MORE crap on the way.

ezra_

I think you are missing my point here.

If this comes down the mag rather than the gun, then as I was saying - what are the reasons for needing such a mag?
If you have a 30 round mag for a specific discipline, then you've a strong reason to be pissed. Especially if you can't complete the discipline without it, however the first mention of this was IPSC which was some posts back and I don't think we do that here?

If it is because you just want to rapidly fire off 20+ rounds without reloading, then you'll find it harder to get support for that and if that is the cost of the anti terror legislation (as ineffective as it will be) so be it.

I can't think of any activity that I've seen that needs a 30 round mag so excuse me if I'm not getting worked up about it.

Re your centrefire: unless it comes with a built in mag that has more than 20 rounds, ditch the mag and keep the gun.
PITA - yes
Costly - well, whatever the cost of the mag(s) would be but probably not huge
A decent compromise by the English MEP who seems to be doing what she can to limit the actual impact of this legislation (which will happen anyway and won't be railroaded)? From what I see, yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the net effect of this for us in Ireland seems to be that we can't put large mags in semi auto rifles. No sport or discipline that is currently practiced is banned, no one or group of shooters is being thrown under a bus and no one has rolled up their toys saying well I'm fine and the rest of ye be fuked.

Or am I wrong? If the legislation comes in and has the effects as outlined above (bans the mags, not the guns), who will lose their guns / sport / competitions / practices?

Cass

I get your point and i'm not blinded by the love of the fight that i'm arguing for something that really is not needed or won't really effect us. Plus with some 167 or so centrefire semi auto rifles in the country i cannot exactly claim that it'll have large and lasting repercussions.

The reason i'm annoyed at it is the stupidity of it. Its the same crap that was brought in for 22 pistols and shotguns. You can have 50 mags as long as they are only 5 shot ones. You can have 3 shots in your semi auto shotgun, but 4 well feck me that is a lethal yoke altogether. The fact that the EU think, much like the Irish Government do/did, that restricting mag limits makes a gun function differently or be "less dangerous" is stupid beyond belief. As for this:

ezra_ wrote: »

............ and if that is the cost of the anti terror legislation (as ineffective as it will be) so be it.

Please tell me you don't think this has anything to do with anti teror legislation. Once again its the same crap we have seen here year after year. Some tragedy occurs, the authorities are unable to address the cause of the act so target the one thing they can. Legally held firearms.

If they really want to address terrorist acts then target the terrorists. Target their finances, crack down on the flow of illegal firearms into and around the Schengen area.

In 2008 the tragic and senseless murder of Shane Geoghegan was the platform from which the then Minister Ahern launched the, for all intensive purposes, ban onf cenrtefire pistols. How effective was that in stopping gangland murders with illegal firearms?


My objection to the mag limits, and other such restrictions is the futility and pointlessness of it. It's trotted out as one thing, but in actuality is window dressing to cover up the impotence of the EU to effectively combat terrorism and protect it's citizens.

It's a disgrace.

Grizzly 45

VIA Firearms united .
Written in a European context



We have been asked why we don’t want a ban on high capicity magazines.

We summed up the opinions of two professors and of our own experts :

Ban could limit only a few of already very rare events
Ban is unjust and unenforceable
27 arguments by FIREARMS UNITED experts

We answered in March with the words of Prof. Dr. Gary Kleck:

Ban could limit only a few of already very rare events

“The only kind of shootings in which large numbers of rounds are commonly fired are mass shootings, incidents that involve many victims. Mass shootings fortunately are quite rare in absolute terms….

Even in the extremely rare mass shootings in which large numbers of victims were shot, the shooters virtually never needed “large capicity magazines” to injure or kill as many victims as they did, because they either

(a) possessed multiple guns,
(b) possessed multiple magazines, or
(c) had ample time and opportunity to reload, using smaller-capacity magazines.

Therefore, even the hypothetical potential for reducing harm or improving the public’s safety by limiting magazine capacity […] can be fairly described as being limited to no more than a very small subset of already very rare events.”

Supplemental declaration of Prof. Dr. Gary Kleck in support of motion for preliminary injunction – 2013
Ban is unjust and unenforceable

Even the slight benefit promised by a ban on large magazines — forcing mass shooters to delay momentarily — is outweighed by the unfortunate consequences of passing a law that normally law-abiding people won’t #obey.

