Canadian Army requests rule exemption for members shooting IDPA

stormbringer said:
That my friend is called a straw man.

Is that the best you can do to attempt to discuss this.
Click to expand...

Not sure what there is to discuss
the exemption for Canadian service personel is in place
you do not shoot IDPA
it has no impact on YOU
if YOU want to shoot IDPA with a thigh rig
then join one of the above services
seems pretty simple
 
Steve David said:
Would you deny them this request?
Click to expand...

Now are you purosefully ignoring my argument or do you just not get it?

As I have stated from the very start.

I am fully in favor of the intent of this rule change.

I am fully against the "note" that disallows civilians from using the same rule set. That was, is and shall be my entire point.

Of course it is far easier to ignore that single point and make up your own that you can attempt to ascribe to me as some have done. However that does not change the dynamiics other than to prove lack of debate skills.
 
bclinehand said:
Not sure what there is to discuss
the exemption for Canadian service personel is in place
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the fragmentation engendering an US/Them, We/They distinction that I take exception to. Is that not clear?


bclinehand said:
you do not shoot IDPA
Click to expand...
No but IPSC does have a similarly inane rule with regard to Police duty issue gear and I am against that. Not to mention I have been asked on occasion to bring IDPA to my home club. This sort of thing makes me think more than twice about it.


bclinehand said:
it has no impact on YOU
Click to expand...
So if I were to go and join IDPA it would change what? Would you suddenly find yourself capable of debating in a logical fashion.. Let's play a game and pretend for a second.
Please explain in logical terms how this makes sense and does not create two classes of shooter?


bclinehand said:
if YOU want to shoot IDPA with a thigh rig
then join one of the above services
Click to expand...
Actually I used to be a member of one of the abover services.........that does not change the logic one whit.


bclinehand said:
seems pretty simple
Click to expand...

Ah there in lies the problem. You must just fail to see the complexities of this situation.
 
stormbringer said:
Now are you purosefully ignoring my argument or do you just not get it?

As I have stated from the very start.

I am fully in favor of the intent of this rule change.

I am fully against the "note" that disallows civilians from using the same rule set. That was, is and shall be my entire point.

Of course it is far easier to ignore that single point and make up your own that you can attempt to ascribe to me as some have done. However that does not change the dynamiics other than to prove lack of debate skills.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring you, not at all. I am trying to understand why you have such an issue with us allowing service personal to use their issue equipment. Yes, IDPA is based in concealled carry, and yes regular IDPA shooters are not exempt form this, but who really cares, it is that big a deal? With service personal, as you are fully aware, they do not carry concealed so we made an exemption that will allow them to use their issue gear to compete which will no doubt help assist them with the proficiency of their handguns.
 
Steve David said:
I am not ignoring you, not at all..
Click to expand...
Really?

Honestly?

Then how can you possibly say.



Steve David said:
I am trying to understand why you have such an issue with us allowing service personal to use their issue equipment.
Click to expand...

Please be so kind as you quote where I said anything that even remotely says anything of the sort..

Steve David said:
Yes, IDPA is based in concealled carry, and yes regular IDPA shooters are not exempt form this
Click to expand...

Can you explain with logic why this would be the case?


Steve David said:
, but who really cares,
Click to expand...

Psst........that would be me of course.

Steve David said:
it is that big a deal?
Click to expand...
Nope not a big deal at all. As I said IPSC has a similar rule. Not quite as in yoru face as the new IDPA one but annoying nonethe less.

Steve David said:
With service personal, as you are fully aware, they do not carry concealed so we made an exemption that will allow them to use their issue gear to compete which will no doubt help assist them with the proficiency of their handguns.
Click to expand...

No argument from me at all to the above.
Of course it does not explain at all why the note has to exist. If I were to shoot with exactly the same gear how does that effect their training?
 
Storm if it was me trolling and #### disturbing with the same intensityas you are I am sure there would already be infractions handed out.
as you said above YOU do not shoot IDPA therefore this rule does not affect you.
 
oh and on another note thanks for making my job more interesting,

Next thing you know some Ops O will decide to have an exercise to an IDPA match, then its dig out the training safety manual get the references, check the waiver, inspect the range, get the range approved create a temp licence, oh I forgot the DND use of Non DND land issue :( Work Work Work :D
 
bclinehand said:
Storm if it was me trolling and s**t disturbing with the same intensityas you are I am sure there would already be infractions handed out.
as you said above YOU do not shoot IDPA therefore this rule does not affect you.
Click to expand...

Infraction for what exactly?

All I did was point out that I disliked this rule or any similar to it.

There is nothing "trollish" about that at all.

I am not arguing with any intensity at all...........actually I find your lack of abillity to defend your position in a logical manner quite funny. Sad albeit but funny none the less.

So once again.........lets pretend for a second that I did shell out my $$ and joined IDPA.... Please explain the LOGIC behind the "note" portion of the OP's post.
 
stormbringer said:
Then why has there not been a single solitary LOGICAL explaination as to thie exemption.
Ah could it be there there isnt one?
Click to expand...

