Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:30 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Shooting qualification requirements discussion 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:11 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
Hypothetically, as you are setting up for the shooting qual, you announce the process. Everyone nods and then you say "fire". Bob, our example, fires only one round from his gun.

Work with me here.

Bob then announces he is done with the shooting qual. You, the instructor, question why he believes he is done. Bob replies that is all the law requires. He has demonstrated safe handeling and fired a round of ammo.

All other things being equal, would you pass Bob if he refused to fire his gun further and, this is really a different topic question, if not, what is his, really anyones, recourse to get an instructor to pass him if that instructor did not and he, technically, has met the requirments of the law?

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:30 pm 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
Moby Clarke wrote:
Hypothetically, as you are setting up for the shooting qual, you announce the process. Everyone nods and then you say "fire". Bob, our example, fires only one round from his gun.

Work with me here.

Bob then announces he is done with the shooting qual. You, the instructor, question why he believes he is done. Bob replies that is all the law requires. He has demonstrated safe handeling and fired a round of ammo.

All other things being equal, would you pass Bob if he refused to fire his gun further and, this is really a different topic question, if not, what is his, really anyones, recourse to get an instructor to pass him if that instructor did not and he, technically, has met the requirements of the law?


First off, there is no everyone fires, it is one student with one instructor when firing, but I speak for my class.

Bob at this point can say what he wants, he can argue the law and maybe have a valid point, that is his interpretation and that is fine and maybe he does meet Minnesota's minimum standard, but it does not meet the standards to complete my course. When Bob signed up for my Minnesota Personal Protection Course he was informed of the range requirement. So if he want to complete this course and get a certificate for doing so, he has to fulfill the course as it is given and was described to him. Now it just so happens this course also meets or exceeds Minnesota standards, so as a plus he can use this issued certificate to apply for his permit to carry in several states including Minnesota, so I guess that is a plus for him.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:20 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 95
Location: SE suburbs of St Paul
Let me try to make an analogy:

Let's say the state requires me to get an inspection certificate that I must show them in order to get my license plate so that I may legally drive my car on public roads. The law lists the criteria to be inspected as "must have brakes in good working order and all lights must be in working order"
Then I have to go to a private mechanic who is on a list of mechanics approved by the DOT. When I go to the mechanic, he inspects my car and finds the brakes and lights to all be in good working order but he won't give me a signed certificate that the state law requires me to have because he thinks I need to replace the shocks even though that isn't part of the criteria set forth in the law.

I'm all for good firearms training - but I shouldn't have to exceed the statutory requirement to get a certificate showing that I met the statutory requirement.

_________________
Life Member-National Rifle Association
Life Member-Ctizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Minnesota Permit to Carry holder
Member-North American Hunting Club
Veteran - US Army


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:24 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:54 am
Posts: 78
joelr wrote:
Yeah, but you're wrong. Those of us who have standards above the minimums prescribed by law aren't preventing people from getting their certificates from other instructors who have standards that barely meet the minimums prescribed by law. We're just like the mechanics who insist that before a car leaves their shop after it's brought in for service for a leaky hose that it will work well, and not just fail to pump enough CO into the passenger compartment to kill people.


Joel is exactly right. I only care that the government doesn't prescribe excess requirements (The definition of excess is another topic). I don't care that instructors have varying personal requirements. The market takes care of it, and it gives us options.

Some people, want the easy way though, and there are instructors that fit the bill. There are those that will seek out more difficult and comprehensive classes (andwould feel shafted if they didn't learn a lot more than the required minimum). There are instructors that fit that bill.

I'm the type that goes for the later. In fact, the shooting part of my original class reminded me of some IPSC shoots I've gone to. It wasn't easy, but thought it was great. A more recent class I took had modest shooting requirements, but I leaned quite a bit from the classroom portion. I already knew the laws, had read "The Book" a couple of times over the years, but l picked up some good practical wisdom and valuable perspective.

Another example. Years ago, when I went trough flight training, I actually liked having difficult instructors and tests. Why? I learned a lot more, and it could mean the difference between life and death down the road. Same with carrying in my eyes.

The legal requirements are just a bare minimum, not necessarily a limitation on how much you should learn in a class in my book. Look at getting a driver's license. You essentially need to only be able to breath to get one, yet there are defensive driving classes, racing instruction, etc. for those that want to go beyond the basics.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:25 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
MOVED OVER FROM THE MINIMALIST CLASS THREAD:

It's a difficult topic. The trouble for me is that it's nigh impossible to tell what an instructor's motivation for a specific course of fire happens to be. I know nmat's COF, and while it may be one of the slightly more intensive ones, it isn't difficult by a long shot (at least it shouldn't be). I'm concerned that some instructors use the smaller calibers...or previously to the BCA spanking, the laser systems...to cover up deficiencies in their students' abilities.

Let me try to describe my dilemma...

You can hand me a .22, a 9mm, a .45, doesn't matter...and I'll bet I can pass any current carry class qualification in the state. For me, the caliber isn't an issue, so I'd love to save the time and money.

Now, when I was at the range this past weekend, there was a guy in the lane next to us who couldn't put a single shot center mass with his revolver, even with his Crimson Trace laser. He sunk every single shot at least 6-7 inches below his point of aim (and trust me, I'm being kind). He's the guy that I worry about qualifying with a .22, then carrying the revolver. He can't shoot it , and frankly the bad guy he'd be aiming at would be the safest person on the street.

I don't know how we reconcile that, but I'm open to thoughts.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:00 am 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 95
Location: SE suburbs of St Paul
mrokern wrote:
I don't know how we reconcile that, but I'm open to thoughts.

-Mark


Do we really need to reconcile it?
If we look at Vermont, where no training or qualification is needed, it is reasonable to presume that there are some people carrying handguns who are not great marksmen. Yet you don't hear about bystanders being shot. And it's been demonstrated by police officers who do go through training and regular qualification that in stress of an actual shooting situation, many of them seem to forget everything they were taught. I suspect the same would be true of an armed citizen. A person may score X rings all day on a range and totally forget the basics of shooting when faced with a life or death confrontation.
And lets not forget the many documented cases of little old ladies who never had any firearms training and yet when the BG bursts in her bedroom she grabs he late husbands gun out of the nightstand and plugs the guy in one shot.

_________________
Life Member-National Rifle Association
Life Member-Ctizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Minnesota Permit to Carry holder
Member-North American Hunting Club
Veteran - US Army


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:26 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
You're making a terrific argument as to why instruction of any sort should be optional, and not mandatory, under the law.

I fully agree, and have said so, repeatedly. I agreed years ago; I still do.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:01 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
A .22 is a perfectly fine defensive caliber especially if you hit the target with several shots. HITS, with any caliber count more than loud noises and humongous muzzle blast. Remember the mere "defensive display" of the gun will stop 99% of all confrontations. The bad guy simply won't risk being shot.

Quote:
Campbell County Commonwealth's Attorney Neil Vener won't pursue charges against a woman who shot and killed a Gladys man early on April 15… Alfred Dews Jr., 35, was killed in the incident on Mohawk Road in the Long Island area of the county. Vener said he was shot one time in the chest area with a bullet from a .22-caliber pistol. The incident happened about 4:30 a.m. Vener said authorities found the telephone lines had been cut, Dews' truck had been hidden and Dews broke the door down to the house. Vener said part of Dews' bond on an earlier assault and battery had been to stay away from the woman. The Campbell County Sheriff's Office didn't release the woman's name, describing her as a domestic violence victim. The prosecutor said Virginia's self-defense law allows a person to use deadly force if, because of circumstances, the person has a reasonable fear of suffering great harm or death.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/1 ... news87.txt


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:06 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Absoposilutely. I make that kind of point in every class I teach; I learned it from lots of folks, but mainly two guys: one was named Mulroy, and the other's named Olson.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:16 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
Yup. Repeated hits, center of mass, win -no matter what caliber- while misses with artillery are, well, misses...

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:22 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Moby Clarke wrote:
Hypothetically, as you are setting up for the shooting qual, you announce the process. Everyone nods and then you say "fire". Bob, our example, fires only one round from his gun.

Work with me here.

Bob then announces he is done with the shooting qual. You, the instructor, question why he believes he is done. Bob replies that is all the law requires. He has demonstrated safe handeling and fired a round of ammo.

All other things being equal, would you pass Bob if he refused to fire his gun further
Nope. It's never come up, but I guess it could.
Quote:
and, this is really a different topic question, if not, what is his, really anyones, recourse to get an instructor to pass him if that instructor did not and he, technically, has met the requirments of the law?
To pass my class, he doesn't just have to meet the minimal requirements of the law; he has to meet my own requirements, too, even the unspecified ones, as I don't play rules lawyering games.

I don't specifically say that, say, nobody's allowed to grope my kid (or me) without asking real purty in advance and getting permission (she's a grownup), and while that's never happened, that'd be a flunk, too.

That said, honest: I'm not looking to flunk somebody; I'm looking for everybody involved being happy with me signing off on them, handing them a certificate, and offering a handshake, and most of the time, we all get that. Really. I've rarely had to require a reshoot of the qual, and even more rarely had to require that somebody practice some more and do it on a different day. I'm not one of the Tactical Tommy types who thinks that a basic qual should require offhand upside-down shooting while doing the Macarena, honest.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:29 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
kimberman wrote:
The statute was written to encourage diversity and competition among instructors so long as the minimum statutory standards are met. Obviously, it works.
I certainly think so. Obviously, if I could wave a magic wand, I'd probably want to tweak things a little, but . . .

. . . but it wouldn't really make any difference. There would still be folks who would take shortcuts.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:30 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:16 am
Posts: 364
Location: Minneapolis, MN
kimberman wrote:
A .22 is a perfectly fine defensive caliber especially if you hit the target with several shots. HITS, with any caliber count more than loud noises and humongous muzzle blast. Remember the mere "defensive display" of the gun will stop 99% of all confrontations. The bad guy simply won't risk being shot.


Thank you for posting that.

Arguing that shooting a .22 vs. some other caliber is not adequate training is ludicrous to me. While I don't personally recommend the .22LR for self-defense, I believe it's perfectly adequate for a demonstration of safe gun handling.

When we get down to it, what's the difference - from a perspective of safe gun handling - between a Walther P22 and a Glock?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Dissecting a qual
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:48 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Here's one qual that I think is pretty modest, but sufficient. Feel free to use it, or not, as you please -- it's mine, and like several others, derived from the old DNR qual that lots of PDs used to insist on before the change in 2003.

Transtar II target
(my preference; others are just fine, honest) is mounted at fifteen feet. Student loads fifteen rounds (they can load more, if they want to, but I'm only going to score the first fifteen) or fewer. Ideally, they've got a five-shot revolver, and load five, but that's ideal, not required.

Student fires fifteen shots, reloading as necessary

The target is then moved out to twenty-one feet (at an outdoor range, we can do that by having them step back six feet, if we can arrange for that to be safe, but I do most of my quals indoors), and another fifteen shots are fired.

Safety violations -- finger on trigger, gun pointed not quite directly downrange -- are corrected. Shots fired starting with a finger on the trigger score zero. Pointing a gun at a person is a flunk. Period. (It hasn't happened, but I guess it could. I'd grab a gun to stop that from happening, but I haven't ever had to. Thought I might, a couple of times.)

Ideally, they've loaded it six times (five times, if they're using a six-shooter), but it's always at least twice and usually more. They've also had to score at least 70%; the vast majority manage it in their first try. If they're using a semiauto -- which is fine -- they can preload as many mags as they care to, and I'll even help, although I won't load a mag for somebody who can't do it for himself or herself*. If, say, you're going to use a Glock, you've got to be able to put the cartridges in the mag with the bullets facing forward.

Now, to get through that -- and it isn't a lot -- they've got to be able to load a gun at least twice, reloading it at least once, probably more. They've demonstrated that they can practice safely, and that they can make a reasonable score at what are, basically, preposterously long self-defense but utterly reasonable practicing distances. Ideally, they don't shoot as well at the qual as they did in practicing before it; the idea there is to learn that under even mild stress (and I make the quals as unstressful as I can, but they're still, well, quals) they won't shoot as well as they do when they're not stressed.

They're now, in my opinion, ready to get their permits and practice; they can start carrying when, after that, they're ready. Their call; not mine. I've already scared them enough -- that's my job -- about how bad it can be for them if, even under the clearest possible circumstances, they take a gun out for serious, after all.

Now, I'm willing to listen, honest, and if somebody can show me how they can count on observing anything close to that modest level of safe handling and shooting in a ten-round qual (with or without the borrowed, pre-loaded .22) I'll admit it.

______________
*People with particular physical disabilities that make that painful or impossible are exempt from that, of course. I'm not a sadist.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:48 am 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Apple Valley, MN
That's good to know that I could qualify with a .22 if I needed to. Right now I have some severe tendonitis in my wrists so I am very sensitive to vibration- it will be a while before I can shoot anything larger than a .22 but I'd still like to get my carry permit.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group