Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Big Bangstick

Ah Grizzly you'll hurt your back with all that self back slapping there.

How many times have you told us how much you spent now?

And when you look at it all you achieved is you get to keep you're stuff.

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Now just because you have what you have don't tell the powers that be by posting on the internet that nobody else should have the same in case it endangers your stuff. We've had enough of that carry on up to this!

Big Bangstick

Sparks wrote: »

As pointed out

Please tell me the same people won't be involved this time !!!!!!!!!

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Please tell me the same people won't be involved this time !!!!!!!!!

You tell me BB, you seem to know more about the Sports Coalition...

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Jesus, i threw up in my mouth a little there. The "Sports Coalition" have :

• Done an RTE segment that EVERYONE else knew enough to stay away from.
• Relied on "ordinary" shooters to start and maintain a letter campaign to counter the truly awful and destructive nature of the interview.
• Suggested a graduated licensing system
• Suggested a cap on 22 pistols
• Suggested a cap on semi auto rifles (nailed that one)
• Pulled out of the original FCP leaving us on the outside when we could have been at the table from the off
• Alienated the people (in both the shooting community and authorities) that we HAVE TO work with to resolve these issues
• Allowed rumors and innuendo to spread wildly and released no statement to clarify matters

That is only off the top of my head so please don't tell me they are this all powerful saviour of our sport.

Lastly, any anger people have towards the way things turned out (both the SI and the statement form the Minister regarding the cap on semi autos and the potential cap on pistols) should look very carefully at the proposals of the "sports Coalition" and the statement they released after the SI was signed off on rejoicing at the contents of both claiming it was exactly what they wanted.

Funny how everyone has some sort of issue with how things turned out, yet support they very group that called for them.

Sweet merciful Jesus.

Grizzly 45

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Ah Grizzly you'll hurt your back with all that self back slapping there.

How many times have you told us how much you spent now?

And when you look at it all you achieved is you get to keep you're stuff.

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Now just because you have what you have don't tell the powers that be by posting on the internet that nobody else should have the same in case it endangers your stuff. We've had enough of that carry on up

Oh dear!!!And everyone got to keep their stuff too didnt they??And yeah I will mention it because there were a few who decided to go the whole way while all the rest were crying "whats the use?The courts will decide against us and you are wasting money".Then when it was successful everyone wanted in o n the action and the 4th accusation Ive had was that the organisations paid for my cases......I wish they had and thats the funniest of them all...
But not to worry...Its mind over matter.I dont mind and my opinion along with yours and everyones elses on this subject DOESN'T MATTER to the ptb
Now if you think I have some magical say with the ptb on our side or the DOJ you are giving much more credit to me than I deserve...
Honestly if you think this utter hypothecial discussion is nasty and hard to deal with in your little world of sunshine and lollipops and unicorns I hate to tell you a lot more nasty things are going to come down the pipeline and it wont be solved by throwing yor teddy out of the pram or posting smart assed memes or accusing others of treason because they brought it up and hope to discuss it in a mature adult fashion.
DEAL with it however you want!

wexfordman2

Just reading an article on rural crime in the sindo, and they pointed to the that the number of firearms licences had risen along with the rise in rural crime :-(

178,000 in 2013 to 205,000 now!!

Was going to post a comment in reply to the article, but didn't want to register.

Gobdaws

hexosan

They also state that they (rural people) are getting them for protection. I'd like to see that printed as the good reason on the FCA1 form, I'd expect a large number of refusals to follow.

BattleCorp

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Just reading an article on rural crime in the sindo, and they pointed to the that the number of firearms licences had risen along with the rise in rural crime :-(

178,000 in 2013 to 205,000 now!!

I wonder how accurate that figure is?

Sparks

It's the Sindo. Accuracy isn't exactly what they're known for...

Grizzly 45

Same rubbish yesterday in the other Dennis O Brien paper.The Herald."Give us guns"headline.
Good refutation and explaining the procedure by a spokesman from NARSPC and AGS for obtaining a liscense here and that self defence isnt an option.

Big Bangstick

I know nothing more about the sports coalition than whats online.

