Guest Mick.j Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Despite claiming otherwise Mick, I have read all your posts and understand them perfectly. If you post a sentence then I'm assuming I'm allowed to respond to that sentence, but if you're finding that takes the entire post out of context ; which it doesn't, it's just a means to reply to that particular comment in any given sentence, we'll do it your way. I'll answer your post in its entirety. In your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled, you claim applicants should have a good or valid reason to want a SGC, and you claim as a result that it will go some way towards filtering out undesirables, but wont, or can't, tell any of us how or why this will work. I have given you examples of why it wont and why it hasn't in the past, but you insist it's just your opinion. If someone has an opinion then it's fairly normal to assume that that opinion is based upon some reasoned thought, but yours doesn't seem to be; and when questioned as to why you think it's a good idea, you claim it's merely an opinion. I find that very odd. Someone suggesting further legislation for no other reason that it's their opinion? Don't we have enough ill thought out firearms legislation without shooters suggesting we take on board more of it? If there is a need for further legislation then it should first be proved there is a need and is for the benefit of the shooters and the general public at large, and not just based on 'opinion'. You claim above, that your suggestion regarding mandatory 'gun safety' is just that, a suggestion, and I have asked why you have suggested it and what benefit will mandatory training bring to shooting. If, as you state above, you have never claimed mandatory gun safety would achieve anything- 'I never claimed it would do anything', then I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you would suggest it. Why have you? You claim it is totally unacceptable to be granted a SGC, walk into a gun shop, and buy a gun without any safety knowledge whatsoever, which is a valid point and entirely feasible, but what do you propose we do? Has their been a problem or incidents in the past found to be caused by an applicants lack of safety knowledge? In my experience as I've already stated, most newbies have been shown the basics by another shooter, but you appeared to resent that suggestion. This thread is about the lack of a need to show 'good reason' for a SGC, a point which despite not being required by law, never occurs. Every single SGC owner out there has given a valid reason for having a SGC at some point in their application process. I know of no one who when asked by their FEO replied, 'because it's my right and I want one'. I am passionate about my shooting and wont tolerate any unwarranted interference from anyone. I may have to put up with it eventually, when it becomes legislation, but until that point, and when people suggest totally unwarranted rules or conditions or legislation for no benefit to anyone but to place further obstacles in an applicants path, for no other reason than they think 'something should be done', it raises my hackles, and I see it as my job to make their agendas as difficult as possible to achieve. I don't care who it is. If you want to suggest we take on board mandatory safety training and have to show 'good reason' for SGC (as per section1) then that's fair enough, but for crying out loud at least have a reason for the suggestion other than you feel something has to be done, and tell me what it will achieve and what benefit it will have to shooters and or the general public. If there is none then why on earth suggest it? Your so blinkered in your own views it beggars belief - you keep saying that: 'i claim this that or the other', when i clearly have not claimed anything. You really are good at putting words in peoples mouths, so to speak In one post you asked me for ideas/what should be done. I gave you two examples which are my views/opinions. You then want me to justify them. I do not have to justify anything to you or anyone else for that matter. Which leads me to believe you cannot understand them or cannot interpret them in a rational manner If i told you you had a flat tyre, would you need an in depth report on why its gone down-Yes you probably would. Perhaps take a chill pill and stop trying to be so high and mighty. Its a forum and everyone has there views/opinions if you don't like them, then thats tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Any changes in the copious rules that govern us must be evidence based. There is no evidence from my 20 years experience that shows training will make any difference If anyone can show me data from countries where compulsory training is standard, that there was a significant decrease in shooting accidents post implantation I would love to see it David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Any changes in the copious rules that govern us must be evidence based. There is no evidence from my 20 years experience that shows training will make any difference If anyone can show me data from countries where compulsory training is standard, that there was a significant decrease in shooting accidents post implantation I would love to see it David Well said! Creating solutions to problems that don't exist is pointless & costly(unless you get a good salary from running compulsory courses). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Your so blinkered in your own views it beggars belief - you keep saying that: 'i claim this that or the other', when i clearly have not claimed anything. You really are good at putting words in peoples mouths, so to speak In one post you asked me for ideas/what should be done. I gave you two examples which are my views/opinions. You then want me to justify them. I do not have to justify anything to you or anyone else for that matter. Which leads me to believe you cannot understand them or cannot interpret them in a rational manner If i told you you had a flat tyre, would you need an in depth report on why its gone down-Yes you probably would. Perhaps take a chill pill and stop trying to be so high and mighty. Its a forum and everyone has there views/opinions if you don't like them, then thats tough. Try reading back through some of your posts; you'll see the 'claims' you've made regarding that which I've referred to. If you can't find them let me know and I'll happily post your relevant quotes. You claimed my posts made you smile, are you now claiming you never said that? I can't recall asking you to justify anything; merely asking what reasons you have for forming the opinions you have. You say there is a need for SGC applicants to provide 'good reason' but can't provide any answer as to why you feel this should be so, nor what benefit that would have for shooting or the general public, and appear to resent being asked to give one. I find this very odd. Tyres are fine thanks. Any changes in the copious rules that govern us must be evidence based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly47 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Any changes in the copious rules that govern us must be evidence based. There is no evidence from my 20 years experience that shows training will make any difference If anyone can show me data from countries where compulsory training is standard, that there was a significant decrease in shooting accidents post implantation I would love to see it David absolutely right David lets see what people come back with, facts are required ti back up some of the points made on here, not just