Compulsory certificates

[LeadWasp]

Hmmmm...very tricky this. If you introduce a qualification it can only ever set a minimum standard. Do we want our sport's standards to be minimum ones? Additionally a huge aspect of safe shooting is judgement, and you can't teach that. Additionally a lot of good competent people go to jelly in a test, particularly if it is important to them.

 

Shooting is to some extent self policing and enforcing - the pressure of your peers to not only be safe, to be known and appreciated as safe, but to be a humane field sportsperson as well. For those that don't have the benefit of being brought up in a field sports environment the club or association can provide that mentoring. One of the nice things about this forum is the helpfulness of each to the other. I don't know of any specifically field orientated clubs (for rifle) but surely these could provide exactly the mentoring environment required when the topic rears it ugly head and would see off more wretched legeslation that wouldn't improve anyone's safety.

 

Then again most of the other stalkers I know are 'solitary spirits'.............not sure about the bunny bashers as we don't have any bunnies round here because they've all been eaten, because nobody else round here shoots Charlies...which is why my fields look like an episode of Scooby Doo when I go out with a lamp...rant rant rant.

 

Time for PigeonWatch county chapters?

Edited July 18, 2014 by LeadWasp

[J_Edwards]

I agree that having tests brings an academic aspect to things.

 

My friend for example, left school to become a miner, can barely read and write, and has rapidly deteriorating eyesight, as well as other medical conditions. There would be no way that he would pass a "German" style test, and shooting is his life. Yes, he's experienced, but on paper he wouldn't be "qualified".

 

I'm definitely a "solitary spirit". If the police said that I had to get a mentor to get my centerfire rifle, it would have been impossible, as there's nobody I know who has one. Only distant acquaintances and friends of friends. I just wouldn't have done it. Luckily, I had lots of experience in shooting, and the FEO obviously didn't see a need for it. Whereas across the county border, mentoring seems to be standard procedure for first time applicants.

 

This sort of thought seems to be instigated from above, by people who have never held a gun in their lives, such as government and police beaurocrats. If they knew how things really worked, rather than demanding regulation, the world would be a better place.

[Kes]

I agree that having tests brings an academic aspect to things.

 

My friend for example, left school to become a miner, can barely read and write, and has rapidly deteriorating eyesight, as well as other medical conditions. There would be no way that he would pass a "German" style test, and shooting is his life. Yes, he's experienced, but on paper he wouldn't be "qualified".

 

I'm definitely a "solitary spirit". If the police said that I had to get a mentor to get my centerfire rifle, it would have been impossible, as there's nobody I know who has one. Only distant acquaintances and friends of friends. I just wouldn't have done it. Luckily, I had lots of experience in shooting, and the FEO obviously didn't see a need for it. Whereas across the county border, mentoring seems to be standard procedure for first time applicants.

 

This sort of thought seems to be instigated from above, by people who have never held a gun in their lives, such as government and police beaurocrats. If they knew how things really worked, rather than demanding regulation, the world would be a better place.

All true but perhaps a practical test after a safety based course (backstops et al), if recognised, would save your friend from a written test if he lived in the next door county ?

A test no-one would fail but be given advice on where they need to 'brush -up' before resubmitting to the course? It would provide uniformity of approach from the Polis by providing 'public reassurance?

[wymberley]

All true but perhaps a practical test after a safety based course (backstops et al), if recognised, would save your friend from a written test if he lived in the next door county ?

A test no-one would fail but be given advice on where they need to 'brush -up' before resubmitting to the course? It would provide uniformity of approach from the Polis by providing 'public reassurance?

Your first words basically describe exactly the second part of the BASC PAS assessment. This is the advantage of 'keeping it in house' and the 'wolves at bay'. The first assessment was a paper exercise which can cause some folk problems as already mentioned. Unlike any formal mandatory legislation, when such a problem is recognised, it is all too easy to sit down with someone and talk the test paper through and have the answers given verbally and if necessary even write the answer (hopefully, the right one) down for them.

[J_Edwards]

Public reassurance is definitely a big think in the UK. I may be gibbering on about Germany, but I've spent a lot of time there, and all of their "qualified" hunters are given immense respect, and are treat like they know what they are doing. It would be better if there was more of that here, and the public were reassured that all shooters genuinely know what they're doing.

 

The BASC thing is all well and good, but what's the point if the police don't recognise it when applying. If a course is going to work, it needs to be uniform in all counties, and accepted by all police forces. A compulsary firearm or shotgun awareness course which is required before applying for a FAC or SGC would be a good idea, especially if it's run by the BASC. It just needs better relationships between the BASC and the police.

