How to Derail a Topic with a Personal Dispute.

tireur

JC , are you a few cc's short of a litre by any chance?

Sparks

Tireur, is there a particular reason that you feel throwing insults at someone is a valid answer?

FLAG

Hi Jaycee

Not everyone has identified themselves, StevenW, I do not know who Jaycee is either, everyone knows me so what’s the deal. Some people even think they know what firearms I shoot and how I shoot them.

StevenW it is easy to snipe from the shadows, if you are man enough and could put down your air-rifle for a few minutes, I think you owe it to everyone to identify yourself after all you claim to know how all other shooters behave on ranges, you chose to join the debate, all others are identifying themselves who have participated, I have yet to come across a range where I have seen behaviour that you describe.

Maybe of course you are spending time researching the medical dictionaries for more big words to use!

Mark still has to identify his qualifications with respect to the courses that he runs for 3-400 people in a year.

Clash

Hi right back to ya!
Good God, I disappear for a day or so, and have to trawl a long way back to find this response…..

FLAG wrote:

The simple answer to your question is that I was fed up with the volumes of garbage being received not only on e-mail but on the boards from Mark, it was a point of frustration that having been reached I decided that if Mark was to specifically accuse me of misrepresentation then it may have been a case where my good character was being slighted, I threatened to take legal action against Mark and no one else, the NTSA were not represented by Sparks/Mark on the boards so there was no inference that the NTSA were in any way involved

That may well be the case Declan, and I know that people can get pissed off with the sheer volume of output Mark gets through. Check my thread ‘The ballad of shattered illusions’ if you want a humorous look at this. What struck me however, about your response to Marks report was this: The threat was posted on the NTSA website, which was not the appropriate place if the threat was against Mark personally and as an outlet for frustration against a list of perceived attacks against you personally. It certainly gave me the impression as a member of the NTSA that the threat was against us. The subsequent responses under yours gave credence to this belief.

FLAG wrote:

I had discussions with the NTSA rep on the NRPAI specifically related to the posts from Mark and we were clear that he was not representing the views of the NTSA.

But was this discussion related to this specific post? I know most people like myself who were unaware of his other posts, were stunned by your response to it.

FLAG wrote:

I have no issue with the NTSA, just Mark. It is clear that the NTSA eventually decided to remove Mark from the committee of the NTSA.

I was at the EGM that removed Mark from the committee, and the reasons given were: 1) That he had failed to comply with the Chairman's various reasonable requests. 2) That he was undermining his fellow NTSA Directors. (This was mostly concerning volumes of correspondence which made committee members jobs impossible)
3) That he was undermining relations with other national shooting organisations (NRPAI). Specifically relating to his comments regarding the Tirol Open.
The comment about Nick Flood’s case was never mentioned during the EGM, so although you are correct in stating that he was removed, it was not one of the reasons given, so is irrelevant to this discussion, beside the fact that his removal was six months subsequent to the posting of the comments. I don’t really see the point of discussing the reasons given at the EGM, as these were trashed out in great detail at the meeting. I recall a couple of neutral contributors making the point that most of the grounds stated would not have existed had the Chairman acted with more authority.

FLAG wrote:

For the record I believe that I e-mailed Mark directly on the matter of the threat of legal action, as I cannot be sure and my e-mail records do not go back that far I cannot be critical, but it was more a signal to get off my back than anything else.

Perhaps Mark has it, he appears to set a great store by correspondence

FLAG wrote:

In response to his comment about waiting for the other shoe to drop, I believe he may be frightening people into believing that some repressive firearms legislation is being brought forward, in all new legislation it is fair to say that not every one might be happy (I have no specifics but it is a general statement). To infer that I or representatives of FLAG would be responsible for any such failings in the legislation is very misleading and unfair, we do not draft legislation, the DOJ does in response to concerns and aspirations of all parties…

I don’t think he was inferring any such responsibility, just that it’s a bit early to be counting chickens. I would agree that the DOJ write the legislation, but past experience would always have me holding my breath to see what legislative interpretations are made of our requirements, or even the relative weight given to what would be minority opinions or a sensationalist report in the Tabloid Press. How many times in the life of the current Government has legislation been referred to the Supreme Court by the President? Never mind successful individual challenges in the High or Supreme Courts. Perhaps you have a better insight into what’s coming down the line but “there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip”.

