Canadian Army requests rule exemption for members shooting IDPA

It won't get locked. When a mod trolls, it's to the death.

My post was in no way a "straw man" argument. It directly relates to the request for CF members to use their issue gear. If not for practice, then why would the request have been made?
 
Stevo said:
It won't get locked. When a mod trolls, it's to the death.
Click to expand...

That's some fine sig line material sir! :D

And to stay on topic I'll just add that I favour this decision by IDPA as well. It's not for any competetive advantage, just to help them keep practice consistent with training. That's cool ... and supportive of our troops.
 
I support the updated rule. They can shoot for score as long as FULL Field Gear is worn. I just competed in an IDPA match and had a lot of fun shooting alongside our Military Personnel and LEO's.

They have to use these skills to protect themselves and put their lives in danger to give us our freedom.

So for all that are TROLLING that do not belong to the IDPA, you have no opinions that really matter, as it is not your place to comment on rules of an association you do not belong to.

Do remember, we are ALL fighting on the same side in the fight against the anti's.
 
Once again, this is only an exemption, this was a courtesy given to our men and women who fight for this country at their request so they could get extra practice. The scores will be kept, yes and as many have already said, who cares? If you do not shoot IDPA you have no right of say, once you have decided that you want to shoot IDPA, join, and have fun. If you want an official rule change, submit it to one of the Canadian Coordinators and they will on your behalf present it to IDPA HQ to be looked at for possible change, which is were rule changes are discussed and made if seen fit. This was not a rule change, this is only an exemption for Canada just like 5" and 6" barrel revolvers. Give it a rest now, move on, if you like IDPA shoot it, if not, then don't.
 
Last edited:
Canuck44 said:
Stormbringer all you are doing here is trolling. I am surprised you are getting away with it even as a Moderator. Take out your asinine posts out of this thread and the replies to them and a 13 page thread is no more than two pages.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Careful Bob, mods stick together Even if one is a complete tool.

Spare yourself the wrath of a smighted mod.;)
 
Last edited:
####ing piece of #### blackberry has screwed up my answer 6 times. Lost everything each time.

One last attempt.

Storm feels civilians should be allowed to use the same gear as the military and police. Saying if they can't it creates an "us" vs "them" situation.
It doesn't and as has been evidenced by the replies here, he's wrong. Taking the weight of all the replies where people agree with this rule and weighing it against those who don't its patently obvious he's wrong.
Now let's go a step further.
He suggests that logically following my other post all sorts of bad things or rule exemptions could happen. Mostly based on Canadians not being allowed ccw.
Again wrong.
This is an American invented sport. The rules come from what could reasonably be expected for a civilian to use in a ccw situation.
The canadian branch of idpa, just like other countries, agreed to use those rules in order to be sanctioned.
So one cannot expand on my previous post arguing on how ccw isn't allowed in Canada and therefore rules could be changed.
That is a strawman argument and it goes completely against the very foundation of the sport.
Whereas the rule exemption for mil and police doesn't. In fact it falls right in line with the original "more real" idea of the sport.
You could argue the sky isn't blue but you would still be just as wrong Storm. This rule follows the ideas and philosophies on which this sport was founded and includes not excludes.
 
Slavex said:
f**king piece of s**t blackberry has screwed up my answer 6 times. Lost everything each time.

One last attempt.

Storm feels civilians should be allowed to use the same gear as the military and police. Saying if they can't it creates an "us" vs "them" situation.
It doesn't and as has been evidenced by the replies here, he's wrong. Taking the weight of all the replies where people agree with this rule and weighing it against those who don't its patently obvious he's wrong.
Now let's go a step further.
He suggests that logically following my other post all sorts of bad things or rule exemptions could happen. Mostly based on Canadians not being allowed ccw.
Again wrong.
This is an American invented sport. The rules come from what could reasonably be expected for a civilian to use in a ccw situation.
The canadian branch of idpa, just like other countries, agreed to use those rules in order to be sanctioned.
So one cannot expand on my previous post arguing on how ccw isn't allowed in Canada and therefore rules could be changed.
That is a strawman argument and it goes completely against the very foundation of the sport.
Whereas the rule exemption for mil and police doesn't. In fact it falls right in line with the original "more real" idea of the sport.
You could argue the sky isn't blue but you would still be just as wrong Storm. This rule follows the ideas and philosophies on which this sport was founded and includes not excludes.
Click to expand...

Thanks Slavex.
One of these years I'll get down your way and buy you a beer.

Dave
 
Having read a little about IDPA and it's goals and aims, it seems to me that this exemption is perfectly in line with the stated goals of the organization. Those in the know can feel free to correct me (there isn't an IDPA affiliated club locally) but the premise is basically "run what you brung" as they say in car racing. If you're a civillian in the US that means your carry gear - gun, concealed carry holster and off-side double mag pouch. If you're a uniformed officer it means belt rig (complete). If you're high speed-low drag in the military (or even low speed high drag) it means a thigh rig, vest etc. All of this is pretty much common sense, use the equipment you are likely to have on you when the balloon goes up. I am amazed (and pleasantly surprised) that the CF has seen fit to tacitly approve of competition as a method to improve it's members' skills, and think the folks at IDPA deserve a pat on the back for accomodating.
 
