Disclaimer-I do not post this with the intent to inflame or insult anyone.I present this topic as a citizen who wants to understand the import of training with one's firearm.

On to the topic at hand, it seems to be a common crutch of the liberal axis to state that police and armed public protection agencies are the only ones qualified to own a firearm. After reading the NYPD 2007 firearms report available here: http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_fire...ort_102207.pdf for the 2006 year it occurs to me that the standard of a 34% hit rate as demonstrated by the NYPD's record for shootings that year may not be a standard anyone should be setting as a goal to strive for.

That begets the question of what standard should the private citizen set for himself or herself to achieve , if the police and law enforcement as a whole isnt a consistent benchmark?After all not every police department that publishes stats will shoot the same as the NYPD in either direction.


Some states mandate that a concealed carry applicant achieve a hit ratio on a paper target every X-months-which is a similar standard to the NYPD, and thus the same result can be expected in that case also.

So the problem stands as this-what level of training should be the stage where someone is truly 'qualified' to carry a weapon regardless of whether they have a uniform or no? Simply strapping on the gun is obviously not it. Some stats such as the one above suggest that punching holes in a static paper target isn't much better.The other extreme-attending a professional shooting academy such as Gunsite-is effective but is also too expensive or impractical for use as a national standard for certifying someone to bear arms.

Id like to focus the discussion on the knowledge and training aspects of concealed carry, and not so much on the idea of deciding someone's right to carry because of it-that's a discussion that will rage long after all of us are dusty bones in the ground.

Unfortunately, simply strapping on a gun is it. I would like to see some common sense minimums set, much like obtaining a driver's license, but therein lies the problem. Not only will that statement start a **** storm, even calmer heads ask: "Who sets the standard"?
The CC classes don't even touch the minimums and vary greatly even within a state. Some classes in Ohio sez: "Gimmee a C-Note and we'll have you all nice-and-legal in no time." In the same state, the range where I received my license took it quite seriously and I learned a lot.

But to the crux of the question ...

I practice - a lot. I belong to a concealed carry league and every week we are exposed to different scenarios and show our competency through competition. We are given a "drop gun" each week. The idea being that we may need to fire the bad guy's gun. Fun and informative. I've shot everything from an 18" sxs 12 ga. to a Marlin Camp 45 to a fully automatic AK. The league still lacks in that is is all static shooting. I'd like to have practice in some mobile type scenarios.

Anybody who intends to own a weapon for home defense or CCW should set their own standards. Can I protect me and mine with a 34% hit percentage? Probably not. What do I need to do to improve it? The answers should be obvious, shouldn't they?

Set your standards high enough to perform at your maximum, and practice on a regular basis to keep it there.

I practice to keep myself up to par. I don't much care what everyone else is shooting. It's up to me to try and protect my family, friends and property if called on.

__________________
Firearms and Saltwater Fishing

Practice always helps. POST firearms certifications set the bar way higher than 34%. That figure comes to play when computing hits under stress.

Let someone come in a resisidence during the middle of the night and be confronted by a drowzy homeowner and the practice shots just went to near nothing. Stress changes the way a person shoots. Fear changes the way people shoot. It is difficult to stand in the open while drawing fire without concern of being hit. Many police shootings take place at less than 20' distances without either side being hit.

Training is not whether you can hit your target or miss it. That's the easy part of training. Anyone who really wants to learn to shoot can be taught to qualify on almost any qualification course. Shooting is nothing more than a skill that has to be honed and practice.
The main part of the training should be whether a person should have fired in the first place. That can be taught but unfortunately many aren't capable of learning it. Shoot or don't shoot involves common sense, reasoning, and the ability to react under pressure. Unfortunately too many aren't able to meet those requirements.

__________________
183rd FBINA

As good a shot, and as well trained as you may be, the actual stress of firing your weapon for real does all sorts of funny things to you hit potential.

Mind set, along with playing "what if" scenarios over in your head helps, as does practice.....as in speed from the holster, and fast hits on multiple targets, using cover if available.

Its really up to the gun owner to take the responsibility of owning a weapon seriously, knowing the laws of self defense in his or her locality, and having the ability to use that weapon in a safe and efficient manner. There will always be that certian percentage who will screw it up, its just human nature. Cars and drivers licenses are a good example. Drivers education, testing, and issued lisc., and still maybe 10 percent of drivers have no business being on the road....

