Training Standards-Citizen vs Law Enforcement

[Silversmok3]

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_firearms_report_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.

 

[blujax01]

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.

 

[raven818]

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.

 

[oldman45]

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.

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.

 

[ispcapt]

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.

 

[Fishinfool]

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

 

[TexasArmed]

OLDMAN45:

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[oldman45]

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.

 

[blujax01]

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.

 

[OKFC05]

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.

Training is not whether you can hit your target or miss it. That's the easy part 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.

 

[ispcapt]

D 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.

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.

 

[jtpur]

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.....

 

[Faulkner]

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.

 

[wojeepster]

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.

 

[raven818]

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.

 

[cmort666]

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.

 

[oldman45]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

 

[cshoff]

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.

 

[TACC1]

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.