Talk about being thrown under a Bus...

[Maggot]

Engage is easy to say but there are real barriers to it just by the nature of the organisations.

Its true that most change comes from inside Adam. Perhaps this is something that shooters who are general shooters and NRA members could tackle.

The problem seems to be (and I cant for the life of me find it to access) that on the list of primary and secondary disciplines, I dont remember seeing general shooting down as a category, however target rifle is.

Many people put this down because, logically, they are shooting targets with rifles.....But not backsliding lederhosen wearing winge meisters

As a result, statistically, they are the biggest in numbers, in spite of their being 130 at a time turning out for CSR league shoots through the winter and many of the other disciplines.

We still come up against indifference regarding hand held targets and muzzle brakes, in spite of the fact that with common sense from all sides they are not a big issue and still the NRA cannot deliver hand helds on time for a national match, or provide the bloody things for practice, so it even effects the bisley-centric disciplines.

[Maggot]

I disagree, recreational shooting does not have to be competitive, it is target shooting.

My FAC reflects that as there is no mention of competitive target shooting on it anywhere, just target shooting, shooting for testing, demonstration and research purposes and live quarry shooting.

.

Mine neither, but I do HAVE to be a member of a club for insurance purposes (I got them to use the NRA for that one). Nowhere on the NRA list of disciplines does it mention "Competition" either.

The only place competition shooting is taken into account is for renewal of the NRA generated SCC, as is being an RCO.

To be fair you complained about disciplines, not competition shooting.

Years ago I was not hugely competition driven, but since taking up CSR and going back to my roots it has caused me to compete against myself firstly, and secondly against my peers. I think this is a healthy thing and my wife pushes me because it is about self improvement in something I love, and having a good laugh at the same time (although I dont suppose it will be long before the NRA also ban banter ). It also causes me to analyse my performance and look for solutions rather than just getting angry or frustrated because someone I think I am better than beat me. I have learned how to lose well and work on it. It is possible for anyone to do well, its how you go about it that counts. I also enjoy helping others into the discipline on skills days because they get a lot out of it, and it highlights just how far I have come, where what is now (mostly) a subconsious skill, was once a bunch of disjointed conscious things I had to remember.

Recently an oppo (and a chap on here) was not doing so well, but he whipped my arse this weekend and I was genuinley chuffed for the bloke because the last thing we want is people binning it over a slump, and TBH he is a good bloke.

In short it gives the vast expenditure a reason (if anyone that loves shooting needs one).

[Maggot]

I disagree, recreational shooting does not have to be competitive, it is target shooting.

I don't think anyone said it HAD to be! I've expended far more rifle rounds informally than when someone was socring my target and i value both the same.

Policy is made by the baying of the mob.

Yes this is the problem, and when the mob is forced to think about shooting they're more likely to be sympathetic towards an Olympians 'need' for a gun than me plinking at paper in Sunderland.

Mainly because the mob are an ill informed soft target. If you put a gun in someones hands and showed them how to use it, they would come off the firing point with a grin. There is something base about shooting that appeals to the masses as well as upsets them, depending how they are lead.

I 100% agree about lobbying, and we really need national media coverage showing recreational shooting in a positive light. That is "National" not some niche dhannel on U tube that only shooters will look for.

You wont get the same affect as the states because they are a totally different culture. The gun has featured since the injuns were riding the plains, and is seen in a totally different way. It really is a right to own one over there, while here it is a priviledge. I genuinely dont want to see them as accessible here as they are there because mass killings there are pretty well routine now. Even we shooters (who should be disgusted and worried by it all) shrug our shoulders and say "Bloody yanks with guns again". Over here, normally, if this happened something would get banned or tightened up. Over there the NRA and the gun owning public bear down ( clapclap ) and they carry on normal jogging. Their genie is out of the bottle and is having a right old time, ours is under control (albeit shakey) and to survive we need it to stay like that.

I would like to think that the centenary shoot on the 10th will be positively portrayed to the masses but I will wait and hope.

[FredB]

Oddly enough. I don't agree about lobbying. I have in the past been part of large industrial combines with their own national bodies which allocated funds to lobbying. It was totally ineffective. Politicians expect to be lobbied and are waiting for it: it does not seem to materially affect their decisions. What they are sensitive to and what causes them to react and pass legislation is public opinion. Public opinion is reflected and influenced by the media. Our problem is that almost all of our publicity is negative.
Every national body and EVERY CLUB should have a PR deparment. Competitions should be reported, journalists invited along and we should have a presence visible to the community at large.
Shooting has hidden itselt from the public gaze for more than a century. Our triumphs and successes are only reported at olympic level and not much then.
The "one national body" cry is a cop out. A single oponent means that the opposition know who they have to tackle. We are everywhere: all over the UK and the media and the public should know it and be interested.
We are fighting public apathy and the desire to reduce crime. Come out from the shelter: TELL ABOUT THE GOOD SIDE OF SHOOTING and the MPs will respond.
Fred

[Thorney]

Oddly enough. I don't agree about lobbying. I have in the past been part of large industrial combines with their own national bodies which allocated funds to lobbying. It was totally ineffective. Politicians expect to be lobbied and are waiting for it: it does not seem to materially affect their decisions. What they are sensitive to and what causes them to react and pass legislation is public opinion. Public opinion is reflected and influenced by the media. Our problem is that almost all of our publicity is negative.
Every national body and EVERY CLUB should have a PR deparment. Competitions should be reported, journalists invited along and we should have a presence visible to the community at large.
Shooting has hidden itselt from the public gaze for more than a century. Our triumphs and successes are only reported at olympic level and not much then.
The "one national body" cry is a cop out. A single oponent means that the opposition know who they have to tackle. We are everywhere: all over the UK and the media and the public should know it and be interested.
We are fighting public apathy and the desire to reduce crime. Come out from the shelter: TELL ABOUT THE GOOD SIDE OF SHOOTING and the MPs will respond.
Fred

Cant say I agree about lobbying but everything else......100%

[David TS]

Sadly, the issue isn't about raising £800k for a 'lobbying' fund, the issue is that there isn't one unifying body out there that could use it effectively on behalf of ALL shooters, regardless of type of discipline shot.

[dromia]

The problem seems to be (and I cant for the life of me find it to access) that on the list of primary and secondary disciplines, I dont remember seeing general shooting down as a category, however target rifle is.

Many people put this down because, logically, they are shooting targets with rifles.....But not backsliding lederhosen wearing winge meisters

I think the fact that the NRA doesn't seem to want to represent us serious plinkers and gun lovers speaks volumes for the organisation.

Like anything else it will only change when it wants to change and after decades of membership any meaningful change to represent 21st century shooters is unlikely, they have their comfort zone, Bisley, disciplines and competitions and have no vision or inclination to go beyond that. When it comes to legislation they are a victim organisation that only re-acts and seems to think the pro-active lobbying, advertising, promoting ideas beyond them.

I include all the other organisations in this and as shooters we are just wasting our energy looking to them for meaningful pro active, engagement in attacking the anti threat.

They are divisive by nature and the discipline barriers just reinforces this divided thinking and divided attitudes.

If we want any hope of saving shooting then the answer lies not with the current batch of inward looking, fragmented vested interest organisations. They don't see or recognise the same problems that the vast majority of gun owners experience. (Great news that they have an electronic marking system at Bisley whilst the rest of us are struggling with, and paying for analogue targetry that doesn't work on MoD ranges. Just had to about give up buts marking on Saturday due to inoperative frames.) The current rash of legal gun owning persecution is a much the fault of the "national" organisations as the fault of the antis. The national organisations wimpish weakness and ineffectiveness just emboldens the antis.

Already we have yet again been beaten on the 50 cal issue, by agreeing to and promoting stricter security as an answer to a problem that doesn't exist we have given the antis power to bring forth more and more restrictive legislation.

Our shooting bodies have agreed to the principle that some guns are more dangerous than others when the fact is that some criminals (human beings) are more dangerous than others, the world cannot be made totally safe and futile legislation just diverts attention and resources from tackling the real problems.

[The Event]

To get back to the subject of amendments to the Bill, a new amendment has been tabled that would remove lever release but not MARS rifles from the ban proposals.

Clause 30, page 30, line 9, leave out from “rifle” to end of paragraph and insert “,
other than a rifle which is chambered for rim fire cartridges, which ejects an empty
cartridge case using energy which comes (directly or indirectly) from propellant gas and
subsequently chambers a cartridge by mechanical means through the operation of the
firing trigger mechanism alone.”

[A.J.P.]

To get back to the subject of amendments to the Bill, a new amendment has been tabled that would remove lever release but not MARS rifles from the ban proposals.

Would you be able to link to that, please?

[The Event]

Would you be able to link to that, please?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 7.html#top

It's towards the bottom of the third page of amendments, proposed by Steve Baker.