Instructor advice

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
77
Likes
8
Looking to apply for my ltc and was looking for an instructor/class to sign up to do this. Not exactly sure what class i should be looking for. I'm located on the south shore of mass if someone could point me in the right directions thanks in advance.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
77
Likes
8
Thanks for the help guys im sure this info was right infront of my face. but being new hard to weave my way around
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
Do yourself a favor and only sign up for a class that includes a live fire component.

On what do you base this? Shooting a couple of .22s at 15ft does not automatically make one curriculum more beneficial than one where you don't. There are many reasons why I would recommend a non-live fire course over a live fire course.
 

Mil-Dot

Instructor
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
732
Likes
159
Location
Northern Worc. County
On what do you base this? Shooting a couple of .22s at 15ft does not automatically make one curriculum more beneficial than one where you don't. There are many reasons why I would recommend a non-live fire course over a live fire course.

Would you mind sharing your many reasons for recommending a non-live fire course over a live fire course? I'm not trying to be critical (just curious). I can only think of a couple of reasons where I would actually make that type of recommendation.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
40,696
Likes
9,711
Location
Near Framingham
On what do you base this? Shooting a couple of .22s at 15ft
Back when I was teaching more frequently, I started my students with .22s and .38s. Then depending upon the student's skill and interest, went on to 9mm, .40, and .45, with a total of about 100 rounds fired per student.

I don't know any instructor who has their student shoot "a couple of .22s at 15 ft."
 
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
6,016
Likes
725
On what do you base this? Shooting a couple of .22s at 15ft does not automatically make one curriculum more beneficial than one where you don't. There are many reasons why I would recommend a non-live fire course over a live fire course.

Why would you want someone to do a course without live fire?
There is something to be said about shooting a gun vs learning about it on paper.

Shooting a couple .22LR's at 15 feet is certainly much better than someone telling you how it feels.

I also don't know any instructors that shoot "a couple" .22LR's at 15 feet.

I shoot .22LR, 38's, 357's, 9mm, and 45ACP for my courses.
And if they are especially interested we bring out a few rifles as a bonus but that isn't part of the course.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
If you teach a course and offer all those rounds to a student, then you're a good instructor. However it's not a requirement and I'm sure there are instructors who don't. I think we already went over all of this in a thread in the general section in January?

The most common live-fire course that is accepted for the MA BFS Cert is the NRA Basic Pistol. This curriculum does not include any instruction on rifles or shotguns. If you add those into your course, then once again you're a good instructor, but most won't or don't for many reasons including cost. Say you have a 19yo student who is taking a LTC course so he doesn't have to take another when he applies for his LTC, but gets his FID in the meantime. Should he not have instruction on the operation of a rifle or shotgun in this case? Also, the Basic Pistol course is 8 hours long. In a perfect world your students remember every little tidbit of information that you give them, but in reality they'll barely remember half of a 4 hour course let alone an 8 hour course.

What about spouses and children of avid gun owners who merely wish to have their family licensed to protect them legally? Should they be forced to spend 8 hours and fire pistols when they might never shoot one again or shoot occasionally under supervision? Wouldn't the HFS course designed specifically for them be enough?

The other thing that gets me is people on here claim to be all for constitutional rights, but fail to realize that the MA BFS requirement is just another infringement. What if a person does not wish to spend 8 hour and an entire Saturday taking a BFS approved course when they can do it in 4 hours on a week night? What if they can not afford a $150 basic pistol course, but the $100 or less HFS is more feasible? In many states you do not need a license, let alone a safety course, merely to possess a firearm in the home. We don't hear about blood running in the streets (or homes) in these states, so why put any more infringements on these citizens then you have to?

I teach courses as my primary source of income. It is too difficult logistically and financially to run multiple Basic Pistols classes a week, but I find I can with the Home Firearms Safety course. I also teach at places that implement the use of a simulator as a training tool and while it does not replace live fire, it can greatly help me in teaching students the fundamentals of shooting. I also offer my students the chance for affordable range instruction if they want, but I don't force it on them.