I know you are not as thick headed as some of your posts suggest. The Canadian Forces wanted a venue couched in a competitive environment for their troops to participate in. They have adopted IDPA rules for their CFSAC competitions and believe that shooting IDPA will hone their skills when in theatre. The exisiting rules precluded their use of combat gear , specifically, thigh holsters.

This exemption allows them to compete in IDPA events using all their combat gear. There is no other explanation. No hidden adgenda, nada, nothing. While I appreciate your interest in our sport, you don't shoot it so why do you care what we do or don't do. We readily accomodated their request for all the right reasons. As a Canadian I will support anything that provides our Armed Forces with a venue to help them with the tasks we ask them to undertake. If you don't get that then there is nothing more I can say.

If just one trooper improves his or hers skill sets and it saves one life from this improvement then that is all the reason I need to grant this exemption. If you still don't get it...to bad. It is they who lay their lives on the line daily so we can pee our time away dealing with issues as small as this one is. I apologise to no one for seeking approving this exemption. I don't believe most would suggest I need to.

Take Care

Bob
 
Damn........you honestly do not get it.


Sad really

now read my lips.............err ok read my quote.

The ONLY part of this whole thing that I disagree with it the existance of the "NOTE" portion of the OP.

How much clearer can I be?
 
Westicle said:
you know what I love about IDPA, I can shoot it wearing nothing but a raincoat as a cover garmet......

lets see you wieners keep up with that :)
Click to expand...

Wes I just had a picture flash through my head and it wasn't pretty.:D

Love you man get well soon. We will miss your insights at our Provincials but next year I promise to approve a car stage just for you. Dave if you don't send me a stage with a very small car exit the stages are coming back to you I promise.....;)

Take Care

Bob
 
woodchopper said:
oh and on another note thanks for making my job more interesting,

Next thing you know some Ops O will decide to have an exercise to an IDPA match, then its dig out the training safety manual get the references, check the waiver, inspect the range, get the range approved create a temp licence, oh I forgot the DND use of Non DND land issue :( Work Work Work :D
Click to expand...

Ya...speaking about that...

Need a couple of ranges in AB templated for 9mm and shotty. Is your WO aval in the next little while?

Let's talk. You know...when I'm not on my endless TD trips...
 
bob I was going to pm you with this....

but frankly lets air some laundry

While I appreciate your interest in our sport, you don't shoot it so why do you care what we do or don't do.
Click to expand...

this attitude sucks and is the reason a lot of people do not participate in various activities and frankly it stinks of elitism... much of which we blame the IPSC guys for having to much of. Now you know I support IDPA but I also support the rights of others to voice thier opinion, stormbringer has given a valid reason for his dislike of this rule, a little misguided I believe but that is his right and it is the right that these soldiers fight for and that we as a free and democratic country cherish.

I agree our soldiers should be able to participate with thier drop leg holsters, frankly with all the rest of their gear on there is a reason for them to use a drop leg.... more power to IDPA for supporting our troops. frankly I think with the extra reach involved and since ALL drop leg holsters are at least a level 2 or higher security style holster I don't think they have any advantage over a kydex concealed holster..... same with the rcmp and thier level 3 holsters offer no advantage to a kydex sport holster concealed.

so sorry to stir the pot, the above is my opinion and my opinion alone.... we have to stop this bull of us vs them or you don't belong so you have no say bullshyt, especially when it applies to stormbringer who happens to be the president of a fairly large and active IPSC club where an alternate IDPA club may be easily spawned, hell they allready have all the props.

so there it is, my thoughts,..... take or leave it any way you want, but eventually the bullshyt has to stop.
 
one thing IDPA should also look into is an "approved" holster list from canadian forces command to see what holsters are approved for our soldiers to carry in the field, this will remove the gaming aspect if any of them try it.

and with that, it is bed time for me, to many late night, I bid you adieu...
 
Westicle said:
one thing IDPA should also look into is an "approved" holster list from canadian forces command to see what holsters are approved for our soldiers to carry in the field, this will remove the gaming aspect if any of them try it.

and with that, it is bed time for me, to many late night, I bid you adieu...
Click to expand...

"List" - doesn't exist. Bianchis are issued and promptly replaced in favour of anything else. Dual retention seems to cover the concerns of safety...

Most guys like Safarilands, I like my Eagle, others prefer Serpas...you get the idea.

Retention, safety, ease of use, durability...

in short - if it ain't crap, it won't fall apart under heavy use, it holds the pistol in place, and you can get to it when you need it...and it's (preferably) green or brown...you're good to go.

At least in the Army of the West...
 
Westicle said:
one thing IDPA should also look into is an "approved" holster list from canadian forces command to see what holsters are approved for our soldiers to carry in the field, this will remove the gaming aspect if any of them try it.
Click to expand...

No such list exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom