It gets people out shooting in organized matches in a safe and productive manner. I see every handgun shooter out there as just one more reason to justify the ownership and use of handguns in a legal sport. They are not a political organization; they are a shooting sport organization.
we should give IPSC Canada a kick
- Thread starter lcq
- Start date
Get over it. The chump change we pay in dues to IPSC hardly covers the costs they incur. I don't see any chapters rolling in money. The organization fuctions largely because of the hardwork that some people put forth to organize events and train new members. The fees I paid for my black badge would barely cover the range rental time.
If you want IPSC to be more than it is, step up and run for a position or voluneteer your time. I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. If you want to help the political firearms situation, send your membership money to the groups previously mentioned, organize a rally, or write a thousand letters.
Really do you go to your dentist to have you appendix removed? Just because they're a doctor doesn't mean they're equiped or qualified for the job.
You won't find a single member of IPSC that supports a firearms ban, but it doesn't mean they have to fight the war. I'm sure they've done more to encourage responsible firearms use in Canada then many of us will. I hope you find a better place to spend your $60.
ipscgraz
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
if IPSC was suddenly to get political it would get hammered for doing it, by the Feds. as an organization we are prohibited from lobbying or promoting a political party, except under very very stringent rules. Same as gun clubs have to be very very careful. While I don't support everything that CILA/CSSA does, that's what they and the NFA are for, not IPSC. IPSC is for shooting that's it. we don't need them to provide insurance, we need them to ensure quality matches, proper officials, and information on both.
- Location
- East ontario
You say IPSc is doing nothing?
Just being run the way it is in canada with a 99.9% saftey record, and keeping a whole bunch of shooters in the shooting sport, by having matches, proves to most people that i know that are anti gun , that thers a more then good reason for people to own handguns.
Now i do not agree with that way of thinking, but i will say that if "IPSC" was not run as well as it is then we would have a problem, this is what makes some of the anti,s think twice about a "reason" that we have handguns .
IPSC Canada has done alot to help us keep are guns.
The more things like IPSC canada we have the better chance we have of keeping are guns, its just another way of getting involved.
bbb
Just being run the way it is in canada with a 99.9% saftey record, and keeping a whole bunch of shooters in the shooting sport, by having matches, proves to most people that i know that are anti gun , that thers a more then good reason for people to own handguns.
Now i do not agree with that way of thinking, but i will say that if "IPSC" was not run as well as it is then we would have a problem, this is what makes some of the anti,s think twice about a "reason" that we have handguns .
IPSC Canada has done alot to help us keep are guns.
The more things like IPSC canada we have the better chance we have of keeping are guns, its just another way of getting involved.
bbb
Last edited:
- Location
- Halifax - NS
Thanks very much to the guys who have posted in defence of IPSC Canada.
You get it. Yes, the #1 priority for IPSC Canada is the safe promotion of the sport.
We have in the past been involved in the political infrastructure (being consulted by Rock during the high cap ban, and first go around of gun grabs, etc.) I still have the video from our appearance in front of the Justice Committee somewhere. It was a disaster. Through it, we lost one of our biggest sections and the organization took (to quote the thread starter) a kick in the nuts over it that took years to repair.
We learned from that that we are experts on safe action shooting, but we're not experts on politics - to that end, I and the NEC work as close as we can with the CSSA and NFA and promote their organizations and encourage their work. CSSA and NFA are experts on politics and can accomplish far more with their full time staff than we can with 10 part time volunteers.
It should be noted that during the last election CSSA invited us to sit in consultation at one of their strategy meetings and we committed funds to them for their advertising campaign that they later dropped.
In the last two national newsletters, we encouraged our people to remain aware of the anti-gun environment that sits around us and to do something about it by getting active politically. Per the NRA policy, grass roots is what works - each person contacting their local rep and talking to them.
If you think that IPSC Canada meeting personally with the government is going to help us, we've proven otherwise. We believe our method is best, but if you can do better, feel free to get involved in your section and make the changes from within.
You get it. Yes, the #1 priority for IPSC Canada is the safe promotion of the sport.
We have in the past been involved in the political infrastructure (being consulted by Rock during the high cap ban, and first go around of gun grabs, etc.) I still have the video from our appearance in front of the Justice Committee somewhere. It was a disaster. Through it, we lost one of our biggest sections and the organization took (to quote the thread starter) a kick in the nuts over it that took years to repair.
We learned from that that we are experts on safe action shooting, but we're not experts on politics - to that end, I and the NEC work as close as we can with the CSSA and NFA and promote their organizations and encourage their work. CSSA and NFA are experts on politics and can accomplish far more with their full time staff than we can with 10 part time volunteers.
It should be noted that during the last election CSSA invited us to sit in consultation at one of their strategy meetings and we committed funds to them for their advertising campaign that they later dropped.
In the last two national newsletters, we encouraged our people to remain aware of the anti-gun environment that sits around us and to do something about it by getting active politically. Per the NRA policy, grass roots is what works - each person contacting their local rep and talking to them.
If you think that IPSC Canada meeting personally with the government is going to help us, we've proven otherwise. We believe our method is best, but if you can do better, feel free to get involved in your section and make the changes from within.
Last edited:
What Bull
You got involved in WHAT at personal expense? IPSC? Give me a break. What you've likely spent on IPSC wouldn't cover my coffee expenses over the last twenty years. As for your involvement in IPSC, you're not even a member. Why I'd be willing to bet you were only a member for a year or less anyway.
So........., until you can provide facts about what you're talking about, how about shutting T.F.U.
You got involved in WHAT at personal expense? IPSC? Give me a break. What you've likely spent on IPSC wouldn't cover my coffee expenses over the last twenty years. As for your involvement in IPSC, you're not even a member. Why I'd be willing to bet you were only a member for a year or less anyway.
So........., until you can provide facts about what you're talking about, how about shutting T.F.U.
Last edited:
- Location
- Keswick, Ontario
As mentioned already as an Not For Profit, they are legally restrained from getting politically active. Their status would get pulled and that would be the end of it.
The gun control fight is complex, as is the landscape of Canadian shooting. We are the mob, and we often fight and ##### at each other. But I think overall, each group is doing SOMETHING to move forward the effort to free our firearms again.
You post sounds more like frustration, and that I can understand. What I can't understand is the lack of background and research.
I am not in IPSC or IDPA or any other alphabet soup organization, but even I know how many folks they bring into RPAL possession.
The gun control fight is complex, as is the landscape of Canadian shooting. We are the mob, and we often fight and ##### at each other. But I think overall, each group is doing SOMETHING to move forward the effort to free our firearms again.
You post sounds more like frustration, and that I can understand. What I can't understand is the lack of background and research.
I am not in IPSC or IDPA or any other alphabet soup organization, but even I know how many folks they bring into RPAL possession.
Production Shooter
New member
- Location
- Nova Scotia
My 2 cents.
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem. Your obvioulsy the latter.
The fact I shot IPSC, in my mind puts me way head of leading by example then you have done. (Mine has lapsed becuse of shoulder injuries)
I participated in an active shooting with IPSC, I'm thinking of trying CASS. IPSC, IDPA, CASS, SASS etc. all provided a venue for shooters from all demographics to actively particpate in hangun activities. No maybe they don't all rally or chain mail write, but they promote and encourage hand gun shooting by being an owner legally registered, dropping cash to support those dealers who through great effort bring in all the goodies we CGN's like to spend out hard earned cash on.
I'm not sure what you expect from a non-profit organization, but I do suggest you read what exactly governs the status of not for profit means both provincially and federally, having been involved in both, it is very strictly governed.
IPSC Canada by virtue of existence has given a venue for all shooters to participate and promote in safe active competive shooting, Provincially, Nationally and Internationally, what more could you want from any organization?
Why not point the finger some of the supposed national gun groups, what have they done for you lately?
PrSh
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
This is a broken record, just insert: "USPSA", "UKPSA", "HKPSA", "Pistol Australia" etc. where it says: "IPSC Canada" and you will have about a quarter of all the posts on practical shooting forums.
They can't do anything, they're not-for-profit organisations and are barred from political lobbying. If you wanted them to lose their status their membership fees would have to increase also. Makes far more sense to do it the way absolutely EVERYONE does it, which is to have an organisation(s) in the countries that do lobbying, e.g. the NRA in the US, CSSA here, etc.
I never knew IPSC was a "Charitable" organization as per the Income Tax Act?
I do believe IPSC is a "Non-profit Corporation" and thus are allowed 10% of their budget for advocacy and as such are not prohibited from advocating their respective sports/activities as is with the prohibitive laws for Registered Charities.
When I pay my IPSC membership I am paying for a service and receive no receipt for income tax purposes thus IPSC is not a Registered Charity AFAIK.
I think there has been some confusion here, USPSA is prohibited from lobbing due to US laws. I know this has been brought up more than once to their membership. I don't know under what charter IPSC Canada is founded on and our laws are not a strict as the US's when it comes to getting involved in politics.
- Location
- East ontario
who grives a crap , IPSC canada is doign its part by getting peopel into shooting and training them well to shoot safe and have fun.
Let the great people at CSSA do there thing and let IPSC do there thing , everyone has there part in keeping up shooting.
