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

sikasmicke

Sikamick wrote: »

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.

I would hang on every word that SikaMick says, clubs should appoint anyone they think fit to be an instructor. Then we can have as many instructors as we want.

If they are made up by the club however they should not have authority outside of the club that they were appinted in until some standard is made up by the shooting associations.

cavan shooter

I posted this thread because I have a feeling it's on it's way and only a matter of time if you read Des Croftons excellent article in the Digest.

I am not for putting barriers in the way of people wanting to enter a sport. But I strongly belief that a basic safety course should be sat. I believe all shooting sports will be the better for it. To some poeple remember we are all mad men running around shooting anything that moves target or otherwise

At the moment you can buy a gun walk in tho a garda barracks apply for a gun 3 months later pick it up and away you go shooting. People like me that was brought up on guns, we say no fair (to compulsory training), I've been around guns since I was knee high to a grass hopper. The chances are we won't have an accident, but familiarity etc etc, thats why last year I went and sat the proficiency course with the NARGC and thats why I would recommend every game shooter do it. Yes I knew 90%-95% of what was said but you pick up some good out of it too. I now carry a small first aid kit in my shooting coat

I hear what people are saying when they compare driving license back logs etc, However most people go to a gun club (target or game before purchasing their gun) this is where the training should be done. Most licenses won't be issued without a copy of club membership. Should the training should become compulsory part of/condition of membership. I know a gun club where all new members have to undergo a safety breifing and its compulsory.

Someone is going to have ago at me, that what about Farmers etc etc, you don't have to be a member of a club, you can get a gun if you ant a gun

This will be debated again I think when the new guidelines comes out

Sikamick

sikasmicke wrote: »

I would hang on every word that SikaMick says, clubs should appoint anyone they think fit to be an instructor. Then we can have as many instructors as we want.

If they are made up by the club however they should not have authority outside of the club that they were appinted in until some standard is made up by the shooting associations.

_________________________________________________________________

Reply from Sikamick

sikasmicke is it possible we could be related, could you be the black deer in the family.

You are a chip of the old block more than you know, my Grandmothers maiden name is the same as yours, I am into genealogy you know.

Doe I don't think I would like to share the same bed with you.

I would like to here your side of the family story, please take the stage, its all yours.

Goosie

Compulsory Firearms Training ( like all kinds of training ) seems like a good idea to me. Course should include basic firearms handling, safety. Shoud be run by a government body ie Gardai, army. Cost should be footed by the DOJ from the licence fee. Participants should be certified as having completed it on the day. Looking at how the thread has developed I have to vote no lest I should be seen to be supporting what might eventually be classed as yet another, government revenue generating disaster. Look at the driver testing as an example.

kowloon

Against: An excuse to validate the higher license charges, maybe even justifying a further increase.
Another tool for the authorities to lengthen the process of getting a license.

On the other hand, I've met one or two people who have done some seriously stupid things that wouldn't have happened had they been to even the most basic safety course.
Anything that centralises the application process and takes it away from the current "The Super doesn't like the look of you" system is a good thing.

I vote Yes

Sparks

They're going to do this in the UK for fullbore as well, and for similar reasons (namely that the MOD wouldn't let them use MOD ranges like Bisley otherwise):

From 1st January 2009 it will be a mandatory requirement for a civilian shooter to have a certificate of competence to shoot on an MOD Range (including Bisley). The certificate will be issued on successful completion of a Range Safety and Competency Test (RCST).

The NRA are still at the draft stage of what the RCST needs to include but we expect this to be published shortly.

The RCST is to certify the shooter, not the rifle so you don't need a RCST for each rifle you own. You need to be certified by 31st December 2008 for 2009 and thereafter annually.

Your completed RCST certificate will need to be sent to the NRA with a photo for them to issue a card to state you're competent to use an MOD Range. There will be a charge for this, probably in the region of £15-£20 that would be paid direct to NRA.

