safety courses for shooters on club ranges

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

From what I have read Cass said his own club have used UK RO training as Irish one not adequate.

I'll leave Cass to comment, but I'd bet it was NRA(UK) RO training, not UK RO training as the UK government does not train ROs.

NRA in USA are not a government department and run courses in all aspects of shooting including RO and safety. Why can it not be done in Ireland as we are a smaller country and not as many shooters on the US Scale per head of population.

It is. All the associations do it to one extent or another. What it is not, is a national standard - that would be the government you'd be looking to get involved there. That would not be a good thing.

I think its just rubbish. It would be very easy to do.

No, it wouldn't be.

AS the same was done in the security industry and construction industry.

Ask Grizzly about the security industry if you want to know how easy and useful that standardisation was.

I know the course that is done in UK and it goes up to military range standards and I can guarantee you that it is recognized anywhere in the world.

It does not go up to military range standards, it is recognised by the MOD under a grandfather clause to give UK NRA shooters access to the MOD ranges; not the same thing by a very long way.
Also, I can guarantee you it is not recognised here because here, there is no such regulation of firearms training. If your local Garda super says it's not enough for him, that's pretty much it unless you go to the DC; and the DC is as empowered to say they don't recognise it as the Gardai are.
That's why the rule is ask the Super before paying for the course.

We do not have, and I don't see us having for a very long time, an equivalent to the barcelona agreement for international recognition of firearms safety courses or RO courses. And it's a far more complex topic than you are giving it credit for, mainly I think because you don't know yet what's involved.

Cass

hermes2011 wrote: »

From what I have read Cass said his own club have used UK RO training as Irish one not adequate.

Again you're bastardising what i said. I never said they done the UK one because the Irish one is not adequate. There is NO Irish one. The people that done the RCO course in the UK done it for themselves and as Sparks said it was the NRA(UK) course.

I think its just rubbish. It would be very easy to do.

No it wouldn't, but explain how it would be?

I know the course that is done in UK and it goes up to military range standards and I can guarantee you that it is recognized anywhere in the world.

It's not recognised by the Irish Government/DoJ/ An Gardaí.

hermes2011

I no full well whats involved . no training standard at all were anyone can train be rso or any thing they want.so what are all these head off training people in these association just more people to fill commitees .

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

I no full well whats involved

Sure. So what's the ISO standard required and what Irish body do you need to have administer a course with that kind of certification then?

no training standard at all were anyone can train be rso or any thing they want

Correct, that is the current state of affairs.
Mainly because someone thought all this was simple and commonsense.

.so what are all these head off training people in these association just more people to fill commitees .

They're training their own people.
You're suggesting one course, recognised by both the DoJ and the Gardai, as well as ALL THESE ASSOCIATIONS:



But yeah, sure. Simple.

.243

So basically, if I want to become a recognized, qualified R.O on any range in this country,
I'd have to go to the UK to do it ???

Sparks

.243 wrote: »

So basically, if I want to become a recognized, qualified R.O on any range in this country,
I'd have to go to the UK to do it ???

No, you go to whomever the group you want to be recognised by says to go to.

.243

Sparks wrote: »

No, you go to whomever the group you want to be recognised by says to go to.

Well that feckes that up,because dammed if I'm paying for two r.o courses,

Sparks

You pretty much don't have choices in this 243, not if you want recognition from people who don't recognise each other's courses.

Sparks

BTW, related reading as this has come up a few times before:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95486051
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57414136#post57414136
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62678871#post62678871

hermes2011

Sparks wrote: »

I'll leave Cass to comment, but I'd bet it was NRA(UK) RO training, not UK RO training as the UK government does not train ROs.



It is. All the associations do it to one extent or another. What it is not, is a national standard - that would be the government you'd be looking to get involved there. That would not be a good thing.


No, it wouldn't be.


Ask Grizzly about the security industry if you want to know how easy and useful that standardisation was.


Sparks you may have had the privilege to speak to an Oireachtas Committee and voiced your opinion, but that does not make you right, I have asked questions here to clarify situations and to give my opinion from what I have observed, read and viewed. My opinion is there is no standardization of any training in this country for any aspect of shooting and people are making money out of it off the backs of shooters. I can guarantee that half the RSO in Ireland have not got a clue what they are doing.

hermes2011

just don't waste your money 243 as sparks said there anit no course recognize by anybody worth a damn only the people who are giving the courses recognize them or ring your super first to see does he or she recognize them

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

Sparks you may have had the privilege to speak to an Oireachtas Committee and voiced your opinion, but that does not make you right

No, fifteen years of studying the legislation and being involved in this is why I'm right.

I have asked questions here to clarify situations and to give my opinion from what I have observed, read and viewed. My opinion is there is no standardization of any training in this country for any aspect of shooting and people are making money out of it off the backs of shooters.

See the first link there in the related reading post above.

I can guarantee that half the RSO in Ireland have not got a clue what they are doing.

You can? Wonderful. Then you'll be able to defend yourself from the many, many defamation lawsuits you'd be exposing yourself to if you named them.

Of course, that would mean that you know all the ROs in the country (or how would you know that you knew half of them instead of just two guys in the middle of nowhere).

And it would mean that you are qualified to certify ROs (and therefore are qualified to judge their proficiency).

Or it could just mean that you haven't fully grasped the scale of the problem, the things it affects, the impact simple language choices in the law make, the damage badly written laws have done over the years, or the amount of care that's needed when making changes to this giant jenga set of legislation that governs our sport.

hermes2011

The problem with irish shooting is that everyone thinks they are right. Individuals making applications are studying the 'legislation' every time they have to put in new or renewal applications for firearms. Yes it is a big jenga of legislation but people have the ability to research it as I am sure many have including myself.

Sparks

If by "many" you mean somewhere around 2 to 4 dozen in the entire country including in the DoJ, AGS, AG's office and on the bench, then sure.

clivej

Sparks wrote: »

No, fifteen years of studying the legislation and being involved in this is why I'm right.

I'd say that is a 'Slam Dunk' myself, well said young man

hermes2011

been involved in shooting a lot longer than that. since the original legislation is around since 1925 and certain amendments since 2009 I have studied both of them as previously mentioned. They are easy to quote but for an average shooter they are not so easy to interpret. It needs to be in plain and simple English. There is some element of agreement on a lot of things i.e. there is no recognized certification in Ireland and anyone that says they are certified from what you are saying sparks is wrong.

.243

hermes2011 wrote: »

ring your super first to see does he or she recognize them

Ehhhhh no thanks,its bad enough trying to get firearms certs approved with them without involving them in other matters that doesn't concern them,
even if its you wanting to better your knowledge and qualification for a safer day on A range

Sparks

If you've been around a lot longer than that, congratulations, here's what you've missed:



The current primary act dates to 1925, but there's preceding legislation going back as far as 1815, and a fair chuck of that stuff is still active (ask anyone involved in handloading about the 1870 Explosives Act, for example). And there aren't merely "certain amendments from 2009", there are Acts dating from 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2009, along with an approximate 266 statutory instruments, two of which were transcribing EU directives into the mess we call firearms legislation here, and that's without getting into the Wildlife Acts, the Explosives Act, the District Court rules and the other parts of Irish law that impact on firearms ownership.

And sure, it'd be nice if the law was written in plain and simple English, but such a thing not only doesn't exist, it hasn't existed, ever, in any area of law, pretty much as far back as written laws go, because you write a law in plain English and some little asshat is going to say "oh, it doesn't ban this" and next thing you know you're fifty amendments into a law that was only supposed to say you couldn't shoot your neighbour's car because you didn't like its tyres.

Humans don't do plain and simple laws because humans are between 40% and 98% asshat.

Sparks

.243 wrote: »

Ehhhhh no thanks,its bad enough trying to get firearms certs approved with them without involving them in other matters that doesn't concern them,
even if its you wanting to better your knowledge and qualification for a safer day on A range

You don't have a fantastic choice here 243. Apply, he says where's your proof of competence, you ask what he'll accept, he tells you, you go do it. Or you go to court to say it's nonsense, but that route... is suboptimal.

hermes2011

haven't missed anything. very easy to blind with science. just because I have read Ulysses over the past twenty years doesent make me an expert on joyce. What 243 is saying no one will be arsed to do the courses because sparks maintains they are not recognized by anyone only those providing them.

.243

Sparks wrote: »

You don't have a fantastic choice here 243. Apply, he says where's your proof of competence, you ask what he'll accept, he tells you, you go do it. Or you go to court to say it's nonsense, but that route... is suboptimal.

I think the wires are crossed,its an r.o course I'm looking do that would be recognized by any range I could walk in on,and if needed to step in if an r.o was required

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

haven't missed anything. very easy to blind with science.

If you hadn't missed anything, you wouldn't be saying this was all simple.
You're talking about introducing a course recognised by every shooting association in the country - including those who can't stand to be in the same room as each other - and which is also recognised by the state, which would require a change to the Firearms Act, recognition by FETAC, the development of an ISO-29990 standard course for that recognition, the development of higher-level certification to certify the inspectors who will certify those giving the courses, and then training for the Gardai Superintendents to tell them about this course.

