TargetTalk

Just a word in favor of Sparky's comments re NRA and its funding. On the pistol-competition side, ISSF matches around here are just about invisible unless you are shooting for an (invisible) college team in my state (Connecticut). On the other hand, NRA Bullseye trundles along fairly well with several leagues. The ISSF students seem not to interact with NRA Indoor at all and certainly, and importantly, don't seem to be a force in promoting the sport. My NRA NMC Indoor league is 60 years old this December 3 and at least one charter member is still with us. One ISSF exception seems to be 10m air pistol, but matches are few and geographically dispersed. My club has a few air matches in the summer and they've been fun...but sorry, no computer-based scoring so we're well out of the Big Picture!

jpsIII wrote:Just a word in favor of Sparky's comments re NRA and its funding. On the pistol-competition side, ISSF matches around here are just about invisible unless you are shooting for an (invisible) college team in my state (Connecticut). On the other hand, NRA Bullseye trundles along fairly well with several leagues. The ISSF students seem not to interact with NRA Indoor at all and certainly, and importantly, don't seem to be a force in promoting the sport. My NRA NMC Indoor league is 60 years old this December 3 and at least one charter member is still with us. One ISSF exception seems to be 10m air pistol, but matches are few and geographically dispersed. My club has a few air matches in the summer and they've been fun...but sorry, no computer-based scoring so we're well out of the Big Picture!

There are many misconceptions about the NRA even among NRA Members. First of all most of the money the Non Political Arm of the NRA and the political arm of the NRA (NRAILA) gets most of their money from donations. They don't get annual money from manufactures. The NRA divisions such as their competitions division have fallen on hard times. Their staffing has fallen to at least a third of what it used to be and the organization doesn't have a big number of people in the organizations and it depends heavily on volunteers from the gun owners in the country from everything to training kids to getting gun owners motivated to get out and put some fire under the politicians butts. The organization is truly a grass roots organization.

The money from the political and non political arm have to be kept separate or within the guide lines set by the IRS. The NRA has had to give up some of their office space to the IRS thanks to the Clinton Administration to keep in eagle eye on the organization. It is to bad they didn't do the same to Brady Organization, which got caught red handed for mixing political money with which is supposed to a non profit organization. This alone has cost the NRA two million dollars to do this. Unfortunately, donations from the gun community has fallen off and is not keeping up with the cost of getting the information out to the community. This is partly due to the economy, but a large portion is that to many gun owners have become just apathetic. Many will complain about the proposed laws, but won't do a thing to stop it. We supposedly have over 300 millions guns in the hands of private citizens in this country and the NRA membership is just around 4 million. What's wrong with this picture? The cost of putting on just the 3P Air Rifle Championship has cost the NRA $85,000 a year which they no longer can afford by themselves. The cost of putting ads in magazines or tv education programs cost a bundle of money.

The competitive shooting situation is not improved by the conflict between the NRA's home-brewed bullseye competitions and the ISSF events. If you look at the performance of our Olympic shooters, the shotgun shooters do very well, the rifle shooters do OK...and the pistol shooters have little luck.

But if you look at the rules and equipment, you notice that US and ISSF shotgun events are very close to each other, US and ISSF rifle events are fairly close...and NRA bullseye and ISSF pistol events are totally dissimilar. It hits recruiting and training HARD. We see the same thing over on the muzzle-loading side of the house - the MLAIC international rules are completely unlike the North-South Skirmish Association or National Muzzle-Loading Rifle Association rules encountered in the United States.

Crack that conflict, and we could do a lot better.

Mike M. (as guest) wrote:The competitive shooting situation is not improved by the conflict between the NRA's home-brewed bullseye competitions and the ISSF events. If you look at the performance of our Olympic shooters, the shotgun shooters do very well, the rifle shooters do OK...and the pistol shooters have little luck.

But if you look at the rules and equipment, you notice that US and ISSF shotgun events are very close to each other, US and ISSF rifle events are fairly close...and NRA bullseye and ISSF pistol events are totally dissimilar. It hits recruiting and training HARD. We see the same thing over on the muzzle-loading side of the house - the MLAIC international rules are completely unlike the North-South Skirmish Association or National Muzzle-Loading Rifle Association rules encountered in the United States.

