Gardai proposals to ban firearms

garrettod

Sparks wrote: »

Just over 200,000.

clawback07 wrote: »

That's a guaranteed 5.3 million Euros of revenue every year ,not to mention sales of accessories , dog food, ammunition, and the revenue from firearm sales , and not a cent back to Joe Shooter for education or conservation .......we're a quiet race !

While I know the true number is a bit higher than 200,000 licenced firearms, even it was as low as 200,000, thats €16m to the Goverment over a 3-year period, assuming the licence fees remain unchanged. Not to be ignored and certainly, given there's none of it spent on the sport that generates the money, as Clawback correctly points out.

Obviously, the benefit of vat on every single piece of equipment, ammunition etc that is purchased thereafter also generates income for the State.

Other sports don't generate that sort of money for the Government, so maybe it's time we started pressing for better value for our dosh.

---

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

While I know the true number is a bit higher than 200,000 licenced firearms, even it was as low as 200,000,

The number igven only a week ago was 200,424 (or 444) licenses.

Up from 178,000 which was a drastic drop after the 2009 act when figures were 248,000.

garrettod

Thanks Cass,

I'm actually surprised it's not higher. Although that said, the recent recession has probably meant people may have had to give up their sport, given the costs (licence, ammunition, club subs).

If they think there's 150,000 illegal firearms held, then maybe they should consider a short amnesty where illegal firearms could be brought into a Garda station and either surrendered, or registered (and licenced).

It might help deal with the concern on the level of unlicenced firearms and also, raise a few bob for the State.

---

My grave concern is that now the can has been kicked down the road a bit, by the Justice Committee... some of the people with licenced firearms will sit back and almost forget about what is being attempted, hence allowing those trying to ban our sport an easier time of it.

If anything, this really should present us with an opportunity to get a little better organised, better mobilised and better funded... between raising some funds from personal donations (through say a donate page on the likes of the NARGC website etc) and seeking some funding from some of the firearms and ammunition distributors / manufacturers, there is a real opportunity here to actually try and get ourselves organised.

An estimated 120,000 licence holders, with over 200,000 licenced firearms, could be quite an influential group - be it in terms of pressure on politicans, or causing traffic jams on the M50, Kildare Street etc. Thats before we even consider other sports people from the fishing or hunting community, who might come out in support (because odds are, their sports will be under pressure shortly after ours).

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

Thanks Cass,

I'm actually surprised it's not higher.

As said it was before the new licensing procedures when figures were in excess of 248,000. The Minister trampled that drop out like they were "weapons off the street" and not lciensed owners choosing not to renew their licenses.

If they think there's 150,000 illegal firearms held

There is not. This fairy tale number has to be dropped. It came from best guess, from a survey, from 8 years ago. It's based on population numbers, legal firearms, averages over other countries, etc. IOW completely made up.

My grave concern is that now the can has been kicked down the road a bit, by the Justice Committee... some of the people with licenced firearms will sit back and almost forget about what is being attempted, hence allowing those trying to ban our sport an easier time of it.

I doubt it.

This topic has been stuck at the top of this forum since January of last year when it was only rumor. It wasn't until November we got the official word. So in 10/11 months we did not forget, and it won't happen now.

If anything, this really should present us with an opportunity to get a little better organised, better mobilised and better funded... between raising some funds from personal donations (through say a donate page on the likes of the NARGC website etc) and seeking some funding from some of the firearms and ammunition distributors / manufacturers, there is a real opportunity here to actually try and get ourselves organised.

Disaster waiting to happen. This was attempted before and it turned into a full bithch-fest about who gets the money, who controls it, and how it's spent. A feckin train wreck would not do it justice.

An estimated 120,000 licence holders, with over 200,000 licenced firearms, could be quite an influential group - be it in terms of pressure on politicans, or causing traffic jams on the M50, Kildare Street etc.

An estimated 110,000 people with firearms. If all of them we singing from the same hymn sheet its still not enough. Spread (evenly which it never will be) over the 26 counties and it's a pool of 4,000 per county. Break that down further as 110,000 votes over 40 constituencies leaving 2,700.

Seems kinda half decent until you consider the following:

1. 3.2 million voters over the same constituencies is 80,000 per.
2. The majority of people wouild vote against anything gun related.
3. We don't have the support of all factions, even those slightly related to firearms, so the 110,000 firearm owners would not all vote our way.

