wymberley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I can't think that our excellent record of very few accidents or potential training courses will sway the opinion of anyone of the above - or any other non-shooter for that matter. No, but it may just sway mine if I'm on the next peg or on the other side of a hedge in an adjacent farm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 We are, increasingly, using others to help us deliver courses. The BASC pigeon shooting course is a prime example, we are building up a network of people that can deliver the course. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 What information do you think is lacking? David Lead shot regulations on duck drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I've not read all of the new replys as I'm on my phone, but its not training I'm suggesting. Basically I think a small questionnaire with a few basic questions to answer will put many more people in the know, if you don't know the answer you will google it and then you have learned, but as you read you will more than likely read other things on the site. Maybe a few PW'ers could put links up on a thread, that points basic in the right direction and could improve or add to it. Things I've seen from new shooters. Using 3in carts in a 2 1/2 in gun. Not knowing about land clearance. Using wood as a backstop. Not understanding conditions Trying to shoot an owl and a deer with a shot gun. The list is huge, but the one thing they all had in common was they was first generation shooters. You only have to look on here for some other basic examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 As some may know I look after the insurance at BASC, the number and type of claims I see have remained pretty consistent over the last 17 years, and with no evidence at all that any training or silly conditions placed on fac make a blinds bit iof difference. David If this is the case,then why do the shooting organisations not oppose 'mentoring' conditions?An article in the shooting press last week suggests that despite some authorities requiring them there is no legal authorisation to do so,yet organisations refuse to oppose them! I think,as has been suggested,a body of work should be made available to new applicants,setting out the legislation which actually exists(and not what some would like to exist)regarding firearms and the associated ammunition,quarry species etc,and what is expected from new applicant regarding safety and their responsibilities as a shooter.The shooting organisations could all contribute,and for a small fee all new applicants(or existing ones) could purchase a copy to keep.The general public could then not claim that tickets are handed out to all and sundry without them having any prior knowledge of firearms.Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 the internet is a particularly bad place to get a gauge of shooters experience, you can be anything you like on a forum, take Kent for example read every book going but could be a 15 year old on school holidays. I shoot with a fair few varied people and safety wise I've seen a few things even someone shot and that was by someone who had been shooting 40 plus years, fortunately not serious but could have been very nasty. Shooting is a big learning experience I started learning through beating and watching from 12 years old or so then got into it gradually going from shotguns to rifles. most people are safe and think of it as a high priority which is pretty fundamental when handling a gun. Posting a load of stuff online won't help make an already very safe sport safer as there is a huge difference between talking and reading and doing. The best way of learning is through being taught by someone who already shoots and thats how most people have entered the sport for years. The issue with training is very quickly it will become mandatory simply as FEO's once its available will just ask for it to be done. You may even find as in the deerstalking world that if you have already been doing it years then you will still have to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 If we "raise our game" and introduce training, does anyone seriously think that the public perception of shooting will change? Public perception seems split in to a number of camps, including:- Those who believe that shooting of any kind is wrong. Wildlife lovers - including the deluded who think that foxes will never attack anything. Those who read of atrocities - Hamilton, Ryan and Moat etc. Those who read reports of armed criminals and wrongly think that tougher licensing laws will stop criminals getting guns. I can't think that our excellent record of very few accidents or potential training courses will sway the opinion of anyone of the above - or any other non-shooter for that matter. I take your point, and if we read rubbish like the Daily Wail, that is certainly what it looks like, but there is an old saying that a mate of mine who was a copper used to say, " Individual people are often clever, but a mob is always stupid!" - after all, nice, normal people don't sell papers! I think we have to accept that some of the people that write in comments to the papers, and sad to say, on sites like this, often have a personal grudge or axe to grind on the subject. I have many friends who don't shoot and are unlikely to, but they are interested and often ask questions, which I am happy to answer. On a