competence course for first time licence

deekme

Hi im in the middle of filling out my form for a new licence for a shotgun and want to make sure everything is in order ive looked through the threads but cant find the answer im looking for. Its in regards to the competence question.
Does anyone know where abouts in Kerry i could do such a course (competence) as i have never owned a gun i would to do this right first time?
thanks

rrpc

deekme wrote: »

Hi im in the middle of filling out my form for a new licence for a shotgun and want to make sure everything is in order ive looked through the threads but cant find the answer im looking for. Its in regards to the competence question.
Does anyone know where abouts in Kerry i could do such a course (competence) as i have never owned a gun i would to do this right first time?
thanks

Are you a member of any organisation, association or gun club?

These would be the first places to go for courses.

ronn

The nargc have the contract to do the courses it was only agreed during the week so say it be a while before they get up and running, contact them see what they say

rrpc

ronn wrote: »

The nargc have the contract to do the courses it was only agreed during the week so say it be a while before they get up and running, contact them see what they say

Contract from whom and for what ???

What on earth are you talking about?

Bananaman

ronn wrote: »

The nargc have the contract to do the courses

:eek::eek:

shannonpowerlab

Hmmmmm.

Though I do remember seeing a safety training cert which had a nargc stamp on it...

I think some of the dealers might have them...

bunny shooter

ronn wrote: »

The nargc have the contract to do the courses it was only agreed during the week so say it be a while before they get up and running, contact them see what they say

Seems their time on the FCP wasn't wasted

Bananaman

I'd be worried about their competence in this area.

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

I'd be worried about their competence in this area.

Really :eek: and why would you reckon that ?

For the record I'm not disagreeing just interested to know why they aren't/mightn't be but your organisation is/might be

In the same way as I'm interested to know how those running the HCAP are deemed competant and who deemed them so

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Really :eek: and why would you reckon that ?

Because they're not qualified to teach most areas of shooting.
Look, the NARGC's great at what they do, but there's no way in hell the NARGC's qualified to teach even the basics of ISSF shooting, and if you don't know what you're doing when training, you can give people some pretty serious chronic injuries. I wouldn't dream of even thinking about trying to teach someone how to hunt, or how to shoot IPSC - likewise, I'd be very seriously opposed to a move by the NARGC to take on the sole role as competency assessors for other disciplines.

In fact, the notion of any NGB being the gateway body for people seeking firearms licences is a suspect one because of the potential for abuse - you're talking about an NGO being given an effectual veto over a state licencing function, through a testing procedure which certainly at the moment is not standardised, not transparent, and not HETAC/FETAC registered. So far as I know, there is no standard, accepted (by the Irish state), accredited (again, by the Irish state) course anywhere in Ireland on firearms safety or competence.

In the same way as I'm interested to know how those running the HCAPP are deemed competant and who deemed them so

HCAP are not deemed competent in firearms safety but in deer stalking proficiency. Different pot of stew alltogether. HCAP is to a competency course what a night rating on a twin-engine aircraft is to a driver's licence. And HCAP's only recognised by Coillte - go anywhere else in the EU and it's not accredited (not that it's much use to Coillte for HCAP to be recognised in France or Outer Mongolia). And for that reason, HCAP's only required to shoot on Coillte land. Shoot elsewhere and it's not necessary.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Because they're not qualified to teach most areas of shooting.
Look, the NARGC's great at what they do, but there's no way in hell the NARGC's qualified to teach even the basics of ISSF shooting

To be fair Sparks, this is a competence course in handling firearms, not in a particular sport. The basics of safe firearms handling are sport neutral.

I think the OP needs to clarify his statement. For all we know it's pub talk.

Sparks

I don't agree with the sport-neutral bit rrpc. ISSF rifles are heavier than most by a few kgs and I wouldn't be the first one to have gotten interesting back problems because of poor initial training. Likewise, what's safe for air pistol can break your nose with a centerfire pistol, as youtube repeatedly shows. There are too many firearm-specific things for one group to be able to safely teach basic competence in all of them through a generic course. Yes, the basic first rule is the same with all of them, but just because you know not to get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence, does not mean that someone who learnt to drive on a fiat panda is safe to drive a van without some type-specific training.

I do agree with the pub talk possibility though - this may all be a case of getting irked at shadows

deeksofdoom

The NARGC course is perfectly acceptable as a safety course for the new licensing laws. I was at a Cork federation meeting last week, where there were a couple of Guards from the Firearm Policy Unit down from HQ giving a talk.

The only thing is that they will not allow non members to do the course anymore you have to be a member of the NARGC. I think the cost of the course is something like €25.

Sparks

It wouldn't be acceptable if it was the only game in town deeks. Look, if you're a new member of the NARGC, then the NARGC course is a really good idea. Hands down, no arguments. But if you're a new ISSF shooter, the NARGC course is a bad idea because while there will be a degree of cross-over between the two kinds of shooting, there are risks in each that are simply not present in the other. No NARGC hunting rifle will injure you if you simply hold it up unloaded; most ISSF rifles will. No ISSF rifle will ever be fired somewhere other than a range; most NARGC rifles will be. There are radically different skillsets involved. And it's not just NARGC/ISSF; pick any two disciplines at random and there will be some overlap and a lot that doesn't overlap, and the stuff that doesn't will be able to hurt you.

I'm not talking about coaching level stuff here either - I'm talking about the stuff you meet in the first ten minutes of training someone from scratch.

And that's without going near the idea of an NGO having a monopoly over testing like was implied above (and which I'm still hoping is pub talk).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I don't agree with the sport-neutral bit rrpc. ISSF rifles are heavier than most by a few kgs and I wouldn't be the first one to have gotten interesting back problems because of poor initial training. Likewise, what's safe for air pistol can break your nose with a centerfire pistol, as youtube repeatedly shows.

I say 'sport neutral' and you proceed to argue as if I said 'firearm neutral' :rolleyes: They're not necessarily the same thing.

Obviously different firearms and calibres have different risks and dangers, but all the basics apply. Don't forget we're talking about competence in handling the firearm for which you are applying for a licence. I wouldn't expect to be applying to the NARGC for a certificate of competence in using an air pistol in ISSF competition when I'd most probably be a member of the NTSA. Hence my surprise at the OP's post.

We shall see what it's all about in due course I'm sure.

Bananaman

for the record I'm not disagreeing just interested to know why they aren't/mightn't be but your organisation is/might be

The NARGC is a collection of Game Clubs - ergo - they deal primarily with hunting - field shooting.

They do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES deal with pistol shooting of ANY KIND OR CALIBRE - in fact they (well some of their reps anyway) have show utter contempt for it.

They do not deal with target shooting, range management, etc.

QED - Not competent to be running safety courses in these areas.

If when you apply for your license you apply for hunting, then the NARGC may well become involved if the Gardai require you to be a member of a game Club - I dunno - not my area.

General Firearms safety and certification is not their area of respoinsibility, however, If I want to know what the numbers of partridge are like in the galtees, they are top of the list.

Now - when you state 'my organisation' I assume you are referring to both my internationally recognised certification as an instructor in Basic Pistol Safety and Handling and my internationally recognised certification in Basic Rifle Safety and Handling.

I am also rated as an Instructor in my club in Shotgun safety and handling, but as yet not certified as such - soon though.

I did not at any point claim I was or am more or less competent - I simply said that I would be concerned about the NARGC's competence in this area of instruction due to their lack of experience.

Hopefully this is just a case of someone stirring the sh1t.

B'Man

shannonpowerlab

deeksofdoom wrote: »

The NARGC course is perfectly acceptable as a safety course for the new licensing laws. I was at a Cork federation meeting last week, where there were a couple of Guards from the Firearm Policy Unit down from HQ giving a talk.

The only thing is that they will not allow non members to do the course anymore you have to be a member of the NARGC. I think the cost of the course is something like €25.

Does that mean anyone in ICPSA can't get it?:pac:

pullandbang

shannonpowerlab wrote: »

Does that mean anyone in ICPSA can't get it?:pac:

The ICPSA have their own safety course aimed at clay target shooters. It's run by the ICPSA coaches.

shannonpowerlab

Oh, thanks.

Would that be the full list? or are there other people who were qualified in the past?

Best regards,

widespread

Sparks wrote: »

Because they're not qualified to teach most areas of shooting.
Look, the NARGC's great at what they do, but there's no way in hell the NARGC's qualified to teach even the basics of ISSF shooting, and if you don't know what you're doing when training, you can give people some pretty serious chronic injuries. I wouldn't dream of even thinking about trying to teach someone how to hunt, or how to shoot IPSC - likewise, I'd be very seriously opposed to a move by the NARGC to take on the sole role as competency assessors for other disciplines.

In fact, the notion of any NGB being the gateway body for people seeking firearms licences is a suspect one because of the potential for abuse - you're talking about an NGO being given an effectual veto over a state licencing function, through a testing procedure which certainly at the moment is not standardised, not transparent, and not HETAC/FETAC registered. So far as I know, there is no standard, accepted (by the Irish state), accredited (again, by the Irish state) course anywhere in Ireland on firearms safety or competence.

HCAP are not deemed competent in firearms safety but in deer stalking proficiency. Different pot of stew alltogether. HCAP is to a competency course what a night rating on a twin-engine aircraft is to a driver's licence. And HCAP's only recognised by Coillte - go anywhere else in the EU and it's not accredited (not that it's much use to Coillte for HCAP to be recognised in France or Outer Mongolia). And for that reason, HCAP's only required to shoot on Coillte land. Shoot elsewhere and it's not necessary.

Hi Sparks

I included a copy of my HCAP cert in my FCA1 form and the FAO said it wasn't really nessecary but he said if you are getting a new rifle or for someone applying for a first rifle then this will be required. I'm not sure how correct this is as it seems that lots of lads are told very different things.

Sparks

It's basicly not correct widespread. There's no prerequisite in law; but if the super asks for proof of competence, you do have to provide it. So it's down to the super. And if he asks you to do a course, the first question should be "what courses will you accept?" because there's no agreed-upon standard course. If you're an NARGC shooter and he'll accept their course, go for it. If you're an NTSA shooter, that course isn't a good idea, and you should go do a course with them; likewise if you're an ICPSA shooter or an NRAI shooter or what have you. "Go do a course" is a more involved request than anyone seems to be grasping here.

Bananaman

Don't be providing supers with a raft of courses to choose from. That is not what they want.

They are is looking for someone else to tick the 'competence' checkbox for them (Club) so as long as your club accepts the course as proof of competence, so will he.

He does not want to, nor has any intention of, specifying one course as being better than another - he simply wnats to be divested of the responsibility of declaring you competent.

Ask your club what course would be best - i.e what they run/facilitate. - based on what typpe of firearm you have.

Then tell your super the course you will be doing, who will be running it, a letter from your club specifying that they accept this course as proof of competence and ask him if it will be suitable.

It will be.

(If it looks like a rat or smells like a rat it is probably a rat - ask other club members who have done the course if they got value out of it - not just whether the super accepted it)

I would be wary of NGBs running courses - an NGB is just elected individuals - if you as a voter in said elections did not mandate them to be running courses then ask yourself why are they doing so - if we have learned anything over the last number of years it is 'never trust elected individuals'.

Your club has no interest other than you being safe and doing well - if it turns out that your NGB does run a course and your club says it is ok then go for it - but seek the information from where the rubber meets the road - your club.

B'Man

deeksofdoom

Lads yer getting a bit carried away with yerselves:eek: as to what course is acceptable or not, the Guards in the Firearm Policy unit don't have a bulls notion of what course is what.

They said any course will do it doesn't matter, but probably due to the fact that they have most dealings with the NARGC then that's the one that will stick foremost in their minds.

From what I can make out the OP is buying his first gun and was only looking to get a license for a shotgun.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I would be wary of NGBs running courses - an NGB is just elected individuals

Wary, yes - utterly dismissive, no. Look, if it's just some bloke running the course, then yeah, I'm going to think it's a waste of money. But if the person running it has the relevant qualifications, the NGB may be running the course because that's the only way the course can be accredited nationally. For example, we had an instructors course this year in the NTSA, the chaps running it were coaches with years of experience and were accredited by the ISSF. They ran the course through the NTSA because the course had to go through an NGB for the Sports Council to recognise and accredit the course. In that case, the NGB's the right choice.