What I was trying to say is the only thing that got us where we are is the huge number who signed the petition & emailed & contacted their politicans and made them realise theres a lot of votes to be had or lost in this. Granted they made a few cock ups at least they publically posted what they submitted unlike others.

Anyway time will tell us if were better off or will have to bend over again.

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

I know nothing more about the sports coalition than whats online.

Then how can you make such statements of support for them? Have you even read or skimmed this thread?

What I was trying to say is the only thing that got us where we are is the huge number who signed the petition & emailed & contacted their politicans

None of that shows it was the "sports coalition" that spearheaded this. Roughly 25% of the shooting community are members of the "sports coalition". Also within that 25% there is significant crossover between other organisations and disciplines.

Granted they made a few cock ups at least they publically posted what they submitted unlike others.

So it's okay that they tried to do all the above as long as they were upfront about their calamities? Are you for real? That is right up there with "we cannot dwell on the past" and then watch the same people make the same f**king mistakes time and again.

If they were so upfront why did they not publish the details of their proposals until AFTER the review committee had released it's interim report? It was ONLY then we realised just how badly we would be shafted if the review committee listen to the dangerous proposals issued by this self proclaimed "coalition".

They never included other shooting groups in their plans, never kept their members up to date BEFORE acting, never held meetings to gauge the feedback from their members, and more importanttly never fixed their mistakes. It took the hard work and writing campaign of ordinary members of the shooting community (as outlined in the Prime Time thread) to do damage control.

Anyway time will tell us if were better off or will have to bend over again.

Well if they stayed in the original FCP we would have had a seat at the table form the start off this debacle and could have made much better progress and avoided some of the heart attacks over the last year. However not happy with that they left, screwed the rest of the organisations on the FCP, and destroyed any hope of that. Then set up this "coalition" with the empty call for unity. You know, the unity we HAD within the original FCP.

This boils my piss even thinking about the blind support these people get. If you (and i mean the general you, not you specifically) support them for legitimate reasons then please lay out those reasons for me here so i can try and understand. If you support them without knowing why or because "at least they're doing something" then do yourself a favour and educate yourself as to past actions.

Big Bangstick

Will you explain where your 25% figure comes from?

So what did any other group do? Nothing I can find in the public domain.

I don't blindly support the coalition and as I said all I know is what I've read on their facebook page and their website. But I can find no other group who did anything. Or have I missed something? Please do enlighten me.

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Will you explain where your 25% figure comes from?

200,424 licenses. Spread over approx. 130,000 people (as there are people like myself with more than one firearm.

The NARGC claim to represent 28,000 members. So that leaves 102,000. If you allow for the few thousand of the NASRPC, the fishermen, the few RFD that have formed this new dealers association, the few that have formed this new range operators association, the "others" then you are talking about ( and this is a guess) approx 7,000 or so.

That leaves 95,000. 95,000 represented by the IFA, CAI, NRAI, NTSA, Pony Club, the rest of the RFDs, the rest of the range operators, and all the other organisations.

In fact the "Coalition" only represent two of the 5 (or is it 6) main NGBs, and approx 25 - 27%% of the total amount of firearm owners.

Exact numbers are impossible to get as there will be cross over between people being members of numerous groups, and the fact that the members of some groups may not all be firearm owners.

So what did any other group do? Nothing I can find in the public domain.

Because they took the less "table thumping" route of doing it quietly. Don't confuse quietly working with not doing anything. This was shown to be the case by the fact that all other NGBs and organisations had some sort of representation on the live debate in December.

I don't blindly support the coalition and as I said all I know is what I've read on their facebook page and their website. But I can find no other group who did anything. Or have I missed something? Please do enlighten me.

As said above the other groups were present at the live debates, and worked tirelessly behind the screens to do their part. They did not seek the limelight as the "coalition" did. Plus with the errors and calamities of the "coalition" any public statement from any other group would have gone against the proposals of the "coalition" and made it very public that they did not represent the view of the majority of the shooting community.

IOW the actions of the "coalittion" painted the rest of the organisations into a corner of "be quiet or publicly argue with them". They took the former.

