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

There's far too much fragmentation in our sport.

• Double barrel shotgun owners frown upon semi-auto owners.

• Muzzle loaders don't accept modern propellant users.

• Enfield shooters look down on straight-pull shooters.

• Smallbore shooters resent military style replicas.

• Competition shooters can't understand plinkers.

• Target shooters don't like hunters.

...then it'll be someone else who "doesn't like" LBR's, HME rifles, collectors or high capacity shotguns. Everyone adopting the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude until there's nothing left.

Also, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the NRA that put the nail in the coffin with regards to semi-auto rifles - something along the lines of seeing "no reason why a civilian would need to own one"?

I don't know if it's that those people think diverting focus on "those troublemakers" will safeguard their discipline of interest or if they genuinely want to see the back of anything that's not of interest to them personally. Either way, it stinks.

Wouldn't it be better for all of us if all organisations (and the wider shooting community) would help promote the safe and responsible use of firearms, whatever discipline or niche?

Chuck wrote:

I am not interested in belonging to a "gun ownership" organisation.

My rifle is not something to be "possessed" - I am not interested in owning a collection of rifles - I just want to shoot at targets with my friends on all sorts of lovely ranges and have a good time.

Sorry Karen, by that quote I think you are on the wrong side of the fence here. If no one "cares about owning a gun" (I assume you happily borrow "club guns or whatever) then there will be NO place to shoot them because there will be none to be shot if everyone took that view. ONE rifle is a collection, and if YOU do not own it then who does? What you're saying is you do not NEED your OWN gun, right??

Summed up as long as someone else own a gun that I can shoot and play all day what's the worry, when they go away / get confiscated I will just move on to something else??.Those who are more enthusiastic will just have to lump it?

No offence Karen, you're not exactly pro gun with that statement are you?

Er what are you on about? Of course I have my own rifles - one .22", one 7.62 and one shotgun.

I'm not sure why you have misunderstood what I am saying?

Personally if my rifles were banned in this country I would move to another country where they weren't - is that enthusiastic enough for you?

Karen

Sim G wrote:
Well be prepared in that case to find some other outdoor spaces to enjoy some other activity with your friends, for surely, successive legislators will kill your sport, whilst your "representative" body has neither the where-with-all or resources to prevent it.

And your position within the NRA is...?

Sorry but I disagree - I think that shooting is actually getting a more positive reaction from the government and "legislators" as time gradually proves that the knee-jerk reactions to incidents in the past did nothing to stop crime and only penalised law-abiding shooters. Public perception of shooting is getting more positive all the time.

My representative bodies are doing plenty thank you very much.

My position within the NRA is bullied out of a job ex-employee (and yes I am f*** bitter about that and will be for the rest of my life so thanks for bringing that up) so I have more reason than most for NRA-bashing yet I still support them.

I am on General Council (who have no "powers" and are just an advisory body to the Trustees who make all the decisions) as I want to be supportive.

I try to make a difference - do you?

Karen

Mikaveli wrote:There's far too much fragmentation in our sport.

• Double barrel shotgun owners frown upon semi-auto owners.

• Muzzle loaders don't accept modern propellant users.

• Enfield shooters look down on straight-pull shooters.

• Smallbore shooters resent military style replicas.

• Competition shooters can't understand plinkers.

• Target shooters don't like hunters.

...then it'll be someone else who "doesn't like" LBR's, HME rifles, collectors or high capacity shotguns. Everyone adopting the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude until there's nothing left.

Agree I don't like game shooters (based on my experiences with them at school I went to a private school so there was a few) that said im not one to call for there sport to be banned. despite the fact I know a lot of them would like to see my guns (military style semi auto+long barrel revolver) banned because they think it attracts what they term as the "Wrong kind of people" to shooting.and yet if I was to say that maybe game shooting attracts the wrong sort of people because its basically killing for fun. (not talking about needed/vital pest control) I would instantly be slapped down and told I was a bigoted townie. but then again im not going to call for it to be banned as they would to us. and then I suppose

Personally I do not like killing animals for fun - however I am all for killing tasty animals that will end up on my plate! I have never shot a living thing but I would if I was going to eat it. However I will defend the rights of others who wish to kill animals for fun although I would prefer they just hunted for food or pest control. If you want to go to Africa and hunt large game then I would prefer that you did it with a camera.

Personally I do not like pistols - my father was a serious pistol shooter when I was a small child and I had it drummed into me from an early age that pistols were dangerous and not to be touched or I would get a slap (and I did on a couple of occasions). It has been difficult to get over that. When I lived in Northern Ireland we had a 9mm Glock for killing people - I was totally prepared to use it for that purpose. If anyone had broken into my house at 2am they would have got all 14 rounds. My experience with pistols has been very negative. However I would be first in the queue to support the return of pistol shooting and would do anything I could to help that happen.

Personally I do not want to own an Uzi or a Kalashnikov or similar - I've shot them and it was fantastically good fun but that's all it was. Been there, done that, don't feel the need to do it again. Doesn't mean I agree with banning them.

Just because a shooter (or even a National Governing Body) prefers or supports certain types of shooting over others does not mean that they are anti the other types of shooting.

