Training Standards-Citizen vs Law Enforcement

[raven818]

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..

 

[jtpur]

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.

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.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

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.

 

[cmort666]

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.

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.

 

[lhump1961]

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.

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!

 

[lhump1961]

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.

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.

 

[cmort666]

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.

 

[CelticSire]

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..

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.

 

[MaximumLawman]

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.

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?

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..

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.

 

[ispcapt]

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.

 

[LeMans]

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."

You probably meant " In combat a man does not rise to the occasion, but sinks to his lowest level of consistent training" instead

 

[cmort666]

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".

I've seen "discretion". It's usually just a euphemism for corruption and favoritism.

We have laws for a reason. If I wanted the "rule of whim", I'd move to Mexico or Syria. I'll stick with the rule of law.

 

[MaximumLawman]

You're right, I should have said "nobody except you".