Imperial - loss runner?

[Mike357]

Ginger, Quarters, Chapuis & Alpha, well said and seconded again.

[karen]

Awww thanks guys - much appreciated!

Love

Karen (going off to work with a nice warm fuzzy feeling) sign92

[Sandgroper]

I'm sorry to be a fly in the ointment , but I was looking forward to MiLisCer's question being answered.

So I will ask it again from my point of view and I promise I shall await it at your convenience

I live in the NE of Scotland, I am a member of BASC and a member of a NRA affiliated club. However, due to physical problems I am moving away from field sports and more towards just target shooting. I shoot mainly Milsurp, GR and anything usual I can get my hands on.

My BASC membership cost me £68. BASC has 129 000 members with National centres in Scotland, NI and Wales with 5 Regional centres in England. To me BASC seems to take a very proactive stance on shooting issues, which I am very happy about. I know recent statements on Peterlee and Cumbria issued by BASC are said to be issued on behalf of all shooting organisations, they do not read that way - which makes BASC look even better.

I would really like to know what the NRA could offer someone like me. I am particularity interested in what way the NRA is lobbying to protect all forms of shooting. The chances of me getting to Bisley at least once a year, would be slim. I have looked at NRA website and read the threads here with interest, but I must assume that I am missing something because I cannot see any benefit in NRA membership over my BASC membership.

Looking forward to the replies.

[ovenpaa]

The problem here is the NRA is unofficially represented on this forum. We have Karen and Heather who we know to be NRA and I did see a third join, NorthernNRAguy who I assumed to be the Northern Rep for the NRA. He very quickly baled out which only leaves the two lasses. Expecting them to comment on NRA policy in an official capacity is wrong and I suspect they have been biting their lips on many an occasion.

Christel set up an NRA section very early on for announcements and information and it is certainly better represented than the other shooting organisations who have been given sections on this forum, however as the NRA are not formally represented here we cannot expect Heather and Karen to give us full answers, especially not in the present climate within the NRA with staff cuts and criticism of the running and financing of the organisation. A word from an NRA staff member taken out of context on here could be catastrophic for their long term employment with the NRA!

For the record I strongly believe Karen and Heather have done a great job of unofficially representing the NRA here and lets not forget the incredibly wise words of IainR however my perception is shooting forums are just not important to the NRA which is a shame as we have several NRA members and some fine international shooters on this forum.

So lets give the lasses some space, understand when they cannot fully answer our questions and most importantly can we get some ‘official’ NRA representation here? We might be a very modestly sized forum but the stats for last month show we are receiving a fair few hits:

Code: Select all

Month	Unique visits	# visits	Pages	   Hits	     Bandwidth	Pages
Jan-12	10,087	       35,465	474,490	1,290,841	   13.14 GB	13.37910616

I would have thought such free exposure would only be a good thing for the NRA and any other shooting organisation.

[Dangermouse]

I am particularity interested in what way the NRA is lobbying to protect all forms of shooting.

This is a common thread of thought but the frustration of why the NRA is not doing more for shooting sports appears to come about from us shooters who do not actually understand what the NRA is about.
We all know that the NRA in the UK is nothing like the NRA in the USA, but for many the UK NRA is actually a lot less than we think it is. They are solely there to "Promoting Target Shooting Throughout the United Kingdom". The clue to why so many of us are getting frustrated with the lack of action is in the Target Shooting part of the title. If it is not Target Shooting then they are not interested. Re "throughout the UK" well that is a fair bone of contention which can rumble on.

A recent forum thread revolved around the enquiry into the Cumbrian shootings and the BASC response. Either someone criticised or queried why the NRA had not made a press release and the reply was along the lines of "the shootings were conducted with a shotgun, as shotguns do not fall under our remit it did not affect our shooters". (That is not word correct but how I remember it)
That reply was a wake up for me and rely made it hit home as to how small the NRA is, despite the title and the publics, and many of it's own members, perceptions.

Clearly there is a need for one national organisation that looks after the interests of all shooting. Many want it to have a loud voice and even be political. I thought we were moving to wards one last year but that appears to have died a death.

So there you go, part of the reason the NRA is not performing to our expectations is because our expectations are beyond what the NRA do,

DM

[M99]

The problem here is the NRA is unofficially represented on this forum. We have Karen and Heather who we know to be NRA and I did see a third join, NorthernNRAguy who I assumed to be the Northern Rep for the NRA. He very quickly baled out which only leaves the two lasses. Expecting them to comment on NRA policy in an official capacity is wrong and I suspect they have been biting their lips on many an occasion.

.

Sorry, but I was under the impression Karen worked for the NRA - if she does not then, hands up, my error.

BUT if I asked the same question to any BASC officer, representative or other (Now I know Karen has said she will be on the NRA stand at the Newark show) then I would have had to pull myself away from them as they really do go out of their way to sell their organisation.

My post was not meant to be demeaning of the NRA, it was a genuine question as to what I would gain - surely worthy of some reply?

The reply would have nothing to do with policy, I did not ask anything about policy. I just want to know do I join or not - what do I get?

Last time I asked the question to a rep on an NRA stand I was told to look at the website - not a reply I was expecting or wanted.

So the earlier reply about Karen not being the Chairman or whatever it was, holds no relevance to my question I am afraid.

I was simply looking for someone who has the knowledge of what I would gain from membership to tell me!!

[M99]

Edited to add:

I am on General Council and the Membership Committee

Love

Karen

Surely I have asked the question to the right person?

Mike

[cheeky]

you (I say you, meaning the NRA, not you personally) need to have a recruitment drive and you need to attract more members. More members will equate to greater revenue, greater revenue will allow you to do more, which in turn would hopefully attract more members.

Someone here will have more accurate stats than I, but I seem to recall membership having increased by something like 50% in the last few years so that side of things can only be said to be improving.

There are of course a great many more people who are members of clubs affiliated to the NRA rather than direct NRA members, presumably because whatever it is that they do does not require the latter. The clubs pay a capitation fee for them.

[Sandgroper]

For the record I strongly believe Karen and Heather have done a great job of unofficially representing the NRA here and lets not forget the incredibly wise words of IainR however my perception is shooting forums are just not important to the NRA which is a shame as we have several NRA members and some fine international shooters on this forum.

So lets give the lasses some space, understand when they cannot fully answer our questions and most importantly can we get some ‘official’ NRA representation here?

Ovenpaa,
I don't disagree and I don't want this to be part of a NRA bashing exercise with Heather, Karen et al as targets.

If my question can only be answered in an official capacity, then that's OK, I understand. If an NRA Rep wishes to PM about my question (so as to be out of the public gaze) then I don't have a problem with it either. Even though my situation is extreme (and possibly "a worst case scenario") it should be considered.

[Sandgroper]

I am particularity interested in what way the NRA is lobbying to protect all forms of shooting.

This is a common thread of thought but the frustration of why the NRA is not doing more for shooting sports appears to come about from us shooters who do not actually understand what the NRA is about.
We all know that the NRA in the UK is nothing like the NRA in the USA, but for many the UK NRA is actually a lot less than we think it is. They are solely there to "Promoting Target Shooting Throughout the United Kingdom". The clue to why so many of us are getting frustrated with the lack of action is in the Target Shooting part of the title. If it is not Target Shooting then they are not interested. Re "throughout the UK" well that is a fair bone of contention which can rumble on.

A recent forum thread revolved around the enquiry into the Cumbrian shootings and the BASC response. Either someone criticised or queried why the NRA had not made a press release and the reply was along the lines of "the shootings were conducted with a shotgun, as shotguns do not fall under our remit it did not affect our shooters". (That is not word correct but how I remember it)
That reply was a wake up for me and rely made it hit home as to how small the NRA is, despite the title and the publics, and many of it's own members, perceptions.

Clearly there is a need for one national organisation that looks after the interests of all shooting. Many want it to have a loud voice and even be political. I thought we were moving to wards one last year but that appears to have died a death.

So there you go, part of the reason the NRA is not performing to our expectations is because our expectations are beyond what the NRA do,

DM

DM,
This is true and that is why I am loathed to leave BASC. In being proactive, I am very happy with performance from BASC. I started the thread regarding the BASC memo to IPCC investigation into the Peterlee shootings and was astounded by the NRA response. That sort of inward looking response is not going to do them any favours, especially as Target Shotgun is one disciplines taken up by the NRA.

Part of the problem is the name (National, I think being the biggest source of confusion) and the success of the NRA in the USA. I believe, shooters feel that their sport, hobby and livelihood is under threat and want those a single body to represent all their interests at every opportunity. I feel BASC has stolen a march on the NRA by being the representative voice of shooting in regards to Cumbria and most recently Peterlee. This and the sad fact is the NRA is burdened by the history recent bans in the UK is not going to help it.

What is the answer? I don't know.