Thread: Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

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 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!!!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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 (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?

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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?

Originally Posted by redrover

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

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

(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?

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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?

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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.

Originally Posted by redrover

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?

Originally Posted by redrover

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" ?

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

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.

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.