Benefit of training to hunters/shooter

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

Cass

All posts from the "Night Shooting" thread relating to training and courses have been moved here as this topic/thread is specifically about that.

Tikka391

Zxthinger wrote: »

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

Well you know what you have done it,you have won me over, and I'm not gonna let that nanny state get me down.

I wonder could we get a movement going to do away with all training schemes, Ah sure fup it all Them 17-year-old lads getting their first cars and spinning around the roads, all they have is a small car, and a car never hurt anyone,right?. No more shall we expect them to go through a compulsory training and testing system, sure their grand lads and very responsible there won't be another on them.
We won't let the nanny state get us down any more.

"Down with that sort of thing Ted "

Walter Mittys Brother

You seem very down on young lads be they drivers or shooters.

All the schemes & training in the world won't stop a fool being a fool.

Tikka391

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

You seem very down on young lads be they drivers or shooters.

All the schemes & training in the world won't stop a fool being a fool.

The opposite actually, I have a17yo and 15yo lads and they will do every course, open day, official or not be it a chat from our own club safety officer whatever or getting them out with other lads, because every grain of knowledge they might pick up from someone will help them become safe and trusted over time.

gunny123

You seem very airated about this Tikka391, do you have a dog in this hunt ?

Tikka391

gunny123 wrote: »

You seem very airated about this Tikka391, do you have a dog in this hunt ?

Absolutely not, as I said in an earlier post.

And not in any way airated, but when you read things like " it's only a gun not a weapon of mass destruction " ah just dosent sit well with me, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Like I posted in an earlier post I am not to familiar with the groups mentioned and am not up to speed with their ins and outs re. Personal or representatives.

meathstevie

Backbarrel wrote: »

very true Feckin wheels within wheels. always..

The people that stand up to them are knee deep in legal letters but fair play to those lads they are not stopping.

As long as you've dotted your i's and crossed your t's from a legal point of view anyone can instruct a solicitor to write you any ole ****e in a letter.... .The only binding bits of text you'll ever encounter are encoded law, court verdicts and orders, and contracts you've agreed upon.

Sparks

Tikka391 wrote: »

What if 10 different training companies started

Then you'd have ten different standards of training. In the real world, that leads to a race to the bottom and in our real world that means an eventual accident because of poor training. And accidents in our real world don't tend to be minor.

Tikka391 wrote: »

Am I mistaken can you not do this any more?

Yes, you can - that's the problem.

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.

None of the shooters I know would ever have put down a competence course as proof of competence - we tend to bring people up through the clubs, train them for a period of time (usually months) on club firearms (identical to the ones they'd buy themselves) and then when they apply, they cite that training as proof of competence.
I've never heard of that being rejected. And courses were never meant to replace that method either. Courses are the edge case, for people without access to that kind of environment. And frankly, I'm not sure any course can ever be equal to that kind of training, because having habits set in by trainers over months is always going to embed them deeper than a few hours or weekend lessons.

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.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course it can be, there are structures and standards in place for providing standardised accepted courses in just about anything. It's just that it's not trivial, it's not ten minutes in a Minister's ear, there's planning and paperwork involved as well as some actual skill in teaching which very few people have ever bothered to learn - most people think if you can shoot straight you can teach someone to shoot straight, which is flat-out wrong; you need to be able to shoot and to be able to teach and that's a rare combination. And whether because of that, or for some other reason, nobody is doing it and nobody seems interested in doing it, and there seems to be a lot of interest in making money off the current vacuum.

By the way any ideas on how to help my fictional 16 yo lad get shooting safely

Teach him. Same way we've been doing for hundreds of years.

Vizzy wrote: »

As Sparks has said maybe Fetac or City & Guilds?

FETAC is the Irish standard way to do this. City&Guilds is a UK standard, and while I don't think anything bad about them, with brexit and all, I'd lean towards something that's more long-term stable.

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 ?

I would say unequivocally yes. There is no way such a course could take someone from a standing start and get them to fully safe.
It could, however, teach them just enough to have a really serious accident.

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.

Whether the Super wins or loses is about as important as used toilet paper.
If the course isn't up to snuff, the Super is breaking the law if he grants the licence.
That law is there to protect you and me. I've got no interest in seeing it broken, whether it's broken by a Super letting his personal feelings against private firearms ownership drive his actions instead of the law; or whether it's by a Super not bothering to do the job the law demands be done.

I'm afraid there is no way that one will ever be solved.

With the current law, that is correct.

Sparks

Zxthinger wrote: »

We have compulsory training in place. It's the firearms competence training.

This is completely and wholly incorrect.
There is no such thing in Ireland as compulsory training for firearms licences.
And with the way things are right now, it would be folly to try to introduce it.
Proof of competence is the standard and it's a good one.
The sole problem lies in the regulation of courses, which are just one possible method of proving competence.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

FETAC is the Irish standard way to do this. City&Guilds is a UK standard, and while I don't think anything bad about them, with brexit and all, I'd lean towards something that's more long-term stable

Ah, yes, the UK City and Guilds organisation. It was founded on November 11, 1878 by the City of London and 16 livery companies – to develop a national system of technical education, City & Guilds has been operating under Royal Charter (RC117), granted by Queen Victoria, since 1900. The Prince of Wales later King Edward VII was then appointed the first President of the Institute. City & Guilds is a registered charity (no. 312832). The Institute's president is HRH The Princess Royal who accepted this role in June 2011 (following her father HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who held the position for nearly 60 years), and the Chairman of Council is Sir John Armitt, who took office in November 2012. Many of the livery companies who lend their weight and support to the C&G themselves date back to the 13th C - as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

So, the City & Guilds - another fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan, here-today and gone-tomorrow bunch of wowsers esconsed in fly-blown little office somewhere in London.

Obviously, another bunch of scheming Brits who can't be trusted, eh?

I've got two of their qualifications, gained way back when I was a techie in the Army - one in electrical and the other in mechanical engineering. These days either would have gotten me a walk-in apprenticeship with that other British back-street organisation, Rolls-Royce.

tac