NARGC director's report on the Firearms Act

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Wow, if I use this telescope, I can see the point from here...

It's the "O2" now :P

Suppose we should get back on topic

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

It's the "O2" now :P

Suppose we should get back on topic

Do you want me to take out that bit about the xxxxx?

And this one. drat :eek:

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Do you want me to take out that bit about the 17 rem?

And this one. drat :eek:

Too late I reckon, he's probably writing the infractions already

rrpc

Edited anyway, so you can do the same if you want. No point letting anyone else benefit from my sharp observation and rapier like intellect

Back on topic indeed.

Do you think that ALL shooters would be represented by people telling politicians that the only centre fire pistol sport was practical pistol?

Mr Mole

"telling politicians that the only centre fire pistol sport was practical pistol"?


Very inaccurate. They were told though, that there were handgun disciplines other than Olympic handgun disciplines.

Perhaps telling politicians that the only shooting disciplines that are acceptable are Olympic disciplines would be ok then?

Petition.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055438873

rrpc

Mr Mole wrote: »

"telling politicians that the only centre fire pistol sport was practical pistol"?

Very inaccurate. They were told though, that there were handgun disciplines other than Olympic handgun disciplines.

So how is it that the only amendments you proposed were to Section 33? If you were intent on supporting all shooters and concerned about the future of the sport, why was your only goal the preservation of practical shooting and only for those currently licensed?

Perhaps telling politicians that the only shooting disciplines that are acceptable are Olympic disciplines would be ok then?

No, nor would telling them that Olympic shooters were 'looked after', so that any representations we made for the retention of centre-fire pistol shooting fell on deaf ears.

Petition.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055438873

As I said earlier, I didn't see it. Having looked at it now, I'm glad I didn't see it because nowhere in that petition did you inforrm the people signing it that their email addresses would be used to create a mailing list in contravention of the data protection act. One wonders what other uses the names would have been put to without permission.

Mr. Mole wrote:

The motion was widely circulated, and had you signed the online petition, it would have been emailed to you. Obviously, you didnt sign the petition that was linked here on Boards.

Mr Mole

RRPC, there is a life ouitside of Boards, try to get some experience of it. By the way, can you confirm that you are posting on behalf of just yourself or your Club, as RRPC is also a club.

The depth of amendments, a re worked Bill, and historical documents submitted to the DOJ&LR were vast, and separate to the motion which referred to Section 29 and not 33 as you state. The motion also included other sections.

Obviuously, you didnt support it, so there is no point in educating you to the work done at this stage.

I wont be using the facility of Boards to have a tit for tat with you, we both reasonably know each others positions.

rrpc

Mr Mole wrote: »

RRPC, there is a life ouitside of Boards, try to get some experience of it. By the way, can you confirm that you are posting on behalf of just yourself or your Club, as RRPC is also a club.

Of course when you can't play the ball, you try and play the man :rolleyes:

The depth of amendments, a re worked Bill, and historical documents submitted to the DOJ&LR were vast, and separate to the motion which referred to Section 29 and not 33 as you state. The motion also included other sections.

It's section 33 in the act. You could tell me here that you proposed marriage to a Llama, but the only amendments that came out of your extensive and 'vast' submissions were ones that had such a narrow focus, the motivation for them has to be questioned. One would have to ask who would benefit so greatly from the retention of practical pistol in this country that it would be so much more important than the future of centre fire pistol shooting.

Obviuously, you didnt support it, so there is no point in educating you to the work done at this stage.

Having read your petition, I doubt anyone involved in shooting could find a reason not to support it. But of course if the purpose was to provide a list of names and email addresses for other purposes in contravention of the law, then I don't see how you could be in favour of it either.

I wont be using the facility of Boards to have a tit for tat with you, we both reasonably know each others positions.

Of course not. And if you don't want to involve yourself in an argument with me, then you should refrain from making unfounded accusations.

Bananaman

I despair at some of the endless nitpicking and splitting of posts up into their individual syllables and arguing the case on each of them, even when there is no argument merited. I wish for once people would simply ask or answer a question and not split hairs over the grammar of the answer.

On the RRPC Vs. Mr.Mole debate.

it is disingenuous to state that the focus of Mr. Moles lobbying was the retention on the sport of IPSC Pistol shooting to the detriment of ANY other sport. To even insinuate that is 100% wrong and amy claim as such should be withdrawn and apologised for.