On my own time, I shoot for fun.

That means that I wouldn't wear a tac vest or the ####ty-ass issued holster, or my helmet, or my uniform. Not for fun.

However, I definitely appreciate that the rules were amended to allow for the CF to be represented in our duty rigs if we so feel like it.

However, the only time you'll see me on my own time with a leg rig will be for a multi-gun match or drilling for one.
 
Guess one of these days I should actually head down to chilliwack F and G get my credentials and membership done.
 
Slavex said:
Storm feels civilians should be allowed to use the same gear as the military and police. Saying if they can't it creates an "us" vs "them" situation.
It doesn't and as has been evidenced by the replies here, he's wrong. Taking the weight of all the replies where people agree with this rule and weighing it against those who don't its patently obvious he's wrong.
Now let's go a step further.
He suggests that logically following my other post all sorts of bad things or rule exemptions could happen. Mostly based on Canadians not being allowed ccw.
Again wrong.
This is an American invented sport. The rules come from what could reasonably be expected for a civilian to use in a ccw situation.
The canadian branch of idpa, just like other countries, agreed to use those rules in order to be sanctioned.
So one cannot expand on my previous post arguing on how ccw isn't allowed in Canada and therefore rules could be changed.
That is a strawman argument and it goes completely against the very foundation of the sport.
Whereas the rule exemption for mil and police doesn't. In fact it falls right in line with the original "more real" idea of the sport.
You could argue the sky isn't blue but you would still be just as wrong Storm. This rule follows the ideas and philosophies on which this sport was founded and includes not excludes.
Click to expand...


Slavex,

Once again, you have brought a cool head and common sense to a thread spinning out of control. Thanks.


Words Twice
 
Slavex said:
f**king piece of s**t blackberry has screwed up my answer 6 times. Lost everything each time.

One last attempt.

Storm feels civilians should be allowed to use the same gear as the military and police. Saying if they can't it creates an "us" vs "them" situation.
It doesn't and as has been evidenced by the replies here, he's wrong. Taking the weight of all the replies where people agree with this rule and weighing it against those who don't its patently obvious he's wrong.
Now let's go a step further.
He suggests that logically following my other post all sorts of bad things or rule exemptions could happen. Mostly based on Canadians not being allowed ccw.
Again wrong.
This is an American invented sport. The rules come from what could reasonably be expected for a civilian to use in a ccw situation.
The canadian branch of idpa, just like other countries, agreed to use those rules in order to be sanctioned.
So one cannot expand on my previous post arguing on how ccw isn't allowed in Canada and therefore rules could be changed.
That is a strawman argument and it goes completely against the very foundation of the sport.
Whereas the rule exemption for mil and police doesn't. In fact it falls right in line with the original "more real" idea of the sport.
You could argue the sky isn't blue but you would still be just as wrong Storm. This rule follows the ideas and philosophies on which this sport was founded and includes not excludes.
Click to expand...


All of the above would be right...................

In the USA. Well 40 states at least.

However in Canada it is just too much BS and IDPA is only a game.

That said.........

Bob was kind enough to PM me with a reason that is plausible and logical.

If he wishes to post it here that would be up to him.

BTW. Slavex you need to work in your definitions. What I used was not a strawman. What I did was "logical extention". Perhaps we need a new thread on debate techniques.

But now that after 154 posts I finally have the ONE answer that I was looking for. I am satisfied and a happy little camper.
 
no Storm it wasn't a logical extention at all. whether or not we can CCW in Canada has zero to do with the issue. IDPA has a specific set of rules, Canada uses them. so your argument is a straw man, "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
 
stormbringer said:
All of the above would be right...................

In the USA. Well 40 states at least.

IDPA is shot in all 50 states. The fact a State allows Open Carry has nothing to do with IDPA.

However in Canada it is just too much BS and IDPA is only a game.

Just like it is in the US and the other 18 odd countries where IDPA is shot. Storm IDPA is just a game with rules as Slavex and others have pointed out several times.
Click to expand...

Take Care

Bob
 
Gee did you get that definition from the link I posted earlier?

You would be the one that said that IDPA was "training for real life situations". If Canada does not have CCW then it is impossible for it to be "training". That was your argument. I did not alter it at all. Therefore ergo it is not a strawman to question whether or not it is a good plan to use that as a reasoning for joining in the events.

I suspect and has been confrimed above that IDPA is in fact a "game".

Slavex said:
no Storm it wasn't a logical extention at all. whether or not we can CCW in Canada has zero to do with the issue. IDPA has a specific set of rules, Canada uses them. so your argument is a straw man, "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom