Courses and Testing

[Suffolk shooter]

Seeing as how people were asking David BASC about courses and BASC's stance on them. I thought I would start the ball rolling.

 

If we split this up into the various factions of shooting we could be here all year, but in order to try and Make some sense of anything, let us split it into the following: -

 

Air rifles - Target, Live Quarry

Shotguns - Clay, Live Quarry

FAC Rifles -Target, Live Quarry

 

I'll start off by saying that IMHO that everybody and that's without exception should have to undertake a basic safety course regardless of what type of weapon they intend to have use of. Each course should form part of your licensing fee's contribution with qualified personnel, be that Police, BASC, CPSA or BASA. To this point everybody should already have in place insurance of a minimum standard before being granted a license, much like car and house insurance most of us already have as law dictates.

 

This should teach the basics of each type of weapon that you are applying to have use of, and not one course to teach all.

 

We all know that people have to undergo record checks for Shotgun and FAC and that the local FAO will come round to inspect not just you but the property as well to ensure that the weapon of choice can be stored in a safe manner. I say extend this to Air rifles as well.

 

When it comes to Shotguns, separate courses should be taught again for clay shooting and live quarry with a simple (is there such a thing) multiple choice test covering such things as (For Clay) Lead. angles of tracjectory, shooting ground safety. It is my opinion that nobdy should be allowed to shoot live quarry until they have achieved a set standard on clays first.

 

Once standard has been achieved then progress onto a course beginner, intermediate and then qualified for instruction for live quarry. this can be undertaken for each type of weapon mentioned above.

 

I realise that this is not a definative and by no means an exhaustive list, but I wonder what everybody elses views are?

 

My only real bone of contention is the cost of such courses, as these should be made easily accessible to all walks of life and not just for those who can afford them. Take the DSC1 and 2 and the DMQ, these are expensive courses to go on, but in my limited knowledge of them, they all appear to have valid reason to remain as such.

 

SS

[mossy835]

well after reading that im glad your not in goverment making up the rules.your all we need.

[Suffolk shooter]

well after reading that im glad your not in goverment making up the rules.your all we need.

 

 

I did this to see what the reaction was, I have a feeling I know already, but if your going to vote no give a bit more of a constructive answer than that. You are entitled to your opinion, so please put why on here as well.

 

I know its not perfect, but how many people have you seen at clay grounds swing round with closed guns etc. Personally loads and that includes whilst being out in the field with both Shotguns, airifles and FAC rifles. Not all of these have been newcomers to the sport either. Ome of them is my wifes grandad, and no matter how much I and her dad and uncles tell him, he still does it "his" way. Not good if you ask me.

 

Seems like theres a need to me.

 

SS

[starlight32]

well after reading that im glad your not in goverment making up the rules.your all we need.

 

 

I did this to see what the reaction was, I have a feeling I know already, but if your going to vote no give a bit more of a constructive answer than that. You are entitled to your opinion, so please put why on here as well.

 

I know its not perfect, but how many people have you seen at clay grounds swing round with closed guns etc. Personally loads and that includes whilst being out in the field with both Shotguns, airifles and FAC rifles. Not all of these have been newcomers to the sport either. Ome of them is my wifes grandad, and no matter how much I and her dad and uncles tell him, he still does it "his" way. Not good if you ask me.

 

Seems like theres a need to me.

 

SS

Far too much legislation already, if we licence air rifles for example, we will be the only country in the world to do so (mind you not many countries use them , easier to obtain .22 rimfire). We already have the toughest firearms laws in the world what more do we need?

[Hunter_zero]

well after reading that im glad your not in goverment making up the rules.your all we need.

 

well after reading that im glad your not in goverment making up the rules.your all we need.

 

 

I'm not having a 'dig' at 'SS' but I totally agree with you here.

Qualifications and courses are great, and I love them. I'm a qualification freak and will openly admit to it BUT in the UK's current anti-gun climate I am worried that if the current trend of must have qualification continue we will end up with them becoming a necessity to owning guns.

 

As for the DSC1 & DSC2, I learned how to stalk deer from stalking rabbits. I learned how to process deer from a 76 year old friend (now sadly departed), I learned how to identify my quarry from books but above all I learned my gun safety from years of shooting starlings as a kid with a BSA mercury and meteor.

 

So what did I learn from the DSC1? Not much other than people can blag their way in to syndicates if they hold one. The DSC2? well IMHO it's a money making waste of time. If you stalk deer, then you inherently have to process the deer. The DSC2 is the result of failings from the DSC1, by which I mean if you hold a DSC1, many people will let you stalk deer on their land / syndicate with out questioning if you know how to process the deer. Let me tell all who don't stalk deer. Shooting a deer is bloody easy! that's not the hard part. In fact any half competent shot can shoot and kill a deer. The hard part is processing the beast afterwards. In plain words, gutting a red deer isn't like gutting a rabbit and dragging a 20 stone deer back to your 4x4 (if your lucky) or car is back breaking and bloody hard work but it's not over then my friend. You have to take the beast home, hang it, skin it and butcher it (nothing of this is in the DSC1 or DSC2 BTW).

However, the REAL skill of the stalker isn't any of the above, it's not taught on the DSC1 or DSC2 to any real degree. So whats this skill? It's selecting the right deer to cull.

My rant is over, but just want to point out how and why I perceive these qualifications to be a worrying short fall, which are now becoming expected additions to the "good reason".

 

Did I enjoy the qualifications, yes I did but they are no match for experience.

 

John

[deadeye ive]

They should be voluntary and remain so .Deer stalking is an exception to the sense as it's an easy route to aquiring and using a fullbore rifle when experience is'nt a requirement .If you've several years experience at shooting live quarry with full bore then the test should be voluntary and you should be allowed to aquire a deer stalking calibre with out having to have such a certificate .

.My understanding is experienced or not your still escorted by a ghilliie until such times whereby you can prove identification and competence any way .You have a record of experience on your license and I know the majority of ammo is spent on the range but again your developing a understanding of the power and potential devastaion at the sqeeze of a trigger .

I can imagine some ghillies must have their head in their hands and if it was'nt for the fact money was changing hands a different attitude as well .

 

I'm always of the impression that the Police along with Joe Public don't want you to have guns but can't legally stop you having them but if they can make life difficult and a complicated process more complicated then alot will say sod it and play into the hands of the authoritys by selling off the lot or not taking up the sport altogether .Alot of older people dread taking exams/tests now having been out the education system for so long .

 

Either way introduction of compulsary courses could be used in such a way that they'll be too expensive ,to demeaning for experienced shooters and not guarentee a safer shot as a result .

 

I close off by saying that I know of only 3 fatalaties over the last several years which could have easily been avoided because basic safety rules were broken .If the shooting community was seeing a injury ,death or near miss with such regularity then yes compulsary instruction should be mandertory .At the moment bringing in and teaching newcomers in house so to speak does work .If courses were mandertory I still feel those 3 unfortunate circumstances would still occur .

[Wookie]

In my opinion, safety should be the first and most important thing when _anyone_ owns a firearm, be it shotgun or rifle. As an air rifle is usually the first step on the journey for most hunters, instilling them with the thought that they have a responsibility for their own and other people's safety, I can see the argument for applying a safety course to their ownership. However, I can see that such a system for air rifle ownership is pretty much unworkable giving the huge numbers of such weapons in circulation, even given the rise in accidents and use of air rifles in crime.

 

For SGC and FAC ownership though, it's a different matter. I had a basic knowledge of rifle and pistol safety from my time in the cadets and the school shooting team and that has stood me in good stead when I made the choice to own a shotgun. I was still left feeling very humbled after the FEO left though, with a huge feeling of responsibility of what could happen if I messed up. My personal feeling is that a course in basic safety should be given by the FEO or someone similar so that anyone buying, or thinking of buying, a licensed firearm knows the basics for the purpose they are buying it for.

 

I know it's a cliche, but with firearms it should be safety first and safety second. All it takes is one slip up on the clay ground or on a shoot and someone's going to end up in hospital and, unlike **** Cheney, another person in gaol.

[mossy835]

if you had two have a course on firearms you will still get accidents,they will not stop i have owned guns for 44 years and never come close two one its all down two the person behind the gun,if that ever came in i would give up my guns.we would have two pay for it not the goverment that would be one way of getting rid of guns whitch is what they want us two do.and it will come.iv had a very good innings on the sport and will keep on doing so untill stupid things like this become law.the law is bad not with out it getting worse.

[David BASC]

I think it is important for people to have access to courses on shooting to cover topics such as field craft etc, all courses will also include basic safety.

 

Before working for BASC I worked in the water chemical industry. Lerislation, rules, testing, courses etc were a matter of fact in that indusrty- but still accidents happended.

 

Now at BASC I have been looking after the insurance for 12 years - and i can tell you that 90% of all accidents are made by 'experienced' shooters.

 

Now would a compulsory course have made any difference? Frankly I doubt it.

 

The driving test in a compulsory test yet 10 people a day at least are killed by cars- and three- four times that number are injured.

 

Doubtless there would be more accidents if there was no test or a poor test (I have visited parts of the third world where there is in effect no driving test- scary I can tell you)

 

Almost all shooting accidents are caused by a simple lack of common sense- I give talks on insurance claims and they will make your toes curl when you hear how daft people can be....but lets remember, there but for the greace of God go you or I.

 

I think we all know the basic points of safety when it comes to shooting and we do not need a course to tell us that (unless we want to go on one then OK)

 

What we need to do is concentrate on self regulation.

 

Do we want another stick for some over enthusiastic FEO to beat us with - NO WE DO NOT.We know more about safe shooting than alsmot and FEO or landowner.

 

Having said that - the issue is bigger than that - landlords are being pushed by their insurance companies to make sure people who have access to thier land are insred and competent in the activity that they wish to take part in.

 

We live in a society where it have never been easier to be sued, and lanlords , and htieri nsurance companies are waking up to the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984.

 

David

[Hunter_zero]

In my opinion, safety should be the first and most important thing when _anyone_ owns a firearm, be it shotgun or rifle.

 

However, I can see that such a system for air rifle ownership is pretty much unworkable giving the huge numbers of such weapons in circulation, even given the rise in accidents and use of air rifles in crime.

 

For SGC and FAC ownership though, it's a different matter.

 

I'm not sure airguns can be removed from the equation at all. Out of all legally held 'guns', it is the airgun that's is involved in most crimes.

 

In respect of safety, then based on the above it would be logical to assume people who wish to own airguns should take exams (??)

 

IMHO, it matters not what guns you have or what qualifications you have. If you miss use a tool, then someone some where is going to get hurt. In the case of 'guns', that person is unlikely to be the chap holding the gun.

 

John

 

 

Having said that - the issue is bigger than that - landlords are being pushed by their insurance companies to make sure people who have access to thier land are insred and competent in the activity that they wish to take part in.

 

We live in a society where it have never been easier to be sued, and lanlords , and htieri nsurance companies are waking up to the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984.

 

David

 

 

This is a VERY good point.

 

Risk assessments are becoming an every day occurrence and future shooting activities could be effected by such assessments.

 

John

[Teal]

To be honest I think that there is no need. If there were a large number of shooting accidents then you may have a point, but it probably is one of the safest sports, (especially given the potential for injury). I think most people getting involved in shooting realise they are dealing with a potentially lethal weapon and get appropriate training. One of the great things about shooting is that 'experienced' shooters are keen to at the first opportunity give advice. I also think that the vast majority of people taking up shooting book some clay lessons or shoot with a friend who will teach them the ropes.

[David BASC]

One issue (of many) with training courses is who sets them?

 

For a course to have any worth to an external market (say the police for example) it must be externally verified- a course that is set, run, examined, marked, and awarded by the same person or body is open to criticism.

 

So

 

1. Who would set the curriculum / learning objectives?

2. Who would set the exam

3.Who would mark and verify the exam?

 

No 1&2 could be the same body, but the external verification is the thing-

 

David

[pestbry]

i think the only ones to mainly benefit from such courses are the People/organisations runinng these courses £££££££££££££££££££££ ANOTHER FORM OF TAX TOWARDS US

Bry

[Suffolk shooter]

Well, that's better. Constructive criticism was what I was after when I started this post.

 

At the end of the day I realise working in the construction industry that we have to do an inordianate amount of paper work and courses from the point of health and safety. I've always maintained that it doesn't matter who the person is taking the course, if they don't have that thing between their ears called a brain and in that a thing called common sense, then there is no point in them taking the course in the first place.

 

This in turn means that others are put at risk and as somebody alluded to with their comment about the guy holding the gun not being the one that gets hurt, so is it the case that the bloke who fails to adhere to the H&S of a building site endangers others.

 

I therefore stand by my original post about everybody having to take basic courses in Gun safety and reaching a set standard at Target, clay or paper, before progressing on to live quarry. That way we eliminate the mindless bunch of morons who put others lives at risk. (Not in relation to Gun crime, that's a separate discussion altogether).

 

SS

[mossy835]

so the poor sod that cant get good results at clays dont get a gun licence,thats his sport gone then.

[David BASC]

I do not think that is the point.

 

When shooting at targets then the safety of others is the only thing that matters in this context.

 

When shooting at live quarry then the health & safety of those around you- and their property - is but one consideration.

 

What about the quarry? We all aim for clean kills- right? Do we all achieve 100% clean kills?

 

The effective range of our shotgun in in theory 35 yards (sorry I am still in imperial) The actual effective range is the range that at which we can expect a clean kill

 

BASC have conducted range judging experiments at shows and events- having set decoys at specific ranges. The estimate of a decoy at 25m ranges form less than 15m to over 50m....there in lies the problem guys.

 

D

[Suffolk shooter]

Surely in the interest of quarry species that's a good thing. I'm struggling myself at the moment, and if I couldn't hit something consistently thats not to feel pain, why should I take that risk when shooting at Live quarry?

 

We need to ensure our sport for future generations, not be hard headed and beligerent because we have a right to Shoot. We all should do more for our sport, but how many of us have actually bothered?

 

As to not getting a gun license, well theres any easy way to do it, study. Nobody said about making the test/exam/questions hard or difficult, but if you want something badly you'll overcome any obstacle to achieve it surely.

 

Those in the building industry will have heard of the CSCS card and they may well have had to take the 40 multiple choice exam. At the moment it's not a compulsory test, but most employers, councils, schools, clients insist on having trained personnel with this qualification.

 

They give you a book with all the questions and the answers and you basically study the relevant sections required (Dependant on what type of CSCS card you are trying to achieve). You then attend a place with a room with 40 or more computers set up so that you can have as amany people as possible take the exam which lasts upto 40 mins (longer if dyslexic or have some disability) and you simply go through the questions giving your answers a,b,c or d using a mouse to click the relevant button. At the end they are able to get a printout and tell you whether you pass or not. If not you go back and retake it on a seperate date.

 

As to the person in question having his sport taken away, it's not different from a driving test, in fact why not add that a gun can only be used whilst in the company of someone who has held this license for 5 years or more or over the age of 21 just like the driving license.

 

I don't see people getting upset about having to take a test for Motorbikes, cars, buses, Lorries, articulated lorries, Tractors, Tractors with trailers, so why's this different???

 

SS

[Hodmedod.one]

Some people manage to drive to a high enough standard to get a licence then immediately forget everything they were taught.

 

Every car on the road over three years old is supposed to have an MOT certificate. If there is a problem with the car at a later date, the certificate isn't worth the paper its printed on.

 

It is very easy to think that compulsory testing is the answer to everything. It isn't. Anyone can behave correctly for the duration of a course and then proceed to be a total ***** from the moment he has the pass certificate in his hand.

 

It is getting progressively harder to acquire and keep a SGC or FAC. Compulsory testing is just like having to pay for another nail in our sports coffin.

 

We already have the strictest gun control laws in the world. As already stated, our sports safety record in the UK is exemplary. We don't need more bloody rules and bits of paper.

 

I totally agree with Mossy's comments.

[markbivvy]

When it comes to Shotguns, separate courses should be taught again for clay shooting and live quarry with a simple (is there such a thing) multiple choice test covering such things as (For Clay) Lead. angles of tracjectory, shooting ground safety. It is my opinion that nobdy should be allowed to shoot live quarry until they have achieved a set standard on clays first.

 

Once standard has been achieved then progress onto a course beginner, intermediate and then qualified for instruction for live quarry. this can be undertaken for each type of weapon mentioned above.

 

should we do this before we apply for our permit or after please.

 

It is my opinion that nobdy should be allowed to shoot live quarry until they have achieved a set standard on clays first.

 

i can count on one hand the amount of times i have been clay shooting.but i can hold my own with the best of them on live pigeons.

my mate is a wizz on clays but is lost on live birds so how do we go on here then.

things work well as they are , if it not bust dont try to mend it.

[Suffolk shooter]

If you're with these people that act like "total tossers" whilst out shooting clays or quarry would you not say something 1) so they know there doing something wrong and 2) if they carried on doing it dangerously would you wish to be near them when they shoot again and woul;dn't you also tell others abouyt them to ensure they're not put at risk?!?!

