ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:34 pm

Isabel1130 wrote:There are only about 20 cities in the US with populations over 600k. Many of the larger ones have such strict gun laws that there are no ranges actually within the cities...

Another good point.

However, I'm in Texas and Texas is...well...different. :-)

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:58 pm

BenEnglishTX wrote:......But even among them, do you think the rules/principles set forth in the document that started this topic will encourage a greater level of viewership? I've stated my opinion that they won't work in the U.S.; do you think they will help in Sweden?

A look at todays program on our TV-set this evening shows a huge amount of nonsence program! A producer who KNOW shooting can make a program that make people to be glued to their TV-set but this person has not materialised yet! Any rules will do, we just need the right person to do a serie program, understand how to to use a clip board and KNOW the sport.
As for me I do not care about "Hollywood house wifes"

bluetentacle · Post by **bluetentacle** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:40 pm

Isabel1130 wrote:There are only about 20 cities in the US with populations over 600k. Many of the larger ones have such strict gun laws that there are no ranges actually within the cities, except the ones restricted to law enforcement.

Not true. The cities with draconian gun laws are very few--NY, Chicago, DC are the only ones that come to mind. Most other big cities have many indoor ranges.

Sparks · Post by **Sparks** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:41 pm

BenEnglishTX wrote:I've stated my opinion that they won't work in the U.S.; do you think they will help in Sweden?

Can't speak for Sweden, but in Ireland the formalism of ISSF shooting helps a lot; our past history with firearms does not give us the warm fuzzy feeling that it does to many in the US. The suits, the specialised kit, it's a major boon to shooting here.

The problem is that when you start changing the format so radically, the cons of that wipe out the pro's completely.

Isabel1130 · Post by **Isabel1130** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:13 pm

bluetentacle wrote:
Isabel1130 wrote:There are only about 20 cities in the US with populations over 600k. Many of the larger ones have such strict gun laws that there are no ranges actually within the cities, except the ones restricted to law enforcement.
Not true. The cities with draconian gun laws are very few--NY, Chicago, DC are the only ones that come to mind. Most other big cities have many indoor ranges.

I think if you check, many cities don't have ranges or clubs actually within the citiy. Denver, is a prime example. No draconian gun laws, but no legal loaded concealed carry either. The ranges near Denver are all located in the suburbs such as Aurora and Arvada.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:23 pm

Sparks wrote:... in Ireland the formalism of ISSF shooting helps a lot; ... The suits, the specialised kit, it's a major boon to shooting here.

That viewpoint would have never occurred to me. It seems counterintuitive that higher barriers to entry ("You can't participate until you spend more money on stuff.") would actually be considered a boon.

Is it a boon to general acceptability? Is that what you mean?

I remember one time seeing a skier being introduced to biathlon on TV. The instructor advised her to think of the rifle as "just another piece of sporting equipment, like your skis" rather than as a weapon. I thought that was odd. Why would anyone feel in the least bit squeamish about owning a weapon of any sort? Perhaps the same sort of thing is in play here. If owning a rifle as a weapon is considered undesirable then perhaps owning "a system of sporting equipment that just happens to include a shooting machine" might be considered more...I don't know what word to use...polite?

I'm a guy who grew up with rifles in the gun racks of the pickup trucks driven by the students at my high school. I find the way folks in other places view gun ownership endlessly fascinating.

More to the point and back to the topic of this thread, I begin to appreciate that perhaps the ISSF may not care about growing the sport but only about producing an Olympic spectacle. After all, there will be programs to produce elite shooters all over the world whether the common folks are allowed to own firearms or not. If that's the case, there will be shooters available for the Olympics no matter the state of shooting at the club level - so to hades with the concerns of the shooters at that level.

That can't be right, can it? Someone please tell me that I've leapt to an unfounded conclusion in the previous paragraph.

Isabel1130 · Post by **Isabel1130** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:43 pm

Apparently Ben, you have never worked for the government.
The ISSF and the IOC are first and foremost bureaucrats. For the most part, these are people who are comfortable on committees, where original thought and bold leadership are ruthlessly punished.
Yoy move up by not sticking your neck out. When you add in, that most of these people are only comfortable in a very structured environment you get rules piled upon regulations, until the organization is effectively so strangled, that it must be disbanded (or they effectively kill the very thing they are trying to promote) They have no skin in the game, and that leads to very poor decision making and resource management.

deadeyedick · Post by **deadeyedick** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:33 pm

That is without doubt the most sensible and accurate comment I have read on this forum.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:42 pm

Isabel1130 wrote:Apparently Ben, you have never worked for the government.

I just retired from nearly 30 years with a U.S. TLA. I was lucky enough to be blessed with a complete lack of ambition so in all that time I never hesitated to stick my neck out, open my mouth when executives were being stupid, and actually get work done. Obviously, I never rose through the ranks...but I know what you mean. :-)

Isabel1130 wrote:...original thought and bold leadership are ruthlessly punished...You move up by not sticking your neck out. .... a very structured environment you get rules piled upon regulations, until the organization is effectively so strangled, that it must be disbanded (or they effectively kill the very thing they are trying to promote)...

It's funny you should put it that way.

One of the recurring themes in the thread thus far has been "Forget tradition. Change happens. Adapt or die." I note that this is very germane where the Olympic shooting sports are concerned. Pistol shooters no longer use .44 caliber revolvers. Rifle shooters no longer fire centerfire cartridges at targets hundreds of meters away. Targets that were once shaped like human figures morphed into coffin shapes and now are big, round circles.

Thus, it seems that nothing is sacred and no tradition is maintained forever.

Normally, I would assume this creates an opportunity for someone to replace the status quo, to design new shooting contests that meet all the requirements for Olympic spectacle and then replace the current courses of fire. But then you characterize the ISSF as a successfully entrenched bureaucracy that may not be able to radically adapt.

None of this bodes well for the future of the Olympic shooting sports.

For now, I'll assume that my understanding of the way things work is sufficiently incomplete that none of the bad outcomes I can envision will ever happen. That should provide me sufficient peace of mind for me to sleep tonite.

antispar · Post by **antispar** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:05 am

Where I live in Europe it is not that complicated to get concealed carry permit, of course if you provide a good enough reason to police that has the discretion right. On top of it, the ISSF style shooting was always very popular, particularly rifle disciplines. However, air pistol is not very popular. In recent years ICPS style shooting is getting more and more popular, especially as clubs have few restrictions to buy weapons and ammunition. For comparison, in my town there is only one shooting club where people can practice ISSF air pistol with seven active shooters, and three clubs that do ICPS with many more shooters. I guess BenEnglishTX is after something.

Joakim · Post by **Joakim** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:59 am

It might be pointed out that even in Reinhamre's Sweden (which happens to be my Sweden too), the ISSF shooters are a rather small minority of the pistol shooters. Scandinavian-style field target shooting has always been much more popular, and lately both IPSC and PPC have attracted quite a number of shooters. (Previously, at least, the ISSF route has been pretty much the only one for people wanting to compete internationally, but IPSC and PPC, along with a couple of others, are changing that.)

So it's not that we have no options within the sport. Viewing competitive shooting in its entirety however, there's a huge difference compared to the US: we participate in organized shooting first (with borrowed guns) and only then do we buy a gun. In the US, I realize that it's often the other way around, which may serve to reduce the likelihood of people buying competitive guns in the first place.

The ISSF-style shooting has at least one thing going for itself, though, and that's air pistol. It's much easier to quickly get into shooting that way, and anyone (over 18) can buy (single-shot) airguns without hassle. Some clubs with successful youth programs (especially one in Reinhamre's urban area) are taking full advantage of this. Once you've gotten into air pistol (and it's not unusual to start well before the age of ten), other ISSF events and international junior competitions are a natural way to proceed. Among the people starting out competitive shooting as adults, the ISSF events don't lure nearly as much.

