Will you disagree?

MarkD.

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Hold on a second: What many seem to be talking about is "testing" hunters as to their knowledge of the relevant wildlife and hunting acts, regs, and best practice - What the OP was asking was about our Firearms Licences, which is something which we are all "tested" on already (so to speak) by way of our proof of competency and proof of "good reason" - Let's not be mixing up two related but separate areas.

And TBH the hcap is there for that reason for lads wanting to hunt on coillte land. Maybe the NPWS could administer a similar thing for hunters in general (TBH I don't know whether they do or don't already).

But that's not what the OP is asking about - he's suggesting a very large end of the wedge be driven deeper up our proverbial shooting small- and full-bores!:rolleyes: Not something I'd personally look forward to!



Can't really agree with you there - Firearms can be dangerous in the field or on the range. Safe and responsible handling of a firearm is the same whether you're in a field, in a wood, or on the range (just adapted to the different locations). The Three Golden Rules and the 10 Commandments are equally applicable. A safe shooter knows how to behave safely whether it's on the range or in the field (or at least should do).

Sorry man, I meant the Ten Commandements as the ones that were carried down from a mountain side in olden times, not the ones that relate to gun handling. It goes without saying that safe gun handling is essential in any context. As often said, it's not the gun causing accidents it's the person handling it.

dCorbus

meathstevie, I think you're missing the point: The OP asked about testing of shooters and firearms licence applicants.

Not all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters.

If the NPWS would like to administer such a scheme for hunters requiring a game licence from them (similar to what Coillte require by way of the HCAP) - that's a very different issue to Firearms Licencing. And IMverystrongO should be kept as a separate issue. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And where would such a scheme leave lads who shoot vermin and go foxing - I'd get my "approval" by way of my "target shooting" training (God forbid - I hope you're not suggesting that that would be "results based" or some such), You'd get yours from HCAP or the NPWS scheme, but who would you suggest administers the Fox, Bunny, Rat, and Miscellaneous Vermin Scheme? The IFA, the IDA, IMPACT, ICABS, or some other selection of letters?

I'm being facetious (intentionally;)), but I'm surprised you can't see the inherent unworkability and the dangerous precedent of the OP's suggestion.

meathstevie

MarkD. wrote: »

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

MarkD.; let's use the analogy you were using; my grandad started driving in 1945, an American 5-tonne army truck the Americans couldn't be bothered taking back to the States at the end of WWII. In 1947 he had to go to the townhall to buy a driving licence and drove until 1998 or 1999. My dad had to do a short driving test before he could collect his licence at the same townhall. I got my driving licence from the same townhall but not before completing a theory test, 20 hours of lessons, 3 months on L-plates and a comprehensive test covering town center, main road and motorway driving.

You basicly have to make a start somewhere and the benefits will manifest themselves gradually over an amount of time.

fodda

MarkD. wrote: »

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

Thankyou Mark

I asked the question not to do anybody down in anyway simply because time after time similar questions or discussions come up with multi-page answers trying to explain "that you can or you cant do that" and here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

So as a way of self regulation and proving to the world giving good PR wouldnt it be good if you could say we have done this and proved that so yes we are safe, responsible and etc.

I set my post to all and every.

dCorbus

Sorry man, I meant the Ten Commandements as the ones that were carried down from a mountain side in olden times, not the ones that relate to gun handling.

No worries! My mistake.

Just goes to show how good safety training works though, when the first thing I thought of when you mentioned the Ten Commandments was not Moses and his buddies, but the NRA and Firearms Handling!;):D

That said, the basic rules for range and field are the same and they should become second nature to all shooters. When I'm out in a field, my safe handling of the firearm is different than the measures I take on the range - but the result is the same: safe handling by me, for the protection of me and all those in the vicinity.

here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

Now, that I can agree with. But what's an Firearms Licencing issue and what's a hunting rules, regulations, and lore issue are still very much separate matters. Personally I thing that the requirement to show "competency" in the safe handling of firearms will weed out a lot of the safety issues - It still won't stop lads acting the tool - But one cannot nor should not legislate for stupidity and childishness. Whenever it's tried, it don't work.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

meathstevie, I think you're missing the point: The OP asked about testing of shooters and firearms licence applicants.

