NRAI / LRRA Debate thread

civdef

http://www.geocities.com/pro_lrrai/LRRAI.html

I've just been looking at that site on a very fast broadband connection, and it still took ages to load, 500kb animated gifs are hard on a computer..

Rovi

http://www.geocities.com/pro_lrrai/LRRAI.html

I know it was only a coincidence (?), but check out the 'SPONSORED LINKS' I got on one page

.

civdef

No cooincidence, Yahoo searches the site for keywords and then selects what it thinks are relevant ads to display.

TITANIC

jaycee wrote:

I presume you can support this accusation with documentation. ?

Otherwise it looks a lot like slander.

Its easy for you to check yourself AFAIK NRAUK were under the impression that MRC/NRAI were affiliated to and representing the interests of Irish governing bodies and we all know this is not true

Sparks

TITANIC wrote:

Its easy for you to check yourself AFAIK NRAUK were under the impression that MRC/NRAI were affiliated to and representing the interests of Irish governing bodies and we all know this is not true

As the LRRA are not yet affiliated as such, it wouldn't be true for them either; and since the MRC lads did try on a number of occasions to go through the NRPAI to found an NGB for the fullbore disciplines and were rebuffed, I think that the accusation that they're not the NGB because they're not a part of the NRPAI doesn't have much weight to it.

I will say this for the LRRA, at least they have a website up (even if it is a bit rudimentary). Hint, hint...

Leupold

Sparks wrote:

since the MRC lads did try on a number of occasions to go through the NRPAI to found an NGB for the fullbore disciplines and were rebuffed, I think that the accusation that they're not the NGB because they're not a part of the NRPAI doesn't have much weight to it.

You keep making this statement Sparks and refer to a meeting in 2001 in the Ambassador Hotel etc., at which they(MNSCI) asked a question and did not get a positive reply. What other evidence have you about other occasions? Did they apply in writing and if so can we see the correspondance? We hear from the proponents of the LRRA that they(MNSCI) attended other meetings where Full bore shooting was discussed . What happened at these meetings? We also hear that they were invited to other meetings and did not attend. the impression you give is that the MNSCI fought a losing battle to gain recognition from the SSAI.
Is this really what happened or did they get the answer they wanted initially and did not try too hard after that even rebuffing concilitary overtures from the people interested in setting up a genuine NGB.

jaycee

did they get the answer they wanted initially and did not try too hard after that

I'm having difficulty following yout line of logic, you are suggesting that they went to a meeting hoping to get a negative reply .. !
and that there would therefore be no "Snub"

But the phrase "concilitary "overtures of which you seem to be aware ..(and I'd like some clarity on those) are the type of overtures generally made by people who feel they have done something wrong.

We also hear that they were invited to other meetings and did not attend

Well I suppose If they heard about them in plenty time and did not feel "Snubbed" they might have attended .. (just a theory)

But all this is history and in the past tense, and what we as shooters are dealing with, is planning for the future.

Lets move on...

Leupold

jaycee wrote:

But the phrase "concilitary "overtures of which you seem to be aware ..(and I'd like some clarity on those) are the type of overtures generally made by people who feel they have done something wrong.




But all this is history and in the past tense, and what we as shooters are dealing with, is planning for the future.

Lets move on...

I agree about moving on JC. I do not believe that any snubs were ever intended. Maybe the whole thing boils down to communication errors. If so, it should be easy to fix. Conciliatary overtures can be made by those approaching sensitive issue who want to move forward and do not necessarily imply" guilt" on the part of those making the gestures. If the NRAI/MNSCI are interested in the greater good of Irish shooters and the LRRA are prepared to do their bit, then only good can come from the two getting together and defining a structure that recognises existing national and international bodies.

Sparks

Leupold wrote:

You keep making this statement Sparks and refer to a meeting in 2001 in the Ambassador Hotel etc., at which they(MNSCI) asked a question and did not get a positive reply. What other evidence have you about other occasions?

The statements made here (by Declan, who attended the meeting) regarding the NRPAI strategy meeting the following year.

Did they apply in writing and if so can we see the correspondance?

No, they were sitting there and asked in person. I was there, I saw it with my own eyes, so did several others (some here, some now on the LRRA committee, so it's hardly in contention).

We hear from the proponents of the LRRA that they(MNSCI) attended other meetings where Full bore shooting was discussed . What happened at these meetings?

I don't know. I wasn't there. Remember, I'm not a member of the LRRA or the NRAI, and I don't shoot fullbore. I'm just telling you what I've seen and am seeing.

We also hear that they were invited to other meetings and did not attend. the impression you give is that the MNSCI fought a losing battle to gain recognition from the SSAI.

That is the impression I've received from what I've heard of these meetings over the last few years.

Is this really what happened or did they get the answer they wanted initially and did not try too hard after that even rebuffing concilitary overtures from the people interested in setting up a genuine NGB.

That wouldn't tally with what I personally saw in the AGM.

rrpc

I have been reading this thread, and although I have no direct knowledge of what went on at the NRPAI AGM in 2001 or for that matter, meetings of the NRPAI subsequently, it appears to me that what the MNSC boys wanted back then was a separate NGB from the existing NGB's (NTSA, NASRC, PCI, NSAI) and that was why Declan said "too many NGB's". His subsequent minutes posted here seem to back up this point. It would appear that the MNSC did not want to be part of the NTSA or the NASRC (which would have been the logical step) and so they pulled out of the NRPAI and set up the NRAI.

Sparks has siad that as the NRPAI is the sole point of contact with the ISC, it would not have mattered to them whether the NRAI set up as a subset of the NRPAI or one of it's constituent bodies. However, it would have mattered to the NRPAI, as it adds a further level of complexity to an already top heavy state of affairs. There is no valid reason (that I can think of) for fullbore rifle not to be part of the NTSA. or even for some disciplines to be run under the NTSA and others run under the NASRC. In actual fact, the NSAI should not really exist for this same reason, as being a sporting rifle discipline, it should fall under the auspices of the NASRC.

There have been numerous posts here asking for clarification of the various bodies running shooting in Ireland, and the addition of TWO more in the space of a year seems to me to be completely OTT. There are not that many shooters in this country to warrant the level of complexity at national level.

As an example; If I have a target rifle, a sporting rifle and a fullbore target rifle, do I then have to join three different NGB's in order to take part in competitions for these firearms, and according to members of the NRAI, join another club as well?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I have been reading this thread, and although I have no direct knowledge of what went on at the NRPAI AGM in 2001 or for that matter, meetings of the NRPAI subsequently, it appears to me that what the MNSC boys wanted back then was a separate NGB from the existing NGB's (NTSA, NASRC, PCI, NSAI) and that was why Declan said "too many NGB's". His subsequent minutes posted here seem to back up this point.

Which was pretty much what I recall happening.

It would appear that the MNSC did not want to be part of the NTSA or the NASRC (which would have been the logical step) and so they pulled out of the NRPAI and set up the NRAI.

Okay, you'll have to walk me through this one. Why would it be a logical step to ask the NASRC (who shoot smallbore as I understand it) or the NTSA (which only shoots fullbore over 300m for rifles, a lot less than the ranges being discussed) to be the NGB for events like F-Class or Palma when neither had the required facilities, interest or expertise? (There were one or two who did within those bodies; as I understand it, they're now in either the NRAI or the LRRA).

However, it would have mattered to the NRPAI, as it adds a further level of complexity to an already top heavy state of affairs.

Given how the NRPAI was operating at the time, that's like worrying that you've not tied your shoelaces as you fall down the stairs...

There is no valid reason (that I can think of) for fullbore rifle not to be part of the NTSA

Our lack of interest or ability in anything other than 300m?

In actual fact, the NSAI should not really exist for this same reason, as being a sporting rifle discipline, it should fall under the auspices of the NASRC.

*amused look*
I think I'll let others respond to that, since we have the Chairman of the NSAI posting here!

There have been numerous posts here asking for clarification of the various bodies running shooting in Ireland

And more than one pointing out that there are very real obstacles to that (as opposed to personal ones), as I recall...

There are not that many shooters in this country to warrant the level of complexity at national level.

True. I think that, however, won't be sufficient reason to alter the situation. We've had far more generals than privates for a very long time now, after all.

As an example; If I have a target rifle, a sporting rifle and a fullbore target rifle, do I then have to join three different NGB's in order to take part in competitions for these firearms, and according to members of the NRAI, join another club as well?

Or just join one club that's a member of multiple NGBs the way that RRPC is affiliated to both the NASRC and NTSA.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Okay, you'll have to walk me through this one. Why would it be a logical step to ask the NASRC (who shoot smallbore as I understand it) or the NTSA (which only shoots fullbore over 300m for rifles, a lot less than the ranges being discussed) to be the NGB for events like F-Class or Palma when neither had the required facilities, interest or expertise? (There were one or two who did within those bodies; as I understand it, they're now in either the NRAI or the LRRA).

Why not?, they are both target shoting disciplines, and could be run by a co-ordinator, much as 22 and air rifle is now. The NASRC are running pistol shooting events, which would not be normally considered a 'Sporting Rifle' discipline

Given how the NRPAI was operating at the time, that's like worrying that you've not tied your shoelaces as you fall down the stairs...

Very funny, I'm speaking hypothetically, as if all were green in the garden of the NRPAI. But seeing as the proposition was put to the NRPAI, here was an elegant solution that would have kept things simpler.

Our lack of interest or ability in anything other than 300m?

That's slightly unfair considering that no fullbore rifles were licensed in this country up to relatively recently. Prior to 1972, many members of the then target shooting community were also shooting fullbore.

*amused look*
I think I'll let others respond to that, since we have the Chairman of the NSAI posting here!

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but what's sauce for the goose.....

And more than one pointing out that there are very real obstacles to that (as opposed to personal ones), as I recall...

That's for full integration, for which there are as you say very cogent reasons against.

True. I think that, however, won't be sufficient reason to alter the situation. We've had far more generals than privates for a very long time now, after all.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with it or support it.

Or just join one club that's a member of multiple NGBs the way that RRPC is affiliated to both the NASRC and NTSA.

Yes, but not to the NRAI, whereas if fullbore was run under the NTSA, we would be automatically included, instead of being told "Join us or get lost"

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Why not?, they are both target shoting disciplines, and could be run by a co-ordinator, much as 22 and air rifle is now.

Sure, they could. And you could also have the GAA look after soccer, after all, it's just another game played on a field between two goals with a ball. Hell, they could do rugby as well while they're at it

The NASRC are running pistol shooting events, which would not be normally considered a 'Sporting Rifle' discipline

True enough, but remember that there was at one point, with the NRPAI's full backing (and at the same meeting where the MRC lads were turned down, if I'm not mixing the 2000 and 2001 AGMs), the National Pistol Association which was responsible for these events. So the argument might hold now, now that the NPA's been dissolved; it didn't hold then, when it was being actively supported...

Very funny, I'm speaking hypothetically, as if all were green in the garden of the NRPAI. But seeing as the proposition was put to the NRPAI, here was an elegant solution that would have kept things simpler.

I don't know about elegant, given how we were set up back then. But the MRC lads were willing to work within the NRPAI; that wasn't nothing, if you'll forgive the double negative.

That's slightly unfair considering that no fullbore rifles were licensed in this country up to relatively recently.

Sure, if by recently you mean a decade or so ago. .270s were legal from the 90's on; 300m ISSF shooting was going on before the policy against fullbores&pistols was rescinded using 6mmBR out in the Midlands - though only the Army was shooting it, anyone could have, it was open to all.

Prior to 1972, many members of the then target shooting community were also shooting fullbore.

Yup. This isn't prior to '72 though. Who's still around and competitively shooting who was competitively shooting in '72, and if there are many, why aren't they shooting (in ISSF that is, I know there are many shooting other disciplines)?

But the current group of new ISSF shooters haven't shot fullbore before; it'll take a while to build back up the levels of expertise and professionalism needed, you just can't teach this stuff in a day.

That's for full integration, for which there are as you say very cogent reasons against.

True, but what other form of integration is there? Either we're seperate autonomous NGBs who work together in a defined framework like the NRPAI was meant to be (and currently isn't); or we're one monolithic NGB. Anything else will be a hodge-podge of ill-defined areas of responsibility, unnecessary duplications, "turf wars", ill-feeling, and well, where we are now...

That doesn't mean we have to agree with it or support it.

No, but you can hardly blame people for not wanting to be the first to not have their discipline supported with it's own NGB when every other discipline from Olympic to Tiddlywinks seems to have it's own NGB. And frankly, we won't fix that problem by denying dedicated representation to a subset of the community.

Yes, but not to the NRAI, whereas if fullbore was run under the NTSA, we would be automatically included, instead of being told "Join us or get lost"

Has RRPC been told that, or have they been treated by the NRAI in the same way as by the NASRC/NTSA?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Has RRPC been told that, or have they been treated by the NRAI in the same way as by the NASRC/NTSA?

I was speaking as an individual, was that not clear?. I am referring to posts by NRAI members, who appear to be saying that you can't join the NRAI, without joining (or paying) MNSC

Sparks

I was speaking as an individual, was that not clear?

Er, a tad murky. Must be the handle you're using

I am referring to posts by NRAI members, who appear to be saying that you can't join the NRAI, without joining (or paying) MNSC

Yup, that's definitely something that the NRAI would want to clarify.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Er, a tad murky. Must be the handle you're using

Sigh, must be the spectacles you're using....

rrpc wrote:

As an example; If I have a target rifle, a sporting rifle and a fullbore target rifle, do I then have to join three different NGB's in order to take part in competitions for these firearms, and according to members of the NRAI, join another club as well?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Sigh, must be the spectacles you're using....

No, no, I'm good:

rrpc wrote:

Yes, but not to the NRAI, whereas if fullbore was run under the NTSA, we would be automatically included, instead of being told "Join us or get lost"

That's where I lost your meaning.

Leupold

rrpc wrote:

I have been reading this thread, and although I have no direct knowledge of what went on at the NRPAI AGM in 2001 or for that matter, meetings of the NRPAI subsequently, it appears to me that what the MNSC boys wanted back then was a separate NGB from the existing NGB's (NTSA, NASRC, PCI, NSAI) and that was why Declan said "too many NGB's". His subsequent minutes posted here seem to back up this point. It would appear that the MNSC did not want to be part of the NTSA or the NASRC (which would have been the logical step) and so they pulled out of the NRPAI and set up the NRAI.

At last some light on the matter and some common sense. Well done RRPC!

rrpc wrote:

Sparks has siad that as the NRPAI is the sole point of contact with the ISC, it would not have mattered to them whether the NRAI set up as a subset of the NRPAI or one of it's constituent bodies. However, it would have mattered to the NRPAI, as it adds a further level of complexity to an already top heavy state of affairs. There is no valid reason (that I can think of) for fullbore rifle not to be part of the NTSA. or even for some disciplines to be run under the NTSA and others run under the NASRC. In actual fact, the NSAI should not really exist for this same reason, as being a sporting rifle discipline, it should fall under the auspices of the NASRC.

I agree. At the time this argument was made to the MNSCI/NRAI(that they set up the long range/full bore section under the NASRC, as what they were interested in doing fell neatly in this area) but they did not want to know.

rrpc wrote:

There have been numerous posts here asking for clarification of the various bodies running shooting in Ireland, and the addition of TWO more in the space of a year seems to me to be completely OTT. There are not that many shooters in this country to warrant the level of complexity at national level.

As an example; If I have a target rifle, a sporting rifle and a fullbore target rifle, do I then have to join three different NGB's in order to take part in competitions for these firearms, and according to members of the NRAI, join another club as well?

I totally agree. You should only need to join your club. The NGBs will organise the rules, competitions etc and your club affilliation to the NGBs appropriate to what the club members want will do the rest. This highlights the problems caused by the connection between the NRAI and MNSCI.

BRUNO.22

I See N.r.a.i Popping Up All Over The Place Can Anyone Tell Me A Few Facts About It.i'm New To This.


Moved to the NRAI thread
--Sparks