Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 23, line 50, after "shooting" to insert the following:

"save and except any firearm used for legitimate and controlled sporting purposes as may be specified in Regulations".

Members will recall our debate on Committee Stage regarding the Minister's intention to ban handguns. Amendment No. 11 would preserve the ability to hold a handgun or other firearm used for legitimate and controlled sporting purposes. Since our Committee Stage deliberations, I received correspondence from the president of the world governing body of IPSC which arises specifically out of comments made by the Minister. The president states:

I have been following the emergence of efforts to ban the ownership and use of firearms in Ireland with the exception of those used to compete in the Olympic shooting sports. The proposal is using the sport of IPSC shooting, which is not an Olympic sport, to draw a line between those shooting sports that are acceptable and those that are not.

Based on what I have read in the newspapers and followed in debate during a meeting of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights on June 18th, it is necessary and critical that facts about IPSC shooting be known.

By way of background, the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) was founded as a shooting sport in 1976 and recognized as a sport in over 80 countries...IPSC is an international sport, emphasizing safety and safe gun handling, accuracy, power, and speed, in high-level competitions around the world.

Although the early beginnings of IPSC were martial in origin, the sport developed just as karate, fencing, and archery had developed from their martial origins into well known, internationally recognized sports. As a point of fact, many Olympic sports today have their origins in military training exercises including the Olympic equestrian sports of dressage and eventing, and the Olympic Biathlon of skiing and target shooting, and like these sports IPSC is a civilian target shooting sport.

I noticed with interest that the term "extreme sport" was used many times to describe IPSC shooting. I believe it would have been invaluable to the discussion to have a firm understanding of the term "extreme sport" and what kinds of sport define the term.

Generally speaking, "extreme sports" is a media term for certain activities perceived as having a high level of inherent risk and danger. IPSC as the internationally governing body does not allow or condone the promotion of IPSC as "extreme sport" because IPSC does not fall within the definition of that term, nor does it in the minds of promoters and marketers of extreme sports.

IPSC has an exemplary safety record and incidents of injuries are so rare as to be less than what is recorded for any Olympic sport let alone any non Olympic sport...Arguments for banning non-Olympic firearms make a sharp distinction between stationary targets and moving targets harkening to Olympic level shooting of stationary targets as the only acceptable shooting that should be allowed. I draw attention to the sports of skeet, trap, and sporting clay shooting wherein the targets indeed move. IPSC competitors do have some moving targets, but they are designed to ensure a 0% margin of error in safety and the vast majority of targets are in fact stationary.

I would also like to set the record straight about remarks that IPSC creates settings that are combat based such as home invasions or hostage scenarios. These are simply and boldly a misstatement of the facts. The IPSC does not allow any element of a competition to create such scenarios. Further, the use of humanoid targets is banned.

The suggestion that air pistols and paintball guns should be substituted for the firearms appears to contradict other statements that IPSC shooting itself trains combatants. It defies logic that air pistols and paintball guns are acceptable even though they could just as effectively serve as criminal training tools. This statement is made only to illustrate that it has no relevance because IPSC is a recognized lawful, civilian sport recognized as such around the world.

I wanted read that letter in the context of the debate. Having regard to the fact that our debating time is unduly restricted, we may not have the opportunity to engage in the type of detail that is necessary in dealing with this issue. I say that as someone who does not have any experience in this area of sporting pursuit. I do not believe there is any large gulf between what the Minister is trying to do and what Members would wish him to do in this respect. I plead with him, however, not to be so restrictive in his regulations as to ban sporting pursuits that have not only been pursued here but are internationally accepted as sports and involve international competitions of some repute. I am anxious to promote the amendment and trust that whatever regulations the Minister intends to introduce, as he has indicated he will, there will be an exemption or exception in respect of legitimate sporting pursuits of a controlled nature.

See this speech in context