DSC1 Shooting Test Requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
I said prone in post 16. I, in error missed out highseat. Accepted.

You quoted my post (21) in your post (24) as you can see in the screenshot above where I said prone or highseat.

'Struth.
Like I said post 16 was the one I was talking about but then you are never wrong are you. I just wish I knew as much about stalking as you. You sir are a legend in your own mind.
 
Like I said post 16 was the one I was talking about but then you are never wrong are you. I just wish I knew as much about stalking as you. You sir are a legend in your own mind.

I just admitted the error in post 16.

Never claimed to have a wealth of knowledge regarding stalking, I'm new to it.
 
I just admitted the error in post 16.

Never claimed to have a wealth of knowledge regarding stalking, I'm new to it.
Then with all due respect spend a little more time listening and a little less offering advice and you will learn more
 
Then with all due respect spend a little more time listening and a little less offering advice and you will learn more

Happy to learn from others on here, have done amd will continue to do so.

I also offer the advice to quote the actual post you're referring to in future.

Hopefully the OP has now got the info they required and this hasnt derailed the thread.
 
Yes I have and both people abled and disabled should be treated equally with out favour or do you disagree..?
It was a blessing I did as the prone shooters laying down never saw the people who were walking towards the shooting area...

I have taught abled and disabled divers and both were treated the same in the classroom and in the pool/open water with extra staff close by.
A shooter on the flat lands will have a different approach to their shot compared to one who has spent their time on a bi-pod on the "hill"
This is where the "rule makes" have it wrong, there is no difference in a abled or disabled persons FAC or do you think there should be?
It is about time providers started treating people all the same as things are moving fast with equipment as we have gone from a single stick and open sights to 5 leg sticks and a digital scope.
As for making comments on it was "a mistake" if they want me to rock up and shoot prone send me an invite... :tiphat:
Not often we agree Tim
Here you are spot on.
An FAC should be an "equal" opportunity - not "different" depending on ability.
It is likely the various feos get into
all sorts of convolutions over this - if they do then that will be a result of their seeming ability to "interpret the law" as they seem fit, of which we see many examples in this place.
Easy answer is why stress and take a non-compulsory test?
I would rather have a time proven rifle-man who had never taken a test on my ground than a newbe who had just passed a DSC 1, 2, or even 3 and so would many others.

YMMV
Ade 😎

PS throw the bi-pods away( nowt but an encumbrance) and learn to shoot. We are not in Alaska shooting at 400+ metres. If you are shooting at that sort of distance learn some field craft, go to Bisley and shoot targets or take up golf.
 
Not often we agree Tim
Here you are spot on.
An FAC should be an "equal" opportunity - not "different" depending on ability.
It is likely the various feos get into
all sorts of convolutions over this - if they do then that will be a result of their seeming ability to "interpret the law" as the seem fit, of which we see many examples in this place.
Easy answer is why stress and take a non-compulsory test?
I would rather have a time proven rifle-man who had never taken a test on my ground than a newbe who had just passed a DSC 1, 2, or even 3 and so would many others.

YMMV
Ade 😎

PS throw the bi-pods away( nowt but an encumbrance) and learn to shoot. We are not in Alaska shooting at 400+ metres. If you are shooting at that sort of distance learn some field craft or take up golf.
Quite Ade, still waiting for the un-equal opportunity board to find a reply... :old:
 
Happy to learn from others on here, have done amd will continue to do so.

I also offer the advice to quote the actual post you're referring to in future.

Hopefully the OP has now got the info they required and this hasnt derailed the thread.
See what I mean?
 
Quite Ade, still waiting for the un-equal opportunity board to find a reply... :old:
I guess that is aimed at me? Afraid I can’t give you an answer because I don’t make the rules, I was just reporting what I was told. That is, or was, the protocol at the time, you did something different and got away with it, good for you. If you think it needs changing in the future then put your ideas to the powers that be. As it happens, I am all for inclusivity and I think your ideas have some merit, I hope you get somewhere with it.
 
I guess that is aimed at me? Afraid I can’t give you an answer because I don’t make the rules, I was just reporting what I was told. That is, or was, the protocol at the time, you did something different and got away with it, good for you. If you think it needs changing in the future then put your ideas to the powers that be. As it happens, I am all for inclusivity and I think your ideas have some merit, I hope you get somewhere with it.
I had hoped you would have replied to myself as I did rely to you, granted you don't make the rules but you were quick enough to point out to me... "the mistake"
So, where are you on the points I made in Bold in my reply?
both people abled and disabled should be treated equally with out favour or do you disagree..?
This is where the "rule makes" have it wrong, there is no difference in a abled or disabled persons FAC or do you think there should be?

Tim.243
 
I had hoped you would have replied to myself as I did rely to you, granted you don't make the rules but you were quick enough to point out to me... "the mistake"
So, where are you on the points I made in Bold in my reply?
both people abled and disabled should be treated equally with out favour or do you disagree..?
This is where the "rule makes" have it wrong, there is no difference in a abled or disabled persons FAC or do you think there should be?

Tim.243
Look, the reason that I pointed out your deviation from the protocol was that I felt that it was misleading to others who may also try this then be disappointed when the assessor doesn’t allow it. I wish I hadn’t bothered now.

I have no issue whatsoever with an adaptation being made for a disabled person to take part in something that they may otherwise not as long as the standard is met. I fully support it.

With regards to whether or not everyone should be able to then take advantage of that adaptation, I’m afraid that I do have an issue with this. It’s not anything to do with equality, it’s simply that the adaptation wasn’t aimed at them.

Sorry if that makes me a dinosaur and not woke enough for the modern world.

Should everyone be able to park in disabled bays or should there be no disabled bays to make everything equal? Maybe everyone should receive disability benefits from Government? Should everyone get extra time in exams or reduced pass marks because those that have learning difficulties do?

However I respond you’re going to turn it round to make me the bad guy rather than simply a realist so it is all a bit pointless. You clearly have a strong opinion on this and I genuinely respect that. Like I said before, get involved and drive forward a change. The shooting organisations are desperately in need of fresh blood and fresh ideas and I am sure they will welcome your ideas.

I’ve nothing more to add. Have a good evening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top