# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

## Koshogi

I recently took the firearms safety course run by the Mountain Safety Council at Auckland Central Police Station.

After hearing and reading some information about the course, I was looking forward to it. I felt that this course would be well structured and thought out. Offering a sound foundation for new shooters, instructing them in the types of firearms, their safe handling and an outline of the legislative act.

I could not have been further from the truth.

The course appeared to have no structure at all. If their were any learning outcomes other than the seven firearm rules, they were not presented or achieved. Much of the time spent discussing the seven firearm rules was utilized on a story, which was often drawn out so long and convoluted that I had to refer to the manual several times to remember what we had began to discuss. Yes, storytelling can be a useful way to provide an example of real world use or accidents, but it must easily connected to the topic.

Some vital information, required for the test, was only briefly touched on as the tests were handed out. Once again, this information was presented in a confusing and convoluted manner.

Information presented was often misleading or incorrect, such as:Students were told that it was allowed to leave a firearm unattended in a vehicle.Thumb hole stocks made a semi automatic an E Category firearm-Example shown was a Ruger10/22.People shouldn't use safeties.Firearms must be stored out of sightHunting permits must be applied for months in advance and you must record the make, model and serial number of firearm to be used. If you buy a firearm after you apply, to not even think about taking it with you.Semi automatics are a poor choice for hunting.Display ammunition was often loaded and cycled though the action. Students were not informed that they were display only and could have easily believed that it was acceptable to cycle live ammunition through your firearm in a building.Shooting at night is perfectly safe. No mention was made, that it is illegal to shoot at night in State forests or National Parks.
Information that should have been included, but was not included or mentioned only in passing includes:Licence category'sFirearm types-This was briefly covered with examples of most types of actions shown. I do not believe it was to an acceptable standard.Types of ammunition-A wide range of ammunition was on display, but was not really covered. One person asked a question of what is the difference between a centerfire and a rimfire, the answer "One kills better".Use of accessories that would change a firearm to a different category, such as a magazine holding more than 7 rds of center fire ammunition in a semi automatic.Duties and obligations of a firearm owner and user
This course is often many peoples first contact with firearms. If information is delivered to them in a haphazard manner or the information conveyed is false or misleading, it defeats the purpose of the course. People will not achieve the learning outcome(be safe and responsible firearms owners) and may face future criminal charges due to being presented with false information.

I feel that a practical skills test, such as what is in place in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, would be hugely beneficial.

The way that this course was delivered, two men sitting at the front of a large class talking at the class, is not conducive to an adult learning environment and does not cater for the 3 types of learners; auditory, visual and kinesthetic .

I believe that this course needs an urgent assessment on its suitability and relevancy to the required information. Instructors need further training, and need to be assessed on their competency to deliver this training in accordance NZQA framework.

----------


## JoshC

Good on you for bringing up your concerns. Did you make these concerns clear to the course advisors?? I think you should.

Personally I can't remember what mine was really like, other than it was by a guy who we knew already and most of us in the room had plenty of previous experience with firearms.

----------


## Koshogi

No. I did not bring up my concerns at the time. I feel that putting an instructor on the spot in front of a room of people is not fair, and the instructor usually gets their "back up". Not the best time for the review process to begin.

I have emailed my concerns to Mountain Safety Council and offered to assist them in developing a new training package. I await their response.

----------


## Rushy

As I recall the evening course that I attended all those years ago was very similar and the single instructor helped people pass their multiple choice test. There may be a business opportunity there.

----------


## Ryan

The only thing that I took away from my "course" was a healthy dose of disdain - thankfully I already had a fair amount of firearms experience prior to attending. The attitude was blasé to say the least and I don't think there was even a firearm of any kind present to demonstrate proper handling skills.

I've often said that a proficiency test should form a compulsory part of the firearms licence test - this is mandatory in South Africa as well as Canada.

----------


## Gibo

> I've often said that a proficiency test should form a compulsory part of the firearms licence test.


+1

----------


## mikee

+100

----------


## BRADS

I clearly remember when sitting mine that me and another guy passed, think you allowed two wrong?
The other like 6-8 guys got there papers altered so they passed.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Ryan

> The other like 6-8 guys got there papers altered so they passed.......
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fuck that, if you fail you fail - don't see many driving instructors "passing" prospective drivers.

----------


## veitnamcam

to the opening post.
That is absolutely Shithouse!

We all know they are too basic but that beggars belief the amount of misinformation there!

clearly the instructors had no idea of the rules.

Wait till you receive your licence and say something about it.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## ebf

Agree completely with the original post, mirrors my experience.

No point raising it with the "instructors", I think the system needs to change from the top, and some serious changes made to instructor competency and course content.

The guys on my course were going on about the benefits of the half cock vs using a safety.... I just decided to shut my mouth, pass the test and get my license...

----------


## GravelBen

Obviously the standard varies a bit, I remember mine being decent enough, mostly common sense. They did 'help' people pass the test, but they did it by explaining why some of the 'correct' answers were what they were - what with some of the questions being worded quite ambiguously or just being stupid questions.

I think I got one question wrong - "would you go hunting with someone who had been drinking alcohol". I ticked the box for "I would use my judgement", because if someone has (for example) had a beer with a meal a couple of hours earlier I don't think thats going to impair them. But the only acceptable answer was a flat 'no'.

I certainly agree that some practical training and/or testing should be included though.

----------


## Koshogi

> No point raising it with the "instructors", I think the system needs to change from the top, and some serious changes made to instructor competency and course content.


I agree completely. I am interested to see what, if any, is the response from MSC. As I said, I've offered to assist or if they want, to develop a structured training program. If MSC takes it's responsibility seriously, they do need to address this issue. If they do not, I believe NZ Police should take the funding and responsibility of firearms training away from them. 

Auditing and validation of a training package is continual process. I would be interested in seeing their auditing schedules and evaluations.




> I just decided to shut my mouth, pass the test and get my license...


I did the same. I learned long ago,that arguing with the instructor only wastes everybody's time. Many have the unfortunate attitude that because they are the "instructor", they know all and are incapable of learning themselves.

----------


## veitnamcam

Yes definitely would not raise the issue with instructors at the time.

It needs to be raised with police and msc.

The OP is the worst example I have heard by far.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Pengy

I have to say the OP pretty much mirrors my own experience of FAL test run by local FAO.
I learnt shitloads more from forums and books. The system needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to my mind. 
One would hope that the testing and teaching was more rigorous in light of the number of incidents occurring each year.

----------


## mikee

Mine was the same nearly 30 years ago
At the very least you shuld be taught how to correctly and safely check ALL types of firearms are unloaded and otherwise made safe. I include ALL types of action and handguns. Just because you only interest in one type does not mean you should not know how to check the others. 
A practical handling test would be difficult to administer but maybe / should be something to be considered. Considering how much sway the MSC have with police they should make the lecture relevant to today not 1965 . 
I along with other club members would have been happy to take my pistols / mssa's in to their course and demonstrate but no one was interested. It is/was all "hunting' related however many people are getting their licence who are not interested in hunting and will never hunt.

----------


## Koshogi

I don't believe that hanguns or MSSA should be included on a practical test on the standard firearm safety course.  
Handguns are covered already under the application process for their category of license.  MSSA could not be, due to the Arms Act. The operation of a MSSA doesn't generally differ from readily available A category firearms. 

The administration of the practical test would be easy.  It would only be required for the applicant to show that they can safely control a firearm,  inspect it and identify the major parts. Class sizes would need to be reduced to a maximum of 8-10 students per instructor. 

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

----------


## Savage1

This has inspired me to go and sit in on the next course they have to see what it's like. Can't really remember what it was like when I did mine.

----------


## Shooter

I did mine 15 years ago and it was the same.  There were three guys that got 5-6 questions wrong and the instructors simply talked them through it, resulting in a pass for all that attended.  I felt ripped off having studied up and getting all right.  All the question at the time were common sense so am unsure how you can get that many wrong.

End of story a fail is a fail!  Go away, study up and come back when you are competent.

----------


## dogmatix

I think we can all relate to our own tests.
I got 100% and was waiting for the practical part, as they had an example of each action.
But no, it was some long winded story about hunting at Woodhill.
Would have liked to have been shown how to operate, strip and clean the lever, semi and pump especially.

----------


## Maca49

Gillie should run these, haven't felt so rarked up for years after his safety talk at the TQiti shoot, there were yellow and red cards as well! Very professional, everybody was very well informed of the consequences of an F up. :Cool:  he had everyone's attention, well done @Gillie

----------


## Bill999

Iv got a great idea, why dont you experts join in with the rest of us volunteers who give up our time to help you ungreatfull gits get their firearms licence.

I saw the miss-communication coming thru the ranks right from the arms officers and being filtered thru and saw an opportunity to help

MSC is there to help you sit your licence, not teach you the rules, you should know them and have read them before arriving at the course. and know the arms code from cover to cover. 

sounds like this chap got a little off topic while he was taking time out of his life and volunteering to help you with your licence 

think you can do better? im sure the MSC is short staffed in your area

----------


## Maca49

Well said Bill999! :Thumbsup:  I think it also maybe that many of the older experience guys are getting harder to find. However I would expect them to be singing from the same hymn sheet. My old mate in Te Puke does it at the small bore club I think monthly, he's 75 now but all he knows is hunting, fishing and shooting firearms of all sorts. Hard to replace.

----------


## Koshogi

> Iv got a great idea, why dont you experts join in with the rest of us volunteers who give up our time


I have volunteered my time, to improve the structure of the course for benefit of all future firearm owners and users.




> to help you ungreatfull gits get their firearms licence.


This accurately portrays the mentality and attitude that is often faced when attempting to effect a change in a deeply entrenched environment. I think it clearly highlights why I did not mention this to the instructor during the course.




> MSC is there to help you sit your licence, not teach you the rules,


Definition of course in the context of education; is a unit of teaching. 

If the purpose of the MSC course is solely to administer the test, then it is a waste of resources. This could be conducted in the presence of a Police Officer like in Australia.

By the comments made by others, the MSC course surely does help people sit their licence test. Perhaps a little too much.




> sounds like this chap got a little off topic while he was taking time out of his life and volunteering to help you with your licence


I'm not sure if you actually read my comments. The instruction was a little more than off topic, it was completely lacking in a formulated structure.

Being a volunteer is a noble thing. I applaud everyone who actively contributes to the improvement of the community and society. Although this volunteer was not picking up garbage, he was instructing members of the community to safely own and use a potentially deadly weapon and providing them with information that could lead to death, injury or criminal proceedings. As such a benchmark must be set, and maintained for the delivery of the instruction during these courses.

Do not think that because you give your valuable time to volunteer, it does not give people the right to hold you to account for how you conduct yourself.




> think you can do better?


Yes. Given the opportunity, I will volunteer my time and training qualifications to develop a remodeled training package that is reliable and consistent, in accordance with the learning outcomes. I will also assist with the training and assessment of instructors if required.

----------


## Koshogi

> However I would expect them to be singing from the same hymn sheet.


Hence why I don't want to change the music, I just think that everybody should be singing in tune.

Just because you have knowledge and experience, does not mean that you have the skills necessary to impart that knowledge and skill to others. I want to help people do that.

I really hope that people can see that I am trying to provide constructive feedback.

I know change can bring fear and take people out of their comfort zone. I believe that this is an important issue, peoples lives are literally at stake.

Change is constant. Don't try and fight it.

----------


## Koshogi

The practical test conducted for the Canadian Firearm Safety course involves no live fire.

It is merely to show that a person can safely handle and operate a firearm. 

This is even a requirement for every member of the Australian Army prior to every live fire shoot.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

----------


## Bill999

Seriously dude join the msc volunteer your time on a regular basis and change the system from within 
Wingey wingey gets nothing done except profess that you are a know all blowhard

----------


## ebf

Bill, answer me this please...

Other than being willing to give up some of your time, what qualifications do you have to enable you to be a firearms safety instructor for MSC ?

Other than attending a couple of the courses to learn the "script", did you do any specific training around 
A) firearms safety
B) adult education

What vetting and quality control processes exist within MSC to weed out instructors imparting incorrect information ? Have any instructors been let go or forced to take remedial training in the last 5 years ?

----------


## Maca49

Yes. Given the opportunity, I will volunteer my time and training qualifications to develop a remodeled training package that is reliable and consistent, in accordance with the learning outcomes. I will also assist with the training and assessment of instructors if required.
As NIKE says JUST DO IT

----------


## Maca49

> Bill, answer me this please...
> 
> Other than being willing to give up some of your time, what qualifications do you have to enable you to be a firearms safety instructor for MSC ?
> 
> Other than attending a couple of the courses to learn the "script", did you do any specific training around 
> A) firearms safety
> B) adult education
> 
> What vetting and quality control processes exist within MSC to weed out instructors imparting incorrect information ? Have any instructors been let go or forced to take remedial training in the last 5 years ?


ebf i think you'd fit the bill as well!

----------


## Maca49

> Hence why I don't want to change the music, I just think that everybody should be singing in tune.
> 
> Just because you have knowledge and experience, does not mean that you have the skills necessary to impart that knowledge and skill to others. I want to help people do that.
> 
> I really hope that people can see that I am trying to provide constructive feedback.
> 
> I know change can bring fear and take people out of their comfort zone. I believe that this is an important issue, peoples lives are literally at stake.
> 
> Change is constant. Don't try and fight it.


I dont know much about these guys, but my mate tells me a little every now and then, I know he works in very closely with the local AO, there seems to be a lot of communication of accidents, near misses etc shared to help with the training. He also runs a tight ship, Id probably fail one of his courses and get my beans, but this man has years of practical shooting in most disciplines and hunting in NZ, including working as a guide for overseas hunters coming to NZ. Probably a bit of a rare find.

----------


## Gapped axe

sounds like a valuable find

----------


## dogmatix

And please make sure that they stop teaching people to use a half cock/bolt position instead of a safety on anything other than their grand dads .303.

----------


## Bill999

> Bill, answer me this please...
> 
> Other than being willing to give up some of your time, what qualifications do you have to enable you to be a firearms safety instructor for MSC ?
> 
> Other than attending a couple of the courses to learn the "script", did you do any specific training around 
> A) firearms safety
> B) adult education
> 
> What vetting and quality control processes exist within MSC to weed out instructors imparting incorrect information ? Have any instructors been let go or forced to take remedial training in the last 5 years ?


buggered if I know about the last 5 years, Iv only been doing it a short time
you are taught by a previous instructer and you are required to have a FAL and I believe no issues with the law 
You have access information regarding firearm incedents causing injury/death and I was shown that you try to stress that safety is paramount 

SafetySafetySafetySafety

encourage the safe use of firearms. and make sure people know that it isnt a joke, people die from miss use ect

Regarding helping people pass that isnt what the MSC wants
We will read thru a question to a person then tell them its a "safety test" so think about the safest answer.
If they obviously havent read the arms code they are to be asked to leave and come back when they have

it is a really basic test that you facilitate people sitting
If they have reading differculties then you read to them when they have trouble understanding a word or rephraze it without making it obvious 
you are there to help people understand safety with firearms, I see others beliefs creaping in regarding semi's and half bolt but that is totally personal opinions. 
the material you teach with is limited and out dated, but really stressing safety and overseeing a test is all you are there to do
and help if someone has trouble, because lets be honest some of the questions asked are fucking stupid, trick questions

could I write a script for people to follow? sure. Would it help, I doubt it
usually a class is made up of a load of older people that havent been in a class room for over 30 years 
some left school back then due to failing tests, people are stressing out and giving stupid answers even when they know the correct ones. 

it is the mountain safety council not the NZ police, all they want is to increase the ease of people out there getting licences, as if the police were to hold them there would be less opportunity as they are so damn busy all the time 
so we travel out in to small towns and hold evening classes to give people the opportunity to sit the safety test
otherwise there would be less firearms licence holders

----------


## Bill999

> Yes. Given the opportunity, I will volunteer my time and training qualifications to develop a remodeled training package that is reliable and consistent, in accordance with the learning outcomes. I will also assist with the training and assessment of instructors if required.
> As NIKE says JUST DO IT


sounds like you want to be the boss before you know how to do the job

there are improvements to be made absolutely 

Mike Daisley
Chief Executive
New Zealand Mountain Safety Council
Tel:   04 385 7162 ext 222 
DDI:  04 915 9280
Cell:  027 443 7557
Email:  mike.daisley@mountainsafety.org.nz
Address: Level 3 l 19 Tory Street l PO Box 6027 l Wellington l 6141

heres the head of the snake
best to see the top I say.

----------


## Koshogi

> sounds like you want to be the boss


I merely offered to assist. At no stage did I say that I want to run it.

I would fully expect that any training package that was developed was subject to peer review and feedback, on a continual basis. This ensures that the training does not become stagnant, and continues to improve. Like you yourself have admitted is required.




> before you know how to do the job


What are you basing this opinion on?

As you have questioned my ability to "do the job". I will outline my experience and qualification to assist in the development of this training package below:20 years experience in workplace training.Held a formal qualification in adult education for the past 8 years. Specifically a Certificate IV Training and Assessment(Australian).Qualified Australian Army Instructor and AssessorQualified Australian Army Training Supervisor-Developing and assessing the delivery of training packages.17 years carrying arms as a profession.Qualified armorerHeld or undergone the licensing/training requirements for three(3) countries (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand)I also hold qualifications in Occupational Health and Safety, and Risk Management.
Do you still think that I don't know how to "do the job"?

As I have said several times, I only wish to assist in the development of this training course. 

Thank you for your input.

----------


## Bill999

sounds like you want to do be the boss before you know how to do the job, thats one sentence. not two and in separating them you have taken it out of context.



reminds me of this

----------


## Rushy

Step back, take a deep breath and a good look at the underlying message and you will find you are both on the same team.

----------


## Gibo

Agree with Rushy, and for the record if the programme and material is suitable you dont need to be an expert to deliver it. Knowledge of yes, but expert no.

----------


## Gapped axe

One would have to think that Koshogi would have something positive to offer, and with those credentials being volunteered to help , why wouldn't you have him helping.  Chink chink my 2c

----------


## Rushy

> Chink chink my 2c


Well spent GA.

----------


## peril 787b

Reading through this Bill999 has taken offence to something that wasn't directed at him but at the instructor that Koshogi experienced.  If there is indeed such a poor level of training and instruction (maybe just from the one instructor) it does appear that there is a need for proper training (maybe just to this one individual).
I agree that the firearms test is a bit of a joke, with the help offered to people that obviously haven't studied and have all but no clue about firearms and their safety.  Even in the US they have a handling section of the test (I've been told shotgun with 2 live rounds). There is definitely a need for a shake up, but that still won;t stop the idiots nor the crims.  At least if you're trying to do it the legal way, you have the correct intentions.

Sounds like Koshogi would be an EXTREMELY valuable addition to the MSC and Bill999, you're all but telling him to piss off.  Cool your jets Bill, take the offered assistance.

----------


## grunzter

I found the the same course a bit mixed, I learnt a few things which was great, and was also surprized a few things were more opinions than anything else.

The thing that got me was the number of test fails, and they were told to go away and try again, and again, and again... What?????
I was happy to 100%, but it showed me that people who had not read or understood the arms code were being allowed to pass.
...grant

----------


## AzumitH

I thought you could only sit it twice beofe you got the big red rubber stamp?

Also Bill there is no need to get salty, OP could quite easily have come on here and made a thread along the lines of "hurrr msc iz stupid and I haet them so much durrr", but instead he has identified some problems and put forward some solutions.

----------


## Bill999

Im not saying he should piss off at all, I think he would make a fine instructor - far better than the idiot that took his test, but I bet he wouldn't be prepared to do that - (which annoys me) someone picking holes in a job done by a volunteer but they arnt prepaired to give what that person is giving, their time on a regular basis to help other

Koshogi you SHOULD join the MSC and take courses where you personilise them to make them the best course they could possibly be, that way with more people in the ranks maybe the MSC could be more picky about who runs courses and drop the worst off the list
from what I understand this isnt possible due to the fact not many people are prepaired to give up their time to help

----------


## steven

I found my course OK, but I had read and re-read the wee blue book until I had almost worn it out.

It is very basic and is why the push for you to join a club.

Bear in mind the cost is kept low that way no on is excluded due to the cost of it, or some Govn agency/dept would have to fund it.

----------


## Koshogi

> Im not saying he should piss off at all, I think he would make a fine instructor - far better than the idiot that took his test, but I bet he wouldn't be prepared to do that - (which annoys me) someone picking holes in a job done by a volunteer but they arnt prepaired to give what that person is giving, their time on a regular basis to help other


I would appreciate it if you would stop making suppositions about me.

You are annoyed at me, based on your belief? Not on what I said or did, but what you believe that I would or wouldn't do. Seriously?

I am criticizing the way the course is structured  and managed. If you wish to take that as a slight against you, so be it.




> Koshogi you SHOULD join the MSC and take courses where you personilise them to make them the best course they could possibly be, that way with more people in the ranks maybe the MSC could be more picky about who runs courses and drop the worst off the list
> from what I understand this isnt possible due to the fact not many people are prepaired to give up their time to help


I don't want anybody dropped off the list. If a person(instructor) is not up to the agreed upon standard, you help them achieve that standard. By developing your volunteers, they become better instructors, and the public get a better education/course.

One person running a course to a higher standard, does not raise the standard for the other courses being run. There needs to be consistency amongst all the courses being run. This is why I am advocating for a standardized training package and ongoing assessment of the instructors/course.

I probably will, at some point volunteer for MSC. I had planned too some time ago, unfortunately personal commitments do not allow me at this time. I couldn't anyways right now, remember, I just applied for the licence. Which you said was a per-requsite for the "job".

----------


## Koshogi

> Bear in mind the cost is kept low that way no on is excluded due to the cost of it, or some Govn agency/dept would have to fund it.


I wasn't charged anything for the course.

From what I understand, funding for the course is from NZ Police.

----------


## Renaissance Caveman

I did a course through open polytech instead of the MS and it was really good. While still all theoretical it at least tried to go into some detail on how to operate different types of arms, appropriate cartridges for uses etc. We also had to go to a gun shop and get them to show is 1 to 1 how to operate a bolt, a semi and a shotgun then sign of that they had. A bit off topic but more comprehensive firearms education is available.

----------


## BRADS

> Bill, answer me this please...
> 
> Other than being willing to give up some of your time, what qualifications do you have to enable you to be a firearms safety instructor for MSC ?
> 
> Other than attending a couple of the courses to learn the "script", did you do any specific training around 
> A) firearms safety
> B) adult education
> 
> What vetting and quality control processes exist within MSC to weed out instructors imparting incorrect information ? Have any instructors been let go or forced to take remedial training in the last 5 years ?


NONE
Oh ebf do I have a story for you :Have A Nice Day: 
I should probably keep this two myself but I think there's a lesson in it for us all, so no names will be mentioned.
Our local firearms course instructors (2) where hunting with a good mate of mine, a couple of years back, this is a true story.........
They where quad hunting a private hunting block for deer split between 2 quads, both the instructors, my mate and the land owner.
2 red hinds crossed the track when coming down the hill, the two instructors decided two cut down bedside the ridge two maybe get a shot off.
The bikes carried on down the steep track, my guy mate on the trailing quad who was a very experienced quad rider, some how got cross rutted and the bike rolled pinning him against the bank.
The lead quad had carried on unaware of what had happened.
Mate was in rather a bad way screaming his head off for help, the two instructors arrived after running back up the hill,
As they bent down two pick up the quad one of there unloaded guns slung on someones back went off blowing a hunk of bank two bits less than a foot from my mates head.......
These two instructors then debated whose gun it was that mysteriously went bang. I kid you not.
.these are the same two alluded two in my first post :Have A Nice Day: 
Fortunately I think they have given up..........

----------


## Pengy

Scarey shit alright

----------


## veitnamcam

> Scarey shit alright


You got that right!

----------


## Bill999

jeez thats a worry, suppose some mothers do have 'em

----------


## mushpush

Getting a licence to own a fireman in NZ is a pretty casual affair compared to the UK. Back 15yrs ago when I lived there things were reasonably tight, today is even worse. You had to apply for both a shotgun licence and a separate rifle licence. With the rifle licence you even had to apply for the calibre that you were proposing to use before you were even granted it, for each calibre on the licence you had to put forward good reasons why you needed to own such a calibre. As a beginner or first time license holder the chance of getting a 300WSM was slim to nothing. One way of increasing the chance of getting a centre fire ticket was to take and successfully pass a British Deer Stalkers course. These were held several times a year all over the country and consisted of a three day course covering both practical skills and in-depth instruction on safety, ballistics, deer management, the law and equipment for deer stalking. The practical side not only consisted of shooting centre fire rifles at different ranges and positions but also the butchering and the care of the carcass after shooting. To pass the course you were expected to score 3 out of 3 at prone 100m, 70m sitting or kneeling and 50m standing, also there was a 100 question test that you had to get 80%. This was just the basic course and you could go on and complete advanced courses. Today in the Uk certainly in Wiltshire the county I come from you have to do this course to get a ticket. My point is that this might be the extreme but it gave me an extremely good grounding into the use of firearms and the shooting of larger game animals. Some where between this and what we have now in NZ would in my opinion be better for all. How we do it or who controls/runs it is open for discussion. Please discuss.

----------


## Pengy

That has to be the longest first post I had seen on a forum  :Thumbsup: 
Welcome aboard mushpush, from a fellow expat.

----------


## Rushy

Welcome mushpush.

----------


## mushpush

Just like to keep my mouth shut and then get it off my chest all at once! Its been something that has bugged me for a while especially when you hear all these reports of guys getting shot in the bush by their mates. I'm not saying that Pommes are perfect, cause they aint, its just that I cant recall many if any, fatalities amongst hunters/shooters in the UK, yet here it would seem not uncommon.

----------


## Toby

Do you have larges areas of bush that people can go to anytime and just go hunting over in England?

----------


## Pengy

Not really Toby. You need to have permission to hunt on just about all land I think. 
Imagine a country the same size as NZ but instead of 4 and half million people living in it, there are 65 million. Doesn't take a big imagination to realise that what public land there is, gets a lot more people using it for whatever purpose.

----------


## Toby

Thanks Pengy

I don't think their system is what helps not having people shot. I think it's lack of land available for everyone to go hunting on when they please.

----------


## mushpush

The hunting is totally different in the Uk, the biggest issue is the close proximity of the general public, be they dog walkers, townies out for a Sunday stroll or whatever. You have to be on the ball all the time. Yes I agree there is not big areas of bush like there is here, most of the lowland stalking is done on open farm land and even the woodland stalking is done on the rides and edges, Maybe the big difference is that the stalking is generally done on ones own on a piece of ground where you have sole rights so the chance of bumping into another hunter is pretty remote. The greatest danger is a member of the public showing up at the wrong time since the right to roam act was past giving greater access to private land. I know from my own personal experiences you had to be bloody sure of your target and also the backdrop before you pulled that trigger. Stalking on open lowland farms brings its own issues because of the lack of back drops, this is were high seats come into there own because now you have a greater field of view and a missed shot ends up in the dirt.

----------


## Gibo

I think most of the instances here occur for a similar reason. People think with so much bush available that a noise/movement must be a deer. We all need to treat everything as human until proven otherwise, no matter how remote we are. 

I still think we should impliment at least some form of competency check prior to issuing a FAL.

----------


## Hunt4life

> I think most of the instances here occur for a similar reason. People think with so much bush available that a noise/movement must be a deer. We all need to treat everything as human until proven otherwise, no matter how remote we are. 
> 
> I still think we should impliment at least some form of competency check prior to issuing a FAL.


Boom!! That's the paramount point NZ's hunting community need to be taught and taught and reminded of on a regular basis... It's really very simple. Say it louder Gibo...

All together now... "EVERYTHING that moves in the bush is human, until there's absolutely no doubt!"

----------


## Hunt4life

I've allowed many deer to run away and live another day since seeing a man walk into my scope cross hairs in dull light very early in my hunting career. I heard a faint twig snap, raised my rifle and waited for the 'deer' to walk into view. Wow! What a lesson that was. If I'd been taught to be any more blasé, I may well have pulled the trigger. Thanks dad :-/

----------


## Koshogi

Just an update for those following this topic.

I was contacted on Monday by a member of the MSC. 

MSC is going to conduct an investigation into my complaint and remedy any issues found in the delivery of the training package. 

An application for membership for the MSC was sent to me. I intend to join and contribute my time when my personal situation allows.

The MSC representative was disapointed that I had aired my complaint on this forum, and felt that it had belittled the work of the volunteers. This was my response to that topic;
"I do not believe that airing criticism about the management of the course on a public forum can be construed as being dismissive of the volunteers themselves. As I mentioned on NZHS, I think it is a noble thing to volunteer and applaud everyone who actively contributes to the improvement of their community. However, given the subject matter being covered, the volunteers and the MSC do a disservice to the community by allowing a course to be delivered in such a shoddy manner."

What is your opinion on me sharing my experience? I'm pretty sure I know yours Bill999 :Wink:

----------


## res

I think you did a good thing

----------


## Pengy

I think that putting your concerns out there, so to speak, is a good thing. It opens the topic up for wider debate, and also means that your concerns are less likely to be quietly swept under the carpet. I am not suggesting that MSC would dismiss your complaint if it had not been aired here, but it does make it a little harder to ignore.

----------


## Ryan

It's good. From my point of view and experience, it's something that needs addressing.

----------


## AzumitH

Koshogi for king of New Zealand tbh, his desire to get things done and excellent grammar would ensure my vote.

----------


## Rushy

All power to your right arm Koshogi.

----------


## mutton gun

Thank s for bringing this up Koshogi, Ive long being a supporter for increased training for the general public. Like you we have a almost matching Qualifications.
I applied for a position within MSC as a hunts coordinator which also involved mentoring the volunteers who deliver the program and from memory they were all working towards a adult ed qualification.
I was surprised to here that instructors wern't following a set program, I guess it will always be a problem where people wander off on tangents and pass on their own ideas and very hard to keep every one on the same page. I don't envy the coordinators job one person and a huge job over the whole country and trying not to upset anyone cause lets face it not many of us have time to spare these days. 
MSC is based on the help from Volunteers and only has a few paid employees 
I full support the MSC and have benefitted from some of there excellent mountaineering training over the years. 
lets support them to keep on improving what they deliver.
A lot of us on this forum have had millions spent on us buy our own govt  and others around the world and others have the commonsence to be safe out there to.
My 2cents worth.
Cheers

----------


## kotuku

I have over the years and at peoples request given them a little basic firearms training. mine is directly from my TF years and regular force instructors.
 First quote -"make a mistake -my boot goes up your arse ,no exceptions". some people Ive simply refused to as I basically dont trust em. 
one claimed he was in the market for a machinegun FFS"my mate has gang contacts ya know ,can get anything"- "go get yourself a good casket dickhead"
    Ive heard a lot mentioned on here but i didnt have to deal with MSC when i got my FAL. one thing did crop up though.the spotlighting question . crusty old cop in hokitika went to mark me wrong for saying spotlighting is unsafe.his rationale -its OK no people round -my reply -yep even a .22 can travel a mile -no spotlight shines that far, smiling he marked me right 'lotta commonsense in your head lad"

----------


## GravelBen

> one thing did crop up though.the spotlighting question . crusty old cop in hokitika went to mark me wrong for saying spotlighting is unsafe.his rationale -its OK no people round -my reply -yep even a .22 can travel a mile -no spotlight shines that far, smiling he marked me right 'lotta commonsense in your head lad"


I guess it shows you were thinking about it, which is half the battle with some people - he was right that spotlighting _can_ be done quite safely, but you do have to be careful and pass up some shots that *might* be ok in daylight.

----------


## Dougie

My 2C - my course was shit too. It was an advertisement for two clubs in particular and very little other information was covered. 

I sent a Facebook message to MSC which resulted in a two hour lunch with Nicole Mackay and a huuuuuuge amount of awesome, positive action being discussed. 

MSC has an amazing program for safety that is slowly being rolled out across the country. Unfortunately it's not about soon and gloom and blood and guts, so the media isn't buying it. 

Talking to your local AO or MSC representative is a great way to go to both put your mind at ease and also gain tips on how to be a better safety ambassador of the firearms community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Driverman

Its a bit disappointing to hear that the MSC isnt delivering the goods. I was an instructor for nearly 30 years from the early 1970's to 2003 instructing at Porirua, Wellington and lower Hutt old and new Police stations and found generally most instructors were very good. The majority of instructors were NZDA members and had a keen knowledge and passion for hunting and firearms. We had an approved course we taught with practical details provided by our own experience .We were updated regularly with the new relevant legislation and firearm accident statistics which detailed the cause and effect of the accident which in turn was woven into the course. Our emphasis was always safety,safety and safety. In the few hours we had to run the course each night its not possible to cover everything in depth but all the basics were explained. We had a good variety of different firearms as teaching aids including damaged firearms ,blocked barrels etc that explained more than words. It was important to ensure that the safety laws were understood and the results of abusing the rules was injury or death. The main man in those days was Bob Badland whoes passion in driving MSC was infectious . Although we were all unpaid volunteers we did maintain close contact and would all meet at least once a year for a general get together and update. 
When I did my original training as  an instructor it was pretty basic involving a two day course held at the Wellington branch NZDA range . We were expected to be very familiar with the various firearms and hunting methods and the emphasis was on teaching methods. This is of course a very short time to teach a teacher . We always understood that our input as volunteers was by necessity limited and limited funding was available from The Internal Affairs dept ,then subsequently the Police . The firearms/ arms officer at most Police Stations then was also the lost property officer ,most of whom had limited hunting and firearm experience and were hugely overworked  but who were proactive in supporting us few volunteers. It was not our job to vet anyone as our warrant was for instructing although we would on occasion communicate our concerns of anyone to the relevant people. This was a very rare occurrence.  I think that all in all we did a good job instructing  people with similar interests who took a great deal from the course and who subsequently became avid hunters and shooters and whose commitment to their sport and safety is shown by the literacy and concern expressed on this forum and who can in turn if they wish give something back. 
 I ceased to be an instructor due to work commitments in 2003 and have had little to do with MSC since that time but feel the MSC course is only as good as the volunteers who run it and that could be you.

----------


## Maca49

My old mate 76 yrs old is still running them here, would get a more experience person to do it, has his board with diff actions and blown barrels on it, takes a full selection of drilled ammo, him and a mate run a very serious show! :Cool:

----------


## redrover

I agree entirely with what Driverman posted on 6 September. 

My involvement as a firearms instructor parallels his, except that after forty-something years I am still actively involved. We have, for decades, had a manual for use in instruction courses for new firearms license applicants, the latest edition being issued in 2012. While the manual has never been intended to be a minute-by-minute, word-by-word prescription of how the course should be run, it has always been stated  and I would have thought, clearly understood by instructors - that all the fundamental material in it MUST be included in the lecture. We have also used videos for decades, showing people in real-life hunting and shooting situations demonstrating the fundamentals of firearms safety.

It has always been the presumption that applicants would have been issued with a copy of the Arms Code, and have studied it, before attending a course. Most do, but a few dont  and they are often the ones who fail the test. Some people with well above average learning abilities might be able to come to a course with a base knowledge of almost zero and still pass the test at the finish of it, but most could not, regardless of how good the instructors might be. NZMSC have always been well aware that different people have different learning abilities. Some learn best by reading, some by listening, and others by seeing real life demonstrations, either in-person or on screen. The course is set up to (hopefully) cover all three, even though it does entail some degree of repetition.

Questions for the posters who are complaining about the course and/or the instructors:

Did the instructors refer to the manual at all?

Did they show the video?

Did the instructors REALLY stand up on their hind legs and tell you things that totally contradict the material in the Arms Code and in the video?
If that is what happened, then those instructors must be made to either improve their performance or quit.

Of course the existing system could be improved on  given more volunteers and more funding - but those people advocating tearing it apart and completely rebuilding it  to conform with their personal preferences  need to stop and think about the longer-term implications. They could be a WHOLE LOT worse than what we have now!!!!!

----------


## SiB

I've come in on this late, but as an experienced adult educator, (as significantly different from a 'trainer') I would stress that to do the job well, one needs two "trades": the subject you're training (and I do not doubt the expertise/experience of our MSC and numerous other instructors) AND a thorough understanding of the adult learning process. Like several here, I've endured painful presentations by individuals who lacked one or t'other.

Volunteer organisations in particular are not all wise to the importance or even meaning of this. 

Challenging the trainer within the forum is rarely productive, constructive criticism to those higher up the organisations food chain might, just might be. Sadly, there are some even higher up within whatever organisation we're talking about who simply don't comprehend what I call the "two trades" requirement, and so the poor training model continues. 

In conclusion, I can only suggest that you apply a model the poor (as In poor quality) trainers are obsessed with; saying something often makes it 'right'. Therefore if you DO have valid, constructive comment to make about a training presentation, be prepared to make your point repeatedly, often, and even more than once!!! 

Unfortunately, this is a fraught area; most of us blokes have learned that answering the "do I look fat in this?" question is risky and there isn't a simple answer. Good learning practices are the same. 

Si

----------


## Koshogi

> Questions for the posters who are complaining about the course and/or the instructors:
> 
> Did the instructors refer to the manual at all?
> 
> Did they show the video?
> 
> Did the instructors REALLY stand up on their hind legs and tell you things that totally contradict the material in the Arms Code and in the video?


They referred to the Arms Code booklet. I didn't notice them referring to a manual, but I won't say that they didn't have one.

No video was played.

Yes, they really did contradict material in the Arms Code, but more importantly provided information that would cause a person to contravene legislative acts.

----------


## ishoot10s

I've almost completed doing Unit Standard 9131, Firearms Legislation and Safety. The course material came with a DVD which, I'd have to say, is very dated. There's footage of a chap and a young woman shooting a centrefire at a range and neither are wearing any hearing protection. Not saying that's a safety issue, it's not, it's a health issue, but with the increased focus on that sort of thing through WorkSafe these days, I think it should be sorted and the video updated. Also have found contradictions in the written course material which I will be feeding back to Open Politechnic.

----------


## redrover

> They referred to the Arms Code booklet. I didn't notice them referring to a manual, but I won't say that they didn't have one.
> 
> No video was played.
> 
> Yes, they really did contradict material in the Arms Code, but more importantly provided information that would cause a person to contravene legislative acts.


They referred to the Arms Code booklet. I didn't notice them referring to a manual, but I won't say that they didn't have one.

No video was played.

Yes, they really did contradict material in the Arms Code, but more importantly provided information that would cause a person to contravene legislative acts.


OK, those instructors did a poor job and need to be told to improve, smartly, and stick to the manual, etc. Its a pity that they didnt show the video, as that is a very useful teaching aid, but perhaps a suitable player was not available at the venue at that time. 

However, the fact that the course was not to your liking is not justification for tearing the whole system apart from the top down. Furthermore, it is totally incorrect for you  and other posters who cheered you on - to blame your dissatisfaction totally on the N Z Mountain Safety Council. 

The current system is still basically what was instituted after the passing of the Arms Act 1983. Prior to that, all firearms had to be registered, shooters were not licensed, vetting of first-time firearm owners was somewhat haphazard, and formal training of first-time firearms owners was limited. The new system was  and still is - a big improvement on that. 

A number of shooting organizations, including NZMSC, had input to the 1983 act.  However, in the end it was the politicians, acting primarily on the advice of the police, who put the act into force, and it is they who you would have to try to convince to change things, not NZMSC.

A formal agreement was entered into whereby NZMSC would provide instructors (wherever possible) and the police would provide suitable venues, and the necessary equipment and materials for the instructors to conduct a short instruction course and administer the Arms Test.  It was considered that a session of approximately three hours in total would be sufficient, and this how it has been for the last thirty years. While this system may not please everybody, it has been generally acceptable to the politicians, the police, and the public.

The course was never intended to do more than teach new license applicants the basic fundamentals of firearms safety and the legal obligations that go with being firearms owners. Experience has shown that about one hour must be allowed for applicants to sit the Arms Test and the instructor(s) to mark the papers and fill in the certificates for those who have passed. (some applicants take well over an hour just doing the test!) This leaves about two hours for talking, demonstrating various firearms, answering questions and showing an instructional video. There simply isnt time to go into a lot of fine detail, and this is  or should be  explained to the applicants at the outset. The course is a basic introduction, not the complete and final word on hunting and shooting.

As I wrote in my previous post in this thread, applicants are expected to have studied the Arms Code before attending a course. (and I mean STUDIED, not just speed-read) The talking and demonstrating part of the course, and showing the video, is intended to supplement and clarify what they should have already read in the Arms Code, and to assist  those who learn better by listening and seeing real life demonstrations than they do by reading. In other words, the course is more akin to putting some meat on the bones of the Arms Code. 

A high level of teaching skills might be useful, but in my opinion, not totally essential. A good knowledge of the subject matter is far more important. The substance of the course is already laid out, and what has to be done by the instructors is fairly basic stuff. Its not as though they are having to do something comparable to giving students a thorough understanding of the Theory of Relativity, or teaching them how to solve problems in spheroidal trigonometry.  

Do you posters to this thread who are advocating sweeping changes to the licensing system REALLY want to take your demands for much more comprehensive training, etc, to the police and the politicians? Tell them that as it stands it is costing innocent people their lives? 

The tiny but vociferous anti-gun lobby, which gest publicity out of all proportion to its real size, would just love you, and so would some politicians who might see an anti-gun stand as a possible vote-catcher. If you go this route, you had better be aware of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Lets start with those of you who have been pontificating on about putting all the present instructors through the mill, and telling those who dont appear to have skills adequate for teaching to NZQA standards to either re-train or get out. Such assessments would pretty much HAVE to be done by an outside agency, and considering that there are a few hundred instructors spread from one end of the country to the other, it would be a lengthy and expensive process. SOMEBODY would have to pay for it, and neither the police nor NZMSC have unlimited funds available, so in one way or another, it would almost certainly end up being firearms licensees who would pay. 

Suppose the assessors took a really strict line and told half the instructors to either retrain or quit. Its a fairly safe bet that many instructors who have been giving their time and effort voluntarily and unpaid for years would, when told something like that, simply quit. The remaining instructors, who got a pass mark, would then have to put in maybe double the amount of work to make up for the losses, and a fair number of them might well quit, too. The larger centres could then be so badly under-manned that the system becomes unworkable, and a lot of the smaller centres might suddenly have no instructors at all.

The above is assuming that the course structure stays the same as at present. If some of the posters here got their way and the scope of the course was substantially increased, including practical, hands-on firearms training, the demands on the instructors time would increase many times over. More resignations would almost certainly occur.  The present system would completely collapse, and then what do you think would take its place?

Some poster here  I cant be bothered trawling back to find who - advanced the brilliant plan of kicking NZMSC out of the training, testing, and licensing procedure and having the police do it all. Do you, and anyone else who supported this idea, imagine that police arms officers, or the officers who handle firearms licensing as a second or third collateral duty, will be automatically be highly knowledgeable about firearms and will be highly skilled teachers? Dream on!

Furthermore, if the police had to do all the instruction work themselves, instead of having unpaid volunteers do it for them, you can be sure that they would want to recoup their costs with a substantial increase in fees. If they subsequently found that they simply did not have the necessary manpower resources in house and had to engage professional outside instructors (if they could find them!) then costs  and license fees  would rise even more. 

How does a fee of $1000 to get your A Cat license sound? That is what could easily happen if applicants had to attend three, four, maybe even five training sessions, all taken by professional instructors being paid the going rate. That might not be the only increase, either  some bean-counter could well come up with the idea that RE-licensing fees should be kept in step with initial license fees, and so should be tripled or quadrupled. How would THAT grab you????

I could write a lot more, but this is already more than enough for one posting, so Ill stop here.

----------


## gimp

I think they're interested in improving the current structure (which isn't actually mandated by the legislation anyway as far as I can remember) within it's limitations rather than significantly changing it 


It's been 9 years since I did the MSC course and I don't really remember if it was any good or not, but my input is that the whole licensing process and arms code etc are entirely too hunting-focussed

----------


## SiB

I think that we have to acknowledge what's happening. That means incidents involving firearms, as well as the current state of affairs regarding licensing and training. Training is exactly that: training. The police AO is the person who ultimately determines whether citizen x is suitable to hold a FAL. 

Whilst I stand by my comments that trainers need more than firearms expertise to trainer others well, I am mindful that change for changes sake is not good either. 

I simply see that a proactive action by current FAL holders to improve the core skills and knowledge a new firearms owner is likely to be far more palatable than any reactive response fueled by media disinformation. 

Over inflated, or at least substantially increased fees are definitely a consequence of using NZQA and whatever ITO to oversee the training qual process. And bluntly, even that would NOT guarantee improved training at the individual level. I've seen it in other areas. 

So, on reflection, I think we FAL holders must ensure we lead by example. That we are 'seen to be clean' and take constructive steps to improve the experience for our fellow new FAL applicants. 

We know that the negative actions of a few mar the good reputation of many. It is upon us all to ensure the minority irresponsible ones are outed. 

I acknowledge of course that crims tend not to hold a FAL anyway. That is, and remains a police matter.  We must simply ensure our firearms are safe, and not accessible to them.

----------


## Koshogi

> However, the fact that the course was not to your liking is not justification for tearing the whole system apart from the top down.


Nobody said that they want to 'tear the whole system apart from the top down', where did you get that from?

I said I wanted to assist in developing the course. Develop: _grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate._




> Furthermore, it is totally incorrect for you  and other posters who cheered you on - to blame your dissatisfaction totally on the N Z Mountain Safety Council.


MSC is accountable for the conduct of their courses. So, yes the blame lies with them. Obviously the instructor(s) are accountable for their actions as well.




> A number of shooting organizations, including NZMSC, had input to the 1983 act.  However, in the end it was the politicians, acting primarily on the advice of the police, who put the act into force, and it is they who you would have to try to convince to change things, not NZMSC.


The only political input required for any change to the safety course that has been brought up in this thread would be in regards to a practical test. The Arms Regulation 1992 Section 14, which empowers the Police to require FAL applicants to sit a test, specifies only a theoretical test.

_14 Applicants to undergo theoretical test

    Every applicant for a firearms licence shall, unless a commissioned officer of Police otherwise directs,

        (a) undergo a course of training which is conducted by a member of the Police or a person approved for the purpose by a member of the Police and which is designed to teach the applicant to handle firearms safely; and

        (b) pass such theoretical tests as may be required to determine the applicants ability to handle firearms safely (being tests conducted by a member of the Police or a person approved for the purpose by a member of the Police)._




> The course was never intended to do more than teach new license applicants the basic fundamentals of firearms safety and the legal obligations that go with being firearms owners.


That's all I want. Unfortunately the course did not do that, and did in fact provide information that could cause an individual to face criminal charges. Such as leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle.

_Arms Regulation 1992
19 Conditions relating to security precautions
(2) On and after 1 July 1993 the reasonable steps required by subclause (1)(c) shall include
     (c) ensuring that no firearm in the holders possession is left in a vehicle that is unattended._




> Do you posters to this thread who are advocating sweeping changes to the licensing system REALLY want to take your demands for much more comprehensive training, etc, to the police and the politicians? Tell them that as it stands it is costing innocent people their lives?


Once again, nobody is calling for sweeping changes. Only a consistent and reliable course that achieves the desired learning outcomes.




> The tiny but vociferous anti-gun lobby, which gest publicity out of all proportion to its real size, would just love you, and so would some politicians who might see an anti-gun stand as a possible vote-catcher. If you go this route, you had better be aware of The Law of Unintended Consequences.


Would you rather have them find out that the safety course is being delivered poorly or would you rather the media, anti gun lobby and Police see that 'we' as lawful and responsible firearm owners are conscientiously attempting to improve the safety course for the benefit of the whole community?




> Lets start with those of you who have been pontificating on about putting all the present instructors through the mill, and telling those who dont appear to have skills adequate for teaching to NZQA standards to either re-train or get out. Such assessments would pretty much HAVE to be done by an outside agency, and considering that there are a few hundred instructors spread from one end of the country to the other, it would be a lengthy and expensive process. SOMEBODY would have to pay for it, and neither the police nor NZMSC have unlimited funds available, so in one way or another, it would almost certainly end up being firearms licensees who would pay.


I'm starting to think you are reading a different thread. Here's what I said:




> I don't want anybody dropped off the list. If a person(instructor) is not up to the agreed upon standard, you help them achieve that standard. By developing your volunteers, they become better instructors, and the public get a better education/course.


You don't want to improve the instructors?




> I will also assist with the training and *assessment* of instructors if required.


For free.




> Some poster here  I cant be bothered trawling back to find who - advanced the brilliant plan of kicking NZMSC out of the training, testing, and licensing procedure and having the police do it all. Do you, and anyone else who supported this idea, imagine that police arms officers, or the officers who handle firearms licensing as a second or third collateral duty, will be automatically be highly knowledgeable about firearms and will be highly skilled teachers? Dream on!


That was probably me.



> If MSC takes it's responsibility seriously, they do need to address this issue. If they do not, I believe NZ Police should take the funding and responsibility of firearms training away from them.


So you think an organization that doesn't take it's responsibility seriously and doesn't correct identifiable problems, should just carry on? (Btw, I'm not saying that MSC does this). Surely it would be in the contractual agreement that they must perform to standards.




> I could write a lot more, but this is already more than enough for one posting, so Ill stop here.


Thanks for your input.

----------


## redrover

Quote (koshogi)
Nobody said that they want to 'tear the whole system apart from the top down', where did you get that from?

I got it from the following:

Quote (koshogi)
I believe that this course needs an urgent assessment on its suitability and relevancy to the required information. Instructors need further training, and need to be assessed on their competency to deliver this training in accordance NZQA framework.

Quote (efb)
No point raising it with the "instructors", I think the system needs to change from the top, and some serious changes made to instructor competency and course content.

Quote (pengy)
The system needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to my mind.

Quote (mikee)
Considering how much sway the MSC have with police they should make the lecture relevant to today not 1965 .
( I would be interested to hear from the above two posters what aspects of firearms safety they think have changed so dramatically since 1965, or 2000)

Quote (koshogi)
I am criticizing the way the course is structured and managed.

That all sounds to me like people – including yourself - wanting to effect some significant changes. Do you not agree?

Quote (koshogi)
MSC is accountable for the conduct of their courses. So, yes the blame lies with them. Obviously the instructor(s) are accountable for their actions as well.

The content of the course is determined at least as much by the police as NZMSC. Probably more so. The agreement is that the police provide a suitable venue, equipment and materials, which they sometimes do and sometimes do not. For instance, the instructors being supplied with a bag full of inoperative junk in the name of demonstration firearms, and the venue not having a working video system (neither problem uncommon) does not help. 
So instead of just emailing NZMSC, and complaining on this forum, why don’t you take your complaints to the police as well? Don’t waste your time dealing with people in the lower ranks – go straight to the Commissioner.  If he doesn’t defer to you as the ultimate expert on firearms safety and undertake to meet your demands, go to the Minister of Police. While you are at it, tell them that you want an independent authority set up to severely discipline instructors with whom any license applicant is dissatisfied. 

Quote (koshogi)
The only political input required for any change to the safety course that has been brought up in this thread would be in regards to a practical test.

I’ll concede that I haven’t personally made a detailed study of all parts of the Arms Act 1983, its amendments and the Regulations under it, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the NZMSC and the police. However, when discussing arms licensing procedures in general with NZMSC national office staff recently, one of them stated quite categorically that significant changes to the current testing procedures, and course content and intent, would have to go up to at least the Commissioner of Police, and probably higher. 

I took their word for that. I suppose you think that you know better.

Quote (koshogi)
Once again, nobody is calling for sweeping changes.

Once again – refer to the quotes at the start of this post.  

Quote (koshogi)
Would you rather have them find out that the safety course is being delivered poorly

ARE the courses being run poorly????????????????

There’s something that needs to be established for once and for all. From what you have posted here, it seems that you have attended exactly ONE firearms licensing course. Is that correct?

You claim that the course was badly structured, badly delivered by incompetent instructors, contained incorrect information, and omitted things that you think should have been included. It appears to me that you have become totally fixated on the idea that this is what must be commonly occurring with licensing courses throughout the country. Can you produce evidence that this is the case, apart from a handful of ‘Me too’ type of postings on this forum? 
(I will also add that I have heard from a reliable source that the instructors’ version of what was said and not said at the course you attended differs markedly from your version)  

I find it hard to believe that the issues you are complaining about could be widespread. It would soon become apparent if instructors were regularly teaching applicants things totally contrary to what they would have read in the Arms Code and learned from the video. Most applicants would be quite alert and intelligent enough to see the discrepancies and question them. If large numbers of applicants answered test questions according to incorrect information delivered by the instructors and consequently failed the test, they would soon go complaining to the arms officers.

Have you studied NZMSC manual No 30 ‘Firearms Instructor Guide’ and looked at its relationship to the Arms Code?

Have you watched the instructional video used at firearms licensing courses?

How do you propose to assess if instructors meet ‘the agreed upon standard’? (agreed upon by who?) 

Who would carry out the assessments, both initial and on-going, and even more significantly, who would fund them? I believe that there is currently something in the order of 450 to 500 warranted instructors spread over the entire country, so it would not be a simple or inexpensive undertaking.

Quote (koshogi)
I don't want anybody dropped off the list. 

Maybe you don’t (I’m not too sure about some of the other posters to this thread) but I have a strong feeling that if all the changes and additions to the course content that you and others are advocating were actually instituted, there would be a large number of resignations. Tell instructors who have been donating their time and knowledge for decades that they are required to re-train and be re-assessed before they can continue, and many of them would probably just hand in their warrants. Tell those remaining that the course has been expanded and will consist of three or four sessions instead of one, and a lot of them will probably do the same.

Some instructors probably do need to be reminded to stick to the substance of the guide book, but in my opinion, that’s about all that is needed. The present system has been working fairly well for the last thirty years.  It isn’t broken, and it doesn’t need much fixing.

The feedback I hear from NZMSC is that while SOME centres around the country have a reasonable number of firearms instructors available, many others are seriously short. The centre I am currently with is certainly in the latter category, and we are only just able to cope.

Over the years I have approached quite a few people who I felt had the knowledge and ability to be good instructors, and I almost invariably received the reply - Í haven’t got time’.  Just like you, KOSHOGI. Though you are a bit different in that you say that you will assist NZMSC and the NZ Police to flog the willing horses a whole lot harder – and that you will even do it free! That’s very generous of you.   

If you reply to this posting, koshogi, don’t bother putting on an all-knowing, all-superior attitude and posting stuff like  “This accurately portrays the mentality and attitude that is often faced when attempting to effect a change in a deeply entrenched environment.” as you did to another poster who had the temerity to disagree with you. 

I’m not averse to change if it is done for good reasons and the consequences are thoroughly assessed, but I fear that much of what you and a few others here are asking for here would be the start of a serious downward spiral.

----------


## Koshogi

> Quote (koshogi)
> Nobody said that they want to 'tear the whole system apart from the top down', where did you get that from?
> 
> I got it from the following:
> 
> Quote (koshogi)
> I believe that this course needs an urgent assessment on its suitability and relevancy to the required information. Instructors need further training, and need to be assessed on their competency to deliver this training in accordance NZQA framework.
> 
> Quote (koshogi)
> ...


I called for an assessment and criticized the structure and management. What issues the assessment identifies would trigger the change. If the course IS well structured and the instructors suitable, then no "significant changes" would need to occur. If the assessment identified that significant changes are required, then MSC would be culpable for failing to take action.

I used the NZQA framework as a benchmark, not meaning or intending that the course or instructors be accredited by them.

I starting to think that you feel that ANY change would be significant.

I will let the other persons that you quoted reply for themselves, but I did not interpret their comments as intending "significant changes". YMMV.




> Quote (pengy)
> The system needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to my mind.
> 
> Quote (mikee)
> Considering how much sway the MSC have with police they should make the lecture relevant to today not 1965 .
> ( I would be interested to hear from the above two posters what aspects of firearms safety they think have changed so dramatically since 1965, or 2000)


It's not the subject matter that has changed but the understanding and delivery of adult education that has.





> Quote (koshogi)
> MSC is accountable for the *conduct* of their courses. So, yes the blame lies with them. Obviously the instructor(s) are accountable for their actions as well. 
> 
> The *content* of the course is determined at least as much by the police as NZMSC. Probably more so. The agreement is that the police provide a suitable venue, equipment and materials, which they sometimes do and sometimes do not. For instance, the instructors being supplied with a bag full of inoperative junk in the name of demonstration firearms, and the venue not having a working video system (neither problem uncommon) does not help.


Conduct vs content here.

Lack of resources should not make a significant difference in the delivery of the course though.




> So instead of just emailing NZMSC, and complaining on this forum, why dont you take your complaints to the police as well? Dont waste your time dealing with people in the lower ranks  go straight to the Commissioner.  If he doesnt defer to you as the ultimate expert on firearms safety and undertake to meet your demands, go to the Minister of Police. While you are at it, tell them that you want an independent authority set up to severely discipline instructors with whom any license applicant is dissatisfied.


It is usually prudent to allow an organization an opportunity to address a grievance prior to making a formal complaint.

You forgot the PM, I should have just told him that I'm taking over the country too. Overreact much? 




> Quote (koshogi)
> The only *political input* required for any change to the safety course that has been brought up in this thread would be in regards to a practical test.
> 
> Ill concede that I havent personally made a detailed study of all parts of the Arms Act 1983, its amendments and the Regulations under it, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the NZMSC and the police. However, when discussing arms licensing procedures in general with NZMSC national office staff recently, one of them stated quite categorically that significant changes to the current testing procedures, and course content and intent, would have to go up to at least the Commissioner of Police, and probably higher. 
> 
> I took their word for that. I suppose you think that you know better.


So you agree with me then.

Approval of changes to the course content or structure by the Commissioner of Police is completely different than requiring a legislative change by politicians to allow practical testing.

The Commissioner of Police does not make legislative changes.

New Zealand Parliament - How Parliament works




> Quote (koshogi)
> Would you rather have them find out that the safety course is being delivered poorly
> 
> ARE the courses being run poorly????????????????


Mine was, and it would appear others were as well. 





> Theres something that needs to be established for once and for all. From what you have posted here, it seems that you have attended exactly ONE firearms licensing course. Is that correct?


Yes, never said any different.




> You claim that the course was badly structured, badly delivered by incompetent instructors, contained incorrect information, and omitted things that you think should have been included.


Something which I am qualified to assess btw.




> It appears to me that you have become totally fixated on the idea that this is what must be commonly occurring with licensing courses throughout the country. Can you produce evidence that this is the case, apart from a handful of Me too type of postings on this forum?


It appears it is commonly occurring. While you might contemptuously refer to these people as merely "Me toos", these people's comments form a history of dissatisfaction with the current course delivery.




> (I will also add that I have heard from a reliable source that the instructors version of what was said and not said at the course you attended differs markedly from your version)


What is my motive to lie?

What is his motive to say that the course was good and that he did not tell people to commit an offence?




> I find it hard to believe that the issues you are complaining about could be widespread.


Probably because you have discredited the people commenting here.




> Have you studied NZMSC manual No 30 Firearms Instructor Guide and looked at its relationship to the Arms Code?


Clearly not, as I'm not an MSC Firearms instructor.




> Have you watched the instructional video used at firearms licensing courses?


I have already stated that this video was not played at the course that I conducted. You really seem fixated on this video. Do you star in it?




> How do you propose to assess if instructors meet the agreed upon standard? (agreed upon by who?)


Using the standard assessment criteria for an instructor. Agreed already upon by NZQA. For the assessment of MSC Firearms Instructors, I'm guessing the MSC Firearms Training Co-coordinator might be involved.




> Some instructors probably do need to be reminded to stick to the substance of the guide book, but in my opinion, thats about all that is needed. The present system has been working fairly well for the last thirty years.  It isnt broken, and it doesnt need much fixing.


You seem to think that improving the course and the instructors is a bad thing. 




> Over the years I have approached quite a few people who I felt had the knowledge and ability to be good instructors, and I almost invariably received the reply - Í havent got time.  Just like you, KOSHOGI. Though you are a bit different in that you say that you will assist NZMSC and the NZ Police to flog the willing horses a whole lot harder  and that you will even do it free! Thats very generous of you.


Yes, developing people is flogging them. :36 1 7: 




> If you reply to this posting, koshogi, dont bother putting on an all-knowing, all-superior attitude and posting stuff like  This accurately portrays the mentality and attitude that is often faced when attempting to effect a change in a deeply entrenched environment. as you did to another poster who had the temerity to disagree with you.


Calling people raise concerns about a serious matter "ungrateful gits" is disagreeing? I see that you appear to be well entrenched as well.




> Im not averse to change if it is done for good reasons and the consequences are thoroughly assessed, but I fear that much of what you and a few others here are asking for here would be the start of a serious downward spiral.


Improving the course and the instructors is going to lead to a serious downward spiral? :36 1 7:

----------


## ebf

> Some instructors probably do need to be reminded to stick to the substance of the guide book, but in my opinion, that’s about all that is needed. The present system has been working fairly well for the last thirty years.  It isn’t broken, and it doesn’t need much fixing


Bwahahahaha, and this ladies and gents is what you call a "change-resistant" individual

Did you just completely miss the part where person after person after person is saying "er, there is something wrong here folks" ?

----------


## Toby

If it aint broke dont fix it is the worse saying ever made up. Imagine where humans would be if everyone lived by that bullshit

----------


## ebf

Well Toby, for some folks that seems to be good enough.

Other people work on the continuous improvement principle, and believe there is always a way to do stuff better, faster, smarter...

To be completely blunt, the system is what it is because it relies on volunteer resourcing, and specifically there does not seem to be any independent quality monitoring of instructors sticking to the content or being able to deliver adult education.

----------


## Rushy

> Imagine where humans would be if everyone lived by that bullshit


Still living in caves and dragging women by the hair Toby.  Fuck they were good times.

----------


## AzumitH

So is it safe to assume redrover is the guy who conducted the safety course that Koshogi attended?  Because he sure is salty.

----------


## redrover

Quote (koshogi)
Lack of resources should not make a significant difference in the delivery of the course though.

Rubbish. You are even contradicting yourself now. 


Quote (koshogi)
Yes, developing people is flogging them.

You know perfectly well what I meant, so don’t come at playing dumb so that you can come back with a Smart Alec answer.

I have already stated my opinion, but seeing you obviously prefer to ignore that, I’ll repeat it, briefly.

The enlargements and additions to the course that you and others are asking for would result in it going from a single session to at least three sessions – and require the instructors to put in at least three times as many hours. That would be if all instructors were prepared to do this. Many would probably not be, and would resign.  

Your grandiose plans to continually re-assess the instructors and ‘develop’ those who you consider do not meet ‘standard assessment criteria for instructors’(whatever that means) would undoubtedly result in more resignations, putting an even greater load on those who remain. (for the time being) 

If the number of instructors available to take courses falls below a critical level, the present system will collapse. At the centre where I am the NZMSC firearms coordinator, one instructor resignation would make it very difficult to cope with even the present one-session course, and two resignations would be the finish. 

Quote (koshogi)
Improving the course and the instructors is going to lead to a serious downward spiral?

Yes, it certainly will if there are nowhere near enough ‘improved’ instructors available to run this ’ímproved’ course. They are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS, remember – they cannot be forced to do what they don’t want to.

If you are determined to push for changes to the present system, take your demands the top brass at police headquarters. You seems to be unaware of the fact that NZMSC has exactly TWO paid employees dealing with firearms matters, one based in Wellington and the other úp country’ somewhere, and their salaries and expenses are funded by the police. They are in no position to set up and fund comprehensive instructor monitoring procedures, or unilaterally change the course content. Only the police could do either of these things.

I’ll leave you with one final thought. Over the decades I have been involved with NZMSC, various arms officers have remarked to me that they always get some applicants who bitch and moan about having to attend a ONE session course. “Why should I have to waste my valuable time doing this – blah, blah, blah?” 

If they had to do a THREE session course, the complaints would increase exponentially.  Finally, some aggrieved person would post to NZHS or another such forum complaining bitterly, and with internet forums generally being a moaners’ paradise where laws, regulations, and government agencies are involved, they would undoubtedly get some support. “+1” “Yeah, +10” “Yeah, yeah +100” etc, etc, etc. 

Away the OP would then go, to NZMSC and to the police, brandishing this ‘history of dissatisfaction’ and demanding immediate changes to the system …………

----------


## 308

If you guys put as much energy into improving the MSC course as you do into arguing with each other then I think that we will have a fucking Rolls Royce of a system real soon

----------


## Kscott

lol, well said  :Thumbsup:

----------


## redrover

> If you guys put as much energy into improving the MSC course as you do into arguing with each other then I think that we will have a fucking Rolls Royce of a system real soon


No, I don't put much of my time or energy into this 'discussion' - I've got more useful things to do with it.

For instance, over recent weeks, because of availability issues, I've taken three firearms licensing sessions at the local police station. All the applicants passed the test without any assistance from me, beyond orally clarifying a few test questions. They all thanked me when they departed, and sounded like they really meant it. 

Hmmm - must be something wrong here. Surely they should have all slouched out scowling and muttering things like:

"Hopeless instructor. No understanding of adult education. Didn't even mention some things that are in the Arms Code".
"Hopeless course. Didn't have a formulated structure. Didn't cater for all of auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning abilities.
"Hopeless venue. Not conducive to an adult learning environment".

Wonder why they didn't?

----------


## redrover

> Bwahahahaha, and this ladies and gents is what you call a "change-resistant" individual


And this 'ebf' character, ladies and gents, is a jackass who thinks that mindless change solves everything.

Yes, I am 'change resistant' when it's quite clear to me that the changes somebody is braying for would end up doing a whole lot more harm than good.

----------


## Scouser

"If they had to do a THREE session course, the complaints would increase exponentially.".....

let them complain as much as they like, if thats what it takes to get a FAL....they will have to do it......comes under the heading...'TOUGH SHIT'.......

----------


## Gibo

> And this 'ebf' character, ladies and gents, is a jackass who thinks that mindless change solves everything.
> 
> Yes, I am 'change resistant' when it's quite clear to me that the changes somebody is braying for would end up doing a whole lot more harm than good.


You are a ballsack :Psmiley: 

Mindless change? Don't think so mate, simply keeping things current and moving with the times. Oh and more importantly acting on feedback (good or bad) to IMPROVE......lifes never ending journey.

And before you reply, yes I am also a jackass so what. Change is good when you have the end user/customers benifit in mind.

----------


## redrover

> You are a ballsack
> 
> Mindless change? Don't think so mate, simply keeping things current and moving with the times. Oh and more importantly acting on feedback (good or bad) to IMPROVE......lifes never ending journey.


