New IPSC BC Doubletap

Quigley said:
Neither of these fashion statements are necessary to be a proud gun owner. And if leaving them at homes helps the cause...I don't see the harm.
Click to expand...

My italicized bold ... and that is a big IF ...

IF you could prove that assumption (not wearing certain clothes helps the cause) I think I might be with you. History suggests that your assumption is completely false.

I had a similar discussion recently with an IPSC shooting friend. He posed the following question: "Wouldn't you trade wearing camo for the ability to continue to own your guns?"

To which I responded "Yes, if you could guarantee that would be the result ... can you guarantee it?"

He admitted that there was no guarantee ...
 
Gothmog said:
My italicized bold ... and that is a big IF ...

IF you could prove that assumption (not wearing certain clothes helps the cause) I think I might be with you. History suggests that your assumption is completely false.

I had a similar discussion recently with an IPSC shooting friend. He posed the following question: "Wouldn't you trade wearing camo for the ability to continue to own your guns?"

To which I responded "Yes, if you could guarantee that would be the result ... can you guarantee it?"

He admitted that there was no guarantee ...
Click to expand...

Nothing is iron clad...but you can draw a reasonable conclusion.

I think it's pretty well accepted that wearing it does hurt our image...and that hurts our cause.

I'm not saying it's right (obvioulsy it's not) but it is somethinig we have to deal with...
 
Not to be excessively argumentative here Quigley, but my point is that what you consider 'pretty well accepted' is not really the case. In some small circles, perhaps, but not in the general shooting community, or, for that matter the community at large.

In the final analysis, we are down to contrary opinions ... fair enough, but I think without definite proof divisive actions such as these are needless and counterproductive.
 
Gothmog said:
Not to be excessively argumentative here Quigley, but my point is that what you consider 'pretty well accepted' is not really the case. In some small circles, perhaps, but not in the general shooting community, or, for that matter the community at large.

In the final analysis, we are down to contrary opinions ... fair enough, but I think without definite proof divisive actions such as these are needless and counterproductive.
Click to expand...
No offence meant to you, gothmog, but how would you know what's accepted in the general shooting community any more than Quigley does? I'm trying to understand your point of view...
 
Last edited:
Freedom Ventures said:
No offence meant to you, gothmog, but how would you know what's accepted in the general shooting community any more than Quigley does? I'm trying to understand your point of view...
Click to expand...

My point is that his experience is not my experience ... in the end we are simply speaking of opinion without proof.

I suppose I could point to my CGN poll which ran for some time in which over 80% supported some form of camo use at ranges. About 50% supported the wearing of full BDU's ... only 15% or so were adamantly against any form of camo.

But, it is an unscientific poll so I would admit that neither one of us can claim certain knowledge of who supports what. In this circumstance I find it extremely questionable to impose/support divisive rules such as the 'no camo or military gear' rule .... it is arbitrary because it is based upon nothing more than someone's or some group's opinion of it.
 
Gothmog said:
My point is that his experience is not my experience ... in the end we are simply speaking of opinion without proof.

I suppose I could point to my CGN poll which ran for some time in which over 80% supported some form of camo use at ranges. About 50% supported the wearing of full BDU's ... only 15% or so were adamantly against any form of camo.

But, it is an unscientific poll so I would admit that neither one of us can claim certain knowledge of who supports what. In this circumstance I find it extremely questionable to impose/support divisive rules such as the 'no camo or military gear' rule .... it is arbitrary because it is based upon nothing more than someone's or some group's opinion of it.
Click to expand...

What many of the posters seem to lose sight of, is that the article that was published in the IPSC BC newsletter was to ask the IPSC members to promote a better image to the Members of the Public, not a better image to the members of this forum or the firearms community. If you think that we don't influence the public by the way we act and how we present ourselves then you should give your head a shake. And if you think that wearing provocative clothing and slogans don't promote certain negative images to sensationalist reporters, and anti-gun lobbies, as well as the wary public, then quit thinking how you feel and think of how the public thinks and feels.

Try to think back to when you had no knowledge of firearms and the fear you felt when you first picked up a gun. If you didn't feel any fear or apprehension the first time, then your lying. This is what many members of the public feel when they see images of some "camo wearing, slogan slinging, possibly gun toting nutcase"

If we can promote a good positive image, then we can possibly convert those who are curious about our sport, to the way we think, that gun owners are, for the most part, good clean sportman or sportswoman. (except maybe Slavex. Sportsman, sportswoman or sports-vampire?)
 
Last edited:
crapshoot

Well put. We can pee on each others legs if we want to and it will have no effect on how we feel about shooting but it is not "we" who "we" are trying to influence.

While attitudes have changed in society as to what is acceptable I respectfully submit the image of a tatooed, camo drapped, slogan riddled gunner is about as close to the publics image of an IQ'd challenged Commando wannabee out there on the fringe as one can get.

Take Care

Bob
 
crapshoot said:
What many of the posters seem to lose sight of, is that the article that was published in the IPSC BC newsletter was to ask the IPSC members to promote a better image to the Members of the Public, not a better image to the members of this forum or the firearms community. If you think that we don't influence the public by the way we act and how we present ourselves then you should give your head a shake. And if you think that wearing provocative clothing and slogans don't promote certain negative images to sensationalist reporters, and anti-gun lobbies, as well as the wary public, then quit thinking how you feel and think of how the public thinks and feels.
Click to expand...

I am merely pointing out that this is based on your assumptions about how the public think and your opinion about its effect on gun ownership ... not fact. If you wish to modify your own behaviour (setting a good example) according to your beliefs, more power to you. If you wish to impose your beliefs on others, I beg to differ ...
 
^maybe you should join IPSC and try and get some change done from within? Personally I dont care what people do or dont wear at a match. I dont wear camo, but do wear the bdu single coloured pants cause I use the pockets for stuff.

Interestingly enough, how often does the public actually watch an IPSC match? who are we afraid of? At most ive seen the occasional other type of shooter at the range come over and watch or maybe friends of some shooters watch the match... but I sort of dont see most of them as being biased or anti..

unless maybe they shoot trap/skeet ;)
 
USP, if I join IPSC it won't be to attempt to change the culture ... quite honestly, there are bigger fish to fry. I don't mind tossing around ideas on this forum, its entertaining and I may change a few minds or inspire a little thought at no great cost in time or resources. Becoming active (in the larger sense) in IPSC doesn't interest me because of what I have observed over the years.

What I would refer to as 'IPSC culture' has caused me to stay clear of the sport for some time. I am likely to get involved in IPSC in the near future, but it will not be in order to become active politically or to champion the sport, but for more practical reasons.
 
Gothmog said:
I am merely pointing out that this is based on your assumptions about how the public think and your opinion about its effect on gun ownership ... not fact. If you wish to modify your own behaviour (setting a good example) according to your beliefs, more power to you. If you wish to impose your beliefs on others, I beg to differ ...
Click to expand...


What you seem to forget is that most of us were at one time, "members of the public". And I attempted to remind people of that fact. So my "belief comes from me being a "member of the public" not my assumptions. There is no more imposition here than anyone else who posts in this forum. In fact there is considerably less.
 
USP said:
^maybe you should join IPSC and try and get some change done from within? Personally I dont care what people do or dont wear at a match. I dont wear camo, but do wear the bdu single coloured pants cause I use the pockets for stuff.

Interestingly enough, how often does the public actually watch an IPSC match? who are we afraid of? At most ive seen the occasional other type of shooter at the range come over and watch or maybe friends of some shooters watch the match... but I sort of dont see most of them as being biased or anti..

unless maybe they shoot trap/skeet ;)
Click to expand...


If you re-read the article it is not the firearms educated that is the concern, but the uneducated who will be exposed to an international competition by way of the media. The question posed will be whether the "public" will introduced to the sport by a biased media or a friendly media. If it is a negatively biased media then we will suffer from negative propoganda. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it something we need to be aware of? Equally yes. If you ignore it, then it will get worse. I for one would like it to get better. It is not that rare for a TV crew to show up at one of our matches in BC. We have been lucky that most of the coverage has been positive.

The writer of the Doubletap article is, has been for many years and continues to be a News media professional, so I think he knows how the system works. We would be wise to take his advice.

Do I wear camo? No, who am I hiding from? Do I wear plain cargo pants tucked into my boots? For practicality reasons, yes. Do I wear clothing with negative slogans? No, I am too old to try to impress anyone with that type of "advertising".
 
crapshoot said:
What you seem to forget is that most of us were at one time, "members of the public". And I attempted to remind people of that fact. So my "belief comes from me being a "member of the public" not my assumptions. There is no more imposition here than anyone else who posts in this forum. In fact there is considerably less.
Click to expand...

No matter what group you choose to identify yourself with you still lack facts. As one member of the public you don't necessarily have complete knowledge of the thoughts of all members of the public, thus all you have is your opinion.