 

I know someone that I had an incident with someone quite recently, and whilst I let it go that once becuase in the main they are very safe, I will if it happens or even looks like happening again, say something whether they are a friend or not as I don't want to find myself in that position again. In my book it was both unsafe and illegal, but as I say it was a one off.

 

SS

[markbivvy]

shooting accidents involving the armed police are plenty.

and yet they are supposed to be the best trained in the world.

[Suffolk shooter]

shooting accidents involving the armed police are plenty.

and yet they are supposed to be the best trained in the world.

 

Mark, I cant argue with you there, but their job is one you can't practice for real. However saying that I believe they undergo Psychological analysis on top of the training, to ensure they're of sound mind before being let loose with a Heckler Koch!

 

On the subject of Armed Police, howmany of us when going out into the field on our permissions actually inform the local police that we are going out there be it daytime or night time when lamping. If you don't and I must admit to inclyude myself in this then we are at fault if an innocent member of Joe Public phones up saying that there is a man/woman/boy/girl in so and so woods or field with gun.

 

Armed police have no choice but to respond if they're not aware of anybody having registered to be in that place, and lets face it if you were one of them would you take a chance with a guy dressed in Camo clothing hiding in a hedge/wood/tree etc with a loaded gun.

 

Now admittedly these days the on duty desk sergant probably doesnt even know where the register of shooting is probably kept, but even so we surely have duty to inform them so they know there is a legal law abiding gun license holder there and not another Michael Ryan!!!!

 

SS

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

This is a very difficult one.

 

Every shooter that I have been out with has been convinced that he is a totally safe shot, but....

 

1) How does one learn how to be a safe shot?

 

2) Hands up the shooter who at some time in his shooting life has said to himself "On reflection I would not take that same shot again".

 

3) Everyone's idea of "Common sense" is different from everyone else's.

 

I am not saying that shooting courses should be mandatory as I agree that the police and others would use this as yet one more reason to make life difficult for shooters. However, I have been on a couple of courses in my time and they were well worth it.

 

I was once a member of a syndicate, and the closest that I have ever been to someone being shot was by a syndicate member who was part of the Swat Squad! He was happily stuffing cartridges in a semi auto with the gun horizontal, and his finger on the trigger!

 

Not an easy subject, but think about this - would you be happy to be a member of a shoot that consisted of all inexperienced guns that were convinced that they were totally safe, as it is a matter of common sense.......

 

At it's most basic, I do feel that all guns should be forced to be insured, and that this would be a condition of having a SCA/FAC.

 

 

Don

[markbivvy]

sore point is me and Arv,s mate, been stopped more times than any chavs.

 

we surely have duty to inform them

no we dont ss. would you phone them if going out for a drink late at night. after all you could be a potential rapist/robber.

 

we are at fault if an innocent member of Joe Public phones up saying that there is a man/woman/boy/girl in so and so woods or field with gun

we are only at fault if we have done something wrong.

no laws are needed for any of the above mate.

i am often phoned by farmers at silly times to get there as soon as.i dont have time to be phoning the old bill whilst some toe rags is running beasts through barbed wire fences.

 

we are law abiding people doing nothing wrong, why make more work for our selfs.

also the old bill wont thank thousands of shooters jaming up there phone lines.

[David BASC]

Training to hit the central mass of a man size target that is typically standing still is very different from shooting a pigeon, teal, grouse, partridge, pheasant at 25 yards moving at 20 mph!

 

IMHO if live quarry shooters should just go down to the clay ground every month or so at least to keep their eye in - it would be a VERY good thing.

 

BASC have just conducted a research project looking at what our members shoot- how often etc.

 

One section that I specified looked at clay pigeon shooting. How many of our live quarry shooting members went clay shooting.

 

Not as many as I think I would like to see was the answer. Why - ( an I can give you chapter an verse on this from personal experience) they feel intimidated / put off by the 'competition' targets that many grounds offer and the (dare I say it) the attitude of 'competition' shooters.

 

Now BASC are developing a program to over come this objection - and we are not making a penny out of it!

 

What we want is to develop is a network of clay grounds that offer true 'live quarry' type targets. Not rabbit targets traveling at 40mph, or springing teal at 50m, pigeon' targets that loop in at silly angles!

Now some do already, those that done will be approached to section off an area that will become a 'quarry corner' - with targets the really do represent live quarry.

 

When asked, over 75% of members questioned would shoot a 'quarry corner'

 

Self regulation - the way forward!

 

David