Will you disagree?

fodda

Quite often people ask questions on here which i feel and maybe you too? that they should have found the info on before they went near a gun.


So i think a good idea would be as part of everybodies firearm application (new and renewed) they should have to fill in a complex questionaire on what when and where you can shoot, what you can and cant shoot, etc.

Get it wrong then you have to apply again and pay again until you can answer all questions correctly and the qeustions are designed to be many and complex.

The questionaire can be in several different guises to avoid cheating.

Tackleberrywho

fodda wrote: »

Quite often people ask questions on here which i feel and maybe you too? that they should have found the info on before they went near a gun.


So i think a good idea would be as part of everybodies firearm application (new and renewed) they should have to fill in a complex questionaire on what when and where you can shoot, what you can and cant shoot, etc.

Get it wrong then you have to apply again and pay again until you can answer all questions correctly and the qeustions are designed to be many and complex.

The questionaire can be in several different guises to avoid cheating.

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

fodda

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

Understand Tack.......but by that answer would you think it is ok to issue someone with a gun who hasnt got a clue where, how and what he can use it on?

Shooting body sets questions simply on the law.

jap gt

we are all deemed 'safe' by the super, we must also do a course on firearms safety, they dont just give firearms out like sweets, we must also have good reason for owning a firearm, which means you would want a fair idea about what type of shooting you do.. most of the questions people ask on here are about a certain type of shooting they dont have experience with, which is why this forum is here, its a place to get advice and hear peoples opinions.


so no i think its a bad idea

endasmail

dont no about you Fodda
but i answered enough questions face to face with the local super

so no, i would have to disagree with you

CJhaughey

Another layer of red tape?
Who sets the questions? Who supervises the asking and marking of the questionaire ?
Would you see your answers and what appeal process is there?
Does any group stand to gain financially from the process?
Would the system be open to abuse?
Is it essential?
Some chap might just want to have a shotgun for the odd fox that kills his chickens or lambs. Should he be subjected to a rigorous examination on game seasons?

I support the idea of a safe gunhandling course and to be fair the NARGC runs a lot of shotgun courses up and down the country.
But in many cases the added complexity of a questionaire to an already fairly substantial application would make the whole system more of a disaster than it is already.

fodda

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

jap gt

just curious op, do you shoot

fodda

jap gt wrote: »

just curious op, do you shoot

Irrelevent.

Cass

Absolutely not.

There are currently competency exams in place for all new shooters. They primarily revolve around safe handling and general firearm awareness.

To impose such an exam on new shooters would mean them requiring a detailed knowledge of all wildlife laws. While knowing these things is important it is implausible to think a 16, 17, 18, (etc) year old will and can learn ALL these things. Then there is the issue of those with reading/writing disabilities, the eldery that have shot rabbits for 50-60 years. Also to refuse a license under any other condition other than suitablility (safety) to possess the firearm or criminal record would be improper and dare i say it illegal.

Shooting/hunting has been, is and will be always be a learning sport. It provides bondships between neighbours, friends, and family members that rely on each other to teach and learn about hunting.

We suffer from some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and probably the world. To impose further restrictions that are simply a stealth method of hindering the hunting of animals and in a sly way provide a ban on hunting (if only temporary) is ridiculous. It would seem that such a move or proposal would stem from the ideology that .........

" We cannot get hunting with firearms banned, so we will get it slowed/reduced by asking ridiculously hard/complex questions".

Reminds me of a certain handgun legislation that would " in no way effect the registered, normal, law abiding shooter". No ban, but the restrictions put in place have all but imposed a ban without actually doing so.

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Shooting body sets questions simply on the law.

Which shooting body?
Frankly, the idea that we'd have to go through an NGO to get a state licence is broken on many levels, at least in my opinion...

fodda

Sparks wrote: »

Which shooting body?
Frankly, the idea that we'd have to go through an NGO to get a state licence is broken on many levels, at least in my opinion...

Dont know Sparks just a general suggestion thats all.

jap gt

fodda wrote: »

Irrelevent.

how so? If you think all the people with firearms should be tested at least tell us if you will be joining us.

Cass

fodda wrote: »

Irrelevent.

Its extremely relevant. Its very easy to suggest a new wave of laws, guidelines, restrictions, etc when none of them will in anyway affect you.

fodda

ezridax wrote: »

Its extremely relevant. Its very easy to suggest a new wave of laws, guidelines, restrictions, etc when none of them will in anyway affect you.

Ok then yes.

jap gt

fodda wrote: »

Ok then yes.

what type of shooting do you do? could you answer all the questions you posted and more?

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Dont know Sparks just a general suggestion thats all.

Something to think about though fodda - you've seen all the internecine shoutiness on here over the years, can you imagine that being a part of your licencing process?

Not to mention, if you can take the Super to the Court, you'd have to be able to do the same thing to anyone taking on that role...

