How Relevant is LE and Military Experience to Private Citizens?

[Mr_White]

As private citizens, we can enjoy the benefits of training, practice, competition, the pursuit of a high level of technical skill, etc. What we do not get, if things go right in our lives, is experience at anything other than avoidance.

Consequently, we frequently look to the experiences of others for reference, and those people typically come from an LE or military background.

How relevant are those experiences and how might we qualify them?

As an example, Kevin B. recently commented that he had developed the habit of using his professional equipment (war belt, plate carrier, etc.) in training, even though he no longer uses that equipment professionally. He has switched to using what he actually carries and what he actually wears now, perceiving a relevancy benefit in doing so.

TLG has offered an example before too - black sights sometimes being advocated by those whose experiences are shaped being on a team with long guns, NODs, WMLs, and IR lasers - and questioned the relevancy to private citizens without those assets.

The excellent example was recently raised, 'is the best way to get a "conscripts-to-firearms-training-populated-organization" up to a basic level of competency also the best way to train motivated LE, .mil, and private citizen students?

Surely there are a great many aspects of this, from equipment to tactics to desirable skill level, and ranging from direct 1:1 relevancy to total irrelevancy. But perhaps we can discuss it and see what elements of doctrine we think fit best where.

[YVK]

Outstanding question. Identifying with instructors who have spent their carriers armed with rifles and performing offensive team tasks has always been difficult for me.

I think that, at a minimum, we can look at their behavioral and psychologic responses during armed lethal force encounters.

We can look at training philosophy of those units whose tasks we can identify the most with - for example, those that perform hostage rescues (in context of shot precision and bystanders).

We can learn from individual mistakes. Those who haven't read Paul Gardner's' story need to go and find out.

We can learn about physical conditioning and mindset cultivation from accounts of those who persevered and won against odds.

We can seek out training from those who operate in conditions similar to ours - concealment, no one to watch your back, and pistol as an only weapon.

Those are my thoughts.

[JeffJ]

One thing that has been rattling around in my head lately has been along the lines of learning from folks who have a good understanding of the social and professional issues of carrying concealed without a badge. Many of us (us being non-LEO civilians) are expected to dress a certain way in both business and social dealings which makes the carrying of a "real gun" pretty difficult. It seems like there are only a few trainers out there who are taking this reality head-on and doing more than insisting that people "dress around the gun."

Don't get me wrong, I carry a "real gun" and a reload as much as I can, but often it's a j frame in my pocket.

Mechanics, mindset, and tactics are great but I think that often there is a missing component of "living with a gun" as an armed citizen.

I don't think I answered the question at all, but I really am trying to add to the discussion:o

[John Hearne]

I'd really suggest catching Tom Givens' presentation "Defining The Threat." He spends a lot of time discussing the various contexts that give us most of our instructors and their relevance to the armed private citizen.

[Mr_White]

I'd really suggest catching Tom Givens' presentation "Defining The Threat." He spends a lot of time discussing the various contexts that give us most of our instructors and their relevance to the armed private citizen.

Well I'd love to, but I doubt I will get the chance anytime soon. I don't suppose Tom would like to comment?...

[Dr. No]

In my opinion, almost anyone can teach firearms. Competition guys, LE guys, mil guys, guys who have never done any of those things. Running a gun is not a skill limited to those professions, though there is a large pool of knowledge in those professions because being gunslingers is part of their day to day jobs.

There are amazing instructors... and awful ones. Often times there is little to no "qualifications" needed to teach shooting. You take a class, be "certified", and get out on the range.

All that being said, there are very few people who teach tactics. Very few non-LE/mil folks have lots of experience being involved in situations where gun play is common. If you want information and training on how that experience has shaped their firearms programs, it only makes sense to learn from them.

There are a lot of people who teach. What they teach may never have been tested. If it's never tested, they really have no idea if it really works. If it doesn't work, you may be learning tactics that could really fail you in a time of need.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'd really suggest catching Tom Givens' presentation "Defining The Threat." He spends a lot of time discussing the various contexts that give us most of our instructors and their relevance to the armed private citizen.

^This^

Big time.


I will note that sometimes some of the special guys do end up with a valid level of experience in CCW issues, although they almost always are working OCONUS when it happens.


Others in LE can also have a valid base of experience. That like half of the OISs involving FBI agents are when they are off duty or in plain clothes, and stem from things like armed robbery attempts, is pretty much exactly the sort of thing that folks with a CCW have to deal with.

