Thread: Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

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 …………

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

lol, well said

Originally Posted by 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

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?

Originally Posted by ebf

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.

"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'.......

Originally Posted by redrover

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

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.

Originally Posted by Gibo

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.

Originally Posted by Gibo

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

Well, at least we agree on SOMETHING

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.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

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.

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.

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 .

Originally Posted by 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 .

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

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.