Larry

OLDMAN45:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My plan after getting my Texas CWP was to go to the gunrange every two months to practice. Last time I fired my S&W scoring 237 out of 250. I am anxious for this weekend when I practice with my CA 44 Spl Bulldog 3" handgun. I have not fired a simulated range test with it yet so I don't know if it will shoot as well, but the barrel is longer. I do believe that if anyone is going to keep a CWP and be armed with a handgun that they should pratice regularly as possible. It is expensive to pratice without going to a smaller calibre, but I believe in praticing with the guns I carry. And I use no hand loaded rounds, only factory ammo.

I would agree with this. As to practice with the gun you use, that is the best advice one can give. A miss with a 9mm is as good as a miss with a .45 and a lot cheaper. Still, how much is your life worth? I want the advantage to be on my side. I am proficient with my sidearm. It is a large caliber. Practice with it costs me a chunk of change but I still am on the range at least two days per week and it is still cheaper than staying home with my wife and a lot less stressful. If I have need of my sidearm and have time to use it, I am confident in my ability to use it accurately.

Addressing the OP on the topic of knowledge: I was taught that "You don't rise to the challenge, you fall to your highest level of training."

Under stress, muscle memory is going to check the mag and safety - and that only comes through regular practice.

I wonder how many practice drawing from their CC holster. I fumbled with mine a lot in the beginning. Actually got rid of a couple because even though they held my guns well, but I couldn't manipulate them for squat.

I'm as qualified as the next guy to carry, but I know I can get better. Much better.

First, I am a fervent advocate of training.
Second, Government should not set training standards for exercising a Constitutional right. That is a slipery slope down the road to tyranny. Remember the "literacy tests" for voting that were declared unconstitutional restrictions on voters? Statitistcs show that citizens from states without state-mandated shooting tests have better "error rates" than restrictive states or LEO! Let me hasten to add that LEO work is much more challenging that personal defense carry and requires a different kind of training.

IMHO, evary one who carries should be encouraged to take the NRA series of defense courses if they can afford it and are physically capable. They teach the basics and encourage continued safe practice for those who are willing to make an effort. Plus they spend a lot of time on laws, staying OUT of gunfights and total self protection awareness.

__________________
Science plus Art

Looking at just the hit % tells you nothing. Remember this - in LEO shootings the bad guy usually has fired first which means the LEO is reacting to the incident while taking incoming fire. The LEO did not know he was going to be fired on, the BG had already decided he was going to fire. Which has the advantage? Hit % is always greater if you can get first chance because 1) you've mentally prepared yourself for first shot; 2) you've take first action to fire the first shot; and 3) when you're firing your shot you aren't taking return fire.
I've sent hundreds of thousands of rds downrange in my life. Never once did one of those paper targets ever return fire. I could stand there and look at that paper guy, spend 100% of my concentration on sight alignment/trigger squeeze, not worry about what's behind the target, if mom and kids are coming out of a nearby store, knowing that no rds would be coming back my way and I didn't have to go scrambling for cover. While facing paper 100% concentration was on getting the rd to hit paper and you had plenty of time to do it. But when the rds were incoming you might be surprised there's a whole lot of other things going thru your mind than all the things you had time to think about when it was just paper.
Simulations help when you have someone else firing paintballs back at you. You learn to move and react to avoid getting hit. It helps but still far from the real thing. But with simulations you still know that if hit you're going home that night and the worst you'll have to do is throw your clothes in the washer to get rid of the paint hits.
So don't disparage a 34% hit ratio until you do more digging and thinking about the entire situation than just looking at numbers.

__________________
183rd FBINA

Qualifications??? I do not believe a citizen needs any qualifications other than being a citizen. That being said, I believe its a good idea to practice and shoot often enough to retain proficiency but.......cops need to demonstrate annual or semi annual competency because they are paid to do a job....citizens are not paid to protect the public, they own or carry to protect themselves.....so whatever standard they set is good enough for the government.....I spend 90% of my CHL classes telling people to not use their weapons unless they absolutely must do so....I try to impress on them what the law will require for them to justify their use. Self defense is one of the few defenses that must be proved by the defense in a court of law.....

Frankly, some people I run across every day probably shouldn't be allowed to breed, much less carry a gun. But I don't want the government telling me I can or can't do either.

__________________
- Change it back -

We all have a right to defend ourselves and others even if we can't shoot very well. We are more likely to be successful if we can, under stress. Even if you miss the bad guys usually do not hang around for very long.

Unless it's a small department, most have an on-site range ( in the building basement ), or a site they can go to for practice. No excuse at all for a 3 out of 10 score.

__________________
Firearms and Saltwater Fishing

Until I started working second shift, I shot FAR more than the average cop, up to three times a week, occasionally more. Now unfortunately, I don't get to shoot at all.

Of course I also work hard to know applicable firearms law, at least to the extent that I don't violate it, again something unfortunately not apparently the norm for cops, at least not in Ohio, judging by all of the reported misstatements of law, harassment and false arrests.

As a citizen, if I screw up, either technically, tactically, or legally, I've got no union or prosecutor behind me. I'm totally alone. If I shoot the wrong person, I'm not indemnified for squat.

The citizen has to know both how and when to shoot. If he doesn't, he'll be crucified and nobody will be there to make excuses for him.

If I can do so discreetly, I am going to take some photos this week of the ceiling above the firing line at the local training range. It has been hit almost as much as the bullet trap.

My observations?

I wish there was a way to force people to get better training and practice more without the government getting more involved.

And I agree that there are some that have no business carrying a gun.

But even if more advanced training were a requirement, convincing some people to train often would be difficult.

Carrying a gun for protection requires good training and much practice for starters. Shooting acurately is a perishable skill.

Then there is mindset and attitude. Those two things can't be taught. Only suggested.

If one isn't serious about carrying a gun then training, practice, mindset, and attitude don't matter.

Setting a "training standard" is a bit of a misnomer, IMHO. I think more realistically, what we are really talking about here is a proficiency standard. In other words, a high level of training doesn't necessarily translate into a high level of proficiency and it is for that reason why government mandated training really isn't anything more than a "feel good" measure. You can force someone to take training, and you can even require them to achieve a certain score on a test, but you can't force them to become proficient.

The personal proficiency standard we set for ourselves, IMO, should be reality based. It's not realistic to think that the average armed citizen will require the same level of proficiency as a Navy SEAL, for example. At some point, you have to make a realistic assessment of your situation, your priorities, your resources, and decide what constitutes "good enough" for you. If my intention is to become an IDPA Master Class competitor, for example, then my "good enough" is likely going to be much different than if my intention is simply to arm myself with the proper knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary to protect myself and my family in my home.

I believe the average armed citizen who carries a firearm for personal protection would be well served to be able to demonstrate firearms proficiency in basic marksmanship from distances out to 50 feet (consistent center of mass groups on a standard humanoid silhouette type target), unconditional safe gun handling, proper use of cover and concealment, good defensive accuracy from 0 feet to 30 feet from various compromised shooting positions (standing, sitting, laying on your back, prone, and Close Quarters) as well as good defensive accuracy using Strong Hand Only and Weak Hand Only under those same circumstances, efficient reloads with the firearm platform of your choice, an efficient and safe presentation of the handgun from concealment, and effectively being able to shoot on the move (SOTM). These, IMHO, are the minimum firearms handling standards the armed citizen should strive for. Of course, the sky is the limit, but this is a good foundational defensive skillset.

More importantly, IMHO, than the hard skills mentioned above, is mindset. Anyone can learn how to shoot, but it takes a proper mindset to keep you alive. That is, by far, the most common handicap I see in armed citizens. Many folks believe simply having a gun, or simply being a good marksman, will be enough to keep them alive in a lethal force encounter. A lot of folks just haven't taken the time to prepare themselves mentally for the physiological and psychological responses the human body will go through when faced with such a high level of stress. I suggest that developing the proper defensive mindset should be the top priority of anyone who carries a firearm for personal protection.

I recently recieved training films from a forum member, which has
shown me how far I have to go to be proficient. A Loooong way!
That said, I'd like to see every law-abiding citizen armed
irregardless of skill level. It would at least give them the Chance to
protect themselves, rather than just die like sheep.
What's that term, "sheeple"?
JMHO, TACC1.

When I went to the academy, we had a film called Shoot-Don't shoot. The object was to put the trainee in a situation that demanded an instant decision. The film was shown on a white piece of paper. The projectiles were plastic. We fired inside the classroom, two officers side by side.

The plastic went thru the paper into an academy built large steel box.
Several scenarios were presented, I only died once . I was inside a bar looking for a felon I had a warrant for. The BG was spotted, and as I approached him, a female sitting at a bar stool, shot me twice. I wasn't looking for her....so, lesson learned.

Great training tool. Old stuff today, I guess. Wonder if any copies are still out there?

