Shooting Competency Cources

LIFFY FISHING

So who is actually qualified to give these courses.
Where did the qualifications come from, and who are these recognised by?
Over the last few years I have seen some clowns both giving courses and claiming thst they were "Qualified" to do so...that been so...who qualified them? What course was completed ? Is it a national or internationaly recognised ??

Cass

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

So who is actually qualified to give these courses.

No one.

Where did the qualifications come from,

Whomever they say gave them their "certification".

and who are these recognised by?

Possibly a Super, but not legal or official requirement to recognize one over another, or at all.

Over the last few years I have seen some clowns both giving courses and claiming thst they were "Qualified" to do so...that been so...who qualified them?

Some claim their NGB did, others are part of an international NGB and so claim they got their certification through that group, and the rest just think they're good enough and so they run them.

What course was completed ?

Depends on the group.

Some have done an NRA (American body) course and so see this s good enough. Some have done RORCO courses either here or the UK via NRAUK, Safety courses via the NARGC, etc, etc.

Is it a national or internationaly recognised ??

Depending on each range, but for the AGS or DoJ there is no official recognition for ANY course.

Remember the competency courses here have no oversight, no regulation and no official recognition. Therefore anyone can do them and its up to the Super/Chief Super to decide if they'll accept it, but there is no list of approved courses.

Now that doesn't mean some of the courses are not "worthy". IOW the NRA course, RCO/RO course via the NRAUK/NRAI, etc. would be to a high enough standard and if they person that done these courses or other courses by the same groups to train specifically as a firearms instructor i'd have no trouble accepting them as qualified.

However "Paddy" in his kitchen, or "Paddy eile" in a filed with only a shotgun, both of whom have "shot for years". Well i'd have my reservations.

slavetothegrind

there is no set course as far as i can see, i know good people doing it who are responsible and experienced, love shooting and charge little.

I know people are doing it for 75 euro, i don't know .

There is no set course recognised by the state i think. And it is a shame because a good safety course should be mandatory.

I have done a CTSA club safety officer course and learned a few things despite shooting for years previously.

I see lads on clay grounds lax with the safety, all ages. We need to get more diligent on safe practice IMHO...all of us.

Yeah OP. a standard needs to be set.

Also if you see unsafe practice CALL IT OUT. Politely but firmly.

It is the responsibility of all of us for ourselves and others.

LIFFY FISHING

slavetothegrind wrote: »

there is no set course as far as i can see, i know good people doing it who are responsible and experienced, love shooting and charge little.

I know people are doing it for 75 euro, i don't know .

There is no set course recognised by the state i think. And it is a shame because a good safety course should be mandatory.

I have done a CTSA club safety officer course and learned a few things despite shooting for years previously.

I see lads on clay grounds lax with the safety, all ages. We need to get more diligent on safe practice IMHO...all of us.

Yeah OP. a standard needs to be set.

Also if you see unsafe practice CALL IT OUT. Politely but firmly.

It is the responsibility of all of us for ourselves and others.

What is a "CTSA" club safety course ? & who gave that course ? And how were they qualified to lead such a course...I am not saying there is/was anything wrong with the course you partook in...but again...where is the standard set ??

Sparks

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Sparks wrote: »

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.

slavetothegrind

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

What is a "CTSA" club safety course ? & who gave that course ? And how were they qualified to lead such a course...I am not saying there is/was anything wrong with the course you partook in...but again...where is the standard set ??

I should clarify it was Icpsa then, and i don't know the answer to your questions but i will seek them out for you.

I did not mean to convey that it was in any way superior or recognised but at least it had the structure of the CPSA behind it...FWWIW

I agree there are no standards here, as far as i know ICPSA has adopted the english standards and work to them.

Grizzly 45

We seem to be doing pretty ok, without mandatory safety courses here in the ROI...Think, what 2or 3 accidental deaths with firearms in the last 25 years?

Compared to countries that test, probe, lecture and pester hunting safety and gun saftey... Thats pretty good going..

LIFFY FISHING

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We seem to be doing pretty ok, without mandatory safety courses here in the ROI...Think, what 2or 3 accidental deaths with firearms in the last 25 years?

Compared to countries that test, probe, lecture and pester hunting safety and gun saftey... Thats pretty good going..

I personally dont think "doing pretty ok"...is any type of an acceptable standard...I see some pretty deplorable standards in game clubs and at clay shoots ...maybe its a shotgun thing ?.. is it because a shotgun is prob the easiest and most traditional firearm to get licenced ?..a lot of lads think because they "have been shooting for years" that they are safe...or worse the lad next to them is safe.