Not all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters.

If the NPWS would like to administer such a scheme for hunters requiring a game licence from them (similar to what Coillte require by way of the HCAP) - that's a very different issue to Firearms Licencing. And IMverystrongO should be kept as a separate issue. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And where would such a scheme leave lads who shoot vermin and go foxing - I'd get my "approval" by way of my "target shooting" training (God forbid - I hope you're not suggesting that that would be "results based" or some such), You'd get yours from HCAP or the NPWS scheme, but who would you suggest administers the Fox, Bunny, Rat, and Miscellaneous Vermin Scheme? The IFA, the IDA, IMPACT, ICABS, or some other selection of letters?

I'm being facetious (intentionally;)), but I'm surprised you can't see the inherent unworkability and the dangerous precedent of the OP's suggestion.

Target shooting and hunting with firearms both require a gun and that's where similarities end as in relevant legislation. If your passion is indoor airrifle target shooting the open season on woodcock has about as much relevance to you as the man on the moon, agreed. Having a hunting based test for target shooters as a consequence is nonsense. The only thing you could question and test a target shooter on when they wish to acquire their own firearm is safety issues and possession related legislation. Competitive shooting prowess and competence only comes with long hours of practice.

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

As for who is to organise the hunting tests; NPWS themselves and nobody with a commercial interest because that only leaves the door open for abuse.

fodda

meathstevie wrote: »

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

Good point give me the list of "vermin" now!

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

*ahem*
Read the firearms acts or any debate surrounding them in the Dail or Seanad recently?

It's not that it's impossible meath; it's that it's never going to be done right and it's a really bad idea. Besides which, I can think of a few groups off the top of my head who'd try to take over the process in the effort to obtain a veto over who got a licence and who didn't. I think we can all agree that that would be a very bad thing.

I do understand your cause to be pessimistic Sparks and unfortunately you're probably not too far wrong.

dCorbus

But then you're talking about a two-strand licencing system? One for target shooters and one for hunters?

What about lads who do both?
What about lads who want to move from one to the other?
etc
etc

Again, I have to say it, the issues you are talking about are purely related to hunting legislation, regs, lore, do's and don't, etc. They fall under the remit of the DoE / NPWS, not the DoJ.

To try to combine Hunting knowledge (a la HCAP) with Firearms Safety Competency would not be a good thing, nor should it be welcomed by shooters of any kind (Hunters, Plinkers, Target Shooters, Sportsmen, Vermin Controllers, etc** and the miriad of shades within our tightknit and loving community;))

** Please note these are not all mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Most of us will fall into one, two, or all these categories are various times of the year or career!:D:rolleyes:

meathstevie

fodda wrote: »

meathstevie wrote: »

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

QUOTE]

Good point give me the list of "vermin" now!

There's no such thing fodda, as a rule all wild animals are protected. That protection is lifted for some between certain dates, i.e. open seasons and for others, the so called "vermin" the protection is waived by a temporary derogation with specification of the species included signed by the minister for the environment on a regular basis.

Spunk84

Is it me but are all the anti hunters coming out off the wood work this month next thing we will have PETA tracking us down:D

fodda

meathstevie wrote: »

fodda wrote: »

There's no such thing fodda, as a rule all wild animals are protected. That protection is lifted for some between certain dates, i.e. open seasons and for others, the so called "vermin" the protection is waived by a temporary derogation with specification of the species included signed by the minister for the environment on a regular basis.

Thank you at least some know, vermin in some peoples books is anything they dont like, not realising it is totally protected.

