Urgent Meeting

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

How could they ? They aren't on the FCP.

Because they met with the DoJ after they heard the rumour. Months ago. Somehow BS, I think I get the distinct impression that you're neither speaking for the IPSA nor know what they are doing, and frankly, if that's the case, you're doing your own sport more harm than good. If you don't believe me, you know the email address to write to to contact the head of the IPSA. Maybe talking to him would answer your questions, you don't seem to believe a word I'm saying.

bunny shooter

I do know what the IPSA do. I am not a paid up member of the IPSA. I never claimed I was speaking for them.

I am posting mainly about "the list", what has that to do with IPSA ?

I am a pistol shooter.

I am not an Olympic pistol shooter.

I shoot a pistol in a static target environment. I have a licence for it and do not want to loose it.

How do you reckon I am doing my sport damage ?

Is it dangerous to my sport to post here on boards about a rumour that there was apparently an attempt by one shooting organisation to shaft others ?

As dangerous as sending lists to DOJ ?

bunny shooter

The trouble with skeletons is they always come out when you least expect them

rrpc

Bunny, you're spreading a malicious rumour that has been built up through 'chinese whispers' to something it most ceretainly isn't.

The rumour was that the NTSA produced a list of pistols to the DoJ and stated that they were the only ones that could be used for target shooting in Ireland.

The fact is, a list of specifications for all firearms (not just pistols) used in ISSF competition was given to the DoJ during a meeting in June 2007 in order to support a claim that the then draft restricted list was restricting Air Rifles used in ISSF competition. That list of specifications was posted here, in full without amendment.

That's it, full stop. Anything else is either mischief making or paranoia, take your pick.

The NTSA have the right and the duty to do their utmost to protect their shooters interest at all times. To do otherwise would be completely in conflict with their aims. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the NTSA in seeking to reduce the rights of other shooters or organisations. None.

But pehaps my mind is not as convoluted as yours and can't dredge up a good motive so maybe you could supply one or two?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

I do know what the IPSA do.

But apparently not what they're doing.

I am posting mainly about "the list", what has that to do with IPSA ?
I am a pistol shooter.
I am not an Olympic pistol shooter.
I shoot a pistol in a static target environment. I have a licence for it and do not want to loose it.

So what discipline do you shoot then? Who speaks for you in the FCP?

How do you reckon I am doing my sport damage ?
Is it dangerous to my sport to post here on boards about a rumour that there was apparently an attempt by one shooting organisation to shaft others ?

Lets be very clear here. You said you'd heard a rumour that the NTSA had shafted the IPSA by giving in a list to the DoJ of the only pistols they thought should be given to anyone.
I've got no problem with you posting that you'd heard that, it gets it out there into the daylight instead of under the rock that it originated under. I've proven time and again on here that that's my default position on this kind of thing.

I have a serious problem with you continuing to say that that's what happened when the IPSA denies that they've been shafted, the NTSA denies they've done any shafting, and there are documents put into the public record here to support this, especially when you refuse to give straight answers about what you heard, where you heard it from and what the evidence is.

It damages the cohesion of the FCP and their bargaining position at the top table when you take that line, at a time that your own rumour says is critical.

Frankly, I'm more and more certain the more I hear of this that this is started by a certain party and his cohorts who seek to sow discord in the FCP for the purposes of dividing people up so that he can then claim that the reason for the trouble is that he was not asked to take the lead seat at the table. Backing that particular kind of move is a serious attempt to damage both your sport and mine and I'm not ready to stand for it, thanks very much.

I think it's about time you stopped trying to sound like you were hinting at something and to have the guts to say in the clear who told you what and when, and what their evidence was.

fluffyduffy

MortgageMan

I have attended ranges in Ireland and abroad to shoot not just IPSC but also other target disciplines, and in my experience the IPSC shoot's have been the safest and most professionally run.

+1

RRPC,

There is a possible 360 degree arc of fire where the shooter is moving regardless of whether the range is set up for a 180 degree arc of fire or not. This is simply because a shooter who is moving can trip or fall with unpredictable consequences

I think that is a rather hysterical remark to be honest. First off the trigger guard most be uncovered while the shooter is moving. Secondly, a range officer is within 2 meters of the competitor at all times. You are the only person that I have heard of talking about a 360 degree arc of fire!!
Where does that sort of argument end??? You could say that there is a 360 degree arc of fire for any type of target shooting, because the competitor might faint or be struck by lightning.

The Cone of Fire is measured in angles. These remain the same regardless of where the shooter is in relation to the target. The possible impact area within the cone of fire reduces with proximity to the backstop, but the angles remain the same.