If past experience is any guide, the magazine ban is just such a law. In 2013 Sunnyvale banned high-capacity magazines and, after a grace period for gun owners, police reported that not a single person had turned in a magazine. Los Angeles and San Francisco enacted similar laws and few, if any, gun owners have disposed of their magazines.

Legal theorists argue that people are more likely to comply with laws they view as morally or socially just. To a person whose gun came standard with one of these magazines and who has owned it for years without incident, the idea that these devices are inherently dangerous does not resonate.

In the absence of cooperation from gun owners, the large-magazine ban is unenforceable. It would be practically and politically impossible for the government to go door to door to find and collect the magazines. The ban will be enforced only when someone gets caught with one, say in a search related to an arrest.

Opinion by Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, at Los Angeles Times in 2016
FIREARMS UNITED expert’s opinion

Forcing people to become member of a club in order to obtain an exemption is against the ECHR (Ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court) and often against the constitution (Finland). This would in fact make it impossible to apply this exemption.
Making exemption dependent on the rules of certain sport shooting disciplines creates legal uncertainty because a private organisation can change the rules, suddenly making a group of weapons illegal, turning owners of these weapons into criminals without knowing it.
A differentiation in limitation between short guns and long guns creates mass confusion as there are many magazines that can be used in both types of weapon.
Magazines are not essential components so are not controlled by the directive, so how can you place them in cat A?
The situation of ‘magazine in weapon: cat A, magazine out of weapon: cat B’ does not make sense and is unenforceable
What has to be done with all those hicap magazines lying around? Estimated number is more than 20 million. In the beginning nobody will have 20rd mags so 30rd mags will be converted. How is that to be done? Will there be rules on how to convert? Does the conversion have to be permanent? The rules for conversion of magazines that are used in Italy are ineffective. Remember the story about the IPSC rifle shooter who carries a drill and a riveting device in his bag in order to conform to the different standards at home and abroad?
Magazines are not single objects but consist of three, four or even more parts. Which part decides whether the mag is cat A? Which parts will be illegal?
There is no definition of the term ‘loading device’.
Talk is of loading devices. Belts? Hoppers? If a person has 21 links for machinegun belts, will his license be taken away?
Will his license be taken away if he possesses a 30 round magazine that does not fit in any of the guns on his license?
If a person has an exempted Cat A carbine with which he shoots IPSC competition, how is he going to take it to a match in another country? It is not possible to put a cat A firearm on an European Firearms Pass, exemption or not. If the EFP is expanded to cat A this totally defeats the purpose of that category as apparently the idea that civilians should not have any cat A weapons, let alone travel with them, is defeated.
How are loading devices going to be registered if they are not marked? How is the firearms’ register going to deal with transfer of exempted loading devices between sport shooters, dealers and collectors? How does such a transfer (under exemption status) have to take place legally? What documents will be required?How will a dealer assure that the exemption applies to the shooter he sells the magazine to?
There will be an exemption for sport shooters who are member of a club. What about dealers that are not member of a club but sell to sport shooters? Will they need an authorization under article 6.1? How about collectors of magazines or of firearms?
Cat A is reserved for weapons that should absolutely not be in the hands of civilians. Issuing cat A authorisations to sport shooters totally defeats that purpose and opens up the discussion about possession of forbidden weapons. It nullifies the principles behind cat A.
Collectors of semiautomatic pistols will have a problem because early semiautomatic pistols were sometimes issued with hi –capacity magazines (eg the Luger with the 30rd ‘snail drum magazine’). Collectors of these cat B weapons will now have to request a cat A authorization, for which the security measures are out of proportion to the threat these magazines pose.
In MS where collectors are not granted cat A authorisations the collectors will have to block these magazines (value up to 1000 Euro per piece) at 20 rounds, using welding or a rivet. That destroys their value so an exemption for collectors will be needed.
If grandfather guns are exempted, sport shooting guns are exempted, collectors’ guns are exempted and .22 rimfire guns are exempted, what exactly are we banning? 5% of the total? This makes the ban nothing more than a symbolic gesture, and a small one at that. Is that worth the effort? It will cost a lot of law enforcement resources that might be spent more effectively.
The wording (as written by the EU council) is so unclear that it could be (and will be) read as a total ban on semiautomatics with detachable magazines.
Magazines can easily be modified or produced (even on 3D printers)
What would be the status of expandable magazines like the ones from Thermold? Normally they hold 20 but they can be expanded to hold 30.
What would be the status of coupled magazines (several 20rd magazines clipped or taped together, side by side or bottom to bottom)?
All firearms concerned are already on license in all Member States. They are therefore fully controlled. The failure to enforce any rules should not be blamed on the object.
Production of magazines has tolerances. What happens if a magazine designed to hold 20 rounds deforms a bit under pressure or is worn and then, with some effort, can hold 21 rounds?
There are many millions large capacity magazines out there. The owners of these will have to be compensated. None of those magazines have been registered (not being essential components) so how much manpower will be needed to find, destroy and prosecute?
What is to be gained from this measure when it has been established that the difference in time needed for shooting 30 times with a 30 rd magazine or with 3 10 round magazines is not more than 2 seconds?
The Netherlands and Norway decided not to put such a measure in place after the shootings in their countries. What has changed so that such a measure is now planned on European level?
No magazine capacity ban anywhere in the world has shown any statistically proven positive effect. Most have been quietly repealed.