The upside of this is that they'll be able to use the ranges at all - the MOD is waiving their muzzle energy limits on MOD ranges in return for this (those limits would have pretty much eliminated target rifle and service rifle disciplines in the UK).

revan23

i voted no for the same reason as most others here, there is enough hassle involved already without adding to the confusion, also because if it did happen you know it would be us shooters paying for it. and if it was run by the government you know the staff involved would be on insane rates of pay for doing feck all, just like all the other health n safety/political correct bs already goin on.

on the military thing, i think it's irrelevant if someone is ex/current army, sure they would come in handy training people as long as you're going to be shooting clays with a gpmg or a steyr. and from most of my mates that have been in the army reckon the AUG is the best rifle ever made :rolleyes: easy to say if thats the only one you've ever fired, i find civvy shooters tend to know a lot more about civvy firearms, and especially variety... makes sense really.

anyway, just wondering, has there really been that big an increase in shooting accidents recently to bring this on?

Sparks

there is enough hassle involved already without adding to the confusion

A course would mean that those outside the sport would see a direct, clear, laid out pathway towards joining the sport, mind you.

if it did happen you know it would be us shooters paying for it

True, BUT if we did it through INAB, anyone could run the course, be it DoJ, Gardai, any of the NGBs, any of the clubs, or anyone who just wanted to try running the course as a commercial venture - and passing courses run by any of these groups would be equivalent. It'd be the same sort of thing that means an engineer with a degree from UCD is considered to be equivalent to an engineer with a degree from TCD or an engineer with a degree from MIT or whereever. What that would mean is that you could do the course with your local club and your local superintendent would not be able to raise a single question about competency thereafter. And if you put some basics of firearms legislation into that course, anyone going in to meet the local super would know precisely where they stood. Which would, given a few years, lead to a more harmonious situation with regard to licencing - because it wouldn't just be the bolshie ones taking court cases anymore

has there really been that big an increase in shooting accidents recently to bring this on?

Nope, it's just more fallout from the CJA2006. But it'd be better for us to direct the fallout rather than try to be King Canute at the seashore, if you follow me.

Dr_Teeth

I voted no. I think this would be a bad thing to try and regulate. If your club thinks you are capable & responsible they will support your application by providing membership documentation so you can apply for a licence. That's a good enough test in itself, and doesn't require any more taxpayer's money.

Blazher

Here is a fact, Cars kill more people each year then Firearms,

You get tested before you can get a dirivng licence.

Why not the same for FAC. I would pay 50 euro no problem to do a test. if it ment i would not get fecked around by the powers that be and get my FAC faster,

rrpc

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

I voted no. I think this would be a bad thing to try and regulate. If your club thinks you are capable & responsible they will support your application by providing membership documentation so you can apply for a licence. That's a good enough test in itself, and doesn't require any more taxpayer's money.

That's if you're in a club or affiliated to an NGB that carries out training and you shoot on ranges with their own rules and safety officers.

What about people who get FAC's for hunting, plinking, shooting bunnies or just because they want to? We've seen posts on here in the past from individuals admitting to doing things with firearms that have been downright shocking.

What's more, most didn't seem to understand the danger of what they were doing.

Vegeta

Blazher wrote: »

Here is a fact, Cars kill more people each year then Firearms,

You get tested before you can get a dirivng licence.

Which proves that testing is pointless from a safety aspect. Everyone takes a driving test yet there are loads of accidents and people killed.

Not many people take shooting safety courses and there are practically no accidents.

Why not the same for FAC. I would pay 50 euro no problem to do a test. if it ment i would not get fecked around by the powers that be and get my FAC faster,

[RANT]
If everyone has to do a test then it will gain us nothing. Currently if you do a safety course you'd be a cut above the norm. This would probably look very good on your application.

If every applicant has to do a safety course it will not make the sport safer (Sparks how many accidents has there been in ISSF style shooting since its birth in this country). So therefore the only reason to be doing it, is to be seen doing it by the Gardai, DoJ etc

Do folks actually think they will speed up license applications because they did a safety course. Not a bloody chance.

It should not be mandatory but a Super should have the power to ask for it (which I think he does) where a person with no history of firearms usage tries to get a license.

Cant believe fellow shooters think this would be a good thing. It will not make the sport safer, just like driving licenses don't make people safer drivers. So it is all for show really, I am all for the shooting bodies beeing seen as mature, putting some safe guards in place, self regulating yada yada yada, but for what? They wont make our lives one bit easier in return.

If the DoJ propsed that we would get one man one license (where Johnny had a license to have a .22lr, .17hmr, 12 guage shotgun, .223 centerfire, where he could change the rifles as often as he liked as long as he didn't change the caliber and action) in exchange for a mandatory safety course for each caliber, then I would bite their arm off to get it.

Lets not give ground so easily eh

Apologies for my awful spelling

[/RANT]

Manic Moran

I don't have an issue with a set test, but I think it's an issue of timing. It should be a weapons handling test with your appropriate firearm. You must demonstrate that you know how to load, chamber, unload, make safe, demonstrate safety rules and so on. However, as this varies wildly from firearm to firearm, it would have to be done with the weapon you intend to buy. I disagree with the concept of a mandatory course, however: If you can pass the test, you obviously don't need the course.

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

Casualties are expected in combat, yes. But casualties on the range in training are just as acceptable to the military as they are to civilians. In my experience, the Army takes a lot of the fun out of shooting, it's too regimented. You are instructed when to load. You are instructed when to chamber. You are instructed when to shoot, what to shoot at, how fast to shoot, and how many times to shoot. Indeed, if there's a problem with it, it's that the shooters on a range are too dependent on outside instruction.

NTM

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

[RANT]
If everyone has to do a test then it will gain us nothing. Currently if you do a safety course you'd be a cut above the norm. This would probably look very good on your application.

There's no suggestion of a test, but there is a suggestion of having a safety course done. Why is it that people jump from one wild conclusion to another?

If every applicant has to do a safety course it will not make the sport safer (Sparks how many accidents has there been in ISSF style shooting since its birth in this country). So therefore the only reason to be doing it, is to be seen doing it by the Gardai, DoJ etc

The reason there have been no accidents in ISSF is because we do train our shooters, and follow rules laid down by the ISSF.

Do folks actually think they will speed up license applications because they did a safety course. Not a bloody chance.

Was that ever suggested?

It should not be mandatory but a Super should have the power to ask for it (which I think he does) where a person with no history of firearms usage tries to get a license.

Cant believe fellow shooters think this would be a good thing. It will not make the sport safer, just like driving licenses don't make people safer drivers. So it is all for show really, I am all for the shooting bodies beeing seen as mature, putting some safe guards in place, self regulating yada yada yada, but for what? They wont make our lives one bit easier in return.

I can't believe you don't think a safety course is a good thing and should be mandatory. We don't want accidents and we certainly don't want people doing things like this.

If the DoJ propsed that we would get one man one license (where Johnny had a license to have a .22lr, .17hmr, 12 guage shotgun, .223 centerfire, where he could change the rifles as often as he liked as long as he didn't change the caliber and action) in exchange for a mandatory safety course for each caliber, then I would bite their arm off to get it.

You see here's the real issue with your complaint. You don't think safety is anything more than a means to getting something rather than an end in itself.

You also missed my earlier point about those who are not part of any organisation, whether it be club or otherwise and where they have no formal training of any sort before taking ownership of a firearm. I also believe that this requirement only applies to new applicants for FAC's, those already licensed being deemed to have adequate training already.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

There's no suggestion of a test, but there is a suggestion of having a safety course done. Why is it that people jump from one wild conclusion to another?

Really because I spoke of a driving test, never mentioned a shooting test though. Just courses

The reason there have been no accidents in ISSF is because we do train our shooters, and follow rules laid down by the ISSF.

Which negates the need of a mandatory course then doesn't it

Was that ever suggested?

yes by the last poster I replies to :rolleyes:

I can't believe you don't think a safety course is a good thing and should be mandatory. We don't want accidents and we certainly don't want people doing things like this.

Give me the numbers, tell me how many accidents involving firearms last year. Someone put hard facts in front of me and I may change my mind. I'd rather not make the sport harder to get into over speculation alone.

You see here's the real issue with your complaint. You don't think safety is anything more than a means to getting something rather than an end in itself.

Shooting is not an unsafe sport, so if someone is forcing us to take needless courses then I want something in return.

You also missed my earlier point about those who are not part of any organisation, whether it be club or otherwise and where they have no formal training of any sort before taking ownership of a firearm. I also believe that this requirement only applies to new applicants for FAC's, those already licensed being deemed to have adequate training already.

Apologies I didn't read that I was replying to one specific poster, the one I quoted.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Which negates the need of a mandatory course then doesn't it

It is a mandatory course. There's no suggestion that any particular third party course is required, just a course.

Give me the numbers, tell me how many accidents involving firearms last year. Someone put hard facts in front of me and I may change my mind. I'd rather not make the sport harder to get into over speculation alone.

I don't have to give you numbers and to be brutally honest, when we talk numbers we've already failed. Let's not go there please.

Shooting is not an unsafe sport, so if someone is forcing us to take needless courses then I want something in return.

No-one said it's unsafe, what I'm saying is that in order to keep it safe people should be properly trained. There are enough stupid people doing idiotic things in other walks of life that the chances are an accident will happen in our sport if we don't take ownership of the issue.

Blazher

rrpc wrote: »

I can't believe you don't think a safety course is a good thing and should be mandatory. We don't want accidents and we certainly don't want people doing things like this.

All i can say is WoW, I am more for testing now,

tonysopprano

After a quick troll thru some of the posts on this forum, I vote yes.
If a course (of type and kind to be confirmed) can educate some people to the dangers of shooting up in the air or from inside houses or vehicles or if it can educate people looking for 10,000 rounds on their first cert, just because they heard it somewhere (batch testing and buying in bulk for competition) then I vote yes with all the usual reservations about who, when, where and how much.

Just my dollar worth.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

No-one said it's unsafe, what I'm saying is that in order to keep it safe people should be properly trained. There are enough stupid people doing idiotic things in other walks of life that the chances are an accident will happen in our sport if we don't take ownership of the issue.

Your course may be mandatory, that's club and governing body rules, not a legal requirement to get your license which is what we are all talking about.

So you're in favour of putting a legal requirement for safety courses for an already safe activity, which nobody (myself included) seems to have accident figures for, which will not necessarily make it any safer (even after the safety course someone may fire a rifle sky ward (as you say people do idiotic things)).

Look I cant convince you and you wont convince me but I think this is a bad idea

revan23

i just think it's not neccesary, i have no idea what the accident rate with shooting is but its certainly not high enough to warrant additional safety courses. most people have enough common sense without having to pay someone to tell them the obvious, for any of you who have had to sit thru a safepass course you will know what i mean, a whole day of moronic obvious situations followed by a multiple choice quiz where anything less than 10/10 would label you as "special"
on the thing about shooters acting irresponsibly or shooting wildy into trees like the link... people will do things like that anyway regardless...
like the comparison with driving, people do theory and driving tests but still drive like lunatics... its just a waste of money and i would only vote yes if there was a significant increase in shooting accidents.
and for whoever said -

"if it ment i would not get fecked around by the powers that be and get my FAC faster, "

we are not supposed to get fecked around by the powers that be as it is, so why would anything change?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Your course may be mandatory, that's club and governing body rules, not a legal requirement to get your license which is what we are all talking about.

So you're in favour of putting a legal requirement for safety courses for an already safe activity, which nobody (myself included) seems to have accident figures for, which will not necessarily make it any safer (even after the safety course someone may fire a rifle sky ward (as you say people do idiotic things)).

Look I cant convince you and you wont convince me but I think this is a bad idea

I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other, just pointing out what seems to be common sense to me.

In any event, the discussion on this seems to be a trifle late seeing as it's been on the cards since 2004 and in law since 2006.

Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by section 32 of the 2006 CJA:

Section 4(3):
(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—
(a) proof of identity,
(b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

IDon'tKnow!

If you just want to test to see if the user is safe with a gun then this can't be a bad thing.

But you then have to look at the fact that new shooters would have passed a safety test but the old boy could still be out there and unsafe and no one can tell then they need to get up to speed otherwise hand over there guns.

Sparks

Well, yeah, but the same hurdle was faced when driving tests were first introduced.

Look, there's noone out there who'll disagree with the idea that you can't give someone a firearm and not train them in how to use it. Right now, the training's all ad hoc and informal, usually done through clubs or similar, and so far, we've had a pretty good record. But the more formal the training, the better the record - ISSF target shooting, in fact all formal target shooting, has a perfect safety record so far as I could find (and I went back to the first record of a match in Ireland in the 1840s). But there are cases where people have had accidents - two cases two years ago of stray rounds from bunny hunting that hit people, one a woman in a car park in the republic and one a boy in a schoolyard in the north - as well as fatalities - two lads shooting at cans, one went forward to set up targets and was shot by the other accidentally. If having a formalised safety course would fix that - and we're not talking about more than an hour's instruction here (the standard DURC safety briefing takes all of ten minutes and is quite effective; most shooters are up to the point where they're safe to shoot in a few sessions of monitored shooting), then it's a good idea.