Just like any team right man for the right job
.IPSC. gun training and comp.
.CSSA , ect Gov BS dept!
.Shooters, $$$ and letter writeing
Let the great people at CSSA do there thing and let IPSC do there thing , everyone has there part in keeping up shooting.
Just like any team right man for the right job
.IPSC. gun training and comp.
.CSSA , ect Gov BS dept!
.Shooters, $$$ and letter writeing
Yes, AFAIAC IPSC would be better off donating up to 10% of their annual budget to FA organizations such as CSSA, NFA, etc to advocate for the FA community and IPSC as it would probably be a more efficient and effective means of accomplishing the objective at hand.
Do you realize that, knowing the piss/moan capacity of this fraterinty, if IPSC cut any group(s) a check, there would be an equal hue and cry about the recipient.
Why NFA? Why not NFA? Why CSSA and NFA? #### em all and send it to the NRA..............................
Why NFA? Why not NFA? Why CSSA and NFA? #### em all and send it to the NRA..............................
You guys did read that IPSC CA committed funds to CSSA but it wasn't taken up at the time? That was from your regional director.
I've sat in on the Australian executive meetings a couple of times. The last one we argued wether a twenty dollar a year levy needed to break even would be accepted by the membership. There was literally no fat available to trim and no reserves to speak of. I doubt IPSC CA does a hell of a lot better, being a volunteer, not for profit organisation.
Heres a few of the costs required to run IPSCA, I won't go in the exact figures or the exact membership numbers for obvious reasons. IPSC CA probably has similar expenses.
Public liabilty insurance for all members shooting at sanctioned matchs.
Professional indemnity insurance for executive members.
Website hosting fees and bandwidth fees.
Travel and accomodation for state section co-ordinators to twice yearly meetings.
Team shirts.
Team entry fees for world shoot.
Team coach airfares and accomodation.
Regional director travel and accomodation costs to attend IPSC Int general assembly.
ROs food and accomodation for Nationals (we use dedicated ROs).
Annual magazine (hopefully)
Annual mail out of membership renewal forms.
Annual mail out of membership cards.
Annual accounting and audit fees.
Bank fees.
IPSC is very much a minority sport in the shooting world. Because we tend to be more visible in our shooting gear, noisier in our actual shooting & after partying, travel a lot to compete and use the internet to communicate we give a false impression of our numbers. This is actually a good thing politically. But the raw numbers are a lot less than the impression we give out.
In my home town I estimate there are roughly 300-400 IPSC shooters, including those who only shoot at club level and do not join up.
There are 28,000 members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and roughly 6000 members of the Amateur Pistol Association in the same city.
The SSAA Sydney Branch, with five ranges that it draws range fees from and 28,000 members only produces a surplus of around $250,000 per year.
Do the math. Smaller organisations have to spend more money from each membership fee on the basics of running the organisation.
If you want IPSC to do more, it's up to the members and the clubs, not the national executive. Their job is to create the legal framework that others can operate under.
Want more public outreach? Then your club needs to hold an open day with a leaflet drop to the local suburbs saying come and try shooting. The fact that you can talk about practical shooting being an international sport rather than paramilitary yahoos running around with guns will give you credibility. I was co-organiser of two open days that gave 2,000 new to shooting people some range time and gave our range credibility when we lobbied to keep it open.
Want more political outreach? Then invite your local member of parliament down to the local range to give out prizes at a shoot. The IPSC banner will give it the cover of respectability they need. Have the local newspaper take photos. It gives the member some publicity and puts them on side. At the 2003 Australian Nationals the local MP was able to speak to 300 people, do a meet and greet and get his photo in the local paper.
All politics is local. Policy is not. Anti-gun policy will be set by people who have achieved ministerial level or their advisors who think they are above local politics. At that level they are beholden to their financial backers and major news outlets and listen only to professional advisors such as police departments. They will rarely take advice from shooting organisations if their mind is already set. The one time we Aussies were able to overturn a decision (pump action rifle ban) we got in with our lobbying before the formal vote was taken and the announcement made, much like the semi-auto ban you guys almost had last year.
I've sat on ministerial level meetings at both the state and national levels. It can take up to three months to get a meeting with a minister and usually you will only get minor concessions on things such as range access or paper work issues, rarely if ever will they conceed any policy change. They may conceed the justice or the common sense of what is asked for, but they will not change due to the prejudices of those in high office or for fear of bad publicity from the anti gun press.
When we are invited to such meetings it is really so they can claim they have 'consulted all stake holders.'
Where they are vunerable is with the back benchers who elect them to that level of authority. For that to be of value you must have the local members of parliament on side and that requires action at the local club level.
