Practical Pistol ! Has it a future in Ireland?

les45

Having read a number of recent Posts, there seems to be mixed feelings to the establishment of IPSC ,IDPA clubs in Southern Ireland, so what do you think Guys and Girls!!

Sparks

Well, I've said it before, but I may as well restate it.

One IPSC/IDPA match covered by the media and we'd be crucified. There's a line you cross when you move from shooting at targets to shooting at human-shaped targets. Oddly, hunting doesn't cross this line for most (yes, there are a minority opposed to it but the majority aren't opposed to either game shooting or pest control so long as it's done safely), but shoot at anything that looks like a human (even in the abstract way that 1500/PPC/IPSC targets do) and you make a lot of people nervous, for good reason.

We've already covered elsewhere the problems with the NRPAI managing IPSC matches from the point of view of the constituent bodies - it would be, in effect, the NRPAI acting against the best interests of the NTSA in a very serious way.

What I don't understand is why IPSC would be considered here before bullseye shooting, which is much larger. I mean, I can understand why ISSF wouldn't be the biggest, it rarely is, but bullseye is absolutely enormous, far outstripping IPSC and PPC/1500 and IDPA and all the other similar groups.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

Well, I've said it before, but I may as well restate it.

One IPSC/IDPA match covered by the media and we'd be crucified. There's a line you cross when you move from shooting at targets to shooting at human-shaped targets. Oddly, hunting doesn't cross this line for most (yes, there are a minority opposed to it but the majority aren't opposed to either game shooting or pest control so long as it's done safely), but shoot at anything that looks like a human (even in the abstract way that 1500/PPC/IPSC targets do) and you make a lot of people nervous, for good reason.

We've already covered elsewhere the problems with the NRPAI managing IPSC matches from the point of view of the constituent bodies - it would be, in effect, the NRPAI acting against the best interests of the NTSA in a very serious way.

What I don't understand is why IPSC would be considered here before bullseye shooting, which is much larger. I mean, I can understand why ISSF wouldn't be the biggest, it rarely is, but bullseye is absolutely enormous, far outstripping IPSC and PPC/1500 and IDPA and all the other similar groups.

Wonder where that leaves the UK,they have airsoft battles and lots of paintball where they DO actually shoot at humans. It hasn't affected their other Olympic or ISSF shooters or organisations to the best of my knowledge. A lot of these practical competitions use reactive targets which seems to be much more satisfying to a lot of participants than seeing a hole appear in a piece of paper. Perhaps that is why Silhouette shooting seems to be gaining popularity here, people can see the immediate effect of making a hit and don't have to use a spotting scope to see the results. Have you stats on the number of active ISSF smallbore competitors who would regularly take part in competition ,either at club or International level? It would also be great if you could publish the actual number increase/decrease in ISSF smallbore shooting rather than percentages.(Gives a more accurate picture of actual numbers involved).

Sparks

gouda wrote:

Wonder where that leaves the UK,they have airsoft battles and lots of paintball where they DO actually shoot at humans.

As we have paintball here. Thing is, paintball's not shot using .45 calibre pistols. People tend to look at it differently as a result.

It hasn't affected their other Olympic or ISSF shooters or organisations to the best of my knowledge.

Nope, hasn't affected them at all. Because their ISSF organisations are seperate. The NSRA handles ISSF shooting in the UK; practical (and face it, that name's going to be dropped for the original name in a heartbeat by the media) shooting is covered by the UKPSA, which isn't a part of the NSRA in any way, shape or form. But in Ireland, we're organised differently.

A lot of these practical competitions use reactive targets which seems to be much more satisfying to a lot of participants than seeing a hole appear in a piece of paper.

IPSC uses poppers along with normal targets, they don't generally use only poppers.

Perhaps that is why Silhouette shooting seems to be gaining popularity here, people can see the immediate effect of making a hit and don't have to use a spotting scope to see the results.

Indeed. And ISSF shooting uses reactive targets as well, as do other disciplines like biathlon. The college clubs and WTSC are using these this year for the recreational shooters, for example;




Thing is, they're (as you can see) superficially the same as the paper ISSF targets - shoot on these and it's valid training for "real" ISSF matches (so to speak) - and there's a new 5-shot air pistol event ISSF are introducing right now that uses similar targets.

And then there's Suis Ascor targets, which combine the best of both worlds with electronic (and instantaneous) scoring of the target:

Have you stats on the number of active ISSF smallbore competitors who would regularly take part in competition ,either at club or International level? It would also be great if you could publish the actual number increase/decrease in ISSF smallbore shooting rather than percentages.(Gives a more accurate picture of actual numbers involved).

In Ireland? Europe? Worldwide? And over how long a period of time?

gouda

In Ireland? Europe? Worldwide? And over how long a period of time?[/QUOTE]
In Ireland, say over a 5/10 year period.

civdef

Sparks wrote:

but shoot at anything that looks like a human (even in the abstract way that 1500/PPC/IPSC targets do) and you make a lot of people nervous, for good reason.

Oh come on, everyone knows ISSF targets are actually representations of the human eye/head for practicing head shot sniping!

Seriously though, it's all about spin, does 25m rapid fire pistol look any less threatening to an outsider?

Our job as shooters is to educate the public, not give way to perceived ignorant prejudices without even trying to convince people otherwise.

Hagar

What exactly is practical pistol?
Is it moving about in a military fashion attempting to "kill enemy targets"?
If it is, it should be left to the military.
This is not the US where every nut with the price of a handgun thinks he is Bruce Willis.

I don't want to píss on anyone's parade but isn't this the type of thing that is hurting the concept of gun ownership by individuals?

Don't get me wrong, I'd sell the wife for a Glock 9mm but practical pistol will turn out to be a shíte magnet.

civdef

If it's able to survive in Northern Ireland and across Europe, any reason it couldn't here?

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Oh come on, everyone knows ISSF targets are actually representations of the human eye/head for practicing head shot sniping!

*chokes on his sandwich*
Very funny civ

Seriously though, it's all about spin, does 25m rapid fire pistol look any less threatening to an outsider?

Never been able to show it to an outsider, but I've seen it shot (by Schumann, no less) at a World Cup and with the equipment they use, I don't think that the first word in people's minds is "dangerous", because they're too interested in the scores (that's the advantage of suis ascor-type systems). Plus, even though the timing on the course of fire is fast (4 seconds for five shots), it doesn't look franticly hurried - it's all very measured. Up, pop-pop-pop-pop-pop, down. Doesn't look rushed, just practised. And the fact that it's "pop-pop-pop" helps - doing that with a 9mm pistol would be much louder and scarier to the unfamiliar. (Hell, I've shot pistol before and I still find the fullbore stuff a tad on the "loud and scary" side of things - what hope is there for a total newbie?)

Our job as shooters is to educate the public, not give way to perceived ignorant prejudices without even trying to convince people otherwise.

Indeed. But, to use a very eighties term, it's like eating an elephant. Try to do it all in one go and it just won't work. You have to take it one small bite at a time. Start with the most innocous form of shooting and get people used to that. Then go on to something a bit louder. Then try something else. And so on. If you try to start by convincing the public that an IPSC match shot with fullbore sidearms is perfectly safe and fine, they just won't believe you. Hell, I would have trouble believing you (a carryover from the "don't run with scissors" lectures from my mother as a child, no doubt). So instead you box clever. Start by showing off air rifle sports (we've been doing that). Then move on to ISSF .22 shooting (again, we've been doing that). Both of these are pleasant, look very safe and harmless, and use firearms that don't look like what the public expects a "gun" to look like. Plus, you've the whole Olympic view there as well. Next, show off ISSF air pistols. Again, same arguments apply there. Move from there to ISSF smallbore pistols. And thence to ISSF fullbore rifles and pistols.

(Note that by this time, lots of people here are thinking "why ISSF?" but don't seem to see that there's little if any legal difference between an ISSF pistol and a IMSSU pistol or a plinking pistol. So if ISSF's easier to sell, and it gets you what you want, why fight it?)

Once you have these established, you can go on to other disciplines that are harder to sell. Start with bullseye pistol - that brings in more fullbore pistols - or with service rifles.

But if the first thing you ask for is to go shoot at human silhouettes with fullbore sidearms, you'll just get a fast lesson in what actual legal rights you have regarding the ownership of firearms in this country.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

If it's able to survive in Northern Ireland and across Europe, any reason it couldn't here?

Er, Civ, IPSC/IDPA aren't in Northern Ireland, according to the UKPSA. NITSA do shoot at "practical targets", but it's not the same thing, and even they appear to be quite small, in that they're just one club. Somehow, no matter how fast an IPSC match covered down here would get us into trouble, I can't help thinking that the sight of a group of guys running around a field shooting sidearms at human targets might stir up even more trouble even faster up North...

Sparks

On the whole subject of image, btw, a quick comparison. Remember, don't look at this as a shooter because shooters are a well-trained minority in this country. Try to look at this as a person who's never seen a firearm up close before and who's no idea who ISSF, IPSC, IDPA, CAS, or IMSSU are, and see what they'll think:

ISSF 10m Air Pistol


ISSF 25m Rapid-Fire pistol


ISSF 50m Free Pistol


IMSSU pistol


PPC/1500


IPSC


IDPA


CAS

Hagar

The first 3 photos would appear quite neutral to an outsider, sorta like a bowling alley to my view.
The last few are getting into rambo country.
Who really needs to practice shooting a big mammyjabber pistol while lying on his back?

les45

Sparks, I am not sure who you spoke to in the UKPSA, but I understand that the N.I.T.S.A are the only club on the Island sanctioned to run PP competitions , they have recently invested 35,000.00 Euro in a new range which has full aproval from the MOD, and also the PSNI. The range and club were aproved by the UKPSA on Saturday the 2nd of October,on that day 11 club members took and passed their UKPSA PP competition exam .The club has over 200 members with a small number from Southern Ireland, the club is cross community and accepts membership applications from all parts of the Island.

civdef

Hagar wrote:

Who really needs to practice shooting a big mammyjabber pistol while lying on his back?

Who needs to practice shooting a 22l air rifle or collect stamps for that matter?

It's not about "needing" to do anything. It's a free country so if it's not harming anyone else or society at large where's the harm?

Sparks

None of that's made it to the websites yet les, unless it's in the private section of the UKPSA one. As I understood it, the NITSA were affiliating with Midlands in order to get a range for the long-range stuff, I've heard nothing about their new range.

But 200 members is still small - either of the college clubs on their own would exceed that right now, by quite a margin.

les45

Small but dedicated !!!

Sparks

les45 wrote:

Small but dedicated !!!

So size doesn't matter?

les45

I can only imagine what Mr S Freud would say about my choice of pistol!!! size does matter!

gouda

Sparks wrote:

On the whole subject of image, btw, a quick comparison. Remember, don't look at this as a shooter because shooters are a well-trained minority in this country. Try to look at this as a person who's never seen a firearm up close before and who's no idea who ISSF, IPSC, IDPA, CAS, or IMSSU are, and see what they'll think:

ISSF 10m Air Pistol


ISSF 25m Rapid-Fire pistol


ISSF 50m Free Pistol


IMSSU pistol


PPC/1500


IPSC


IDPA


CAS

Nice pics,all of them. Very noticeable that the "respectable " shooters seem to need quite a lot of expensive facilities whereas the "practical" shooters seem to be able to make do with scrap timber and paper targets. Could explain why people feel Olympic disciplines are "elitist". Maybe ISSF should take a lesson from the "practical" shooters and look to developing ranges outdoor with scrap timber and paper, it would make 10m Air Pistol very interesting.

Sparks

To be fair gouda, those photos are all from high-end competitions - world cups for ISSF, world championships for IMSSU, state championships for IPSC and IDPA, and the front-page photo for CAS. (Couldn't find a high-end one for PPC/1500).

That doesn't mean that everyone shoots on similar facilities. Compare the air rifle range above (it's the one in Munich) to the one in WTSC:



Now, okay, WTSC does have a computerised scoring machine



which gives neat results summary sheets



But college clubs like DURC and UCDRC get along fine without them - so the highly expensive equipment (a suis ascor type target will set you back about €2300) isn't needed to shoot ISSF disciplines. And I know at least one person personally who shoots 10m air rifle outdoors, because of a lack of facilities in his area. It's not ideal, but he does well enough. And every pony club who shoots tetrathlon in this country (and the targets there are ISSF ones) shoots in cow sheds and barns - hardly high-tech facilities. And yet, they do very, very well in ISSF competitions - we had a young lad (over 16!) in a competition in WTSC this weekend who shot a 501 in his first ever competition. For comparison, I managed 450ish in mine, as did Nick Flood in his first air rifle competition.

However, I digress. The point, was that those photos above were the ones that jump off the web at you when you look up what each of these disciplines are. And the image they portray is important - as Hagar said, the ISSF disciplines look like a neutral kind of thing, like a bowling alley. That's the idea - we've been promoting the sport's Safe and Harmless appeal in Ireland for some time now, with some success. But events like IPSC, IDPA, and PPC/1500 - they all shoot at human silhouette targets, be they accurate or abstracted, and when you do that, it becomes very hard to sell as Safe or Harmless.

Now civ's right to a degree in that it shouldn't matter so long as you're not hurting anyone - but it doesn't work that way in this country for damn near anything else, so why would we be made an exception? If I go driving in a car without insurance, even if I hurt noone, I'm breaking the law. If I go flying in an aircraft that doesn't have a transponder, that'll be breaking the law too (real soon now, if not now already), even though I might want to go flying in an older aircraft like a Tiger Moth that doesn't have an electrical system. If I own a car that can do 200mph, I pay so much in mandatory insurance that it's a de facto punishment, even though I may never break 70mph in the car, and couldn't do so legally even if I did. And that's just off the top of my head - and these are all things we accept every day and which aren't seen as threatening or unusual by the majority of the electorate in Ireland.

Simple facts are that the majority in Ireland don't understand firearms. They've got five images in their head when you mention shooting:

1. Terrorism (IRA/UDF/whomever)
2. Army/ERU
3. Armed criminals
4. Hunting (not as in custodian of nature, but as in bastard who shot bambi's mother)
5. Nutter (as in Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur, etc)

That's the reality we have to deal with. And we can't eradicate those images, so what we have to do first is get a new image in place; that of Sportsperson (Safe and Harmless). And we can't do that by shooting at human targets.

benhurt1

Sparks wrote:

They've got five images in their head when you mention shooting:

1. Terrorism (IRA/UDF/whomever)
2. Army/ERU
3. Armed criminals
4. Hunting (not as in custodian of nature, but as in bastard who shot bambi's mother)
5. Nutter (as in Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur, etc)

Dont know if I would put Abbeylara in the same categories as Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine etc.......unless you are calling the ERU nutters

Sparks

Abbylara was where a mentally unbalanced individual gained access to firearms ben - I know only McCarthy was killed, but the mechanism that led to abbylara (the lack of enforcement of the firearms acts) was the same that led to Dunblane and many others, so there is some logic to it being on the list.

However, the list was a list of impressions in the minds of people who in general know nothing about firearms; it's a report of observation, not a prediction based on logic!

Irishglockfan

Well,PPC is now an accepted shooting sport in the repressive communistic peoples republic of China nowadays.Thats saying somthing.
It is accepted in all European countries bar as usual UK and Irl,and because of it's "martial" aspect.It is the most scrutinised and watched for hiccups by politicans,media and other shooting sports who want to jump on it for a ban.So therefore in {Germany at least,it has only been legal the last six years] you see NO Cammo, No one walking around with their holsters outside the firing line etc.In fact you see nothing that Sparks has said happens.Anyone doing so will be quickly told to mend their ways or leave ...permantly.
Cowboy action is considerd quaint and harmless,as are most reanctment groups anyway which it is lumped under.[Bar SS and Nazi reenactment groups,due to their political nature]
One reason I think these sports are considerd not a threat at all is because most European states have [1] more stringent,coherent and better enforced gunlaws than Irl and the UK and [2] all European police forces bar Ireland and the UK are armed in their day to day activities.Therefore the average European is more familar with seeing firearms than us islanders,not to mind compulsory military service as well as reservist units after national service.

For those of you who really want to know what Freud said on weapons as he is the most misquoted and misused person in the anti gun arguement
["A fear of weapons is a sign of an immature and sexually oppressed mind"
Sigmund Freud an introduction to physicology[sic] 1954?]

If you want irresponsible and bad press creators for us ligit shooters you only need to encourage the paintball and weekend warrior cammo brigade who go out and play at being soilders.There this lot are shooting at LIVE HUMAN targets!! And it is NO EXCUSE to say it is just a sport or whatever!It is even INMHO more dangerous than shooting paper man targets.Plus most of these people are under 25,and I would NOT trust ANY of them I have met with a live firearm! I have played paintball and in all of them I have seen idiocy been displayed by responsible[in professions and careers ]"adults" EG I was shot in the back of the head with a paintball in the safe area where firearms are supposed to be unloaded if that had been a live gun or if I hadnt turned around when I did I would have lost an eye. As paintball guns are firearms I would like to know how many of THEM are actually liscensed???why are those two "shooting sports"not vilified by the press and us ligit shooters???

It is not the gun it is the NUT behind the trigger!!!





Simple facts are that the majority in Ireland don't understand firearms. They've got five images in their head when you mention shooting:

1. Terrorism (IRA/UDF/whomever)
2. Army/ERU
3. Armed criminals
4. Hunting (not as in custodian of nature, but as in bastard who shot bambi's mother)
5. Nutter (as in Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur, etc)

If they cant discern between all those differences why do you think they will think "target shooting" will be safe and harmless??
It will be lumped in as all guns are BAAADDD. in the end as i have said before GB proved it the safe and harmless single shot 22 target pistol shooters survived one month longer than the big stuff after they had sold them down the river as well to try and survive.More or less courtsey of a vocal minority with media backing the GCN.
"An appeaser is one who feeds his fellow men to the crocodiles in the hope they will be saited before they reach him"[Winston Churchill].
In fairness to Sparks the practical disiplines are of course the ones the media will jump on in their blood lust for coverage.It looks nasty as does an "assault rifle"compared to a hunting rifle.Yet if we kept it totally civilised I see no more a problem with it than other disiplines.And we would have to be very AWARE of that fact and keep it well self policed.

One other thing I think that there is a certain amount of snobbishness between the disiplines.The purists look down their noses at the "riffraff"of practical shooting.C'mon Sparks you are a bit of a snob aint ya?
There certainly was in the UK pre the bans.What with the semi autos and Bisley and then post Dunblane.In the end everyone lost out and I dont think it is paticularlly fair to blame one segment of a sport for the actions of two loons,one of whom was a member of a target pistol club anyway.If everyone had pulled together post Dunblane and had a effective strategy ready to deal with another tragedy.The UK would still be shooting "normal" pistols.not those hybrid things they use nowadays.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Well,PPC is now an accepted shooting sport in the repressive communistic peoples republic of China nowadays.Thats saying somthing.

Not entirely sure what, mind, since we don't know too much about it...

It is accepted in all European countries bar as usual UK and Irl

It was accepted in the UK as well, until the handgun ban.

,and because of it's "martial" aspect.It is the most scrutinised and watched for hiccups by politicans,media and other shooting sports who want to jump on it for a ban.

Actually, that title belongs to the IPSC/IDPA crowd, though PPC is pretty much the static version of IPSC.

So therefore in {Germany at least,it has only been legal the last six years] you see NO Cammo, No one walking around with their holsters outside the firing line etc.In fact you see nothing that Sparks has said happens.

What I actually said was that the more extremist "hardcore" pistol clubs in the UK in the 90's prior to the handgun ban had people acting like that without being disciplined.

Anyone doing so will be quickly told to mend their ways or leave ...permantly.

As they will in many rifle clubs in Ireland today, and for the same reason - image.

One reason I think these sports are considerd not a threat at all is because most European states have [1] more stringent,coherent and better enforced gunlaws than Irl and the UK and [2] all European police forces bar Ireland and the UK are armed in their day to day activities.

That's certainly a factor in it. Of course, the lack of 30 years of active terrorism within a few hour's drive (and the occasional bombing within far less of a distance) is probably another factor. As is the part of the national psyche in Ireland that seems to think rules are there to be ignored.

If you want irresponsible and bad press creators for us ligit shooters you only need to encourage the paintball and weekend warrior cammo brigade who go out and play at being soilders.There this lot are shooting at LIVE HUMAN targets!! And it is NO EXCUSE to say it is just a sport or whatever!

I'm not sure they're the absolute worst, but they certainly have the capacity to look very dodgy. Happily, most people seem to think it's harmless fun because "they're not real bullets". (I think the fact that few have been on the receiving end of these may be a factor in that!)

Plus most of these people are under 25,and I would NOT trust ANY of them I have met with a live firearm!

While I'm sure it's not what you meant, I'd just like to point out that age and levels of responsibility with firearms are almost totally unrelated. DURC and UCDRC are completely run and supervised by people who are mostly under the age of 22 - and in a combined total of 50 years, they've never had a single accident and they've taken many records in target shooting, represented their country internationally, and generally set a high standard for professionalism in running clubs.

As paintball guns are firearms I would like to know how many of THEM are actually liscensed???

All of them - the companies have authorisations from the local Gardai. This came up in a discussion at the start of this forum and I remember looking it up at the time.

why are those two "shooting sports"not vilified by the press and us ligit shooters???

I don't think legitimate shooters are villifing disciplines. Speaking purely for myself, though I think my views are commonplace in the target shooting community, I dislike shooting at human targets immensely, and I know that there are serious problems with IPSC and IDPA and PPC from both the PR viewpoint and from the viewpoint of being associated with ISSF; but that doesn't mean I'm calling for them to be scoured from the face of the earth. Ia am saying that if they start up here, they'll do a lot of damage to all the other shooting groups. And I don't intend to expend any effort on promoting them in any way. But that's not villification; those are real concerns, based on serious consideration of facts and past occurances. If we can't have those, then what's the point in thinking at all?

If they cant discern between all those differences why do you think they will think "target shooting" will be safe and harmless??

They can discern between them, I'm just saying that that's all the categories they have. We need a new category - the Safe and Harmless one.

It will be lumped in as all guns are BAAADDD.

Not if handled right. At least, not by the majority. That's been my experience, even with people who are anti-gun in general. Mention the Olympics, and all of a sudden, they start thinking of exceptions to the general "guns are bad" rule.

in the end as i have said before GB proved it the safe and harmless single shot 22 target pistol shooters survived one month longer than the big stuff after they had sold them down the river as well to try and survive.

I don't remember anyone in the target shooting community selling anyone down the river. I do remember however, the conservatives banning almost all handguns, and then Labour ousting them on the promise of banning the rest; and Labour got the majority of the votes. Frankly, if the NSRA or any other UK shooting group could have mustered enough votes to get that to happen, the handgun ban would never have appeared in the first place.

More or less courtsey of a vocal minority with media backing the GCN.

Rather due to the majority of people voting for Labour to be honest. The GCN and the NSRA are both small minorities, don't forget. The middle ground, that vast silent majority, that's who the government watches like a hawk, and far more professionally than us because that's their bread and butter. Trouble is, we spend so much energy fighting the GCNs of this world that we never seem to get around to promoting ourselves to the majority, and the end result is that we keep on losing ground.

"An appeaser is one who feeds his fellow men to the crocodiles in the hope they will be saited before they reach him"[Winston Churchill].

Hmmm. Churchill. A guy so successful that he didn't make it past a single election after the war was won... frankly, not the best choice for a political role model in peacetime.

In fairness to Sparks the practical disiplines are of course the ones the media will jump on in their blood lust for coverage.It looks nasty as does an "assault rifle"compared to a hunting rifle.Yet if we kept it totally civilised I see no more a problem with it than other disiplines.And we would have to be very AWARE of that fact and keep it well self policed.

And it still wouldn't matter. All people would see is human-shaped targets, running and jumping, and 9mm sidearms. And the first phrases you'd hear in the press would be "army wannabes", "IRA trainees" and the like.

One other thing I think that there is a certain amount of snobbishness between the disiplines.

Of course there is - it's been there for years. Fullbore rifle looks down on smallbore rifle, which looks down on air rifle. That's been the case since before the first world war.

The purists look down their noses at the "riffraff"of practical shooting.C'mon Sparks you are a bit of a snob aint ya?

If it's snobbery to not want to shoot at human-shaped targets, then I'm a snob and proud of it, Glock. Look, I can't even bring myself to swat spiders, so hunting for me is just never going to happen. (Hell, I can't even butcher meat without wincing, I'm a total wuss). But that doesn't mean I think hunting's illegitimate in some way - just that I'll never want to do it. Well. Okay, so I do think some hunting is illegitimate - but then, so do hunters. (Specifically, I figure that if you shot it and it's not a pest like a fox, you have to eat it. But that's a whole respect thing). But shooting at human silhouettes - well, I just have a big problem with that.

There certainly was in the UK pre the bans.What with the semi autos and Bisley and then post Dunblane.

What are you referring to regarding semiautos and bisley?

In the end everyone lost out and I dont think it is paticularlly fair to blame one segment of a sport for the actions of two loons,one of whom was a member of a target pistol club anyway.If everyone had pulled together post Dunblane and had a effective strategy ready to deal with another tragedy.The UK would still be shooting "normal" pistols.not those hybrid things they use nowadays.

No, they wouldn't be. Look, the number of people in all the shooting disciplines combined wasn't greater than the number of people who voted for Labour. And in a democracy, that's it, that's the defining rule. It's the same situation here. 200,000+ firearms in the country (say 200,000 people, but that's not likely to be accurate); but 4,000,000 people in the country all told, and perhaps 2,000,000 of them in the electorate. That means that at best we represent 10% of the electorate; but it's worse than that, because the biggest shooting organisation in the country only has 22,000 or so on it's books, so even the biggest of us represents only 1% of the vote.
That's the number sitting on McDowell's desk. And that's what counts.

Sparks

Just a note for clarification here - I'm not saying above that McCarthy was "a nutter". I'm saying that he's regarded in that category by the general public. It's not meant to be an assessment of McCarthy (whom I believe died because of a failure to enforce the Firearms Acts), but an assessment of the general public's view of him. I had thought that was clear; evidently, I was mistaken.

Irishglockfan

What I actually said was that the more extremist "hardcore" pistol clubs in the UK in the 90's prior to the handgun ban had people acting like that without being disciplined.

And who were they exactly??



That's certainly a factor in it. Of course, the lack of 30 years of active terrorism within a few hour's drive (and the occasional bombing within far less of a distance) is probably another factor. As is the part of the national psyche in Ireland that seems to think rules are there to be ignored.

Errr are we forgetting Baader Meinhoff/RAF,which was one of the major reasons for the tighting up of gun laws in Germany in the 70s, Action directe?Red brigades,ETA?all of those were just as much a threat as ours[if not more so] yet europe never really went ballistic on their gun laws.just enforced them better.Bombs?? plenty of them too. Well, ignoring rules in ireland is as a national pastime as...drinking.In some ways a good thing as well.

I'm not sure they're the absolute worst, but they certainly have the capacity to look very dodgy. Happily, most people seem to think it's harmless fun because "they're not real bullets". (I think the fact that few have been on the receiving end of these may be a factor in that!)

No but they epotimise everything that would be seen as dodgy in real shooting sports.Cammo,military manouvers,shooting at human targets as well.Not to mind irresponsible gun handling .


While I'm sure it's not what you meant, I'd just like to point out that age and levels of responsibility with firearms are almost totally unrelated. DURC and UCDRC are completely run and supervised by people who are mostly under the age of 22 - and in a combined total of 50 years, they've never had a single accident and they've taken many records in target shooting, represented their country internationally, and generally set a high standard for professionalism in running clubs.

Thats good.wish that could be said for the airsoft warriors and paintball brigade.


All of them - the companies have authorisations from the local Gardai.

Hmmm for how much thats worth.I know one company that is run by people with criminal records for assault and GBH.Reason they get away it is they are informants for the gaurds.Kind of makes a joke of the criminal record clause.

. Ia am saying that if they start up here, they'll do a lot of damage to all the other shooting groups. And I don't intend to expend any effort on promoting them in any way. But that's not villification; those are real concerns, based on serious consideration of facts and past occurances. If we can't have those, then what's the point in thinking at all?

Can you actually predict that?Or is it just an assumption on your part.The same was said of it in germany,and it hasnt happend[yet] nor was it banned after Erfurt,which was on the cards at the time.Of course if it is overun with idiotic gobaloons and unpoliced ...well yes


Not if handled right. At least, not by the majority. That's been my experience, even with people who are anti-gun in general. Mention the Olympics, and all of a sudden, they start thinking of exceptions to the general "guns are bad" rule.

Try that argument with the head of GCN or snowdrop campain or Sarah Brady
if you can get an agreement to that in writing.I'll donate 100 euros to your fav gun charity


I don't remember anyone in the target shooting community selling anyone down the river. I do remember however, the conservatives banning almost all handguns, and then Labour ousting them on the promise of banning the rest; and Labour got the majority of the votes. Frankly, if the NSRA or any other UK shooting group could have mustered enough votes to get that to happen, the handgun ban would never have appeared in the first place.


The GCN and the NSRA are both small minorities, don't forget.
With disporoprtinate pro newsmedia on their side.who got more airtime after dunblane?wasnt us.

The middle ground, that vast silent majority, that's who the government watches like a hawk, and far more professionally than us because that's their bread and butter. Trouble is, we spend so much energy fighting the GCNs of this world that we never seem to get around to promoting ourselves to the majority, and the end result is that we keep on losing ground.

So learn from them adapt and use their tactics against them.


Hmmm. Churchill. A guy so successful that he didn't make it past a single election after the war was won... frankly, not the best choice for a political role model in peacetime.

Au contraire ,he was voted in a second time after the first post war labour govt.Anyway it was his phrase not his politics that was revelant here.


And it still wouldn't matter. All people would see is human-shaped targets, running and jumping, and 9mm sidearms. And the first phrases you'd hear in the press would be "army wannabes", "IRA trainees" and the like.

Send them off to an airsoft "battle group" and they WILL really have somthing to write about then.anyone competant in PR could explain that the RA gets their training in Kosovo or Bosnia or formerly in Libya,and is hardly going to go off to a ligit sporting match which really has no revelance these days to real life combat/VIP protection training.



If it's snobbery to not want to shoot at human-shaped targets, then I'm a snob and proud of it, Glock.

No, just to disprage it.If you dont want to do it, dont.But dont run it down.

Look, I can't even bring myself to swat spiders, so hunting for me is just never going to happen.

OK, no one is going to think any worse of you

But that doesn't mean I think hunting's illegitimate in some way - just that I'll never want to do it. Well. Okay, so I do think some hunting is illegitimate - but then, so do hunters.

Such as??

(Specifically, I figure that if you shot it and it's not a pest like a fox, you have to eat it. But that's a whole respect thing).

Agree wholeheartledy with the eat /respect thing.Even foxes are skinned and tanned with me.

But shooting at human silhouettes - well, I just have a big problem with that.
No problem,but then I have a problem shooting at my fellow man with paint or airsoft bbs.After having training in VIP protection and firearms use for such.i find it reprehensible that some "kids"[and i dont mean that in a ageist sense] think it a great lark to go out and play at soilders and that they would be SF material after an afternoon in the woods.Its maturity to know that to have to take another human life is nothing to be trifled with.

What are you referring to regarding semiautos and bisley?
The NRA refused to allow them into the Bisley ranges during the eighties and considerd them unsporting weapons.More intercine infighting that caused another group to be fed to the lions.

No, they wouldn't be. Look, the number of people in all the shooting disciplines combined wasn't greater than the number of people who voted for Labour. And in a democracy, that's it, that's the defining rule. It's the same situation here. 200,000+ firearms in the country (say 200,000 people, but that's not likely to be accurate); but 4,000,000 people in the country all told, and perhaps 2,000,000 of them in the electorate. That means that at best we represent 10% of the electorate; but it's worse than that, because the biggest shooting organisation in the country only has 22,000 or so on it's books, so even the biggest of us represents only 1% of the vote.
That's the number sitting on McDowell's desk. And that's what counts

Ahhh so we are in a "democracy" that does not respect the rights of "minorities" then???? Rather worrisome if you are a NI protestant!!Yet there are plenty of smaller minorities than us shooters,who seem to get what they want or need around here.maybe it is because they are more vocal or an acceptable PC cause??

gouda

Seems there is never going to be a meeting of minds on this one,I don't think nit picking on disciplines is going to solve anything. Olympic disciplines are not currently something to be held up as a good example. If you ask anyone in the street about who won what in the Olympics chances are you would only hear about athletes who used drugs. Do shooters really need to be associated with drug taking athletes? Not a very positive image in my view however we can all see faults in each others disciplines much harder to see the positive aspects. If Sparks is having such a problem trying to rustle up enthuasism for the sport from college students how is this sea change of opinion going to happen among the great unwashed? If Sparks gets the 200 plus members of the college clubs behind the sport then maybe some good will come of it. No good whinging about them not having time/money because of their studies because it didn't prevent earlier generations of students being very active about issues that concerned them. Mr. RTE Left Wing Joe Duffy wasn't backward about coming forward and it didn't do him any harm. Real commitment is what's required and people who will promote the cause not because of what they gain but because every inch they gain can be added to by those following on. It is going to take a long time to achieve what we want but remember that those minor successes so far were the results of 32 years of effort albeit more intense in the last four years. Reading some of the posts on this issue I can't help but wonder how many of those with the negative views of Practical disciplines were not even born when the the Temp Custody Order came in to effect. Remember, those people were brought up on a diet of "guns are bad" because of the IRA/UVF etc. it will take some time for them to come around. Personally I was looking forward to my sixteenth birthday so I could start down the road of acquiring a handgun or rifle when Dessie shattered my dreams. I am so close to finally achieving a long held desire to own a handgun and I am really disappointed that there are still those out there who would wish to deny me my dream because they think it will affect their image. When you go to bed tonight please pray that my dreams will become a reality without treading on anyones toes.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

And who were they exactly??

*ha!*
I name one club and I'd find myself beneath a deluge of soliciters letters before monday lunchtime No thanks glock!
Check the papers in the UK for that time period. You'll find a few photos of the people I'm referring to.

Errr are we forgetting Baader Meinhoff/RAF,which was one of the major reasons for the tighting up of gun laws in Germany in the 70s, Action directe?Red brigades,ETA?

No, I'm not. But there the situation was different. Don't forget, some of our most significant firearms acts have almost all been drafted at times where paramilitary violence was fresh in the drafter's minds - the '25 act just after the civil war, the '71 act just after a Garda was shot in Dublin and just as the Troubles were getting started. And there was a serious amount of kneejerking going on!

Well, ignoring rules in ireland is as a national pastime as...drinking.In some ways a good thing as well.

Well....
That's open to a dozen different interpretations

No but they epotimise everything that would be seen as dodgy in real shooting sports.Cammo,military manouvers,shooting at human targets as well.Not to mind irresponsible gun handling .

Yes. It's astonishing what gets excused because they're not using "real bullets" and the guns don't look like "guns", if you follow me. Mind you, airsoft doesn't really have those advantages, and would probably get short shrift down here from the Gardai and DoJ.

Hmmm for how much thats worth.

As far as legality goes, that's all that's needed.
And please don't name the company Glock, we'd end up in all sorts of bother if you did.

Can you actually predict that?Or is it just an assumption on your part.

It is my prediction Glock! I've stated here why I think it'd happen. (And if I'm right, you don't want to find out through experiment).

The same was said of it in germany,and it hasnt happend[yet] nor was it banned after Erfurt,which was on the cards at the time.Of course if it is overun with idiotic gobaloons and unpoliced ...well yes

But germany isn't here. There are significant differences. And remember, you're looking at logic as your main argument - I'm looking at how it'll be perceived and how I think that perception will motivate the powers that be. Different things entirely!

Try that argument with the head of GCN or snowdrop campain or Sarah Brady
if you can get an agreement to that in writing.I'll donate 100 euros to your fav gun charity

How about the head of MAG instead? They've already sat down with the BASC, we've mentioned it in another thread here earlier. And besides, as I keep saying, you're wasting time and energy and resources by trying to convince the anti-gun lobbyists that they're in the wrong. They're paid to disagree with you. What you want to be doing is convincing the uncommitted majority.

The GCN and the NSRA are both small minorities, don't forget.

With disporoprtinate pro newsmedia on their side.who got more airtime after dunblane?wasnt us.

Indeed. That's something that needed addressing; and which wasn't addressed. There's a lesson to learn!

Trouble is, we spend so much energy fighting the GCNs of this world that we never seem to get around to promoting ourselves to the majority, and the end result is that we keep on losing ground.

So learn from them adapt and use their tactics against them.

Not following exactly what you mean here - be more specific?

And it still wouldn't matter. All people would see is human-shaped targets, running and jumping, and 9mm sidearms. And the first phrases you'd hear in the press would be "army wannabes", "IRA trainees" and the like.

Send them off to an airsoft "battle group" and they WILL really have somthing to write about then.

Indeed...

anyone competant in PR could explain that the RA gets their training in Kosovo or Bosnia or formerly in Libya,and is hardly going to go off to a ligit sporting match which really has no revelance these days to real life combat/VIP protection training.

Sure, I could explain that. Till I'm blue in the face. But at the end of the day, the maxim of tabloid reporters is "Never let the facts interfere with a good story". And when you look at the distribution figures for newspapers in Ireland...

Based on the JNRS survey 2003:

Readers:
Sunday Independent 1,064,000
Sunday World 827,000
Irish Independent 532,000
Irish News of the World 515,000
Ireland on Sunday 446,000
Irish Daily Star 437,000
Evening Herald 343,000
Irish Times 319,000
Sunday Times 306,000
Irish Sun 286,000
Irish Farmers Journal 253,000
Sunday Tribune 219,000
Irish Daily Mirror 218,000
Irish Examiner 206,000
Irish Sunday Mirror 192,000
Sunday Business Post 158,000
Irish People 145,000

No, just to disprage it.If you dont want to do it, dont.But dont run it down.

And if I honestly believe that it'll do harm to my sport and other people's sports and that there's something fundamentally objectionable to it, as you do with airsoft?

(Specifically, I figure that if you shot it and it's not a pest like a fox, you have to eat it. But that's a whole respect thing).

Agree wholeheartledy with the eat /respect thing.Even foxes are skinned and tanned with me.

Indeed - otherwise you've no respect for the animal you're killing. And that's just... well, I'd be rather off-put by someone who acted like that. It's just not right at a fundamental level, but I can't really express why in words.

No problem,but then I have a problem shooting at my fellow man with paint or airsoft bbs.

Not quite my cup of tea either. Never done it, no real interest in trying.

The NRA refused to allow them into the Bisley ranges during the eighties and considerd them unsporting weapons.More intercine infighting that caused another group to be fed to the lions.

Never heard of that - mind you, I've next to no contact with the NRA.

Ahhh so we are in a "democracy" that does not respect the rights of "minorities" then????

Point out to me where it's written that we have a right to bear arms!

Rather worrisome if you are a NI protestant!!Yet there are plenty of smaller minorities than us shooters,who seem to get what they want or need around here.maybe it is because they are more vocal or an acceptable PC cause??

Could well be. Remember, politicians are motivated by votes (which is actually the correct thing for them to be motivated by if they're supposed to be representing the majority of people). So if most people, for whatever reason, think that any gun painted blue with red stripes ought to be illegal, well, unless you've a damn good argument for blue guns with red stripes, I wouldn't go buying any. But the logic of the ban itself is very secondary in importance compared to how many people will vote for the ban. Follow?

Sparks

gouda wrote:

I don't think nit picking on disciplines is going to solve anything.

There certainly can't be a meeting of minds if you dismiss serious, fundamental problems as "nit-picking"!

Olympic disciplines are not currently something to be held up as a good example.

Really?
Seems to me that the most publicity achieved for Irish target shooting in the last four or five years was down to Derek Burnett's performance in Athens, with the Irish Team's winning of the World Championships in 2002 coming in a close second.

If you ask anyone in the street about who won what in the Olympics chances are you would only hear about athletes who used drugs.

Or about the 50m 3-Position finals where Matt Emmons hit the wrong target - which, while tragic for him, got target shooting into every paper from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

If Sparks is having such a problem trying to rustle up enthuasism for the sport from college students

Where's that coming from? If I could get as much enthuasism from the adult shooters as I see from the Juniors, we'd all be a lot happier!

If Sparks gets the 200 plus members of the college clubs behind the sport

Two hundred per club.
After the first week.
At the end of last year, DURC had some 400-odd people on the books, and UCDRC were (IIRC) around the 300-odd mark.

No good whinging about them not having time/money because of their studies because it didn't prevent earlier generations of students being very active about issues that concerned them.

You mean you would like them to protest about firearms legislation? Even though the college clubs have no legal entity and cannot do anything in that line without the express permission of the colleges, and to act in violation of that rule might see them closed down? That'd lose the sport one of the two biggest sources of rifle shooters in the country (the other being the IPC). Hell, half the clubs in the country are run by shooters who started with the college clubs!

I am so close to finally achieving a long held desire to own a handgun

Just a quick question Gouda - do you want it for a particular reason (target shooting, hunting, whatever), or just to be able to say you own one?

and I am really disappointed that there are still those out there who would wish to deny me my dream because they think it will affect their image.

On the contrary. Did you not read what I've been saying?
I have a problem with human-shaped targets. I don't care what you shoot at them with, whether it be sidearms, target pistols, shotguns, rifles, throwing knives, catapults, whatever. The mechanism is unimportant, it's the act that's disturbing. Hell, I pointed out that bullseye pistol was huge and I didn't understand why that wasn't being promoted - that's shot using a .22 pistol, a .45 pistol, and occasionally a .38 pistol as well.

Just remember - you may have your dreams, but you're not the only one who has dreams, and yours are only worth more than other people's in your eyes. So if your dream is to own a handgun, and mine's to shoot for Ireland in the Olympics, and we can both have our dream if you'll just shoot at a circular bullseye target instead of a human silhouette: well, why all the animosity?

gouda

Sparks wrote:

Two hundred per club.
After the first week.
At the end of last year, DURC had some 400-odd people on the books, and UCDRC were (IIRC) around the 300-odd mark.

Bullseye!! There's the problem,we need to get rid of all the odd people.
I want a handgun so I can practice using it and hopefully become a very good shot at normal handgun ranges. I would use it at the Olympics if I chose to go that route or use it in as many disciplines as I chose to. What I really want is to be able to make those choices which have been denied to me and quite a few others for too long without just cause. I never robbed a bank or shot anyone or threatened anyone so to deny me the ability to choose to pursue a particular sport is unjust. To prosecute criminals who rob banks or shoot people is fine with me. Perhaps I should forget about buying that flash car in case some criminal decides to take it from me or better yet why don't the Government introduce a law which prevents me from buying it in the first instance. That would stop joyriding,wouldn't it? The same way that denying me access to a sport of my choosing prevented a lot of robberies and murders over the last 32 years. I am really grateful to the successive Governments for helping to reduce armed crime by stopping me from having access to a handgun. Good luck to you in your Olympic quest, hope you succeed.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

Bullseye!! There's the problem,we need to get rid of all the odd people.

*hehe*
Thing is, we're in a sport that's not seen too well by others, it costs a lot of money to get very good in it, we've so much legislation applied to us even soliciters have trouble keeping track of it, and despite it all, we're still happy to natter over a pint for hours on the merits of different triggers, sights or what have you.
I think we all qualify as odd, myself

I want a handgun so I can practice using it and hopefully become a very good shot at normal handgun ranges. I would use it at the Olympics if I chose to go that route or use it in as many disciplines as I chose to.

See, that's a different dream to just wanting a handgun, which would be frankly rather worrying - gun fetishists have a rather bad history...

What I really want is to be able to make those choices which have been denied to me and quite a few others for too long without just cause.

"We're here, we're odd, get over it?"

Perhaps I should forget about buying that flash car in case some criminal decides to take it from me

Don't give them ideas! I've been trying to find the article, but haven't succeded, where the Gardai warned people that criminals were targeting high-powered cars for use in crimes and that they should secure their car keys.

Good luck to you in your Olympic quest, hope you succeed.

Thanks gouda, and I hope to see you on the ranges in future!