If it's someone who's running a course on the basis of having been appointed to collect the post from the PO box every week, that's a whole other ball of wax. My point is, both exist and you need to know which it is before deciding.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I would be wary of NGBs running courses - an NGB is just elected individuals - if you as a voter in said elections did not mandate them to be running courses then ask yourself why are they doing so - if we have learned anything over the last number of years it is 'never trust elected individuals'.

When making that statement you need to be aware that 'you as a voter' only exists since you were a voter.

Stuff can be mandated well before you were involved, so saying that you didn't vote for it is irrelevant.

Here's an excerpt from the NTSA memorandum of association dated 1993:

(v) To give instruction in the amateur sport of target shooting and to employ instructors, promote and arrange courses of instruction, demonstrations, exhibits, competitions and to grant awards, prizes and subsidies for same and to assist other principal or local associations or clubs having like objects as affiliates

The ICPSA have pretty much the same objectives as do pretty much all other organisations. You can't purport to be a governing body for a sport if you don't intend to train your athletes.

Kinda defeats the purpose really. I can see Swim Ireland opening up pools for people to splash around in and Horse Sport Ireland renaming themselves the 'watching people fall off horses association' :rolleyes:

pullandbang

shannonpowerlab wrote: »

Would that be the full list? or are there other people who were qualified in the past?

That list on the ICPSA site is those who hold separate insurance (back to bloody insurance again) to coach people who are not already covered by ICPSA insurance. They are qualified coaches (as certified by the CPSA and ICPSA) and can issue certs of competency on behalf of the ICPSA.

Bananaman

NGBs are invaribly like religions - they will only spout their own doctrine - hence, like religions, you should be wary of letting them do the teaching.

I - aged 12 - got suspended from school for asking what the difference between catholic and protestant was - I never got my answer so after my week in the long grass I asked again - another weeek in the long grass - plus a visit to my parent sby the Bishop - I asked him and got a clip round the ear - still haven't got an answer - my experience of NGBs (although I must admit of individuals within them but in some cases same thing) is much the same.

Some will actively ignore other dispciplines and some will actively discourage other disciplines. Their interest is invariably focused on themselves, in some caes to the detriment of others.

Clubs on the other hand are only about safety, handling and having a bit of craic - the more disciplines the better - hence why I suggested they be the place to start.

utterly dismissive, no

i wasn't -

if it turns out that your NGB does run a course and your club says it is ok then go for it

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

NGBs are invaribly like religions - they will only spout their own doctrine - hence, like religions, you should be wary of letting them do the teaching.

Except that safety is safety and competence is competence and should cross all divides

I've argued that on this thread already.

Bananaman

rrpc wrote: »

Except that safety is safety and competence is competence and should cross all divides

That's a load of arse (I did note the smiley)

Heard that song before - they will teach you to be safe by staying away from them 'foreign sports'.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

That's a load of arse (I did note the smiley)

Heard that song before - they will teach you to be safe by staying away from them 'foreign sports'.

B'Man

Don't take my word for it, have a look at the safety advice on the NARGC website and then do the same on the NRA website.

Trawl around the net and have a look at other websites, the same rules prevail (even in different languages).

As for the fear of prosletysing, they say paranoia is its own reward

cavan shooter

The NARGC run proficiency course for their members at a county level which includes safe handling of firearms used in hunting and it is aimed towards "hunting" , safety in the field and quarry recognition etc.

The NARGC is also advocating that local clubs give all new members a basic overview of firearm safety as a stop gap to do the proficiency course.

The Profociency course is aimed at insured members of the NARGC only and this was clearly stated at a recent county officers training course

I dont understand the original posters comment that the NARGC have won a contract, as was stated by others the proficiency course doesnt cover pistol, rifle shooting etc it is based on game shooting and for that purpose is very good. I believed the training courses envisaged for competency would be given by the representative bodies.

My advice to the OP contact your representative body.