Next to the real thing, I though it was the best I'd seen.

__________________
Firearms and Saltwater Fishing

Were I in a position of appropriate authority, I would abolish all of the firearms related mandatory training for an Ohio CHL.

I would replace it with a requirement for a similar amount of training in applicable law related to owning and carrying a firearm, self-defense and use of deadly force.

I have yet to see a case in Ohio where somebody with an Ohio CHL got in trouble because he didn't know firearms or his firearm. I've seen PLENTY of cases where either:

1. The CHL holder didn't know the law and violated it.
2. The police didn't know the law and harassed or falsely arrested the CHL holder (or open carrier) for something which is NOT a crime, or stated personal preference or prejudice as law, whether acted upon or not.

It doesn't take much to be able to adequately use a firearm to defend yourself.

It's MUCH harder to both stay within the law and to ensure that LEOs do likewise.

It was being used by NASA contract security both in Cleveland and Plum Brook in the early '90s.

That sounds great! Put it on a large flatscreen TV, and use an airsoft pistol for some interesting in-home training.

It was paid for by the feds through a program called Law Enforcement Assistance Association ( LEAA ) when we used it.

__________________
Firearms and Saltwater Fishing

You don't really know if you're "qualified" to carry a gun until the time comes for you to shoot someone who is trying to hurt or kill you. You may be able to reach some level of proficiency in holding the gun steady enough to put the bullets where you want them to go but that doesn't mean you're qualified to carry a gun. "Qualification" is just some arbitrary number ratio or level of proficiency dreamed up by someone to cover their asses when it comes to civil liability.

The reason many cops are more qualified to carry a gun than many of those range rats who can out shoot the fat, donut-eating cops any day of the week is because of the judgment that comes over time from dealing with street cop stuff all day long for weeks after weeks after weeks. You don't get that punching holes in paper or reading "The Armed Citizen" or bench racing on gun forums.


The prosecutor is not on the side of the police after a shooting, or any time really. The prosecutor is just another lawyer.

That may or may not be true, depending upon the jurisdiction and the individual parties concerned. The name "Lon Horiuchi" might ring a bell, as might "Alvin Weems". Both killed people in unjustified shootings and neither served a day in jail.

I DO know that if _I_ shoot the wrong person, or the right person under the wrong circumstances, I've got NOBODY to go to bat for me that I don't pay for out of pocket. Nor will there be ANYBODY to make excuses for any lack of skill or judgment on my part. I GUARANTEE you that if I get caught LYING about what happened, there will be FAR greater consequences than those that accompanied Weem's unjustified shooting and the fairytale around it which he spun.

Must your anti-LEO bias appear in every single one of your posts? Has a LEO ever done anything that meets your personal approval?

What part of what I said is NOT true?

Does ANYONE imagine that a citizen could shoot an unarmed man in the face for no reason, LIE about it, get caught on videotape and not even interact with the criminal justice system?

Or are you saying not that it didn't happen, but that you APPROVE of it?

I havent taken the time to read every post here but here is how it went for me when I started out as a guard in california at several companys in california in 1964. At first I was turned loose to pack with NO training.
Now I was gun savy and trained by dad etc at a very early age, but that is beside the point. Universal studio in burbank hired me to take the place of a guard that had shot someone he shouldnt have. I went from there to lockheed aircraft company in burbank. We had our own inhouse training from a good gun savy ex marine team shooter etc. Sometimes our then self imposed training was good, sometimes it was "indifferent".
` I think it was around the early 1970s that the state of california`s bureau of consumers affairs initiated guard cards and gun cards that we had to be schooled to the states standards for the first time. I was one of the very first to have to jump through the hoops in the first class set up. In later years a instructor seen my low number on my permit and commented I had the earliest low number he had ever seen.
Seems to me we at first had to qualify once a year and later it was six months. So in over 35 years I had a lot of requals. Sometimes I did it at the sheriffs range, sometimes at a AF base, other times at gun shop ranges with state instructors. Some were very through and others very mediocre. After I retired and moved here to utah I took the state ccw class. It didnt start to compare to any of my old requals. I couldnt belive it, it wasnt nothing but a 4 or 5 hour filibuster with no range time.

I agree with practicing with the gun you carry but as to not using reloaded ammo, that is your call and your money. I can't afford a dollar+ a pop so I reload. As long as my loads duplicate what I carry I don't see a problem.

