Should there be compulsory Firearms Training prior to being issued with a FAC

Ronan Raver77

Would the Gardai recognise any of these organisations???? So if you go for a pistol and have some training accrediated by said organisation that you would get licence/weapon??????

I have a Basic Firearms Certificate accrediated by ASAA (American Small Arms Association) which i got in Switzerland.If i threw in a copy of that with my application the garda wouldnt have a clue or would he????
(im a newbie and not up to speed on legislation)

Sparks

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

Ronan Raver77

Sparks wrote: »

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

Sounds good to me...Cant see anybody refusing a safety/training standard for people applying/currently have firearms.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

_________________________________________________________________

Sparks , Without making it so complicated, Would the Mid-Lands not be the one for these courses, they have all the facilities.

I am sure they do these courses already free of charge.

______________________________________________________________________________

QOUTE = Sparks :even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing)

Does the sport really want to go that road again. IF YOU GET WHAT I MEAN,
(THE UNMETIONABLE ONE.)

thehair

Mellor wrote: »

The shooter. If done similar to the theory test it would be fine.
A gun safety and maintance hand book. A 45 min test. And a pass or fail cert.



I would support this if it meant that valid shooters were issues certs easier and quicker. and that unfit people were not issued. This would be better than the current system, as there are certainly valid shooters who can't recieve a FAC and also most likely unfit shooters that have certs.

i voted yes and agree with mellor .i am new to the sport went out and bought a gun safe. why safety . my rifle .22rinfire long rifle i know i did not
have to buy the safe for .22 rinfire rifle again SAFETY

Banjax

I voted no.

There is enough bureaucracy around as it is.
Why invent some more for the sake of it?

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

We are very lucky in our club that we have a large number of Military and ex military people that are more than qualified to run Basic Firearms Courses.

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Sikamick

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Well you could have people running coarses and charging for them, that weren't qualified either.

Kryten

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Yes but handling and using firearms is second nature to a soldier. Why?
When they join up they will spend weeks of training. Introduction, Safety, Stripping and assembling. Learning to aim and use the firearm. Dry firing, stoppage drills. Over and over again. Must to TOET'S before ever going to the range to live fire. (TESTS OF ELEMENTARY TRAINING). You must perform TOET'S every year to remain proficient and you must achieve a qualifying score on the range. All this and lots more for an NCO or Officer as they are the ones doing the training and testing.

So yes they are generally competent in the use of firearms!;)

bogteal

Are things gone that bad in shooting - hunting that you should have to pass a test are we not putting up more barriers for people getting in to shooting sports. I vote no.

foxshooter243

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

+1 on that, I lost count of how many millitary and ex millitary guys ive
had to fit and zero scopes for and such like, sorted a rifle for a guy last
week 25 years in the army ,several overseas postings-no knowledge other than the very basic stuff
they are taught.

Sparks

They might be competent - to the PDF's standard. And face it, the PDF does not rate rifle skills as highly as, say, the USMC would. Frankly, I've met soldiers who were as safe and competent on the range as anyone else; and I've met soldiers who I wouldn't trust near me on the range with an elastic band and a bit of paper.

Banjax - more paperwork because if the DoJ ask for it, it'll be what they want. People say you shouldn't give someone a stick to beat you with, but they're wrong - if you give them the stick, you get to choose what you're walloped with, a stick or an iron bar...

foxshooter243

Sparks wrote: »

They might be competent - to the PDF's standard. And face it, the PDF does not rate rifle skills as highly as, say, the USMC would. Frankly, I've met soldiers who were as safe and competent on the range as anyone else; and I've met soldiers who I wouldn't trust near me on the range with an elastic band and a bit of paper.

Banjax - more paperwork because if the DoJ ask for it, it'll be what they want. People say you shouldn't give someone a stick to beat you with, but they're wrong - if you give them the stick, you get to choose what you're walloped with, a stick or an iron bar...

Im not berating their competency just that being millitary or ex millitary
doesnt mean they could immediatley put on the mantle of a instructor,
i dont think they would have the knowledge base required except in a few cases of course-there are exceptions, im talking in a general sense.
I do think a mandatory test is a neccesary evil because it always mystified me that a young fella could get a 220 swift as handy as an air rifle-has to be something wrong in that thought process.

Vegeta

I voted no as it asks should the training be compulsory. It should not be, we have to jump through enough hoops as it bloody well is. Don't give them yet another stick to beat us with. My super is difficult enough thank you very much

How many accidents a year do we have due to people being poorly trained. Where is the need for this coming from? Show me a need for more training and then I might change my views

I did the NARGC course. I have the cert and the booklet they gave out on the day. I had to do the course to get my first shotgun license. This was 8 years ago.

It was the biggest waste of my time, I enjoyed the day though and it was well run. I learned nothing from it as I had been going hunting for 5 years and seen responsible firearms handling all my teenage years.

For someone with zero experience, training is good.

It should not be compulsory, some folks have enough experience due to mentoring.

Sikamick

Where is the question of compulsory course coming from , I see there on the Hunting thread talking about the same for hunters.

??????Where is this all suddenly coming from.

Is there an other money making agenda going on.

Clubs are already doing these courses for free i.e. the Mid-Lands have qualified instructors and are running courses.

Sikamick

cavan shooter wrote: »

Do you think that anyone applying for a FAC should have to undergo compulsory training (proficiency course) If so what do you think should be on that course:

_________________________________________________________________


Cavan Shooter, We have a driving test log jam, try and get a driving test and see how long you will have to wait.

Now put this in the same context as an application for a firearms License which can take from two months to three years. Now put it in before you get your firearms license and have to wait months to do a course before you wait again more months to get you FAC, If the powers that be run these courses.

This is not a big stick it is a fu**ing Log across the arse of the shooting fraternity. Send us back to school with our shorts and tie on.

Sparks who suggested a poll, this poll result will not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the greater shooting fraternity.

Gerri

Kryten wrote: »

Yes but handling and using firearms is second nature to a soldier. Why?
When they join up they will spend weeks of training. Introduction, Safety, Stripping and assembling. Learning to aim and use the firearm. Dry firing, stoppage drills. Over and over again. Must to TOET'S before ever going to the range to live fire. (TESTS OF ELEMENTARY TRAINING). You must perform TOET'S every year to remain proficient and you must achieve a qualifying score on the range. All this and lots more for an NCO or Officer as they are the ones doing the training and testing.

So yes they are generally competent in the use of firearms!;)

Perhaps some are, a friend has recently completed a practical pistol course and he reckons the PDF could do with a major safety wake up call as their safety procedures are very basic. Remember, all armies train with the expectation that they will have casualties in combat and they factor this in. Civilian shooters like to return home after enjoying their sport so the safety requirements for soldiers need not be as intensive as for civvies as the army expects casualties:rolleyes:

Banjax

Sparks
I can't help but think that there is more than just a shadow of a strawman about what may or may not be being thought about by the DOJ or whomever.

As you already know, I'm a simple optimist.

In addition, I am naturally wary of "volunteer traffic warden syndrome", something that afflicts more than a few people. A love of over-regulation, order, and exclusivity are some symtoms. All of a sudden words like "mandatory" & "compulsory", are being bandied about.
Although I keep my participation on this board to a minimum, I am aware that, in the shooting sports world, factional in-fighting has lead to measures being taken by the Boards administrators. And having read some of the tete-a-tete stuff before it was removed, I can see why.
Its illustrative of why I am not enthusiastic about any such training, somehow or someway it will lead to someone saddling up the 20 hand high horse to start telling everyone else the why and the what-for.

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

this poll result will not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the greater shooting fraternity.

It will reflect the thoughts of those here on boards and we are part of the shooting community

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

Well you could have people running coarses and charging for them, that weren't qualified either.

What/who deems qualified/not qualified ?

bunny shooter

Kryten wrote: »

Yes but handling and using firearms is second nature to a soldier. Why?
When they join up they will spend weeks of training. Introduction, Safety, Stripping and assembling. Learning to aim and use the firearm. Dry firing, stoppage drills. Over and over again. Must to TOET'S before ever going to the range to live fire. (TESTS OF ELEMENTARY TRAINING). You must perform TOET'S every year to remain proficient and you must achieve a qualifying score on the range. All this and lots more for an NCO or Officer as they are the ones doing the training and testing.

So yes they are generally competent in the use of firearms!;)

I am a serving RDF NCO. I know what you're saying. I am qualified as far as the army is concerned to instruct on a number of weapons, however, I have no qualification officially recognisable in civvy street. The armies version of safety is not acceptable on a number of ranges in this country.

The word you must remember in your comment is "generally"

Leupold

Banjax wrote: »

Sparks
In addition, I am naturally wary of "volunteer traffic warden syndrome", .

Too true, This thread really equates to "would you like me to beat you?" When you see someone proposing mandatory training, you have to ask whether they are in the education business or not?

Kryten

Yeah, I know what you mean. There is always the other situation. Soldier serves years in the Army. Goes to a range in civvie street and thinks he knows the story. Soon realises some things are more strictly controlled than in the army. For example muzzle direction, range etiquette and other details. Has to realise he is not shooting to prepare for combat anymore, but for sport.

bunny shooter

Kryten wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean. There is always the other situation. Soldier serves years in the Army. Goes to a range in civvie street and thinks he knows the story. Soon realises some things are more strictly controlled than in the army. For example muzzle direction, range etiquette and other details. Has to realise he is not shooting to prepare for combat anymore, but for sport.

Exactly

Sparks

Leupold, Banjax, you're missing the point. If the noise about requiring competency for a cert comes to fruition, then one of two things will happen. Either there'll be a turf war between the DoJ, Gardai and NGBs about who can certify someone for their application, in which case we, the shooters, will all lose no matter what; or, we can act like intelligent reasonable adults and take it out of everyone's hands by agreeing on a standard and having an independent 3rd party (in this case the Irish National Accreditation Board) accredit anyone who wants to run a course to certify people. And since that's an accreditation to ISO17024, there is the potential in the future to link this accreditation up with other countries and creating an internationally accredited course that we could run in every club and NGB in the country.

Do it that way and you will have people going into superintendents carrying a piece of paper that the super cannot argue with, that states they are certified to be safe to own a firearm. That's not a stick to beat us with. It's us beating the stick. And yes, for most of us, it'd be a fairly silly-feeling exercise to get our bit of paper; but bits of paper are the only way to win this one. Shouting "we're fine, feck off" at the gardai will not win. And we've just spent something like 50 years proving that by repeatedly banging our heads against the wall. I'm a bit sick of this approach to be honest; aren't you?

johngalway

I voted no. More health and safety nonsense, more money for pencil pushers to dream up new rules, bans, and general akwardness.

Just wondering if anyone who voted yes has sat through a Safe Pass course lately?

Sparks

Perhaps a better question to be asking would be "Will there be" rather than "should there be". Because to think we get a choice in this is perhaps overly optimistic.

Banjax

How viable is the notion of compulsory training outside of the confines of this forum?

This is not a representative slice of the shooting/hunting demographic. The notion that most firearms owners will be in favour has fail written all over it.
And before someone (you sparks, you) starts wagging a finger at me and telling me that popularity will have nothing to do with the probability of such an onerous imposition, all I'll say is that places such as this forum often have a curious quality quite akin to an incubator with respect to idea's, notions, and whims. And as such, give a false reading, in my opinion, when used as litmus for such things.

Sikamick

bunny shooter wrote: »

What/who deems qualified/not qualified ?

No one is qualified at the moment to the Irish accredited standard, which I am been told will be put in place soon. But in law at the moment, clubs don't have to have qualified Range Safety Officers or Firearms Instructors they can appoint people whom they deem capable.

triskell

Kryten wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean. There is always the other situation. Soldier serves years in the Army. Goes to a range in civvie street and thinks he knows the story. Soon realises some things are more strictly controlled than in the army. For example muzzle direction, range etiquette and other details. Has to realise he is not shooting to prepare for combat anymore, but for sport.

+1 I agree as an ex mil and ex pdf, in a lot of cases the ex military fella comes on to a civvie range with the wrong attitude .i.e i know it all, your f**kin civvies what would you guys know. in some cases they are the guys that need to be monitored as they don't take (civvie) instruction well.

imo a basic general firearms course covering the fundementals of firearms (pistols rifle and shotguns) is a great idea, to give guys the basic skills in safe handling of a firearm, not something at intermediate level like scope zeroing or mounting