[AJZ]

Great question OAK! My feelings are that most military/LEO "macro" experience has little to no relevancy what so ever to the private citizen. For former military instructors, now a days there are a lot of "combat" experienced instructors out there. There's a lot of micro-experiences that may cross over, like how long it will be before you actually find your sights after firing in intense situations, or auditory exclusion and its effect on the shooter, etc. But I feel that the macro-experiences are pretty irrelevant. It is unrealistic to think that you're gonna get up in the morning, strap your battle belt and drop-leg on, throw your plate carrier over your multi-cam shirt, grab a carbine and be ready to close with and engage the enemy on your way to your office. I'm a big fan of the the AR platform, but to me, if its getting deployed, it's coming out of a car or my closet. I do feel there is merit to learning the systems, but in context of your life. Not sure about any others no longer in that lifestyle, but I don't throw my kit on when I'm goin to the movies. And that seems to be a hard lesson learned for most former military guys, and the ones that do recognize and get it I give great props. That being said, there are some guys in the military that have/do carry handguns in a covert/concealed nature and they have some definite experiences to draw on. These are few and far between and more often than not, the exception to the rule.

With all due respect, I think LEO's are even worse, because it is very easy for us to rationalize that they lead similar lives to the average person. They get up, they talk to people all day, they drive in cars, all in our home towns, etc. Except they strap an open carry gun, badge, and uniform on everyday when they do these things. Not aware of many uniformed LEO's that have been held up in their squad cars or someone tried to take their wallets in an alley at night while on the job. But again, they have micro-experiences that are very worth while I feel. Dealing with the aftermath of a shooting or gunfight, dealing with someone who has no rational thought process when confronted with lethal force, having to go into a structure alone not knowing what is inside, etc. I think a better group to pull from is probably the UC/plain clothed guys. Granted, you probably aren't doing dope deals or gun deals with Shady McFinnigan, but the fact that they are constantly concerned with people seeing their gun, or bumping into them, or the notion that they may be robbed or have a gun stuck in their face at any minute and the fact that their "TEAM" may not be close enough to do a damn thing has some merit.

Just some thoughts on the subject.

[BJJ]

I think that uniformed patrol officers have some carryover to citizens carrying concealed. Yes the officers are carrying openly but if they have to confront an unexpected threat, it will almost certainly be with a pistol. I also think that detectives and plain clothes vice officers can have a lot to offer since they spend plenty of time in shady parts of town at strange hours. Lots of vice guys get robbed or are present when their informants get robbed while wearing a wire. As far as military, I think some of the super secret special ops people (that's SSSOP for short) who function almost like spies at times have very valuable experience. If you were tooling around East Germany while armed before the wall came down, you have carried concealed when the stakes were very high. I am sure there are more recent examples. Pat McNamara and Mike Pannone come to mind. I have read a couple of interesting AAR's of Mike Pannone's concealed carry class lately and it seems like he has a very well thought presentation based on real world experience. I think Pannone used to train Federal Air Marshalls which I think would also be a group that would have very relevant experience. In short, I think there is a lot to be gleaned but maybe not as much from people using team tactics and rifles to do raids.

[Kyle Reese]

It makes a great deal of sense to evaluate what you, the end user, wish to get out of the training. If you were once in the military, and wish to learn how to effectively employ a handgun as a defensive arm when you assume the role of Joe C. Civilian, it would be logical to seek out a trainer that specializes in that.

If you're a member of the .mil, an OCONUS PSC or LEO, and wish to keep your skills sets current, it makes sense to seek out qualified trainers that can adequately train you up for your next call out, deployment or gig. Kyle Defoor, Tiger Swan and many others do an outstanding job on training warfighters and those who kick doors for a living.

That said, there are truly world class shooters out there that have a lot to offer anyone seeking to improve their shooting. Accomplished shooters seeking training from the likes of TLG, Bob Vogel, Manny Bragg, Frank Proctor and many others stand to gain a lot, regardless of their professional background. Shooting on the move, pushing a student hard on various drills and providing expert individual feedback benefits all involved.

[jlw]

It depends...

If your personal life consists to teaming up with strangers and doing bound and cover up a street whilst blasting threats or stacking up and doing dynamic entries, maybe some of the .mil/SWAT guys have just the training you need. Of course, maybe you need to evaluate your lifestyle.

That being said, many of those guys probably have good stuff to learn when it comes to individually running a carbine.