In fact due to carrying an auto, to be certain that my gun would function - always, after shooting a couple of boxes of factory loads I duplicated the load down to using the same bullet. Can shoot more in practice and since I already reloaded I've saved $$$.

I dunno... I'd have to think over the breeding part... :-)

__________________
US Army RVN 69-71 (5th SFGA)

Yeah, like this which happened to me last month in Ohio: Dayton Cop Flunks test - YouTube My brother is retired LEO and I respect the vast majority of those who risk their lives every day so this was not a slam on LEOs as a whole; but the more power given to them by more government regulations just begs for more misinterpretations and like scenarios.

Anyone who carries should not only be well informed about the mechanics and drawing and firing, but also the mind-set that is required to do this safely and effectively. No list of 100 rules by a state agency is going to guarantee this. My CHL class in Dayton was very thorough (as it could be in the time allotted), but in a Walmart parking lot at 1:30 am with adrenaline running through my body, well a whole different matter.

I do agree with other posters, though: if you practice, practice, practice at the range; dry fire a lot using various imagined scenarios, and most importantly, be acutely aware of your surroundings when you are out and about with a handgun in your belt/pocket.

__________________
US Army RVN 69-71 (5th SFGA)

Bit of thread drift here.

Without a doubt that Dayton Cop certainly flunked that test. However, there is a rather easy solution to avoiding these unfounded accusations. Since the permits in many states are linked to vehicle registrations or drivers licenses you simply inform the officer that you have a permit to carry and whether you are armed or unarmed. Yeah, I know, if you aren't carrying it's not required, and you might think it's none of his business. However, put yourself in that officers shoes for just a moment, he's just turned his back on what he thought was an "average citizen" and found out that citizen could have been armed when he called in the license and registration. While simple logic dictates that he could have done the same with a person carrying without a permit, the simple fact is that officer is going to return to you a bit irritated. Personally, I've always found it most beneficial to make sure that I do NOT irritate a police officer who has stopped me for a minor traffic infraction and doing that has resulted in a lot of warnings instead of citations. Yeah, going a bit further than required by law is "gaming" the system a bit, I just don't care, my last citation of record was in 1987 and as a result I get every good driver discount on my insurance that is offered.

As for the original proposition, fortunately civilians are a much lower risk of needing their guns than the police. In addition I suspect that civilian uses usually take place at near contact ranges instead of at longer distances. As a result, there probably isn't as much need for accuracy as there is for the police.

Now, that doesn't excuse anyone who carries from making sure they are proficient. However, it does mean that shooting at paper may be just enough to do what it needs to. I'm also a big believer that those who carry chose just one gun and shoot it frequently enough that it becomes a natural extension of their arm. Quite simply, become that old man with just one gun who shoots it very very well.

We all can lower our risk factor by making good decisions about where and when we go certain places. Such as "do I really need to go to the corner market at 11:00pm." Active thought process will help keep us out of trouble more than carrying a weapon. Range time is great and needed but if I avoid places where trouble may be I will be better off. If anyone thinks this line of thought is restrictive of their freedom try explaining to the prosecuting attorney after a shooting that they have a right to go anywhere because they are legally armed. Just my rant for the day!

Some of us have very limited options in that regard.

I work second shift. Most times, if I have to go to the store, it's going to be after midnight, on the way home from work.

There is no location marker for crime.

One can walk through the dark corners in the ghetto daily for years and never be robbed, only to be accosted by a carjacker driving though Moneybagsville. Just because the neighbors drive Benzes instead of Fords doesn't mean the crime rate is any lower.

I too have worked all the shifts and understand what you are saying. I used to be required to go into downtown Richmond. Va. during "off hours" while doing my job. Don't have to anymore and don't.

It's not a "score". It's a ratio of hits during police involved shootings. Everyone is a pistol expert until the targets start shooting back.

I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if your shoot/don't shoot scenario were real life, you would have been quite happy to hit the bad guy with 3 out of ten shots as opposed to your performance on the range trying to put holes in paper. And if anyone asked you what your "excuse" was for not hitting the target more, I'm sure the last thing on your mind would be coming up with a valid "excuse".

The only option to training for real life scenarios, is what exactly? I see this rhetoric often, mostly from the same folks.

What would be another option? Most difficult to comprehend..

__________________
Firearms and Saltwater Fishing

Before we packed ourselves into high rise apartment buildings and when we lived in the rural areas which was most of the country we did not need any "range practice" range practice was shooting dinner.......deer, elk, bear, buffalo, squirl, rabbit or whatever....you either shot well or you went hungry.

