Benefit of training to hunters/shooter

Tikka391

At the risk of being fired down in a blaze of Glory, I'm going to go for it anyway.

Playing devil's advocate for a while , is introducing a training course for various aspects of our support such a bad thing. I have spoke here before about training courses I do feel they are very important especially for the younger people starting off. I know at the moment the way to courses are ran is not ideal, but my personal attitude would be is it not better to have a young or novice shooter for example attend these courses if only to hear the same stuff that's their father possibly has been telling them but they hear from the from a fresh point of view. That tiny little extra bit of information that might sink in from hearing from a different voice might be a little thing that save somebody's life or prevent a catastrophic accident.

Maybe I am taking things up completely wrong but I'm reading some of the posts and to me it looks like some people are scoffing at the idea of having to sit through these so-called training courses, like somebody with several years experience Will have to sit in a class type scenario and have somebody speak down to them on various aspects of shooting. Well what a fuping liberty. The cheek of them to tell me how to hunt at so on and so on.
And then they want me to pay them for it,that really is a cheek,after possibly setting up an establishment or renting an establishment going and getting the acquired accreditation for what ever the powers that be Deem to be legal requirements.

So personally I would warmly welcome some sort of recognised accredited legal standing course and maybe it's something that should bepositively viewed upon if done correctly.

By the way I am in no way connected to any training organisation or anything like that I'm just putting it out there as a normal Joe soap,love the shoot and hunt and have two young lads behind me only trying to teach them and Have them learn in the best possible way

Go on let me have it now I'm ready for it.

gunny123

There are courses out there if anyone wants to do them. The problem was some trying to use their position to make these courses compulsory, and cashing in on it.

Grizzly 45

TBH there is nothing at all wrong in what you are saying.
It is after all,more or less, the norm across the EU that you must do some sort of cumpulsory training and testing before you get anywhere near a firearm. And actually in Ireland and the Uk,we are kind of unique in that respect that you can ,in theory,get a firearm on just the say so of a superintendt if you fulfill some basic law abiding citizens criteria.

After watching and dealing with the EU for the last year on firearms issues,I wouldn't be surprised if that boozing Luxembourg clown in charge of us decides along with his Swedish gun grabber to try and "harmonise" the pre requirements to owning a firearm license to something hideous like the German system,and before you know it we are implimenting another directive that would utterly decimate shooting here due to it's unimplimentble demands on a system that's totally alien to the situation on the ground.

So that puts us in a position here .Do we sit and wait for somthing that in my mind ,will eventually be tried on by the EUSSR party general secetary in Brussels,or do we bring in something ourselves that we can make as lax as possible and Brussels leaves us alone on? I'm thinking here our medical test...We were actually OK by Brussels on this because we had it in place already..They didnt care that it was a "Well,how are you feeling?Grand Doc,haven't seen you in ten years." "The Gaurds were asking about you,are you all right?" "No bother at all." "Grand I'll sign off for you Mr Bonaparte..Hows Josephine these days?" [Patient dressed as Bonaparte exits stage left tripping over his sword.]:p

Compared to the Italian system,where you are interviewed by a state paid shrink with a mandate to weed out any "in their professional opinion" unsuitable liscense holders,and BTW you have no means of appealing the decision either.:eek:

Now,the fly in the ointment..Ourselves!!! We are our own worst enemies. Suggest anything like this and as examples already seen and felt...Peoples eyes light up with Euro signs!Or others go power mad as they are sitting at the ministers table and think they are in charge,and their eyes light up..etc.And because of that we will be screwed by those proposing courses and offering courses the length and breath of the 26.

We would be in what I call "The Springfield nucelar power plant syndrome." [Those who are fans of the Simpsons will get it straight away ]
Now apply that to most things in Ireland and our shooting situation and courses to be enforced on us and you could see this would be in any shape or form a VERY BAD idea.Not until these course offers can prove their qualifications to teach anything,and aren't charging thru the snot for it either could I ever endorse it in the current climate here.Do it for the sport and not for your bank account and keeping it utterly simple with zero padding,and then I might be intrested.Maybe.

Walter Mittys Brother

wirehairmax that link is enlightening alright sounds like what my buddy was referring to.

tikka, if you want to spend your hard earned cash being preached to by someone who may know less than you that should be your choice. It should not be mandatory.

Grizzly, spot on!

Gunny, EXACTLY!

Fore me new shooters now have to prove competence. And guess what most Supers want them to have done a "course" even though they could accept a new shooter having been shown the ropes by an experienced shooter as most of us were in our time.

This country thrives on bits of paper with so called qualifications which in a lot of cases prove nothing more than someone can answer a few prearranged questions!

Why should someone who got to sit at a table with Minister then get to fleece us shooters for cash for training a lot of us don't need or want?

Grizzly 45

ERGO,We the shooters have to tell our elected reps on our organisations that they ,singulary and collectively,can feck right off with this nonsense .Both from our own and any political suggestions thereof too.We are not wearing it anymore. Also,that it is time ,long overdue for the shooting swamp of Ireland to be drained and anyone doing this kind of stuff for profit will be going down the plug hole .It is solely up to us,no one else.

wirehairmax

The acting chairman of the SC also prides himself on being able to provide courses and of course he had the contract for the Game handling gig until last year when the NARGC took it off him, so you may see a common theme happening in the FCP as it currently stands.

Tikka391

gunny123 wrote: »

There are courses out there if anyone wants to do them. The problem was some trying to use their position to make these courses compulsory, and cashing in on it.

But what do you mean cashing in on it. Why is everyone worried about someone getting one over them.
If there is official courses established a trainer if you wanna call them that will have to establish company and invest in training for themselves all that sort of stuff, is it not reasonable that there will be a fee for that. It's not always about cashing in On. That really seems to be a national shoulder chip.
A quick example of something I've been thinking about. A sport which in our area ( North Leinster) seems to be growing, just judging from the amount of applications for membership to our club and neighbouring ones.
A new member joins and asked to accompany you for a days shooting just to get a feel of the area. When you come to think of it who is that fella, how long has he been shooting what experience does he have ( he can say all he wants an application letter doesn't mean it's true) has he any concept of safe shooting.
Up gets a rimmer of a cock, but flying low, your man full of excitement bang bang two shots straight through the hedge, the dog one of my sons or me Pepperd with lead badly injured or worse.
I would like to have the facility for example where on a new application to a club you could contact the training company this person says they trained with and get a a full report on their shooting training and what standard they are judged to be at. Maybe not exactly this but something on these lines at least you know the stranger on the other side of the hedge has been sat down and told the basics or has fired a shot in the supervision of an instructor.
While it may cost is a few Euro it's not always a money racket, waste of time, or this organisation or that organisation getting one over on me because I have to give in a few Euro.