MarkD.

fodda wrote: »

Thankyou Mark

I asked the question not to do anybody down in anyway simply because time after time similar questions or discussions come up with multi-page answers trying to explain "that you can or you cant do that" and here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

So as a way of self regulation and proving to the world giving good PR wouldnt it be good if you could say we have done this and proved that so yes we are safe, responsible and etc.

I set my post to all and every.

Thanks for answering. It was a fairly innocent question to ask, your bascially putting this forward as to make things safer and less grey areas.

I can say from my own experience as Ive only my licence less then a month that I did a competency course for a shotgun, I was not asked random questions by word by the course fella, nor was I told to answer a few questions. It was a case I either listened or I didnt, I listened. I picked up all the rules and regs for myself, educated myself, I didnt have to prove myself to anyone that I knew them or not.
The club said I have to do an NARGC course at the end of the Summer. I do not know if I have to prove I know rules to them course clerks.

meathstevie wrote: »

MarkD.; let's use the analogy you were using; my grandad started driving in 1945, an American 5-tonne army truck the Americans couldn't be bothered taking back to the States at the end of WWII. In 1947 he had to go to the townhall to buy a driving licence and drove until 1998 or 1999. My dad had to do a short driving test before he could collect his licence at the same townhall. I got my driving licence from the same townhall but not before completing a theory test, 20 hours of lessons, 3 months on L-plates and a comprehensive test covering town center, main road and motorway driving.

You basicly have to make a start somewhere and the benefits will manifest themselves gradually over an amount of time.

Fair enough I take your very god point of view. I phrased it badly and used a poor example.
But if your and your ancestors were to apply today you would have to prove you knew what your doing and get certified before you drive on the road. That means the laws would be fresher in your mind for awhile after. How long who knows? Some drivers never bother to refresh the laws after a number of years. Some people do, its up to the individual.
Im going off topic now so I'll get back on track
I just stated that point as I was wondering did the orig post think every older firearm licence holer was better off and knew the laws better then a new applicant. Thats fantasy some of them need refreshing too..

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

But then you're talking about a two-strand licencing system? One for target shooters and one for hunters?

What about lads who do both?
What about lads who want to move from one to the other?
etc
etc

Again, I have to say it, the issues you are talking about are purely related to hunting legislation, regs, lore, do's and don't, etc. They fall under the remit of the DoE / NPWS, not the DoJ.

To try to combine Hunting knowledge (a la HCAP) with Firearms Safety Competency would not be a good thing, nor should it be welcomed by shooters of any kind (Hunters, Plinkers, Target Shooters, Sportsmen, Vermin Controllers, etc** and the miriad of shades within our tightknit and loving community;))

** Please note these are not all mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Most of us will fall into one, two, or all these categories are various times of the year or career!:D:rolleyes:

As for competency and safety, I believe they should be included in any hunting exam if a first licence is applied for for hunting purposes and no previous proof of competency exists. If a hunter wants to move into target shooting competency is allready proven.

As for an established targetshooter who can show proof of being a target shooter ( membership cards, firearms certificate in own name etc etc ) moving on to hunting testing on hunting aspects only should suffise.

It shouldn't really be a stretch of the imagination that for example the NPWS could test for competency and safety aspects on behalf of the DoJ. At the end of the day the testing tool would nearly have to be a standard battery of multiple choice questions scored electronically anyway.

dCorbus

the testing tool would nearly have to be a standard battery of multiple choice questions scored electronically anyway

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before?!:rolleyes::D
Are you seriously expecting any part of our permanent government to be able to organise that? Come now, surely you jest!;)

Have you been living in the country for the last 10 years at all?

What you are suggesting is frankly (IMO) unworkable and would create more confusion than any issues it may attempt to solve. Not that I think there is an issue to be solved (at least not as it's been discussed here so far).

Fine, if you want a "Hunting Licence" - apply to the DoEHLG or the NPWS or whoever (scrap the HCAP then too, as it would no longer be needed) and have them deal with this new "Hunting Licence" of yours - but it's nought to do with Firearms Licencing (Why can no one see this distinction?)