Big Bangstick

So how does 20 odd % pull down an fcp? Why didn't the other 80% carry on?

Cass

The FCP was formed at the invitation of the then current Minister for Justice. It was not wanted by AGS, but gave us a seat at the table for ALL organisations and NGBs to be heard. When one group walked out of a meeting then began to take court cases against the DoJ & AGS it meant they could no longer speak to the rest of us and as they never really wanted it to begin with it wasn't a hard choice for them (AGS) to stop taking part in it.

The FCP never officially disbanded. It just stopped meeting because of the actions of one group. The reintroduction of the FCP means this group must now practice what it has been preaching and actively take part in meetings under a unified banner.

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

So how does 20 odd % pull down an fcp? Why didn't the other 80% carry on?

So you think we should have said "stuff you" and continued? Well, that did get debated a lot - often on here. But in the end, we didn't throw them under the bus and hoped they'd cop on. They didn't; it nearly ended our sports. I don't think that'd be how it would be handled if they did that in the future.

Big Bangstick

OK so they pulled out. Why did they (the shooting crowd) pull out? Was it as I'm lead to believer it was because some of the Gardaí pulled a swerve after the 2008 clampdown and refused to licence fullbore pistols despite no valid reasons?

Hard to sit at a table with people who aren't blatantly playing the game surely?

So are ye saying the court cases (Grizzly comes to mind) were a bad idea and people should have stayed at the table?

And if the Garda pulled out too then who's to say they'll go back this time?

It wasn't me!

Big Bangstick wrote: »

And if the Garda pulled out too then who's to say they'll go back this time?

The minister for justice?

Sparks

First off, no, that's not why. Also, the AGS sat at the table, it wasn't their table; if you think someone else at the table is acting in bad faith, you don't quit the whole process and blind us to everything going on and leave them speak unopposed and unreported, that's the height of not having a good grip on the universe.

And you're saying that the court cases and how they were handled are seperate things; they're not. It's one thing to take a court case as a measure of last resort; it's another to use it as a threat to the PTB. The latter is a really stupid idea really.

As to going back to the table; the AGS have been directed to do so by the Minister. They don't get to avoid it.

Big Bangstick

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The minister for justice?

So why didn't that happen the last time?

Big Bangstick

Sparks wrote: »

First off, no, that's not why. Also, the AGS sat at the table, it wasn't their table; if you think someone else at the table is acting in bad faith, you don't quit the whole process and blind us to everything going on and leave them speak unopposed and unreported, that's the height of not having a good grip on the universe.

And you're saying that the court cases and how they were handled are seperate things; they're not. It's one thing to take a court case as a measure of last resort; it's another to use it as a threat to the PTB. The latter is a really stupid idea really.

As to going back to the table; the AGS have been directed to do so by the Minister. They don't get to avoid it.

So do you know why did they leave?

once cases were taken it's no longer a threat and as you say gardai would refuse to talk to opposition in that situation apart from through each others legal teams I assume.

So minister tell gardai to be there, they act the maggot, lads take cases, gardai pull out of talks that you claim they didn't want to be in. And you blame the shooters and their associations who took cases or am I totally reading this wrong?

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

So why didn't that happen the last time?

It did. And they were at the table. We were the ones who got stymied by one group leaving, not them.

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

So do you know why did they leave?

Can't prove it and I can read the Defamation Act.

once cases were taken it's no longer a threat

Wrong.

So minister tell gardai to be there, they act the maggot, lads take cases, gardai pull out of talks that you claim they didn't want to be in. And you blame the shooters and their associations who took cases or am I totally reading this wrong?

You're totally reading it wrong because that's not what happened, neither in the order nor in the parties involved.

Cass

The discussion about the NASRPCs exit of the SC is not directly related to overall theme of this thread, as such I've split all the discussion about the NASRPCs exit of the SC into it's own thread.

It's here.

Anyone that has posted on the thread about this topic will continue to receive notifications.

If anyone feels this is wrong or shouldn't be then feel free to PM me or any of the other Mods with the reasons why.

Mod Team.