Rovi

:rolleyes:

.

rrpc

FLAG wrote:

StevenW it is easy to snipe from the shadows, if you are man enough and could put down your air-rifle for a few minutes, I think you owe it to everyone to identify yourself after all you claim to know how all other shooters behave on ranges, you chose to join the debate, all others are identifying themselves who have participated, I have yet to come across a range where I have seen behaviour that you describe.

StevenW's comment should not deserve any response at all, being crude and insulting in the extreme. As for identification, there is no requirement for anyone to identify themselves on this board, those that have, have their own reasons for doing so. Those that haven't should be allowed their right not to do so. Excepting on another thread where specific and serious allegations were made against a named person by unnamed persons, this right should be upheld at all times.

Mark still has to identify his qualifications with respect to the courses that he runs for 3-400 people in a year.

Very few people in this country have recognised coahing qualifications for ISSF shooting. The NTSA is currently organising coaching courses, but AFAIK this would not be a recognised qualification even though the course is being run by a qualified ISSF B Coach. I attended a coaching course given by David Parrish (ISSF Coach and International Judge), but can't point to any qualification for having so attended. Many people in the past have coached in clubs with nothing but experience to guide them. What's your point?

FLAG

Point is that I referred to courses run to date in a response to Mark, he then proceeded to undermine the course that I referred to by way of numbers and content, I simply indicated that I was qualified to an Interntionally recognised standard, that being the case my courses are regulated and run to that standard, Mark was fast to point out the volume of coaching he has done 3 -400 per annum and the question was to what standard and what qualification he has, just because there are no recognised ISSF coaches in Ireland is no excuse.

Sparks

My qualifications for coaching the 3-400 people per year would be training from a dozen highly experienced and accomplished target shooters, and courses run by the NTSA in coaching. I think there was a course from the NRPAI in there as well at one point, given by an NTSA instructor if I remember right. However, if you want a bit of paper that says I'm able to do it, I can't help you, because as RRPC has pointed out, our problem for many years was a lack of accredited domestic courses that were run on a regular basis instead of the 'once every blue moon' course which carried no recognised accreditation afterwards.

Now Declan, you still have a list of questions you haven't answered, I'd suggest you lead us by example - after all, I've certainly answered questions of yours up to now.

Clash wrote:

Perhaps Mark has it, he appears to set a great store by correspondence

Indeed, and I can confirm that Declan is mistaken - no private communications on that topic were ever received by me.

By the way, it's interesting to note that of the specific examples cited in the EGM as things I did or didn't do and shouldn't or should have done; not one has been altered in any way, almost a year later. I personally can't believe that there were reasons so serious as to merit an EGM but which were not serious enough to "fix" later on. Which would to me suggest that they had nothing to do with the real reason; and I would imagine that a threat of legal action by someone with access to the association's own funds to use in bringing that action against the association would have had more to do with things than text on webpages.

I don’t think he was inferring any such responsibility

Correct, though I don't think the highly adversarial attitude towards the various authorities that I've seen from Declan and heard of about Declan from others, would be in any way beneficial in avoiding such an outcome. There's a definite need to be firm in such cases; but actual belligerance would not strike me as being a good idea, and I've lost track of how many times I've mentioned it to him privately without any hint of change.

rrpc wrote:

As for identification, there is no requirement for anyone to identify themselves on this board

This is true and unchanged; there is a suggestion on the other thread mentioned that if someone is making accusations at someone else that they should identify themselves or not make them, but it's something we'd need to think on for a while before doing it. Besides, I have a reasonably good idea as to who the party in question is and frankly, I'm not overly concerned if anyone else knows or not. The anonymity of the board is a very useful thing given past reactions of the Powers That Be to shooters who make complaints.

I do want to say, however, that regardless of the problems I have with Declan's actions, in all honesty with no undertones or sniping; fair play to him for identifying himself, it isn't all that trivial to do.

FLAG wrote:

Point is that I referred to courses run to date in a response to Mark, he then proceeded to undermine the course that I referred to by way of numbers and content

Actually, I pointed out (and supplied proof when requested to do so) that those courses seemed to have some questionable practises going on in them.

I simply indicated that I was qualified to an Interntionally recognised standard, that being the case my courses are regulated and run to that standard

I somehow doubt that the NRA would approve of shooting fullbore pistols without eye or ear protection Declan.

Mark was fast to point out the volume of coaching he has done 3 -400 per annum and the question was to what standard and what qualification he has, just because there are no recognised ISSF coaches in Ireland is no excuse.

As I said above, if you want a piece of paper saying I can do it, I can't help you - we don't make those pieces of paper (yet). There are ISSF coaches in the country (one class B and two class C coaches in the Republic) but ISSF courses are expensive, require that you be nominated by the NGB and are aimed a lot higher than the club level of coaching that we would do. I haven't had the opportunity to do one of these courses yet, and would regard it as a bit of a waste for anyone who hasn't given up on active competition as if you take these courses and then don't coach as your primary activity in shooting, you're not really using the accreditation to its fullest.

jaycee

Hi Jaycee

Not everyone has identified themselves, StevenW, I do not know who Jaycee is either

I Have ... !
It is in another post to the same gentleman, and was the result of comments by myself and other members .
The substance of those comments was , that if anyone wished to pass personal criticism on the character or actions of other known members ..they should be honourable enough to identify themselves.

A fairly reasonable request you would think ..!
This sentiment was echoed by others , and so , even though I wasn't directly involved in that particular exchange..I duly identified myself. Others here can confirm that fact.


So far.. Tireur has declined to , preferring instead to anonymously toss about inane and childish insults which are worthy of only contempt.

I note that you , while I do not agree with everyhing you have posted, at least have the decency to stand up and be counted.

tireur

You are right of course JC. Which film do you think was best, 2001 or Full Metal Jacket?

jaycee

My point is proven.
I rest my case..!

tireur

Why, is it heavy?

Sparks

And yet I get accused of inane commentary. :rolleyes:

Deaf Sieve

This thread seems to have been derailed by a personal dispute. Get back on track please, I was enjoying it.

jaycee

Which film do you think was best, 2001 or Full Metal Jacket?

Ohhh look.. :eek:

It's the attack of the Clones..!

.. Ignore List !

tireur

I think it is a lot more than a few cc's

Clash

Listen lads, I don't have the bandwidth or the time to waste scrolling through a load of inane, infantile and plainly moronic posts from people who have (obviously) a lot of time on their hands and not much on their minds. There is a serious discussion going on here, if you want to play, go start a thread of your own.

LRPC 2003

Sparks , I have recieved a number of complaints from my members that have been depicted in the photos that you have posted here . I must ask you to remove these photos immediately . I had not been contacted nor gave permission for these or any other photos from the LRPC site to be used , and I am surprised by your actions . I will be taking diciplinary action on our own site for this , and will PM the Moderator here also .

As for the photos ,You have not taken the camera angles into account with these photos , it would be impossible for DK to be in front of the shooters / firing line as there are benches in front of each shooter . The person with the ear defenders high on their head , is also wearing Ear Plugs , which are hidden by their hat , and the person with the shooting glasses , did in fact have them positioned correctly on his face . The Safety course was very professionally run and followed the NRA course to the letter , you seem to be trying to make out that it was a bunch of lads in a field , get a grip , it is a certified course run by a qualified NRA instructor to NRA international standards .

I fail to understand your obsession with DK / SSAI / NRPAI , and can only see the damage that you are doing to our sport by back biting and bickering on this open forum. I have noticed that the forum is being watched by some Anti Gun individuals who , I am sure , are lapping up your comments for a future stab at our sport . Come on Sparks , get a grip of yourself , move on , You have been involved in a number of groups over the years and yet all that you have been doing here is creating a poor public image for shooting sports . All you seem to do is fight against every section of this sport that you dont take part in ! Why dont you re direct your energy into something positive for all shooting sports .

Traumadoc

If the person in the second photo is wearing the safety glasses over his forehead he is exhibiting a remarkable level of dysmorphism.

MP

In case some of you out there think that Sparks comments are just an attack on DK and the NRPAI/SSAI, check his posts on cybershooters.org forum, I think that it will show that he is just as capable of ranting on their forum as well. It would appear that he is equally up to the task of irritating people involved in shooting sports outside of Ireland also.

Rovi

LRPC 2003 wrote:

...and the person with the shooting glasses , did in fact have them positioned correctly on his face .

Erm...............
http://groups.msn.com/TheLeinsterRiflePistolClub/pistolhandelingcourse.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=129

.

FLAG

Mark:

1) The SSAI/NRPAI is not signed up to the NRA in the USA, there is no mechanism to facilitate such...............more misinformation from the Mark corner.
2) This really needs to be put to bed: Tyrol Open 2004

The NRPAI received an invitation to the Tyrol open, this was discussed at NRPAI committee meetings and the mechanism agreed on how to go forward, the NRPAI Chairman was not present at the meeting or indeed any other NRPAI Committee Meetings during 2004 due to other commitments: He was however informed of the full detail of the invitation and mechanism to invite participation by e-mail, read receipt is available for review.

An invitation was sent by e-mail to all NRPAI registered clubs, committee and individual associate members, we received 15 responses, from the 15 I drew the squad on the basis of experience and ability to perform in such a competition, PPC 1500 is a difficult competition and not for novices.

No qualification shoots were held because of the 15 interested parties not one of them had a pistol license in Ireland at the time, the best that could be done at the time was to draw on know experience and indeed the majority of the squad were experienced pistol shooters.

Officially the National Pistol Association had written to the NRPAI to indicate that the committee of the NPA was being dissolved, all functions of the NPA being transferred to the NRPAI at the time. (Letters on file)

Why was the squad put forward as representing the NRPAI well, the NRPAI were invited to the competition in the Tyrol, so it was logical to send a team representing the NRPAI. At the time we needed to field an international team to show we were serious about pistol shooting.

The only negative implications that Practical Pistol shooting has are those being put forward by yourself, many 1,000's of individuals participate in practical shooting worldwide, you are entitled to your opinion but do not undermine someone else’s sport. But of course your ignorance precedes you the competition in the Tyrol was a PPC 1500, this is a precision pistol shooting event in which pistols and revolvers are used from 7 to 50 meters, precision shooting competition................got it.

Now you are saying also that there are negative implications for the NTSA in linking the Tyrol event to the NRPAI................Again kicking other sports in the teeth, people are entitled to participate in any lawful sport how dare you demean any of them.

Finally the only revolver licensed in Ireland at the time was mine and the week before the squad traveled the only practice was possible with my revolver for all the squad.

The Squad traveled and paid for the trip out of their own pocket, the performance of the individuals was well reported and we were proud of the performance, note also that it was very early into the re licensing of pistols and we wanted to show that we could field a team to the European event and do well, all equipment was provided by the locals in Austria and we were very grateful to them.

One of your hobby horses in respect to this event was a claim that the then NRPAI Chairman (NTSA Rep) was not informed, as I indicated above the chairman while unable to attend any of the NRPAI committee meetings during 2004 was informed by e-mail and his read receipt is registered on my computer.

Sometimes things may not get done according to the book written by Mark Denehy, but they get done. Had we not sent a squad off to the Tyrol Open we would all be poorer, in that the squad did well, represented Irish Shooting in a professional manner, they made many friends and as a result we are all richer because of their determination to participate. I would expect that a group of Irish Shooters participating in an international event all being members of the NRPAI would be entitled to claim to be an Irish Team regardless of Mark Denehy’s Rules and Regulations on how to inhibit the growth of Sport Shooting in Ireland.

FLAG

"Why, despite repeated emails and requests, did you continually release press releases in the NRPAI's name which were at best factually inaccurate? (shall I post the emails where I pointed out these inaccuracies to you and asked you not to release such press releases?)"

We are all human, on occasions the exact copy of an e-mail may be interpreted inaccurately, I did keep people informed, nobody has died as a result of what you regard as inaccurate press releases, big deal...............

FLAG

"Why did you never respond to a request from WTSC for contact details of disabled shooters looking to shoot in the National Air Rifle Championships?
Because I had no such details, as I recollect there were some participants in one of the events.
Can you tell us why for two years we were told that disabled shooters would be at said Championships but without being given information like how many there would be, what range equipment they would need, whether or not they needed special assistants for the match, etc, etc?"

Rules and regulations related to equipment qualifaication etc are published and readily available for those wishing to source them. The development of disabled shooting sports fell behind because responsibilty was transferred to the NTSA and nothing was done on a national level for years, perhaps some progress was made at WTSC but that was not relayed back to the NRPAI.

Can you confirm that the Paralympic Council of Ireland list the NRPAI as the ISSF-recognised NGB for target shooting in Ireland and can you please explain where they'd get such an incorrect notion?"

The PCI has the NRPAI listed as the point of contact because we are the NGB as recognised by the ISC, nothing was done with disabled shooting for years in Ireland, I set up the presentation and training at the National Rehab Hospital in 2000, arranging the presentation of a rifle from NRA disabled shooting sports (We did not need to sign up to the NRA to qyualify for this) I contacted the PCI and naturally they list the NRPAI/SSAI as the NGB associated with Disabled shooting.

There is no glowing record from any body with respect to the development of shooting for disabled, it is a pity people wouldn't continue to belly ache about who controls what and just get it done, I do not think that people unfortunate enought to end up disabled give a toss about who is affilaite to the ISSF but want to just get shooting.

Disabled shooting sports should have received much more attention from all concerned and I do not see how I can be blamed if it appears that I did not pass on information, information that I did not have.

I am proud to have been responsibel for initiating shooting into the rehabilitation hospital in 2000, the air rifles are used every day in the rehabilitation process, perhaps we may see someone participate in the para olympics but there is one hell of a long road to travel before we do that, if we put the same energy into the development of the sport for disabled shooters as we do argueing about who is responsible for what then I'd say we would have had great progress.

Don't bash me on this one, I did a significant amount for disabled shooters in the provision of the facilites at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, still being used today, and I am proud of that.

http://www.paralympic.org/paralympian/20004/2000425.htm

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Mark:
1) The SSAI/NRPAI is not signed up to the NRA in the USA, there is no mechanism to facilitate such...............more misinformation from the Mark corner.

Declan,
You were sitting at your kitchen table with me, another NTSA committee member, and an NASRC committee member at the 22/4/04 NRPAI committee meeting and you told us that the NRPAI was now a signed-up affiliate to the NRA. Were you factually incorrect then or now?

2) This really needs to be put to bed: Tyrol Open 2004

The NRPAI received an invitation to the Tyrol open, this was discussed at NRPAI committee meetings

If it was discussed at committee meetings then why did the NRPAI chairman or the NRPAI treasurer, both NTSA committee members, not know anything about it when I specifically asked them? And what NRPAI meetings would you have told them about it at, since there were no meetings between when I first asked them about it and the Tyrol Open itself?

He was however informed of the full detail of the invitation and mechanism to invite participation by e-mail, read receipt is available for review.

You do realise that you're very nearly accusing the NRPAI chairman of outright deception, don't you?

No qualification shoots were held because of the 15 interested parties not one of them had a pistol license in Ireland at the time, the best that could be done at the time was to draw on know experience and indeed the majority of the squad were experienced pistol shooters.

If a qualification shoot could not be held, then how were shoots able to be held in the NISSU facility at that time?

Officially the National Pistol Association had written to the NRPAI to indicate that the committee of the NPA was being dissolved, all functions of the NPA being transferred to the NRPAI at the time. (Letters on file)

So you are confirming then that the NRPAI took on the role of an NGB?

Why was the squad put forward as representing the NRPAI well, the NRPAI were invited to the competition in the Tyrol, so it was logical to send a team representing the NRPAI. At the time we needed to field an international team to show we were serious about pistol shooting.

No, we didn't. What we needed - and what we still need - was to build up coaching and club level shooting and to focus on the basic fundamentals; not to try running before we could walk, and certainly not to send abroad a team without open selection procedures and criteria.

The only negative implications that Practical Pistol shooting has are those being put forward by yourself

I think everyone here has been bored sufficiently to know that I don't want to see Practical Pistol shut off; but I cannot let you think that there are no negative consequences for the NTSA in being linked to it, because at a higher level than we have influence over, the ISSF has very strong prejudices against the entire practical shooting movement (and while it's been the IPSC in particular that they've had a row with, the enemity extends across the board). Whether that's right or not isn't something that's relevant (and personally, as far as I'm concerned, if it's safe, have fun); what's relevant is their actions in threatening the French version of the NRPAI with disaffiliation if they had IPSC people on their committees. The NTSA can't afford to be deaffiliated; we could never regain affiliation without taking over olympic shotgun as well, and even then it would be a long hard effort that would see resources better spent on shooting wasted on politics - it's far more likely, in fact, that it would simply end olympic rifle and pistol shooting in this country (which, by the way, would cut off a fair amount of funding to the NRPAI as the NRPAI gets a fairly large amount of weight in the Sports Council's eyes from having the NTSA's Olympic status associated with it). So frankly, the fact that you tied us to this without asking is why I'm personally so ticked off. Had you asked, we could have come up with a wholly viable alternative, the team would still have gone, and this whole row would never have happened; but you didn't ask and here we are, with you blaming everyone in sight but yourself, and doing nothing to address the original problem.

Again kicking other sports in the teeth, people are entitled to participate in any lawful sport how dare you demean any of them.

You know, I've gotten rather sick of you doing that. It's on the boards in black and white what I think of practical shooting for anyone to read; so why are you writing that I'm demeaning it when all I've ever said was that I didn't want to shoot it myself, but that I thought in regard to any discipline, if it was safe, you should be allowed to shoot it?

The Squad traveled and paid for the trip out of their own pocket, the performance of the individuals was well reported and we were proud of the performance

Also in black and white and in bold on the boards is the fact that I specifically stated I had no issue with those who went; only with those who sent them. Those who went couldn't have known about the problems that the team could have caused by the way it was administered and were wholly blameless - so don't use them as a distraction from the problem we're looking at here.

I would expect that a group of Irish Shooters participating in an international event all being members of the NRPAI would be entitled to claim to be an Irish Team

"An" Irish Team? Or "The" Irish Team? There's a strong difference and the Tyrol Open was assuredly not the former in any of your releases. You can make all the personal attacks you like both here in public and in private Declan, and I have no doubts you've been doing so for some time because I've heard them filter back to me, but it won't change the facts - you didn't do this in the way that held the least risk for all, when doing it that way wouldn't have cost you anything more than the asking. Molann an obair an fear.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

We are all human, on occasions the exact copy of an e-mail may be interpreted inaccurately, I did keep people informed, nobody has died as a result of what you regard as inaccurate press releases, big deal...............

Big deal? Have you read the differences in the Irish Times and the Irish Independent's coverage of Nick's case? The Times called the High Court and checked the facts, found discrepencies, and now our name with them is damaged (not to mention how Nick must have felt reading the way they described him, which was tantamount to accusing him of being some sort of criminal). It doesn't kill anyone Declan, but it does damage us - it makes it harder to get coverage from them, which means we don't reach as many people, which damages the sport.

Besides which, we don't need to spin anything. We have enough good in the sport not to have to be factually inaccurate about anything. We had medals coming in from three seperate teams when that happened, and now we have more groups bringing home medals, and more groups yet to come online who will also do well internationally; all we ever had to do was say what was happening - spin was never needed! That's why your releases always confused the daylights out of me - had you just said exactly what was happening in plain language instead of pushing definitions and contradicting yourself, we'd have been absolutely fine!

And most of the time, you damaged yourself; look at this release from before Nick's case went to court:

High Court Challenge set for hearing 4th May 11:00
Nicholas Flood who is a world-class marksman is set to challenge a decision not to permit the licensing of a rifle necessary for him to compete internationally by his local Superintendent in the High Court on the 4th May at 11:00.

Nicholas is fresh back from Competing in the World Silhouette Championships in South Africa, where he was placed an impressive 3rd overall and won Gold in his class, he headed up the Irish Silhouette Team that was placed 2nd overall and won silver.

Now, as I pointed out to you at the time, from the point of view of someone who knows nothing of silhouette shooting (ie. just about every journalist who got the press release), those two paragraphs make no sense - the rifle can't be "necessary for him to compete internationally" if he's just back from winning medals at the World Silhouette Championships without it.