The next thing I would like to point out is that a house divided will not stand. I know that you, the individual reader, thinks that your politic views are right. I sure do. The problem is that the guys on the other side of politics do as well. Some of them shoot IPSC. Any attempt by the IPSC CA board to become partisan political supporters of the conservatives will just cause the liberal members of IPSC (and there will be some) to leave or attack the executive.
At our recent state election here in New South Wales, the shooters party candidate was the SSAA state secretary and SSAA donated to his campaign. The Newcastle SSAA branch, who's membership was very heavily influnced by the labor party, took exception to this and sought legal advice on how to stop it. Regardless that Labor have tried to take their guns on three occasions, their loyalty was to the labor party first. The same could and probably would happen in Canada.
On to the idea of trolls. Orginally known in politics as a fifth column, or saboteurs, these are people who will destroy an organisation from within for ulterior purposes while proclaiming to be it's saviours.
Sometimes they are mentally unhinged individuals, usually they are quite intelligent but with destructive motives. often they will advocate destroying an organisation to save it, or advocate people leaving to make it better. There is a logical disconnect here, but they attempt to hide this behind bluster about the need to 'do something', teach them a lesson', 'show then whose boss'. It's aways them or they by the way, never a specific named individual with specfic failures to fullfill their duties at specific times. Generalities are harder to disprove and when people are upset by such they are harder to calm down becuase you cannot address a specific grievance.
Such trolling is invariably aimed at harming an organisation by setting it's membership against it's leaders. When the leaders are hearing nothing but discontent for a considerable period of time they tend to throw their hands in the air and walk off. Volunteer labour is given for the satisfaction that comes from helping others and in building something that is seen to be good. When the appreciation of the majority is hidden by or corrupted by the noise and disruption of the destructive minority then the leaders will quit. It becomes more satisfactory to work on building a business or raising a family than continuing with unappreciated volunteer labour.
Saboteurs & trolls will decline any attempt to sort out their grievances off of the lines of mass communication. They are not interested in handling their grievances, they are only interested in disturbing the lines of mass communication within the group and causing disruption within the membership.
This occurred at Glocktalk.com some years ago, when a republican party operative nicknamed JB managed to cause a considerable amount of turmoil on the forums, as he advocated the ridicule of anyone who did not follow the republican party platform, to the point that Eric the site owner was under attack from his own board users. Things calmed down after JBs banning.
This occurred on the Beretta forum as well, where a US Army shrink set himself up as the saviour of the board who would have to be banned (martyred) because he would not change, even when politely requested to by the board owner. _He was publicly advocating the murder of people who did not agree with his politics_. He had created so much turmoil that several long term erudite posters quit the forum in protesting at his banning. yet the board returned to normal discourse soon afterwards and is still one of the most, if not the most polite forums I visit.
Those who post on www.thehighroad.org will notice that the legal and political forum has been closed due to continuous trolling by people with a motive other than the advocation of firearms rights. Reading between the lines they were often the partisans of several different candidates for the republican nomination.
Similar trolling, mainly over religion, occurred on www.thefiringline.com several years ago. It had closed down within a month of this occurring.
Trolls are destructive. Arguing can be fun and passionate, but if it drives out members, makes people quit positions that they work in, discourages new people or causes turmoil between otherwise creative or helpfull individuals then it is destructive and should be treated as such.
ICQ is a saboteur.
"Give'them' a kick in the nuts". "Threaten not to renew your membership"
Translation: Upset the executive. Make lots more unneeded work for them in handling your irate enquiries so they feel disheartened and can't do the jobs they were elected to do in the limited free time they have available.
"I let mine lapse because they have done nothing to ensure handgun ownership in this country will continue"
Translation: I am not a member. I do not shoot IPSC, I will ignore the fact that they provide the only internationally recognised sporting reason for large calibre centrefire semi automatic handgun ownership in Canada. I will advocate that members who do shoot IPSC quit and stop shooting it.
"The sitrep is a farce politically"
Tranlation: I will assign a false purpose to the results newsletter and then attack it for not achieving that purpose, which will cause dissent among the readers.
"I have seen no action at all on firearms rights from IPSC Canada"
Translation: I have not researched, and do not want to because I may be proved wrong. I will make a broad brush statement without giving any specifics of failings, because this is harder to defend against and will create more distrust in the membership.
"It's time all orgs started to pull their weight. If not cut them loose and let them drift."
Translation: I will use 'them' & 'all' to insinuate that IPSC has an undefined purpose other than the training of shooters and the holding of competions; and that IPSC has not fullfilled this unnamed purpose. I will also insinuate that other un-named organisations have also failed to meet this goal and members should quit.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem"
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not listen to me then you are the enemy.
"First I would much rather be shooting than spending money on ATIPS and fighting with the Privacy Commissioner so please don't tell me what I would rather be doing. "
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
"Rather than employing political spin when stating how IPSC is involved supply some concrete examples and I will gladly admit my mistake, however I am confident I will not have to."
Translation: Having made undefined accusations I will require the group I am attacking to defend itself, rather than substantiating my claims. Also., I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me, then you are the enemy.
"JJackman it is really difficult to be more of an ass than pitbull Bryant but you have succeeded."
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
Note also that ICQ has not offered to take up Quigleys offer of discussing the matter off line, instead he has made further attacked IPSC. Nor has he recognised any failing in his own statements.This is par for the course, as his apparent purpose, based on his actions, is causing dissent, not resolving it.
In short summary:
IPSC is not a money making machine. Political lobbying is not it's purpose.
IPSC provides legitimacy to 'combat' shooting that no other discipline can provide. Lobbying at the local level using the umbrella of IPSC for legitimacy will get results. Lobbying at the national level will not.
IPSCs purpose is the training of shooters and organisation of competions in the IPSC disciplines, which it fullfills well.
Saboteurs use the communication lines of an organisation to cause dissent among members and to de-moralise the workers.
ICQ shows all of the characteristics of a saboteur, trying to create dissent and destroy the IPSC community. Regardless of any other good they he may claim to be doing in other areas, by his actions he shows himself to be destructive to the IPSC community in Canada. Until he comes to his senses and by word and deed shows that he will not try to harm IPSC further, it would be best if he is not given a forum to attempt to further harm the organisation or cause strife among it's members.
I've sat in on the Australian executive meetings a couple of times. The last one we argued wether a twenty dollar a year levy needed to break even would be accepted by the membership. There was literally no fat available to trim and no reserves to speak of. I doubt IPSC CA does a hell of a lot better, being a volunteer, not for profit organisation.
Heres a few of the costs required to run IPSCA, I won't go in the exact figures or the exact membership numbers for obvious reasons. IPSC CA probably has similar expenses.
Public liabilty insurance for all members shooting at sanctioned matchs.
Professional indemnity insurance for executive members.
Website hosting fees and bandwidth fees.
Travel and accomodation for state section co-ordinators to twice yearly meetings.
Team shirts.
Team entry fees for world shoot.
Team coach airfares and accomodation.
Regional director travel and accomodation costs to attend IPSC Int general assembly.
ROs food and accomodation for Nationals (we use dedicated ROs).
Annual magazine (hopefully)
Annual mail out of membership renewal forms.
Annual mail out of membership cards.
Annual accounting and audit fees.
Bank fees.
IPSC is very much a minority sport in the shooting world. Because we tend to be more visible in our shooting gear, noisier in our actual shooting & after partying, travel a lot to compete and use the internet to communicate we give a false impression of our numbers. This is actually a good thing politically. But the raw numbers are a lot less than the impression we give out.
In my home town I estimate there are roughly 300-400 IPSC shooters, including those who only shoot at club level and do not join up.
There are 28,000 members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and roughly 6000 members of the Amateur Pistol Association in the same city.
The SSAA Sydney Branch, with five ranges that it draws range fees from and 28,000 members only produces a surplus of around $250,000 per year.
Do the math. Smaller organisations have to spend more money from each membership fee on the basics of running the organisation.
If you want IPSC to do more, it's up to the members and the clubs, not the national executive. Their job is to create the legal framework that others can operate under.
Want more public outreach? Then your club needs to hold an open day with a leaflet drop to the local suburbs saying come and try shooting. The fact that you can talk about practical shooting being an international sport rather than paramilitary yahoos running around with guns will give you credibility. I was co-organiser of two open days that gave 2,000 new to shooting people some range time and gave our range credibility when we lobbied to keep it open.
Want more political outreach? Then invite your local member of parliament down to the local range to give out prizes at a shoot. The IPSC banner will give it the cover of respectability they need. Have the local newspaper take photos. It gives the member some publicity and puts them on side. At the 2003 Australian Nationals the local MP was able to speak to 300 people, do a meet and greet and get his photo in the local paper.
All politics is local. Policy is not. Anti-gun policy will be set by people who have achieved ministerial level or their advisors who think they are above local politics. At that level they are beholden to their financial backers and major news outlets and listen only to professional advisors such as police departments. They will rarely take advice from shooting organisations if their mind is already set. The one time we Aussies were able to overturn a decision (pump action rifle ban) we got in with our lobbying before the formal vote was taken and the announcement made, much like the semi-auto ban you guys almost had last year.