I think the phrase is "supporting lawful shooting in all its forms" or something like that.

Mikaveli wrote:
... wasn't it the NRA that put the nail in the coffin with regards to semi-auto rifles - something along the lines of seeing "no reason why a civilian would need to own one"?

...

Wouldn't it be better for all of us if all organisations (and the wider shooting community) would help promote the safe and responsible use of firearms, whatever discipline or niche?

NRA Handbook para 46: The NRA recognises and welcomes non-competitive shooting such as introductory opportunities for non-shooters, individual training, target practice by game shooters, firearm testing, ammunition development and equipment development.

NRA Strategy, from its website: Our Aims
To promote the sport of target shooting across the UK
In all of its forms
In a way that emphasises safety and proper governance

The NRA supports shooting in all its legal forms. However, its speciality is target shooting with all types of centrefire rifles. It actively promotes some other forms of target shooting. It generally leaves the promotion of other shooting activities to the relevant Association.

The NRA has to be very careful about political campaigning - there are laws against charities doing so, and while it may be the case that some large national charities get away with a great deal in that respect, we don't have much in the way of a fluffy bunny factor to give us instant appeal to the unthinking. It is also the case that political campaigning is expensive, and frequently we are a bit short of cash. Of course, if 50% (say) of the rifle owners in the UK were members, instead of about 5%, that problem would be solved more or less overnight. It would give the membership staff a major headache, but that's a problem that we would love to have to solve.

While it may be that the NRA said what you quote, that was 24 years ago. There is now literally nobody on either the trustee body or the professional staff who were involved in any actions that may have happened at that time. I have no knowledge of how the NRA dealt with the post-Hungerford issues. I know that post-Dunblane, we could not do anything - none of the newspapers or broadcasters would give us the time of day, and we could not even buy advertising space in the media. Except for the Daily Telegraph, where if I remember correctly BSSC spent most of their cash on one full-page advert, nobody would sell any shooting organisation space at any price.

The NRA does promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. That is a very big part of my job. We negotiate access to ranges, we provide ranges, we make grants to clubs to build ranges, we offer range safety advice at a fraction of its commercial value, we write and publish rules that can be used, should you choose so, to provide a framework for safe use of ranges. We don't do stuff about safe and responsible use of firearms for quarry shooting - we leave that to BASC, who do it very well. We don't get involved in clay shooting, except that we built an international standard clay layout as a necessary part of staging the Manchester Commonwealth Games. We don't get involved in smallbore target rifle shooting, except firstly in that it is a useful introductory tool fo other forms of target rifle shooting, and secondly in that we are happy to have the NSRA (and the CPSA) joining us at Bisley, making it the administrative heart of target shooting in the UK.

Personally I do not like pistols - my father was a serious pistol shooter when I was a small child and I had it drummed into me from an early age that pistols were dangerous and not to be touched

I wouldn't say they are any more dangerous than most other firearms. Follow proper safety procedures you will have no problems don't and you will, just as with any firearm.

This is a very healthy debate, let it continue and hopefully some good will come from it. Let's not allow ourselves to become divided and conquered. We are stronger together...

IainWR - Does it say on the NRA website that the primary benefit is to safeguard my right to shoot? This should be Primary Objective No.1, but I can't find anything on your website that says it. Compare the NRA website to the BASC website, it's the first thing they say in their promo video, but even still you have to go looking for it. This should be front page stuff. Give me a good reason to join the NRA and I will. From a newcomer I can't see any real benefit unless I shoot at Bisley. Is that really the message you want to give? For the record - I'm not a member of any shooting organisation (yet).

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/join/index.cfm

I know but obviously a naughty 5 year old me isn't going to be too au fait with safety rules.

I remember it was in a case a bit like a record case and I thought I would help Daddy by carrying it for him - I got a good slapping and shouted at. Probably my first taste of injustice

I was only trying to help . . . odd how certain things stick in the memory.

HALODIN wrote:Does it say on the NRA website that the primary benefit is to safeguard my right to shoot? This should be Primary Objective No.1, but I can't find anything on your website that says it. Compare the NRA website to the BASC website, it's the first thing they say in their promo video, but even still you have to go looking for it. This should be front page stuff. Give me a good reason to join the NRA and I will. From a newcomer I can't see any real benefit unless I shoot at Bisley. Is that really the message you want to give? For the record - I'm not a member of any shooting organisation (yet).

It says on the membership page

Membership of the National governing body directly supports the future of shooting in the UK. The NRA has a commitment to promote shooting and especially to encourage younger shooters to participate in the sport.

The privileges of membership (in the Bible and as a download on the website) start with

1 The support of the NRA in all matters connected with target shooting.

At the bottom it also says

In addition to the above, a full member of the National Governing body will receive
support at the following levels;-
* Liaison with police on Firearms queries.
* Access to and help from Regional representatives throughout the country.
* Support for range application and safety certificates.

The website is not as up to date as it should be - unfortunately the person who used to keep it up to date no longer works there

However I am told there is going to be a new website in due course (although it would be nice if someone at the NRA could be arsed to keep the current one up to date )