Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:37 am

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 2:12 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
Joel. With ALL Respect. I disagree with except with the Ak style. Just my point of view.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:16 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
1911fan wrote:
Joel. With ALL Respect. I disagree with except with the Ak style. Just my point of view.
You're allowed to disagree, honest, even though you're wrong. Really. Setting the conditions under which I sell my services -- in a free market, where other folks can set other conditions -- isn't at all the same thing as a sheriff denying somebody a permit unless that person meets the sheriff's unlawful (not merely not required, but unlawful) requirements.

It really isn't anything of the kind.

That said, if you really think it is at all the same sort of thing, you should work to get the law changed to prohibit instructors from setting class requirements for their own classes that go beyond the dirt minimums prescribed by law, just as the sheriffs are prohibited by law from requiring permit applicants give them fingerprints, originals, tax statements, sperm samples or whatever.

I can't say I'll help with that, but . . .

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:30 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:16 am
Posts: 364
Location: Minneapolis, MN
nmat wrote:
just out of curiosity, what level of safety violations are we talking about? Are we talking finger in the trigger guard, or pointing the barrel at you? I really like your approach, but I just think that three warnings may be a bit much for certain types of safety violations.


Any violation of the Four Rules counts for me:

Treat all guns as if they were loaded
Never point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy
Be aware of your target and what's beyond it
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and have decided to fire

I also will stop a student's testing and have them start over if they are clearly not manipulating the gun propertly (for example, forgetting the chamber a round, forgetting to take the safety off, etc.) or procedural violations (for example, loading or firing the gun before I tell them to).

In one of my more recent classes I had an older fellow (WW2 vet) who was having a lot of problems with his Bersa - he clearly didn't know how to use it. I had him forgo his test until he and I had done some practicing with the gun, and he passed with no safety violations.

I see these problems more than I see safety violations. There was the woman who had "owned a Glock for ten years" whose gun turned out to be a Sigma she had no idea how to load or fire. And who can forget the nice lady whose husband insisted she qualifiy with the gun he bought her - a 2" titanium .357 she'd never fired before. For people like this, I offer additional training before having them shoot qualification.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:56 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
joelr wrote:
Now, if I was to try to change the law to require that carry classes teach everything that I think is necessary -- or, worse, to require that the classes be taught only by me -- that'd be different. But I'm not, and I won't. If I could get 624.714 changed, it'd be to go Alaska-style, not in the direction of requiring more and better instruction.

I'm all for requiring more and better instruction, so long as it the force of public opinion and various forms of social pressure doing the requiring. When I hear about some ten-year-old kid who spent his first day hunting sitting in the truck, after violating a safety rule, I think "good". When I hear of a range safety officer kicking someone off a range, for violating a safety rule, I think "good". Misuse of firearms is dangerous, and the safety rules are important, and I'm all in favor of everyone involved in guns having very high standards of conduct and safety - except for the government.

I have no problems with the government coming down like a pile of bricks on someone who causes harm to another through ignorance or negligence, but I cannot allow the government the power to engage in prior restraint.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:10 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
I stole this rule from Joel:
You do NOT get another chance to point a firearm at the instructor!

Usually gets a laugh but it sure gets attention. We then go on to talk about safety rules and how to avoid violating them. I get a bunch of ah-ha's at the racking a slide with a blue gun when I demonstrate the WRONG way to do it (flagging the whole line) and the CORRECT way (gun points down range, shooter adjusts body to complete action)

but pointing a gun, ANY gun at ANYONE, even when an accident is the fastest way to fail, no money back.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Last edited by plblark on Mon May 11, 2009 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:14 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
jdege wrote:
joelr wrote:
Now, if I was to try to change the law to require that carry classes teach everything that I think is necessary -- or, worse, to require that the classes be taught only by me -- that'd be different. But I'm not, and I won't. If I could get 624.714 changed, it'd be to go Alaska-style, not in the direction of requiring more and better instruction.

I'm all for requiring more and better instruction, so long as it the force of public opinion and various forms of social pressure doing the requiring.
Yup. Me, too.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:18 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
plblark wrote:
I stole this rule from Joel:
Respectful disagreement: you simply can not steal that which is offered freely by somebody with the authority to do so. Enjoy.

For those who want to borrow a bit more (with my blessing) my full rap goes something like this . . "... and you could easily flunk this class by violating a serious safety rule, like, oh, say . . . pointing a handgun at the instructor. [beat; there's usually some laughter here] That would be a flunk. You would not get your money back, and you would not get a change to re-shoot the . . . instructor. So, please don't."
Quote:
You do NOT get another chance to point a firearm at the instructor!

Usually gets a laugh but it sure gets attention. We then go on to talk about safety rules and how to avoid violating them. I get a bunch of ah-ha's at the racking a slide with a blue gun when I demonstrate the WRONG way to do it (flagging the whole line) and the CORRECT way (gun points dfown range, shooter adjusts body to complete action)
Terrific.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:28 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
joelr wrote:
jdege wrote:
joelr wrote:
Now, if I was to try to change the law to require that carry classes teach everything that I think is necessary -- or, worse, to require that the classes be taught only by me -- that'd be different. But I'm not, and I won't. If I could get 624.714 changed, it'd be to go Alaska-style, not in the direction of requiring more and better instruction.

I'm all for requiring more and better instruction, so long as it the force of public opinion and various forms of social pressure doing the requiring.
Yup. Me, too.





I disagree, on the basis of self defense is a right, not a priviledge of those who can afford more training and higher costs.

That is the base concept here.

it gets back to those pesky words, "shall not be infringed"

I see no issues in Vermont where no training or permit is required, are we as minnesotans dumber than Vermonters? They have a denser population count, based on per capita per sq mile, but they are close to us in demographics only smaller. Yet why do WE need this higher bar? fact is, we don't.

Yes I am working to change it, very quietly and in my own way. Will I see it change, yeah I think so, and this is from a person who never thought I would see the current law.

Joel, you can say i am wrong, but you have not presented a convincing argument, just saying i am wrong. Yes it is a free market, and yes a lot of people are trying to find the cheapest guy out there. I see no reason for power point demonstrations, I see only a modest copy fee from kinko's, in that the best class I have been in was almost completely AV free.

People do not need additional training to effectively defend themselves. It may help, but in the VAST majority of DGU's that you can find, the active resisting Citizen's ONLY criteria for success was having a gun handy.

IF you can find me situation after situation where the deciding factor in the successful defense of home and person was excellent training, I will change my tune.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:46 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
1911fan wrote:
joelr wrote:
jdege wrote:
joelr wrote:
Now, if I was to try to change the law to require that carry classes teach everything that I think is necessary -- or, worse, to require that the classes be taught only by me -- that'd be different. But I'm not, and I won't. If I could get 624.714 changed, it'd be to go Alaska-style, not in the direction of requiring more and better instruction.

I'm all for requiring more and better instruction, so long as it the force of public opinion and various forms of social pressure doing the requiring.
Yup. Me, too.


I disagree, on the basis of self defense is a right, not a priviledge of those who can afford more training and higher costs.

That is the base concept here.

it gets back to those pesky words, "shall not be infringed"

Your rights are not infringed, if I consider you an ignorant yahoo and treat you as such. Your rights are not infringed if I throw you off my range when I see you engaged in some damned-fool act of lunacy. My kid's rights are not being infringed if I take his .22 away until he can learn to pay attention to basic firearms safety.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:55 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
jdege wrote:
1911fan wrote:
joelr wrote:
jdege wrote:
joelr wrote:
Now, if I was to try to change the law to require that carry classes teach everything that I think is necessary -- or, worse, to require that the classes be taught only by me -- that'd be different. But I'm not, and I won't. If I could get 624.714 changed, it'd be to go Alaska-style, not in the direction of requiring more and better instruction.

I'm all for requiring more and better instruction, so long as it the force of public opinion and various forms of social pressure doing the requiring.
Yup. Me, too.


I disagree, on the basis of self defense is a right, not a priviledge of those who can afford more training and higher costs.

That is the base concept here.

it gets back to those pesky words, "shall not be infringed"

Your rights are not infringed, if I consider you an ignorant yahoo and treat you as such. Your rights are not infringed if I throw you off my range when I see you engaged in some damned-fool act of lunacy. My kid's rights are not being infringed if I take his .22 away until he can learn to pay attention to basic firearms safety.



And I deserve this how?


I dare say I am not ignorant, and you have never to my knowledge seen me on the range or handle a weapon. My typing skills are bit suspect, but gun handling has never been an issue. .. .. Please clarify.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:58 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
I think he was speaking in generalities, not a personal attack...

I hope so, at any rate. 8) I've met you, and you're certainly not an ignorant yahoo. Well, not ignorant. I was never sure what a yahoo actually is. :lol:

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:59 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
1911fan wrote:
Joel, you can say i am wrong, but you have not presented a convincing argument, just saying i am wrong.
That turns out not to be the case. My argument, repeated for your convenience, follows; whether or not you find it convincing isn't my decision, but yours.
Quote:
Really. Setting the conditions under which I sell my services -- in a free market, where other folks can set other conditions -- isn't at all the same thing as a sheriff denying somebody a permit unless that person meets the sheriff's unlawful (not merely not required, but unlawful) requirements.

It really isn't anything of the kind.

That said, if you really think it is at all the same sort of thing, you should work to get the law changed to prohibit instructors from setting class requirements for their own classes that go beyond the dirt minimums prescribed by law, just as the sheriffs are prohibited by law from requiring permit applicants give them fingerprints, originals, tax statements, sperm samples or whatever.

I can't say I'll help with that, but . . .

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:22 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
So, how much does this really matter?

Aside from the specific situation of someone taking a class with the intent to purchase a suitable carry weapon after its completion, how much pressure is there to use .22s for qualification?

On the other hand, for Joel and the others for whom caliber used for qualification is a big deal, what skill or ability does the student demonstrate with, say, a heavy .38 SPL with light target loads that they would not demonstrate with a .22? Considering that S&W revolvers identical except for caliber and cylinder capacity have been made in .22 and .38, what does the .38 K frame teach or demonstrate that the .22 does not? If it is a question of recoil, what does the K frame .38 teach than an NAA mini, with more felt recoil due to the lower mass, does not teach?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:39 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
mrokern wrote:
I think he was speaking in generalities, not a personal attack...

Yep. Generic "you".

Let me recap.

I stated that I was in favor of social pressure being used to encourage individuals to practice safe firearms handling. This is consistent with my long-held belief that the government should be only one of many institutions of social organization, and should not be the most important. (Which opinion I believe I share with Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders.)

I read 1911fan's statement as indicating that he believed that such social pressure is a violation of an individual's fundamental rights.

I most strenuously disagree.

You may have a right to Keep and Bear, but you don't have a right to do so in an unsafe manner on my property, or in my presence without my stating my displeasure concerning the same.

There is a fundamental difference between a range operator throwing someone off the range because he has demonstrated - in the opinion of said range operator - that he is engaged in unsafe firearms handling, and the government mandating some specific training regime as a precondition for carrying a firearm.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:42 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
The statute was written to encourage diversity and competition among instructors so long as the minimum statutory standards are met. Obviously, it works.

FWIW, I've "qualified" in two states that require a mandated course of fire with a sightless Seecamp .32 that fits in a watch pocket. In competent hands, the tiny Seecamp is capable of firing a 300 score, stopping a physical attack, and intimidating an opponent into surrender. With your assistance, it will do all you need it to do.

The key is "freedom of choice" as the probable threat and social situation demands. I prefer a Glock 17 with 18 rounds of high performance ammo but I'll take a Seecamp over nothing.


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 44 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