Shooting Association

newby.204

Exactly what is needed to set up a shooting association?

This Bu!!Sh!t situation we currently have going has finally p!ss3d me off. And i dont mean an associatrion that isnt governmentally recognised either.

Yes it will get a few peoples backs up, but i mean an association that has a representative from each shooting discipline in the country!! instead of each association trying to keeps its own and this "**** the lads attitude"!!

That could coordinate with the gardai and actually give the shooting community the info its looking for instead of keeping a few peole in the know. Have input on universal security guidelines, a redress process if you feel you were unjustifably refused a licence, keep records on who is active the sport and get rid of people who have a firearm of any type for the sake of having it.

Any suggestions comments welcome.

bunny shooter

SSAI has failed in this regard?

The Northern Peace Process is less complicated

Sparks

Are you kidding me? You think we don't have enough groups allready?
Besides, what you're talking about is what the FCP is for. The universal security guidelines are available (feck it, I only posted them on here again this afternoon for the Nth time); redress in the event of dodgy decisionmaking is available through the District Courts (though I do have my own reservations on that one); keeping tabs on who's active is nowhere near as easy as you'd imagine, it's actually a bloody complicated proposition (what's active mean for a start, and what about those who don't want their names reported, and what about the data protection act?); and kicking out those who only want a firearms licence to "have a gun" is the responsibility of the Superintendent, not the shooting associations.

BTW, when you say "bull**** situation", do you mean something specific? Or was there something specific that's happened that triggered this response?
And you used a double negative

Kryten

I think we have too many associations in this country. In my opinion, in an idealistic situation, we would need to scrap the existing format and use a tiered approach. The Shooting association committee at the top, wich would include PRO, Childrens welfare officer, stats officer, etc. Below that sub committees for pistol, rifle and shotgun. Each sub committee will work on the various disciplines involved in its branch of shooting. These disciplines will be organised by working groups made up from members who take part in the discipline, irrespective of which club they belong to.
No need for associations for each discipline, this just makes things more complicated.

Maybe I am being a bit naive here and a bit simplistic, but has a similar format ever been tried?

Sparks

Never quite so inclusively - shotgun has always been a seperate body for a start - but there was something close-ish to that in the original NRPAI in the very early 90s. Problem was, not all aspects of the various different sports were treated equally by the NRPAI and so, one by one, the various sports split away to govern themselves - the NTSA, the NASRC, the NSAI (who split from the NASRC), and so on.

The fundamental problem here is that we are not all one sport.

Seriously. We're as much one sport because we all use firearms, as the GAA, FAI, IRFU, Tennis Ireland and Golf Ireland are all one sport because they all use balls. There is never going to be a single body to look after the one aspect of the sport because of this; and there does not have to be. As to political lobbying, that's what the FCP is for.

edit: Don't forget, btw, that no other country has what you're describing. The US has, obviously, the NRA. But they also have 144 other political lobbying bodies for firearms matters, and at least a few of those are as active as the NRA (the GOA for example). And while the NRA does a fair bit in terms of governing sport there (they govern the largest pistol sport in the US, NRA Bullseye shooting), there are a lot of other sports governing bodies too - USAS, CMP, 4H, IPSC, and so on. Some, like 4H, have ties to the NRA, but all act independently. The situation is similar in the UK - you have the NRA, the NSRA, the CPSA, and a dozen other governing bodies of sport, and you also have BASC, and a few other groups who do political lobbying.

Basicly, being one single group is not the natural order of things in target shooting, for good reasons.

rrpc

In fact, we don't have to go so far afield to see a similar situation. In Northern Ireland there are the UC(E)SSA, NITSA, UCPSA and NIFTA as well as affiliations to the UK bodies.

There was in fact a single governing body back in the sixties which was broken down into the four provinces. It lasted for some time and was quite successful until I think it was the the Ulster province broke away.

In any event, Sparks is correct and there is no justifiable reason for everything to be lumped together. Inevitably you will reach a situation where a smaller body or bodies will get marginalised and their sport will suffer.

dimebag249

But Sparks, rrpc, isn't that why we need an organisation that represents the rights and privilages of all gun owners, not sportsmen?

We're not like the different groups that play sports with balls. (hehe) If someone is killed with a hurley or baseball bat, and that's probably happenned more times than murders with legally held guns, the media and politicians won't rush to ban hurling or baseball.

Why the flip can't the various shooting organisations get together and set up a gun rights lobby? I mean, the retarded media already refer to such a lobby, even though it doesn't exist. We are too few, and too vulnerable, to survive unscathed without pooling our limited resources and putting up a united front.

The different sporting groups could continue their realist policies of improving their position in relation to everyone else, :rolleyes: while uniting to protect their common interests. None of us should want to see any guns arbitrarily banned for no good reason.

rrpc

dimebag249 wrote: »

But Sparks, rrpc, isn't that why we need an organisation that represents the rights and privilages of all gun owners, not sportsmen?

This already exists within the FCP. I see no reason to add another layer, especially as the FCP involves every stakeholder.

Sparks

dimebag249 wrote: »

But Sparks, rrpc, isn't that why we need an organisation that represents the rights and privilages of all gun owners, not sportsmen?

First, we have no rights.
Rights are a specific thing, listed in the Irish Constitution, and there is nothing in there to do with firearms ownership.

Second, there already is an organisation that represents the privileges of all firearm owners - namely the FCP, which has representatives from the IFA, NARGC, all of the sporting bodies, and all the other stakeholders in firearms law.

We're not like the different groups that play sports with balls. (hehe) If someone is killed with a hurley or baseball bat, and that's probably happenned more times than murders with legally held guns, the media and politicians won't rush to ban hurling or baseball.

Remember the fuss over the cluster of kids who died suddenly on GAA pitches over the last year or two?

Also, if you think that because we all gather together that we'll be invulnerable, you've missed a civics lesson. There are, at most, 200,000 of us. Out of a population of 4,000,000. We simply don't get to call the tune. That's democracy for you.

That's not to say we're doomed to always be doormats, by any means - but it does mean that when we advocate for our interests, we have to keep in mind a dose of realism and pragmatism. I've only been in this for fourteen years, and even I've seen cases where one or two boneheaded blinkered people chasing after their own ideals cost the rest of us in the sport an enormous amount; and had they taken a more pragmatic route, we'd now have more than we currently do even now, because we wouldn't have wasted as much time on inconsequential things that don't affect someone standing on the firing line.

Why the flip can't the various shooting organisations get together and set up a gun rights lobby?

Why the flip should they? They're sporting bodies. They're meant to devote their time to sports. Not fighting the man, which, by the way, has proven to be the worst course of action we could ever take. They should be out getting more money from grants, collating scores, calculating rankings, arranging competitions and coordinating calendars, running training courses and national training and putting together Irish teams for international events. That is their job.

I mean, the retarded media already refer to such a lobby, even though it doesn't exist. We are too few, and too vulnerable, to survive unscathed without pooling our limited resources and putting up a united front.

And yet, here we are. In the FCP. Meeting on an official basis with the Department of Justice. Advising on legislative and operational policy. What more - specifically - would you see done?

The different sporting groups could continue their realist policies of improving their position in relation to everyone else, :rolleyes: while uniting to protect their common interests. None of us should want to see any guns arbitrarily banned for no good reason.

Did ANYONE read rrpc's post on how Deasy and Mitchell have been told to go to a pistol range and learn something by Kenny as a result of those different and un-united sporting groups acting in an uncoordinated fashion?


Besides, here's a bit of information for nothing - the actual job of doing what an NGB should do is actually work. It's done by 2% of the people all the feckin' time. And more volunteers are needed. But every time someone starts with the building of large federations of groups, you always, always see the little jumped-up hitlers crawl out of the woodwork to take it over and go to the big dinners with the blazer on and puff up their own egos.
Feck that for a lark. Let every sport govern itself and get us more people who aren't so damn selfish that they'll go to a match but won't help run it or who'll go to squad training but won't help organise it, or who'll demand the NGB does stuff but won't lift a finger to help. That would do us all some good.

dimebag249

Sparks, we have the same rights as everyone else. I know there's no right to bear arms in this juristiction. No need to condescend.

The FCP represents more than just the shooting organisations and the interests of gun owners. And I appreciate the work it has done. But it isn't the kind of organisation I was talking about.

In another post I stated that by uniting , our numbers are still too few. but 200,000 is better than the few that shoot practical OR the thousands that hunt OR the howevermany that shoot clays etc. And I heard nothing of a call to ban hurling or soccer.

Besides, our numbers don't necessarily matter. Democracy is about minority rights and privilages as well as majority rule. You just have to fight for these privilages. Whoever told you that democracy was mob rule didn't tell you the whole story.

Hope you can follow my post, tis a bit incoherent but I don't like the quotyquotyquote thing. Never seem to be able to get it right. And I know I didn't address all your points, I don't have all, scratch that, any of the answers, I just feel that we're not doing it right. The FCP's job isn't to educate public opinion. They work with the department, which is influenced by public opinion more than by what the FCP says. Our only hope is to make people less afraid of guns, to show them that we're not criminals and pose no threat to society. Who's gonna do that? How? Hellifiknow.

To be honest, I've no idea who you're rant at the end was directed against, but you're probably right about the personalities and politics of federations and NGBs.

rrpc

dimebag249 wrote: »

To be honest, I've no idea who you're rant at the end was directed against, but you're probably right about the personalities and politics of federations and NGBs.

That rant was directed at everyone who says 'someone should do something' when they are sitting on their a***s doing nothing themselves. What this means is that people should volunteer for the lowliest jobs in their organisation, do the grunt work and take some of the load off the shoulders of the other people who are working tirelessly part-time to keep developing their sport, correcting misapprehensions in the press and the body politic and generally putting out fires left right and centre whilst being berated from the sidelines by people who have never bothered to lend a hand ever.

This is not directed at you personally by the way, it's just a general rant. Anyone can volunteer to be the target

dimebag249

rrpc wrote: »

That rant was directed at everyone who says 'someone should do something' when they are sitting on their a***s doing nothing themselves. What this means is that people should volunteer for the lowliest jobs in their organisation, do the grunt work and take some of the load off the shoulders of the other people who are working tirelessly part-time to keep developing their sport, correcting misapprehensions in the press and the body politic and generally putting out fires left right and centre whilst being berated from the sidelines by people who have never bothered to lend a hand ever.

This is not directed at you personally by the way, it's just a general rant. Anyone can volunteer to be the target

I understand rrpc, and it's a very fair point, that certainly does apply to me whether i was the target or not. I don't target shoot, so the only org. i'm a member of is the NARGC. I've never even gone to a gun club AGM (though by some fluke i've been out of the country for every one since i joined). Writing angry letters to politicians is the extent of my work to better the sport, and that's probably pretty futile at the best of times.

I can still tell everyone else what they should do from the comfort of my armchair, right? Not without upsetting Sparks, sure, but he should be well inured to the hypocracy of people like me by now.

rrpc

dimebag249 wrote: »

I understand rrpc, and it's a very fair point, that certainly does apply to me whether i was the target or not. I don't target shoot, so the only org. i'm a member of is the NARGC. I've never even gone to a gun club AGM (though by some fluke i've been out of the country for every one since i joined). Writing angry letters to politicians is the extent of my work to better the sport, and that's probably pretty futile at the best of times.

And it still doesn't apply to you because you have acknowledged that you could do something more. If everyone even thought like that, or had such a thought once a month, the numbers actually volunteering to do something, anything would increase exponentially.

Sparks

dimebag249 wrote: »

Sparks, we have the same rights as everyone else. I know there's no right to bear arms in this juristiction. No need to condescend.

You're talking about a gunowners lobbying body to lobby for gunowner's rights. Well, we don't have any (rights, that is). If you mean our rights as citizens, there are existing bodies for that sort of thing, we don't need a special one. And we don't have the manpower. Feck it, right now we haven't enough people to do the sport things right, we certainly don't have the manpower to go fight the man.

The FCP represents more than just the shooting organisations and the interests of gun owners. And I appreciate the work it has done. But it isn't the kind of organisation I was talking about.

Except that it does everything you were saying we need to do.

In another post I stated that by uniting , our numbers are still too few. but 200,000 is better than the few that shoot practical OR the thousands that hunt OR the howevermany that shoot clays etc. And I heard nothing of a call to ban hurling or soccer.

No, but you did hear calls to basicly ban kid's GAA and to dial back on the seriousness with which the GAA push kids: go to a dublin gym early some morning - you'll find schoolkids on the weights machines because they're looking to bulk up for GAA matches. I've heard GAA coaches complaining about this in coaching conferences as they're seeing more and more injuries in that age group that you shouldn't see at that age - over-bulked muscles pulling ligaments and that sort of thing.

Besides, our numbers don't necessarily matter. Democracy is about minority rights and privileges as well as majority rule.

No, it's not. That's what the law is for. They're seperate mechanisms. And that's why we're not doormats, but the thing about the law is that it tries to be fair to everyone. Whereas we seem to only want to be fair to ourselves sometimes. I mean, we've been (and rightly) really angered by Mitchell's ignorant comments the other day, but not one poster has even dared to suggest that maybe what we should be doing is reassuring the other 3,800,000 people on this island who know nothing of us or our sport, that we are in fact not a threat to them. Instead, we've been bitching about how "they" always go after "us". We've all been assuming that they ought to know that, as if they were mindreaders. They're not, and we can't assume it. We have to have PROs, we have to push what we do out there, so the others can see it for what it is. Hell, we might even swell our numbers a bit if we did so - I know that we always see an upswing in interest in joining the club after a good bit in the paper or the media. And feck it, even if we don't have PROs, if so many are so peeved, where are the letters to the editors? Why isn't the IT emailbox overflowing? We've 200,000 people, that's 200,000 emails and letters. Why is it that the only time the entire shooting community actually acted in concert, it was because their wallet was being threatened with increased licence fees? It'd make a person cynical, so it would :rolleyes:

You just have to fight for these privilages

We've done the fighting thing. Doesn't work. Never did, never will. What we need is more sublte, more work, and less sexy. Hence it's less popular (un-tabloid stuff always has that problem). However, it works. Which is, to my mind, a good argument for it.

Hope you can follow my post, tis a bit incoherent but I don't like the quotyquotyquote thing. Never seem to be able to get it right.

I hate to sound so patronising, but a single unified lobbying body for a dozen disparate sports, a large group of farmers and hunters, and which contains a lot of different groups who hate each other's guts, well it's a damn sight harder to sort out than getting quotes right in a boards.ie post y'know.

I just feel that we're not doing it right.

Why? Specificially (because generalities aren't something that can be easily fixed), what's being done wrong? And don't hold back because we're Irish and we don't complain, say something because without a list of things to fix, **** don't get fixed, y'know?

The FCP's job isn't to educate public opinion.

Nope, hence my broken-record statement that we need PROs in every shooting body and every shooting club, with training, and who only do PRO work (rather than also being the chair or the secretary or some other job). And that means volunteers. Which we don't see because very very very few shooters volunteer for actual work these days.

To be honest, I've no idea who you're rant at the end was directed against, but you're probably right about the personalities and politics of federations and NGBs.

The rant was directed against all those who'd be generals when we don't have enough privates, and when none of those privates we do have are volunteering to be sergeants and actually do the work that lets our sport continue on.

Sparks

dimebag249 wrote: »

I can still tell everyone else what they should do from the comfort of my armchair, right? Not without upsetting Sparks, sure, but he should be well inured to the hypocracy of people like me by now.

Feedback is always a good thing.
Constructive criticism is always a good thing.
(Volunteering or Donating - time or money - is always a good thing too)

Being the hurler on the ditch... well, that's an argument against biodiversity in hedgerows, y'know?

dimebag249

Yeah, the point about shooters acting in concert over the fees increase is a very important one. United, we bloody succeded in changing the govts. mind. The change in public opinion has to apply to gun owners even moreso than the non-shooting public. If every shooter felt the same way about the restricted list, it'd be dead n buried (though tbh I've no idea what it's current status is eitherway). Well, maybe.

Do you not think there's at least a need for coordination between the PROs that... that should... that we don't even have in the first place, aw fxck it I give up!

But in fairness when you say: "but not one poster has even dared to suggest that maybe what we should be doing is reassuring the other 3,800,000 people on this island who know nothing of us or our sport, that we are in fact not a threat to them," that is basically what I've been getting at. Incoherently. That's what I want my mythical federation of gun owners to do! SO SOMEONE DO IT, GODDAMN IT!

Sparks

dimebag249 wrote: »

United, we bloody succeded in changing the govts. mind.

But it wasn't that we were united - it was that the ordinary shooters on the line actually got off their collective posteriors and physically did something. We weren't united, we had no single lobbying body, we had at best this place for folks to share the text they used in letters. There was no single unifying campaign, there was a lot of individuals complaining about the same thing to the same people.
My point is - it was the number of people doing the work that made the difference, not any high-level organisational mumbo-jumbo.
Forget that point at all our peril!

Do you not think there's at least a need for coordination between the PROs that... that should... that we don't even have in the first place, aw fxck it I give up!

I think coordination would be nice.
I think actually having the PROs in the first place is necessary, and that getting them all trained is important.

SO SOMEONE DO IT, GODDAMN IT!

And that's my point - what we need is the people doing the work.
Until we break that mother-loving 2% rule, the rest will never follow.

dimebag249

I understand, we weren't really united, but if uniting in some way could elicit the same response from us on other issues, then we might win the game. Changing our attitudes etc.

Looking at the USA, people talk about the NRA, lobbying, millions and millions of corporate dollars and so on, but from what I see, a lot of the victories for gun owners result from the efforts of individuals writing to politicians as voters, but coordinated by the NGB.

And seriously, I know how pointless drawing comparisons with USA is, so there's no need to tear me, or my post apart, but insofar as the coordination of grass roots efforts, which worked here without such stimilus, (respecting of course the great work done by the NARGC and others on the issue) is there no lesson to be learned?

Proceed to the tearing apart of me and my post. I can take it!

Sparks

The thing is dimebag, it wasn't organisation that got the licence fee hike overturned, it was people doing work.
Until and unless we see a change from the sit-on-your-ass philosophy of a lot of our shooters to a sit-up-and-pay-attention one, nothing will change and the organisation will be unimportant.
Hell, here's an experiment for you - go to the firing line of any range or club in the country and ask them what the SSAI does and who runs it. Ask them who their NGB is and who their local NGB contact is. I'll be impressed if you get any correct answers at all - half the people I meet in the sport barely know their club committee exists, let alone their NGB or other groups like the SSAI, and you can forget about them know who to talk to or even what's going on. Hell, half them haven't heard of the restricted list yet.

And look at the US if you want, it's got a lesson or two - like how the NRA for all it's "we represent everyone" schpiel that gets echoed over here, is in fact only one of 145 political lobbying bodies for firearms stuff. And only one of a dozen sports NGBs.

Unity isn't something they have over there either, and from talking to the people in the actual sport, they have the same problem with the 2% rule that we do.

Frankly, if you can beat that 2% rule, you'll have done more for shooting in Ireland than every court case, umbrella group, panel, table, club, association or team put together.

dimebag249

I've tried to understand the various NGBs and what they do, but it's so complicated that the acronyms are just letters to me. I'm a politics student, albiet an inept one, and I can make no sense of the politics involved. I really can't blame the guys that don't even know who represents them. A lot of the guys who do understand who their NGB is, and what they do, plain resent them for all their BS.

I do know one thing. (:eek:) I'd join a group like the NRA, your valid criticism of them notwithstanding. I imagine so would a lot of the guys on Ireland's firing lines you're talking about.

"Until and unless we see a change from the sit-on-your-ass philosophy of a lot of our shooters to a sit-up-and-pay-attention one, nothing will change and the organisation will be unimportant."