Thats before we even consider other sports people from the fishing or hunting community, who might come out in support (because odds are, their sports will be under pressure shortly after ours).

• Airsoft have apparently turned their nose up at this (or some of them have according to reports).
• IFA have made their position clear.
• Paintballers would consider this "not their problem" (restricted short firearms ring a bell)

Hate to be the voice of doom and gloom (not my intent) but what you have suggeste has been tried and failed over the years. Not just recently i mean over the last 10 years.

Grolschevik

Cass wrote: »

Airsoft have apparently turned their nose up at this (or some of them have according to reports).

I mentioned the garda proposals on an Irish airsoft Facebook page, just for the information and opinion of the members, and was met with a wall of "absolutely nothing to do with us/don't be scaremongering". The thread was then deleted by the admins.

My purpose was merely to point out that any reform of the Firearms Acts could have implications for their sport too...

turismo2142

Sparks wrote: »

There was a suggestion at the back of the Working Group's proposals document - though it was listed as being rejected on grounds which I personally think are factually incorrect - for an internal Garda review of appeals as a first stage in the appeals process (and then the DC process would still be there after that stage if the applicant was still unsatisfied). An internal review by someone other than the issuing person, that wouldn't be a bad first step, though obviously that depends heavily on the details of how it's implemented.

In relation to the above do you not think that a further (internal) tier in the appellate process would merely delay matters in that it would just be another Garda agreeing with the first Garda and woukd serve no purpose other than to delay your application before you end up before a DJ regardless? Would it not be better to appeal to the Circuit Court in the same way as all other matters which come before the DC?

Mind you I cannot see it being utilised that much given the success rate appellants have in the DC as things stand (unless of course the ags had a right of appeal, which would be utilised excessively no doubt)

knockon

Sparks wrote: »

I think that it's pretty reasonable to assume that a lot of Supers, if told that the appeals costs will come from their operational budgets, will just want a blanket ban because they don't care about the sports at all but do care about their budgets. That's pretty much the biggest risk here from our point of view.

How do you see that working I wonder? They ban they wanted is not happening (so far). Whats your best guess? If they start the refusals again its back to the DC and based on the track record, AGS will loose them all. The only other option is to grant? Am I missing something?

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

As said it was before the new licensing procedures when figures were in excess of 248,000. The Minister trampled that drop out like they were "weapons off the street" and not lciensed owners choosing not to renew their licenses.

Happy to stand corrected on the figures.

As for how the Minister might have behaved, thats partly our fault because for too long, we've allowed politicans, journalists and just about anyone else who wants to, to categorise us as dangerous or almost criminal like.... it's wrong and it's time we started pushing back (in a sensible manner, obviously) to put an end to that nonsense, imho.

Cass wrote: »

...This fairy tale number has to be dropped. It came from best guess, from a survey, from 8 years ago. It's based on population numbers, legal firearms, averages over other countries, etc. IOW completely made up.

Sure, your right that no one knows the numbers. That said, I still think the idea of an amnesty might be a good one.

Cass wrote: »

This topic has been stuck at the top of this forum since January of last year when it was only rumor. It wasn't until November we got the official word. So in 10/11 months we did not forget, and it won't happen now.

While I appreciate that, I hate to ask but any idea how many people have actually been involved in the discussion over that period (I fear it may not be a large number, in the context of the overall scheme of things and by extension, I fear the risk I originally mentioned above) ?

Cass wrote: »

Disaster waiting to happen. This was attempted before and it turned into a full bithch-fest about who gets the money, who controls it, and how it's spent. A feckin train wreck would not do it justice.

Just because it was tried and failed before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again or it wasn't the right thing to have done last time it was tried

The influence a larger, well funded group could have, more than justifies the repeated effort of trying to get it to work, imho.

Cass wrote: »

An estimated 110,000 people with firearms. If all of them we singing from the same hymn sheet its still not enough.

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Just look at the influence the likes of the Hauliers Assocation, or the Taxi Federation have had when they wanted to - it's not always about the actual number of protestors, but sometimes more about exactly how the protest. We could easily block off Kildare Street, or cause a traffic jam on the M50 if we put our minds to it and that would send a clear message to the politicans.