If you only teach and recommend live-fire courses, that is fine. There really is no basis for bashing non-fire courses, especially in MA.
 
Last edited:

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
40,696
Likes
9,711
Location
Near Framingham
I do not, and never have, supported the BFS requirement for mandatory training. Even though it put some money in pocket and I believe very strongly that people should get firearms training, I in no way support mandatory training.

I do think that someone who wants to learn how to shoot might be better served by a course where they actually shoot a real gun. That is not any contradiction to my views on mandatory training.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
I do not, and never have, supported the BFS requirement for mandatory training. Even though it put some money in pocket and I believe very strongly that people should get firearms training, I in no way support mandatory training.

I do think that someone who wants to learn how to shoot might be better served by a course where they actually shoot a real gun. That is not any contradiction to my views on mandatory training.

And I believe it doesn't make enough of a difference for it to be a neccessity, so now we're getting into the realm of beliefs.
 
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
6,016
Likes
725
If you teach a course and offer all those rounds to a student, then you're a good instructor. However it's not a requirement and I'm sure there are instructors who don't. I think we already went over all of this in a thread in the general section in January?

The most common live-fire course that is accepted for the MA BFS Cert is the NRA Basic Pistol. This curriculum does not include any instruction on rifles or shotguns. If you add those into your course, then once again you're a good instructor, but most won't or don't for many reasons including cost. Say you have a 19yo student who is taking a LTC course so he doesn't have to take another when he applies for his LTC, but gets his FID in the meantime. Should he not have instruction on the operation of a rifle or shotgun in this case? Also, the Basic Pistol course is 8 hours long. In a perfect world your students remember every little tidbit of information that you give them, but in reality they'll barely remember half of a 4 hour course let alone an 8 hour course.

What about spouses and children of avid gun owners who merely wish to have their family licensed to protect them legally? Should they be forced to spend 8 hours and fire pistols when they might never shoot one again or shoot occasionally under supervision? Wouldn't the HFS course designed specifically for them be enough?

The other thing that gets me is people on here claim to be all for constitutional rights, but fail to realize that the MA BFS requirement is just another infringement. What if a person does not wish to spend 8 hour and an entire Saturday taking a BFS approved course when they can do it in 4 hours on a week night? What if they can not afford a $150 basic pistol course, but the $100 or less HFS is more feasible? In many states you do not need a license, let alone a safety course, merely to possess a firearm in the home. We don't hear about blood running in the streets (or homes) in these states, so why put any more infringements on these citizens then you have to?

I teach courses as my primary source of income. It is too difficult logistically and financially to run multiple Basic Pistols classes a week, but I find I can with the Home Firearms Safety course. I also teach at places that implement the use of a simulator as a training tool and while it does not replace live fire, it can greatly help me in teaching students the fundamentals of shooting. I also offer my students the chance for affordable range instruction if they want, but I don't force it on them.

If you only teach and recommend live-fire courses, that is fine. There really is no basis for bashing non-fire courses, especially in MA.

I think you're mixing in a whole slew of stuff that is unrelated.

I don't think many of us here agree with the licensing requirements of this state nor think they are constitutional. That is besides the point.

If I had the choice of teaching my best friends and/or family about guns, then I would always want them to experience live fire...which is why I recommend it to others. It's as simple as that. I think that live fire is always better than armchair firing.

Basic pistol doesn't cover long guns...well that's really a MA licensing issue or course curriculum issue. It doesn't reflect upon the opinions of the instructors.

As an instructor you may make your living teaching HFS because economically it makes more sense to you, but that doesn't mean it's always in the best interest of the student. I don't know anyone who makes more money teaching Basic Pistol. Everyone makes more money with HFS but I know many people who prefer to teach Basic Pistol because often times it benefits the student to do so.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
I think you're mixing in a whole slew of stuff that is unrelated.