I was present at some of the presentations that were made by Mr. Mole. Sparks talks about the 2% putting in all the effort. I can tell you that Mr. Mole and two or three others have spent more that 50% of the last 6 months on this matter - and I mean mean more that 50% of EVERY WAKING HOUR. On my and your behalf. There are few member of the Dail or Seanad who do not know who these guys are or what target shooting, especially pistol, is now because of them.

Quit whinging and show some respect and thanks.

The Presentations were very professionally done and the degree of penetration into the decision making bodies was unprecedented. I held high hopes for their outcome.

I spoke personally with many of the people who recieved those presentations

• DOJ
• Range Inspectorate
• Garda FPU
• Garda Superintendents
• Prime Members of Justice Committee
• Various Politicians
• Representatives of many of the shooting organisations
• Myriad shooting competitiors in myriad sports.

I was present at a meetiong where there were somethihng like a dozen shooting clubs and representatives of a number of member organisations of the SSAI, including the NASRPC present, where Mr. Mole and Co. recieved the unanimous support of those present to put forward the proposed amendments and supporting documentation on their behalf.

Wheher or not certain people did or did not attend that and other meetings, whether or not certain individuals did or did not support the proposed amendments - THEY DID HAVE SUPPORT OF A LARGE NUMBER OF SHOOTERS - much like the bill was opposed by a large number of politicians, including members of the government.

The party whip prevented the members of the government supporting their consituents.
Mr. Mole and Co. were also scuppered in that their amendments, the only ones discussed in the Dail and Seanad, were shot down with the support of the main shooting bodies, who had given their support earlier. (I know, I know, they now clam the Minister did not have that support, ever hear of a press release?)

I also recieved an email because I had signed the petition, highlighted above, indicating that I should personally lobby my local and national government representatives. This was exactly the reason I signed that petition - to see something being done in my name and to ensure that something WOULD be done in my name. It was.

I was present at one of the the presentations made by Mr. Mole when the Chairman of the FCP, three members of the Garda FPU and the DOJ Range inspector were present.
We explained to them a wide range of shooting sports, indicating the target types used etc.) including:

• Clay Pigeon Shooting
• Smallbore Benchrest Rifle Shooting
• Smallbore Pistol Shooting (Various disciplines, including ISSF)
• Centrefire Pistol Shooting (Various disciplines, including IPSC).

The majority of the presentation was focused on Centrefire Pistol shooting in general and IPSC Pistol shooting in particular, BECAUSE THESE SPORTS WERE TO BE BANNED IN THE UPCOMING LEGISLATION therefore the misconceptions of thse needed to be addressed.

rrpc wrote: »

the only amendments that came out of your extensive and 'vast' submissions were ones that had such a narrow focus, the motivation for them has to be questioned.

Wrong. Shame on you.

rrpc wrote: »

One would have to ask who would benefit so greatly from the retention of practical pistol in this country

Those that compete in it. Like me.
The betterr question would be: Who benefits from it's removal from the Irish Sporting Calendar?

rrpc wrote: »

that it would be so much more important than the future of centre fire pistol shooting.

It is centrefire pistol shooting.

rrpc wrote: »

Having read your petition, I doubt anyone involved in shooting could find a reason not to support it.

And hundreds did sign the petition (tanx to RRPC for poining out that I had misinterpreted his double negative)

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman, I'm not going to nitpick anything you've said other than where you've actually misunderstood what I've said.

My main point that you seem to have missed is that I've responded in kind to people who've seen an end result and imputed (incorrectly and unfairly) the steps taken to get there.

I have reasonably shown that that can be done with any end result and it can be equally wrong. I'm sure that everything you say is correct and true and that my slant was wrong.

Equally, those who are making assertions that because the Minister exempted Olympic pistols that some skulduggery has to have been present for this to have happened are just as wrong.

I may be reading your last comment on my post wrong, and if so please feel free to correct me, but are you saying that hundreds did not support the petition? Maybe you should read what I said again?

Bananaman

I just stated a small few of the facts that I am party to - i.e. that I have first hand knowledge of - I did not compute, nor impute anything, I was there and heard it.

The end result is in the public record - The Amendments put forward by Mr. Mole were debated in the Dail, in the Seanad and among the Fianna Fail Parliamentary Party. I do not know for a fact but I have no doubt they were also debated within the other parliamentary parties as quite a large number of the members of each were very interested in the matter.
All the documentation prepared by Mr. Mole and Co. were made available, in hardcopy, to anyone who attended a presentation or meeting held on the matter.

Boards is not the place to publish information like this. The content of it is ignored and the font used or the size of the right hand margin would become the focus of the discussion which would be led by the same people who always lead from the front on losing the point.

those who are making assertions that because the Minister exempted Olympic pistols that some skulduggery has to have been present for this to have happened

I don't know if anyone has but I do know that he stated he had the support of the NTSA in introducting the ban on further licensing of centrefire pistols and the ban on IPSC Pistol.
This was stated in rebuttal to the amendments put forward by Charlie Flanagan and Pat Rabbitte in the Dail and Dara Calleary in the Seanad. The very amendments which Mr. Mole and Co. promoted.
I don't believe the support of the ICPSA was claimed so it was not an 'Olympic' thing from on high but the choice of the individual organisations who provided that support.

I am not asserting anything - I am reading it from the public record where it was asserted by those who had the letters in their hands while they said it.

Now for an assertion:

A Pistol used in the Olympics, whether designed for it or not, is as dangerous as any other pistol and should be treated the exact same. The fact that, among the DOJ and Minister they are not, is therefore the result of lobbying.
I do not know who did this lobbying, they did a good job, no doubt, but they did so to the detriment of the other other shooting sports.

Of that there is no doubt.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

A Pistol used in the Olympics, whether designed for it or not, is as dangerous as any other pistol and should be treated the exact same. The fact that, among the DOJ and Minister they are not, is therefore the result of lobbying.
I do not know who did this lobbying, they did a good job, no doubt, but they did so to the detriment of the other other shooting sports.
Of that there is no doubt.

Actually, you're missing the point that for the last decade or so, olympic shooting has been putting itself out there, sending match results and articles and photos to every media outlet, the sports council, the DoJ firearms section, the Minister for Sport, and so on. At the time this was started, it was a bit of a struggle, because "conventional wisdom", even within the NTSA, was to keep the head down, say nothing and hope nothing bad ever happened.
I'm not saying there wasn't more directed lobbying - just that there are other reasons why Olympic was seen as Safe & Harmless, while other stuff wasn't known about and was therefore (xenophobicly) seen as something else entirely.

And I've lost count of the number of times I've said this, to IPSA people, both here and privately over the last few years, that they had to manage PR from the get-go and push a good public image of themselves and that if they didn't, if the PR got away from them, the whole sport (and possibly all of pistol shooting alltogether) was sunk. It's all right here on boards, go use the search function.

That said, I'm not saying that's the sole reason for things. I'm just saying that there were several factors at play here (and some of them I only found out about through the presentations Mr.Mole gave). Some are certainly more tabloid and shouty than others, and some are just random confluences of events like Minister-Gardai shoutiness (which contributed to the return of pistols) and general elections (which contributed to the rollback on the licence fees hike). But some are just long-term, unsexy, background work. And we don't give those things enough weight in our analyses.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Boards is not the place to publish information like this. The content of it is ignored and the font used or the size of the right hand margin would become the focus of the discussion which would be led by the same people who always lead from the front on losing the point.

By the way, that's total dross. Either you have the information or you don't (and I happen to know that IPSA are meant to have quite a lot of information about this sort of thing, given to them from the FCP via the SSAI). If you publish and it's what you're saying it is, then it will speak for itself and those criticising fonts will be seen for what they are.

If, on the other hand, it's dross or there are real questions about it, then that'll speak for itself too.

Of course, if all you'll post is allegations and inneundo, that sends it's own message.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I just stated a small few of the facts that I am party to - i.e. that I have first hand knowledge of - I did not compute, nor impute anything, I was there and heard it.

And yet here you are doing it again.

Now for an assertion:

A Pistol used in the Olympics, whether designed for it or not, is as dangerous as any other pistol and should be treated the exact same. The fact that, among the DOJ and Minister they are not, is therefore the result of lobbying.
I do not know who did this lobbying, they did a good job, no doubt, but they did so to the detriment of the other other shooting sports.

Of that there is no doubt.

The one thing that there is no doubt about is your tenuous grasp of the facts.

The restricted SI was published in February 2008 and long predates any of this legislation or even the first hint of anything to do with it.

But facts have never played much part in any of your assertions here.