The flip side holds true as well.

A USPSA grand master would probably be a good place to go for learning how to run a pistol, but if he has never worn a badge or been in a combat arms military job, room clearing probably isn't his forte.

[Chuck Haggard]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.

That's a problem for me.

[rob_s]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.

That's a problem for me.

Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

[Casual Friday]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.

That's a problem for me.

I agree and would take training from just about any competent instructor who "stays in his/her lane" so to speak. I would go to a GM USPSA to improve my fundamentals and shooting skills, but wouldn't seek their advice on concealed carry methods, techniques and "tactics" if that isn't their speciality.


Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?


I just want their skillset to match the curriculum they're teaching. If they're leaving the range with all their pistols in their range bag and none on their hip, that tells me that they probably aren't real serious about concealed carry and therefore probably shouldn't be teaching it.

[Chuck Haggard]

Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

Just one of my "things" I have to overcome.

Like I'm the only dude with issues.

[41magfan]

You know, ever since the Miami debacle in 1986, everyone that has shot more than a hundred rounds into a block of ballistic gelatin is a terminal ballistics expert.

Since 1990 (Gulf War I), everyone with an Infantry/SF MOS is suddenly an expert in all things related to the use of small-arms by civilians and the LE community. If they happen to have access to a square range, they’re suddenly in the weapons training business. And then we have those that have no real experience at anything (but pulling a trigger perhaps) teaching others the application and tactics of personal defense.

If you have no frame of reference or context for the subject matter, I guess some things being taught might sound plausible, but a whole bunch of stuff I’ve seen purported as being relevant is laced with a bunch of nonsense. But instead of trying to take issue with the mountain of things that may be misrepresented, let me just offer this as a suggestion to those serious about their training and/or preparation; EXAMINE WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE REAL WORLD.

Up until the last several decades, we didn’t have the luxury of all the video recordings which are so prolific these days and what actually took place in violent encounters was only observed by a handful of people (mostly cops & robbers). But in this day and age there are literally hundreds of real-life encounters out there for you to scrutinize. Now as often as not, the video may not relate all the facts surrounding the event because it won't capture all the relevant activities before, during and after the fact. But what is captured – is indeed the REALITY - IF it’s viewed in proper context. So, spend a lot of time looking at these videos with a critical eye. If your head is screwed on pretty straight, you will – sooner or later – recognize some common threads to ALL encounters/confrontations.

Now, compare what you see on video with what’s being shoveled out as being relevant with regards to training, tactics and equipment. If you have the ability to see things clearly in their proper context, you can’t help but notice disparity between what’s happening and what some people say is going to happen.

[YVK]

Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

You OK with learning a draw from a dude who has only drawn from a DOH or a leg rig, when you yourself only carry closed-front garment IWB?

[Dropkick]

ermergerd!! Different people, wanting to learn different skills sets, have to seek out different instructors. What is this world coming to?!

[Josh Runkle]

Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

I realize that most GM's are way more awesome than I will ever be in terms of shooting. I plan to train with some competitive shooters down the line as well...

That being said...

Does drawing from a speed rig really translate to teaching you how to draw from AIWB? If this person is really fast at clearing a cover garment like a fishing vest, and they choose to carry a glock 34 under a fishing vest for CCW, are they really going to teach something about garment clearing in CCW that applies to me? If they spend everyday practicing 1-2 trigger pulls, can they really teach every student on the line how those individual guns work?

I recently asked a question which was something to the effect of do you use the "roll off" method during a trigger press, or catching the "fat of the pad" to create a flat surface, or what? The answer I got was something to the effect of: "You need to figure that out for yourself in dryfire." Uhhhh...I already am doing that...what am I paying for?

Now there is a TON about shooting that relates to the competition world. There is also a TON about self-defense, tactics, mindset, CCW, etc that has absolutely nothing to do with shooting. Holster comfort has everything to do with CCW, and is very relevant, but has nothing to do with shooting.

[tremiles]

There's absolutely SOME LE/MIL experience that's relevant to private citizens. SouthNarc's ECQC and MUC developed from his experience as an undercover cop are prime examples. Just like instructors who are private citizens have something to offer LE/MIL.