I've sat on ministerial level meetings at both the state and national levels. It can take up to three months to get a meeting with a minister and usually you will only get minor concessions on things such as range access or paper work issues, rarely if ever will they conceed any policy change. They may conceed the justice or the common sense of what is asked for, but they will not change due to the prejudices of those in high office or for fear of bad publicity from the anti gun press.
When we are invited to such meetings it is really so they can claim they have 'consulted all stake holders.'
Where they are vunerable is with the back benchers who elect them to that level of authority. For that to be of value you must have the local members of parliament on side and that requires action at the local club level.
The next thing I would like to point out is that a house divided will not stand. I know that you, the individual reader, thinks that your politic views are right. I sure do. The problem is that the guys on the other side of politics do as well. Some of them shoot IPSC. Any attempt by the IPSC CA board to become partisan political supporters of the conservatives will just cause the liberal members of IPSC (and there will be some) to leave or attack the executive.
At our recent state election here in New South Wales, the shooters party candidate was the SSAA state secretary and SSAA donated to his campaign. The Newcastle SSAA branch, who's membership was very heavily influnced by the labor party, took exception to this and sought legal advice on how to stop it. Regardless that Labor have tried to take their guns on three occasions, their loyalty was to the labor party first. The same could and probably would happen in Canada.
On to the idea of trolls. Orginally known in politics as a fifth column, or saboteurs, these are people who will destroy an organisation from within for ulterior purposes while proclaiming to be it's saviours.
Sometimes they are mentally unhinged individuals, usually they are quite intelligent but with destructive motives. often they will advocate destroying an organisation to save it, or advocate people leaving to make it better. There is a logical disconnect here, but they attempt to hide this behind bluster about the need to 'do something', teach them a lesson', 'show then whose boss'. It's aways them or they by the way, never a specific named individual with specfic failures to fullfill their duties at specific times. Generalities are harder to disprove and when people are upset by such they are harder to calm down becuase you cannot address a specific grievance.
Such trolling is invariably aimed at harming an organisation by setting it's membership against it's leaders. When the leaders are hearing nothing but discontent for a considerable period of time they tend to throw their hands in the air and walk off. Volunteer labour is given for the satisfaction that comes from helping others and in building something that is seen to be good. When the appreciation of the majority is hidden by or corrupted by the noise and disruption of the destructive minority then the leaders will quit. It becomes more satisfactory to work on building a business or raising a family than continuing with unappreciated volunteer labour.
Saboteurs & trolls will decline any attempt to sort out their grievances off of the lines of mass communication. They are not interested in handling their grievances, they are only interested in disturbing the lines of mass communication within the group and causing disruption within the membership.
This occurred at Glocktalk.com some years ago, when a republican party operative nicknamed JB managed to cause a considerable amount of turmoil on the forums, as he advocated the ridicule of anyone who did not follow the republican party platform, to the point that Eric the site owner was under attack from his own board users. Things calmed down after JBs banning.
This occurred on the Beretta forum as well, where a US Army shrink set himself up as the saviour of the board who would have to be banned (martyred) because he would not change, even when politely requested to by the board owner. _He was publicly advocating the murder of people who did not agree with his politics_. He had created so much turmoil that several long term erudite posters quit the forum in protesting at his banning. yet the board returned to normal discourse soon afterwards and is still one of the most, if not the most polite forums I visit.
Those who post on www.thehighroad.org will notice that the legal and political forum has been closed due to continuous trolling by people with a motive other than the advocation of firearms rights. Reading between the lines they were often the partisans of several different candidates for the republican nomination.
Similar trolling, mainly over religion, occurred on www.thefiringline.com several years ago. It had closed down within a month of this occurring.
Trolls are destructive. Arguing can be fun and passionate, but if it drives out members, makes people quit positions that they work in, discourages new people or causes turmoil between otherwise creative or helpfull individuals then it is destructive and should be treated as such.
ICQ is a saboteur.
"Give'them' a kick in the nuts". "Threaten not to renew your membership"
Translation: Upset the executive. Make lots more unneeded work for them in handling your irate enquiries so they feel disheartened and can't do the jobs they were elected to do in the limited free time they have available.
"I let mine lapse because they have done nothing to ensure handgun ownership in this country will continue"
Translation: I am not a member. I do not shoot IPSC, I will ignore the fact that they provide the only internationally recognised sporting reason for large calibre centrefire semi automatic handgun ownership in Canada. I will advocate that members who do shoot IPSC quit and stop shooting it.
"The sitrep is a farce politically"
Tranlation: I will assign a false purpose to the results newsletter and then attack it for not achieving that purpose, which will cause dissent among the readers.
"I have seen no action at all on firearms rights from IPSC Canada"
Translation: I have not researched, and do not want to because I may be proved wrong. I will make a broad brush statement without giving any specifics of failings, because this is harder to defend against and will create more distrust in the membership.
"It's time all orgs started to pull their weight. If not cut them loose and let them drift."
Translation: I will use 'them' & 'all' to insinuate that IPSC has an undefined purpose other than the training of shooters and the holding of competions; and that IPSC has not fullfilled this unnamed purpose. I will also insinuate that other un-named organisations have also failed to meet this goal and members should quit.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem"
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not listen to me then you are the enemy.
"First I would much rather be shooting than spending money on ATIPS and fighting with the Privacy Commissioner so please don't tell me what I would rather be doing. "
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
"Rather than employing political spin when stating how IPSC is involved supply some concrete examples and I will gladly admit my mistake, however I am confident I will not have to."
Translation: Having made undefined accusations I will require the group I am attacking to defend itself, rather than substantiating my claims. Also., I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me, then you are the enemy.
"JJackman it is really difficult to be more of an ass than pitbull Bryant but you have succeeded."
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
Note also that ICQ has not offered to take up Quigleys offer of discussing the matter off line, instead he has made further attacked IPSC. Nor has he recognised any failing in his own statements.This is par for the course, as his apparent purpose, based on his actions, is causing dissent, not resolving it.
In short summary:
IPSC is not a money making machine. Political lobbying is not it's purpose.
IPSC provides legitimacy to 'combat' shooting that no other discipline can provide. Lobbying at the local level using the umbrella of IPSC for legitimacy will get results. Lobbying at the national level will not.
IPSCs purpose is the training of shooters and organisation of competions in the IPSC disciplines, which it fullfills well.
Saboteurs use the communication lines of an organisation to cause dissent among members and to de-moralise the workers.
ICQ shows all of the characteristics of a saboteur, trying to create dissent and destroy the IPSC community. Regardless of any other good they he may claim to be doing in other areas, by his actions he shows himself to be destructive to the IPSC community in Canada. Until he comes to his senses and by word and deed shows that he will not try to harm IPSC further, it would be best if he is not given a forum to attempt to further harm the organisation or cause strife among it's members.
Last edited:
Whoa, stay away from the forum for a couple of days, and then come back to this 
My first impression is that this is someone complaining that "someone ELSE" isn't doing enough to ensure that person's ability to continue to enjoy HIS sport. Give me a break.
Writer letters to the editor, give financial and time support to the party which you think is the least hostile to you, talk to your friends, and if every gun owner did that, the effect would be thousands of time stronger than anything any one "gun lobby" organization can do.
ipsc is a sporting organization, that's all. you join it to participate in the sport, that's all. join the cssa for political clout.
My first impression is that this is someone complaining that "someone ELSE" isn't doing enough to ensure that person's ability to continue to enjoy HIS sport. Give me a break.
Writer letters to the editor, give financial and time support to the party which you think is the least hostile to you, talk to your friends, and if every gun owner did that, the effect would be thousands of time stronger than anything any one "gun lobby" organization can do.
ipsc is a sporting organization, that's all. you join it to participate in the sport, that's all. join the cssa for political clout.
ICQ is a saboteur.
"Give'them' a kick in the nuts". "Threaten not to renew your membership"
Translation: Upset the executive. Make lots more unneeded work for them in handling your irate enquiries so they feel disheartened and can't do the jobs they were elected to do in the limited free time they have available.
"I let mine lapse because they have done nothing to ensure handgun ownership in this country will continue"
Translation: I am not a member. I do not shoot IPSC, I will ignore the fact that they provide the only internationally recognised sporting reason for large calibre centrefire semi automatic handgun ownership in Canada. I will advocate that members who do shoot IPSC quit and stop shooting it.
"The sitrep is a farce politically"
Tranlation: I will assign a false purpose to the results newsletter and then attack it for not achieving that purpose, which will cause dissent among the readers.
"I have seen no action at all on firearms rights from IPSC Canada"
Translation: I have not researched, and do not want to because I may be proved wrong. I will make a broad brush statement without giving any specifics of failings, because this is harder to defend against and will create more distrust in the membership.
"It's time all orgs started to pull their weight. If not cut them loose and let them drift."
Translation: I will use 'them' & 'all' to insinuate that IPSC has an undefined purpose other than the training of shooters and the holding of competions; and that IPSC has not fullfilled this unnamed purpose. I will also insinuate that other un-named organisations have also failed to meet this goal and members should quit.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem"
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not listen to me then you are the enemy.
"First I would much rather be shooting than spending money on ATIPS and fighting with the Privacy Commissioner so please don't tell me what I would rather be doing. "
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
"Rather than employing political spin when stating how IPSC is involved supply some concrete examples and I will gladly admit my mistake, however I am confident I will not have to."
Translation: Having made undefined accusations I will require the group I am attacking to defend itself, rather than substantiating my claims. Also., I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me, then you are the enemy.
"JJackman it is really difficult to be more of an ass than pitbull Bryant but you have succeeded."
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
Note also that ICQ has not offered to take up Quigleys offer of discussing the matter off line, instead he has made further attacked IPSC. Nor has he recognised any failing in his own statements.This is par for the course, as his apparent purpose, based on his actions, is causing dissent, not resolving it.
In short summary:
IPSC is not a money making machine. Political lobbying is not it's purpose.
IPSC provides legitimacy to 'combat' shooting that no other discipline can provide. Lobbying at the local level using the umbrella of IPSC for legitimacy will get results. Lobbying at the national level will not.
IPSCs purpose is the training of shooters and organisation of competions in the IPSC disciplines, which it fullfills well.
Saboteurs use the communication lines of an organisation to cause dissent among members and to de-moralise the workers.
ICQ shows all of the characteristics of a saboteur, trying to create dissent and destroy the IPSC community. Regardless of any other good they he may claim to be doing in other areas, by his actions he shows himself to be destructive to the IPSC community in Canada. Until he comes to his senses and by word and deed shows that he will not try to harm IPSC further, it would be best if he is not given a forum to attempt to further harm the organisation or cause strife among it's members.[/QUOTE]
Well done
Sig & Curt
DVC
"Give'them' a kick in the nuts". "Threaten not to renew your membership"
Translation: Upset the executive. Make lots more unneeded work for them in handling your irate enquiries so they feel disheartened and can't do the jobs they were elected to do in the limited free time they have available.
"I let mine lapse because they have done nothing to ensure handgun ownership in this country will continue"
Translation: I am not a member. I do not shoot IPSC, I will ignore the fact that they provide the only internationally recognised sporting reason for large calibre centrefire semi automatic handgun ownership in Canada. I will advocate that members who do shoot IPSC quit and stop shooting it.
"The sitrep is a farce politically"
Tranlation: I will assign a false purpose to the results newsletter and then attack it for not achieving that purpose, which will cause dissent among the readers.
"I have seen no action at all on firearms rights from IPSC Canada"
Translation: I have not researched, and do not want to because I may be proved wrong. I will make a broad brush statement without giving any specifics of failings, because this is harder to defend against and will create more distrust in the membership.
"It's time all orgs started to pull their weight. If not cut them loose and let them drift."
Translation: I will use 'them' & 'all' to insinuate that IPSC has an undefined purpose other than the training of shooters and the holding of competions; and that IPSC has not fullfilled this unnamed purpose. I will also insinuate that other un-named organisations have also failed to meet this goal and members should quit.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem"
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not listen to me then you are the enemy.
"First I would much rather be shooting than spending money on ATIPS and fighting with the Privacy Commissioner so please don't tell me what I would rather be doing. "
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
"Rather than employing political spin when stating how IPSC is involved supply some concrete examples and I will gladly admit my mistake, however I am confident I will not have to."
Translation: Having made undefined accusations I will require the group I am attacking to defend itself, rather than substantiating my claims. Also., I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me, then you are the enemy.
"JJackman it is really difficult to be more of an ass than pitbull Bryant but you have succeeded."
Translation: I am the saviour, if you do not agree with me then you are the enemy.
Note also that ICQ has not offered to take up Quigleys offer of discussing the matter off line, instead he has made further attacked IPSC. Nor has he recognised any failing in his own statements.This is par for the course, as his apparent purpose, based on his actions, is causing dissent, not resolving it.
In short summary:
IPSC is not a money making machine. Political lobbying is not it's purpose.
IPSC provides legitimacy to 'combat' shooting that no other discipline can provide. Lobbying at the local level using the umbrella of IPSC for legitimacy will get results. Lobbying at the national level will not.
IPSCs purpose is the training of shooters and organisation of competions in the IPSC disciplines, which it fullfills well.
Saboteurs use the communication lines of an organisation to cause dissent among members and to de-moralise the workers.
ICQ shows all of the characteristics of a saboteur, trying to create dissent and destroy the IPSC community. Regardless of any other good they he may claim to be doing in other areas, by his actions he shows himself to be destructive to the IPSC community in Canada. Until he comes to his senses and by word and deed shows that he will not try to harm IPSC further, it would be best if he is not given a forum to attempt to further harm the organisation or cause strife among it's members.[/QUOTE]
Well done
Sig & Curt
DVC
