Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Shooting qualification requirements discussion
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12827		 Page 5 of 6
Author:  joelr [ Wed May 20, 2009 12:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Moby Clarke wrote:
Sorry to make you grumpy, Joel. Certainly not my intention.
Well, it's not your problem, in any case. No harm, no foul.
Author:  parap1445 [ Wed May 20, 2009 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm going to chime in here one more time.
If a person chooses to get additional training beyond what is legally required to get a permit, that's fine. But when a person wants to get a permit in this state it is not a choice that he take a class and get a certificate signed by an approved instructor. He or she must take a class and get that certificate, he's not choosing to to take a class he mandated by law to take a class.

Now, as Joel points out, he doesn't have to take the TC Carry class, and if he chooses to take that class then Joel is going to include more than what is required by the statute. He's a private instructor and can teach his class as he sees fit and charge as much as people are willing to pay. If someone doesn't want the extras, then take the class from someone else. Fair enough.

Here's the however. If some other private instructor chooses to teach a class that is a basic class that only covers that which is required by the statute. Why does he have to be flamed and called a bad instructor because he chooses not to include some material that other instructors choose to include even though they will admit that it is not required by law to be included?

I'm not talking about any individual. I don't know who the Penaz guy is that was being discussed in the other thread. I only commenting on what seems to be a general tendency of instructors who teach "full featured" classes that anybody who does less is automatically wrong and a bad instructor.
Author:  jdege [ Wed May 20, 2009 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
parap1445 wrote:
Here's the however. If some other private instructor chooses to teach a class that is a basic class that only covers that which is required by the statute. Why does he have to be flamed and called a bad instructor because he chooses not to include some material that other instructors choose to include even though they will admit that it is not required by law to be included?

I've only seen instructors as being flamed and called bad instructors either because the information the offered was wrong, or because they didn't meet the legal requirements. (i.e., teaching that concealed is required, or qualifying [sic] with air pistols.)

Penaz has been flamed because of his lousy website design, and the multitude of get-rich-schemes he's been forcing on his clients.
Author:  joelr [ Wed May 20, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
parap1445 wrote:

Here's the however. If some other private instructor chooses to teach a class that is a basic class that only covers that which is required by the statute. Why does he have to be flamed and called a bad instructor because he chooses not to include some material that other instructors choose to include even though they will admit that it is not required by law to be included?
I guess those folks, like me, will tend to say that they think it's inadequate because, well, they think it's inadequate.
Author:  John Caile [ Tue May 26, 2009 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Inadequate is as inadequate does
Just a reminder: the law requires a shooting exercise. In observing various classes I've seen 10 people shoot only 5 shots each...all at the same target, which is, in my humble opinion, pitiful.

At the other end, I've also seen instructors require "tactical" speed-loader or magazine reloads, and/or shooting at distances way beyond practical self-defense range. Fine for advanced training, but unnecessary for a carry class.

I personally teach a 50 round introduction to rapid-fire point shooting, at ranges of 10, 15, and 21 feet - that's just me.

As far as the "minimum caliber" debate goes, I agree that "real guns" are better than a .22, and advise my students accordingly, but, like Joel, I have occasionally allowed a .22 for reasons of student physical limitation, with no pangs of conscience whatsoever. After all, it's a shooting exercise, not a "qualification" as we so often mislabel it.

Bottom line? I'd hope that all instructors realize that one day, some enterprising junior "Bob Woodward" from WCCO or the Strib will take someone's class...God help us all if he gets a permit after firing 5 shots at 6 feet...
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Wed May 27, 2009 3:22 am ]
Post subject:  uLIDI
John Caile wrote:
After all, it's a shooting exercise, not a "qualification" as we so often mislabel it.


The wording of the law is "actual shooting qualification exercise." :)

I interpret this to mean:

Actual: Real, not simulated. Real gun. Real ammo. Toys and simulators don't count.
Shooting: You know, with a real gun.
Qualification: Scored; possible to either pass or fail.
Exercise: Ah, here's the sticky part: Dictionary.com says:
Quote:
2. something done or performed as a means of practice or training: exercises for the piano.
3. a putting into action, use, operation, or effect: the exercise of caution.

Under the rules of construction, words need to be taken in the context of surrounding words. The term "qualification" implies that this is a test, not a practice session, which strongly suggests definition #3 -- the putting into operation of shooting.