Also, dare I mention it, but how many protests regarding water charges, have had more than 10,000 attend ? ... I suspect very few and yet, look at the influence they have had.

Cass wrote: »

Spread (evenly which it never will be) over the 26 counties and it's a pool of 4,000 per county. Break that down further as 110,000 votes over 40 constituencies leaving 2,700.

Seems kinda half decent until you consider the following:

1. 3.2 million voters over the same constituencies is 80,000 per.
2. The majority of people wouild vote against anything gun related.
3. We don't have the support of all factions, even those slightly related to firearms, so the 110,000 firearm owners would not all vote our way.

I take your point(s), but I'd also draw your attention to the following:

1. A notable majority of the 110,000 would be willing to boycott a particular political party in an election, if given good reason. That would have a significant impact in an election, if if those same majority of the 110,000 were not intersted in all voting for specific candidates or parties.

2. Even if only half of the 110,000 we refer to, were to take action - they would influence friends and family, perhaps canvass for certain politcans etc. As such, their overall influence would be significantly more influential than I think you give credit for, if you don't mind me saying.

Cass wrote: »

• Airsoft have apparently turned their nose up at this (or some of them have according to reports).
• IFA have made their position clear.
• Paintballers would consider this "not their problem" (restricted short firearms ring a bell)

Maybe so, and maybe they will never change their minds, but then again, perhaps more information, more time spent talking to those parties might get them to see things as we do. I for one, cannot beleive that it's only a matter of time before something is attempted to try and remove some of the replicas used in Airsoft for example.

Also, lets not forget there are other sporting interests to consider, who might support us, such as:

* Archery
* Fencing
* Fishing
* Dog trainers (well, those in the field side of things perhaps more than the show dogs at Crofts)

How long before some politican decides that a bow with an arrow is a dangerous thing, or that a certain breed of dog cannot be in this country any more, or trained to sniff out game etc ?

Cass wrote: »

Hate to be the voice of doom and gloom (not my intent) but what you have suggeste has been tried and failed over the years. Not just recently i mean over the last 10 years.

No offense intended here, but in some ways yes you have been "the voice of doom and gloom", althogh I'd guess thats more out of frustration with repeated attempts to try and achieve some of the things I've mentioned and not seen them succeed etc.

That said, the more people who adopt a similar view, or dare I say it just do nothing, the weaker our group becomes and by extension, the more at risk we become (to either seeing our firearms further restricted, or just being linked closer and closer to dangerous criminals etc in the press).

As a rule, I don't think Irish people are very good at complaining, or standing up for ourselves and this is probably part of the proplem when it comes to our own situation. As a rule, I'd say our nation is better off at bitching and moaning in a pub, then getting out and protesting... but it's long past time we stopped people effectively bullying us, insulting us, associating us with potential criminals or crazies, when we're actually some of the safest people walking the face of Ireland (as confirmed by the Gardai, who approved our licences etc).

Sparks

turismo2142 wrote: »

In relation to the above do you not think that a further (internal) tier in the appellate process would merely delay matters in that it would just be another Garda agreeing with the first Garda and woukd serve no purpose other than to delay your application before you end up before a DJ regardless?

It would if it was set up arseways.

Quick question though.
You pay five to six hundred euro for something like an Xesse. You get into fun with the licence. You decide to appeal. Last I heard, the most used solicitor for these cases was charging a thousand euro to take your case. You go to the district court, costs run to (if you're Grizzly ) thirty thousand euro.

Now here's the punchline - court's a horse race. Always has been, always will be. The actual disclaimer runs something along the lines of "Court is an adversarial process and..." but what it means is, there are no guarantees, only odds. So you might lose.

(And even if you win, no, you do not get all your money back. Apart from the section 68 costs that your solicitor collects and which are not eligible for refund in the case of a win, not every costs award is for 100% of costs).

Me, if faced with a situation where my only options are (1) forget about it and take up archery; or (2) spend my son's college fund fighting a bad licencing decision when I might lose it all and maybe more --- well, maybe you got raised different to me, but to me, there isn't an option (2) there at all really.

So adding in an option (3) isn't an awful idea to my mind if it has even a one in five chance of working.

