HISTORY:
Several years ago, the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) began a deliberate effort to make Practical Shooting more acceptable to the general public.
Their first step was to introduce the Classic target, a six-sided cardboard figure which perhaps most closely resembles a stop sign.
For years, every time Practical Shooting clubs attempted to demonstrate Practical Pistol (the only widely accepted kind of Practical Shooting at that time) to journalists, they found that the article generated by that exercise resulted mostly in criticism of the use of 'human-like' targets.
IPSC reasoned that the best approach to resolving that misconception was to change the target.
It didn't work. Journalists, and other non-shooting people who were the object of repeated efforts to demonstrate the competitive nature of Practical Shooting just couldn't get past the inherent genesis of the sport.
IPSC continued to advance the Classic target, though, in part because several nations who were part of the Confederation actually had laws forbidding the use of 'human-like' targets.
Those practical shooters who were not residents of restrictive nations, and who considered themselves 'traditionalists' or 'purists' objected to the target, and even to the name coined.
The original target proposed by Col. Jeff Cooper in the late 1970's, when he began the sport in a local club in SW America, was a rough rectangle with clubbed-corners, and a 'tab' at the top. This was blatantly and deliberately 'human-like' because the sport (which Cooper originally called "Combat Shooting") was intended to replicate the human figure in an imagined scenario calling for the competitor to defend himself against a human aggressor.
It was entirely defensive, yet it was still all too obviously "training to shoot humans".
As a consequence, in the increasingly "Politically Correct" world in which IPSC evolved, any attempt to propose what was then called "Practical Pistol Competition" as a legitimate sport faced a difficult pre-existing animosity and a politically incorrect history which was exactly what their detractors named it.
IPSC then began working on their Rules of Competition, also called the "IPSC Rule Book".
Changes in the rules were made to ensure that visitors to IPSC matches were not witness to obviously 'confrontational' reminders of the genesis of the sport. The advisories (embedded in the rule book) against the wearing of military or camouflaged clothing, or shirts bearing aggressive mottoes, had already been established.
New rules called for accommodations to less-skilled competitors in an attempt to make it easier to compete. The justification here was to retain new shooters, to not 'discourage' them because IPSC competition might be considered 'too difficult' (although the rules still included a proviso which forbade a competitor from protesting against a stage because it was too difficult.)
Practical Pistol as a "Demonstration Sport" in the Olympics:
In 1987, IPSC President Nick Alexakos (Canada) decided that the time had come to enter the world as a 'legitimate sport'. IPSC proposed to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that Practical Pistol competition be introduced as a "demonstration sport". That is, not a 'competition event', but merely a non-competitive demonstration of the sport for the amusement and edification of the spectators.
Upon announcement of their attentions, IPSC was the subject of considerable criticism from its membership; particularly, those members who were United States Citizens and who considered themselves 'traditionalists'.
The criticisms centered around three main points of contention:
- IPSC shooting is not a spectator sport; it is boring to watch, and the complex rules are often not easily understood.
- "Dumbing Down" IPSC competition to meet the least-common-denominator expectations of the average observer was a tacit admission that IPSC competition is somehow not a wholesome shooting activity. As such, it actually reinforced the criticisms of its detractors.
- The world was not ready for IPSC competition as a legitimate shooting sport. Introducing it as a 'demonstration event' at that time could cause a backlash which would make it even more difficult to institute a similar effort in later years, when the world had been prepared for the concept of the legitimacy of all shooting sports.
This, even though shotgun shooting and biathlon shooting have been included in Olympic competition for decades!
NOTE: It may be significant that information about the attempt to legitimize the competitive shooting sports, or reference to the attempt, was never recorded in a public venue by IPSC.
However, it was recorded in excruciatingly lurid (and biased) detail by one of the premier foes of private firearms ownership, The Violence Policy Center, in its 1987 multi-part treatise "Gold Medal Gunslingers" (sub-titled "Combat Shooting Targets the Olympic Games.")
One can't help but wonder whether IPSC might have done itself a favor by as publically announcing its policy, and the background justification, as its most deadly enemy has done. This may be just one more example of the amateur approach to public relations which has typified the leadership of IPSC President Nick Alexakos. One thing is certain: IPSC public relations efforts have done little to to advance the cause of legitimizing private ownership of firearms, but it has served well the cause of its opposition. This is only one more example of an opportunity which was not only overlooked, but instead clumsily provided ammunition to its detractors.
That was Then; This is Now:
On October 9, 2007, the Online Magazine "The Shooting Wire" released a Feature Article by Steve Wagner titled " Pro Shooters Pull The Industry: Firearm Industry Builds Pro Shooters - and Vice Versa"
In his article, Wagner notes that the firearms industry has sponsored champion-quality shooters for over a century (starting with Marlin's sponsorship of Annie Oakley) and this trend has recently reached a new level:
Why is competitive shooting 'suddenly' become more 'Politically Correct'?
Legitimizing Shooting Sports
Nike is known worldwide for its roster of sponsored pro athletes who become household names and faces: Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Michael Jordan and many more. But no shooter has ever broken the Nike barrier—until now.
In May 2007, (Olympic shotgun shooter Kim ) Rhode, who's medaled in the last three Olympics, announced that she'd been selected to join the sports-world's most elite beneath the Nike banner.
"Nike didn't know a lot about shooting but discovered that it's a real sport worthy of projecting in a positive light, right alongside golf and tennis and basketball. For shooting to have a mogul like Nike behind it, backing it, showcasing it, highlighting what shooters can achieve, is extremely outside the box. And it's a very big deal for our sport," said Rhode.
Shari LeGate, a former U.S. shotgun champion now a correspondent for ESPN, says proof of shooting sports' growing popularity isn't just anecdotal.
"Television ratings tell the story in real numbers, and ratings keep going up when ESPN airs shooting competition," she said. "Shooting has never been covered in the Olympics like it should, but with the old ESPN Great Outdoor Games, and now with the Collegiate Clay Target Championships—both sponsored in part by NSSF—ESPN is helping sports fans see that shooting is fast paced, interesting, and the athletes themselves are clear-eyed, intense competitors just like those in other sports."
Thoughtfully, LeGate added, "The only thing stopping shooting from becoming a major sport on TV is TV itself, because of the stigma that all media, not just ESPN, attaches to guns. At last, ratings are helping to change all that."
Today, more corporate money than ever is flowing into professional and competitive shooting.Why to people want to shoot guns?
"The race is on to get your company's product into the hands of the evangelists—pros who shoot often and shoot well, who travel and meet lots of people, who are charismatic and influential in building brand awareness, and who ultimately help move product out the door," said Chris Dolnack, senior vice president of the firearm industry's National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
Today's pro shooters are a fresh face for an old industry that is finally growing up. So says Michael Bane, host and producer of "The Shooting Gallery" on The Outdoor Channel and "Down Range TV" on the Internet.
"Corporate sponsorship of shooters has always gone in fits and starts, but now there's a definite upward trend and that's a sign of a healthy, maturing industry," said Bane.
He explained, "It shows that we've come through an era when we were constantly under attack from anti-gunners and our only motto was defense, defense, defense. Now we're being proactive. We've realized that the primary way to grow our business is to build competitors and competitions, because that grows the pool of active customers who don't just own firearms—they use them."
Paul Erhardt of SIGARMS put it even more succinctly: "Competition sucks bullets out of guns."
There are a finite number of reasons why people own and use guns, and an examination of these reasons is perhaps an outline of the history of guns:
- Military; as a weapon in war
- Defensive; as a weapon of personal defense
- Criminal; as an instrument of murder for a variety of reasons (or suicide)
- Criminal; as a means to intimidate other people for personal gain
- Defensive: as a means to protect ones self or others against aggressors (including rogue governments)
- Hunting; as a way to feed the family
- Sporting; as a means of competition, amusement, or developing personal skills
A few recognized hunting as a 'legitimate use of a firearm', but in the modern age of grocery stores where you could buy turkey and beef and pork pre-slaughtered, the concept of 'slaughter' has been degenerated as an entirely prohibitive activity. That is, if you can get someone else to slaughter meat for your dinner, the only reason you would wish to slaughter animals must be because you enjoy the exercise of killing. This should, the reasoning goes, be discouraged.
As 'civilization' becomes more widespread, any activity which involves the personal killing of animals (let alone people!) is increasingly subject to alarm and abhorrence.
Enter Competitive Shooting:
In recent years, people who have purchased firearms for defense (another activity which is often looked upon with suspicion, but which may be marginally acceptable) have discovered that the possession of a defensive firearm adds issues to their personal life.
First, there is the need to improve gun-handling skills, to initiate and to continue a program of training and a personal regimen of improvement in regards to controlling a weapon.
Second, after one has spent time and money in acquisition of a firearm, and training ... what is one to do with it? A firearm has no value when it is sitting in the drawer of a night-stand. It is only useful when it is used. Nobody is content with laying awake at night, hoping some drugged-out fool breaks down your front door so they may be killed with impunity. This is a worse-case scenario. Except for sociopaths, there is no common desire to use a firearm to kill people.
Third, although you may think you are skilled in the usage of your firearm, there is always a niggling question ... am I as good as the next person? How do my skills rate when compared to other people?
Firearms competition may be the best way to test these skills.
Practical Pistol competition provides an opportunity for each individual to regularly test his own gun-handling skills. It's a training exercise, conducted under the most safe conditions possible ... where-in the individual competitor is exposed to the pressure of competition (similar to, but not identical to, the pressure of self-defense) under the close observance of a certified Range Officer.
Competition also provides a venue which permits regular usage of a handgun (most recently, long guns are also included in Practical competition). We no longer need to submit ourselves to boring practice shooting at bullseye targets. We are presented with the opportunity to learn how to shot and move, engage moving targets, and shoot for 'score' while under the pressure of the need to shoot quickly with the expectation that we must move to engage multiple targets.
All of these criteria are wrapped up in a venue where we are competing against other people with similar equipment, so that we may evaluate our own performance in direct comparison to each other.
The Olympics? If not Today ... Tomorrow?
This is not to say that Practical Shooting may ever be acceptable as an Olympic Sport. The political and cultural bias against the shooting sports has probably not yet been eased by Corporate Sponsorship of Competitive Shooters. It is, however, likely that an element of doubt has been introduced which may influence established preconceptions.
The very fact that the experiences of others proves that firearms usage is ... sometimes ... justifiable in a completely benign competitive venue suggests that an arbitrarily negative viewpoint is not universally applicable to our current cultural norm.
Had IPSC delayed their attempted foray into the Olympic forum until Competitive Marksmanship (if such a terminology may be here employed) had been established, the concept of "Practical Shooting as an Olympic Demonstration Sport" might be acceptable in the near future, given the current climate.
Unfortunately, due to the ill-conceived timing of IPSC leadership, the waters of Competitive Marksmanship have been muddied, perhaps irretrievably.
We can only wait for the socio-political climate to become more accepting to this proposition. It may take years before the bad feelings caused by the premature assertion by IPSC have waned sufficiently that IOC is willing to considers the concept that competitive shooting, no matter the characteristics of the firearms involved, is an acceptable sport.
Now it only remains to be seen whether IPSC will again throw away an advantage which is no credit to its own efforts, and will yield to its more clever and media-savvy opposition. The consensus here is that the provincially oriented IPSC leadership has not the energy, the vision or the competence to promote its own implicit agenda of justifying firearms rights.
How long will IPSC membership allow its elected leaders to undermine their collective priorities? It may require a restructuring of the International Confederacy before we begin to recognize our own heretofore unused influence.
The first step may well be to discharge the IPSC leadership, and elect people who are not only willing to serve, but to adequately represent its constituency.
Small chance of that happening. The past decade (and more) of incompetence is indicative of the political naivety of the membership. Most of us just want to shoot. We don't want to deal with political issues, and as a result we may find ourselves disenfranchised because of the incompetence of the only people we can find who are willing to accept the responsibility of representation.
As titillating as this article is, I'm still not prepared to accept The Boston Herald as a sole source for evidence of a Jekyll/Hyde symposium in the 
We know that we have politicians who are physicians; witness Howard Dean.