So, yeah, it's a test. It doesn't have to be a really hard test, but it must to some degree establish a "qualification" of the student in the skill of "shooting."

I require more than what may be the bare legal minimum, and I'm okay with that; so are my students, generally. If they aren't, there are certainly more permissive instructors.

My goal is to be able to sleep at night knowing that I believe each of my students has the minimal skills necessary to safely carry -- and, if necessary, shoot -- a real pistol.
Author:  diskdoctr@yahoo.com [ Wed May 27, 2009 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: uLIDI
Quote:
So, yeah, it's a test. It doesn't have to be a really hard test, but it must to some degree establish a "qualification" of the student in the skill of "shooting."

I require more than what may be the bare legal minimum, and I'm okay with that; so are my students, generally. If they aren't, there are certainly more permissive instructors.

My goal is to be able to sleep at night knowing that I believe each of my students has the minimal skills necessary to safely carry -- and, if necessary, shoot -- a real pistol.


Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but I can't. It seems to me that "Safety" should be the issue here. The quote above says it all. All Instructors should teach and demand safety first, and how many rounds are fired, or how big a bang can be made should be of less importance. Gun safety is gun safety, doesn't make a bit of difference what gun is used. With that said I am a believer that you should do your qual with the gun you will carry.
Author:  joelr [ Wed May 27, 2009 8:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: uLIDI
diskdoctr@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
So, yeah, it's a test. It doesn't have to be a really hard test, but it must to some degree establish a "qualification" of the student in the skill of "shooting."

I require more than what may be the bare legal minimum, and I'm okay with that; so are my students, generally. If they aren't, there are certainly more permissive instructors.

My goal is to be able to sleep at night knowing that I believe each of my students has the minimal skills necessary to safely carry -- and, if necessary, shoot -- a real pistol.


Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but I can't. It seems to me that "Safety" should be the issue here. The quote above says it all. All Instructors should teach and demand safety first, and how many rounds are fired, or how big a bang can be made should be of less importance. Gun safety is gun safety, doesn't make a bit of difference what gun is used. With that said I am a believer that you should do your qual with the gun you will carry.
Well, you've just been banned for disagreeing with me, as I disagree with that last. (Just kidding about the first part, but I do disagree.)

I prefer that people not go shopping until they've heard me out, in class. They still get to do what they want, of course, but . . .

Now, if somebody takes my advice, and doesn't go shopping, how are they possibly going to do their qual with what they carry?

You're right about the safety stuff, of course, and that's a good discussion that should and will continue. I've got some other thoughts on it, in fact.

Can we, maybe agree that what's important is that you practice with the gun that you are going to carry before you start carrying it, and then more, after you start carrying it?
Author:  plblark [ Wed May 27, 2009 8:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: uLIDI
Andrew Rothman wrote:
My goal is to be able to sleep at night knowing that I believe each of my students has the minimal skills necessary to safely carry -- and, if necessary, shoot -- a real pistol.


Well said. I've given a lot of thought to what is a good qual and what I want to see in one. I want to see a student Safely, Competently, and Confidently manipulate all the controls and shoot the gun. I want to make sure they hit their target / assailant and not their neighbor or an innocent bystander.

One way to do that is set a minimum shooting qualification and add strings as you make corrections.

Ex:
1) Check fundamentals. Grip, stance, etc with an UNLOADED gun - I don't want a student to get the good old crossed thumbs railroad track. I don't want any dropped guns.
2) load gun safely - Lets me watch them manipulate the controls. I correct hand swapping here (pick up with left hand, load and rack with right, swap to right, fire)
3) 5 rounds - Where do the rounds go? Grouping? Placement? Flinch? Trigger control?
4) 5 rounds, reload, 5 rounds - More control manipulation, putting it all together, a little stress, and lots of opportunities to demonstrate good muzzle control while manipulating the firearm

For an exceptional student shooting good groups well placed in the target, you could probably stop there. If there are any things you'd like the student to try or there are grouping or placement issues, I coach at this point and then we shoot 5, reload, 5 and reassess.

The other thing I've found works well for me with the range I use (OGC) is that I have several shooters on the line with guns NOT handled unless an instructor is with the student. That way, they shoot, unload and show clear, we talk (encouragement or advice if necessary) and then I move to the next shooter while they load mags. I'm not immediately coaching and then getting the result. They get a chance to think and observe other shooters as well. When I come back to the student, If there was advice last time I ask them how the last string went, what they're going to focus on and then they shoot. It's a nice way to let them hear, see, do

As we make corrections or changes, we repeat 5, reload, 5 until we hit 50 rounds. If we get to 50 rounds and are still not there, I suggest one on one coaching and practice and coming back to shoot the qual again with another class.

I haven't yet had anyone who didn't take the shooting qual seriously or was cocky and unsafe. I hope to keep it that way.
Author:  diskdoctr@yahoo.com [ Wed May 27, 2009 8:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: uLIDI
joelr wrote:
diskdoctr@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
So, yeah, it's a test. It doesn't have to be a really hard test, but it must to some degree establish a "qualification" of the student in the skill of "shooting."

I require more than what may be the bare legal minimum, and I'm okay with that; so are my students, generally. If they aren't, there are certainly more permissive instructors.

My goal is to be able to sleep at night knowing that I believe each of my students has the minimal skills necessary to safely carry -- and, if necessary, shoot -- a real pistol.


Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, but I can't. It seems to me that "Safety" should be the issue here. The quote above says it all. All Instructors should teach and demand safety first, and how many rounds are fired, or how big a bang can be made should be of less importance. Gun safety is gun safety, doesn't make a bit of difference what gun is used. With that said I am a believer that you should do your qual with the gun you will carry.
Well, you've just been banned for disagreeing with me, as I disagree with that last. (Just kidding about the first part, but I do disagree.)

I prefer that people not go shopping until they've heard me out, in class. They still get to do what they want, of course, but . . .

Now, if somebody takes my advice, and doesn't go shopping, how are they possibly going to do their qual with what they carry?

You're right about the safety stuff, of course, and that's a good discussion that should and will continue. I've got some other thoughts on it, in fact.

Can we, maybe agree that what's important is that you practice with the gun that you are going to carry before you start carrying it, and then more, after you start carrying it?


We certainly can agree that you must practice with the gun you intend to carry before you carry it. I was thinking about the people who already knoew what they were going to carry. I also agree that if they haven't made that choice yet, then they should hear out what their instructor has to say before making that purchase.
Author:  johngagemn [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
The law also doesn't say that the student must be wearing clothes during the class, or forbid the guy from having a colander on his head, nor prohibit him from annoying the other students by jumping up and down and yelling, "Noodles, noodles!" every five minutes.


I'll keep these in mind when I take my next renewal class in 4 years or so. :lol:

When you walk in the room I'll shout "Noodles, noodles!", and admit it, you'll chuckle...
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
The law also doesn't say that the student must be wearing clothes during the class, or forbid the guy from having a colander on his head, nor prohibit him from annoying the other students by jumping up and down and yelling, "Noodles, noodles!" every five minutes.


I don't think I'd get through five minutes, but I do have a colander, and live very close to Joel's classroom...
Author:  joelr [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:53 am ]
Post subject: 
johngagemn wrote:
joelr wrote:
The law also doesn't say that the student must be wearing clothes during the class, or forbid the guy from having a colander on his head, nor prohibit him from annoying the other students by jumping up and down and yelling, "Noodles, noodles!" every five minutes.


I'll keep these in mind when I take my next renewal class in 4 years or so. :lol:

When you walk in the room I'll shout "Noodles, noodles!", and admit it, you'll chuckle...
As long as you're clothed, we're cool. Even with the colander.
Author:  johngagemn [ Wed May 27, 2009 11:21 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
johngagemn wrote:
joelr wrote:
The law also doesn't say that the student must be wearing clothes during the class, or forbid the guy from having a colander on his head, nor prohibit him from annoying the other students by jumping up and down and yelling, "Noodles, noodles!" every five minutes.


I'll keep these in mind when I take my next renewal class in 4 years or so. :lol:

When you walk in the room I'll shout "Noodles, noodles!", and admit it, you'll chuckle...
As long as you're clothed, we're cool. Even with the colander.


No worries, I'll wear Thunderwear over a pair of Spongebob boxers.
Author:  kecker [ Wed May 27, 2009 3:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
:shock:

If this is going to become a habit in Joel's class I may very well have to consider another instructor when I do my renewal. I'm not sure I could handle all that hyperventilating from laughter.
Page 5 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/