And if it was set up properly, where the Garda adjudicating was a higher-ranked Garda with technical knowledge, or even if you introduced an external element to the process there (though that'd be constitutionally and legally tricky), those odds might actually rise above one in five.

knockon wrote: »

How do you see that working I wonder? They ban they wanted is not happening (so far). Whats your best guess? If they start the refusals again its back to the DC and based on the track record, AGS will loose them all. The only other option is to grant? Am I missing something?

Yes, that I'm not talking about refusing applications, I'm talking about pushing for a complete ban in legislation. These current proposals aren't some final thing; there is no final thing. We and the Gardai and the Department are all going to be here having this same debate in a century or two. Sooner we realise this, and start working more harmoniously, the better for all our sakes really. But if that doesn't happen, then the DC costs coming out of local budgets is going to be a huge motivator for Supers to demand a more permanent solution and the easiest one on the books is to ban the lot, maybe not in these proposals, but in subsequent ones.

That's the bigger risk, because coming back from that would be hugely difficult and expensive. You could certainly fight it but your odds wouldn't be better than fifty-fifty and the Supers wouldn't care because you'd be fighting the Minster, not them, so their local budgets wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sparks

garrettod wrote: »

We could easily block off Kildare Street, or cause a traffic jam on the M50 if we put our minds to it and that would send a clear message to the politicans.

This has been suggested before. The problem hasn't changed - it's that the headline on every tabloid the next day will read "shooters march on government" and it'll be phrased so it sounds like we marched on them while armed.

Some kinds of protest would just cause us more harm than good!

No offense intended here, but in some ways yes you have been "the voice of doom and gloom"

You try watching these things happen again and again and again and again for twenty years, see how chirpy you are after it.

Not to mention, a lot of what is read as pessism is actually just informed realism.
There are some things that work and other things that don't and yet more things that are a spectacularly bad idea and we don't do them because the general public would run a mile at the thought of them.

And we have seen some truly spectacular own goals over the last decade or so in shooting in Ireland. Honestly, I could never see another one and be perfectly happy with that...

bravestar

Were 1,700 guns really stolen in five years? http://jrnl.ie/1990574 via TheJournal.ie

Sparks

*ha*
Nine days behind broadsheet and they still got the story wrong (and that quote is priceless - "they're firearms because, um, reasons". Dunno what garda PR chap gave them that but wow did he make a dogs breakfast of it).

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

As for how the Minister might have behaved, thats partly our fault because for too long, we've allowed politicans, journalists and just about anyone else who wants to, to categorise us as dangerous or almost criminal like....

The problem is not us (or completely us) but the fact that the Minister and Senior members of An Gardaí have access to a media that criminalises, and debases our sport already.

Sure, your right that no one knows the numbers. That said, I still think the idea of an amnesty might be a good one.

Frankly that is not our concern. You are addressing ideas on how An Gardaí can rid illegal firearms from the country/streets. As sports shooters we are not associated with such firearms, and not involved in Garda policies. We are in the position we are because An Gardaí seek to make us the whipping boys due to their inability to combat such illegal firearms.

While I appreciate that, I hate to ask but any idea how many people have actually been involved in the discussion over that period

No idea. We have viewing figures but that could include me looking at the threads one to twenty times a day. So not accurate from a unique viewing perspective.

However given the amount of people that still, after 18 months, do not have the first clue or have even heard aboutt all this, an internet forum on it's own is not goingg to be the saving grace.



With regard to this:

Just because it was tried and failed before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again or it wasn't the right thing to have done last time it was tried

The influence a larger, well funded group could have, more than justifies the repeated effort of trying to get it to work, imho.

I think Sparks have pretty much covered it. How many times must people fail before they realise that the methods are the problem and not the ferocity of their committment?

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Just look at the influence the likes of the Hauliers Assocation, or the Taxi Federation have had when they wanted to

They are not guns. It's that simple. People see taxi, bus, truck drivers, etc as people with jobs, and families to support. We are viewed as gun weilding nuts, pursuing a hobby.

As to the number of protestors, we can get a good crowd together, but be ignored as easily as ever.

1. A notable majority of the 110,000 would be willing to boycott a particular political party in an election, if given good reason. That would have a significant impact in an election, if if those same majority of the 110,000 were not intersted in all voting for specific candidates or parties.