Bananaman

IPSA is long gone but your point:

they had to manage PR from the get-go and push a good public image of themselves and that if they didn't, if the PR got away from them, the whole sport (and possibly all of pistol shooting alltogether) was sunk

As far as I am aware they never did any PR. They ran maybe 10 shoots, if that, in their entire history. All was perfectly fine, not an eyelash out of place.
They put a couple of match reports in the Digest - I wrote half of them - again not an eyelash out of place.
They sanctioned an Irish team in the European Championships and an Irish Team to the World Championships.
They got the front cover of the Disgest when Ireland won it's first International Gold.

For the life of me I cannot see how "the PR got away from them"

As far as i can tell they were like a pig under a hammer - happy as larry and never saw it coming then - bam - lights out.

IPSC, the sport, was badmouthed by people who had never done it. I have seen all manner of smokescreens - all of them here on boards as to why the ban was called for like that eejit in Dundalk - that had nothing to do with it - I still cannot fathom how the two even ended up in the same conversations.
To date we still do not have a single credible example of anything that was wrong with the sport of IPSC or of any of the people who were taking part in it. Yet it is prohibited.
What we do have is the same statement from The Minister, from Garret Byrne and From Des Crofton.

"It is anathema to the Irish Sporting Culture"

so was soccer, rugby and american football - now all have been played in croke park.

A load of Horlicks,

I spoke to Des Crofton on the matter after his Digest article. I asked him why he had such a set against IPSC. He just said it 'atrracted the wrong element" - what a load of cobblers. I told him I expected better from him - we all expect better from him.

The ban on this sport was a work in progress and had been for some time. The facts about the sport, the wishes of the individual club members and centrefire pistol owners and those that took part in the sport of IPSC, not just in Ireland, but across the world, were never going to be allowed to get in the way of that (gravy?) train.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

As far as I am aware they never did any PR.

Yup, exactly.

Where were the exhibition matches run and advertised with the Sports Council and press invited and everything done to show just how safe the sport was? Where were the match reports being sent round to everyone that has anything to do with administration or legislation in shooting? Where were the Irish Times, Irish Independent, Examiner, Sunday Independent, Herald, Metro, and other newspaper articles? PR doesn't mean running a few match reports in a magazine that very few people in the country buy - it means Public Relations.

I still cannot fathom how the two even ended up in the same conversations.

Because noone knew what IPSC was, because there wasn't a PR push. An example - the boards.ie mods got shown that presentation that Mr.Mole and others did up and we learnt stuff at it.

I mean, think about that for a moment.

We learnt things we hadn't known before. And we're not exactly hermits in the community, you know? If the PR was done right, Joe Public should have seen IPSC so often that it was boring to them. It should seem assine in the extreme to the punter on the street to tie gun crime to IPSC. That was what the PR was for. Not to get a few pictures in a magazine that's not exactly got a sterling reputation to start with.

I spoke to Des Crofton on the matter after his Digest article. I asked him why he had such a set against IPSC. He just said it 'atrracted the wrong element" - what a load of cobblers. I told him I expected better from him - we all expect better from him.

As a matter of interest, why?
Des doesn't represent anyone but the NARGC and they pay him to do that, why would anyone expect him to support anything but the NARGC? Why is anyone ever surprised when he acts to put the NARGC first?

Grizzly 45

IPSC, the sport, was badmouthed by people who had never done it. I have seen all manner of smokescreens - all of them here on boards as to why the ban was called for like that eejit in Dundalk - that had nothing to do with it - I still cannot fathom how the two even ended up in the same conversations.

To recap,the smokescreens were,training military contractors,bodygaurds,criminals ,whatever.Then ignorance of people not knowing anything about it or in acertain DOJ figure,whose name I'll leave out,to save them being publically embarrassed "knowing it all off the internet"[repoted ly so quoted in discussion to the IPSA comittee somtime 2007/8]
....Or getting the wrong website,or not researching it properly,and slapping together any old tat and handing it in to an already,by his own words Minister on a mission to "tighten up the gun laws"I]ASGI conference May 2008[/I
Meantime in the Ministers own constituency,a certifiable Muenchausen syndrome sufferer is running , [after it being examined by those in the better know].Counter terrorist training tactics for anyone with a wad of cash.Already illegal under Irish law in numerous aspects.
Lord Walt,is pictured and featured in the Phoenix and a UK Army website aswell as a DVD is pictured with some most intresting,certainly difficult equipment to liscense in Ireland firearms amd pryotechnics,and some intrestingly dressed gentlemen with HKs behind him.
Is there a whiff of Eau de Embarrassment around here or in Louth and the DOJ???.There wouldnt be ANY coincidence AT ALL that everything Lord Walt was doing in the shooting aspect of his fantasy training has been thrown at practical shooting????? Of Course not!!!!:rolleyes:

Bananaman

Why is anyone ever surprised when he acts to put the NARGC first?