There are so many side-effects and foreseeable unforeseeables related to what you and the OP are suggesting, you'd be opening up such a sh1t storm of a can of worms of a mixed metaphor of a pandora's box, that it doesn't bear thinking about.

vermin in some peoples books is anything they dont like, not realising it is totally protected.

And you found that out when? When you asked about it on boards.ie about 6 days ago.
Was that before or after you got your licence, fodda?

Or would that question not be on your curriculum for others?

No one knows 100% of everything - What %age pass rate would you like to see applied to this new testing system of yours? 100%? 60%? or 40%? Or just those who now know that there's no schedule of vermin listed?;);):D:rolleyes:

(Apologies for the blatant sarcasm - I'm just trying to illustrate that not one of us in this thread so far know enough to say what the level of knowledge should or could be for this kind of hunting-knowledge testing)

fodda

dCorbus wrote: »

And you found that out when? When you asked

Nope never asked, the only thing i would class that way is rats, grey squirrels, mink which i think Ireland could do without except for providing food for other animals.

Magpies which i hate, crows and such even though most class as vermin actually do a lot of good (aswell as bad).

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one which i actually said "where is this list i have never seen one"

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before?!:rolleyes::D
Are you seriously expecting any part of our permanent government to be able to organise that? Come now, surely you jest!;)

Have you been living in the country for the last 10 years at all?

What you are suggesting is frankly (IMO) unworkable and would create more confusion than any issues it may attempt to solve. Not that I think there is an issue to be solved (at least not as it's been discussed here so far).

Fine, if you want a "Hunting Licence" - apply to the DoEHLG or the NPWS or whoever (scrap the HCAP then too, as it would no longer be needed) and have them deal with this new "Hunting Licence" of yours - but it's nought to do with Firearms Licencing (Why can no one see this distinction?)

There are so many side-effects and foreseeable unforeseeables related to what you and the OP are suggesting, you'd be opening up such a sh1t storm of a can of worms of a mixed metaphor of a pandora's box, that it doesn't bear thinking about.



And you found that out when? When you asked

Exactly, do away with HCAP and the likes of it, one test for a hunting licence organised and supervised by an impartial state body that covers you for hunting any animal you can legally hunt and also entitles you to have firearms for hunting purposes in your possession and as for target shooters you get a firearms licence the way you always got it.

I honestly can't see the **** storm or pandora's wormy box can in this.

As for government competency to organise anything the likes of this, no comment the track record appears proven.

You mentioned pass rates; as nobody is perfect a reasonable pass rate ( in or around the 60% mark ) should do on hunting legislation issues. As for the safety aspects there should be no compromise; 100% or fail.

dCorbus

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one which i actually said "where is this list i have never seen one"

Please don't take me for a fool, fodda.:mad: I can read that other thread and what you posted. And that's all I'll say on that.

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one

So you admit to trolling then? or flaming? or whatever it's called.
And is that why you asked about it again on this thread? For the sake of clarification, perhaps?
Thanks, at least that clarifies (for me, at least) the purpose of why you raised this issue in the first place.
It's alway nice to know where one stands.

I honestly can't see the **** storm or pandora's wormy box can in this.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this so.:)

I've said my piece.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Please don't take me for a fool, fodda.:mad: I can read that other thread and what you posted. And that's all I'll say on that.



We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this so.:)

I've said my piece.

That's fine by me, it'd be a miserable place if we all had the same opinions.

dCorbus

No worries, meathstevie. I'm all talked-out now anyway!:D;)

Cass

fodda wrote: »

Good point give me the list of "vermin" now!

fodda wrote:

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one which i actually said "where is this list i have never seen one"

Why keep bringing this point up? I had a fairly extensive debate with you over on the "Post photos or not" thread. I thought we covered all bases, but instead of continuing the debate you got annoyed because i wouldn't cede to your viewpoint and then stopped responding to the thread. There was no list, is no list and will be no list of vermin.


It still amazes me that people, especially those involved in hunting/shooting themselves put forward such proposals. Why in the name of God would you propose things that further restrict, limit or control our shooting/sport. We have to fight at every turn to keep our firearms and by association our sports. If the DOE/DOJ/Government, etc thought for one minute that the shooting community as a whole was prepared or open to the idea of further restrictions, etc they would be implimenting them ASAP.

Grizzly 45

Just going from the EU perspective that MS and I have.MS in Beliguim and I in Germany.It works like this you are a hunter in Germany,be prepared to spend about a month in an intensive grind school and about 2k to get your liscense.you will cover everything from gun handling,ballistics,zoology,botany,law,music,[horn signals are still used to communicate in the forest ],vetinary science, how to gut and prepare game properly,history,forestry ,jager latien which translated means the latin of the hunters,as German hunters have unique and different names for damn well everything.Then a theory part of building tree stands,bridges,etc,then a theory both written and oral on all of the above and then a practical firearms test with a score of 8out of10 in rifle shooting,and 8out of ten in clays.
Or you can do this all over three years as an apprentice hunter and take your time on somone elses shoot.

Benefits are however,once done you have the liscense[bar doing somthing daft like DUI,shooting somone deliberatly or tax dodging!] for LIFE!!
You can purchase as many long arms irrespective of type and two handguns ONLY as you please,and as much ammo as well.No alarms needed,you just must have secure storage appropriate to the amount of guns you own.IE ten or more a bank vault style safe,or a secure room.
Newest is you might be inspected at anytime to see if your guns are securely stored.But they are kicking up holy Hell about that.

As a sport shooter,you must be a recognised member of a club in the disipline you want to take up for 12 months and attend at least twice a month.Say target pistol shooting as an example.you start with an air pistol which is an off ticket gun and anyone over 18 can buy.So in that time you learn the basics of stance,breathing etc,and alot of people dont bother moving on from air guns either.Once the club authorthies think you are competant ,you use club guns until you have the required time,to take a state exam again on theory and practise of your disipline,before you can be cleared for a sport shooting liscense in the disipline you have practised.
Then you can purchase firearms appropriate to your disipline,but there is a good reason clause then for over four of a specific type of gun in your disipline.You have this liscnse then again for life.

Want to take up another disipline?Back to square one in the new disipline..However they will recognise the fact you have got the basics under your belt.IE IPSC,you can use the saftey training in all three disiplines,range commands ,etc.
So you can be either a hunter and sport shooter,BUT you must be certified for both.

Works pretty well,[bar the odd nutter cutting loose:(].BUT it is from long establishd tradition and law from the time of the Kaiser,Weimar,3rd Reich,and Allied occupation and BRD law.

We do NOT have this kind of law or tradition over here,nor do we have the established regional govt to make their own rules and make sure it is conducted fairly and with fixed goal posts or favouritism. Nor do I see any Govt or cheif comissioner agreeing to the benefits of the average shooter being able to purchase as many firearms as they want.
FS in Germany you go and buy the gun you fancy in the shop and walk out of the shop with it.It is up to YOU to register it with the local council within seven days...
Could you imagine the abuse of that here??

Anything like this suggestion will be just used by the PTB, both Govt and shooting organisation to tighten up and remove more legal firearms from our hands.I could 100% be sure if this was brought in here it would be [1] expensive [2] rigged against the shooter to screw more money out of them [3]as corrupt as anything,with backhanders and envelopes passing like crazy[4] not sort out the problem of a minority of fools with firearms being removed [5] be inefficently run with somone making it their own little fiefdom and coining it in.

IF anything,I would go the US NRA hunter saftey course,and firearms handling.Simple to learn,can be done within a 24 hour period.If you can drive a car safley ,you should be able to operate a gun as well,as it is a much simpler mechanism.Keep It Simple Stupid![KISS] principle applies here,as we want people to take this up,not discourage them,the system already does this.It doesnt need any help from us!:eek:

fodda

ezridax wrote: »

Why keep bringing this point up? I had a fairly extensive debate with you over on the "Post photos or not" thread. I thought we covered all bases, but instead of continuing the debate you got annoyed because i wouldn't cede to your viewpoint and then stopped responding to the thread. There was no list, is no list and will be no list of vermin.


It still amazes me that people, especially those involved in hunting/shooting themselves put forward such proposals. Why in the name of God would you propose things that further restrict, limit or control our shooting/sport. We have to fight at every turn to keep our firearms and by association our sports. If the DOE/DOJ/Government, etc thought for one minute that the shooting community as a whole was prepared or open to the idea of further restrictions, etc they would be implimenting them ASAP.

I was never annoyed and i explained that at length to you and stopped responding to the thread to stop the obvious which i also explained.

"Further restrictions and fight"?

My suggestion in this topic was to make sure that there can be no doubt that anybody who was given a license knew the law before or at the time of issue, just the same as for example a vehicle driver may have to sit a written test to find out if they knew the law before let loose on the road without supervision. I am amazed you think that is so wrong?

marlin vs

Spunk84 wrote: »

Is it me but are all the anti hunters coming out off the wood work this month next thing we will have PETA tracking us down:D

I think you hit the nail on the head,i'm outa here.

Vegeta

fodda wrote: »

I was never annoyed and i explained that at length to you and stopped responding to the thread to stop the obvious which i also explained.

"Further restrictions and fight"?

My suggestion in this topic was to make sure that there can be no doubt that anybody who was given a license knew the law before or at the time of issue, just the same as for example a vehicle driver may have to sit a written test to find out if they knew the law before let loose on the road without supervision. I am amazed you think that is so wrong?

How many people a year die on our roads and how many people are arrested for breaking wildlife laws? Road traffic accidents and deaths cost us millions every year, let alone the tragic loss of life. So there is a strong business case for driving license testing.

I don't really see your business case for mandatory testing for firearms licensing. We are an incredibly safe sport which works well under self regulation. Your only justification seems that it would be good if everyone knew the various legislation. That's not a good enough justification in my opinion because:

A)There isn't a problem, show me the figures, people self educating themselves is never a problem. No point in implementing a multi million euro solution to something that will have no impact on anyone

B)There are various types of people who hunt:
Those who already know and follow the legislation regarding the particular discipline they pursue.
Those who don't know the legislation but are trying to find out so they are fully compliant.
Those who don't know they're breaking the law. The truly ignorant.
Finally, one of the elephants in the room as I see it, is the people who break the wildlife laws do so willingly and knowingly (the dickheads).

So the only people who this will impact are the truly ignorant and I imagine they are in a tiny minority if they have the mental capacity to fill in the firearm certificate forms and successfully join some form of a club.

So purely from a business case it is not worth the money as it will cost millions and educate a small %. Everyone else either knows already, will find out themselves or is fully aware they are breaking the law.

fodda

Vegeta wrote: »

Those who don't know they're breaking the law. The truly ignorant.

Finally, one of the elephants in the room as I see it, is the people who break the wildlife laws do so willingly and knowingly (the dickheads).

I agree with your other points entirely but these two groups of people you mention above are the ones who could ruin it for everybody and maybe if there was some way of stopping them?

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

I agree with your other points entirely but these two groups of people you mention above are the ones who could ruin it for everybody and maybe if there was some way of stopping them?

There is, we call it "law enforcement" and it's the Gardai's job...

Cass

fodda wrote: »

I was never annoyed and i explained that at length to you and stopped responding to the thread to stop the obvious which i also explained.

Here is your "at length explanation" .............

fodda wrote:

This is my last post on this as you can see nobodies point of view but your own?

My suggestion in this topic was to make sure that there can be no doubt that anybody who was given a license knew the law before or at the time of issue...............

Whether you mean it or not or intend to or not, you express some rather "anti" hunting views. Thats not an insult its a fact. Others have picked up on it and even mentioned it. You say you are a hunter yet your "proposal" serves simply to make getting a license harder and thats where the majority or my replusion to the proposal comes from.

I do not have a major issue with educating the general hunting population, but they way you are proposing it if you failed this "test" you do not get a license. Something along the lines of a club run, NARGC run course AFTER you get your license may, and i mean MAY be acceptable.

Reading between the lines you seem only to want to protect wild birds and the shooting of foxes, etc as you have made it abundantly clear that you do not agree with the shooting of them. As said before you will always have the numpties that no matter the course, law, etc will always do as they please, hence the reason we have poachers, and people killing protected species. Your proposal would punish all hunters for the stupidity of a few.

................ just the same as for example a vehicle driver may have to sit a written test to find out if they knew the law before let loose on the road without supervision.

/facepalm.

Why people keep comparing driving and other pursuits to shooting is beyond me. Driving is by no means the same. Apply for a provisional license and start driving. Very quickly you are driving without a fully licensed driver beside you. Illegal, but it happens alot. You now are in control of a deadly "weapon" among thousands of other drivers, in the public and with no supervision. You fail your driving test, and DRIVE away from the test centre.

Now compare that to shooting. You apply for your license. You are vetted by the Gardai, have to volunteer medical information (when required) and if deemed unfit or have a criminal record you are refused your license. If successful you will be either a member of a gunclub or range, and the remainder individuals on their own shooting lands. Chances are though you will not be shooting alone. however you will not be in a field with thousands of other shooter so the risk to the general public is somewhere between minimal and non existant. You are constantly checked be that through your range, gunclub, spot checks at your home or through your ammunition usage or lack thereof and if you fail to complyy to the standard set out when you gopt your license you loose it.

So on top of all that you want to give the power to refuse a license to a sporting body, because as i've said before the Gardai will not have the time or willingness to enact and supervise such courses. Is that not the reason they left the NGBs and sporting organisations to run safety courses, but yet do not validate any as being "legal minimum".

fodda

I am sorry do not know how to do the multiple quotes so i have to do it this way.

Whether you mean it or not or intend to or not, you express some rather "anti" hunting views. Thats not an insult its a fact. Others have picked up on it and even mentioned it. You say you are a hunter yet your "proposal" serves simply to make getting a license harder and thats where the majority or my replusion to the proposal comes from.

Thats your interpretation and certainly not was meant i just suggested a way of making sure everybody knew the law before or at time of application

I do not have a major issue with educating the general hunting population, but they way you are proposing it if you failed this "test" you do not get a license. Something along the lines of a club run, NARGC run course AFTER you get your license may, and i mean MAY be acceptable.

Why after surely it should be before......you dont get your pass cert on whatever before you take lessons anywhere else do you?

Reading between the lines you seem only to want to protect wild birds and the shooting of foxes, etc as you have made it abundantly clear that you do not agree with the shooting of them. As said before you will always have the numpties that no matter the course, law, etc will always do as they please, hence the reason we have poachers, and people killing protected species. Your proposal would punish all hunters for the stupidity of a few.

I want to stop shooters being punished for the actions of a few, and i have never wanted to protect anything other than what is legally protected and people should know this (what is protected) before they shoot anything i would have thought?

As someone who kept sheep and chickens you say i want to protect foxes?....you are having a laugh:D Although i will say that not all foxes are to blame and foxes do a lot of good in keeping other not useful dare i say vermin in check.........Please ezridax dont read between the lines:)

Why people keep comparing driving and other pursuits to shooting is beyond me. Driving is by no means the same. Apply for a provisional license and start driving. Very quickly you are driving without a fully licensed driver beside you. Illegal, but it happens alot. You now are in control of a deadly "weapon" among thousands of other drivers, in the public and with no supervision. You fail your driving test, and DRIVE away from the test centre.

Yes perhaps i agree a bad example but i was eating my lunch after a long journey in bad fog and ice and could only give that example at time.