Thread: Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

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!!!!!

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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).

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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?

Originally Posted by redrover

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:

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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?

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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

For free.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

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.

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

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 …………