Is another smokescreen, the whole - we only promoted ourselves - sh1te. They all did it.

There is no reason in the wide wide world why anyone would need to not support IPSC in order to promote their own interests yet whenever I ask any individual or organisation why they do not support it - a far cry from asking them why they wanted it gone - I get the whole - we had to promote ourselves.

For example, Growth and success in IPSC would have helped ISSF as much as growth and success in ISSF would have helped IPSC. It would have helped because it would show that we can be good at another sport - we can be as good as anyone else and we could have been so no matter what age we were.

ISSF have problems because they need to get people when they are kids and convince them that wearing an Olympic shooting jacket won't prevent them from getting their leg over.
If they enter it at your age or mine it's too late unless it's a fluke.

IPSC has a different problem. It is an extremely expensive sport to get into. Once you have purchased all the necessary equipment, and a few unnecessary bits but you were in the shop so why not, got all the relevant licenses, got your competition license, paid all the necessary memberships, etc. it would have been cheaper to buy a new car. Then you have to start buying ammo and as we all know you get through quite a bit of it and that is just in competition. (And that is just one of the sports you take part in!!)

What they meant was that between them, they provided a 'career path' through the pistol shooting sports. You could start out with Olympic Air or Rimfire. As you got older and started to earn a crust you could then start to look at Centrefire. If you had an interest you could work your way up to IPSC and as you got yet older were happy that they had Senior and Super Senior categories so you could be competitive from your teens to your 80's.

Now, unortunately IPSC, for ROI residents, has become even more expensive, in that you must factor travel and accomadation into your competition costs, for EVERY event.

But back to my point - there is no reason that the NARGC, NTSA, SSAI, NASRPC, Peoples Front of Judea or the Judean Peoples front ever needed to MENTION IPSC, yet they did. They can all pull out the old 'if we did not then we would have lost everything' chestnut but that is a load of cobblers and I, personally, would have preferred to have lost everythig while fighting that keep something while taking it in the donkey but then I don't like taking it in the donkey.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

ISSF have problems because they need to get people when they are kids and convince them that wearing an Olympic shooting jacket won't prevent them from getting their leg over.

...

Okay, someone needs to give you a prize, because I'm officially speechless here after reading that.

(BTW, you don't "work up" to IPSC from ISSF anymore than you "work up" to riding a bicycle from swimming)

But back to my point - there is no reason that the NARGC, NTSA, SSAI, NASRPC, Peoples Front of Judea or the Judean Peoples front ever needed to MENTION IPSC, yet they did.

Yes, with the exceptions of the NTSA (who had the ISSF directive setting out things they couldn't do, namely be associated with the IPSA or IPSC groups); and the SSAI, who were representing IPSA on the FCP.

I, personally, would have preferred to have lost everythig while fighting than keep something while taking it in the donkey

Spare a thought for the non-IPSC centre-fire pistol shooters while you're saying that, as well as the non-centre-fire pistol shooters, m'kay?

Grizzly 45

Where were the match reports being sent round to everyone that has anything to do with administration or legislation in shooting?

Do belive they were posted here???And we have said,that Boards is where the shooting world of Ireland gets its info from.

Where were the Irish Times, Irish Independent, Examiner, Sunday Independent, Herald, Metro, and other newspaper articles? PR doesn't mean running a few match reports in a magazine that very few people in the country buy - it means Public Relations.

Sparks,you could say then the same about ANY shooting disipline...why arent we reading about a 10metere air pistol shoot in any paper??Every Weekend?? Unless we are going to march reporters at gunpoint to matches or stand over editors with guns aready.We wont ever get proper press coverage unless it is[1]Our guns are nicked2] Somone loses their dog and checks out a fast food joint somwhere [[3] a slow news day and some silly tart somwhere isnt getting her boobs lifted ,or adapting African kids,and filler articles are required[4] We win a medal somwhere,and that is usually stuck in somwhere behind the results of the over 80s tiddlywinks championship.
Sorry,I am just too cynical and aware on how our press works with shooting,to belive they are going to give us a fair shout at coverage.