OK, so how about you and your pals who are spouting all these high-minded ideals explain in plain English just how these monitoring systems you want will be set up and maintained, who will pay for them, who will organise the changes you want to the present course content and provide the extra resources needed, and most importantly, who do you think will provide all the additional instructor input that would be required. Some plain facts, please, not a lot of fancy rhetoric reeking of smug (imagined) superiority. 




> And before you reply, yes I am also a jackass ...


Well, at least we agree on SOMETHING

----------


## Koshogi

Redrover, 
Thank you for your imput and for volunteering your time. 

It is discouraging to see you descend into petty name calling. 

I am disappointed that you are so opposed to even the idea of improving the course. 

Best of luck.

----------


## redrover

> Redrover, 
> Thank you for your imput and for volunteering your time.
> 
> It is discouraging to see you descend into petty name calling.


Sorry about that, but even my patience isn't inexhaustible. 




> I am disappointed that you are so opposed to even the idea of improving the course.


I am not totally opposed to making ANY improvements to the course - I said that right at the begining. Sometimes I feel a bit frustrated at having to skim over some aspects in order to get through the course in the allotted time. But it's no use for anybody to try making significant changes if the necessary extra resources and manpower are simply not available. At present, they are NOT.

For instance, including demonstrations of how to load and unload, and how to strip, clean, and re-assemble various types of firearms, requires basically functional examples to be available, along with suitable dummy cartridges. In the centres where I have been an instructor, they have generally NOT been available, and requests for them have fallen on deaf ears. I currently take one of my own rifles, plus dummy cartridges for it, to the courses I personally take, so that I can demonstrate some important points. (they do NOT include stripping and re-assembling - I draw the line at that) My fellow instructors won't do this, and if I get too heavy with ordering them around they might well quit. Then I would have a REAL problem! (however, when I look at the log book, it shows that they get about as good a percentage of applicants through the test sucessfully as I do, so perhaps I'm worrying too much)

Furthermore, as I have already alluded to several times, in a number of centres - maybe a large number of them - shortage of instructors willing and able to do just single session courses is a serious problem. Drawing up an expanded and ímproved course is not going to achieve anything if instructors to run it are simply not available. 

I could be wrong, but my feeling is that if a deputation of disgruntled NZHS posters marched on police headquarters demanding improved instructors and courses, they would be told:

A) The police are reasonably satisfied with the present licensing system, even if it isn't perfect.

B) The politicians are sufficiently satisfied with it that they are not clamoring for new laws and regulations which would make ownership of sporting arms a whole lot more difficult and a whole lot more expensive.

C) It might be best not to rock the boat too hard, because the outcome might not be what they are hoping for.

----------


## 10-Ring

It always the same. Those that scream the loudest and criticize the most are usually the last to lift a finger to offer their own time and labour. Every club and organisation has them. 

 If anyone here doesn't like the current voluntary system and wants to see it improved then the answer is simple. Get off your butts and volunteer yourself. The police are more likely to listen to people who do just that than those who throw rocks from the side lines.

----------


## ChrisF

My place , has been referred to as a CAVE , more than once , and my missus , has LONG hair , I donot know what the Question was , BUT  , my answer suits ME .

----------


## AzumitH

> My place , has been referred to as a CAVE , more than once , and my missus , has LONG hair , I donot know what the Question was , BUT  , my answer suits ME .


I don't know what you're smoking m8 but you should probably not smoke it.

----------


## Ranger 888

I have just joined the Forum, so my comments are somewhat belated. I was a NZ Mountain Safety Council Firearms Safety Instructor in Auckland from 1984-2006. Reading the threads on this issue, I felt compelled to reply. I think Koshogi's first post revealed his lack of understanding of the testing process and that he assumed too much. The course revolves around the 7 basic rules of firearms safety and the law relating to firearms safety. It is not designed to make a course member a firearms "expert", nor does the instructor need to be an "expert", but that person should ideally have considerable experience with firearms. Sadly, that does not always apply. As Koshogi pointed out, not all instructors are competent teachers. I used to tell attendees on my courses that they would need to continue to gain as much knowledge on firearms as they could from books and other (competent) firearms users. I made a point of covering each test question in my lecture, and used relevant stories from my own experiences to reinforce those points. Selecting some of Koshogi's examples: you ARE able to leave a firearm unattended in a vehicle, AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER SUPERVISION ; people should not RELY on safety catches- they can fail (I never use a safety); there is not time during the course to display each type of firearm action, and it is not relevant to the aims of the course. Koshogi's comments about the teaching style he/she encountered though are relevant. I am glad that these were brought to the attention of the NZMSC. The idea of a proficiency test had been discussed many years ago, and was shelved because of the sheer impracticality. I commenced testing at Henderson Police Station, when there would be over 100 people sitting the test one night every month. As a volunteer (unpaid), how could I find the time to conduct such a practical test for that many people every month? Where would you conduct it in Auckland? 
Lastly, the emphasis on the testing course is on the 7 basic safety rules because every firearms related injury or fatality is a result of someone ignoring one (or more) of those rules.

----------


## stug

After what has happened yesterday to the firearms people in MSC head office and the firearms technical committee there is an opening for someone else to get the contract to supply the course/licence to the Police.

----------


## Breyt

i really think a practical 15 shot  test must be part of MSC course.

----------


## kiwijames

> i really think a practical 15 shot  test must be part of MSC course.


Why?

----------


## Shooter

> i really think a practical 15 shot  test must be part of MSC course.


I would be interested to hear your thinking too...

----------


## AzumitH

> After what has happened yesterday to the firearms people in MSC head office and the firearms technical committee there is an opening for someone else to get the contract to supply the course/licence to the Police.


Vote for Koshogi, he offers his protection.

----------


## Taff

Beware what you wish for, in the UK there is a push by the police for a dsc1, $600, it was takes 3 days, for deer hunters, if you want to hunt on state forest land you have to pay a lease and a minimum of dsc2 $2k, there is a whole industry now offering courses, and slowly the anti gun brigade are pushing for more training, not that a basic gun handling course is a bad thing, but it depends what you want out of it, the NZ course is basic, but then again most of the accidents seem to be experienced (allegedly) hunters not identifying there targets.

----------


## Friwi

Yep your right. My uncle and my cousin have done the two courses in Scotland. Quite tough to get the top scores .Subsequently my uncle helped the local organiser for the next few courses.once, one of the candidates was a woman who was struggling with her shooting and could not hit the target were she was meant to. My uncle helped her and she managed to go through that part. she was safe in the way she used her rifle but never had a chance to have access to a shooting range and to be taught properly.
Those two courses definitely raise the level of knowledge of the people released in the woods with a rifle over there. 
But as you mentioned , over there deers talkers are quite often on their own on a certain block of land and there are no other hunter in the vicinity to get mistaken for a deer and shot at. 
In France we have a good number of accidents every year due to hunting. And guess what, most of the time it happens during big game driven shoots ( wild boar, red deer and roe deer) where multiple hunters are occupying a same parcel of wood and one of them is not respecting the shooting directions. There is no intense hunting courses over there. Just a basic hunting exam with a shot gun practical test where you have to show safe handling and fire two shots.
On the target shooting side of things in France, the number of death must be 1 out of 150000 participants over a ten year period.and the level of serious injuries is low as well. The mendatory insurance that the shooters have to pay every year when they renew their licence is the equivalent of $5.

I am not sure that a course like in the UK would make people in the woods safer but they would make them more knowledgeable hunters.
How ever a firearm handling course within the first year of newbies getting their licence ( being on a target range for the ones who do not wish to hunt and in the field for the hunters) and a refresher every ten years when we renew ours licence would not be a bad thing.
The first year you could be on your "learner's", which allows you to acquire your gun of choice and ammunitions and practice  on shooting ranges or farm lands handling and shooting.  When you feel ready and confident you pass your firearm handling course that then allows you to apply for doc permits to hunt on public land ( or allows you to compete on different ranges if you are a target shooter).

But as said in the precedent post, it could become a pen in the but to do and run all those practical courses.
But it is probably better if we sort out our shit ourselves rather than having it imposed upon us  in a more costly and drastic way.

----------


## steven

> Beware what you wish for, in the UK there is a push by the police for a dsc1, $600, it was takes 3 days, for deer hunters, if you want to hunt on state forest land you have to pay a lease and a minimum of dsc2 $2k, there is a whole industry now offering courses, and slowly the anti gun brigade are pushing for more training, not that a basic gun handling course is a bad thing, but it depends what you want out of it, the NZ course is basic, but then again most of the accidents seem to be experienced (allegedly) hunters not identifying there targets.


I suspect that the anti-gunners have cottoned on toone of the weaknesses in the system. ie they cannot  be upfront get guns banned as long as a decent % NZers want and use them.  However if you make it too expensive then gradually ppl will drop out until there are too few left to have a sizable % of voter voice and then no worries ban them.

The other one they are winning on is divide and conquer, ie   "lets go after the semi-autos this year" at which point the small bore target shooters and other segments opt out of taking any part as this problem will never happen to them.    Hence why we need to advocate for COLFo etc, we need a voice up there at a high level.

----------


## steven

"there is an opening for someone else to get the contract to supply the course/licence to the Police." yet it is already supplied at virtually no cost, ergo a private contractor is going to be charging some significant cost per course, per person, that will impact ppl who earn teh least the most.

----------


## Koshogi

Looks like NZ Police are looking at other training providers now.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU160...y-training.htm

----------


## MaW

Just wondering if anyone knows the approx price of doing the course and sitting the test?

    My boy needs to sit the test but not as part of a license application.  Just curious as he is not ready to do it just yet otherwise I would just ask when booking.

Thanks.

----------


## 10-Ring

The course/test is free. A certificate is given to those that pass and is valid for one year for a firearms licence application. Visit your nearest Arms Officer to make a booking and pick up a copy of the Police Arms Code.

----------