I can see that the angles remain the same. My point is that as the shooter approaches the backstop the base of the cone (possible impact area) reduces. I see that we agree on that. It then follows that the height of the backstop is less important as the shooter approaches it, with all other things being equal.
Why can Ireland not have IPSC shooting run safely like the rest of the world???

No reason that it can't. It's just going to require a good deal of money. In the US for example there are such vast areas of land that a FDA range can be set up in with very little cost so it's a no-brainer there.

If IPSC shooting stops in Ireland it will not be due to lack of money, I can assure you of that.

Shooting from the prone position brings in another variable I'm afraid. That's the danger of ricochet. Most prone ranges are required to incorporate a ricochet pit in front of the firing point.

I think that would be one of the easier problems to solve.

I'm sure the safety record is very good.

You are sure?? I take it from this that you have not checked. This surprises me for someone that seems quite knowledgeable about shooting. Most strange!
I can assure you that the safety record for IPSC shooting worldwide a lot more than very good in fact it is outstanding. Why don’t you check it out for yourself and see how many incidents there have been since the inception of the sport??

The problem is that a lot of people concentrate on the physical range layout and assume that that's sufficient for safety. They don't realise that there are safety factors beyond the range layout that are absolutely essential to keeping the entire range safe.

Again, I think the safety record of IPSC shooting worldwide speaks for itself. It explains just how much understanding IPSC people have about ranges, shooting and common sense.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

............Lets be very clear here. You said you'd heard a rumour that the NTSA had shafted the IPSA by giving in a list to the DoJ of the only pistols they thought should be given to anyone......

This is the only part that justifies a response as the rest has already been covered.

Where did I state that the ICPSA were shafted by the NTSA ?

The rumour is basically as far as I can make out that an attempt, which was probably not meant to be to the detrement of the other groups, was/might have been made, by a group/s rep/s, who are now sitting on the FCP, who we are led to believe is the NTSA, according to you're quote above, to secure their own position/s, without deferrence to the other pistol shooting group/s position/s, apparently, prior to the establishment of the FCP, with regard to type of pistols that they believe should be licencable by submitting a list of specs. and pictures of the type of pistols that they recommend for their types of competition only. Note : It has been confirmed in this thread that a list of spec.'s and pictures was submitted by certain individuals.

Please explain why there is a post on this thread from a member of the NTSA stating that his organisation would like to know who submitted a list to the DOJ and at a later stage there are admissions from some people in that organisation that they did in fact submit a list/s of spec.'s and pictures of pistols they'd like to see licenceable ? Were they acting without the approval of their organisation ? Maybe they were acting as concerned individuals ? Then their organisation could deny knowledge of the list/s. However, did they submit the list/s as rep.'s of their organisation ? If they did their organisation has to accept they were speaking on behalf of their organisation.

I also doubt the DOJ would reveal or admit to any organisation, in or out of a meeting, that they had/hadn't recieved correspondence from another organisation (certain TD's might, but not the DOJ:rolleyes:)

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

This is the only part that justifies a response as the rest has already been covered.

The part that requires a response, I note, you've not actually responded to.
Who told you what BS, and what was their evidence?

Where did I state that the ICPSA were shafted by the NTSA ?

IPSA. And you didn't; but they're the only pistol group not on the FCP and the rumour you were pushing was that those not on the FCP were being shafted by those who were on the FCP.

The rumour is basically as far as I can make out that an attempt, which was probably not meant to be to the detrement of the other groups, was/might have been made, by a group/s rep/s, who are now sitting on the FCP, who we are led to believe is the NTSA, according to you're quote above

Actually, according to you saying that we (NTSA shooters) would know the details of this rumour.

Note : It has been confirmed in this thread that a list of spec.'s and pictures was submitted by certain individuals.

Indeed. Problem is, a list wasn't just sent in by the NTSA. Lists were sent in by the NTSA, the NASRPC, (I think) the IPSA, the Pony Club, and the SSAI/NRPAI/FLAG (by the same person but under different titles depending on when you're talking about). In other words, several bodies submitted several lists of the firearms their disciplines required. And the only time I've heard of someone being misrepresented was when the DoJ got told that someone's glock 17 should be licenced because 9mm pistols were used in the olympics (this without anyone from the NTSA being asked or informed until they walked into the question in a pre-cjb meeting).

Please explain why there is a post on this thread from a member of the NTSA stating that his organisation would like to know who submitted a list to the DOJ

There isn't. There's a post on this thread from a member of the NTSA stating that his organisation would like to know who submitted a list of pistols that should be the only ones given to anyone.

That's the thing you keep brushing over. Everyone gave the DoJ lists of firearms they wanted to licence; but you're saying someone gave a list of firearms that they thought were the only ones which should be licenced.

People have already stated that the former kind of list existed, and they've posted the actual lists here. The latter kind of list is the one the rumour says exists, but which noone actually involved has ever heard of.

