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

Iain,

In my view, whatever 'assessment' was conducted after Dunblane is irrelevant. The shooting organisations are there to represent the shooting sports - all of them. Only by standing together can we remain strong. I will defend the right of any other shooter to participate in their sport regarless if i also practice this type myself or not. If you're not interested in representing the clients interests then don't demand their money.

Marc

Sorry but I won't be answering that one

One thing that may be worth pointing out is that other than Alan the Estate foreman I don't think there is a single member of staff who was there at the time of Dunblane let alone Hungerford.

I don't think its fair to heap all this blame on Alan - it wasn't his fault!

As regards the Trustees there's only one who was on Council at the time and he also had nothing to do with what went on then. Everyone who was is long gone

Love

Karen

Scotsgun wrote:Iain,

In my view, whatever 'assessment' was conducted after Dunblane is irrelevant.

Marc

Sorry - are you seriously suggesting that the NRA should have entered into the post-Dunblane environment WITHOUT an assessment?

You are a military, or ex-military, man. What happened to all the stuff about selection and maintenance of the aim / time spent in reconnaissance / only fight the battles you can win? Didn't you read Joint Service Doctrine / Clauzewitz / Szun Tsu?

Iain

Never changes: 'it wasn't us, that person has left, we're better now - honest.'

Glib excuses for a systematic attitude of indifference and incompetence.

Are they even aware of how many clubs outwith the Home Counties resent the NRA subs they are forced to pay annually?


Iain,

I'm not suggesting that the assessment in itself was irrelevant. I'm suggesting that the assessment should have informed them of how serious the threat was and how vigerous they must defend the rights of those being unfairly treated. Instead they effectively rolled over and did nothing.

All of scotsguns comments reflect what most (it has to be said ,non tr) shooters think of the nra,you just as well scrap the nra and become the bisley rifle club, becase that is how you are seen,with utter contemp by most shooters.....I don't envy the climb out of the abyss for the nra.........good luck.

Iain,

Couple more questions/observations. (I have aimed this at you, but it is really aimed at the NRA - it is just easier to address it to a "person")

I've noted through a few responses the separation between those who shoot game/animals and those who target shoot.

So as an example, if a motion was tabled to "ban" live quarry shooting with firearms in the UK - would the NRA oppose this or not?
Because I am 100% certain that if a ban on "target" shooting was proposed, those live quarry shooters would oppose it on mass.

I have it on good authority that one of the (Many) reasons and actually quite a sticking point on the merger between the NRA and the CPSA was the CPSA's refusal to drop the word pigeon from the sport (I know the Scots and Welsh have) - can you shed some light on this? (This comes from a very good source high up in the CPSA)

I also think the NRA's short sighted attitude that "quarry" shooters are of no interest to them is very niaive, these people hold SGC and FAC and as a supposed National organisation who wish to be the governing body for shooting sports within the UK - they should target (no pun intended) all shooters. Encourage these to participate in different sides of the sport and protect its future.

As an example, BASC do not discriminate between the two disciplines and even have their own Rifle club.

You need to unite and not divide.

Mike

Miliscer you make some good points there regarding mutual support. My own rifle club is in a rural area and perhaps for a target shooting club we are a little unusual in that we have a very high proportion of sporting shooters within our ranks (probably 60%) including an extremely high percentage of stalkers. If it came to the crunch I am certain that the whole club would be, and in fact have previously strongly supported our target shooting brethren. However if they were only able to shoot either target or game almost to a man/woman they would opt for game shooting in preference to target shooting.
I wish that I could say that they would receive similar support from some of the solely target shooting orientated community. Look at it this way where would the target shooters buy their guns and ammunition from if it wasn't for the sporting shooters who are the mainstay of most gunshops.

Why can't they just be like their US counterparts, do EVERYTHING. As the last two posts have pointed out, there is more than just target shooting involved.

Chapuis wrote:Look at it this way where would the target shooters buy their guns and ammunition from if it wasn't for the sporting shooters who are the mainstay of most gunshops.

Not from the conversation I heard in my local shop when a game shooter scoffed at some target orientated rifle that a customer was looking at. The dealer let him know in no uncertain terms if he had to rely on him and the likes to support his business, who had the same two rifles for 10 years and bought 40 rounds of ammunition every two months, he would have closed his doors long ago. Where as target shooters tend to buy considerably more ammunition/components and change their guns on a far more frequent basis.......