This is pretty much the opposite of "simple".

hermes2011

.243 wrote: »

I think the wires are crossed,its an r.o course I'm looking do that would be recognized by any range I could walk in on,and if needed to step in if an r.o was required

your own club should offer Range safety officer courses, as far as I remember the NASRPC are meant to be offering such course to bring RO's up to national level just ask in your club. these should be provided free of charge as they of benefit to the club and the NASRPC

hermes2011

as for recognized that's a different story as you can see

hermes2011

Sparks wrote: »

If you hadn't missed anything, you wouldn't be saying this was all simple.
You're talking about introducing a course recognised by every shooting association in the country - including those who can't stand to be in the same room as each other - and which is also recognised by the state, which would require a change to the Firearms Act, recognition by FETAC, the development of an ISO-29990 standard course for that recognition, the development of higher-level certification to certify the inspectors who will certify those giving the courses, and then training for the Gardai Superintendents to tell them about this course.

This is pretty much the opposite of "simple".

A minister can make an order at the end of that order it doesn't matter what associations think they have to comply within a reasonable time frame, it was done in the security industry i.e. PSA and the construction industry with not much hassle. FETAC is already in place with regard safety handling training so they could be easily adapted, I am sure there are plenty of 'experts' out there that could deliver them and the CDU could put together the Accreditation. The Firearms Act would not need to be changed as it is already covered in very indirect non English i.e. competency.

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

A minister can make an order at the end of that order it doesn't matter what associations think they have to comply within a reasonable time frame, it was done in the security industry i.e. PSA and the construction industry with not much hassle. FETAC is already in place with regard safety handling training so they could be easily adapted, I am sure there are plenty of 'experts' out there that could deliver them and the CDU could put together the Accreditation. The Firearms Act would not need to be changed as it is already covered in very indirect non English i.e. competency.

So, in order:

• Yes, and if you ask anyone in the industries that have had that happen, you'd get a different impression of the benefits of the process. Every time we've had a Minister make orders like that, it's gone quite badly for us.
• FETAC is not already in place with regard to safety handling training. That is not what FETAC even do, they certify the courses that do that. Which we would have to put together and bring to them. And if you think that's simple, you've never been involved in trying to do that. I have, for target shooting. It's not easy or simple.
• The Firearms Act *would* have to be altered. And that's a good thing. We've had more than enough of people saying that there are things in the Act that aren't. Like, say, banning pistols for thirty years.

On top of all that, at the end of all that effort - would we have anything better for safety training than what we have now? What specifically would be better this way, that would make it worth all this effort?

hermes2011

Sparks wrote: »

So, in order:

• Yes, and if you ask anyone in the industries that have had that happen, you'd get a different impression of the benefits of the process. Every time we've had a Minister make orders like that, it's gone quite badly for us.
  
  Yes but a minister can make a decision and implement at the drop of a hat when need be.
  
• FETAC is not already in place with regard to safety handling training. That is not what FETAC even do, they certify the courses that do that. Which we would have to put together and bring to them. And if you think that's simple, you've never been involved in trying to do that. I have, for target shooting. It's not easy or simple.
  
  The bones of FETAC courses regarding 'safety' applies across the board, i.e. construction industry, manual handling, etc., however I know that one for firearms would require a little bit of work but not a lot, CDU can develop curriculum very easily will the advice of experts.
  
• The Firearms Act *would* have to be altered. And that's a good thing. We've had more than enough of people saying that there are things in the Act that aren't. Like, say, banning pistols for thirty years.

I was one of them people, they were not banned it was only temporary act - taken in for safe keeping. They were given back to those who proved ownership.

On top of all that, at the end of all that effort - would we have anything better for safety training than what we have now? What specifically would be better this way, that would make it worth all this effort?

We would have accredited training that was value for money for those paying for it, that everyone recognized and benefit from. This in my opinion is how it could be done. But it would be much better if the associations with the FCP could approach the minister and have input into the safety courses.

Grizzly 45

FWIW,in shooting in the states,I've met absolute Drill instructors for saftey and absolute.."Dude,like um could you kinda like keep the gun pointed down towads the target like??Cool!"[ This was in a range that had bullet holes in the floor ,celing,the booth panels,the walls,just about everywhere ecxcept the backstops:eek:]. So again its quantifable on how good or bad your Range saftey officer is.Doesnt meant they are all bad or all sloppy. In fact,I'd say our ROs that I've me have been above average and good at their job.You dont need DI Hartmann USMC bellowing commands ,it just needs someone with their wits about them who can follow a set protocol and routine.[Even if they have to take a check list with them],and know how to handle a situation if somone has a misfire,jam or INOP gun on the line.The only thing I would like to see any RO or RSO having is in the extremely unlikely case of a gunshot injury is an annual review of a first aid video on gunshot injuries and 1st aid treatment for that.

This is a list of what the NRA [US] can provide in courses.alot of them would be useless here,but it just shows what you could get qualified as an instructor.

Instructor ratings are available to conduct the following NRA courses:
Basic Pistol Shooting
Personal Protection in the Hom
ePersonal Protection Outside the Home
Basic Rifle ShootingBasic Shotgun ShootingBasic
Muzzleloading Pistol
Basic Muzzleloading Rifle
Basic Muzzleloading Shotgun
Home Firearm Safety

Metallic Cartridge Reloading
Shotgun Shell Reloading
Range Safety Officer

Hunter saftey course .
Youth saftey course
Womens saftey course

Law enforcement
Handgun Instructor
Handgun / Shotgun Instructor
Tactical Shooting Instructor | Tactical Shotgun Instructor
Patrol Rifle Instructor | Select-Fire Instructor
Precision Rifle Instructor

Did somone say FETAC???RUN AWAY VERY QUICKLY!!Unless you want to complicate,pad out and add 100% cost to everything on your course,and spend the rest of your life refreshing it annually and reviewing it for reviews by FETAC.

Thing is really here if it aint broke,don't fix it!.
We have an exemplery record of saftey on our ranges[bar one suicide,and you cant saftey train for that] ,two fatal hunting accidents in a decade.That is above and beyond a safe sport.Even the Germans who have more regulation and laws for shooting and hunting cant even match this.They manage about five or six deaths a year in hunting or shooting related accidents.

hermes2011

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The only thing I would like to see any RO or RSO having is in the extremely unlikely case of a gunshot injury is an annual review of a first aid video on gunshot injuries and 1st aid treatment for that.

This would be paramount as an occupational injuries first aid course would be of great benefit not just on the range either.

This is a list of what the NRA [US] can provide in courses.alot of them would be useless here,but it just shows what you could get qualified as an instructor.

Instructor ratings are available to conduct the following NRA courses:
Basic Pistol Shooting
Personal Protection in the Hom
ePersonal Protection Outside the Home
Basic Rifle ShootingBasic Shotgun ShootingBasic
Muzzleloading Pistol
Basic Muzzleloading Rifle
Basic Muzzleloading Shotgun
Home Firearm Safety

Metallic Cartridge Reloading
Shotgun Shell Reloading
Range Safety Officer

Hunter saftey course .
Youth saftey course
Womens saftey course

Law enforcement
Handgun Instructor
Handgun / Shotgun Instructor
Tactical Shooting Instructor | Tactical Shotgun Instructor
Patrol Rifle Instructor | Select-Fire Instructor
Precision Rifle Instructor

thanks

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

We would have accredited training that was value for money for those paying for it, that everyone recognized and benefit from.

That's not how it would work.
You'd start off with these high hopes, and a really vague end target (how do I know it's vague? I just asked you specifically what it would improve in terms of safety and all you could bring up was that it'd be recognised. Which would be nice - but recognition is not an improvement in safety, nor is it cheap).

You'd then eat up hundreds of man-hours that would otherwise be spent on things like coaching and shooting and building ranges, trying to put together a course syllabus that was both basic enough to cover everything without requiring weeks of training, and advanced enough to be worth doing. I don't think you'd succeed, I don't think that common ground exists, nor do I think you'd get all the associations in the same room to discuss it (hell, you can't even get the GRPAI and NASRPC to sort themselves out, let alone build something out of the twenty-odd other groups out there, some of whom are in the high court against one another and have been for years).

But if I'm wrong and you did, you'd then have to ensure it was implemented correctly, instead of having the usual suspects step in and announce they were running commercial courses and telling the Minister that that was a better, more upstanding, more respectable approach than some random lads down the club giving substandard instruction and wouldn't it all blow back on her if it went wrong?

Five minutes later, we have a commercial monopoly on a legally mandatory course that today is not required by law, can be given the same way we've done for 160+ years, and someone's pocket is getting lined at our expense, and we still don't have any improvement in safety.

It's a waste of things we don't have, to take on a task you don't seem to understand the scale of, for an end result that isn't worth it in the first place, and which will make things worse, not better.