The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Airbrush wrote: The governing body for CSR & PR shooting in the UK is the NRA.

The UKPSA rather thinks otherwise when it comes to who is the governing body for UK Practical Rifle, they have been having a turf war with the UK NRA over that matter for a while now!

Well then again UKPSA has also been having internal turf wars over who runs IPSC competitions within the UK...not wanting to open a rancid can of worms but just an observation...

The irony is I agree that to the general public CSR might well look scary
?? How is that ?
Really asking that? Let's not be naive.

Actually , I am very serious

CSR : a bunch of mostly middle-aged blokes who shoot, then get-up & try (some of them with great difficulty) to trot forward to shoot again. What is truly scary in that ?
Eurrh ... Actually strictly No-Thing-At-All !!

What is truly scary is that some ignorant idiots think the word "gun" or "shooting" are dirty words and that the very people who have "guns" and "shoot" are happy to let them think that way and in return feel they have to hide . With such a defeatist attitude, they are actually accepting to play by the rules of a game they are certain to loose eventually. Yardley might be a pompous tw*t at best, but on this one, he has a point ...

The UK shooting fraternity deserves & needs a militant "US NRA style organisation" to go on the offensive but also a good dose of PR to make our sport trendy and exciting and I certainly dont have that petulant tweeded plonker like him in mind. For the last 10 years I have been dreaming of a cool drop dead gorgeous gay DJ part-time shooter to be our poster boy. Black or south-east asians lesbians could also be cool & welcome .

TattooedGun wrote: The thing with all this "militaristic fantasy" is that guns are ultimately the major tool that military use, so of course theres going to be some crossover. Some guys from the military are going to get into civi shooting after or during their enlistment. Folks who couldn't or cant get into the armed forces are going to be interested in shooting and find their way into the sport, and some people who really wish they were soldiers for whatever reason are going to be interested in using the tools. So long as they're abiding by the law and not showing any extremist or maniacal behaviour, whose to say that it's wrong. It's within the remit of the law, they/we should not be persecuted from within.

There should be a line drawn by all shooters, that it is not against the law, we are perfectly legitimate in our reasons for owning and shooting these weapons in this manner, and most of all, all shooters should stick up for the sport in all it's aspects as the chipping away will only lead to tighter controls, more constriction within the laws, and ultimately lead to shootigns demise.

Tattoogun, just for clarity are you referring to CSR as a "militaristic fantasy"

froggy wrote:
CSR : a bunch of mostly middle-aged blokes who shoot, then get-up & try (some of them with great difficulty) to trot forward to shoot again. What is truly scary in that ?
Eurrh ... Actually strictly No-Thing-At-All !!

You know that as you participate in shooting sports, the vast majority of the general public don't, it is not about being defeatist but acknowledging the challenges we face in our sport.

"Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship or responsible business) is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model."

Apparently.

Civilian Service Rifle

Chuck Shoots Rifles

Thanks all, each one suitable

Froggy:

The UK shooting fraternity deserves & needs a militant "US NRA style organisation" to go on the offensive but also a good dose of PR to make our sport trendy and exciting and I certainly dont have that petulant tweeded plonker like him in mind. For the last 10 years I have been dreaming of a cool drop dead gorgeous gay DJ part-time shooter to be our poster boy. Black or south-east asians lesbians could also be cool & welcome

The UK fraternity needs this - and to buy an MP or two - for as long as you have multiple associations each looking after its own you'll get nowhere. Decent PR and aforementioned "face" that froggy suggests would go some way. Pictures of twits in tweeds with hundreds of dead animals isn't the way.

Over here people go hunting and shooting and no one gives a rats. They don't however have the range and club set up as in the UK. Media mischief making has a LOT to do with the bias and ingnorance of the British sheeple.

Not Sheeple! People Chuck with their own lives and outlook. Calling people outside shooting sports Sheeple hardly helps our cause.

The US NRA exists in a totally different culture where there is a strong proportion of the US public who regard guns and gun ownership as a way of life. That just doesn't exist in Britain, also there is no need to buy MP's there are plenty of pro-shooting members of parliament. It isn't about just getting some good PR, the UK public doesn't have the same cultural attachment to guns as Americans do.

I certainly do think that the various myriad of shooting organisations shoot be narrowed down a bit or at least work with a more unified voice and be looking towards a positive pro-active pro shooting and gun ownership narrative. Nevertheless it will be an uphill struggle, it should be noted that UK gun ownership is on the up (much to the irritant of various antis within the UK including Continuity ACPO) so there is ground that can be worked on but it will take time.

froggy wrote:The irony is I agree that to the general public CSR might well look scary
?? How is that ?
Really asking that? Let's not be naive.

Actually , I am very serious

CSR : a bunch of mostly middle-aged blokes who shoot, then get-up & try (some of them with great difficulty) to trot forward to shoot again. What is truly scary in that ?

Must admit I'd quite fancy a go with my No.5 in the Historic Enfield class, but, with my dodgy half century+ old knees, I'd be very much in the category mentioned above

GeeRam wrote:

froggy wrote:The irony is I agree that to the general public CSR might well look scary
?? How is that ?
Really asking that? Let's not be naive.

Actually , I am very serious

CSR : a bunch of mostly middle-aged blokes who shoot, then get-up & try (some of them with great difficulty) to trot forward to shoot again. What is truly scary in that ?

Must admit I'd quite fancy a go with my No.5 in the Historic Enfield class, but, with my dodgy half century+ old knees, I'd be very much in the category mentioned above

Give it a go you don't have to be 'squaddie fit' to enjoy it.

He's at it on deer stalking uk again this morning !

He's a chopper of the highest order but if we are not careful he will damage shooting with his attitude and this should worry us because he is often in the media representing us !

I challenge his nonsense whenever I see it and will not support publications that use him , we need to all stand together regardless of discipline and we should all shun him and show him as the charlatan he is !

Fedaykin wrote:

Airbrush wrote: The governing body for CSR & PR shooting in the UK is the NRA.

The UKPSA rather thinks otherwise when it comes to who is the governing body for UK Practical Rifle, they have been having a turf war with the UK NRA over that matter for a while now!

Well then again UKPSA has also been having internal turf wars over who runs IPSC competitions within the UK...not wanting to open a rancid can of worms but just an observation...

I think you're getting your 'turf wars' mixed up. Neither the NRA or UKPSA puts on 'practical rifle' as in IPSC PR as there are very few ranges in the UK that could host a proper match outside of the handful of field firing ranges. The UKPSA version is closer to the IPSC version but is still massively neutered. The NRA hosts competitions called 'Practical Rifle' but they have sweet FA to do with 3-gun/IPSC, CSR is closer.

The 'turf war' over the UK IPSC franchise wasn't internal at all, the NRA tried to muscle in on the UKPSA's now 40 year tenure of it and were told to