Test.

[demonwolf444]

It was a while ago when i realised how many muppets owned guns, that i started to agree that there should be a test for SGC and FAC applicants.

After all cars also require a test to prove proficiency. My point is that by having a test a SGC /FAC applicant would at least have to know the law, safety and other info that somepeople clearly do not know. It would also mean that those who have been shooting with fathers ect would know all the answers without learning anything. People genuinely wanting to get into it would learn it in order to pass the test and will have probably already learnt most of it from reading, and those who dont have a real reason for one will not know - or not bother to know. Although im not saying anyone wanting one for no real reason will not just learn it to pass it would also make legitimate shooters who didnt know or didnt think it was important aware...baring in mind ive had a few beers me and a mate couldnt really think of a downside to this, except admin costs, but could potentially mean a safer system.. really be interested to hear the counter argument to this. hit me.

thanks guys

[Bry-M]

Isn't that what the FEO visit is all about?

[sako751sg]

Your a ******.I think i put my case across pretty darned well.

[mossy835]

here we go again, you can have all the tests you like ,will it stop muppets doing things no, so whats the point

[artschool]

you cannot inspect in quality.

[Gordon R]

I can't imagine that someone, who wanted guns for the wrong reason, would ever read up and pass the test, can you? :rolleyes:

 

Will criminals have to pass some sort of test as well? How do you identify the criminals in the first place? :hmm:

 

I am beginning to think that you and your mates haven't really thought it through at all. :lol:

 

Absolute simplistic garbage. :yes:

[philm]

Your a ******.I think i put my case across pretty darned well.

+1

[onefulham]

Putting a case across well and people agreeing with you are two different things.

I think the FEO visit should weed out the Rambo type idiots, unless a full practical test with all the added time and cost, I cannot see the point. We want shooting to be more inclusive and welcoming, I have not been shooting long I know but I have never seen any dangerous practice, obviously not to say they don't happen, just it is not widespread, I think the lack of accidents in legal shooting bears that out, that's not to say we should be complacent, if someone sees some dangerous practice it should be confronted , for your own safety and the good of all shooting.

[notsosureshot]

Test? Hmm no. Massive overhaul on the system, yes.

 

The current system is a convoluted mess of statute law and localised rules. This means unnecessary administration, confusion for both new and more experienced shots, discouragement of new participants and worst of all, the general public are allowed to get the impression that the police are not fully in control when someone "slips through the net" as in the reason tragedy at new year.

 

No system will ever be perfect but at least it would help if everyone was sailing in the same direction. We dont need a test, we need a centralised system to deal with firearm administration, like the DVLA do for cars, and then we need the rules to be simplified and implemented uniformly across the country. That act, whilst difficult to implement intitially, would ultimately do more good for shooting than anything else I can think of.

 

Just my opinion.

[Bagsy]

Any test would be counter-productive as would any further bureaucracy added to the system. It's hard enough as it is getting new blood, especially youngsters interested without adding more. For the most part the sport is self governing and idiots aren't suffered gladly.

 

The bell ringing leftist brigade need countering at all costs, but not by wrapping us all up in red tape.

[PWD]

I think the FEO should be a good line of defence between a regular guy and a nut job...if he knows what to look for re licencing ..may concerns are what hap[pens after that.

I wouldn't mind seeing some basic handling and target acquisition test. This could be done at a clay ground for a fixed fee..say £40 involving gun safe handling..lots of people get their handling "course" of someone else or make it up themselves and if they teach them bad habits then they will use bad habits..he then passes his wisdom on to the next newbie he meets.

Being able to at least know how to hit a target before you practice on live quarry would also be a good idea in my book, haveing been on testing pheasant drives were first timers basically blast away..obviously some peripheral shot makes contact hence the high number of pricked birds after these drives...dont mean we should all be Digweeds before we shoot but a little realistic instruction to distance and what worth the shot wouldn't go amiss...as said if you learn from a numpty..you too will act like a numpty.Problem is if the Gov have a hand in it..it would be a cock up from the start

[Dekers]

I'm not a fan of tests for the sake of it, we live in a risk averse society where it seems waving a piece of paper makes everything ok.

 

Does passing a driving test make you a good driver?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Dekers

[Vipa]

Exactly what problem are you trying to correct with this proposal?

 

There may be muppets with guns but, to use your analogy, there are an even greater proportion of muppets with driving licences, so that obviously hasn't worked from that point of view.. And, driving a car is actually technically VERY difficult, requires lots of skills, practice and tought knowledge... some one with little or no experience or practice would immediately become a severe danger to other road users as soon as they started the engine.. on the other hand, muzzle awareness and range safety are common sense and pointing and pulling a trigger need no skill at all (doing it with any success obviously does!)