You know yourself Sparks proper PR costs MONEY andtrained personel to do it right.Somthing both sadly lacking here in the shooting world of Ireland.So you areexpecting a 101people who just have got a fledgling sport off the ground within 3 years to mount aprofessional PR campain as well???Now where did we leave our big red capes with the S on them???:rolleyes:

Because noone knew what IPSC was, because there wasn't a PR push. An example - the boards.ie mods got shown that presentation that Mr.Mole and others did up and we learnt stuff at it.

Great pity THAT wasnt on boards.Alot more people would have benefitted from it.

If the PR was done right, Joe Public should have seen IPSC so often that it was boring to them. It should seem assine in the extreme to the punter on the street to tie gun crime to IPSC. That was what the PR was for.

In fairness to the great unwashed out there..They were not taken by Dermos pathetic excuses of this gun ban reducing crime.[Why do you think he then went to the " US gunculture spiel?]The IPSC thing goes over most peoples heads,and when explained,they think it is even dafter that criminals would use this,when the papers are full of stories of criminals going off to Florida,or the Czech republic or wherever to go to learn how to shoot full auto stuff,and that even the Irish Govt thinks the man in the street is THAT stupid to belive that hogwash.

Not to get a few pictures in a magazine that's not exactly got a sterling reputation to start with.

Seeing that we are not exactly spoilt for choice in Irish shooting mags are we??There was plenty of giving out and moans about it as well here!
It was also in the UK Target sports as well[2nd last printed issue?]


As a matter of interest, why?
Des doesn't represent anyone but the NARGC and they pay him to do that, why would anyone expect him to support anything but the NARGC? Why is anyone ever surprised when he acts to put the NARGC first
[/QUOTE]
No one has aproblem with Des repersenting NARGC and it's related matters.What is a problem is Des stomping in an apprent offical capacity in Irelands pnly shooting mag on another shooting sport for as of yet unestablished reasons.

Bananaman

Spare a thought for the non-IPSC centre-fire pistol shooters while you're saying that, as well as the non-centre-fire pistol shooters, m'kay?

I do - I just don't believe for one moment that there was ever a real threat in it - it was just a bully tactic to ensure that the shooting bodies would divide - it worked and will be used again and again now.

And don't forget, he banned centrefire handguns anyway so even if IPSC was still around it would be no different from any other centrefire pistol sport.

When i say worked 'up to' IPSC - what I mean by that is that you have ISSF centrefire, fixed distance, must be done is specific athmosperic conditions etc. Then you have the NASRPC disciplines. Longer distance and with whatever weather and lighting conditions you get.
IPSC involves a time factor aswell as accuracy so it is in your interests to be proficient in the others before you attempt IPSC.

I'm not to fond of the 'ISSF is to IPSC what swimming is to riding a bicycle' lilne.
More like 'ISSF is to IPSC what Drag Racing is to Formula one'

B'Man

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Do belive they were posted here?

Sometimes - but not always, and at least once we saw arguments that that kind of information was or should be restricted (from B'man in this case): http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54854961&postcount=3

And we have said,that Boards is where the shooting world of Ireland gets its info from.

That's nice of you to say, but the point wasn't to do PR for just us; but to do it for the general public.

Sparks,you could say then the same about ANY shooting disipline...why arent we reading about a 10metere air pistol shoot in any paper??Every Weekend??

Time was, you often did...

We wont ever get proper press coverage unless

[5] Someone goes and does the free courses on how to do PR run by the FIS, then goes and does the actual legwork and ignores the "it'll never work" brigade and pushes continually and gets to know journalists and learns how to use their deadline pressures and learns when to submit stuff and how and actually does it.

proper PR costs MONEY andtrained personel to do it right

Training is provided for free to a reasonable level, if people are willing to take it up; not to mention the free guides on the net that anyone can download. Thing is, few people actually do it.
By the by, the NTSA had fewer people to draw on and less money to draw on than the IPSA had for PR. So don't tell me it was impossible.

Great pity THAT wasnt on boards.Alot more people would have benefitted from it.

Yup.

The IPSC thing goes over most peoples heads,and when explained,they think it is even dafter that criminals would use this

Note that highlighted bit? That's what the PR is meant to do. In the years before it becomes necessary. Because by the time you realise you need it? It's waaaaay past being too late.

Grizzly 45

uke.