So if you've got a copy, post it.
If whomever told you this has a copy, post that.
And if in fact this is just "something someone heard somewhere about someone", I can probably tell you who started this, when, and why, and what they stand to gain personally from doing so.

I also doubt the DOJ would reveal or admit to any organisation, in or out of a meeting, that they had/hadn't recieved correspondence from another organisation (certain TD's might, but not the DOJ:rolleyes:)

Actually, the DoJ is banned from such a practise by law. The Freedom of Information act applies, and for €20, you could get a copy of the list you are on about (the one of the only pistols that should be given out) if it in fact existed. And frankly, if it did exist, it'd have been posted here already by whomever started this rumour.

rrpc

fluffyduffy wrote: »

I think that is a rather hysterical remark to be honest. First off the trigger guard most be uncovered while the shooter is moving. Secondly, a range officer is within 2 meters of the competitor at all times. You are the only person that I have heard of talking about a 360 degree arc of fire!!

If there wasn't a possibility of a 360 degree arc of fire, I would suggest that the IPSC wouldn't have to have a 180 degree rule.

Where does that sort of argument end??? You could say that there is a 360 degree arc of fire for any type of target shooting, because the competitor might faint or be struck by lightning.

You could indeed, but when you're under a covered firing point you're at less risk of lightning strike and when you're static you're less likely to trip.

I can see that the angles remain the same. My point is that as the shooter approaches the backstop the base of the cone (possible impact area) reduces. I see that we agree on that. It then follows that the height of the backstop is less important as the shooter approaches it, with all other things being equal.

Of course. But when building a backstop, you must biuild it for all possible distances available not just the closest ones.

Why can Ireland not have IPSC shooting run safely like the rest of the world???

You are sure?? I take it from this that you have not checked. This surprises me for someone that seems quite knowledgeable about shooting. Most strange!
I can assure you that the safety record for IPSC shooting worldwide a lot more than very good in fact it is outstanding. Why don’t you check it out for yourself and see how many incidents there have been since the inception of the sport??


Again, I think the safety record of IPSC shooting worldwide speaks for itself. It explains just how much understanding IPSC people have about ranges, shooting and common sense.

This all depend on what you call a safety record. I assume you mean that there have been no cases (at least I hope so) of anyone being accidentally shot during an IPSC competition.

This is not what I am talking about. This thread developed from a letter in the ISD about range safety and appeared to refer to practical pistol matches. I have been endeavouring to explain how ranges are made safe and what design characteristics they need with particular regard to practical pistol.

Safety rules are 'soft' protection against anyone causing injury to themselves, spectators, officials and the general public. What I mean by soft is that they are entirely dependent on the individuals concerned and their ability to remember and adhere to rules under match pressure. A breach of these rules is a potential hazard and obviously rules require that such breaches are dealt with severely. In the case of the IPSC and other bodies this is usually a disqualification.

When designing ranges one cannot be concerned with soft protection because it is not reliable. It depends too much on the total elimination of human error which is impossible. As an example of this, I believe there was a relatively high disqualification rate at the IPSC Europeans in France which some attributed to the very high (up to 40 degree) temperature.

Safety records can be misleading. A misdirected shot leaving a range and entering a danger area without even potential harm to the general public would lead to a match disqualification, but would not impact on a safety record. The same could be said of a misdirected shot leaving a range with no danger area, but the potential for harm exists at a far higher level even though the same disqualification would apply and the safety record would remain unblemished.

Range design works to eliminate such potential.

Bananaman

In the case of the IPSC and other bodies this is usually a disqualification.

A misdirected shot leaving a range and entering a danger area without even potential harm to the general public would lead to a match disqualification, but would not impact on a safety record. The same could be said of a misdirected shot leaving a range with no danger area, but the potential for harm exists at a far higher level even though the same disqualification would apply and the safety record would remain unblemished.

Disqualifications DO go on the safety record.

Touch wood - I have not heard of one in Ireland.

People have not passed the competition license course for various reasons. I know one guy was failed because - after the course was over, he had passed, and he was boxing his firearm - he brought his range bag into a safety area with him and moved a magazine in the bag. Handling ammunition in a safety area - immediate DQ.

I understand that there is ALWAYS room for human error. The IPSC rules try to mitigate this as much as possible.

You would have your work cut out to send a "misdirected shot leaving a range" - if you start to breach the safety angle you will be stopped by the RO. If you start to move with your safety off or the trigger not visible to the RO you will be stopped.

Remember the IPSC rules are intended to stop you BEFORE you take a misdirected shot.

Disqualification is not just a "Sorry Bob - you'll have to sit this one out" - it goes on record. If you are DQ'd twice (or three times - I do not have rules to hand) your license is revoked and you must undergo training to get it back. Without a license you cannot compete or even practice. If it happens again after that you will probably not be allowed to resit the training and will no longer be able to partake in the sport. There may be mitigating circumstances but that is the general approach.

In terms of the DQ's in France - I do not believe any of them were in relation to shots taken but I may stand corrected on that. The most common DQ in IPSC is for obstructing the ROs view of your trigger while not engaging a target.

Now, I get RRPC's point that this is soft protection but I have to admit that it is a good as it can get. That in combination with the stage design to ensure all shots are directed into the bullet stop is about all that can be done on the "soft" side.

The people who own and operate the ranges look after the hard side.

Looking up at a 30 or 40 foot backstop and side berms while taking a shot from 30 or 40 feet at a target which is 4 or 5 foot from the base generally gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that it is safe to take the shot.

I know and the RO will ensure that I do it safely.

B'Man

MortgageMan

360 degree shooting can happen in any sport shooting. A competitor can turn on the line with the firearm and heh presto we have 360 degree shooting. Shooters out hunting can turn 360 degrees. Lets, let this one go for a while.

But to ensure that range danger areas are reduced we should ensure that all range users are competent shots, shooting within normal human and equipment limits.

TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING.

The IPSC and the IPSA here in Ireland have stringent training requirements, you cannot shoot without passing and obtaining a Competition License.

Most ranges have brought in minimum firearm safety training for all members, this is a good thing.

There is no beating experience and practice at our sport, and helping new members or less experienced members to better understand potential dangers and deal with them in a competent manner will help us all.

Lets hope that the FCP can continue to work together in an open manner and that there will be no more mis-understanding or rumours about shafting.

Should the FCP get together and produce a full list of all firearms required by all shooters in ireland, in consultation with all organisations whether or not they are represented on the FCP ??????????????

Working together we can achieve a lot.

packas

Also for non IPSC shooters to be aware of:- During every course of fire there are two officials watching what the competitor is doing. One is watching the gun only (i.e. safe handling) & the other official is watching everything else (foot placement of competitor & ensuring range is kept clear once "range is live" command has been issued etc.....)


So from a safety point of view it's an extremely robust safe system in that you have two people focused on one gun (competitor & range officer). Plus add to that the training that officials & competitors go through. A competitor is trained to react immediately to the "stop" command if issued at any time by the official on the stage.

As everyone attending IPSC courses & matches are told. "Safety first always engage brain before acting"

Pat.

macnas

I think Practical shootings safety record is not the problem here, I think that we could argue safety all day long with the DOJ and they would still find some way of banning the sport.
As was pointed out to me recently, we are going through an evolutionary period in shooting sports here in Ireland and maybe we are trying to move too fast. Going from 0 to Practical shooting in four years certainly seems too fast for the DOJ /Gardai.
Being excluded from the FCP meant that whatever was coming down the track was not going to be good. The organisations that are around the table could never be expected to represent other disciplines, it's like Sparks said a while back, talking about the restricted list, that deciding what is on or off the list would be like choosing which fingers to break.

IPSA needs to be on the FCP and it needs the support of the organisations already on it to get there.

fluffyduffy

RRPC

If there wasn't a possibility of a 360 degree arc of fire, I would suggest that the IPSC wouldn't have to have a 180 degree rule.

I am unaware of this rule that you refer to. Perhaps you can point it out. It is my understanding (although I am open to correction) that the arc of fire is what you are told it is at the start of each stage and 180 degrees is not normal. Far less than 180 degrees is.

on our range and many others, loaded firearms must be pointing down range at all times until unloaded and checked by a range officer.

I could make the same remark about your disiplin: If there wasn't a possibility of a 360 degree arc of fire in your club, I would suggest that Rathdrum wouldn't have to have a loaded firearms must be pointing downrange rule as you describe above.

But when building a backstop, you must biuild it for all possible distances available not just the closest ones.

If the backstop is ok for the longest shots then it should be OK for the closest shots, with all other things being equal!

This all depend on what you call a safety record. I assume you mean that there have been no cases (at least I hope so) of anyone being accidentally shot during an IPSC competition.

This is not what I am talking about

Here you are trying to cast doubt on an excellent safety record. If you have some facts to back up the doubt you are trying to cause I suggest that you show them. Otherwise stop speculating.

Safety records can be misleading. A misdirected shot leaving a range and entering a danger area without even potential harm to the general public would lead to a match disqualification, but would not impact on a safety record. The same could be said of a misdirected shot leaving a range with no danger area, but the potential for harm exists at a far higher level even though the same disqualification would apply and the safety record would remain unblemished.

...and you your evidence of this ever happening is???

rrpc

Fluffyduffy

There's no need to take an adversarial approach to me. I'm trying to be helpful. If you can't figure that out from my posts then I'm wasting my time.