Tikka391

From Walter
"tikka, if you want to spend your hard earned cash being preached to by someone who may know less than you that should be your choice. It should not be mandatory."
(Sorry I don't know how to take quotes direct from posts so I typed it out)

This is my point exactly why does somebody have to be preaching at you this is an unbelievable Irish syndrome bloody chip on your shoulder. I would rather have my hard earned cash to send my kids or myself on a course you would know what you might pick up than spend my money on operations or rehabilitation or physiotherapy or some other crap as a result of a shooting accidentwhich could've been avoided from someone have a bit of extra knowledge

wirehairmax

Tikka391 wrote: »

But what do you mean cashing in on it. Why is everyone worried about someone getting one over them.
If there is official courses established a trainer if you wanna call them that will have to establish company and invest in training for themselves all that sort of stuff, is it not reasonable that there will be a fee for that. It's not always about cashing in On. That really seems to be a national shoulder chip.


While it may cost is a few Euro it's not always a money racket, waste of time, or this organisation or that organisation getting one over on me because I have to give in a few Euro.

I think you're missing the point and maybe not aware of whats happening in the FCP as it stands.

InTheTrees

I'm just jumping in a little late...but how many firearms accidents are there in Ireland every year?

Tikka391

wirehairmax wrote: »

I think you're missing the point and maybe not aware of whats happening in the FCP as it stands.

Well enlighten me.
Before this particular thread started I never knew much really of the FCP or the SC or any of these sort of organisations. As I said I'm only a normal Joe soap who enjoys A bit of safe shooting I don't get involved with any group for organisations well apart from the NARGC. And that's only because of the gun club system.

gunny123

Tikka391 wrote: »

From Walter
"tikka, if you want to spend your hard earned cash being preached to by someone who may know less than you that should be your choice. It should not be mandatory."
(Sorry I don't know how to take quotes direct from posts so I typed it out)

This is my point exactly why does somebody have to be preaching at you this is an unbelievable Irish syndrome bloody chip on your shoulder. I would rather have my hard earned cash to send my kids or myself on a course you would know what you might pick up than spend my money on operations or rehabilitation or physiotherapy or some other crap as a result of a shooting accidentwhich could've been avoided from someone have a bit of extra knowledge

The thing that is sticking in peoples throats is the one who proposed this, is also someone that provides these courses. I'd rather scrap the guns and hand in my licences than have anything to do with him or his "courses".

Tikka391

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm just jumping in a little late...but how many firearms accidents are there in Ireland every year?

I don't think that's the point really. we can all be very proud of our safety record in our chosen aspects of the sport, but they are called accidents for a reason, nobody I know I'm fairly confident to say would shoot anybody or any livestock or whatever on purpose it would be "An accident" And we should all do as much as we can to minimise any accidents as we can

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And actually in Ireland and the Uk,we are kind of unique in that respect that you can ,in theory,get a firearm on just the say so of a superintendt if you fulfill some basic law abiding citizens criteria.

As far as the UK is concerned, this is simply untrue in the extreme. I'm happy to explain why, but realise that this being an Irish site, what the UK gets up to with regard to the issuing of a Firearms Certificate is of little interest to the majority of readers here.

tac

Walter Mittys Brother

Tikka if your a shooter who's been licenced for years who shoots every week and have never had an accident would you need to do a course every few years to prove you are safe?

What I & others are saying is there is nothing wrong with courses or education IF YOU NEED it.

Walter Mittys Brother

Tac with respect what the UK does does not interest me. If our government want to emulate the UK or the EU on firearm training they can do same with reloading as far as I'm concerned which ain't gonna happen.

tac foley

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Tac with respect what the UK does does not interest me. If our government want to emulate the UK or the EU on firearm training they can do same with reloading as far as I'm concerned which ain't gonna happen.

Hence my closing comment.

tac

Sparks

Tikka391 wrote: »

is introducing a training course for various aspects of our support such a bad thing.

I'd respond with an original post, but the thing is, nothing's changed since the last time I wrote this up, so just to reiterate:

Sparks wrote: »

I'll refrain from commenting on this specific company if you don't mind. I think you all know my thoughts regarding at least one of its directors. There's not a lot of point in going over that; you have a search function on the board if you're that interested in it.

●●●

I do however, think something stinks about this particular industry in general and here's as good a place to talk about that as any.

First off, the industry is perfectly legal, and was deliberately created by a Minister for Justice. There's no question of illegality or perfidity here. There are those who think it's even beneficial, and in the ideal they have a good point, but in the real world there's this big stinking problem that they're ignoring and it's this:

There is no regulation of firearms training in Ireland.

There's absolutely none. Not one single law, not one single official who oversees it, not one national standard, nothing. Almost everyone and his dog can happily rock up and start a course to train people in how to use firearms (and if you want to see how badly that can go, just google the phrase "Baron Shorttarse"). We all know of RFDs - and we're not going to name them specifically here because the Defamation Act is tiresome at best - who run courses over the course of an hour or less that people then use as proof of competency in licence applications, and we also know of competency courses run by national bodies and by ranges. And, be fair now, some of these are good basic safety courses run by well-meaning competent people. A few of those people even have the kind of training you need to teach something (which is an incredibly different set of training and skills to those you need to do that thing well). And a very very few people in Ireland are actually really good coaches, but they're really in a different industry so I'm not counting them here. I'm thinking of the basic safety/basic instruction field here.

The problem is, while we have a lot of good people trying their best, we have nobody vetting these courses to weed out the chancers setting up courses to make money who aren't actually teaching basic safety well. There's no standards for the courses to meet, no curriculum, no training of the trainers, nothing. There aren't even any consumer rights really, because you can go to person X, pay them for a course, do the course and "pass" it (sorry, but if there's no standard for the course, saying you pass or fail is a meaningless statement, it's like saying you won the race on the M50 on the way to work) -- and then the local Garda Superintendent can say "No, I won't accept this as proof of competence" and you can't get your money back, you can't sue person X for failing to provide the proof of competence you were seeking, you have no recourse at all. This is why we've been saying for years to ask the Super for the course first, which is a bad state of affairs to start with because it results in an effective state-sponsored monopoly in each garda district, but the alternative seemed worse.

Incidentally, yes, there are non-national bodies who will certify courses (you're all thinking of the NRA, but many others do it too, like the NSRA, the UK NRA, the ISSF, and many others, and people have been doing those courses in Ireland for a while now). But those non-national certifications mean absolutely zip in a licence application. The NRA says you're safe? Well that's nice, but unless your local Garda accepts that, it means nothing. And if he or she declines to accept it, then you have no recourse - the lack of standards means the Gardai have no requirement to accept non-national accreditations here.

And this is before you get to the thorny problem of what happens if someone is trained in one of these courses, doesn't learn basic safety but "passes" anyway and then goes on to hurt themselves, or someone else, or worse. Who's legally liable then? And what will the fallout be for the community as a whole?

We got dumped in this appalling situation by a Minister for Justice who, frankly, made a huge mess out of the Ministry he was given and who then just flounced off out of public life completely afterwards, but nobody's ever cleaned up the mess he made. Instead, some (not all) people have been opportunistically profiting off it and exacerbating the situation.

For example, we've been talking here about safety courses and proof of competence as though the former was the sole method to gain the latter; and not only is that not the case, it is deliberately not the case. Courses were never seen as being the norm, they were seen as being one way to provide competence, a new way, brought in alongside the established ways of direct instruction that we'd had since before the founding of the state. There's nothing wrong with having courses, if they're done right, but they were never supposed to take over from everything else, and especially not when they were this unregulated.

And this current push to try to get us to introduce graduated licencing is just going to make things even worse by increasing the demands for proof of competence and creating even more opportunities for commercial exploitation.

So like I said, the industry is perfectly legal. But it stinks. It's not safe, it's not good for the sport, it's not good for those in the sport, and it's only good for a few who are profiting off it. It badly needs regulation and standardisation and groups like FETAC to get involved for that to happen. And absolutely nobody is pushing for that to happen anymore.

Walter Mittys Brother

Well said Sparks!

Better than I could ever say it!

Nekarsulm

Anyone who ever had to sit the "Safe Pass" course will recognise many of the elements of Spark's post.
A National testing program ran by individuals, who set the course, choose the elements of it to be presented to participants, set the exam based on the elements chosen and then correct the results. If a lad is struggling, he will be "nudged" towards the correct answer and a Pass mark.
An expensive joke of a system now firmly entrenched into the construction industry.
(I sat through three hours of a presentation on the dangers of concrete to human skin, and how rats spread Weil's disease. We were barely awake at the end, but managed a 100% pass rate. I was then safe to be let out on a site)
We do not want similar foisted on Shooters by people who have zero practical experience nor understanding of firearm operation, handling, etiquette or safety.

gunny123

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Anyone who ever had to sit the "Safe Pass" course will recognise many of the elements of Spark's post.
A National testing program ran by individuals, who set the course, choose the elements of it to be presented to participants, set the exam based on the elements chosen and then correct the results. If a lad is struggling, he will be "nudged" towards the correct answer and a Pass mark.
An expensive joke of a system now firmly entrenched into the construction industry.
(I sat through three hours of a presentation on the dangers of concrete to human skin, and how rats spread Weil's disease. We were barely awake at the end, but managed a 100% pass rate. I was then safe to be let out on a site)
We do not want similar foisted on Shooters by people who have zero practical experience nor understanding of firearm operation, handling, etiquette or safety.

I nodded off during the safe pass bs, apparently i was asleep for most of it, still passed. They have other nonsense courses now, grinding wheel courses for example. I don't want shooting to be cursed with irksome and pointless courses.

Tikka391

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Tikka if your a shooter who's been licenced for years who shoots every week and have never had an accident would you need to do a course every few years to prove you are safe?

What I & others are saying is there is nothing wrong with courses or education IF YOU NEED it.

I know my level of competency you know your level of competency and the people who you shoot with on a regular basis but as one of my above posts tried to explain what about the day when you're out with somebody who don't know too well, I know doing any sort of course doesn't guarantee somebody be coming out an expert, And sitting on a course does not guarantee there will never be another accident ever again,
but if I had two people standing in front of me I did not know them and I had to choose one of them to go walking in the fields with a loaded shotgun resting over their arm facing in my general direction and I was told person A might have on this might of done this and that And he's be shooting for many years And he's a great fellow altogether,we've been told, and there's person B his name is ....... he has been a member of ..... and ...... from ..... till ...... and has sat through at least one legally required official training course.
I know who I would pick.

Sparks

Tikka, you're conflating competency with proficiency a bit there. Not too much, but enough to comment on.

There aren't many levels of competency. There's competent and there's incompetent. It's somewhat binary, because it has almost nothing to do with how close you can get the round to the center of the target, and almost everything to do with whether or not you can get from waking up in your bed in the morning to the point where you pull the trigger on the range and deliberately shoot at the target, without having an accidental discharge or risking some other kind of accident along the way through bad practice.
(The possibility of an unavoidable accident from some random external factor isn't part of this equation, this is more about things like knowing you don't carry a loaded rifle from the parking lot into the range and over to the firing point, and things of that nature).

Proficiency, on the other hand, is all about "what score did you get in the match" or "how small was your group" or "how close did you get to the deer before you fired" or any other measure of how good the shot itself was.

The law is very careful to seperate those two concepts and we need to be very careful not to lessen that seperation because that would lead to some very bad things. Like, say, not being allowed to have your rifle licence until you could score above 90% on a 50m target with the rifle. (Unpack that one for a moment).