I agree 100% that this is the most necessary change in preserving the future of our firearms privilages, but if the organisation is unimportant in bringing about these changes, then whats the catalyst gonna be?

rrpc

dimebag249 wrote: »

I've tried to understand the various NGBs and what they do, but it's so complicated that the acronyms are just letters to me. I'm a politics student, albiet an inept one, and I can make no sense of the politics involved. I really can't blame the guys that don't even know who represents them. A lot of the guys who do understand who their NGB is, and what they do, plain resent them for all their BS.

It's actually simpler than it looks and really from the shooters point of view should be eminently transparent.

Because the bodies are discipline based, if you start shooting in a particular discipline you pretty much are in contact with your NGB from the off. The competitions you attend, the club you are a member of, everything feeds down from the NGB and although you may take all these things for granted, they wouldn't exist on a structured basis if at all without the body concerned.

Much of the BS complained of stems from the artificial lumping together of the various bodies by the Sports Council for grant aid purposes. If it had stayed to its original remit, there probably wouldn't have been any problems. Human nature being what it is, inevitably when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.......

Kryten

Sparks wrote: »

Why isn't the IT emailbox overflowing? We've 200,000 people, that's 200,000 emails and letters. .

Out of this 200,000, how many are the rural farmer types, who use an oul shotgun to get rid of vermin? They dont give a s*** about any shooting organisation or political agenda, as it does not affect them.

How many are clay shooters? Some of which, I expect, will not get involved, as the shotgun is not the target of the Fine Gael or the media offensive, even though the trusty shotgun is the most commonly used weapon in armed crime.It dosent require a gun safe for storage, even with the new security arrangements outlined by the FCP.

We certainly want to portray Target Pistol and rifle shooting in this country for what it is, A Sport. Just as valid a sport as GAA or Soccer. Maybe we need to publicise it more.

Results from competitions in national newspapers, photos, articles. TV Media coverage. Some people will have a problem with this, as they do not want themselves to be photographed or named, because the article is to do with shooting. In my opinion, we cannot stay in the closet. I dont want to keep mentioning clay shooters, nothing against them and it is an enjoyable form of shooting, but ask mr public about clay shooting, and they wont even bat an eyelid. Mention Target Pistol shooting, and you get the astonished look, which can go one of two ways. They might think "wow are you safe to be around"?. Or "wow, tell me more this sounds fascinating".

I have probably gone way off track here, sorry, but you know how it is when you start typing. :D

Back to my original point. What percentage of the 200,000 shooters are target shooters who care enough to write?

Sparks

Probably only a quarter are target shooters at the very very most Kryten. Even there I might be optimistic. But say it's ten thousand (I *know* it's more than that). Why aren't there 10,000 emails or letters at the Irish Times office today?
That's our real problem.

Kryten

Yes I figured that also Having said that I have also e-mailed Olivia Mitchell a complaint about associating us with criminals.

Ah well roll on Sunday so I can do what I do best. Shoot!

Grizzly 45

Sparks hit it nicely about the indifference to things,unless it hits everyone in the pocket.We had thousands emailing and writing about the liscense fees going up.But Six people writing and pushing forward on about the debacle of the Prime Time article on pistol shooting!
I draw three conclusions on this and maybe it comments on life here in the 26 as well;

Me Fein.I'll look out for myself and my intrests at the costs of others,be it a shooting disipline or anything else.So long as I am grand.. fek the rest of ye!

Somone else will do it! Somone else will lobby the TD,write letters,volenteer their time etc.Bitch& moan then when it doesnt go my way about somone who did stand up as being no good at all!

Shure it will never happen /or nothin you can do about it itis.
Why is there always this assumption here that nothing will happen?? Then we all act surprised when it does and are whineing to Joe Duffy,et al when it does and it is too late.Then when it is too difficult or impossible to do somthing after the fact it is ah well shure you couldnt do anything about it anyway!
Crack those three attitudes and you are onto a winner here in Irish life!

bunny shooter

Lads, pistols today, rifles tomorrow, shotguns by saturday, so to those sitting back it's only a matter of time before they get to you too