My personal opinion is as such, the government should not set standards. It is the right of all U.S. citizens of sound mind and clean criminal record to own and possess firearms. Do I think a person needs to be competent with their weapon? Yes, but to allow the government to set standards on the Second Amendment is inviting abuse of power. It is our responsibility to meet our own standards. I feel that anyone of sound mind ought to set reasonable expectations for him/herself. Taking classes is never a bad idea.

__________________
Just the opinion of a kid

Not going to happen.

The law is what matters, and the law only. I have to know it and obey it. I don't have to like it. The same goes for the cop. If the law doesn't require me to notify when not carrying, that's it. Finito.

When you start creating imaginary "duties", the envelope just keeps getting pushed farther and farther. That's why we have laws, so that everybody knows what's expected of them in a consistent, predictable way.

If a cop can't deal with the letter of the law he needs a career change.

Absolutely correct! How many of us outside of LE have EVER fired a gun under any circumstances other than hunting or the range? Not many! For those who have you know you are among the few. Most if us don't know how we will react if that time ever comes. I have been around guns my whole life hunting, target shooting, ect. and a tour in the Marines...I have never shot at anyone and have never been shot at. I am sure that almost all of us fit in that category.

I would like to think I would react well but I am smart enough to know that with ZERO experience in a gunfight (most of us) I won't know for sure 'till I get there. I hope that is never because I don't see much of an upside if the guns start coming out...but at least I'll have one!

The problem with getting holster work is that many ranges don't allow it! I guess they are afraid the shooters will shoot themselves in the foot. My local range is very anal on safety for good reasons but it can be restrictive.

This is absolutely true. The only people allowed to use holsters on our range are participants at organized IDPA functions.

The issue is not finding another training option. The issue is comparing training results with real-world situation results. When you say that a 34% hit ratio is inexcusable and base that on the results from range training, you're comparing apples to oranges. Training is used to increase survivability, not as a baseline for scoring shooting situations.

The first people who would shake their fists when the police started enforcing "the letter of the law" would not be the cops but rather those who they police. You are almost as wrong as you could be. "The Law" is far from "the only thing that matters". People want to be policed with discretion, not with the letter of the law. As much as some of them SAY they do. I've spent over 26 years policing people and believe me, NOBODY wants to be policed by people who follow the letter of the law with an attitude that "nothing matters but the law".

As far as the cop in this video, yeah he looked like an idiot because he stuttered and he appeared to not know the law. But what did he compel the driver to do? Did he take action based on his faulty knowledge? Did he search the driver for a gun? Did he write the driver a ticket for not telling him he had a CCW permit but was not carrying?

Well, you could start out by not calling someone out who took care of business in real life when you couldn't do it on paper...You might even be able to learn something from those who have walked away from a gunfight with a 34% hit ratio and dead, wounded or otherwise incapacitated perpetrator.

Who's the better gunfighter? The guy who fires 16 rounds out of a Glock and walks away after hitting the bad guy once in the head or the guy who walks away shot in the gut after killing the bad guy with 3.5 rounds from his 5-shot .38 because someone on a gun forum once told him "If you can't hit what you're shooting at with 5 shots, you may as well hang it up?" A 34% hit ratio is more than acceptable when you walk away and the bad guy doesn't. In fact, it's perfect.

The difference in most cops vs. most non-cops in the way they handle deadly force situations is their experience level in dealing with hostile people and the ability to stay calm and objective in those situations, not their level of firearms training. You generally don't develop that ability from firearms training, although firearms training is important too. You develop it from going from domestic call to domestic call and from building check to building check and fro traffic stop to traffic stop and from dealing with jerks all day long. Police training is woefully inadequate and to compare it to what most non-cop gun carriers do as far as training is really apples and oranges. Most police training programs do not exist to train cops how to be good gunfighters. They exist (most of them) to fill the need for a mandated training requirement to reduce civil liability on a shoestring budget. This is obvious as we see many departments get away from "scoring" and merely qualify officers if they can keep most rounds in the target somewhere, for example.

Take the cop in the traffic stop video in this thread. He may have graduated top in his class in firearms training, maybe, but he sure wasn't very experienced in handling people.

Just because a person has the ability to shoot doesn't mean they can shoot. I've seen some really good shooters who, when real life became real, couldn't do it.
There are those who can. And there are those who will.
There are those who think they can but then they also probably think they're smarter, taller, and better looking than everyone else.

__________________
183rd FBINA