The Enemy Within.

civdef

Shooters are generally among the most law abiding of people, by virtue of the fact it's nearly impossible to get a licence with a criminal record.

At the same time, it can't be ignored that the shooting community also includes a few gobsites who seem to be doing their best to get the whole lot banned. I'm thinking of that particular species of shooter who goes around lamping recklessly, or the dirty feckers who use signposts as targets.

Is the shooting community as a whole doing enough to put paid to these activities, or do we need to do more?

Looper1

I would have thought that proper instruction and education would have been instilled at an early age but mandatory training in the use of guns have not made it onto the statue books yet although I suspect that this will change.

As law-abiding gun owners we carry a heavier burden than most especially at a time when our sport is under legislative threat. Now is a time when we should be showing our strength of character, maturity and the levels of responsibility that would encourage the legislative branch of government to treat gun owners amongst the sporting community as allies rather than potential future threats.

Action needs to be taken at the highest and lowest levels of address these issues, when in the company of such an individual we must report and deal harshly with them, so too associations who turn a blind eye to such matters that will ultimately undo the fabric of our sport and leave us marginalised.

Sparks

Yes, it is a serious problem. We all saw the incident in Boyle in April - things like that will get us closed down remarkably rapidly. Safety and responsible shooting must always be our top priority in this sport - because if we don't make it ours, others will, by closing down the sport.

The resistance to enforcing discipline in this regard (and I suspect we may see this expressed in this thread at some point) is that it appears to run counter to the "we are all shooters, we should all stick together" philosophy. In fact, however, it does not - there is certainly common ground between different sporting disciplines, but the philosophy does not extend to granting solidarity to unresponsible shooters who endanger others with their actions.

However, I suspect there is little the shooting associations can do. Even the NARGC has only about 25,000 members according to the last figures I saw quoted (in a Dail debate on the matter, where this exact point was made - so this isn't dirty laundry we should keep to ourselves, it's been discussed seriously at the highest level outside the sport), whereas there are ~230,000 registered firearms in the state at the moment. Even if everyone had four rifles (twice what I own), that would mean that only slightly over one in five of shooters would be in the NARGC - and I think that combining all the other shooting associations and clubs together might (if we're very liberal with figures) bring that up to one in two. And frankly, I think that estimate is way off. So you're left with individuals who belong to no association owning half the firearms in the country - mostly farmers who hunt vermin using shotguns and .22 rifles, I would suspect, though I haven't the figures to back that up and so don't want to put it forward as a fact.

The question of what to do to ensure safe shooting discipline is maintained, therefore, becomes far more messy than you would think.

civdef

From my own experience, most of the shooters in no organisation are farmers with shotguns. Incidentally, the state of many of these guns has to be seen to be believed. I have seen guns literally held together with sticky-tape and rust!

Rifles are a lot less common on the ground, and by and large, owned by people who have one or more shotguns as well - though this has changed a bit in the last few years - with more first time rifle buyers.

That said, most of the signposts seem to be perforated by rifle bullets.

Irishglockfan

Indeed a major problem in anything .How to sort out the bad apples,before they ruin the crop.Even testing people will have little or no significance.Anyone can sit the saftey test and and do everything correctly,and then go uot and act the maggot again.[one just has to look at our appaling traffic accident records]We also have the problem of being considerd " a snitch" if it is reported to the gun club or police.
Talking to the culprits usually gets a "ill do as i like,what ya goin to do about it?" response.
tough one.

shinobi

Although it is a minority group that bring the name down, I believe that there should be some sort of formal training or introduction to firearms and a licence should be granted if the person passes & is found to be mature or responsible enough to hold a licence. For example a 17 yr old isn't automatically given a driving license once they turn age and have a clean criminal record.

Sparks

Who should administer the training though shinobi, and who sets the cirriculum and sets and scores the tests? I know that for driving and radio and flying licences, it's the relevant government department, and that'd be about the most acceptable situation to the various associations, I'd imagine (compared to, say, the NTSA running the tests for everyone including the NSAI, NARGC, NASRC, ICPSA and so on ). But the road you're going down there (while I personally feel it's the right one), needs to see a lot of work done by government and a total change in the licencing structure from our current "one gun per licence and it's all down to the super's decision" situation; to one where you have an FAC-like licence with specific ratings for different classes of firearm - after all, why would a shotgun shooter be expected to know how to safely handle a pistol?

That's a lot of work. Plus, you have to get all the current shooters to get their licences. And if you just grandfather it, the system's useless, because you'll have 200,000 people out there with licences they didn't pass any safety test to get!

shinobi

The gun club to which I am a member is associated with the KRGWC, (Sub division of NARGC). As part of our club rules each new member must participate in the NARGC run proficiency course. It out lines a lot safety guidelines, & shooting habits the shooter should follow. It doesn't matter if it's a rifle or a shot gun, a lot of it is generic. This, in my opinion, is very well rolled out and takes about 5/6 hrs. I think it's a shame that the government, don't run this sort of Scheme as part of their Firearm licensing.

Sparks

NARGC run proficiency course

Never heard of it - what does it cover?

Pull!theother1

Sparks wrote:

Never heard of it - what does it cover?

They cover safe firearms use, shooting in theory and practice (clays) and I think quarry identification etc. Never on one but saw the practical shooting aspect going on.

The NARGC also I believe run introduction courses for primary school teachers to counteract "spin" , or at least they did.

Sparks

It sounds a bit hunter-oriented Pull. Which is a good thing for hunters, but I'm not sure it's really needed for target shooters...

Irishglockfan

Or you could do a "basic" NRA style firearms saftey course for,shotgun ,rifle ,handgun.This gets you all the saftey features of the three types of gun,loading,unloading,safe carrying and usage,firing,etc.Run by local clubs or ranges.it is desinged for "newbies" to firearms,and has got alot of people into shooting in the USA.About a day if you include the hunter saftey course as well.If you have then all three you would be INMO entitled to own any three types of firearms over here. Cost in the USA about $50 when I did it.no hassle then branching out into whatever disipline you would fancy,you are safe to handle any type of firearm you might encounter.

Sparks

The problem that springs to mind is college students. We get between six and eight hundred per year between the two college rifle clubs. Now at most we get one to two hundred who actively shoot the whole year, and far less who compete, but they're there: and they're a great source of new people for the sport. But they need to be able to get into the sport easily after graduation and right now that's not possible. If you were to tell them that after four years of shooting in DURC or UCDRC that they had to go pay €50 for a course run by someone they've never heard of so that they can shoot safely and get their own firearm, they might just tell you to sod off...

Also, the idea of someone taking a course that covers shotguns for a half-hour and then being still listed as safe with shotguns twenty years later doesn't strike me as anything but a paper exercise.

civdef

Students should not be allowed next, nigh nor near firearms anyway, degenerate menaces the lot of em.

- A reformed student .

Sparks

Oi you. 'nuff of that

oldzed

As an NRA trained instructor I would like to add that the Nra introduction courses take between 6 and 8 eight hours per firearm and are a good overview , The Nra first steps program takes between 2-3 days per firearm and goes into much more depth and is a very comprehensive basic system. again these courses are only the beginning but are as comprehensive as I have come across.

Sparks

Er oldzed - don't you mean 2-3 hours per firearm?

Irishglockfan

That works out at 12.50 Euros per year over a four year college life.Whats that these days??A three round of drinks in the Malcom X memorial[or whoever is currently in fashion] students bar??

Why should somone who hasnt handled a paticular type of gun for a certain period of time be suddenly untrustworthy with it??? I havent ridden a motor bike in 20 years,but I still know how.Ok i'd be wobbly for the first three mins or so,but I would take just as long to check out an unfammilar firearm type.Saftey with firearms stays the same regardless of wether it is a air pistol or a 50cal target rifle

Sparks

Easy enough to say when you have the cash Glock But when you've just graduated, have student loans to repay, a job to get, you're looking at a host of new expenses that previously the parents took care of, you have to find accomodation and often a car and a dozen other things that accompany the transition to the "real world", all in the space of a very short time - well, to say "erra sure, it's only a small thing" isn't really valid, because it's a small thing that is very far down the priority list behind things like earning enough money to have food on the table and a roof over your head. And by the time all that's sorted out, there's little free time for these kids.

Basicly, you need to make it easier to stay in or return to the sport, not harder.

Why should somone who hasnt handled a paticular type of gun for a certain period of time be suddenly untrustworthy with it??? I havent ridden a motor bike in 20 years,but I still know how.Ok i'd be wobbly for the first three mins or so,but I would take just as long to check out an unfammilar firearm type.

It's that first three minutes that's the doozey though

shinobi

Sparks wrote:

Basicly, you need to make it easier to stay in or return to the sport, not harder.

Still, Safety should be first priority not "give them a break they've little money" attitude. If they are passionate enough about the sport they'll stick with it & it's a VERY small price to pay. In general it will make getting a License a lot simpler across the board. As it stands any Joe soap can walk in off the street & apply for a license without much effort or knowledge of firearms.