Grizzly 45

NO way in that format!! Like everything in this country where power and money is applied in equal measures it will be abused 100%
As usual it is "get it wrong ,pay more money,so we'll make sure you get it wrong !"
A good example of this is the stalking liscense.If one is to belive the horror stories.

We have enough hoops and loops and laws if applied correctly to sort out any problems.We dont need more law,we need what is there to be properly enforced.

Only way I'd go for somthing like that is[which sounds like a european hunting/shooting test BTW] is that we then have the hunting and firearms liscense for life [bar comitting a criminal act]and that you can have unlimited long arms and two handguns on the hunting liscense.Or as many handguns and longarms suited for a particular sporting disipline that you are qualified in.
Chances of that happening are 0.0000000001%here.

deerhunter1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

I agree

fodda

jap gt wrote: »

what type of shooting do you do? could you answer all the questions you posted and more?

Shooting from vehicles. NEVER

Shooting from boats. NEVER IF IT IS MOTORISED OR MOVING

Shooting certain shot types. SLUGS NEVER ON DEER

Shooting protected animals/birds. ALL ARE PROTECTED EXCEPT FOX, RAT, GREY SQUIRRAL, MINK, RABBIT, ... OTHERS HAVE SEASONS OR ONLY UNDER LICENSE AND ATTACKING LIVESTOCK/CROP

Shooting near the road. AT LEAST 60 FT BUT OPEN TO WHATEVER THE JUDGE MAY SAY

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land ONLY ON LAND THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO SHOOT OVER.....NEVER EVER ENTER LAND WITH A GUN THAT YOU DONT HAVE PERMISSION CAUSE ALL HELL COULD BREAK LOOSE

Did this very fast as i have to go now............

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Shooting from vehicles. NEVER

Motor vehicles...

Shooting from boats. NEVER IF IT IS MOTORISED OR MOVING

Dunno about Moving, thought it was just if it was motorised...

Shooting near the road. AT LEAST 60 FT BUT OPEN TO WHATEVER THE JUDGE MAY SAY

That's in the UK, not here, we don't have a 60ft rule, we have the more generic "no reckless shooting" rule.

Vegeta

fodda wrote: »

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

But the people are asking these questions and finding out the legal position. Surely that's a good thing, why is that bad?

meathstevie

A lot of countries have exams like that before you can go anywhere near hunting live animals in the open air. They involve a theory test on seasons open seasons, safe gun handling, carcass handling, habitat and conservation, legislation, etc etc and are often accompanied by range qualifications as well.

The one I would be most familiar with would the Flemish region of Belgium, I never sat it but know plenty of people who did, where the test is a theory test combined with a shotgun and a rifle practical. The shotgun one would be kind of a practical sporting clays walk through with all sorts of aspects thrown in.

By the way, it's the department of the environment that runs the exam over there for a rather nominal fee and hunting licences cost around €50 per annum after having passed the test and it also doubles up as your firearms licence for hunting firearms. Details of firearms possession are registered on a national database managed by the police.

I don't know anything about the target shooting scene over there so can't answer any questions on that.

dCorbus

Absolutely NOT!

First off: As has already been mentioned, we all have to show "good reason" to the satisfaction of the Guards and we all have to show "competence" either by way (generally) of being a member of an authorised range or having successfully completed a firearms safety training course - so why should we have to jump through more hoops, i ask?!

Secondly:

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

I'm a target shooter - what relevance has any of the above got to do with the kind of shooting I happen to do? Or would you prefer us all to be tested on the various Wildlife Acts too?

So to answer your OP:

Will you disagree?

Yes, I most certainly will disagree and frankly I'm surprised that any shooter would be so niave and misguided to suggest such an idea. We have enough red-tape already without our fellow shooters (if that is in fact what the OP is) putting the boot in and suggesting even more ways we can be buggered.:mad:

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO way in that format!! Like everything in this country where power and money is applied in equal measures it will be abused 100%
As usual it is "get it wrong ,pay more money,so we'll make sure you get it wrong !"
A good example of this is the stalking liscense.If one is to belive the horror stories.

We have enough hoops and loops and laws if applied correctly to sort out any problems.We dont need more law,we need what is there to be properly enforced.

Only way I'd go for somthing like that is[which sounds like a european hunting/shooting test BTW] is that we then have the hunting and firearms liscense for life [bar comitting a criminal act]and that you can have unlimited long arms and two handguns on the hunting liscense.Or as many handguns and longarms suited for a particular sporting disipline that you are qualified in.
Chances of that happening are 0.0000000001%here.

You're basicly talking about the way it's done in a right few continental countries.

Sparks

Lots of Irish licences involve testing as well meath; driving, pilots, ham radio licences all need testing to get. But the state has expert bodies that administer the tests, those tests and the way they're administered are standardised and impartial and have appeal processes and all the mechanics that go with a fair standard test.

Our NGBs on the other hand, are understaffed, unfunded and not able to deliver a test that fairly. You could have a test, there are even ISO standards for doing so, but the test itself would have to be administered by the state and you'd need accreditation inspections for the testing and so forth (That's what the ISO standards cover). But there's no desire on the part of the PTB to run such a system, no manhours to administer it, no money to set it up, and none outside of the PTB to do so either.

I mean, just look at all the criticisim the HCAP gets and that's a very limited test applied to a very small section of the shooting community. A single test for all 200,000-odd shooters from farmers to hunters to target shooters? We couldn't set up something even that basic, let alone tailored tests. It's logistically and financially too much to ask for.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Absolutely NOT!

First off: As has already been mentioned, we all have to show "good reason" to the satisfaction of the Guards and we all have to show "competence" either by way (generally) of being a member of an authorised range or having successfully completed a firearms safety training course - so why should we have to jump through more hoops, i ask?!

Secondly:



I'm a target shooter - what relevance has any of the above got to do with the kind of shooting I happen to do? Or would you prefer us all to be tested on the various Wildlife Acts too?

Target shooting has a completely different "risk assesment" if you like.

Once you're a balanced sort of a person without criminal tendencies and have an interest in your chosen sport you're halfway there. The next step is knowing that range commands/rules and safety officers are to be taken more serious than the Ten Commandements and the rest is training, training and more training if you want to achieve an anyway decent standard in your chosen discipline. As you said yourself it's a completely different environment ( I dare say to an extent controlled ) than hunting with a firearm and entry criteria should reflect that difference.

dCorbus

Hold on a second: What many seem to be talking about is "testing" hunters as to their knowledge of the relevant wildlife and hunting acts, regs, and best practice - What the OP was asking was about our Firearms Licences, which is something which we are all "tested" on already (so to speak) by way of our proof of competency and proof of "good reason" - Let's not be mixing up two related but separate areas.

And TBH the hcap is there for that reason for lads wanting to hunt on coillte land. Maybe the NPWS could administer a similar thing for hunters in general (TBH I don't know whether they do or don't already).

But that's not what the OP is asking about - he's suggesting a very large end of the wedge be driven deeper up our proverbial shooting small- and full-bores!:rolleyes: Not something I'd personally look forward to!

As you said yourself it's a completely different environment ( I dare say to an extent controlled ) than hunting with a firearm and entry criteria should reflect that difference.

Can't really agree with you there - Firearms can be dangerous in the field or on the range. Safe and responsible handling of a firearm is the same whether you're in a field, in a wood, or on the range (just adapted to the different locations). The Three Golden Rules and the 10 Commandments are equally applicable. A safe shooter knows how to behave safely whether it's on the range or in the field (or at least should do).

Sparks

That was rather my point dC - we dislike the thin end rather a lot, so it makes sense that we wouldn't like the rest of the wedge either!

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

Lots of Irish licences involve testing as well meath; driving, pilots, ham radio licences all need testing to get. But the state has expert bodies that administer the tests, those tests and the way they're administered are standardised and impartial and have appeal processes and all the mechanics that go with a fair standard test.

Our NGBs on the other hand, are understaffed, unfunded and not able to deliver a test that fairly. You could have a test, there are even ISO standards for doing so, but the test itself would have to be administered by the state and you'd need accreditation inspections for the testing and so forth (That's what the ISO standards cover). But there's no desire on the part of the PTB to run such a system, no manhours to administer it, no money to set it up, and none outside of the PTB to do so either.

I mean, just look at all the criticisim the HCAP gets and that's a very limited test applied to a very small section of the shooting community. A single test for all 200,000-odd shooters from farmers to hunters to target shooters? We couldn't set up something even that basic, let alone tailored tests. It's logistically and financially too much to ask for.

The practicalities of it would be fairly daunting in the early stages, I agree with you on that but the knowledge required would be nothing that surpasses the knowledge of a NPWS ranger who could be operating as a tester. If it means hiring a small number of rangers it shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle and it would lift Irish hunting up to lot higher a level of credibility.

If NPWS was to run tests like that you could do the theory part like the driving test in a mobile test center like the driver theory test and as for the practical there's plenty of sporting clays layouts all over the county as well that could be block booked for a day by the NPWS. The only more complicated one might be finding full bore rifle ranges. With a bit of imagination and a bit of practical thinking it shouldn't cost the earth.

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

With a bit of imagination and a bit of practical thinking it shouldn't cost the earth.

*ahem*
Read the firearms acts or any debate surrounding them in the Dail or Seanad recently?

It's not that it's impossible meath; it's that it's never going to be done right and it's a really bad idea. Besides which, I can think of a few groups off the top of my head who'd try to take over the process in the effort to obtain a veto over who got a licence and who didn't. I think we can all agree that that would be a very bad thing.