Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sat Jun 15, 2024 11:17 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.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Why require training for renewal? 
Author Message
 Post subject: Why require training for renewal?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:31 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Quote:
Continuing Education for Self-Defense: ... Look at it this way... if you
were scheduled to receive open heart surgery, who would you choose as a
surgeon; one who graduated medical school 20 years ago and never took
another class or performed a single surgery. or one who has been a
practicing surgeon for 20 years, attending at least one continuing
education course every year? It's really no different with personal
protection skills. The twelve hour training is designed to help you to
be safe and have a basic knowledge of firearms. Think of it as a prep
course. But while safety knowledge can last a lifetime, tactical skills
need to be regularly practiced. Anyone truly serious about being
prepared should have a varied skillset available to them, and the only
way to gain those skills is through training...

http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Clevelan ... -education


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:54 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:06 pm
Posts: 293
Location: White Bear Lake
"But while safety knowledge can last a lifetime, tactical skills
need to be regularly practiced. Anyone truly serious about being
prepared should have a varied skillset available to them, and the only
way to gain those skills is through training... "

If the talk here is about additional training such as Gunsite, Blackwater etc. for the VAST majority it just isn't going to happen! Most PCP people don't have the money, time , nor inclination to go through that type of training. It is a VERY good idea. Showing a knowlege of the safe operation, handling, and proper use of a weapon seems more important to most permit holders.
The additional training wasn't required to first get our permits (hopefully our knowledge base/skills has increased some). I also don't recall wording in 2A about additional training..
Be safe, CraigJS

_________________
GSG-5, Beretta Mdl 71 (.22), XD9SC, 22/45 Ruger


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:00 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:48 pm
Posts: 479
Location: Afton
Uhhh - doctors and dentists and nurses ARE required by law to accumulate a certain number of hours of continuing education to keep their licenses current.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:47 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:32 am
Posts: 515
Location: Metro Area - Apple Valley
While I agree continuing education is a good thing and while I strongly recommend training and practice I would prefer the training part was not a requirement. I understand why it was written into the law. I would just prefer it not be required.

_________________
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:16 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 1150
Location: Morristown
If you were going to have heart surgery, who would you want to perform it?
1. An intern fresh out of Medical School?
2. A woman who's been married to a heart surgeon for 20 years.

That is the same anology I used to choose between Hillary or Obama, although neither one was my choice, but Hillary kept saying Obama was inexperienced for the office, as if being married qualified that bitch! :roll:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:23 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
I'm not a fan of giving a permit to people who can't prove they can handle and shoot a gun.
I wish the training part was harder than it is.
In my class at the range, people who never held a gun and had to have help loading a clip in the gun passed with flying colors. That wasn't right. They couldn't shoot worth crap either, Then the instuctor moved them closer to the target. I just shook my head when they got their permit. I figure if they ever have to access or draw their gun they'll shoot themselves. Or the bad guy will make swiss cheese out of them.

I don't want to be around anyone who can't handle a gun properly


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:33 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
JimC wrote:
I'm not a fan of giving a permit to people who can't prove they can handle and shoot a gun.

I'm not a fan of needing government to "give" people fundamental human rights.

Quote:
In my class at the range, people who never held a gun and had to have help loading a clip in the gun passed with flying colors.

Which rifle were they using? I don't know any pistols that use clips. :)

Image

Quote:
That wasn't right. They couldn't shoot worth crap either, Then the instuctor moved them closer to the target.


Seriously, though, which instructor passed these yahoos?

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
Andrew Rothman wrote:

Quote:
That wasn't right. They couldn't shoot worth crap either, Then the instuctor moved them closer to the target.


Seriously, though, which instructor passed these yahoos?


Really, is "couldn't shoot worth a crap" defined as couldn't hit a bulls-eye at 50 yards, or couldn't manage defensive accuracy at defensive ranges?

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:02 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
JimC wrote:
I'm not a fan of giving a permit to people who can't prove they can handle and shoot a gun.
I wish the training part was harder than it is.
In my class at the range, people who never held a gun and had to have help loading a clip in the gun passed with flying colors. That wasn't right. They couldn't shoot worth crap either, Then the instuctor moved them closer to the target. I just shook my head when they got their permit. I figure if they ever have to access or draw their gun they'll shoot themselves. Or the bad guy will make swiss cheese out of them.

I don't want to be around anyone who can't handle a gun properly
There are many many States that have no shooting component at all. Some even issue permits to those age 18...and...guess what....there is -0- difference in public safety.

There is no basis whatsoever to the concept that additional (or any at all) training makes any difference in safety to the permit holder or the public. It is, at best, just a "feeling" completely unrooted in fact.

Of course, I suspect many if not all instructors encourage additional training...I "feel" it makes sense (but again, there is no data to back up that feeling.). But, to artificially force some standard on a person is something I would never want to see.

I know I have passed people with marginal shooting ability. We do try to remediate and help those that are new..nervous...etc., but I am not going to "fail" a student on some arbitrarily imposed standard. I believe the only standard should be that they are "safe" (muzzle control, able to manipulate any controls etc.....).

I agree it sounds reasonable to require training. It really does. But, the facts say it makes no difference.

Why we don't...

a. want people with guns at schools
b. want people with guns in bars
c. want people with guns in public meetings
d. want people with guns in parks or forests
e. want people with guns in churches
f. want people with guns in banks
g. want people with guns at any public event, ball game, sporting event, concert, movie theater
h. want people with guns anywhere

Yup, it makes sense. Feels right to me.

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:22 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am
Posts: 572
Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
Andrew, I think the mauser c96 may qualify as a pistol that uses a clip.

Image


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:06 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Dangit, how come I never get someone bringing one of those to my classes?

westhope wrote:
Andrew, I think the mauser c96 may qualify as a pistol that uses a clip.

Image

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 pm 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
Maybe the state should qualify the instructors. Not just the instructor or organization submitting a course outline for approval as they do now, but a practical. The instructor would have to demonstrate knowledge of the law, which almost anyone can do with just some reading skills and retention, but also a practical in the knowledge, operation and proficiency with a handgun.

That sure would weed some less qualified out.

Just food for thought. 8)


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:27 pm 
On time out
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm
Posts: 1689
Location: 35 W and Hiway 10
The semantics over clip vs magazine are really moot. both marlin and savage quite recently have called certain .22 rifles as clip fed which was to distinguish the tube magazine fed models. Clearly there is no difference between a .22 detachable clip as defined and marketed bythe MANUFACTURER and the device used to hold ammunition for a semi auto pistol.

Barking at people who learned the terminology a while ago when it was considered correct does little good for anyone.

_________________
molan labe


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:39 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am
Posts: 572
Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
Andrew wrote:

Quote:
Dangit, how come I never get someone bringing one of those to my classes?


You never invited me to one of your classes!

As far as the clip / magazine (also weapon / firearm - gun) terms; that was drilled into me in my first NRA instructor training. I keep any harassment to only those that I know are other NRA instructors. Inside joke others may not understand.

As instructors, we should use consistant terms so as not to confuse the students. Politely correct students if needed.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:45 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
cobb wrote:
Maybe the state should qualify the instructors. Not just the instructor or organization submitting a course outline for approval as they do now, but a practical. The instructor would have to demonstrate knowledge of the law, which almost anyone can do with just some reading skills and retention, but also a practical in the knowledge, operation and proficiency with a handgun.

That sure would weed some less qualified out.

Just food for thought. 8)
Well, I'm certainly in favor of the idea -- I can think of a bunch of folks who take up a much-needed space who could be shown the door -- but I worry, a lot, about the implementation. As you'll remember from the whole Certification Mess, we came very close to requiring, basically, baby POST stuff. A bad, bad idea.

That said, while I'm not in the business of training instructors, I have heard some horror stories from folks who have, and I think you underestimate how many could be washed out by even a reasonably strict test.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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 30 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