Should there be compulsory Firearms Training prior to being issued with a FAC

cavan shooter

Do you think that anyone applying for a FAC should have to undergo compulsory training (proficiency course) If so what do you think should be on that course:

N.O.I.P.

I voted yes. I've only been shooting about a year and have recently applied for my first FAC but I wouldn't have dreamed of applying until I had undertaken some form of training.

I suppose a training course should start with the basics, how to safely handle carry and store the chosen firearm then move on to the operation and maintenance.

It wasn't me!

Difficult to say marksmanship and proficiency should be on it, given the test would be for a licence, but obviously theory could be examined. Perhaps the mechanics of the firearm, some statistics regarding muzzle energies and velocities, maximum ranges, suitable storage, safe usage, possibly even cleaning procedure. Don't know whether I'd actively support it, unless it would make the application practice a lot more uniform and would speed it up, but I wouldn't be actively against it either.

IRLConor

I like the idea, but who's going to do it?

If there is a body/organisation in the state which has both the skills and the manpower to run the tests I don't think I know it.

Who's going to certify the testers? What happens to a tester if someone they certify goes out and kills someone/themselves? Are they liable? If the Gardai are going to certify the testers then are they going to get the necessary training?

Who'd write the syllabus? Would there be different tests for different types of shooting?

Who foots the bill?

meathstevie

Not training as such maybe but a few questions on safety and maybe handling a dummy as part of the application proces in your local station wouldn't be a bad start.

foxhunter

You cant get a dirivng licence without a test so something similar wouldn't be the end of the world.
I know some young lads that had to do a course with a local trained safety officer lately before the fo would process the licence's.
The NARGC run proficiency courses fairly regular i think.

Sparks

I've actually being doing some digging on this one. Still a ways to go yet, but to answer Conor - there is a way to do this so that anyone in any association can run an accredited course to an international standard through INAB, ISO and FITAC. (Actually, that's exactly how the RSA are doing this for driving licence testing and I'm talking to their guy on how that's being done to try to get an idea to put forward to the various associations).

Mellor

IRLConor wrote: »

What happens to a tester if someone they certify goes out and kills someone/themselves? Are they liable?

I see no reason why this would be the case. If somebody passes a driving test, and later has an accident due to dangerous driving, its the instructor liable. Of course not. These tests check knowledge, the can't test attitude and intentions

Who foots the bill?

The shooter. If done similar to the theory test it would be fine.
A gun safety and maintance hand book. A 45 min test. And a pass or fail cert.



I would support this if it meant that valid shooters were issues certs easier and quicker. and that unfit people were not issued. This would be better than the current system, as there are certainly valid shooters who can't recieve a FAC and also most likely unfit shooters that have certs.

foxshooter243

What happens to a tester if someone they certify goes out and kills someone/themselves? Are they liable?

what happens when a tester passes someone to drive a car and they go out and kill themselves and others ,is the tester liable? im not a legal expert but ive never heard of a tester being held liable.

Charlie 22

I am just wondering lads is there anywhere i can do a course like this in the cork area, i am 18 and i am thinking of getting a .22lr for shooting rabbits. Any ideas i have used my fathers gun on many occasions under supervision but would this do if i am applying for a new licence?

Sparks

The tester wouldn't be liable most of the time, but if, say, they passed someone who didn't know something very fundamental (like, say, don't look into the barrel while poking the trigger), then that would be a different state of affairs, and the trainer would also be involved. Haven't heard of it happening yet for driving tests though. But then, driving tests are pretty well established at this stage and are being ISO-certified and so forth.

spideog7

No harm to have a quick test on the Wildlife Act, Firearms Act, CJB etc.
No need to know the intricasys of it or anything but at least know what they can and can't do etc. and how to do it properly. Might be no harm to highlight it to some members of the Gardai too, at least that way people going in to get a FAC will know what they are entitled to and won't be so easily fobbed off if they have some knowledge to back themselves up
On a side note, I was told recently by a friend of mine who never shot a gun in their lives (and came from a city) that they were quite confident that lamping was illegal :eek: Maybe the public in general need a training course on firearms laws before they go jumping to conclusions :rolleyes:

IRLConor

Mellor wrote: »

IRLConor wrote:

What happens to a tester if someone they certify goes out and kills someone/themselves? Are they liable?

I see no reason why this would be the case. If somebody passes a driving test, and later has an accident due to dangerous driving, its the instructor liable. Of course not. These tests check knowledge, the can't test attitude and intentions.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that they should be liable. I was implying that the general attitude towards guns is such that I wouldn't be surprised if they were held liable.

Sikamick

IRLConor wrote: »

I like the idea, but who's going to do it?

If there is a body/organisation in the state which has both the skills and the manpower to run the tests I don't think I know it.

_________________________________________________________________

IRLConor , We (DTSC) are running Basic Pistol / Rifle Handling Safety Course for our Members, it was agreed at our last Committee Meeting and made a compulsory part of membership. Also the NARGC run course for shotgun clubs.

I believe that the Mid-Lands do the same at no cost to its members and I am sure other clubs do this as well.

Do we want a situation like we had before, where people were making money from club members for course that they did not need to do.

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

cavan shooter

Charlie 22 wrote: »

I am just wondering lads is there anywhere i can do a course like this in the cork area, i am 18 and i am thinking of getting a .22lr for shooting rabbits. Any ideas i have used my fathers gun on many occasions under supervision but would this do if i am applying for a new licence?

The NARGC run the proficiency course pretty regularly these days contact the county secretary on that one.

I am not a target shooter, but I don't think youll get near a pistol range without some sort of training (am I right),

For my bit, I think the following
Legislation in general terms including wildlife act (in laymans terms)
Types of firearm
Firearm safety and handling (similiar to proficency course)
general maintenance (importance of)
Firearms security (house and vehicle) recommended minimum requirements (that should be interesting people will need to agree on something:D

The biggest problem here is to get a common course for all disciplines, hunting, clays, target etc. Maybe a general proficiency course with the same basic modules.

As for price nominal fee to cover overheads/rent/lunch must be non profit

IRLConor

Sikamick wrote: »

IRLConor , We (DTSC) are running Baic Pistol / Rifle Handling Safety Course for our Members, it was agreed at our last Committee Meeting and made a compulsory part of membership. Also the NARGC run course for shot gun clubs.

I believe that the Mid-Lands do the same at no cost to its members and I am sure other clubs do this as well.

I'm sure many/most clubs do it as it makes a lot of sense from a club safety point of view. Whether or not a standardised test comes about I would expect plenty of clubs to continue to check new members to ensure they're safe anyway.

It gets tricky when you try and standardise safety courses to the point that the Gardai will trust it for the purposes of making up their minds on a license application.

Bananaman

I agree in principle and have voted as such.

If you have a centralised form of testing with a prescribed syllabus and curriculum then you need a body to run it and oversee it and keep it up to date. You need to produce the syllabus, you need train the trainers etc.
Once you introduce this as a requirement then you have to introduce policies to absolve people from liabilities etc. Of course there would also be the issue of renewals and the training backlog that would create. (You mentioned the driving test not me )

It all sounds like another representative body and a lot of paperwork to me. For some people that may be attractive but I'm sure the last thing Jimmy The Farmer wants is for his young fella to have to go do a course to learn how to shoot before he can send him out to get rid of the grey crows or go after a pheasant on Stephens day when he knows he can teach him himself and the local Garda knows he wouldn't have let the young fella apply for the license until he was ready.

I think it depends on the type of license you are looking to get.

I think the Gardai have struck a good balance on this with handguns in that they require you to be a member of a club to get an FAC. The club is where you will learn what to do, how to do it, how often to do it, what to wear when you are doing it, etc. They then send a CPO to look over your house and they license the ranges on which you can shoot. In that way they have covered all the bases.

I think that if the gardai were to have a prior requirement for the issuing of an FAC I think it should be that you are a member of a gun club and in that way you will be in an environment where you will learn from people with experience in an environment designed for that very use.

Then I think any courses would be up to the club as they would run it and once you passed you would get your letter from the club to allow you to apply for your FAC.

That removes the need for centralised bodies, the clubs will always be up to date. They will always have the facilities to do the training. They will always have a wide range of experience to hand.

Then the choice is actually up to you. You choose the club and in that way you choose to do the course at that location. The liability stays with you as it was your choice.

In my own situation I learned everything to do with shooting in the club. Even the first time I went hunting it was with a load of lads from the club. I can be fairly certain that any question I have on firearm maintenance, use, legislation, purchasing, etc can be answered by someone in the club.

My tuppence worth.

B'Man

Sikamick

IRLConor wrote: »

I'm sure many/most clubs do it as it makes a lot of sense from a club safety point of view. Whether or not a standardised test comes about I would expect plenty of clubs to continue to check new members to ensure they're safe anyway.

It gets tricky when you try and standardise safety courses to the point that the Gardai will trust it for the purposes of making up their minds on a license application.

_________________________________________________________________


It is very difficult as you know to get a pistol licence, with the need to be a member of a club and the likes. So before you will be considered for a pistol license by the Garda you have to be a member of a club. If the clubs put a basic pistol / rifle safety handling course in place for new members they will have done the course before they get their license.

This is where there is a need for clubs to Police themselves and the sport and to let the powers that be, see we are competent and capable of this without big brother having to constantly look over our shoulder.

Also as Bananaman has said the game clubs do oversee their new members and you have to as a new \ probationary member hunt with experienced members of the club, before you are allowed to hunt by yourself.

Sparks

It all sounds like another representative body and a lot of paperwork to me.

Well, no and yes. Yes, there would need to be paperwork, but the thing is that it's possible to have a unified basic course for everyone that every club was certified to run.
The basics are that we go to FITAC and work out an agreed syllabus with all bodies. We're talking about the basics of firearms safety and ownership here, so there's no need for things like ISSF rules, that sort of thing. Yes, there would be carryover - ISSF 10m air shooters learning basic safety for semi-auto shotguns, that sort of thing, but given that a lot of ranges see lots of disciplines, well, no harm. We could modularise if *really* necessary, but it ought to be resisted as much as possible. Once that's agreed, you go to INAB and have them come in and accredit anyone running this course to ISO standard 17024. This would mean that the person/club/NGB running the course would be able to certify those who passed it as competent. And since the accreditation bodies are independent of shooting, there's no fear of what Sikamick was talking about above.

edit: 17024 not 17020...

Gerri

Bananaman wrote: »

I agree in principle and have voted as such.

If you have a centralised form of testing with a prescribed syllabus and curriculum then you need a body to run it and oversee it and keep it up to date. You need to produce the syllabus, you need train the trainers etc.
Once you introduce this as a requirement then you have to introduce policies to absolve people from liabilities etc. Of course there would also be the issue of renewals and the training backlog that would create. (You mentioned the driving test not me )

It all sounds like another representative body and a lot of paperwork to me. For some people that may be attractive but I'm sure the last thing Jimmy The Farmer wants is for his young fella to have to go do a course to learn how to shoot before he can send him out to get rid of the grey crows or go after a pheasant on Stephens day when he knows he can teach him himself and the local Garda knows he wouldn't have let the young fella apply for the license until he was ready.

I think it depends on the type of license you are looking to get.

I think the Gardai have struck a good balance on this with handguns in that they require you to be a member of a club to get an FAC. The club is where you will learn what to do, how to do it, how often to do it, what to wear when you are doing it, etc. They then send a CPO to look over your house and they license the ranges on which you can shoot. In that way they have covered all the bases.

I think that if the gardai were to have a prior requirement for the issuing of an FAC I think it should be that you are a member of a gun club and in that way you will be in an environment where you will learn from people with experience in an environment designed for that very use.

Then I think any courses would be up to the club as they would run it and once you passed you would get your letter from the club to allow you to apply for your FAC.

That removes the need for centralised bodies, the clubs will always be up to date. They will always have the facilities to do the training. They will always have a wide range of experience to hand.

Then the choice is actually up to you. You choose the club and in that way you choose to do the course at that location. The liability stays with you as it was your choice.

In my own situation I learned everything to do with shooting in the club. Even the first time I went hunting it was with a load of lads from the club. I can be fairly certain that any question I have on firearm maintenance, use, legislation, purchasing, etc can be answered by someone in the club.

My tuppence worth.

B'Man

Why complicate it? For target shooters,simply require target club membership and twelve month probationary period, newbie to be allowed shoot and taught about firearms under supervision of appointed club member , beginning with small calibre and working up. On successful completion of probationary period, club provide letter of recommendation for Gardai/Police to assist with licence application.

For hunters, training with suitable firearm i.e. shotgun, rimfire, centrefire to be done by appropriate shooting association. On successful completion, same as above although club membership would not be required for hunters as currently there are no deer/vermin clubs so it would be impossible otherwise to provide training for these hunters. Insurance should be compulsory for all shooters, regardless of shooting discipline.

Sparks

Why complicate it?

Because some forms of complication bring useful benefits. For example, take the idea of a new club setting up in an area where the local superintendent is not as well disposed to target shooting as others are. They say they can certify new applicants as competent; the Super does not believe them. Now what?

Getting a national or international accreditation is the only way around the concerns of the Gardai. And not many people feel quite ready yet to invest that much authority in our NGBs given events of the past decade or two. But an independent international accreditation to an international standard; that would be something everyone could accept.

It also ought to be noted that there have been noises about proof of competence being needed for your cert; and if that does come to pass, the DoJ and the Gardai will not accept our clubs or NGBs certifying people without some form of accreditation; it'd be like telling every father who ever taught his kids to drive that they were also able to conduct driving tests and grant driving licences to their kids as well.

Sikamick

Sparks it is Sikamick not sicamick, i'm sure lots of people are sic a mick.

Sparks

Sorry sika, minor typo. Fixed now.

Sikamick

Re the governing bodies putting a course in place, once it doesnt end up costing the shooting fraternity more money in an already expensive sport.

If the powers that be re firearms licensing, ARE GIVEN ANOTHER WAY of making it diffcult for people to get a firearms license i.e. having to have a course done before you get your FAC and maybe charing you for the course, they will.

Or like the deer management course that a lot of people paid for and now the certs aren't worth the paper there printed on.

cavan shooter

Great debate going here:)
now to open it up more:D

Competence is key here, where as the course doesnt say you are competent to shoot. Competence is defined as having the training,knowledge and experience for the specific task considering the environment that you undertake the task.
The piece of paper says that you have the basic knowledge and understanding of firearms to be permitted to apply for a FAC.

Further training should be welcomed and encouraged working up to an equivalent of a master shooter Competence is exhibited through continuous development is it not

Open to the floor....

Sikamick

cavan shooter wrote: »

Great debate going here:)
now to open it up more:D

Competence is key here, where as the course doesnt say you are competent to shoot. Competence is defined as having the training,knowledge and experience for the specific task considering the environment that you undertake the task.
The piece of paper says that you have the basic knowledge and understanding of firearms to be permitted to apply for a FAC.

Further training should be welcomed and encouraged working up to an equivalent of a master shooter Competence is exhibited through continuous development is it not

Open to the floor....

And where is the best place for people to get the training free of charge? through the clubs and NGBS and not from people that will try to make money out of the courses

Sparks

The clubs are definitely the venue and ideally would be the provider of further training; but the thing is that unless there are coaches in the clubs, that has a history of not working. The way it ought to be would be the NGB organising courses to train coaches for the clubs and those coaches then training their fellow club members; and the NTSA is working towards that at the moment; but it just doesn't happen in some clubs.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

The clubs are definitely the venue and ideally would be the provider of further training; but the thing is that unless there are coaches in the clubs, that has a history of not working. The way it ought to be would be the NGB organising courses to train coaches for the clubs and those coaches then training their fellow club members; and the NTSA is working towards that at the moment; but it just doesn't happen in some clubs.

---

Yes Sparks you are right the NGB'S would be the correct people to run the courses and the sooner the better.

We are very lucky in our club that we have a large number of Military and ex military people that are more than qualified to run Basic Firearms Courses.

cavan shooter

I note we have "no" votes yet no opinions being raised in support of "no" votes:D

Sparks

Sika, I said the NGBs should organise the courses - they don't have to actually run them themselves really. For example, the NCTC runs a "train the trainers" course that the NTSA has two coaches in right now; they'll go on to train club coaches for the NTSA. But it doesn't require the NTSA to actually run the courses themselves - the NTSA doesn't have the required competences to do so (and shouldn't - that's not their job, no more than it's the manager's job to be on the pitch).

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

Sika, I said the NGBs should organise the courses - they don't have to actually run them themselves really. For example, the NCTC runs a "train the trainers" course that the NTSA has two coaches in right now; they'll go on to train club coaches for the NTSA. But it doesn't require the NTSA to actually run the courses themselves - the NTSA doesn't have the required competences to do so (and shouldn't - that's not their job, no more than it's the manager's job to be on the pitch).

_________________________________________________________________

Point Taken, Thank you Sparks for clarifying that.

Ronan Raver77

Would the Gardai recognise any of these organisations???? So if you go for a pistol and have some training accrediated by said organisation that you would get licence/weapon??????

I have a Basic Firearms Certificate accrediated by ASAA (American Small Arms Association) which i got in Switzerland.If i threw in a copy of that with my application the garda wouldnt have a clue or would he????
(im a newbie and not up to speed on legislation)

Sparks

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

Ronan Raver77

Sparks wrote: »

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

Sounds good to me...Cant see anybody refusing a safety/training standard for people applying/currently have firearms.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

That's why I mentioned the ISO 17024 standard above. The idea would be that we'd all have an agreed-upon syllabus and standard of competence (and the Gardai and DoJ would have to have some input into that as well, of course). Once that's in place, the question of whether or not someone is competent to hold a firearm is taken out of the hands of the NGBs, the Gardai and the DoJ, and put into the hands of INAB and those running the courses (which could be the clubs or the NGBs or even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing). If those running the courses pass the ISO 17024 audit (which INAB would run), then they're accredited by INAB and anyone passed by them is competent to hold a firearm.

_________________________________________________________________

Sparks , Without making it so complicated, Would the Mid-Lands not be the one for these courses, they have all the facilities.

I am sure they do these courses already free of charge.

______________________________________________________________________________

QOUTE = Sparks :even private groups if someone wanted to set up a school for this sort of thing)

Does the sport really want to go that road again. IF YOU GET WHAT I MEAN,
(THE UNMETIONABLE ONE.)

thehair

Mellor wrote: »

The shooter. If done similar to the theory test it would be fine.
A gun safety and maintance hand book. A 45 min test. And a pass or fail cert.



I would support this if it meant that valid shooters were issues certs easier and quicker. and that unfit people were not issued. This would be better than the current system, as there are certainly valid shooters who can't recieve a FAC and also most likely unfit shooters that have certs.

i voted yes and agree with mellor .i am new to the sport went out and bought a gun safe. why safety . my rifle .22rinfire long rifle i know i did not
have to buy the safe for .22 rinfire rifle again SAFETY

Banjax

I voted no.

There is enough bureaucracy around as it is.
Why invent some more for the sake of it?

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

We are very lucky in our club that we have a large number of Military and ex military people that are more than qualified to run Basic Firearms Courses.

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Sikamick

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Well you could have people running coarses and charging for them, that weren't qualified either.

Kryten

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

Yes but handling and using firearms is second nature to a soldier. Why?
When they join up they will spend weeks of training. Introduction, Safety, Stripping and assembling. Learning to aim and use the firearm. Dry firing, stoppage drills. Over and over again. Must to TOET'S before ever going to the range to live fire. (TESTS OF ELEMENTARY TRAINING). You must perform TOET'S every year to remain proficient and you must achieve a qualifying score on the range. All this and lots more for an NCO or Officer as they are the ones doing the training and testing.

So yes they are generally competent in the use of firearms!;)

bogteal

Are things gone that bad in shooting - hunting that you should have to pass a test are we not putting up more barriers for people getting in to shooting sports. I vote no.

foxshooter243

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just because they are military or ex-military doesn't mean they are competant either to use or train others to use firearms.

+1 on that, I lost count of how many millitary and ex millitary guys ive
had to fit and zero scopes for and such like, sorted a rifle for a guy last
week 25 years in the army ,several overseas postings-no knowledge other than the very basic stuff
they are taught.

Sparks

They might be competent - to the PDF's standard. And face it, the PDF does not rate rifle skills as highly as, say, the USMC would. Frankly, I've met soldiers who were as safe and competent on the range as anyone else; and I've met soldiers who I wouldn't trust near me on the range with an elastic band and a bit of paper.

Banjax - more paperwork because if the DoJ ask for it, it'll be what they want. People say you shouldn't give someone a stick to beat you with, but they're wrong - if you give them the stick, you get to choose what you're walloped with, a stick or an iron bar...

foxshooter243

Sparks wrote: »

They might be competent - to the PDF's standard. And face it, the PDF does not rate rifle skills as highly as, say, the USMC would. Frankly, I've met soldiers who were as safe and competent on the range as anyone else; and I've met soldiers who I wouldn't trust near me on the range with an elastic band and a bit of paper.

Banjax - more paperwork because if the DoJ ask for it, it'll be what they want. People say you shouldn't give someone a stick to beat you with, but they're wrong - if you give them the stick, you get to choose what you're walloped with, a stick or an iron bar...

Im not berating their competency just that being millitary or ex millitary
doesnt mean they could immediatley put on the mantle of a instructor,
i dont think they would have the knowledge base required except in a few cases of course-there are exceptions, im talking in a general sense.
I do think a mandatory test is a neccesary evil because it always mystified me that a young fella could get a 220 swift as handy as an air rifle-has to be something wrong in that thought process.

Vegeta

I voted no as it asks should the training be compulsory. It should not be, we have to jump through enough hoops as it bloody well is. Don't give them yet another stick to beat us with. My super is difficult enough thank you very much

How many accidents a year do we have due to people being poorly trained. Where is the need for this coming from? Show me a need for more training and then I might change my views

I did the NARGC course. I have the cert and the booklet they gave out on the day. I had to do the course to get my first shotgun license. This was 8 years ago.

It was the biggest waste of my time, I enjoyed the day though and it was well run. I learned nothing from it as I had been going hunting for 5 years and seen responsible firearms handling all my teenage years.

For someone with zero experience, training is good.

It should not be compulsory, some folks have enough experience due to mentoring.

Sikamick

Where is the question of compulsory course coming from , I see there on the Hunting thread talking about the same for hunters.

??????Where is this all suddenly coming from.

Is there an other money making agenda going on.

Clubs are already doing these courses for free i.e. the Mid-Lands have qualified instructors and are running courses.

Sikamick

cavan shooter wrote: »

Do you think that anyone applying for a FAC should have to undergo compulsory training (proficiency course) If so what do you think should be on that course:

_________________________________________________________________


Cavan Shooter, We have a driving test log jam, try and get a driving test and see how long you will have to wait.

Now put this in the same context as an application for a firearms License which can take from two months to three years. Now put it in before you get your firearms license and have to wait months to do a course before you wait again more months to get you FAC, If the powers that be run these courses.

This is not a big stick it is a fu**ing Log across the arse of the shooting fraternity. Send us back to school with our shorts and tie on.

Sparks who suggested a poll, this poll result will not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the greater shooting fraternity.

Gerri

Kryten wrote: »

Yes but handling and using firearms is second nature to a soldier. Why?
When they join up they will spend weeks of training. Introduction, Safety, Stripping and assembling. Learning to aim and use the firearm. Dry firing, stoppage drills. Over and over again. Must to TOET'S before ever going to the range to live fire. (TESTS OF ELEMENTARY TRAINING). You must perform TOET'S every year to remain proficient and you must achieve a qualifying score on the range. All this and lots more for an NCO or Officer as they are the ones doing the training and testing.

So yes they are generally competent in the use of firearms!;)

Perhaps some are, a friend has recently completed a practical pistol course and he reckons the PDF could do with a major safety wake up call as their safety procedures are very basic. Remember, all armies train with the expectation that they will have casualties in combat and they factor this in. Civilian shooters like to return home after enjoying their sport so the safety requirements for soldiers need not be as intensive as for civvies as the army expects casualties:rolleyes:

Banjax

Sparks
I can't help but think that there is more than just a shadow of a strawman about what may or may not be being thought about by the DOJ or whomever.

As you already know, I'm a simple optimist.

In addition, I am naturally wary of "volunteer traffic warden syndrome", something that afflicts more than a few people. A love of over-regulation, order, and exclusivity are some symtoms. All of a sudden words like "mandatory" & "compulsory", are being bandied about.
Although I keep my participation on this board to a minimum, I am aware that, in the shooting sports world, factional in-fighting has lead to measures being taken by the Boards administrators. And having read some of the tete-a-tete stuff before it was removed, I can see why.
Its illustrative of why I am not enthusiastic about any such training, somehow or someway it will lead to someone saddling up the 20 hand high horse to start telling everyone else the why and the what-for.

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

this poll result will not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the greater shooting fraternity.

It will reflect the thoughts of those here on boards and we are part of the shooting community

bunny shooter

Sikamick wrote: »

Well you could have people running coarses and charging for them, that weren't qualified either.

What/who deems qualified/not qualified ?