Also, as I pointed out, that description of Nick's achievements wasn't factually correct. There was no 3rd place overall according to the IMSSU's official results on the web - Nick came in third in the smallbore aggregate. And he only won gold in his class in one event. And the IMSSU hadn't released any
team results at that time. Those kind of discrepancies can come back to crucify whomever releases the press release or anyone associated with them, especially if the press release is about a situation which the uninformed public will view as an adversarial confrontation between people demanding guns and a government trying to fight a well-publicised increase in gun crime. (And again, note, we may both know that the our sport has nothing to do with gun crime, but the average member of the public does not, and that is the reality that a PRO has to deal with).

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

"Why did you never respond to a request from WTSC for contact details of disabled shooters looking to shoot in the National Air Rifle Championships?
Because I had no such details, as I recollect there were some participants in one of the events.

Why not simply reply and say "Don't have any details."?

Can you tell us why for two years we were told that disabled shooters would be at said Championships but without being given information like how many there would be, what range equipment they would need, whether or not they needed special assistants for the match, etc, etc?"
Rules and regulations related to equipment qualifaication etc are published and readily available for those wishing to source them. The development of disabled shooting sports fell behind because responsibilty was transferred to the NTSA and nothing was done on a national level for years, perhaps some progress was made at WTSC but that was not relayed back to the NRPAI.

That's not an answer to the question Declan. Are the rules and regs published? Yes. Were we told what class of disability the shooters would fall into and thus what assistance and facilities they would require? No. And on the second year, we were given ten hours notice that there would be any attendees at all, and that was given in a single message to a girl in a pub, who gave the contact number for the Chairman of WTSC, who never received a phone call or even a voicemail message from the NRPAI about these shooters; I know this because I was there with him setting up the range for the match that night and I was there when he checked his voicemail on being told that the call had come in. So there we are, no way to get assistants in time, no idea what equipment was needed, and looking down the barrel of having to turn away the very people we'd spent thousands of euros on equipment for, because of a lack of notice from yourselves!

I contacted the PCI and naturally they list the NRPAI/SSAI as the NGB associated with Disabled shooting.

Can you confirm whether or not they list the NRPAI as the ISSF-recognised NGB though?

There is no glowing record from any body with respect to the development of shooting for disabled, it is a pity people wouldn't continue to belly ache about who controls what and just get it done

Thanks for the implication, but as I've detailed above, we've been trying and finding that others have been using our efforts to beat us about the head with.

I do not think that people unfortunate enought to end up disabled give a toss about who is affilaite to the ISSF but want to just get shooting.

And shoot with us they have. But when you're looking at the whole PCI end, you're talking about the competitive end; and there it's not tin cans on a wall, it's got to be done right. And it's not that hard to do it right either, it's just filling out forms correctly - not rocket science! You don't even have to sign the forms in blood these days...

I am proud to have been responsibel for initiating shooting into the rehabilitation hospital in 2000

I'm pretty sure that Dave Cooney is proud of being responsible for it as well...

Don't bash me on this one, I did a significant amount for disabled shooters in the provision of the facilites at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, still being used today, and I am proud of that.

No, fair's fair, that was good work. It wasn't a solo run, but that doesn't detract from it, and personally I'm quite proud to see that that effort paid off so well. What I'm not so proud of is the way that the PCI stuff has been handled when it never needed to be so badly mangled.

Sparks

LRPC 2003 wrote:

As for the photos ,You have not taken the camera angles into account with these photos , it would be impossible for DK to be in front of the shooters / firing line as there are benches in front of each shooter.

This is indeed true. However, as you can clearly see in the third photo, the instructor is leaning forward over the bench, unable to see what the shooter behind him is doing, and as you can see from that shooter's gun recoil, he's still firing. I wouldn't risk that with an air pistol, let alone a fullbore one.

The person with the ear defenders high on their head , is also wearing Ear Plugs , which are hidden by their hat

Ear plugs which were visible in no other photos? Well, granted, possible. Discount that example as not sufficiently provable so.

and the person with the shooting glasses , did in fact have them positioned correctly on his face.