IPSC has a different problem. It is an extremely expensive sport to get into. Once you have purchased all the necessary equipment, and a few unnecessary bits but you were in the shop so why not, got all the relevant licenses, got your competition license, paid all the necessary memberships, etc. it would have been cheaper to buy a new car. Then you have to start buying ammo and as we all know you get through quite a bit of it and that is just in competition. (And that is just one of the sports you take part in!!)

In a way we are in a juxtaposition here on this.IPSC could still be in the ROI the cheapest shooting sport to get into because of it's Airsoft exemption and IPSC grading.

Yeah I know everyone would rather go and cut their fiddly bits off with a plastic picnic knife than do airsoft here.BUT unfortunatly the REALITY is that anything with real firearms is dead here in the ROI for the forseeable future.
So unless you want to fork out going to the UK and NI to shoot the real stuff,you will spend a fortune.Cry me a river,build a bridge,and get over it.I have accepted this fact,that I wil have to do so.
Proably even store my practical guns up there as well.But if I have a viable way of keeping my aim in without having to drive for 6hours,i'll use it.

Look at it like this Bman is right, it is expensive.
A Kimber 1911 45ACP costs over 3k,its customised Toko Mauri version ,professionally reworked max 250 euro.
A customised Practical rifle AR15 style gun 2,500 plus,Airsoft version 300 euros,shotgun about the same.
850 euros to 1,000 euros gets you going for three gun matches.
The real stuff,appx 6.500 euros with all the ancillary hassle of storage,liscenses etc. Now,ask yourself this a total newnie with a grand to spare and wants to go into practical.
What would be better?
[1] Somone shooting for Ireland at 16 with a "toy gun" and winning ISPC competitions and getting his mates intrested in this sport,that looks alot more fun than folks dressed up in semi bondage leather gear punching holes in bits of paper at 10 meters[Sorry Sparks,I JUST had to say this...:D:D]
or [2] Somone middle aged spending a fortune and grumbling every minute of the day about how expensive it is,and what a CNUT the DOJ is in banning it in the ROI and having to go to NI,etc,etc.

Somone investing a grand,saying"Not for me,I'l flog these yokes no bother to another intrested lad"
OR "Fuk me Ive spent 3 grand on a pistol,I cant sell it,except for scrap value or in the North,for alot less what I paid for and I have all the hassle of alarms,safes,etc.What do I do now??"
OR " I love this sport ,I REALLY want to get into the "real firearms "aspects of it and can afford it now no bother.My liscense with the "toys" stands me for real firearm use.The rules and the saftey aspects are all the same so I'm going for it".
OR "Ah shure them are just toys and a freaky abberation .The real IPSC is done with real guns,but there is only 10 of us left."

Personally,I would we rather had 600 plus and growing IPSC members shooting airsoft matches here in the ROI,and build a power basethat can turn around and say "hoi! We are the youngest and safest non firearms firearm shooting lot in the ROI,yet our other members have to stash their real stuff in NI..What sort of a silly carry on is this???" Than a dying 100 grumbling and groaning that they are the last of their breed,and not looking at the opportunity to keep the sport going here.After all why did IPSC sanction airsoft matches??So they could tap into a multi million dollar market in China,Japan,SKorea,etc,etc?And get more people into the sport at a younger age at less cost??

The sucessful general or busisnessman sees opportunity where others see defeat or ruin.If anyone in the practical shooting field here in the ROI has the cop on to see that we can turn this 180degrees to our advantage,please let me know..

Grizzly 45

Sometimes - but not always, and at least once we saw arguments that that kind of information was or should be restricted (from B'man in this case): http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54854961&postcount=3

That's nice of you to say, but the point wasn't to do PR for just us; but to do it for the general public.

Refering to admin,journos,DOJ and all the other "offical " denizens who lurk here.:)

Time was, you often did...

2007 being the last one..:pac:Dont get me wrong..I agree it is done,and has been.But to get to the level where fights erupt in a pub,between a choice of No hopers UTD VS Ballygobackwards Rovers or The national DTL championships on the Telly..There is a LOT of PR needed..
Same for getting a pissed old sports hack for the Klllyweewee News out to report on a local flapper Clay shoot, or a form of cumpolsry tillage that passed for a camogie match that my better half was involved in.Seeing that the shoot was a field down from the pub.But the drinks were better with the ploughing...er..camogie team:rolleyes:

[

5] Someone goes and does the free courses on how to do PR run by the FIS, then goes and does the actual legwork and ignores the "it'll never work" brigade and pushes continually and gets to know journalists and learns how to use their deadline pressures and learns when to submit stuff and how and actually does it.