Crack that conflict, and we could do a lot better.

What you call the NRA's "home brewed" Conventional pistol event, pre dates the current ISSF pistol rules by about 50 years. The discrepancy is a result of rule changes by the ISSF and not the other way around. Standard pistol used to be an Olympic event. It isn't any more.

Isabel1130 wrote:Standard pistol used to be an Olympic event. It isn't any more.

Where did you get that (incorrect) idea?

David Levene wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:Standard pistol used to be an Olympic event. It isn't any more.

Where did you get that (incorrect) idea?

From looking at the Olympic results. And reading the rule changes?

Isabel1130 wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:Standard pistol used to be an Olympic event. It isn't any more.

Where did you get that (incorrect) idea?

From looking at the Olympic results. And reading the rule changes?

That's interesting.

Can you give an example of the Olympic results or the rule changes you are talking about.

Standard Pistol has never been an Olympic event.

For whatever it's worth, there is another benefit available to NRA members in that 'big shiny' building what houses the NRA. In the basement/lower level there is also a really nice 100 yard indoor range available for the use of members and their guests. I don't actually remember if I paid anything to use it, I sort of remember it being free for me and paying for the guest.

I do remember it to be modern, well lit, super clean, neat, professional and really friendly. I enjoyed the experience completely. I recommend it to others.

As to the intimation that NRA may or not be efficiently using our donation dollars, I have no problems with them having a nice (and lets hope perhaps even intimidating for anti-gunners) headquarters. Totems of power, or counter power should be potent and memorable, and you got to have offices someplace. (I kind of wish they had the money and ability to build and staff a twin building directly across from the Albany state capitol building.) As a further aside, to be fair, the building apart from the range could not be characterized as opulent. By metropolitan standards it isn't Goldman Sachs h.q. It's basically workmanlike.

If they are not the most monetarily and politically efficient and productive advocates of our rights, where else should we be spending our money? Are there better advocacy options? Are they good enough, or can any one organization in this fight be characterized as good enough? If they aren't up to the fight than not offering alternatives is counterproductive. If they are, it wouldn't be helpful to bash.

David Levene wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:Standard pistol used to be an Olympic event. It isn't any more.

Where did you get that (incorrect) idea?

From looking at the Olympic results. And reading the rule changes?

That's interesting.

Can you give an example of the Olympic results or the rule changes you are talking about.

Standard Pistol has never been an Olympic event.

You are possibly right about that. The reason, I am not sure you are right is I can't offhand find the couse of fire for military pistol in the early modern Olympics.
However, I don't think this affects my point. Women's Sport Pistol Is a made up event that only dates from 84, and the NRA Conventional course of fire pre dates the current Olympic pistol events by quite a few years.
Free pistol requires almost no change of technique from NRA slow fire, nor does AP .
Just my opinion, I lived in Europe, and the ISSF shooting has a sexist social class snobbery to it, that is absent at the NRA events.

Isabel1130 wrote:[Women's Sport Pistol Is a made up event that only dates from 84

Once again incorrect I'm afraid. It dates back to at least 1966 and the CF version goes back to at least 1947.

Having said that, I'm not sure what relevance the introduction of a new event has to your statement that "The discrepancy is a result of rule changes by the ISSF".

I note the NRA collected $1.4million from the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, IL to pay the legal fees it spent defeating their anti-gun ordinances.

I like it!

David Levene wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:[Women's Sport Pistol Is a made up event that only dates from 84

Once again incorrect I'm afraid. It dates back to at least 1966 and the CF version goes back to at least 1947.

Having said that, I'm not sure what relevance the introduction of a new event has to your statement that "The discrepancy is a result of rule changes by the ISSF".