After that point, it's all down to who gives the course, and how much it'll cost; and as I've outlined above, there are ways that this can be done in such a way that anyone - DoJ, Gardai, NGB, club, private individual, business, whomever - can run an accredited course to an agreed syllabus and no-one tries to turn it into a money-making scam, which would be a concern for a number of people.

Also, it would give us a point where all shooters can be given basic information on important things; like contact lists for local clubs, summaries of firearms law and their rights and duties under it, that sort of thing. It would improve our general lot, if done right. (And yes, if bungled, it could be a total pain in the neck, but that's true of all things).

cavan shooter

Having read the article in the digest Des Crofton was advocating the relevant assocoations would provide the training

Grizzly 45

While agreeing in principle with training, I am No on this one .Again I dont trust either Govt or private/associations not to make a haimes of the matter which makes the situation worse than before for the novice and pro alike.A Govt type test will have us in ques like the driving test for 14 months,as they will only have a single authorised tester for the entire 26 counties,and aNGB private body will be charging a fortune and failing us on a 99.9% pass requirement on a written test,and charging a300 euro resit fee no doubt.:rolleyes:

Also is it justified??? Statistically we have had how many accidental shootings in the Republic in the last decade to gun owners??
Three accidents that Sparks mentioned compared to 68 road deaths alone this year!Our driving test is a farce,and obviously doesn't work very well, and it is now a hodge podge of Govt/private contractors,not even from Ireland.So if thats the way Irish /Govt private systems work on somthing more important than firearms training.Then No thanks!!!

Sparks

I dont trust either Govt or private/associations not to make a haimes of the matter

If you don't trust the DoJ or Gardai or NGBs, what about your local club?

Also is it justified?

I hate to say it, but rrpc's post above is right on the money - justification is irrelevant at this stage because it's in law that they have the right to ask for it. At this stage, we're able to decide how, not if.

Three accidents that Sparks mentioned compared to 68 road deaths alone this year!

And I'll be the first to say that, and often have been, but it doesn't matter. It's on the books already - the best course for us at this stage is to do it in a way that gives us the most back rather than bitching about it and getting lumped with yet another unworkable system.

Our driving test is a farce,and obviously doesn't work very well, and it is now a hodge podge of Govt/private contractors,not even from Ireland.

Actually, the driving test system is currently in a major overhaul at the moment. It's not the best example to use really.

thehair

revan23 wrote: »

i just think it's not neccesary, i have no idea what the accident rate with shooting is but its certainly not high enough to warrant additional safety courses. most people have enough common sense without having to pay someone to tell them the obvious, for any of you who have had to sit thru a safepass course you will know what i mean, a whole day of moronic obvious situations followed by a multiple choice quiz where anything less than 10/10 would label you as "special"


i did a safepass course it is a SCAM and run by you know who:mad:

Grizzly 45

Had a read of todays ISD[march08].Des Croftons colum on this is pretty good two pints struck me on this minimum competance will be.There will be a saftey book published of four sections,available from the DOJ,Gardai ,web etc.Any new firearms applicant will be required to read this book and sign off on the application form that they have read and understood the saftey rules for the type of shooting they will do.....:rolleyes::D. Well, guess thats answerd then..an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Second part of intrest is the restricted bit Quote Shotguns with INDIVIDUAL pistol grips (As opposed to stocks)Unquote.
Now,does that mean [1]pistol grips as in just a pistol grip and no stock??
IOW somthing along the line of the Mossberg Cruiser model

A pistol grip that is prominent and at an angle of appx 80 + /-degrees from the mainframe of the gun? IE the Benelli 90 or Choate FN FAL style stock from the Choate line of stocks???
As the Choate/Benelli90 and others are intregrated into a single component,does this make them exempt?.Either Des or the DOJ has somthing wrong here.

rrpc

This has been discussed on the restricted list thread Grizzly. In short it's a shotgun with a clearly defined pistol grip below the stock.

That's my description, not a definition in the SI.

sikasmicke

I here people say that a safety course would be a good idea for anyone taking part in shooting events. I heard that there is a possiility that it should be manditory, maybe I will call the DOJ Firearms Legal section and ask them about it.

I will write what they say to me as soon as I have been in touch with them.