Tikka391

Jesus I had to google "conflating" 😂

AhI don't know, maybe I'm not getting my point across but the point I'm trying to make is,if your competent,proficient,experienced, expert, know all,or even a **** talker, whatever it is. There seems to be a wholly negative attitude for the introduction of of course or training policy of any sort.
A lad of 16 with no shooting background none of the family have a shooting background, I suppose I might call it first generation shooter can decide and he is quite entitled to,put a deposit on a gun get two letters from farmers filling his application form sent it to the guards have excepted and head off shooting, oh I forgot you can get his local firearms dealer to give him a chat about what end of said gun to point away from his shoulder in the gun room for half an hour or 5 minutes, and he's away possibly shooting in the field next to you. This to me is absolutely ridiculous.

Now as I said I am not familiar with any of the political ramifications of any of the above named groups so I just comment on my own thoughts and I think somebody somewhere can come up with some sort of system That at least we know that that 16-year-old chap out walking the fields was made sit down and understand the dangers he could be putting him self or others into

Taking the above scenario as a rough hypothetical example. Can anybody give an example of what the lad shouldhave to do to start his life in hunting/shooting, or should he just be let buy his gun and head off on his merry way.
I know this is how myself and many many other people started off, but sure didn't they used to hand out driving licences out only to releve the pressure on the waiting list. Doesn't mean it's the right way of doing things.

Walter Mittys Brother

Tikka answer me this

You have a firearm/s and you are as safe, competent, experienced or whatever as the next person and then some lad who has set up a business offering training who may or may not be as "qualified" as you in the use of firearms who just happens to have the ministers ear gets said minister to make it compulsory for you pay to do his training course and you don't see a problem with that?

BattleCorp

Tikka391 wrote: »

Jesus I had to google "conflating" 😂

AhI don't know, maybe I'm not getting my point across but the point I'm trying to make is,if your competent,proficient,experienced, expert, know all,or even a **** talker, whatever it is. There seems to be a wholly negative attitude for the introduction of of course or training policy of any sort.
A lad of 16 with no shooting background none of the family have a shooting background, I suppose I might call it first generation shooter can decide and he is quite entitled to,put a deposit on a gun get two letters from farmers filling his application form sent it to the guards have excepted and head off shooting, oh I forgot you can get his local firearms dealer to give him a chat about what end of said gun to point away from his shoulder in the gun room for half an hour or 5 minutes, and he's away possibly shooting in the field next to you. This to me is absolutely ridiculous.

Now as I said I am not familiar with any of the political ramifications of any of the above named groups so I just comment on my own thoughts and I think somebody somewhere can come up with some sort of system That at least we know that that 16-year-old chap out walking the fields was made sit down and understand the dangers he could be putting him self or others into

Tikka391, I'll join in and sort of support you.

First off, I see no harm in having standardised compulsory training courses for all shooting novices - but there are problems.

The problem arises when we want to decide who designs a course, who runs a course, who sets the standards etc. It's a fairly complicated thing to set up National standards.

I'm certainly against any compulsory course that is solely a money making racket.

I'm certainly against any compulsory course that hands over a monopoly on the training to any company/organisation.

What do we do with existing shooters, do we make them do the novices course too?

Given that most shooting organisations, when working in conjunction with the authorities, wouldn't be able to organise a p1ss up in a brewery, I wouldn't trust them to fairly organise and operate such a training programme. There are too many self-serving individuals with their own agendas that this would end up being an absolute disaster.

Vegeta

Tikka391 wrote: »

This to me is absolutely ridiculous.

And not reflecting the current reality of applying for a license. The Gardai already require proof of competence in section 2.5 of the Firearms Certificate Application form.

So all new applicants, such as the 16 year old in your example, would have to show competence when applying for their license. There currently exists quite a few training options to fulfil this need. The quality of these of course is always open to discussion.

What people are rightly against, is a single source of compulsory training which is required by the state/Gardai/DoJ. Especially if this single source has been lobbying to put such a requirement in place.

Sparks

he is quite entitled to,put a deposit on a gun get two letters from farmers filling his application form sent it to the guards have excepted and head off shooting

No, he can't currently do that, because as you point out he needs proof of competence:

, oh I forgot you can get his local firearms dealer to give him a chat about what end of said gun to point away from his shoulder in the gun room for half an hour or 5 minutes, and he's away possibly shooting in the field next to you. This to me is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, it is.

A side note here -- we're ignoring the very fundamental point that courses are only one of many ways to provide proof of competence and they were never, ever supposed to replace any of the other methods we've been using for centuries. They were supposed to be an additional option to do so only. Replacement was considered and rejected, forcefully and after deliberation, it wasn't something that was forgotten about, and other ways of providing proof are not loopholes or accidents, they are the primary means of providing that proof. Courses, even now, are incidental ways to handle edge cases and well over 99% of all FCA1s do not use them.

That said, let's go back to your example of the young lad out shooting for the first time without sufficient or safe instruction. And let's be very clear, that that's completely the fault of the local Garda Superintendent. That includes legal liabilty as well as moral fault here.

You fill out your FCA1 and on it you say, under proof of competence, "I did a course with so-and-so". It is totally up to the local Garda Superintendent to say whether or not that is proof of competence or not. If he says it is, and it manifestly is not, then the Garda Superintendent has issued a firearms licence in breach of section 4(1) of the Firearms Act:

4. (1) An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate.

(emphasis mine)

That links to the course by going through subsection (2), part (f):

(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant?
...
(f) has complied with subsection (3),
...

And through that to subsection (3), part (b)

(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person?s functions under this Act, including, in particular:
...
(b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

Okay, that's a bit of legalese but it's fairly straightforward. The Gardai and the District Courts are prohibited by the Act from issuing a licence if the applicant has not provided proof of competence. If the applicant cites a course as that sole proof of competence and that course is not fit for purpose, then the issuing person (the local Super or the local Chief Super or the local DC Judge) is the one breaking the law by issuing the licence.

That means that the onus is on the Superintendent to evaluate the course and accept or reject it.


Now practically, we have problems here. First off, we've never had a test case and nobody ever wants to, because to have a test case you have to prove a safety course didn't teach safety and that requires a human being to have an accident with a firearm, which is not something to be seeking.

Because this has never been tested in the courts, we have no precedent to point to as a motive for local Superintendents. Many might indicate that with their resources, they can't afford to treat it with the same priority as serious or even petty crime and given the accident statistics they might well be correct.

And because of that, the situation can continue as it is, and become established and thus harder to change, which means you need a stronger motive, which delays action, which allows further time to establish the bad practices... and you see where that goes.

Secondly, there can always be counter-arguments. The issuing person might assert that the course was too variable, that they had assessed it on the basis of results to that point and that they lacked the formal training or personal knowledge to judge that course directly. And that might be a fair point, but it's questionable as to whether it'd be a successful defence in court.

Thirdly, the amount of legal liability owed to the course and instructor is unclear here. The Firearms Act doesn't make mention of them, and they might escape liability under the Firearms Act as a result, but I suspect they would not be so safe under other consumer legislation, and the penalties would be severe if someone was injured or worse as a result of incompetent instruction, especially if a jury thought that instruction was just provided in order to line someone's pockets as an arm-chancing routine.

TL;DR - it's a big hairy mess that nobody is trying to fix, but the people driving the fix need to be the Gardai. It's their arse in the fire if things go wrong, not ours.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

As far as the UK is concerned, this is simply untrue in the extreme. I'm happy to explain why, but realise that this being an Irish site, what the UK gets up to with regard to the issuing of a Firearms Certificate is of little interest to the majority of readers here.

tac

By that I meant ,that both in the UK,ROI,NI[yes all different laws],but coming orginally from West minister in some shape or form.However when boiled down to the core it does consist of the following;
Are you of mature adult age?Are you a nutter,drunk ,well known to the police or otherwise with undesireable social habits?Do you have some place to shoot it safely?And what do you want it for that doesn't make my job as a chief of police anymore bothersome,and I can trust you with it?That really is the "British Isles" [forwant of any other geographical term] gun laws rquirement...That's why I said in theory! Obviously there has been more add ons ,more to politics assing about with it than anything else.Which again,in theory is what any normal law abideing citizen would be in the first place.
Compare to Germany. First up...Fiddled your income tax??Yea! Forget it!! You are untrustworthy as you are cheating the state.Tax clearence cert please ,along with your car and household insurance,[want to see if you are having a few too many break ins or accidents in your household]and off to have a chat with professoer Von Nutter,state appointed psychologist if you are under 25 and you are applying first time for a handgun.Or first time gun applicant.

Post anything on certain websites or agree with "extreme right wing groups" or are a member of the following AFD,NPD, or follow them on FB,any biker groups of the 3% kind.Not a hope !

Right sod off then to a three day state approved course,that just PERMITS you to handle firearms in a supervised enviroment like a gun club or shooting range. Course is BTW 200 euros on average with grub and snacks thrown ,and held in a proper classroom. Go off and join a club for your disipline of choice [say WA1500]then,where you will spend 6to12 months as a probie shooting air pistols first,then.22s and then big caliber to see whether you are a genuine soul or a chancer doing his time to get a firearm.Oh and please attend every week as well for lectures and training...For your six months probie time,and it is a joint decision of chairman,SO and RO's if you progress any further from the airgun and .22 stage...
Need I go on??And let's not mention the hunting liscense course,called by the Germans the "Green Leaving cert." 30 days non stop cram course[when I attempted it it was three YEARS!!] With a 80 % pass rate costing about 3grand.
So see what the rest of the EU has to put up with in comparison?? Thats why I was saying we do in theory have it alot easier here in aquiring a firearm.

cavan shooter

It's not that I don't believe that persons applying for firearms should not have some coaching and some basis of safe handling covered. My complaint is that the proposed course is being proposed by vested interests. To be ran at specific training centres.

The NARGC have a very good proficiency course that has been recognised over the years as being suitable to get you the license. Cavan runs it every year and a lot of clubs have it as a minimum mandatory to complete before you can join. It covers theory and coaching. I believe two or three garda have sat it as well for info.

To take it any further it should be voluntary same way you can keep going with the NARGC to do safety coach and club safety officer...if I should desire....but it shouldn't be a course put forward by one training provider and it should definetly not be like safe pass....that's a day of your life you don't get back and the biggest waste of time ever invented.

Sparks

The NARGC have a very good proficiency course that has been recognised over the years as being suitable to get you the license.

Again, so we're all on the same page, the course itself can be the best in the world and you can have had it recognised by dozens of supers for decades, and if the new guy says "naw, don't like it", that's it, it's not recognised for your application and he's within his rights to say so.

Now, you could challenge in court, say he hasn't properly assessed it, and he might well lose, but that's not guaranteed and it'd be costly and risky (mind you, I personally think we need to take one of these cases at some point just to have the matter put to bed).

It's just that you can't say "this course is recognised" about any course - doesn't matter which one or who runs it or even who's recognised it in the past - because the entire system is currently operating without any standardisation, and without a legal framework to allow for precedent to be used.

(ie. it's very likely illegal for your local garda to say "bob over in precinct X says it's grand so it'll do" because that means the decision isn't so much being made by your super as it is by bob).

I know it's harping on a point and I don't mean to rag on people doing their best to do this right - and they are out there - but the system is so fecked up right now that it's something that has to be harped on until someone gets their head out of their arse and fixes it. And I don't mean an Arthur Daly fix either. Because if or worse, when this goes wrong, someone is going to be badly hurt or killed.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm certainly against any compulsory course that is solely a money making racket.

I'm certainly against any compulsory course that hands over a monopoly on the training to any company/organisation.

What do we do with existing shooters, do we make them do the novices course too?

Given that most shooting organisations, when working in conjunction with the authorities, wouldn't be able to organise a p1ss up in a brewery, I wouldn't trust them to fairly organise and operate such a training programme. There are too many self-serving individuals with their own agendas that this would end up being an absolute disaster.

What to do with these senior shooters?The most practcial and one any state will take is a cut off date.You have been in a profession or whatever for X number of years,it will be assumed you know what you are doing off you go and do it.

Only way I could see this work is for each individual disiplne to enact it's own training requirements,some maybe more stringent than others??IE IPSC,you need to to have a permit in each firearms group to participate in competitions nationally and internationally. It would get intresting with hunting and stalking.. But one thing is for sure a one size fits all is not going to work here.

Backbarrel

cavan shooter wrote: »

It's not that I don't believe that persons applying for firearms should not have some coaching and some basis of safe handling covered. My complaint is that the proposed course is being proposed by vested interests. To be ran at specific training centres.

The NARGC have a very good proficiency course that has been recognised over the years as being suitable to get you the license. Cavan runs it every year and a lot of clubs have it as a minimum mandatory to complete before you can join. It covers theory and coaching. I believe two or three garda have sat it as well for info.

To take it any further it should be voluntary same way you can keep going with the NARGC to do safety coach and club safety officer...if I should desire....but it shouldn't be a course put forward by one training provider and it should definetly not be like safe pass....that's a day of your life you don't get back and the biggest waste of time ever invented.

The NARGC has 25,000 members two seats at the fcp table. Runs an acceptable training course..

“Irish Firearms Dealers Association” and “Range Operators Association of Ireland” each has a representative at that table.

Latter two entities are for the curfew on night shooting. Who are they? How many members?

When was the last meeting of each.?

Why is a firearm dealer association for something that will devalue their own stock..this makes no sense unless:

Someone thinks there are €€€ in this and we will all end up paying...

Someone thinks that there will be a load of legal challenges and there is €€€€ in that...

Tikka391

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Tikka answer me this

You have a firearm/s and you are as safe, competent, experienced or whatever as the next person and then some lad who has set up a business offering training who may or may not be as "qualified" as you in the use of firearms who just happens to have the ministers ear gets said minister to make it compulsory for you pay to do his training course and you don't see a problem with that?

The national paranoia of small town politics should not get in the way of providing such a training service.
What if 10 different training companies started, would they all be havin a pint with the minister or sitting beside him at the match havin a word in his ear. I don't think so.

Who said there should only be one company/association offering its services.

Tikka391

Sparks wrote: »

No, he can't currently do that, because as you point out he needs proof of competence:



Yes, it is.

A side note here -- we're ignoring the very fundamental point that courses are only one of many ways to provide proof of competence and they were never, ever supposed to replace any of the other methods we've been using for centuries. They were supposed to be an additional option to do so only. Replacement was considered and rejected, forcefully and after deliberation, it wasn't something that was forgotten about, and other ways of providing proof are not loopholes or accidents, they are the primary means of providing that proof. Courses, even now, are incidental ways to handle edge cases and well over 99% of all FCA1s do not use them.

That said, let's go back to your example of the young lad out shooting for the first time without sufficient or safe instruction. And let's be very clear, that that's completely the fault of the local Garda Superintendent. That includes legal liabilty as well as moral fault here.

You fill out your FCA1 and on it you say, under proof of competence, "I did a course with so-and-so". It is totally up to the local Garda Superintendent to say whether or not that is proof of competence or not. If he says it is, and it manifestly is not, then the Garda Superintendent has issued a firearms licence in breach of section 4(1) of the Firearms Act:

(emphasis mine)

That links to the course by going through subsection (2), part (f):

And through that to subsection (3), part (b)


Okay, that's a bit of legalese but it's fairly straightforward. The Gardai and the District Courts are prohibited by the Act from issuing a licence if the applicant has not provided proof of competence. If the applicant cites a course as that sole proof of competence and that course is not fit for purpose, then the issuing person (the local Super or the local Chief Super or the local DC Judge) is the one breaking the law by issuing the licence.

That means that the onus is on the Superintendent to evaluate the course and accept or reject it.


Now practically, we have problems here. First off, we've never had a test case and nobody ever wants to, because to have a test case you have to prove a safety course didn't teach safety and that requires a human being to have an accident with a firearm, which is not something to be seeking.

Because this has never been tested in the courts, we have no precedent to point to as a motive for local Superintendents. Many might indicate that with their resources, they can't afford to treat it with the same priority as serious or even petty crime and given the accident statistics they might well be correct.

And because of that, the situation can continue as it is, and become established and thus harder to change, which means you need a stronger motive, which delays action, which allows further time to establish the bad practices... and you see where that goes.

Secondly, there can always be counter-arguments. The issuing person might assert that the course was too variable, that they had assessed it on the basis of results to that point and that they lacked the formal training or personal knowledge to judge that course directly. And that might be a fair point, but it's questionable as to whether it'd be a successful defence in court.

Thirdly, the amount of legal liability owed to the course and instructor is unclear here. The Firearms Act doesn't make mention of them, and they might escape liability under the Firearms Act as a result, but I suspect they would not be so safe under other consumer legislation, and the penalties would be severe if someone was injured or worse as a result of incompetent instruction, especially if a jury thought that instruction was just provided in order to line someone's pockets as an arm-chancing routine.

TL;DR - it's a big hairy mess that nobody is trying to fix, but the people driving the fix need to be the Gardai. It's their arse in the fire if things go wrong, not ours.

You split the paragraph there sparks, the lad seeing the local dealer was part of his application i forgot it and put it in at the end.
Am I mistaken can you not do this any more?
You could in my area even a few days ago!
So am I wrong but is every super breaking the law every time they approve a license.
I'd dare say you'll be in contact with a lot more shooting people than me, have you ever heard of a super rejecting a competence course.
And if so what did they look for as an improvement.

Maybe I'm over simplifying things but your saying there is no way that a legal system of training can not be set up in this country.
By the way any ideas on how to help my fictional 16 yo lad get shooting safely

I'

Walter Mittys Brother

Tikka I gave you a scenario and asked a simple question which you haven't answered.

I say again in simple terms what I and others have said.

I am not against appropriate & suitable training for those who need it or may want it to be supplied by someone who knows what they are doing not because they have connections in the corridors of power.

Vizzy

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Tikka I gave you a scenario and asked a simple question which you haven't answered.

I say again in simple terms what I and others have said.

I am not against appropriate & suitable training for those who need it or may want it to be supplied by someone who knows what they are doing not because they have connections in the corridors of power.

Who will decide if you need it or not ?
and who will decide that the trainer knows what they are talking about ?

What happens if the person "who knows what he is talking about" lives 100 miles away, would he be expected to travel to you to provide the training for free ?

Walter Mittys Brother

cavan shooter wrote: »

I have to correct you....THE ONLY TWO MEMBERS IN THE COUNTRY OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SITTING ON THE TABLE.

Holy God !!!!

Walter Mittys Brother

Vizzy wrote: »

Who will decide if you need it or not ?
and who will decide that the trainer knows what they are talking about ?

What happens if the person "who knows what he is talking about" lives 100 miles away, would he be expected to travel to you to provide the training for free ?

Who will decide if I need it? If I'm applying for a new firearm the Super will. If I already have it I've proven I don't need it.

Who will decide if trainer is capable? As Sparks has said maybe Fetac or City & Guilds? Certainly shouldn't be of the "I have a company & done a course once so I'm qualified" type.

Where did I say the training should be free.

Vizzy

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Who will decide if I need it? If I'm applying for a new firearm the Super will. If I already have it I've proven I don't need it.

Who will decide if trainer is capable? As Sparks has said maybe Fetac or City & Guilds? Certainly shouldn't be of the "I have a company & done a course once so I'm qualified" type.

Where did I say the training should be free.[/QUOTE

I know for example that there is a local lad giving a "competency course" in his kitchen to 6 or 7 lads next week - €60 per head. It lasts just over an hour.
This will be accepted by the Super cos there are no other more substantial courses being done locally for the next few months.
Is the Super wrong for accepting such a course ? Must admit, I have mixed feelings on it.
I certainly wouldn't feel safe with a guy beside me whose only training is this course, but hey, the Super accepted the course and he has his licence so he must be competent, right ?

Plus, if the Super starts to refuse to accept certification from certain people, then you will have lads saying "you have your course done so you should take the Super to Court. He can't win really.

Certainly agree with you on the City & Guilds/Fetac certification, but you are still going to run in to the problem of people saying "Vizzy is providing all the courses around here cos he is related to the County secretary of the NARGC/ Range Operators Association " and I'm afraid there is no way that one will ever be solved.

cavan shooter

NARGC, IFA, CAI and Wid Deer Association.

The ONLY organisations that stood up for shooters. The rest hung us out to dry

Nekarsulm

OK, if I could get one last point in, concerning Vizzy's post above.
City & Guilds would be the only yardstick to measure by, as FETAC courses and qualifications need repeating at 3years, while a C&G qualification is for life.

I speak from experience, having completed the Pesticide Sprayer course ran by the Farm Relief organisation. Its a FETAC level 5 qualification that lapses in 3 years.

In N.I the same course ran by C&G is once only.

cavan shooter

grassroot1 wrote:

lads this thread is not about courses or who will give them its about avoiding the impact the night shooting proposals will have on our (varied) sport. Can we get back to how we will ensure our opinions are heard.

Yes ...I agree it's not about courses...and it's easy to get side tracked, it's about being sold down the river by the Sports Coalition of vested interests and others who chose to pretend it won't affect them.

Walter Mittys Brother

grassroot1 wrote: »

lads this thread is not about courses or who will give them its about avoiding the impact the night shooting proposals will have on our (varied) sport.
Can we get back to how we will ensure our opinions are heard.

Fair point maybe one of the actual moderators could split the thread if it bothers you that much.

Zxthinger

Tikka391 wrote: »

But what do you mean cashing in on it. Why is everyone worried about someone getting one over them.
If there is official courses established a trainer if you wanna call them that will have to establish company and invest in training for themselves all that sort of stuff, is it not reasonable that there will be a fee for that. It's not always about cashing in On. That really seems to be a national shoulder chip.
A quick example of something I've been thinking about. A sport which in our area ( North Leinster) seems to be growing, just judging from the amount of applications for membership to our club and neighbouring ones.
A new member joins and asked to accompany you for a days shooting just to get a feel of the area. When you come to think of it who is that fella, how long has he been shooting what experience does he have ( he can say all he wants an application letter doesn't mean it's true) has he any concept of safe shooting.
Up gets a rimmer of a cock, but flying low, your man full of excitement bang bang two shots straight through the hedge, the dog one of my sons or me Pepperd with lead badly injured or worse.
I would like to have the facility for example where on a new application to a club you could contact the training company this person says they trained with and get a a full report on their shooting training and what standard they are judged to be at. Maybe not exactly this but something on these lines at least you know the stranger on the other side of the hedge has been sat down and told the basics or has fired a shot in the supervision of an instructor.
While it may cost is a few Euro it's not always a money racket, waste of time, or this organisation or that organisation getting one over on me because I have to give in a few Euro.

We have compulsory training in place. It's the firearms competence training.. The book needs to stop here and this competency training needs to be made whole and forfilling and real and not just a ffffking video for an hour. I am terrified of what these partisans with there trying schools would manage to get across the line with the aid of their political backers. We could see trains every year. Or every three years.

By the way, you seem to be taking about the English style if deer hunting where a novice hunter has to nominate a seasoned hunter as his mentor. That particular arrangement might be needed in the uk with its 20:1 higher ratio of people to land than here in Ireland. It's part of the application process and is not geared to profiteering by charlatans

Finally regarding shot gunning, if you can't be trained via talking on how to avoid low flying game thereby avoiding a potentially hazardous firearms discharge through a hedge then you shouldn't be out shooting.

You need to remember that it's one of the safest sports and I and other here are pissed because these proposals are only being mooted by those that wish to feather their on nests.

We could see trading for every calibre, traininh for use of scopes, training for use of the deadly silencer. Training to permit the use of a lamp while shooting. Where would the cash cow end??
It's all nonsense, we don't need it and as a society we have proved that the majority of folks are compliant with safe practice and no future intervention is justified.

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

[QUOTE “Irish Firearms Dealers Association” and “Range Operators Association of Ireland” each has a representative at that table...

I have to correct you....THE ONLY TWO MEMBERS IN THE COUNTRY OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SITTING ON THE TABLE.[/quote]

Why does Wolfie Smith and the Tooting popular front spring to mind ?

Zxthinger

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Tac with respect what the UK does does not interest me. If our government want to emulate the UK or the EU on firearm training they can do same with reloading as far as I'm concerned which ain't gonna happen.

And give us permits for low power air rifles too.

Zxthinger

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Anyone who ever had to sit the "Safe Pass" course will recognise many of the elements of Spark's post.
A National testing program ran by individuals, who set the course, choose the elements of it to be presented to participants, set the exam based on the elements chosen and then correct the results. If a lad is struggling, he will be "nudged" towards the correct answer and a Pass mark.
An expensive joke of a system now firmly entrenched into the construction industry.
(I sat through three hours of a presentation on the dangers of concrete to human skin, and how rats spread Weil's disease. We were barely awake at the end, but managed a 100% pass rate. I was then safe to be let out on a site)
We do not want similar foisted on Shooters by people who have zero practical experience nor understanding of firearm operation, handling, etiquette or safety.

Let's not forget that the safe pass was the first semblance of any safety here in the Irish construction industry. It was badly needed at the time and it has made massive headway changing the mindset of the typical builder and installing a commen level on safety awareness in the industry. It's seriously lacking in development and has major flaws but it worked.
This nonsense firearms training that certain spoofers want to shove down our throats is not required. Shooting is not an industry nor is it an activity that suffers from high injury rates etc. Safe pass style training is not required nor is it warranted or for that matter wanted. Professional deer stalkers are covered under the health and welfare at work act and must recieve training as per that act.

Zxthinger

Tikka391 wrote: »

A lad of 16 with no shooting background none of the family have a shooting background, I suppose I might call it first generation shooter can decide and he is quite entitled to,put a deposit on a gun get two letters from farmers filling his application form sent it to the guards have excepted and head off shooting, oh I forgot you can get his local firearms dealer to give him a chat about what end of said gun to point away from his shoulder in the gun room for half an hour or 5 minutes, and he's away possibly shooting in the field next to you. This to me is absolutely ridiculous.

Now as I said I am not familiar with any of the political ramifications of any of the above named groups so I just comment on my own thoughts and I think somebody somewhere can come up with some sort of system That at least we know that that 16-year-old chap out walking the fields was made sit down and understand the dangers he could be putting him self or others into
.

Firstly its gun.. It's not a weapon of mass destruction or a surface to air missile.
It's not really anymore dangerous than a bow and arrow.

Also your talking about a 16year old. We're not talking about 12year olds of which there are plenty driving heavy farming equipment around the land. I have relations that were landing on the beaches on d-day at 16years old. My own dad worked driving a cat dozer at 12 over some of the steepest terrain ye'd ever see.

The system is there.
Compatancy training,
Garda background
med records
Two referees
Two land owners to vouch to allow said individual on their land with said gun.

If Ye can pass muster to get the form filled in correctly and get all the relevant steps completed then your prob already upto the grade of a cruise missile operator never mind s little gun shooter.

Tikka391

Zxthinger wrote: »

Firstly its gun.. It's not a weapon of mass destruction or a surface to air missile.
It's not really anymore dangerous than a bow and arrow.

Also your talking about a 16year old. We're not talking about 12year olds of which there are plenty driving heavy farming equipment around the land. I have relations that were landing on the beaches on d-day at 16years old. My own dad worked driving a cat dozer at 12 over some of the steepest terrain ye'd ever see.

The system is there.
Compatancy training,
Garda background
med records
Two referees
Two land owners to vouch to allow said individual on their land with said gun.

If Ye can pass muster to get the form filled in correctly and get all the relevant steps completed then your prob already upto the grade of a cruise missile operator never mind s little gun shooter.

What total and utter balderdash, I don't know what part of your post is worse than the other.

To start with I never said a gun was a weapon of mass destruction, but a single pellet in the eye can change someone's life, he could head out and hop gates/ditches/fences and not be aware of breaking the gun, drop a bird in the next field and run th see where it lit and trip with one shell still ready to fire, but the gun on the ground unbroken with a exited dog hopping around himto pick up bird, I could give you loads of more examples, but sure he's not carting a RPG so he'll be grand.

Most of us lads in my area group driving tractors we did not all live on farms but we got lots of instruction, But a 16-year-old does not wake up one morning have the keys of a tractor handed to him and told go out there and turn that field of hay and just let off for the day, I guarantee you it would drummed into to him over a period of time about the multiple dangers of PRO shafts etc etc, or told to slurry a load of fields And not warned about the dangers of loading a slurry tanker.
He was made aware or the possible dangerous and told/showed how to do things correctly.

Also there is now way a 12 yo lad was put on a dozer and put straight on the steepest terrain you'll ever see before he worked on the flat first, regardless of what era it was.
And WTF d-day has to do with hunting safety in the Irish countryside has to do with anything IDK.

Now on to the system
Competency training-- 5 or 10 mins with the gun dealer will do.

Garda background-- i have absolutely no idea what this entails or how they go about their business so can't comment.

Med records-- when I asked my GP a number of years ago for this, I asked him on average how many times he Heard back in relation to the information you provided from the Garda he said he couldn't remember if he ever was he doesn't think he was

Two referees-- I believe they are character referees, I am not on about weather people are grand lads or not.

Land owners letters-- I always thought this was a reason for owning a weapon of mass destruction oh sorry a little gun, not to vouch for someone, isn't that the job of the referees

Any gob****e can fill in a form and adhere to the current system dosent mean there safe, I'm not saying over time they won't learn and develop into a safe and trusted shooter, sure isn't this how most of he did it, dosent mean its best practice and should be changed.

Zxthinger

Trying--:-) Not going to be dragged in to a war here.

So to sum it up.

1st What I'm saying is that 16year old are very very capable, capable enough to recieve verbal instruction on the dynamics of shooting and thereafter act responsibly in the field. As proved by the Irish shooting community thus far.
16year old chaps are men.. (Hence the D-day ref)

2ed That's guns are just as dangerous or safe as other everyday objects.

You'd have people believing craving of a few shots at a bird was rocket science and frought with danger.

A gun is a tool, a lot less dangerous than a chainsaw, quad or a tractor.


The amount of regulation regarding licencing is very sufficient if properly done.

You comments although well meaning are only your opinion and stats will show that 16year old lads are not out blowing the heads off one another or popping pellets in each other's eyes.

Don't forget the debate here is about nighttime shooting ban and compulsory training for all. Both of which I'm fully against.

That said:- Training for anything is grand if Ye want to go get training.
If Ye want to ride a bicycle with conference there is a training courses, if Ye feel that you could improve you makeup skills then there is training.

I'm sick of this nanny state and I won't be participating in any bull sh11t training. This erosion of my liberty is what's destroying things. If we adopted this rubbish then it wouldn't be long before we'd need 'papers' to cross a county line.

Btw I only know of my fathers exploited youth from his emergency war time stories in which they narrowly avoided death. And for your info when your born in a sawmill, live in a sawmill, play in a sawmill, all in Scotland then you work in a saw mill.... In the 1940's anything goes... a shortage of men was prob a factor