adamant opinions repeated over and over. its good that people have opinions and its good to share them, but once they have posted their opinion, its there for everyone to see and read at their leisure, its not IMO necessary to constantly repeat it after every post that does not fall in line with your own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel100 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I have to agree wholeheartedly with David at BASC. There is utterly no correlation between training and safety either in the UK or mainland Europe. I also shoot in Belgium and Germany from where I have just returned from an international competition involving rifle, shotgun and pistol. Most other European countries seem to like bits of paper saying that they have attended some sort of training be it for sporting or target shooting. In the UK we have DSC 1 / 2 and the NRA 'Safe Shooter' cards. Generally, no matter how many badges or certificates someone has they can still be dangerous. Personally, I think that the willingness of fellow shooters to flag up unsafe conduct at the time and do something about it immediately is the best control. 'Tick box' certification just lulls people into a fall sense of security. Safe shooting! Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) call it what you may but its here and here to stay.in reality not taking the training/tests can mean you lose your living.some people seem to be of the opinion that owning/using a firearm should be exempt from any kind of regulation.perhaps you would be happier if the guy who wired your home or the guy who fitted your gas boilers had no training after all what could possibly go wrong. Training in industry is accident lead,the HSE constantly monitor the influx of deaths, accidents or near miss accident reports and collate the information,this gives them the power to say that you must do xyz course as there is a high rate of reports,this is sensible and saves lives. David from BASC has already stated that the accident rate is minuscule compared to the amount of people authorised to shot,If this figure changed in a dramatic upward spiral then no doubt the HSE will spot that trend and put in place training protocols,the very fact there are no training protocols show that shooting is a very safe hobby/sport. Edited February 2, 2015 by welsh1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mick.j Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 In my view there are no such things as shooting 'accidents' They come from neglect, complacency or lack of knowledge. I can name half a dozen instances regarding discharges where half could have resulted in serious injury or death. Those were only averted due to the 'safety' measures in place at the time. If the organisations do not feel that any type of safety action is worthwhile then thats up to them. Even though they say its only a tiny minority of 'accidents' surely any reduction of them is worthwhile. People will argue until there blue in the face about the for or against - but i for one would rather see some form of safety criteria before an SGC is granted, than not. Perhaps even a quick refresher on renewal would not go amiss either. I'm afraid safety is at the top of my list when it comes to shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildrover77 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 In my view there are no such things as shooting 'accidents' They come from neglect, complacency or lack of knowledge. I can name half a dozen instances regarding discharges where half could have resulted in serious injury or death. Those were only averted due to the 'safety' measures in place at the time. If the organisations do not feel that any type of safety action is worthwhile then thats up to them. Even though they say its only a tiny minority of 'accidents' surely any reduction of them is worthwhile. People will argue until there blue in the face about the for or against - but i for one would rather see some form of safety criteria before an SGC is granted, than not. Perhaps even a quick refresher on renewal would not go amiss either. I'm afraid safety is at the top of my list when it comes to shooting. Why trim a minuscule amount? Why no go after the big killers like cars, alcohol or tobacco ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 In my view there are no such things as shooting 'accidents' They come from neglect, complacency or lack of knowledge. I can name half a dozen instances regarding discharges where half could have resulted in serious injury or death. Those were only averted due to the 'safety' measures in place at the time. If the organisations do not feel that any type of safety action is worthwhile then thats up to them. Even though they say its only a tiny minority of 'accidents' surely any reduction of them is worthwhile. People will argue until there blue in the face about the for or against - but i for one would rather see some form of safety criteria before an SGC is granted, than not. Perhaps even a quick refresher on renewal would not go amiss either. I'm afraid safety is at the top of my list when it comes to shooting. So what will you do if training and safety courses are compulsory and accidents still occur?,do you have any proof that training will reduce the accidents? The hse will be using a very complicated matrix to calculate the occurrence rate and the severity rate,there is a point where reducing one will have no effect on the other,this is calculated as being the safest you can hope for.Do not think for one minute that the hse and other agencies would have no hesitation in instigating training if they had to,but as it is we are a very safe bunch and doing what we do is working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manton Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Training in industry is accident lead,the HSE constantly monitor the influx of deaths, accidents or near miss accident reports and collate the information,this gives them the power to say that you must do xyz course as there is a high rate of reports,this is sensible and saves lives. David from BASC has already stated that the accident rate is minuscule compared to the amount of people authorised to shot,If this figure changed in a dramatic upward spiral then no doubt the HSE will spot that trend and put in place training protocols,the very fact there are no training protocols show that shooting is a very safe hobby/sport. Is there not some confusion here ? HSE, is concerned with employees in industry I know of few shooters who are employed in any form of shooting activity. As a hobby engineer I do what I like in my own workshop and if I am stupid enough to use machinery without guards that,s my problem, so why should shooters participating in a sport be subject to any interference by HSE?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Is there not some confusion here ? HSE, is concerned with employees in industry I know of few shooters who are employed in any form of shooting activity. As a hobby engineer I do what I like in my own workshop and if I am stupid enough to use machinery without guards that,s my problem, so why should shooters participating in a sport be subject to any interference by HSE?. All work activities are covered by hse,Safety is your responsibility.The hse would support the other agencies (government) i mentioned in my last post to collate any thing that is showing a trend of being unsafe or dangerous. If you chose to ignore safe practice because you are just a hobbyist,then you would be stupid. 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.