 

Poor attitudes towards hunters and gun users may change if the public know that they are trained in basic safety and marksmanship. It's not all about that, I know, but it just may attract more people to the sport.

[wymberley]

Public reassurance is definitely a big think in the UK. I may be gibbering on about Germany, but I've spent a lot of time there, and all of their "qualified" hunters are given immense respect, and are treat like they know what they are doing. It would be better if there was more of that here, and the public were reassured that all shooters genuinely know what they're doing.

 

The BASC thing is all well and good, but what's the point if the police don't recognise it when applying. If a course is going to work, it needs to be uniform in all counties, and accepted by all police forces. A compulsary firearm or shotgun awareness course which is required before applying for a FAC or SGC would be a good idea, especially if it's run by the BASC. It just needs better relationships between the BASC and the police.

 

Poor attitudes towards hunters and gun users may change if the public know that they are trained in basic safety and marksmanship. It's not all about that, I know, but it just may attract more people to the sport.

Well posted.

 

Having held a Jagdschein and Waffenbesitzkarte, I agree with your first paragraph.

 

The BASC thing was good and was uniform throughout the UK (where done). I'm just not happy - along with the majority I suspect - about the word compulsory.

[Kes]

Well posted.

 

Having held a Jagdschein and Waffenbesitzkarte, I agree with your first paragraph.

 

The BASC thing was good and was uniform throughout the UK (where done). I'm just not happy - along with the majority I suspect - about the word compulsory.

I dont like compulsory either or 'cost' - a lot of people, either way, would be excluded and the point about this is to make it inclusive but recognised to effect public reassurance.

[wymberley]

I dont like compulsory either or 'cost' - a lot of people, either way, would be excluded and the point about this is to make it inclusive but recognised to effect public reassurance.

It's a while ago now and I can't be 100% sure but in the late 80s the 10 week course, the course 'bible' - The Handbook of Shooting, the written and practical assessments, certificate and badges did certainly cost and I think it was £20. Apart from the in house cost to BASC, the only local outlay was the hire of a classroom - usually at a preferential rate from the local agricultural colleges. Don't remember what a box of cartridges cost at the time.

[CharlieT]

I dont like compulsory either or 'cost' - a lot of people, either way, would be excluded and the point about this is to make it inclusive but recognised to effect public reassurance.

 

I would pose the question...........................

 

Does the public actually require or need reassurance.

 

No amount of tests, training and certificates will appease the true anti and I doubt the rest of society ever gives a thought about law abiding sports shooters.

 

Compulsory training will not benefit shooting sports and will act as a further deterrent to the young entry. Figures already show that there are not enough young people coming into the sport, as an example BASC membership for those aged under 21 is a mere 8000.

 

The way forward is for all of us to encourage, instruct and take young people out with us into the field. By doing this we can achieve far more than any form of compulsory test ever will. After all, this is what happened most successfully in the past and I see no reason why it cannot continue, all it needs is a little effort on our part. If we wish to see shooting continue in the future we need a young entry coming into the sport, only with numbers will our voice be heard.

 

For those who feel the need or those coming from a non shooting background BASC offer a variety of courses, but even those are not a replacement for time spent out in the field under someones wing. Just think what could be achieved if every shooter took out just one youngster for the rest of the year.

[wymberley]

If perchance the ratio of BASC members to the overall certificates held in the uk is reflected in the 8000 younger members, it would mean that the total number of young sports shooters in the UK is approx' some 45,000. If in the event that it turns out to be correct, then that is a worry for the future of our sport.

[LeadWasp]

 

I would pose the question...........................

 

Does the public actually require or need reassurance.

 

No amount of tests, training and certificates will appease the true anti and I doubt the rest of society ever gives a thought about law abiding sports shooters.

 

Compulsory training will not benefit shooting sports and will act as a further deterrent to the young entry. Figures already show that there are not enough young people coming into the sport, as an example BASC membership for those aged under 21 is a mere 8000.

 

The way forward is for all of us to encourage, instruct and take young people out with us into the field. By doing this we can achieve far more than any form of compulsory test ever will. After all, this is what happened most successfully in the past and I see no reason why it cannot continue, all it needs is a little effort on our part. If we wish to see shooting continue in the future we need a young entry coming into the sport, only with numbers will our voice be heard.

 

For those who feel the need or those coming from a non shooting background BASC offer a variety of courses, but even those are not a replacement for time spent out in the field under someones wing. Just think what could be achieved if every shooter took out just one youngster for the rest of the year.

 

Well said. We have a responsibility to pass the knowledge on if it is wanted.

[Kes]

 

I would pose the question...........................

 

Does the public actually require or need reassurance.

 

No amount of tests, training and certificates will appease the true anti and I doubt the rest of society ever gives a thought about law abiding sports shooters.

 

Compulsory training will not benefit shooting sports and will act as a further deterrent to the young entry. Figures already show that there are not enough young people coming into the sport, as an example BASC membership for those aged under 21 is a mere 8000.

 

The way forward is for all of us to encourage, instruct and take young people out with us into the field. By doing this we can achieve far more than any form of compulsory test ever will. After all, this is what happened most successfully in the past and I see no reason why it cannot continue, all it needs is a little effort on our part. If we wish to see shooting continue in the future we need a young entry coming into the sport, only with numbers will our voice be heard.

 

For those who feel the need or those coming from a non shooting background BASC offer a variety of courses, but even those are not a replacement for time spent out in the field under someones wing. Just think what could be achieved if every shooter took out just one youngster for the rest of the year.

I agree wholeheartedly Charlie. However, in the face of continuing and even increasing anti activity, it would perhaps be a 'good thing' for shooters if it could be said that no-one shoots in this country without a recognised safety certificate, of the type mentioned above. Then youngsters would not be seen as dangerous, the police would have their public reassurance and we could still take out the youngsters for added experience of rifles, rimfire and CF, with them not requiring 'mentoring' to begin their career with Section 1 stuff ?

[Steppenwolf]

I think this is a bad idea. More regulations and exams in an already overregulated industry. I think if people want to feel confident in a shooting discipline they should be able to take a test but it should not be compulsory.

[STOTTO]

When I was a pistol shooter and eventually became club secretary, the authorities looked at an applicant for an FAC for a pistol used for the purpose of target shooting to be a member of an HOA firearms club. It was here that they would receive training and one might assume be monitored.

Lots of hoops to jump through, excellent safety record, everything done to comply with all the various rules and regulations, one incident beyond the control of all involved with the sport and the whole pistol shooting movement is shut down in an instant on a political whim!

So to my mind qualifications are a good thing to aspire to and to achieve but compulsion is a prerogative used to include or exclude all participants in the name of public safety but is really the hidden agenda of political expediency towards a given goal!

[wymberley]

We could just look on the bright side for a minute. We don't all have to shoot; only those who wish to do so. If the government continues to allow building on agricultural land - not to mention the ****** solar panel farms to which I'm about to loose some 200 acres - then the local pigeon population density will increase. In 30 years time, the only shooters will, in the main, be the 45,000 current youngsters and there'll be more land per shooter than at present even allowing for the loss. Consequently, farmers will be desperate for pigeon control and the government having now realised that the nation is having trouble feeding itself will be supplying the cartridges. There's nothing new under the sun; things just go in cycles. Suffice to say, the 45,000 are going to have a ball.

[Redgum]

We could just look on the bright side for a minute. We don't all have to shoot; only those who wish to do so. If the government continues to allow building on agricultural land - not to mention the ****** solar panel farms to which I'm about to loose some 200 acres - then the local pigeon population density will increase. In 30 years time, the only shooters will, in the main, be the 45,000 current youngsters and there'll be more land per shooter than at present even allowing for the loss. Consequently, farmers will be desperate for pigeon control and the government having now realised that the nation is having trouble feeding itself will be supplying the cartridges. There's nothing new under the sun; things just go in cycles. Suffice to say, the 45,000 are going to have a ball.

 

One thing that is new under the sun is the number of people on the planet each and every day . One thing I must say about certificates in general, regardless of legality, it does help give access to shooting. I do not own a Scottish estate, not even an acre but by doing the DMQ's 1and 2 it has allowed me into organisations that in turn have given me access to thousands of acres of land to control deer. Look at it like the job market, you want a job in a certain area of expertise, if you want to achieve your goal having the best qualifications will put you higher up the list regardless of natural skill, it may not be right but in our old stuffy establishment its how it works.

[Harnser]

Just watch out and see if anybody devises a part 1, part 2 ,part 3 how to put your gun safely in a slip at 300 Jim a time . Or part 1, part 2 , part 3 on how to lock your gun safe properly at 300 Jim a time . If they do ,then it will be become part of the application process to get a ticket .

 

Harnser .

[Redgum]

Just watch out and see if anybody devises a part 1, part 2 ,part 3 how to put your gun safely in a slip at 300 Jim a time . Or part 1, part 2 , part 3 on how to lock your gun safe properly at 300 Jim a time . If they do ,then it will be become part of the application process to get a ticket .

 

Harnser .

 

Best start revising for it now then eh