You place far too much credit on people. 80,000+ member sof IFA will vote for whatever party gives them what they want in terms of farming, not firearms. The odler generation wwill vote as they have for the last 50 years, and that leaves a small minority with a horribly diluted voting pool.

2. Even if only half of the 110,000 we refer to, were to take action - they would influence friends and family, perhaps canvass for certain politcans etc. As such, their overall influence would be significantly more influential than I think you give credit for, if you don't mind me saying.

Again this was discussed time and time again, and each time the election results did not reflect how people said they would vote. The simple fact is we are not a lobby group, and don't have the political or majority to influence decisions. If i asked my parents to vote against the party they normally vote for (and have done for the last 42 years) they'd ignore me and do what they have always done. Most of my extended family don't shoot, and one Uncle used to make derogatory comments about me because i own firearms. So what chance have i off getting them on side. I'm sure i'm not on my own either.

This is not defeatism, but realism. The "keep doing the same thing" method does not work. Time to change it, and move in another direction. Wasn't it Einstein who said:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

bpb101

bravestar wrote: »

Were 1,700 guns really stolen in five years? http://jrnl.ie/1990574 via TheJournal.ie

lot of pr buzz words in such a short setences by the gardas. Make its sounds like they are doing something

There is a scientific method employed in this process and this is presented as evidence in court by an expert and is accepted by the court.

Sparks

It's also completely wrong. The claim seems to be that because in a court case if someone brandished a toy gun as though it was a firearm, they're charged as if it had been a real firearm; it is therefore justified to count stolen toy guns as firearms.

Which is utter nonsense.

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

....Wasn't it Einstein who said:

Sure, but I think it was Palmer that said:

If at first you don't succeed, Try, try, try again

The caveman who started chipping two stones against each other didn't necessarily get a spark the first time he did it, or even managed to subsequently light a fire after he did get the first spark. He kept at it, with the determination that sooner or later, he'd succeed. How did the Wright Brothers getr on, the first time they fried to fly, or Alexander Graham Bell etc. I'm sure we could all go on and on with this, but probably best to just take each others points and move on, rather than keep rolling out quotes and examples to suit both sides of the discussion


Members of the public, the politcans and the Gardai will continue to see us as crazies, or criminals as long as we allow them to.

Members of the sport, whether hunters or target shooters, will continue to carry such labels, hide in the shadows and be walked on repeatidly until we stand up and put a stop to it.

I'm sorry Cass / Sparks, but while I respect both of you and certainly am not trying to pick an arguement, I just don't agree with what either of you are saying on this matter.

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

The caveman who started chipping two stones against each other didn't necessarily get a spark the first time he did it, ..........

Not going to bother quoting all the references as the point is the same. You are describing scientific/evolutionary break throughs, and none of them had to deal with An Gardaí, the DoJ, or Irish politicians. If they did they would have been told the stones are restricted, and there are 150,000 illegal flint stones in circulation. That the first plame had no tax or insurance or NCT, and the first phone would have been levied to the point it would never have taken off because of VAT, taxes and duties.

Members of the public, the politcans and the Gardai will continue to see us as crazies, or criminals as long as we allow them to.

See the problem, you think we can stop them. Not change their mind, but stop them.

This is not a new situation. It's been going on for decades and will continue to long after we all have stopped shooting.

I'm sorry Cass / Sparks, but while I respect both of you and certainly am not trying to pick an arguement, I just don't agree with what either of you are saying on this matter.

I admire your determination and attitude and while i would share your opinions on some things, i've seen it time and time again when any little advancement is immediately met with a thump backwards. So while i'm optimistic i'm also a realist and only beelieve what i can see and trust and unity among the various shooting groups, fairness by politicians, and a proper applciation of the law by An Gardaí is not among them. Perhaps in 10, 15 or 20 years time i might be proved wrong, but it's more likely in the same timeframe you'll come to realise the never ending circle this merry go round is.

OzCam

Unfortunately, the people in airsoft who've been shouting loudest over the last few years are also narrowminded and shortsighted. Anything they can't take credit for is, by definition, a crap idea. Even the idea of quiet support behind the scenes is more than they can think of.