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

Please tell me you don't think this has anything to do with anti teror legislation. Once again its the same crap we have seen here year after year. Some tragedy occurs, the authorities are unable to address the cause of the act so target the one thing they can. Legally held firearms.

If they really want to address terrorist acts then target the terrorists. Target their finances, crack down on the flow of illegal firearms into and around the Schengen area.

In 2008 the tragic and senseless murder of Shane Geoghegan was the platform from which the then Minister Ahern launched the, for all intensive purposes, ban onf cenrtefire pistols. How effective was that in stopping gangland murders with illegal firearms?


My objection to the mag limits, and other such restrictions is the futility and pointlessness of it. It's trotted out as one thing, but in actuality is window dressing to cover up the impotence of the EU to effectively combat terrorism and protect it's citizens.

It's a disgrace.

I don't, but this is multinational politics.
They need to do something, they've done something and I think fair play to the English MEP for what seems like neutering a pretty strong attempt to further restrict gun ownership.

Gun owners are always going to get a kicking and be blamed for gun crimes, that won't change. But if the kicking can be softened to a ban on mags rather than a ban on guns while the status quo remains the same, then given current events, that isn't a bad outcome.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but we live both where and when we live...

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

My objection to the mag limits, and other such restrictions is the futility and pointlessness of it. It's trotted out as one thing, but in actuality is window dressing to cover up the impotence of the EU to effectively combat terrorism and protect it's citizens.

It's a disgrace.

Plus one Cass.This is exactly what is the entire nub of this whole arguement from the word go.Like the Irish situation in 2008 it is a gun ban movement brought out by Celia Malstrom,trying by crook,to get what she didnt get by hook in 2013, by coat hanging it cynically on the Charlie Hebdo and enforced by the Paris massacres.Which could have been prevented by the EU actually enacting legislation on deacts which had been on the books for EIGHT years.

Even that Aherne said it as did Malstrom,Neither of their proposed legislation would stop criminals or terrorism,they just wanted to ban firearms...END OF!

So I suppose the next thing to combat terrorism will be the proposed banning of rigid lorries and axes and knives in the EU going by the latest weapons of choice?:rolleyes:

Cass

EDIT - I was writing this as Grizz posted so excuse any cross over in points.

ezra_ wrote: »

Gun owners are always going to get a kicking and be blamed for gun crimes, that won't change. But if the kicking can be softened to a ban on mags rather than a ban on guns while the status quo remains the same, then given current events, that isn't a bad outcome.

And there is the problem. Same as the sports coalitions proposals. We'll take a rimming, as long as we don't get totally f***ed.

The attitude should be hell no, we won't take anything.

I'm all for gun control, and reasonable laws. Some people shouldn't have guns and i'm talking from a sporting point of view. However the legislation currently being discussed all spawned from the terrorist attacks in January last year. 10 months later we had the tragic Bataclan massacre. Only in the last week we have had the massacre in NIce, and in the last 24 hours the axe attack in Germany.

The EU need to wake up to the fact it's not the object used but the people using them. If it were the object then can we expect a ban on trucks, axes, etc.

I hate talking like this as it's seems cold hearted. It's not the case. If i was told that me loosing all my guns would 100%, without doubt, absolutely guaranteed eliminate terrorism i'd be on my way down to the local station right now to hand them in.

