From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not after the comment about Pistol AD. I was at the last one and
so was Lord Cullen and neither of us saw anything that you mention.
You say later on Pistol 94, so possibly you are getting confused
as to the dates, but Pistol 96 did not have anything going on that
was remotely unsavoury, at least from what I saw and I was there
for two days, and Cullen was there on one of the days I wasn't.
Lord Cullen even commented on how well-regulated the sport appeared.
Steve.
__________________________________
You are right, it was 1995 Anno Domini meeting as my letter to Sandy
Ewing, who was then Chief Executive of NRA is dated 6th June, 1995.
But even if you went to that meeting, you may not have seen the group I
described because they stayed only one day and I used to go every day as
I live only 25 miles from Bisley.
But the date does not alter the validity of the argument.
On another occasion at my club we had a visit form the local Parish
Councillors. Our range is in one of 5 ex.military hospital wards, all
of which have been converted to civilian leisure use and the councillors
(who are in fact our landlords) visit all clubs on site on a fact
finding mission.
Well, this visit was after Dunblane in the Summer of 1996 and we debated
how best to present our sport.
My suggestion that we should stick to something very tame and boring
like UIT shooting at 25 metres, but the majority opinion was that we
should not pretend but show them a Service match with turning targets.
When our visitors came one or two male councillors had a go and
evidently enjoyed themselves, but at the end of this "presentation" an
older woman said that it sent shivers down her spine seeing us shoot at
"the pictures of soldiers" and she asked if we enjoyed imagining
shooting at people!!!
Fortunately, I expected the question and I replied that the targets were
no more than means of scoring the shots and that their design was not up
to us but was regulated internationally. "Of course we would prefer to
shoot at the traditional round bull targets, but if we are to compete in
international matches we have to use the prescribed targets." I said.
I thought I handled the embarrassing moment rather well, but after they
had gone I got a lot of flack from several members, who thought that I
was ashamed of what we were doing.........etc., etc.,
I do hope that I have made my point clear - we do depend on public
opinion and if, though ignorance, they show concern at what they see, we
should try to reassure them, explain what is it all about, rather than
bash them with our rights. Our sport is easily linked with violence
and crime and we should be wary of any behaviour that might show us in
that light.
Now, if some members of this list still think that this is "the sensible
approach that can only lead to ..........!", I am afraid that is all I
can offer.
But I did not always think this. The time for protests and bloody
mindedness was during the Cullen Enquiry!
We wasted precious weeks and months examining "evidence" and writing
"submissions" when we should have taken the firm stand against our sport
being examined and against any recommendations made as regards its
future when the massacre had nothing to do with any of us. Even if
Hamilton were the Chairman of NRA and His Holiness the Pope at the same
time, what he did had nothing to do with me, you, Kenneth and 57,000
other pistol shooters and that is and always will be my opinion.
Alex
--
My explanation would have been to point out that most target shooting
sports have their roots in military practice, even ISSF, so it is
hardly surprising the targets look like enemy soldiers. But then
you were there, sometimes it is better to use an unsophisticated
argument depending on the brain power of who you are talking to.
It was important to make submissions to the Cullen Inquiry, that
wasn't a mistake, the mistake was that too many people listened
to BSSC and the crazy suggestion that we "keep quiet" when everyone
should have been writing to their MPs, newspapers, etc. (In fact
BSSC actually suggested that only they should make a submission
to the inquiry - it didn't even mention any of the criminology
arguments).
I wrote to every member of the House of Lords and actually got
phone calls from peers thanking me for my letter and saying that
they had only received one or two others. In at least a few
cases those letters made the difference on how the peer voted.
However this is crying over spilt milk.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