Wadi14

I wouldn't say its "maybe a shotgun thing" I'd say its an individuals thing.
In all rifle and pistol clubs I visit , your told when to handle the firearm , when to load it , when to fire it, and them its checked on completion.
But my point is rifle and pistol shooters like shotgun shooters when out hunting for example, on their own may let the bad habits creep in.
and as you have witnessed when complacency creeps in, it can lead to errors.

Sparks

I'm very curious as to how an extremely short - compared to the standard method of training which involves supervised training on a 1:1 basis for weeks if not months - course where the instructor ratio is not 1:1 and where the students are never observed in a relaxed mode, is going to surpass the standard method of training when it comes to long-term adherence to safe practice and not picking up "bad habits".

Half-cocked

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

What is a "CTSA" club safety course ? & who gave that course ? And how were they qualified to lead such a course...I am not saying there is/was anything wrong with the course you partook in...but again...where is the standard set ??

The ICTSA course is a club safety officer course. It includes safe operation of traps, setting up stands safely, incident management etc. As well as safe shotgun handling.

It is specific to clay pigeon shooting. It is not a general competency course although some aspects would be relevant to other disciplines.

It is based on the English CPSA course but changed to reflect Irish firearms legislation etc.

It was set up and administered by the ICTSA to maintain and improve safety on their affiliated clay pigeon shooting grounds.

ayagerard

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

I personally dont think "doing pretty ok"...is any type of an acceptable standard...I see some pretty deplorable standards in game clubs and at clay shoots ...maybe its a shotgun thing ?.. is it because a shotgun is prob the easiest and most traditional firearm to get licenced ?..a lot of lads think because they "have been shooting for years" that they are safe...or worse the lad next to them is safe.

my issue with all of this is that if you rounded up 100 of the above mentioned
and sat them down to do the course with the expectation of converting them i think you would be still at a 100% loss at days end a game of X & O wont change their mindset especial when the form is filled out in pencil and the only motive the teacher has is to collect the money you done the course your qualified and its that arregence that that makes more than half of the above
the other half you will need an electronic dog collar and a lot of time and batteries
don't get me wrong i am all for training if it is of benefit to the shooting man or woman game or paper ,not some groupe set up for the benefit their bank account giving a very poor return to the customer, lastly none of these should be payed in cash , and then claiming to be non profit , pre pay by cheque card or demand a reciept

Grizzly 45

Well,if it is so bad as made out...Why havent we more deaths here then?:rolleyes: Simple cause and effect IMHO.

cavan shooter

I believe the Commissioners guidelines looks for a minimum standard of competence. I can only speak about the NARGC coursr as in the past I've put lads on there course and the feedback was positive. There proficiency course appears to be well regarded as id say there are hundreds if not thousands of firearm licenses issued on its back. The course includes theory and coaching element on the day organised through the region's and in Cavan it's €25 most often paid by the club for juniors.
It is primarily aimed at shotguns and game shooting and has a bit on clays and fox shooting. There is an exam to sit and some people do fail. In Cavan the RGC nearly always offer a free place to one of the local Gardai it's a great way of building relationships. The next one the NARGC runs is the Club Safety Officer course.

Sparks

Yup, but again, the local Garda doesn't have to accept it.
Most will; but they are not required to accept any course as proof of competence, so recommending courses is a bit iffy if done for the purpose of fulfilling that requirement.
(If it's just to learn something, everything gets a lot simpler and more straightforward).

cavan shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Yup, but again, the local Garda doesn't have to accept it.
Most will; but they are not required to accept any course as proof of competence, so recommending courses is a bit iffy if done for the purpose of fulfilling that requirement.
(If it's just to learn something, everything gets a lot simpler and more straightforward).

Id say the guards dont recommend any courses....well if they had smarts they wouldn't (playable deniability)
..in fact I don't think there pushed, it ticks a box, like the photograph...tick ......move on. There is a young lad near me who went to the station for a license and was told he needs to do a training course, when he asked where he was told talk to xx he is Secretary of the Gun Club...that makes sense,. Bit disingenuous for a copper to stand there, saying I cant tell you...Thanks be to Jaysus I'm well gone past that stuff, bad enough the SCOVIs were trying to get me to do one for lamping and if I remember they are also pushing one for all hunters were they not crapping on about the German model. We can easily walk ourselves into the back end of a slurry tanker if we're not careful.

Sparks

Id say the guards dont recommend any courses.

Oh, they don't want to, but the state of the law means they have to state what they will accept (they're not the persona designata anymore and if called to the DC, saying that they were not accepting a course and also not stating what course they'd accept is a pretty fast way to get a bad result).