Luckily we're not all like that. And there are many airsofters who are also license holders. Just don't expect anything on Facebook except abuse or censorship. Save your breath.

Heckler

OzCam wrote: »

Unfortunately, the people in airsoft who've been shouting loudest over the last few years are also narrowminded and shortsighted. Anything they can't take credit for is, by definition, a crap idea. Even the idea of quiet support behind the scenes is more than they can think of.

Luckily we're not all like that. And there are many airsofters who are also license holders. Just don't expect anything on Facebook except abuse or censorship. Save your breath.

Thats a pity. The realism of Airsoft guns is not going unnoticed. If those in the community are happy to hide their heads in the sand they can't say they were not warned. Might not be anytime soon but eventually.

It might start off with having to have the orange tip and then it will be realised an orange tip can either be spray painted black on an airsoft or vice versa paint a real firearm muzzle orange. Then the Guards are totally confused leading to a ban on airsoft guns unless they're the transparent plastic crap you've all seen.

wexfordman2

Heckler wrote: »

Thats a pity. The realism of Airsoft guns is not going unnoticed. If those in the community are happy to hide their heads in the sand they can't say they were not warned. Might not be anytime soon but eventually.

It might start off with having to have the orange tip and then it will be realised an orange tip can either be spray painted black on an airsoft or vice versa paint a real firearm muzzle orange. Then the Guards are totally confused leading to a ban on airsoft guns unless they're the transparent plastic crap you've all seen.

And sure, the trabsparramy plastic ones will do absolutely fine, ask Healy!!

Grizzly 45

Be the first time there is anything "transparent,'in irish firearms law.

bpb101

Or they could pull off the orange tip.
Too many airsofts guns to get rid of at this stage.
Prob will bring it orange tip and can't be that frighting black colour

Deaf git

Not forgetting shooting each other in the ass with airsofts might be described as 'combat training'....

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

Not forgetting shooting each other in the ass with airsofts might be described as 'combat training'....

Nope...

Firearms Act, Section 4C wrote:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the facilitation or engagement in the use of a firearm pursuant to an authorisation under section 2(5)(a) of this Act, where the muzzle energy of the firearm is less than 16 Joules.

Airsoft and paintball got an out.

Which is why it's so ironic that paintball's been accidentally made illegal by the restricted list.

bpb101

Talking about airsoft and paintball , Due to the fact that a paintball gun is not a shotgun ,and classed as a firearms, doesent it mean that a paintball enthusiastic has to have a gun safe?

Are paintball guns unrestricted or restricted

Sparks

bpb101 wrote: »

Talking about airsoft and paintball , Due to the fact that a paintball gun is not a shotgun ,and classed as a firearms, doesent it mean that a paintball enthusiastic has to have a gun safe?

Yes. But that doesn't matter in 99% of cases because:

Are paintball guns unrestricted or restricted

A very few of them are unrestricted. But the ones we see in Ireland are too short and so are classed as short firearms; and since they're airguns and not of .177 caliber, they fall into the category of restricted short firearm.

Grizzly 45

I see comissioner O Sullivan was up at the justice comittee today and as usual Mr McGrath was on his usual anti gun rant asking the comissioner how many legally held firearms have been used in crimes and was showing a picture of a shot road sign to the comittee that he claims was sent into him by a member of the public and he be lives was done with a legally held firearm.
(Www.journal.ie )
While a somewhat ridiculous problem this kind of stupid carry on by some freaking MUPPETS in our own ranks is defiantly something that needs to be sorted out..These kind of idiots do us no favours at all and give anti gun nuts like Mc Grath more sticks to beat us with.

Heckler

And did he give any reason why he thought it was done with a legally held firearm ? It either was or it wasn't. 50/50. Unless he has evidence to the contrary anyone can say well I think it was done with an unlicensed gun and be equally as correct.

Grizzly 45

True .But you can see he will try and make hay out of anything related to guns here in Ireland.
Plus do criminals have that amount of ammo to waste around the countryside shooting road signs?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

do criminals have that amount of ammo to waste around the countryside shooting road signs?

I didn't realise criminals were that concerned with logistics and efficiency and waste.
Personally, I figure if you're going to stand up in a formal setting like that and make claims, you ought to have facts and figures to back them up.
I guess not everyone shares that view...