The original post implied that the NRA coventional pistol Bullseye rules was a deviation from International rules. They are not. NRA conventional pistol has been shot since at least WWII with very few changes, if any in the course of fire. It is not a bastardized form of international, and never has been. I was 11 years old in 66. That is a more recent event than standard American conventional pistol. If international was more fun, than Bullseye, or even as fun, it would have just as many competitors. It is not, and when a lot of people had to pay for two different organizations, they went with Bullseye. People who consider Bullseye boring go with Action pistol. :-)

xnoncents wrote:For whatever it's worth, there is another benefit available to NRA members in that 'big shiny' building what houses the NRA. In the basement/lower level there is also a really nice 100 yard indoor range available for the use of members and their guests. I don't actually remember if I paid anything to use it, I sort of remember it being free for me and paying for the guest.

I do remember it to be modern, well lit, super clean, neat, professional and really friendly. I enjoyed the experience completely. I recommend it to others.

As to the intimation that NRA may or not be efficiently using our donation dollars, I have no problems with them having a nice (and lets hope perhaps even intimidating for anti-gunners) headquarters. Totems of power, or counter power should be potent and memorable, and you got to have offices someplace. (I kind of wish they had the money and ability to build and staff a twin building directly across from the Albany state capitol building.) As a further aside, to be fair, the building apart from the range could not be characterized as opulent. By metropolitan standards it isn't Goldman Sachs h.q. It's basically workmanlike.

If they are not the most monetarily and politically efficient and productive advocates of our rights, where else should we be spending our money? Are there better advocacy options? Are they good enough, or can any one organization in this fight be characterized as good enough? If they aren't up to the fight than not offering alternatives is counterproductive. If they are, it wouldn't be helpful to bash.

It's a 50 yard range and non-members can shoot, but have to pay $20/hr vs. $15/hr for members (NRA employees shoot free on a space available basis). The headquarters offices were nice, but not super fancy or brimming with technology. Their cafeteria tends to have good food, especially on steak day, but not super cheap.

The top floor is pretty nice...but not out of line for an organization of that size.

I'm going to up my membership from LIFE to Endowment- it's $250 for the upgrade through end of Feb.

a bit of reading about the nra:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... =longreads

zuckerman wrote:a bit of reading about the nra:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... =longreads

Wow they make factual errors in the title. Great reporting.

Just inspired me to upgrade from life to and endowment member.

Where's the reporting on how much the anti-gun people have poured into the anti- 2nd amendment politicians coffers.

interesting way to "read" an article... and I'm sure that you did not..

Actually did read the article. There are errors in it yet over all it's not bad. Remove the negative editorializing it basically shows the NRA is doing what the are suppose to be doing. I only hope industry grows even more balls and basically tells states like New York and California that considering they want to ban guns they will be glad to help them and no longer sell any to them. Same goes for ammo suppliers.

Actually Richard, I think it's a terrible article, or more correctly propaganda screed. I am certainly no fan of the NRA, and I could make a long list of things I dislike about it. But this piece of propaganda is full of distortions, exaggerations, inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies. I don't have the time to detail all of the problems, but two basic ones jump out at me.

First the whole thrust of the piece is that the NRA has been taken over by big business. But $11.7 billion for the whole firearms industry - if that figure is even correct, which I doubt - is a very small total for an entire industry, and a tiny portion of the whole US economy. Furthermore, the buyers for much of that industrial output are governments, including the US federal, state, and local governments, and foreign governments. This is not a case of a massive industry creating a lobbying arm the way the banking and petroleum industries have done.

Second, the author tries throughout to indict the NRA for supporting US firearm manufacturers, as though this was in opposition to defending the 2nd Amendment. But without the viability of US manufacturers, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. That's because the executive branch can control the importation of firearms basically at whim, and has done so repeatedly, but cannot control domestic manufacture. No US firearm manufacture could, at the whim of a President, mean no US firearms. That's in effect what the Bloomberg lawsuits were meant to do, and what the Tiahrt amendment has been preventing (Bloomberg's lawyers misusing data obtained from gun sales records).

I guess my biggest criticism of the NRA at this point would be that it does such a terrible job of explaining (selling to the public) those necessary things that it does.

FredB