As I did not want to leave identifying marks (in fact, I even refrained from mentioning gender as you have done), I could not leave in the shooter's eyes in that photo; instead I painted a black dot over them. As you can see from both the resulting altered photo, and from the original which you have access to, the shooter had those glasses several inches too high for them to provide any protection to his eyes whatsoever. This isn't a condemnation of the shooter; the shooter is a beginner, and that's why the course is being run. It's the fault and the responsibility of the Instructor to ensure that that kind of thing doesn't happen. (Do you think that we are using dual standards here? I assure you, in DURC or in WTSC, or any other club I've ever been in, here or abroad, the Range Officer or Instructor is responsible for ensuring that the shooter shoots safely. I would expect no less and no more from any other discipline). If you're thinking that the instructor cannot watch everyone at once, you're missing the point that if the instructor cannot watch everyone who's shooting, it is his responsibility to decrease the numbers of students shooting (this means shooting in groups, not cancelling courses!) or increase the number of instructors.

The Safety course was very professionally run and followed the NRA course to the letter

Then why was eye protection not worn correctly under the supervision of an instructor, and why did the instructor expose himself to physical harm?

you seem to be trying to make out that it was a bunch of lads in a field

No, I'm not; I'm trying to point out that there were mistakes made. As you said yourself, get a grip, noone is perfect and we all make mistakes. To err is human. But the difference between being safe and being unsafe is that to be safe you cannot ignore the mistakes; you must learn from them and change things accordingly. You think WTSC is perfect? It's a long way from it; but after every match, after every away trip, after every year, there's an honest review where mistakes are discussed. There's no blame involved unless there was some malice involved as well; the concern is to fix the problem, not to blame someone for it. It's not even our idea; it's a page taken right out of aviation manuals world-wide.

I fail to understand your obsession with DK / SSAI / NRPAI

It's not obsession; if I could ignore it I would; but it has a serious deleterious effect on ISSF shooting in this country and that affects me personally; and frankly, I don't understand why others don't have the same problem because I keep hearing from other disciplines, exactly the same story, including from silhouette, Declan's own discipline. That's their business, and they'll deal with it as they see fit; but I don't think keeping quiet is better for my side of the community.

I have noticed that the forum is being watched by some Anti Gun individuals who , I am sure , are lapping up your comments for a future stab at our sport .

Are we then to let what anti-gun activists might do in the future stifle debate over real problems now? Of all people LRPC, you should know that a low public profile won't keep you safe from NIMBYs and BANANAs!

All you seem to do is fight against every section of this sport that you dont take part in ! Why dont you re direct your energy into something positive for all shooting sports .

...he said, posting on the first open forum for the entire shooting and hunting community, where everyone is given a voice no matter what they say with it so long as they are relatively civil - even giving enormous leeway to some people who abuse moderators because we felt that they had to be granted their say. And you've just said it to someone who's just gotten back this evening from a 180km trip to training for the British Airgun Championships, and who's already signed up to range officer and coach for DURC this year. No offence meant LRPC, but I'm pretty sick of working hard in coaching and training and generally helping out with shooting and then being told that because I don't agree with everything that those On High do or say, that I'm against shooting.

There's a saying from ancient greece; We do not say that a man who has no interest in politics minds his own business; we say he has no business here at all. Since in those days, "politics" meant administration and generally helping to run things, rather than the free-for-all gloryfest that it's become today, I'd like to think that that should be the motto for us all - get out there, run shoots, coach people, train hard, shoot competitions, run clubs and so on; but don't ever stay silent either. We're not peons or serfs, those of us that work at this; we have a right and in many cases an absolute duty to have a voice in how our sport is run; and those who tell us to shut up and stay silent lest we bring down the wrath of some vague and nebulous group, or who tell us that we're either for them or against shooting - they are the ones who will destroy us in the end, because they'll go off and do whatever they want and because they're human, they'll make mistakes, noone will catch them or correct them, and the next thing you know we'll all be having to take up tiddlywinks.

rrpc

FLAG wrote:

One of your hobby horses in respect to this event was a claim that the then NRPAI Chairman (NTSA Rep) was not informed, as I indicated above the chairman while unable to attend any of the NRPAI committee meetings during 2004 was informed by e-mail and his read receipt is registered on my computer.

This is correct Sparks. If you remember at the NTSA EGM, the chairman of the NRPAI admitted that he had not checked his email, so had mistakenly answered you in the negative when asked had he been informed.

Sparks

RRPC, Declan is saying that the NRPAI Chairman had checked his email:

his read receipt is registered on my computer.

And it doesn't explain why several emails and conversations elicited no response from the NTSA/NRPAI treasurer either.