couple of occasions, I have had acquaintances who do not know I shoot, start ranting about guns, shooters "Anyone can get a gun licence - it's easy!"comments etc, but when I told him/her I shoot and explain some facts, have changed their opinion. If we constantly 'hide behind the parapet' without defending our sport, the only facts others will get will be from the antis. That doesn't mean we have to start evangelising from the rooftops - it is almost impossible to change the mind of the mob, just making sure we display a positive and knowledgable face of shooting to combat the Rambo/macho/trigger-happy stereotype, even if we only change one mind at a time. What organisations like NRA/BASC etc do is great as far as it can ever go, I personally feel that the litigeous and compensation driven culture that seems to be rising everywhere will only increase the pressure for mandatory training, e.g. you get reduced car insurance premiums if you take extended driver training or the advanced motorist test etc. I don't think that is going to happen tomorrow or the next day, but as more and more sensationalist journalism focuses on every gun-related incident, we will be constantly called to justify what we enjoy and standards of licencing and training will inevitably be part of that, just saying effectively "it should be obvious" won't be enough, sadly. I don't like the prospect any more than anyone on here, but we must -as my old scout leader used to say 'be prepared' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Reminds me of this.......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM from 1:43...... Edited July 25, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) I think any test would need to be for everyone not just new shooters I have only been shooting for 3 years and the couple of times I have felt that the shots taken were possibly unsafe and not a shot I would take and had also been commented on by others at the time These shots were taken by the been shooting man and boy can't tell me anything about shooting types Also it would appear to be different rules force to force as its been mentioned on this thread you cannot shoot fox with a .22lr yet many old and new shooters will shoot a fox also I was told if I felt the shot was ok and fox was close take the shot its just not recomended Edited July 25, 2012 by glen fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bloke - I accept what you say. I have had a number of conversations with non-shooters over the years. I point out that it has the least aggression of any sport I have been involved in - this includes football, cricket, karate, judo, boxing, tennis, snooker, table tennis and more. The participants are not hot heads - or they would soon lose a licence. I point out the safety aspect - you just can't afford mistakes. I point out that it contains the most helpful and generous people I have ever encountered. Some are convinced - others are not. It needs more input than telling the world we have a competence test. Such a test would not rid us of the Ryan's of this world, nor induce criminals to forego their arms. How would it affect the Brian Mays of this world - who cannot accept a fox could do wrong, despite yesterday's report of one attacking a woman? In short - it won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 its not just safety its the complicated laws. As I keep saying. one didn't know he had to have land cleared or that he couldn't shoot a fox with his .22lr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Shooting is a big learning experience I started learning through beating and watching from 12 years old or so then got into it gradually going from shotguns to rifles. most people are safe and think of it as a high priority which is pretty fundamental when handling a gun. Posting a load of stuff online won't help make an already very safe sport safer as there is a huge difference between talking and reading and doing. The best way of learning is through being taught by someone who already shoots and thats how most people have entered the sport for years. I entirely agree,this is how many get into shooting,but I also know of people who just fancied a go at shooting clays,and after a couple of attempts where all they learned was how to break the gun,load it,aim it roughly in the direction of a target,pull the triggers and eject the cartridges,applied and were given a SGC and carried on from there.10 or 20 years down the line they've progressed onto live targets and they still don't know the correct method for taking a gun from its slip,nor returning it,without waving it about at other people! I'm not suggesting compulsory training,but we do need a method where a novice can learn everything they currently need to know regarding firearms safety and the law.The booklets could be part of the new application process.Don't know how feasible it would be,but we've got to start somewhere,and it's got to be better than compulsory training which rather than being a positive aid to safety with firearms,becomes yet another deliberate obstacle designed to put off would be applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 its not just safety its the complicated laws. As I keep saying. one didn't know he had to have land cleared or that he couldn't shoot a fox with his .22lr hmmm interesting, if he has an open cert he doesn't need land cleared, and if conditioned he can shoot a fox with .22LR, unlikely to get the condition. So isn't it more that the FAC he was granted wasn't explained to him (or he hadn't read it). Rather than him needing training? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bloke - I accept what you say. I have had a number of conversations with non-shooters over the years. I point out that it has the least aggression of any sport I have been involved in - this includes football, cricket, karate, judo, boxing, tennis, snooker, table tennis and more. The participants are not hot heads - or they would soon lose a licence. I point out the safety aspect - you just can't afford mistakes. I point out that it contains the most helpful and generous people I have ever encountered. Some are convinced - others are not. It needs more input than telling the world we have a competence test. Such a test would not rid us of the Ryan's of this world, nor induce criminals to forego their arms. How would it affect the Brian Mays of this world - who cannot accept a fox could do wrong, despite yesterday's report of one attacking a woman? In short - it won't. Sorry if you thought I was having a go at you mate, I most definitely agree fully with what you said, It really grips me that the people with the power to make such a difference, i.e. the press, are just totally lazy and take the easy option of abusing and blaming all shooters for the actions of the few, in another scenario, it would be equated with racism/sexism/ageism, but of course shooters are an easy target (no pun intended ). It is the old saying from when I was in the bike clubs - "When we do good, no-one ever remembers, when we do bad, no-one ever forgets" You are absolutely right, a test will not rid us of madmen or prejudice/antis, which is why I also do not agree with a test - however if we are pushed against the wall and have to accept this, we should be prepared, both with counter arguments and if unavoidable, a reasoned structure proposed by those who have the experience, NOT politicians. Meanwhile, we should do all we can to change minds, not just say "If they don't like us they can lump it!" as some of our number might suggest . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I entirely agree,this is how many get into shooting,but I also know of people who just fancied a go at shooting clays,and after a couple of attempts where all they learned was how to break the gun,load it,aim it roughly in the direction of a target,pull the triggers and eject the cartridges,applied and were given a SGC and carried on from there.10 or 20 years down the line they've progressed onto live targets and they still don't know the correct method for taking a gun from its slip,nor returning it,without waving it about at other people! I'm not suggesting compulsory training,but we do need a method where a novice can learn everything they currently need to know regarding firearms safety and the law.The booklets could be part of the new application process.Don't know how feasible it would be,but we've got to start somewhere,and it's got to be better than compulsory training which rather than being a positive aid to safety with firearms,becomes yet another deliberate obstacle designed to put off would be applicants. Good idea, and very similar to my idea of having ONE website with all the relevant information needed. A website would be cheaper to set up and run than printing booklets too? I have to say I had to learn far more information when I joined my wildfowling club than I ever did to get my first SGC. Surely that can't be right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bloke - I didn't think you were having a go - far from it - perhaps I phrased it badly. I thought you made valid points. :good: :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Good idea, and very similar to my idea of having ONE website with all the relevant information needed. A website would be cheaper to set up and run than printing booklets too? I have to say I had to learn far more information when I joined my wildfowling club than I ever did to get my first SGC. Surely that can't be right? Yes,a much better suggestion;the website is by far a better idea.Much easier to update also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 the internet is a particularly bad place to get a gauge of shooters experience, you can be anything you like on a forum, take Kent for example read every book going but could be a 15 year old on school holidays. I shoot with a fair few varied people and safety wise I've seen a few things even someone shot and that was by someone who had been shooting 40 plus years, fortunately not serious but could have been very nasty. Shooting is a big learning experience I started learning through beating and watching from 12 years old or so then got into it gradually going from shotguns to rifles. most people are safe and think of it as a high priority which is pretty fundamental when handling a gun. Posting a load of stuff online won't help make an already very safe sport safer as there is a huge difference between talking and reading and doing. The best way of learning is through being taught by someone who already shoots and thats how most people have entered the sport for years. The issue with training is very quickly it will become mandatory simply as FEO's once its available will just ask for it to be done. You may even find as in the deerstalking world that if you have already been doing it years then you will still have to do it. You and me are gonna fall out. What the heck have the under 21's got against books anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 How about sending out a good PR message to the wider GENERAL public? Not a lot of point preaching to the converted. How about sending out the message that the shooting community are doing all they can to educate new shooters. Personally I don't think we are, and I can see it coming back to bite us on the bum sooner or later. your making a lot of good points here it only takes enough bad publicity and we are in the DOOdah again. remember the badger watcher who took a .223 to the chest (i think the lamping guide followed this?) or the Kid who was killed from a stray .22 round from an illegal rabbit poacher on a golf course, how about the farmer shooting crows in trees who landed one stray in the school playground into a kids head. The only issue with training off our own initiative is it becomes almost legislation without an act in the eyes of licencing (take getting a deer rifle and level 1 ) is this a bad thing? i am not sure personally. what i am real sure of is we are heading for trouble one day and its better to be pro-active than re-active. David, Ever paused to think, those that are claiming on thier insurance are the more responsible ones- Bad sample mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 David, Ever paused to think, those that are claiming on thier insurance are the more responsible ones- Bad sample mate Best available sample, poachers don't fill out questionnaires.....I agree the responsible are insured, but will the irresponsible do the training? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Best available sample, poachers don't fill out questionnaires.....I agree the responsible are insured, but will the irresponsible do the training? Is this not the "yes" vote viewpoint for compulsary training? The issue to my mind is there is no training available around here i am aware of other than for club shooting or stalking. learning from existing shooters is fine IF the teacher knows what he is doing, some of the scariest i have known have had rifles for over 40yrs and remember less populated times in the countryside when shooting into trees etc was common practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 hmmm interesting, if he has an open cert he doesn't need land cleared, and if conditioned he can shoot a fox with .22LR, unlikely to get the condition. So isn't it more that the FAC he was granted wasn't explained to him (or he hadn't read it). Rather than him needing training? ok, as a newbie he dosent have a open cert, or conditioned for fox. as for reading it how many ask on here if they have an open or restricted cert? read it and dont understand it. definitely wasent explained to him till he come banging on my door. so were do these failings lie? the police? himself?. if its the latter where dose he access the info needed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 ok, as a newbie he dosent have a open cert, or conditioned for fox. as for reading it how many ask on here if they have an open or restricted cert? read it and dont understand it. definitely wasent explained to him till he come banging on my door. so were do these failings lie? the police? himself?. if its the latter where dose he access the info needed? You know that, I know that so why doesn't he? The FEO decided he was a suitable person with good reason. So he was handed a piece of paper authorising ownership and use of firearm.... I think thats the issue, but then many are against formal mentoring and similar, seeing it as a barrier to entry. It's an almost impossible situation if you look at many ohter things training has come in for pro use (chainsaw etc) but amateur hasn't and this is done through employment legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I've been brought up with guns so for me its just second nature. He is a first generation shooter. No one to ask. so my original point of a questionnaire could bring these points to attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Still reckon Cockercas has a valid and very sensible point. How many people know what is involved in an MoD certificate of range competency - yet many of the things in the 'test' are obvious to someone who has fired any gun and especially a rifle in the field. we all sit one if we want to shoot there. Most people who enjoy shooting want to know more. Providing a single website with Basic info, more advanced info, and specifics. The latter two for the interested reader cant be a bad thing, so why not advise new applicants that they should be familiar with all the information provided in the Basic section before applying for an SGC or FAC ? It would be easy with the agreement of the Police to say in the licensing process for either type of firearm that any question could be asked at their interview and failure to be aware of the answers could affect success - since it does already for some but not others, as in the example given. You could also extend the benefit by providing detailed info by quarry type and ask DSC1 providers (e.g.) to sponsor the site, Wildfowl clubs to provide safety guidance, as wildfowlers are sometimes the victims of weather and tides (sadly). It could be self-funding quite easily and be supported by e.g. BASC, without it being a drain on their resources. Makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.