I'm sorry I can't make it clearer that your subjective view does not represent factual knowledge, but I have tried.
 
Gothmog

One doesn't have to to a survey to have an understanding of or comment on what perceptions come from certain behavior. One can draw on ones own life experiences. As a parent I tried to instill on my sons certain values that my wife and I thought would assist them in dealing with life's challenges. I didn't reference polls or surveys but used my life experiences,those values my parents instilled in me and those from my grand parents. Not rocket science.

The observations made by some of us on this thread come from mainstream Canadians drawn from our life experiences. Don't expect quotes from surveys or polls or "facts" for these observations. Rather, go to the center of your town where you live. Observe the dress of the majority of the people you see. Go to the parks and observe the people there. Then ask yourself does my dress represent that of my community or does it not.

If you don't see the majority of people walking around in Camo outfits with obscene cute phrases on their shirts then you will have your answer as to how the general public will react when they see such dress at the range.

If you fail to see the point then I suggest you measure the size of your shoes.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
If you fail to see the point then I suggest you measure the size of your shoes.
Click to expand...

I've refrained from any belittling or insulting of anyone else in this thread, and find it curious that you, a supposed defender of decency and displaying a good public image, would stoop to this.

As to your earlier point, what you refer to is still individual opinion and is still subjective in nature. After all, I observe more or less the same culture and society and draw different conclusions. I would also point out that my main concern is with the 'discouraging' (in real terms, banning) of the use of camo clothing during matches, which I believe is no longer commonly believed to be solely associated with military gear.
 
Ah so where you live the majority of people walk around in Camo outfits and wear T Shirts with offensive foul language highlighted on them. The last magazine you picked up showing the most sucessful men and women in Canada had them dressed in Camo outfits right and printed T Shirts. Pretty convinced from all of this that Camo is mainstream dress. I see, pretty normal from what you observe.:rolleyes:

I really have to get out more and talk to "she who knows best" about my wardrobe. Here I thought she dressed me mainstream. From your observations she clearly does not.

Take Care

Bob
 
If you want any further response from me on this thread, speak to this point first, please.

I've refrained from any belittling or insulting of anyone else in this thread, and find it curious that you, a supposed defender of decency and displaying a good public image, would stoop to this.
Click to expand...

Otherwise I have nothing else to say to you.
 
I'm sure there's a point here, but I'm not going to bother looking for it. When I first started shooting IPSC (last year, in fact. I'm new.) it was my first experience with firearms. My first gun was solely to compete in IPSC competitions.

My mom was less than pleased; she's been involved in peace rallies, anti-nuclear protests, and over the years I've been dragged along with her hippy, pot smoking, art school left wing classmates and friends. However, mom bit her tongue and didn't say much about it.

Then, mom and dad came out to watch the BC Provincial Championships one year. She was quite impressed with the normal looking people there. There were only 2 "biker types", Tom and Graeme (those of you in BC may remember them), and they were very pleasant, didn't swear, didn't wear nasty slogans on their shirts. In fact, other than the tattoos and long hair, they were any other person on the range.

Keep in mind that BC was in the throes of its official "Camo and offensive slogans get you kicked off the range" phase, which has sort of become not policy in the last couple of years. I'm sure that if there had been guys running around in TAC vests, full camoflage or wearing offensive slogans and dropping F-Bombs like truckers, I would be hearing more about how here son is hanging around with bad people and less about how much I'm activtely involved in this shooting sport.

I guess I have a point. The point is, she noticed that we were all just regular looking people wearing golf shirts, jeans and clothing which was completely non-confrontational in nature. (Thank God she never saw Trevor's spandex...the horror)

Do I care that other people are wearing C**T shirts or wearing camoflage clothing to a match? Hell yeah. Mostly because I know ma wouldn't approve. It's hard enough trying to get my friends to think I'm normal without having the image of "gun toting Rambo wannabes" hanging over my head.

Just for the record, I'm not against Camo at matches. I'm against camo pants AND shirts at matches. I do recognize that camo pants can be comfortable and are often quite durable. However, I find that convertible cargo/hiking pants are far more practical. They are also durable, quite comfortable, and you can take the legs off when the sun comes out and gets warm. They come in beige, tan, grey and other non-offensive colours. Did I mention the legs come off? Far superior to camoflage pants. ###ier, too.
 
Does your Mom approve of the 2 gun Reaper Darkside logo too? ;) :D

I think in terms of your personal choice, the 'Mom' test is reasonable ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom