Should there be 1 shooting organisation to represent all shooters

bunny shooter

3 x options

Vote and comment please

It wasn't me!

How do you propose to reconcile the interests of all the different shooting disciplines and bodies? As far as I can see, it's just unworkable. There's a reason that each sport governs itself and that's because those involved in it know it and run it best. I don't think the NTSA's air rifle shooters would best administrate centrefire pistol on behalf of the IPSA for instance, or vice versa.

Far better to have separate governing bodies under one umbrella body for matters of debate with the legislature, such as we have at the moment.

Sparks

There is one body representing all shooters. It's called the Firearms Consultation Panel. And it's the only body that represents all shooters, including the largest group of shooters in the country, the farmers.

Bananaman

SSAI is the only body, recognised by the Government or the Irish Sports Council, which represents shooters.

The FCP was not set up to represent shooters but to provide guidance and consultation to the Department.


B'Man

Rew

Great load of help the FCP is ATM...

Sparks

The NTSA is recognised by ISSF and the Olympic Council B'man, as well as the DoJ and several others. The NRAI is recognised by the Sports Council and the DoJ and the international fullbore NGB confederation. The list goes on, with similar pedigrees.
The point is, there is one place where all these bodies come together and work as one to further the interests of all shooters, and that's the FCP. Perfect it ain't, Omnipotent (or even just empowered with a veto over the Minister) it isn't, but it's the best we've had in living memory.

Sparks

By the way, we discussed all this in more depth only a month ago

Bananaman

rrpc

Good one Bunny

Any proposals as to who the bright young thing with everyone's interests at heart should be leading this camel?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Good one Bunny

Any proposals as to who the bright young thing with everyone's interests at heart should be leading this camel?

This is one example of the problem as I see it. Who cares who leads it?

Ever heard of the "round table" concept?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

This is one example of the problem as I see it. Who cares who leads it?

Every single person who's represented by it and actually cares enough to learn that it exists. Not to mention anyone who realises they're paying money towards it (because it will require funding, even if it's nowhere near as important as we often think it is). That's the nature of this sort of thing Bunny. No-one really gives a crap who does the job when it's just a job and the mechanism doesn't change - there's no contraversy, for example, over who does the national classification lists (there's the odd conversation over how to do them, but I've never heard anyone mutter over who is doing them). But the minute you mention being "in charge" of anything, it all oozes out of the woodwork before you know it. Every last vendetta, fight, argument, insult, debate, conversation and chat that ever happened about anyone put forward pops up as a reason that someone won't accept that person to be the head person.

Ever heard of the "round table" concept?

Yeah. Even in Arthur's day, it was so unworkable that they had to have a monarch sitting there to get anything done, and we have rather an aversion to that particular solution. So it boils down to choosing a chair, every time.

The alternative, of course, is for every sport to govern itself and all to come together to discuss things that affect everyone.... but then, that's what we have right now (and which is working almost as well as it possibly can work).

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

This is one example of the problem as I see it. Who cares who leads it?

Ever heard of the "round table" concept?

Yeah, but who gets to be the tiebreaker?

Or what happens when 4 members at the round table decide to shaft the 5th, can they claim to represent all the shooters in Ireland?

One for all is a nice idea in theory, but in practice it will mean than someone gets screwed. Who gets screwed depends on who ends up at the round table.

rrpc

I think separation works far better than conglomeration. Inevitably with a conglomerate, the strong pick on the weak in order to eat up their share and the end result is death by a thousand cuts.

Independence fosters mutual co-operation and respect, the opportunities for bullying are significantly diminshed.

cavan shooter

I voted Yes (on the basis of the existence in ireland of the FCP) As stated previously by other posters and in my mind the FCP was an ilnclusive body that represented the shooting community.

It shouldnt be let die off because of troubled times. For my part I felt that the FCP was doing a good job and kept the shooting community up to date with the various goings on. It brought together the various shooting communities, legislators and the Gardai. It was working and I am hoping that it will continue to work for the good of all.

Seamus357

Off course we need one single organisation representing all shooting sports and firearms matters. We need an Irish equivalent of the American NRA.

You only have to look at other sports and organisations. All of the successful ones are governed by one single united body. The GAA govern a number of different sports, the Athletics Association of Ireland govern the numerous track and field disiplines. The list goes on, the IFA are one of the strongest representative bodies in the state. Shooters need to get organised, we need to stop the infighting and start pulling together.

United we stand divided we fall.

rrpc

Seamus357 wrote: »

Off course we need one single organisation representing all shooting sports and firearms matters. We need an Irish equivalent of the American NRA.

To go along with that don't we also need the Irish equivalent of the US 2nd amendment?

And to continue your analogy about everyone being together because we all use firearms, then hockey, golf, camogie and hurling should all be together because they use a stick to hit a ball.

Sparks

Seamus357 wrote: »

We need an Irish equivalent of the American NRA.

I've never understood how people can say that when the NRA is not the sole shooting body in the US, but only one of dozens - in fact they've got more shooting bodies than we do.

Grizzly 45

Trying to set up somthing like the NRA over here would be brilliant.BUT unfortunatly the NRA was set up in a different time and era,with a different country and constitution to us here.:(.

Plus we have way to many um heap big Cheifs,and way too few folks who want to be Injuns.:(:rolleyes:.Not to mind all the primma donnas,me feiners,hangers oners,slackers,jobs for the boys men,grudge matches,bitch fests,snits and everything else that plauges us.
Put all that in one room and how long would it be before a sensible statement arrives out of there??GWB& Co would have a better chance of getting the Taliban to come to a agreement on peace,than would Irish shooting organisations work together.
The best anyone could get here is a non "sell out" agreement and tacit support agreement.IOW No organisation can offer up another to get their agenda or sport into a better position in dealing with the Gov.The "needs of the many or the few elite.." arguement becomes null and void.As do any large carrotts dangled in front of any organisation or individual,to get a certain result.
The tacit support agreement is.All shooting organisations,must say ok we have nothing to do with the currently attacked sector of the sport,in fact we think XYZ shooters are a bunch of rabble/stuck up snobs.BUT they are Irish gunowners and fellow shooting sportsmen,and we do support them in their struggle,by speaking up for them.

Well, we all use firearms,which puts us all in the DOJ/Govt /media eyes in the same boat. So while we may look down at each other over what we do,we had better start bailing ,as this boat is somwhat leaky and sinking.We can bicker and argue until we individually drown or start bailing and bitch when we get to shore.If you dont want to bail,fine,then please sit down and shuttup.At least that way you are not doing any damage.Hope this comparison makes sense.
I think we also have re evaluate ourselves.Are we shooting sports people first or gunowners first??
I put myself as gunowner first,and a sports shooter second,as without the first,how can you be the second???Which is more important??That we have firearms or access to them to continue our sport.Or nice well run organisations with no access of it's members to firearms??

Sparks

Are we shooting sports people first or gunowners first??
I put myself as gunowner first,and a sports shooter second,as without the first,how can you be the second???

And I'd go the other way, because I don't care too much about the tool, I care more about the job.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

And I'd go the other way, because I don't care too much about the tool, I care more about the job.

Easy to adopt this attitude when every statement from DOJ and/or minister states that "Olympic" stuff is not under threat

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Easy to adopt this attitude when every statement from DOJ and/or minister states that "Olympic" stuff is not under threat

Ah feck's sake bunny! Leave the Olympic stuff alone! I've been perfectly clear before that I don't believe being an Olympic discipline should be grounds for legislative preference, and I find myself very cynical about those statements from the Minister, but for someone who wants a single governing body, you've a very dismissive attitude towards certain elements of the shooting sports. When's the last time you heard Sparks or IRLConor or rrpc or myself or the other ISSF shooters here giving out about your sport? You're no more entitled to give out about ours. Besides, any concessions have been described as "limited". As cynical as I am about the preferential "Olympic" tag (I dislike it and find it ridiculous in matters of legislation and policy), I find myself more cynical as to the extent of these concessions. What will it be? Air pistol only? No .22 pistol? It could get very difficult to practise some of the stuff we do or get into it, regardless of any "concessions".

Sparks

:rolleyes:

Actually every statement from the Minister says that all shotgun and rifle users aren't under threat as well, so that's.. well, that's you, isn't it Bunny?

And while we're on the subject, make up your mind. Either the Minister is sticking to his word and all the Olympic stuff is safe; or he's not and is planning on taking away fullbore rifles and everything else, in which case it isn't.

G17

It wasn't me! wrote: »

When's the last time you heard Sparks or IRLConor or rrpc or myself or the other ISSF shooters here giving out about your sport?

I've personally been in contact with "Olympic" clubs recently and they seem to be more interested in shooting than anything else. They didn't know me from Adam and even though I have a Glock there wasn't the slightest hint of snobbery or sniggering, it was, come along and shoot, we love safe shooting and safe shooters. In fact people I've been in contact with were/are embarrassed at the suggestion that they're in some way responsible for any proposed ban, of anything!
I think it's only fair that someone post their personal experiences, everyone seems to be fuelled by hearsay (me too at times, the positive kind for a little hope!). The ISSF regulated guys (Irish) are getting a complete sh1tting on . Not fair in my opinion, from my very recent experience.

It's seems that they're simply interested in the same thing most other sports shooters are interested in, good shots and good fun.

Bananaman

I will bring to your attention the specific quote from the ministers press release:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, T.D. today outlined his proposals to ban licensed handguns

...
...
..
...
The Minister will keep under annual review, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the outcome of the licensing procedure and, if the outcome of that procedure leaves a situation which still poses an unacceptable risk to the community, will use new powers, which the Bill will contain, to ban outright any type of firearm..

...
...
The Minister is prepared to make very limited exceptions in relation to Olympic sports only

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Minister%20Dermot%20Ahern%20Outlines%20Handguns%20Ban

That is unequivocal: he plans to abolish all shooting sports.

He has since said

the Minister's proposals in relation to handguns will not impinge directly on the activities of the vast majority of licensed firearms holders

This I find to be far more vague.

Sparks

Yeah, I've just about given up figuring out what he really means from press releases and media reports to be honest. They're just too feckin' vague and aimed at the media rather than people. The SIs and Acts seem more useful as a source of information.

It wasn't me!

Bananaman wrote: »

That is unequivocal: he plans to abolish all shooting sports.

Not that I'm defending it at all, but in the interests of clarity, he said he would use the powers to abolish firearms ownership if ongoing consultation with the Commissioner with regard to the licensing procedure revealed a threat to the public.

It wasn't me!

G17 wrote: »

I've personally been in contact with "Olympic" clubs recently and they seem to be more interested in shooting than anything else. They didn't know me from Adam and even though I have a Glock there wasn't the slightest hint of snobbery or sniggering, it was, come along and shoot, we love safe shooting and safe shooters. In fact people I've been in contact with were/are embarrassed at the suggestion that they're in some way responsible for any proposed ban, of anything!
I think it's only fair that someone post their personal experiences, everyone seems to be fuelled by hearsay (me too at times, the positive kind for a little hope!). The ISSF regulated guys (Irish) are getting a complete sh1tting on . Not fair in my opinion, from my very recent experience.

It's seems that they're simply interested in the same thing most other sports shooters are interested in, good shots and good fun.

It's strange G17, I must say. Personally I've got several invitations to go try different things with different people on different ranges and I'm having a ball getting to as many as I can. I've found people really good sport, good to talk to and interesting, who bear no grudges against anyone, who have nothing against ISSF sports, and I have nothing against any of the things they do, and we get along, and we try other disciplines and different firearms, and it's bloody great craic, and I'd hope any of our clubs would be just as welcoming to people from other disciplines (from what I've seen, they are), but there really is no them and us type separatism from what I've seen. On the ground, people get along really well.

G17

It wasn't me! wrote: »

On the ground, people get along really well.

Sniff, there's a lot of love in the room, c'mon everyone, join hands - "I'D LIKE TO TEACH THE WORLD TO SING, IN PERFECT HARMONY...."

:D:D:D:D:D

G17

G17 wrote: »

I've personally been in contact with "Olympic" clubs recently and they seem to be more interested in shooting than anything else. They didn't know me from Adam and even though I have a Glock there wasn't the slightest hint of snobbery or sniggering, it was, come along and shoot, we love safe shooting and safe shooters. In fact people I've been in contact with were/are embarrassed at the suggestion that they're in some way responsible for any proposed ban, of anything!
I think it's only fair that someone post their personal experiences, everyone seems to be fuelled by hearsay (me too at times, the positive kind for a little hope!). The ISSF regulated guys (Irish) are getting a complete sh1tting on . Not fair in my opinion, from my very recent experience.

It's seems that they're simply interested in the same thing most other sports shooters are interested in, good shots and good fun.

I think the main thing to take from this is that even if a couple of posters here are posting the same, anti ISSF crap all the time, it doesn't make it true nor is representible of Irish shooting.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

And I'd go the other way, because I don't care too much about the tool, I care more about the job.

ah! But can you do the job without the tool revelant to the job?;):D

G17

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ah! But can you do the job without the tool revelant to the job?;):D

What Grizzly and others, I'd imagine, are really saying - "Everyone should have a Glock!" Target shooting, ice breaking, shove it under the leg of a very wobbly table, a pair of them make nice book ends, great for making conversation with girls called Jennifer, great for making conversation during Die Hard 2............could I be more off topic........:D:D