Who or what is FIS???You've perked my intrest??

Note that highlighted bit? That's what the PR is meant to do. In the years before it becomes necessary. Because by the time you realise you need it? It's waaaaay past being too late.

[/QUOTE]
I did,but then remember also there were others saying here stay away from the Press,as they will only focus on the negativity of the Practical shooting ,and these were folks that had done this in the UK.
I think at the time folks were more intrested in getting ranges established,competitions going,people trained up and whatnot,than worrying about PR ..
Or maybe we were naive in thinking that Ireland had advanced abit in the Celtic Tiger,and our newly found oh so sophisticated attitudes to new and multicultural experiances,that practical shooting was going to be accepted as a recognised international sport,and that the powers that be would know the difference between a sport and combat training for military/police units.Or that the shooting community would recognise and welcome another recognised international disipline.

But Ireland never disappoints you.It's great to see that the naysayers,detractors,back stabbers,rumour mongers,me feiners,hidebound traditionalists,prejudiced and just the plain ignorant were, and are still alive and kicking.It's funny that here,we have to discover things in our own time.Like 30 years later.Quantum leaps are abit beyond us.:rolleyes:

Bananaman

we saw arguments that that kind of information was or should be restricted (from B'man in this case)

Not what I said - I never said the info should be restricted.

What I said is boards is not the place to publicise that kind of info as on boards the point is invariably lost (QED) so the value or usefullness of the information would be lost in the clutter of nitpicking.

B'Man

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Refering to admin,journos,DOJ and all the other "offical " denizens who lurk here.:)

And is it their job to promote our sports? I mean, isn't that a bit lazy?

2007 being the last one..:pac:

I know, that's when I stepped down as the PRO and no replacement has volunteered since.

But to get to the level where fights erupt in a pub,between a choice of No hopers UTD VS Ballygobackwards Rovers or The national DTL championships on the Telly..There is a LOT of PR needed..

As with golf, you can buy that status with a lot of prize money, but frankly, it's not what was needed. Being the new GAA isn't needed - what's needed is to do enough PR that people know what you're talking about and have a good impression of the sport instead of it being an unknown quantity.

Look at it this way. You don't see rally driving debated much in the pub much, but there's enough PR that noone would try banning it as a criminal training tool for getaway drivers. That's the level we need.

Who or what is FIS???You've perked my intrest??

Federation of Irish Sports. An umbrella group for all sports NGBs who run training courses (amongst other things). http://www.irishsports.ie/

I did,but then remember also there were others saying here stay away from the Press,as they will only focus on the negativity of the Practical shooting ,and these were folks that had done this in the UK.

There's no doubt that it would have to be done right; but not doing it because of fear of screwing the pooch? That's not helpful either.

Bananaman

Grizzly,

IPSC Action Air is a DIFFERENT SPORT to IPSC Handgun as is IPSC Rifle and IPSC Shotgun and ISSF Free Pistol, GAA Football, Rugby League and Softball.

Once can NEVER be a replacement for the other.

Those of us who took part in IPSC Handgun here spent a lot of time and effort getting proficient in the use of our chosen firearms and in then getting the requisite certifications to take part.

I have shot IPSC Action Air which is a game played with toys, which I thought was good craic but it will never replace IPSC Handgun.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Not what I said - I never said the info should be restricted.

I think you've confused the publication of documents you mentioned in this thread with publishing detailed match reports from IPSA.

What I said is boards is not the place to publicise that kind of info as on boards the point is invariably lost (QED) so the value or usefullness of the information would be lost in the clutter of nitpicking.

Utter rot. You really think the chat in the stats office after a match is about what Grizzly said in response to the sixth post in on a thread? Or on the document on the first page that had the actual information in it?

There's always been (and always will be I suspect) people who happily rag on boards as being noisy that way; but frankly, if it was useless, then people wouldn't be here. And when you find things like the firearms licence renewal forms (or match reports or upcoming competition notices or info on changes in the legislation or any of the other stuff that you need to do the actual sport) here before it shows up from anywhere else, from any shooting body or from any official announcement, then you're seeing the proof of how useful this place can be.

So publish; or not; but don't go saying that you won't publish because people might read the stuff and talk about it.

cavan shooter

The Directors report that seems to have caused all this heated debate is now available on the Web site as per my guess it would be:

http://www.nargc.ie/site.aspx