John MH wrote:Shooters who support the NRA, are NRA members and currently use the facilities at Bisley
That includes me. I shoot shotgun and rifle disciplines, the same as you. I want to see investment and improvement in all areas. You seem to be saying the NRA should be investing money in rifle disciplines over shotgun. Why? Shouldn't every type of shooting have decent facilities?
John MH wrote:
The membership are the NRA, they should have a say in where NRA funds are spent and what direction the NRA should move in.[/b]
Well, they (we) don't most of the time. Maybe that's for the best, because we might find the most active, politically motivated members get their way at the detriment of others? Maybe things should be changed so we do have more of a say? Who knows? It is what it is and we have to accept that those currently in charge are working and investing in the best interests of the members. Time will tell.
John MH wrote:
It’s actually 49 individual members who have selected TS as their primary discipline, the figure was supplied by the NRA Membership Department. Why don’t TS shooters join the NRA in advance of any developments or take overs, they are all sitting on the fence waiting to see. There are far more NRA members who shoot other disciplines and enter NRA events than specifically TS. I’m sure they would prefer to see the investment they have made in supporting the NRA being put into maintaining and upgrading rifle shooting facilities rather than a very niche PSG facility. Of course if there were actually more TS shooters in the NRA they would rightly expect that their needs were addressed in proportion to their contribution.
This is the same membership department who hasn't updated changes submitted by their members for several weeks. I've tried to change my primary to TS twice since Christmas, but the change hasn't been updated, so it's bad data. As I've said before, I'm sure a lot of members just list the disciplines they shoot in random order because they don't know or don't care what their "primary discipline" is. So you can't say from that number how many TS shooters are members, but it's certainly more than 49. Having said that, you are correct that TS is in the minority, but that it not a reason not to invest in it. It is a growing discipline and that means it should be supported.
John MH wrote:
IPSC has nothing to do with CSR, CSR shooters use the same facilities as Target Rifle/Match Rifle/F Class/Historic etc, the clue is in the word 'Rifle'.
You are distinguishing between IPSC facilities and rifle facilities, I'm not. They are all 'shooting' facilities and the NRA should be supporting, encouraging and investing in all of them. Their motto is "Promoting Target Shooting Throughout the United Kingdom" after all.
Now I know a lot of you don't believe they have that agenda and they certainly didn't in the past, but they are changing so we need to see what this proposal will bring and that's going to mean waiting until we see details of the proposal.
As for comments such as "I'm not travelling 10 hours to Bisley to shoot a L2 match" - again, you don't know what the IPSC proposal contains and how the NRA intend to run it, so why not carry on as you have been with the UKPSA and see what the bid brings? It might all stay the same if the IPSC don't accept the bid.