 

I can't think of many 'incidents' involving legally held guns other than the few 'going off the rails' events of recent decades and tests wouldn't have prevented any of those...

 

So....

 

Testing would do nothing but choke up the system. However, there are already tests and assesments in place for various things... Most Police Forces are now insisting on DSC1 to get a deer condition, if you want to shoot on FC land you need to take thier shooting test, a 'Mentor' requirement is becoming more and more commonplace for CF rifles, if you are a member of a club you will have to spend many months proving your competency and safety awarness before they will grant you full membership and support a FAC application and if you are shooting on ranges, there will be a Range Officer overseaing the firing line..

[Spara Dritto]

I couldn't agree more, It would be good to have a short course and test at the end of it.

Maybe when you update your license after the 5 years you are sent on another short course, say 3 days and then an exam...

Some people get unbelievably complacent, this is all too obvious at clay grounds.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Beretta Italy

[CharlieT]

I think it should be mandatory for anyone who calls their ferret TREVOR to be subject to both testing and psychological appraisal !!. In fact, on second thoughts, it should ban them from gun ownership for life.

 

Same applies to those who have a few beers and then spout rubbish on shooting forums.

[sako751sg]

I think it should be mandatory for anyone who calls their ferret TREVOR to be subject to both testing and psychological appraisal !!. In fact, on second thoughts, it should ban them from gun ownership for life.

 

Same applies to those who have a few beers and then spout rubbish on shooting forums.

 

Hell no.I like my guns.

[JR1960]

What we NEED is much more positive exposure. Instead of firefighting when these incidents happen and in-fighting between countryside organisations we need a much more high profile, concerted campaign highlighting the positives that shooting can bring. Instead we get namby pamby, don't rock the boat, let's hope they don't take our guns away and lets see what extra legislation we can think up to shoot ourselves in the foot!

 

The antis seem to manage it, why can't we? Because they're organised and we aren't, that's why.

[Scully]

Don't think the OP gave this suggestion much thought.Just goes to show how alcohol can muddle your thoughts.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Scully

[ordnance]

Doing tests doesn't stop someone being a muppet. The driving test is getting harder all the time, but there still are plenty of muppets on the road.

[notsosureshot]

What we NEED is much more positive exposure. Instead of firefighting when these incidents happen and in-fighting between countryside organisations we need a much more high profile, concerted campaign highlighting the positives that shooting can bring. Instead we get namby pamby, don't rock the boat, let's hope they don't take our guns away and lets see what extra legislation we can think up to shoot ourselves in the foot!

 

The antis seem to manage it, why can't we? Because they're organised and we aren't, that's why.

 

Sanity.

 

All that happens is that each organisation looks after their own tiny part instead of shooting as a whole. In fact, who DOES look after shooting as a whole in the UK, anyone?

 

Look how powerful the NRA is in the USA. Whether you agree with their politics or not, at least they stand up for shooters in general and not just deer stalkers, or clay shooters or other specific niches of the shooting sports.

 

As for testing...

 

Taking a course with a test at the end would be very similar to the approach for motorcycling, where currently, anyone over 21 can do a 3 day course, four tests (one written/three practical) and then go out and ride a 180mph superbike (.50 BMG in shooting terms perhaps) with no supervision. It would serve no purpose at all because in motorcycling it doesnt work either, not on its own. There are still many accidents and alot involve young people who have passed their DAS on a short course and bought a bike over 500cc to start with, without having the experience to handle it. I think every single person I know who passed DAS has crashed at least once in their first 6 months, thankfully none of them too seriously.

 

No solution is going to be perfect and I highly question the ability of a test to prove someones competance. All you prove is that they can roughly aim and pull a trigger, not assess a situation and react appropriately (i.e do not pull the trigger). Only experiences teaches that. A foundation of knowledge would be valuable, but legislating for that would be nigh on impossible because you would need a syllabus plus a way of guiding people in the field once they "passed". Unless we start introducing signs to the countryside...like on the road. Imagine a big sign with .308 written on it with a line through to indicate the land is not cleared for that calibre...

 

For another comparison. Despite the requirement for a hazard perception test to drive (for a while now)....how many of you have seen a young person drive like an idiot and failing to identify a potential hazard?

 

Basic safety starts before the certificate is acquired. The FEO's can be quite searching which is a good thing in many ways. Clubs already give inductions, of varying quality I admit. Perhaps a national syllabus for those inductions would work, ensuring that certain specifics are covered. Again to standardise the process. Not legislation, a guidance document drawn up for the shooting sports as a whole, covering say, muzzle awareness, misfires..general matters. Or does such a national guide already exist?