But it won't.

Any "give" on our part is seen as "well they took that well, next time we can push harder".

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

EDIT - I was writing this as Grizz posted so excuse any cross over in points.


And there is the problem. Same as the sports coalitions proposals. We'll take a rimming, as long as we don't get totally f***ed.

The attitude should be hell no, we won't take anything.

I'm all for gun control, and reasonable laws. Some people shouldn't have guns and i'm talking from a sporting point of view. However the legislation currently being discussed all spawned from the terrorist attacks in January last year. 10 months later we had the tragic Bataclan massacre. Only in the last week we have had the massacre in NIce, and in the last 24 hours the axe attack in Germany.

The EU need to wake up to the fact it's not the object used but the people using them. If it were the object then can we expect a ban on trucks, axes, etc.

I hate talking like this as it's seems cold hearted. It's not the case. If i was told that me loosing all my guns would 100%, without doubt, absolutely guaranteed eliminate terrorism i'd be on my way down to the local station right now to hand them in.

But it won't.

Any "give" on our part is seen as "well they took that well, next time we can push harder".

But thats a bit like 'I wish there was no global war and everyone just go along'.

THat isn't the ways things are, and you need a body that can make the compromises needed to keep firearms legal.

Grizzly 45

We in the western world have been "compromising" and "accepting reasonable gun laws" for the last 100 years.It seems the "reasonable gun laws" we "compromise on" all the time just end up with us losing more in the long run. The Uk being a perfect example of this reasonable gun laws taking them from one of the most liberal gun law countries in 1900 to the most totalitarian anti gun society by 2000.Then trying to export their poision with that mad bat Thersa May espousing the UK system that the EU should model itself on.

So when will the antis start compromising and maybe accepting our versions of "reasonable gun laws?"

Cass

ezra_ wrote: »

But thats a bit like 'I wish there was no global war and everyone just go along'.

No, it's nothing like that.

It's like saying i wish people would stop drink driving so we're (Government) going to ban cars.

THat isn't the ways things are, and you need a body that can make the compromises needed to keep firearms legal.

This is not about keeping firearms legal, this was started as a reaction to the terror attacks.

An over reactive, knee jerk response that is poorly thought out and implemented in an even worse manner. Read the article. Some MEPs admitted they did not know what they were voting on, more said they did not understand what they were voting on, and even more misunderstood it to the point they thought they were doing "X" when in fact they were doing "Y".

Also when you have a body that makes up stuff to suit their agenda what do you do?

Rimfire Shooter

Since pistols & fullbore s/a rifles were returned here following the court cases all gun owners have been under constant attack from DOJ.

I agree that the proposed legislation is crap & that some of the reasoning is unbelievable. BUT most legislation is the same. The limit on mag capacity is stupid BUT as has been said it's better than a ban. I agree compromising is a long slippery road. But when you've no right to a firearm having to compromise is better than the alternative. If government/EU decided to ban firearms in the morning do you think the majority will be bothered? I doubt it !

Why would/does a "hunter" needs a s/a fullbore rifle with a 30 round magazine? If you need that many in the mag should you be hunting?

Cass

You must keep in mind this is not only an Irish problem, but a European one.

Much like i said above about proposals targeting one group while trying to save their own, these proposals/legislation may have little impact on Irish firearm ownership, but that is not to say it won't in the rest of Europe.

The core point is not the actual mag limit, but what i represents. Further restrictive laws by people that don't understand what they are legislating for, to combat an imaginary threat from a sector of society that they would rather see gone. All in the name of supposed anti terror.

SVI40

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Why would/does a "hunter" needs a s/a fullbore rifle with a 30 round magazine? If you need that many in the mag should you be hunting?

Because not every shooter hunts. There are other reasons that full bore SA rifles would require a 30 round magazine, or higher capacity, such as IPSC.

Rimfire Shooter

SVI40 wrote: »

Because not every shooter hunts. There are other reasons that full bore SA rifles would require a 30 round magazine, or higher capacity, such as IPSC.

And they are being accommodated if they have a genuine need eg club membership for specific disciplines.

Cass I don't disagree with you on any of your points. My point is as long as these "dangerous" guns are out there the DOJ will want to ban 'em here, in Europe & even in USA. At the moment the "dangerous" guns are s/a fullbores with high capacity mags. then it'll be whatever is next in line and sooner or later they'll get to single barrel shotguns.

Same way they're chipping away at hunting. Derogation's etc being tightened up a little every year until there is nothing left to tighten up ! Soon we'll not be allowed to shoot a grey crow or a fox Ranges are being regulated. Soon the reason for us to own firearms will be gone & then we'll have no "good reason" and so no firearms...........................

Cass

Exactly my point.

It won't be some big sweeping singular change, just small little "it won't effect me" ones that in 10, 15 or 20 years time when you're sitting looking at the empty gun safe will make you say, "What the feck happened".

Grizzly 45

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Si

Why would/does a "hunter" needs a s/a fullbore rifle with a 30 round magazine? If you need that many in the mag should you be hunting?

Multiple of reasons.
On the Continent wild boar are now reaching epidemic porportions.German hunters are buying semi autos in droves because of this and if bespoke gun companies like Merkel,Mauser,Browning and Benelli are making them in a more traditional look[Not all MSR are evil nblack pistol gripped thingies].They must have a reason and a market.The German hunter is a betimes more hidebound traditionalist than his knicker bocker tweed and tie English colleuge.So if those kind of lads see a need for a MSR[with multiple 3 shot mags] There must be somthing to it.And on a driven boar shoot, you are going to be hopelessly slow with a bolt action.Its either double rifles ,drillings or semi autos.
Even in Ireland I personally have a good reason for one,as I have to keep a feral goat pouplation on my let under control.A very quick follow up shot is vital when you are on top of a herd of goats in a spruce plantation or bushwacking thru furze patches.However I will say this humping a 20 round mag full of .308 is adding extra weight to an already 9lb rifle isnt a great idea for stalking up hill and down dale. a few 10 rounders would be better,but then all you are doing is carry multiples of what one mag carries.Not to mind ,its an expensive proposition loading 30 rounders.Its not like you are getting the stuff for free in the army or the like.So you are going to be as conservative with it as a BA man
[You just dont have all this fumbling about for a bolt after every shot which is kinda helpful if you are a left handed shooter]
Aussie,Texas and NZ with their feral hogs ,kangaroos and goats are all SA 20 plus round shooters.
In short it has uses for hunting as well,and it depends on the person using it why and for what intent.

Grizzly 45

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

And they are being accommodated if they have a genuine need eg club membership for specific disciplines.

Cass I don't disagree with you on any of your points. My point is as long as these "dangerous" guns are out there the DOJ will want to ban 'em here, in Europe & even in USA. At the moment the "dangerous" guns are s/a fullbores with high capacity mags. then it'll be whatever is next in line and sooner or later they'll get to single barrel shotguns.

Same way they're chipping away at hunting. Derogation's etc being tightened up a little every year until there is nothing left to tighten up ! Soon we'll not be allowed to shoot a grey crow or a fox Ranges are being regulated. Soon the reason for us to own firearms will be gone & then we'll have no "good reason" and so no firearms...........................

We are killing sport shooting. But we do not think it needs to be done tomorrow. They have licenses for five years now. And we think that we let them a little longer transitional period, perhaps five-year transition period for changing interest, to find a new sport. But we are killing the sport, she says.

Doris Högne Rydheim in an interview with Sverige Radio in 2013

Couldnt ask for a more clearer statement from a politican on intent than that kind of statement.

SVI40

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

And they are being accommodated if they have a genuine need eg club membership for specific disciplines.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this. How are we being accommodated, by having what is currently a perfectly legal magazine, being made illegal, unless you are in a club, and compete (this is part of the proposed requirement). How many competitions do you need to compete in, at what level?

Unfortunately, we are the ones who make all the compromises, for zero benefit, except the threat of our sport being banned fully, if we don't agree. The worst thing about the whole mess, is that it will not make one iota of a difference to the illegal arms trade, or those who want to cause harm to others.

It is a slow chipping away of our sport, until eventually, there will be nothing left, bar a single barrel shotgun.

Rimfire Shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Multiple of reasons.
On the Continent wild boar are now reaching epidemic porportions.German hunters are buying semi autos in droves because of this and if bespoke gun companies like Merkel,Mauser,Browning and Benelli are making them in a more traditional look[Not all MSR are evil nblack pistol gripped thingies].They must have a reason and a market.The German hunter is a betimes more hidebound traditionalist than his knicker bocker tweed and tie English colleuge.So if those kind of lads see a need for a MSR[with multiple 3 shot mags] There must be somthing to it.And on a driven boar shoot, you are going to be hopelessly slow with a bolt action.Its either double rifles ,drillings or semi autos.
Even in Ireland I personally have a good reason for one,as I have to keep a feral goat pouplation on my let under control.A very quick follow up shot is vital when you are on top of a herd of goats in a spruce plantation or bushwacking thru furze patches.However I will say this humping a 20 round mag full of .308 is adding extra weight to an already 9lb rifle isnt a great idea for stalking up hill and down dale. a few 10 rounders would be better,but then all you are doing is carry multiples of what one mag carries.Not to mind ,its an expensive proposition loading 30 rounders.Its not like you are getting the stuff for free in the army or the like.So you are going to be as conservative with it as a BA man
[You just dont have all this fumbling about for a bolt after every shot which is kinda helpful if you are a left handed shooter]
Aussie,Texas and NZ with their feral hogs ,kangaroos and goats are all SA 20 plus round shooters.
In short it has uses for hunting as well,and it depends on the person using it why and for what intent.

This post has just convinced me that we do need to restrict access to fullbore s/a rifles for hunting.

Rimfire Shooter

SVI40 wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this. How are we being accommodated, by having what is currently a perfectly legal magazine, being made illegal, unless you are in a club, and compete (this is part of the proposed requirement). How many competitions do you need to compete in, at what level?

Unfortunately, we are the ones who make all the compromises, for zero benefit, except the threat of our sport being banned fully, if we don't agree. The worst thing about the whole mess, is that it will not make one iota of a difference to the illegal arms trade, or those who want to cause harm to others.

It is a slow chipping away of our sport, until eventually, there will be nothing left, bar a single barrel shotgun.

A rimfire shooter can only have a 10 round mag unless they have a restricted licence. Currently, fullbore has no limit. Rimfire users seem to cope quite well.

As I said already I agree on the chipping away of our stuff but unless we gey a right to have guns get used to it.

SVI40

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

A rimfire shooter can only have a 10 round mag unless they have a restricted licence. Currently, fullbore has no limit. Rimfire users seem to cope quite well.

As I said already I agree on the chipping away of our stuff but unless we gey a right to have guns get used to it.

Only in this jurisdiction, unless you go for restricted. I know RF shooters cope well here, but competitions have had to be changed, or invented to take into account the 10 round limit. But these changes affect all of the EU, not just us.

What I'm trying to get across, is that we do ALL the compromising. What have we gained in return? Compromise works both ways, not just one way. I tired of having to prove our sports every time someone in power comes up with a new way to attack what we do. For no other reason than they just don't like guns.

Rimfire Shooter

If I could do half what shooters in other EU countries could do i'd be a happy man. eg reload just for a start!

As for rest of your posts I agree with you and as you've said those in power decide what they want and they are unaccountable to anyone!

Majority of people know nothing of firearms not do they care apart from the biased media coverage they see on TV & the internet.

When I was young I could walk down the roads with my dog & shotgun on my way to my shooting permissions & nobody would bat an eyelid. Now I'd not get 50 yards before the Gardai & probably the armed response unit would be questioning me.

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

A rimfire shooter can only have a 10 round mag unless they have a restricted licence. Currently, fullbore has no limit. Rimfire users seem to cope quite well.

Chalk and cheese.

If a rimfire shooter wants a restricted license, as i have to have for my rifle, then they too can have 15, 20, 25, 30 round mags. IOW if you're going to compare things make sure they're the same.

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

If I could do half what shooters in other EU countries could do i'd be a happy man. eg reload just for a start!

In the UK you can have an air rifle without a license up to 12 ft/lb, one license for multiple firearms, reload, etc. Here you cannot. However here you can have a pistol, no need for land checks for suitability on calibers, any caliber semi auto rifle, 3 shot unrestricted semi auto shotguns, free substitutions, etc.

That is just one comparison. The grass is not always greener.

As for rest of your posts I agree with you and as you've said those in power decide what they want and they are unaccountable to anyone!

Whatever about our own Government these are not elected by us.

Majority of people know nothing of firearms not do they care apart from the biased media coverage they see on TV & the internet.

And so our own crowd throwing others under the bus doesn't help. It's why i say you should support other sports whether you partake or not.

Who knows, the day may come when you want to try it, and find you can't.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

Chalk and cheese.

If a rimfire shooter wants a restricted license, as i have to have for my rifle, then they too can have 15, 20, 25, 30 round mags. IOW if you're going to compare things make sure they're the same.

Interesting statement considering how much time we shooter spend saying & trying to convince non shooters that one firearm is no more dangerous than any other.

Cass wrote: »

The grass is not always greener.

It is depending on what ya want.

Cass wrote: »

And so our own crowd throwing others under the bus doesn't help. It's why i say you should support other sports whether you partake or not.

Been a lot of chucking under da bus alright! Still going on too!

Cass wrote: »

Who knows, the day may come when you want to try it, and find you can't.

Ticked a lot of boxes so far. few to check off alright but sure if they're not done it won't be the end of the world...............well hopefully not anyway.

At the end of the day there's always golf can't see that ever being banned

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Interesting statement considering how much time we shooter spend saying & trying to convince non shooters that one firearm is no more dangerous than any other.

Who said anything about danger level?

You said rimfire shooters get on fine with the limit of 10. That is on an unrestricted license. If they get a restricted license there is no limit. Same as my restricted license.

It is depending on what ya want.

If you're willing to sacrifice anything/everything for one item then i'm at a loss.

Been a lot of chucking under da bus alright! Still going on too!

I know.

Ticked a lot of boxes so far. few to check off alright but sure if they're not done it won't be the end of the world...............well hopefully not anyway.

That is great for you, but what about the next generation. My young may never get to shoot my pistol (C/F), could and may still never get to shoot my semi auto, may never reload, may never have a shotgun with more than 3 rounds, a rifle over a certain caliber that i've shot for years, etc.

The list is getting smaller each time and all under the pretense of combating terrorism.

At the end of the day there's always golf can't see that ever being banned

From your lips to God's ears.

Grizzly 45

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

This post has just convinced me that we do need to restrict access to fullbore s/a rifles for hunting.

Well WHY do you need a 30 round mag or or more semi auto .22 to hunt rabbits?? Try the shoe on the other foot. Also could you elaborate as to wHY you would consider this good reasons to restrict anything of the above?

Golf..No thanks ...Fierce dangerous and violent sport. More people die playing golf than have been killed on a shooting range.

Grizzly 45

AAAndddd.Just to show that Rimfire high cap mags arent safe anywhere either [Places like California have already banned them].Canada gets on the bandwagon too
http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-declares-10-round-1022-magazines-prohibited-devices/

Cass

I think its best if we not focus too much on the mag limit, in any caliber/format. It's a small part of a much larger set of rules. Plus we wander into topics that are prohibited on the forum.

The key point so far is that semi autos are not banned. That puts the onus on the Irish Government to make any changes off their own bat. SO now we need to monitor what may come from that.

Plus it might make people more relaxed about the thoughts of buying such a firearm. Not saying we're out of the woods yet, but it's a step.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

I think its best if we not focus too much on the mag limit, in any caliber/format. It's a small part of a much larger set of rules. Plus we wander into topics that are prohibited on the forum.

The key point so far is that semi autos are not banned. That puts the onus on the Irish Government to make any changes off their own bat. SO now we need to monitor what may come from that.

Plus it might make people more relaxed about the thoughts of buying such a firearm. Not saying we're out of the woods yet, but it's a step.

I'm considering getting an M1 carbine. It's the Minister's statement re the revokation of semi auto centrefire licences that is holding me back.

SVI40

An interesting interview with Vicky Forde on the recent firearms directives from the EU.

http://www.europarltv.europa.eu/en/player.aspx?pid=2a1329cc-9aaf-45bd-acb8-a63f0152d656

Leup0ld

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

At the end of the day there's always golf can't see that ever being banned

What an awful statement! Golf is the most destructive sport that exists. Look at it's effects:
1. It destroys any dress sense that a person may have had before they took up the sport. Men, in particular, start wearing pastel colours and Argyle checks.
2. It destroys any previous sense of humour. Golf jokes are proof of this.
3. It disrupts previous social cohesion. Golf is not a game, it is a life style. It takes over and destroys previous relationships.