Sparks · Post by **Sparks** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:46 am

BenEnglishTX wrote:Is it a boon to general acceptability? Is that what you mean?

Yes.

Why would anyone feel in the least bit squeamish about owning a weapon of any sort?

Squeamish? Wrong word. The general public feel wary of people outside of the state having firearms in Ireland. This sounds odd to you now, I know, but you've only had a few years of being conscious of terrorism, and that primarily on a foreign basis; and yet it's changed your lives in many ways.

We've lived with very domestic terrorism for over forty years. You'd probably find the changes that induces to be quite foreign to your way of thinking; or maybe not - one of the first laws in Iraq post-invasion, IIRC, was limiting the number of firearms Iraqi citizens could own. Which made perfect sense to all involved; and yet is exactly what we're talking about here. Give it another forty years and you'd be looking at laws like ours, if not far worse. My point being that though it sounds odd to you, it's a matter of context rather than any universally objective logic.

Long story short, the specialised equipment in ISSF shooting, the fancy kit, the colourful suits, the general air of safety perceived by the general public; that's the boon. Has nothing to do with the shooters themselves, except that it makes new shooters feel safe in trying shooting for the first time.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:53 am

antispar wrote:I guess BenEnglishTX is after something.

I hope I'm not.

The theory in my head at the moment is that

- IF the ISSF is correct and Olympic spectacle is absolutely necessary (presumably for shooting to continue to be a part of the Olympics), and
- IF it's true that the ISSF is such a hidebound bureaucracy that they are unable to adapt, and
- IF the best ideas anyone can come up with to turn the finals into a spectacle are a competent announcer who tells us which number in a spreadsheet to cheer for (Which is no insult to that announcer; I thought he was a godsend.), and
- IF the best way anyone can think of to build on that strength involves simply putting more numbers on more spreadsheets showing an ever-larger wall of unintelligible information, laser traces, and social media ramblings, all displayed on big screens that require spectators to look away from the actual competitors and field of play, and
- IF the sport continues to ignore the real basis for the non-spectacular appearance of rifle and pistol finals - the fact that to an uninformed spectator looking only at the field of play, virtually no visible action takes place,
- THEN I wouldn't be surprised to see the rifle and pistol sports disappear from the Olympics, tradition and the legacy of Pierre de Coubertin being wholly insufficient to overcome viewer boredom.

(Again, to try to keep this on topic) I fervently hope I'm wrong but the document that started this thread doesn't appear to me to be up to the task of accomplishing the goals set forth in that document.

Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:01 am

Joakim wrote:...Previously...the ISSF route has been pretty much the only one for people wanting to compete internationally, but IPSC and PPC, along with a couple of others, are changing that.

I hope silhouette shooting is one of those "couple of others." I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for silhouette.

Joakim wrote:...there's a huge difference compared to the US: we participate in organized shooting first (with borrowed guns) and only then do we buy a gun. In the US, I realize that it's often the other way around...

And a big light bulb goes off over my head; that explains a lot and cures more than a little of my ignorance. In the U.S., shooters almost always become involved as a child, informally learning from and just having fun with a parent or other relative.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:24 am

Sparks wrote:We've lived with very domestic terrorism for over forty years. ... Give it another forty years and you'd be looking at laws like ours, if not far worse. My point being that though it sounds odd to you, it's a matter of context rather than any universally objective logic.

Actually, the U.S. has had domestic terrorism for all of our history. I'll spare you any personal stories about the friends and business acquaintances I lost when the Murrah building was bombed but the fact remains that occasional, serious incidents have happened during the lifetimes of every U.S. citizen who has ever lived.

The difference is that the incidents have been so few and so far between such that we've never (until this last time) re-normalized our laws on the assumption that it's going to happen again.

Oddly enough, the re-normalization of our laws that took place after 9/11 seems to be a polar opposite to what you've experienced. We're actively in the process of flushing all our civil liberties down the drain EXCEPT for gun rights, an area where business is booming and few politicians dare to propose further restrictions if they want to get re-elected.

Just another difference between here and there, I guess.

Sparks wrote:Long story short, the specialised equipment ... makes new shooters feel safe in trying shooting for the first time.

Got it. It sounds odd to me but, in context, it's completely understandable. It also helps me understand the mindset that produced the document that started this thread.

Does that previous sentence count as something to keep my comments nominally on topic? :-)

Isabel1130 · Post by **Isabel1130** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:03 am

Ben, don't worry too much about keepimg your commemts on topic. This, in my opinion, is one of the more interesting and informative threads that has been on this board in years. There is much to recommend the European approach to shooting, both training and competition. While I love the freedoms we have in the US, the structured environment of shooting through a club is probably much better at developing competitive shooters than the casual plinking, that many people enjoy in the US.
I think the expectation that the ISSF through manipulation of the rules, the venue, and the equipment can somehow grow the sport, is akin to believing that the right application of government taxes and social programs can grow the economy. There are probably two effective ways to grow the shooting sports. The first would be to maintain a low barrier to entry like in the US, where your problem will be action shooting taking up a large share of your potential competitors, or the European approach, with high barriers to entry, but with a lot of the other types of more casual shooting being choked off by government rules and regulation. For lack of a better word, I would call this an elitist approach.
Shooting is never going to be like soccer in Europe or Football in the US. It is more like skiing, and if we can attract the participants, and audience that skiing does, I think we are doing pretty well. However, for the people that are generally anti gun and anti gun sports, that will never be good enough. They will use the excuse that because shooting is neither a big revenue nor a big spectator sport, that there are better uses of money and air time than shooting sports.
The fact that pistol shooting is gone from the 2013 masters games, probably because of expense ( and the government created hassle of getting guns into Italy) should be a warning to those who think that tradition is enough to keep shooting part of the Olympics.

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:24 pm

Isabel1130 wrote:Ben, don't worry too much...

PM sent.

tirpassion · Post by **tirpassion** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:28 pm

Hello,
Not all countries in Europe have so strict gun rules as that of Sweden. I am rather surprised to know the situation in Sweden.
In France, it is pretty cool. No air weapons need any license whatsoever. There is even no need for any licence for black powder weapons (revolvers, pistols and rifles). Neither for the .22 bolt action rifles, hunting rifles and shot guns. The French Shooting or Hunting Federation membership card suffices to buy them over the counter.
But licenses are required for handguns (except BP handguns and air weapons).

A new law is coming up which should make life even easier for sport shooters; e.g. the Free Pistol might not need any license anymore. Well, let us keep our fingers crossed!

regards
tirpassion

BenEnglishTX · Post by **BenEnglishTX** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:38 pm

tirpassion wrote:In France, it is pretty cool.

You have an active group of pistol silhouette shooters in France and at least one truly beautiful facility for that discipline. One of the items on my bucket list is to shoot a match there.

Razorback · Post by **Razorback** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:38 am

Isabel1130 wrote:There are only about 20 cities in the US with populations over 600k. Many of the larger ones have such strict gun laws that there are no ranges actually within the cities, except the ones restricted to law enforcement. For the most part people with both the interest in shooting, and the money to buy guns decamped to the suburbs, smaller towns, and the rural areas, about thirty years ago.

Actually you do have 27 cities in the US with population over 600k
Compared to the city Reinhamre is referring to (Gothenburg) that is the fifth biggest city in the Nordic countries ranked by population. On the other hand looking into Europe there are more than 50 cities with a bigger population than Gothenburg and there are even countries that do not permit private owned handguns at all. And some where the laws are so restrictive that it is more or less forbidden.