It all matters and it's all related. You cannot make a blanket statement like "firing is always better than not firing" without all these issues coming into play.

I don't think many of us here agree with the licensing requirements of this state nor think they are constitutional. That is besides the point.

It may not be for someone who runs a Basic Pistol course quarterly at a local gun club, but it IS a key point for an instructor at a school that teaches upwards of 300 students a month.

If I had the choice of teaching my best friends and/or family about guns, then I would always want them to experience live fire...which is why I recommend it to others. It's as simple as that. I think that live fire is always better than armchair firing.

You cannot take what works or how you feel about close friends and family and relate it to complete strangers whom you know nothing about or of their situations. Also, I have no idea what "armchair firing is", is that something they do in IDPA? [laugh]

You have stated your feelings on the matter, but not given a single factual reason to support it other than your feelings. I think live fire is a good thing too, but for the purpose of the BFS course the cons outweigh the pros for me and my students.

Basic pistol doesn't cover long guns...well that's really a MA licensing issue or course curriculum issue. It doesn't reflect upon the opinions of the instructors.

Instructors choose one of 19 accepted courses to teach, how does it not reflect?

As an instructor you may make your living teaching HFS because economically it makes more sense to you, but that doesn't mean it's always in the best interest of the student. I don't know anyone who makes more money teaching Basic Pistol. Everyone makes more money with HFS but I know many people who prefer to teach Basic Pistol because often times it benefits the student to do so.

In my opinion HFS benefits the students more, so that's what I teach. Sometimes economical IS in the best interest of the student. Again, anything else is a matter of opinion at this point. And I don't teach HFS because it makes me more money, I teach it because it fits my teaching philosophy for people who have never had any experience with firearms and who live in a state where there is a training requirement merely to own/possess a firearm. If I were in the position to help create a new training school that had an on-site range, I would still teach the HFS as my basic entry-level course.

Like it or not, the teaching philosophies of a school like MFS has helped license thousands of individuals in the state in a few short years that might never have been licensed otherwise. These people are out there and currently own and carry guns. Accidents and deaths have not gone up so it's obviously not a safety issue. I've also run into dozens of students after taking a course at MFS and not once have they ever said that not firing a real gun made them any less of a prepared gun owner.
 
Last edited:

TheWookie

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
977
Likes
112
Well, good luck with that.

I'm not certain that you would stand up in front of a group of men at a gun club and say that, maybe on the Internet -- where dreams come true.

I can't think of a single thing in life that I do,, that doesn't require practical application.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
Well, good luck with that.

I'm not certain that you would stand up in front of a group of men at a gun club and say that, maybe on the Internet -- where dreams come true.

I can't think of a single thing in life that I do,, that doesn't require practical application.

There are plenty here that would be more than certain that I would have no problem doing such [laugh]

I am not ashamed of my teaching philosophy and I am sure after discussing it with anyone, in person or in writing, they would come to understand my position, if not agree with it.
 
Last edited:

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
372
Location
Seattle, WA
I can't think of a single thing in life that I do,, that doesn't require practical application.

Let me clarify. The only way I feel comfortable teaching HFS to someone who doesn't already have firearms knowledge (military vet, etc.), is with the use of a simulator as a training tool. With this they can pick up a real Glock 22 and see how it recoils and apply the fundamentals so there's no surprises when they fire the real thing.

Nothing replaces live fire either, it is important to understand the distinct recoil characteristics as well as the sights, sounds, and smells. I recommend that everyone fire a real gun, I just don't force them to do it through one of my basic, entry-level, BFS courses. I do everything I can to set the student up to be successful, while trying to minimize the burdens placed on them through the statutory training requirement. [grin]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
77
Likes
8
Thanks for all the help and pm's guys just took mine this weekend at the mass firearm school in framingham with the gf.
 
Top Bottom