[Greenhunter]

Lots of good points have been made but,in my opinion, the second post said it all!

'Isn't that the FEO's job'. However, I think there is a need to test! Not the prospective shooter but the FEO's themselves. Surely, if they were trained to ask the right questions and all had the same basic knowledge regarding shooting law, etc, it would weed out some of the 'undesireables' and get everyone 'sailing in the same direction'(like that) as well,thereby improving the service.

 

 

GH

[PWD]

What we NEED is much more positive exposure. Instead of firefighting when these incidents happen and in-fighting between countryside organisations we need a much more high profile, concerted campaign highlighting the positives that shooting can bring. Instead we get namby pamby, don't rock the boat, let's hope they don't take our guns away and lets see what extra legislation we can think up to shoot ourselves in the foot!

 

The antis seem to manage it, why can't we? Because they're organised and we aren't, that's why.

 

exactly...we need to be a lot more pro active and certainly we in fight more than antis...remember 30 years ago there really wasn't anything like the organised anti bloodsport anti gun lobby movements we see today

We do need to see what problems we have and act before they become an issue...a stitch in time save nine

[scolopax]

Testing, not a bad idea really, make it difficult so that there would be a high failure rate. Then there would be a lot less SGC and FAC out there, would mean more shooting available for me. Because I would pass any tests, because I'm great .

[HDAV]

It was a while ago when i realised how many muppets owned guns, that i started to agree that there should be a test for SGC and FAC applicants.

After all cars also require a test to prove proficiency. My point is that by having a test a SGC /FAC applicant would at least have to know the law, safety and other info that somepeople clearly do not know. It would also mean that those who have been shooting with fathers ect would know all the answers without learning anything. People genuinely wanting to get into it would learn it in order to pass the test and will have probably already learnt most of it from reading, and those who dont have a real reason for one will not know - or not bother to know. Although im not saying anyone wanting one for no real reason will not just learn it to pass it would also make legitimate shooters who didnt know or didnt think it was important aware...baring in mind ive had a few beers me and a mate couldnt really think of a downside to this, except admin costs, but could potentially mean a safer system.. really be interested to hear the counter argument to this. hit me.

thanks guys

That is part of the solution proposed in this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trigger-Finger-Rational-Firearms-Kingdom/dp/1906174997

 

You can own what you want as long as you can prove you are safe and responsible.

 

Driving licence analogy is flawed, but obvious, most drivers have passed at driving test at some stage (some havent and have licence), some just drive anyway. Deaths on roads are far higher than deaths from firearms. FOr a realistic comparison you need to compare deaths/injuries and accidents per 1000 licence holders compared to cert holders (a stat i haven't seen).

 

 

The statistic would probably prove that the "test element" is a negative in these simplistic circumstances.

 

Under the current legislation adding a "test" would not be of any benefit... Under a wholly new system it may, there are already tests and courses one can do and which are creeping into the procedures DSC1/2, BASC "safeshot" Certificate of Competence (required for civi's to use MOD ranges) and others.

 

Formalising these arrangements would be straightforward but would result in private training providers then charging £200-£1000 for the bits of paper.

 

I would be interested to know from the "Paid shooters" what their insurance conditions are as these days you need training and certificate do about anything (operate a chainsaw, drive a forklift, work on scaffolding/ladders etc)

 

Common sense has been replaced with paperwork, has this had a significant impact on incident rates?

 

Whose interests would the test serve? Would it make the public feel safer? The shooter? The Government?

 

At present most FAC and SGC holders are not formally qualified yet accident rates are tiny.

 

While they may not be formally qualified they are are safe, law abiding and considerate (in the vast majority). Just as the driving instructor doesn't sit with after you have passed your test and tell you what your doing wrong, after doing your course on the range it's down to you to maintain those safe habbits regardless of formal training the evidence is apparent.

 

I have heard of at least one person who after an incident was required to do training in order to keep there certs.

 

Training shouldn't be used as a punishment but encouraged. Something the police haven't grasped very well so far (get caught speeding go a speed awareness course, dont get the penalty points, get caught again afterwards get the points.

Edited January 15, 2012 by HDAV

[poontang]

I couldn't agree more, It would be good to have a short course and test at the end of it.

Maybe when you update your license after the 5 years you are sent on another short course, say 3 days and then an exam...

Some people get unbelievably complacent, this is all too obvious at clay grounds.

 

And how much would that little lot cost?

 

Training will never stop complacency, indeed it's more often the more experienced who become complacent.