaman

Ladies,

It's a ****e situation we find ourselves in.

Now is not the time for a witch hunt.
We don't have the time, spare effort nor inclination to do that now.
There will be plenty of time for that IF we get past this thing.

In answer to Vegetas Question I think it is fair to say that no matter who implemented this 'solution' it was flawed from the outset and is badly implemented.

The problem is that a 'solution' was defined first and then a hammer was used to apply it to a 'problem', any 'problem', which is the very definition of cart before horse.

What we need to do now is remove any of the inconsistencies or 'rolling of the dice' that is inherent in the process.

Today, Right now, before they are gone forever:

We need to know 100% that if we meet conditions A through Z and fulfill requirements 1 through 99 that we WILL be allowed to license our firearms, specifically centrefire handguns for use in sport.

Today that is not true, it depends who you know, the phase of the moon and how the chicken bones fell. That is not a system.

Now, that is what we have always had - it has just moved up a pay grade.

SO in essence, after all the gnashing of teeth, rending of cloth and of course, consultation, nothing has changed except that there are new forms.
Filling them in and meeting the conditions has no real impact on whether or not you will be licensed. You are still at the whim of an individual.

Those of us that have been refused having, in good faith, met all the conditions and requirements set down in law, need to be supported and have these incorrect decisions overturned.

If that happens and we get over this hump, then we can look at why it came about and do whatever is necessary to ensure it is not allowed to happen again.

There is no question that the system we have in place for the management of the shooting sports does not work, when a situation like this has come to pass. It needs to be reviewed.

Lets first ensure we have shooting sports to take part in - before we look at that review.

B'Man

bunny shooter

Well said B'man I agree with this 100%

Kimber

Bananaman wrote: »

Ladies,

It's a ****e situation we find ourselves in.

Now is not the time for a witch hunt.
We don't have the time, spare effort nor inclination to do that now.
There will be plenty of time for that IF we get past this thing.

In answer to Vegetas Question I think it is fair to say that no matter who implemented this 'solution' it was flawed from the outset and is badly implemented.

The problem is that a 'solution' was defined first and then a hammer was used to apply it to a 'problem', any 'problem', which is the very definition of cart before horse.

What we need to do now is remove any of the inconsistencies or 'rolling of the dice' that is inherent in the process.

Today, Right now, before they are gone forever:

We need to know 100% that if we meet conditions A through Z and fulfill requirements 1 through 99 that we WILL be allowed to license our firearms, specifically centrefire handguns for use in sport.

Today that is not true, it depends who you know, the phase of the moon and how the chicken bones fell. That is not a system.

Now, that is what we have always had - it has just moved up a pay grade.

SO in essence, after all the gnashing of teeth, rending of cloth and of course, consultation, nothing has changed except that there are new forms.
Filling them in and meeting the conditions has no real impact on whether or not you will be licensed. You are still at the whim of an individual.

Those of us that have been refused having, in good faith, met all the conditions and requirements set down in law, need to be supported and have these incorrect decisions overturned.

If that happens and we get over this hump, then we can look at why it came about and do whatever is necessary to ensure it is not allowed to happen again.

There is no question that the system we have in place for the management of the shooting sports does not work, when a situation like this has come to pass. It needs to be reviewed.

Lets first ensure we have shooting sports to take part in - before we look at that review.

B'Man

Now that is the voice of a logoical mind. Well said Bman. Some good words.
Thanks

Slug chucker

+1 Bananaman,
We need to focus on the task ahead, overcome and learn from it for the future. This is not going to be the end when the dust settles, just a lull for another three years.