Thread: Mountain Safety Council Firearms Course

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" ?

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.

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