As far as private citizens playing operator at "tactical" classes, who cares as long as they're safe and don't slow the rest of the class down. Who wouldn't call Magpul for Aerial Platform Operations if they had a whirlybird in their driveway and several thousand extra shekels.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Suvorov]

For me the biggest advantage to former Military or LE instructors is that their prior service is somewhat of a guarantee of their abilities. If a guy has served with a particular unit, then it tells me that he has mastered these skills. Now can he teach? That is another matter all together. I will also say as someone who learned my "serious shooting" in a military setting from instructors from such units, I actually prefer the training atmosphere and I feel comfortable in it. For others, it may be a turn off.

With civilian background shooters, there is a little more ambiguity to there credentials. RobS may very well be as good of a shooter SeanM is and may actually be a better teacher, but there is no way for the average wana learn to shoot Joe to know this, so they will go with the man with certifiable Ninja skills over the one without.

I think once a shooter has evolved out of the basics into their own path of ballistic enlightenment, then they are usually smart enough to know that each instructor out there has certain skill sets to offer and they can choose the instructors that best offer them what they want. The corollary is that for the shooter who hasn't evolved to this point yet, then they are probably well served by quality instructors regardless of background.

Of course all of this also negates the "entertainment and recreational" aspects of going to classes.

[fixer]

I haven't read the entire thread...so apologies if I'm being repetitive.

I write as a regular joe citizen looking for instruction on better pistol handling & marksmanship as well as what I'd refer to as defensive tactics geared towards "software."

To this end, I find LE and military backgrounds very useful as long as it is relevant and geared toward instruction.

[BLR]

I think the better question would be LE or military experience.

When I was collecting certificates, I went to comp shooters (mostly) for shooting technique, LE for tactics, and military for grins and giggles (not that I didn't learn, and the classes were well worth it, but the goals were different).

So it depends: if I'm looking to learn how to shoot, it's immaterial to me. If I'm looking to learn why/what/when, in my current gig I'll go to LE every time.

[ST911]

The value of a background depends on where it was received, specific assignments and details, training, and the field experience. This will vary widely in the mil circles where being "military" can mean anything from plumber/crew chief/MWR equipment manager to a JSOC asset. LE will vary as well but more narrowly. Even Joe Uniform from Podunk PD will have at least some base of experience in threat recognition, conflict management, verbal skills, physical skills, working in different light conditions, and other basic street skills. What he (or she) will bring to the table will depend on what they took away from that experience and if they can redeliver it.

For ~8 hours a day, LE and mil do the things they do. ~16hrs remain in the day though where they are not on the job and have to go to Walmart, the movies, walk down the street, and live like the rest of the population. Don't presume that the concerns of Joe Public who CCWs are lost on professional gun toters.

[Mr_White]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.

That's a problem for me.

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

The two things that vex me the most about USPSA are all the skilled people leaving the match unarmed or armed with a vastly compromised gun, and having to deal with the cold range. I think it's enormously to my benefit to deal with it though. I would be a worse pistol shooter if I let those issues stop me from participating.


Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

No. And it doesn't stop me from training or competing with them. It's just a demonstration of very different perceptions or priorities than I have, and that is ok too.

I look at it this way: If I could play the harmonica just masterfully, I would carry one around with me all the time. Because why not? It could fit in my pocket. It's not like it's a bass fiddle or a tuba and I can't carry it around or I would look like a dick if I did. But why on earth would a great harmonica player not have a harmonica? It's the same with pistols. I see these people who are masterful with their pistols. They obviously enjoy shooting them. But then they don't leave wearing them (not everyone, but many.) If you can have a pistol and you are great with it, then why don't you have one (that you are great with)? It speaks to a different perception of need or different priorities. And that's their business. It does make me scratch my head though.

[Mr_White]

Don't presume that the concerns of Joe Public who CCWs are lost on professional gun toters.

I don't. That's why I titled the thread 'How Relevant' rather than 'Is It Relevant'. I acknowledged its (LE and military experience) relevancy. Just trying to spark a discussion of which aspects are relevant and how relevant they are. :D



For ~8 hours a day, LE and mil do the things they do. ~16hrs remain in the day though where they are not on the job and have to go to Walmart, the movies, walk down the street, and live like the rest of the population.

What percentage of LE and military folks do you think carry concealed when not on the job? Not that I have an answer and I don't know if you do. I would guess that it's more than the general population (especially for LE?) but a lot less than 100%.

[GJM]

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

Really bugs me, too. I have read a bunch lately, so this is from memory, and may be off -- but as I recall, in the book by the guy on the mission that got OBL, he said that now that he is back in the US, his days of ever carrying a gun are over.

[Kevin B.]

I don't. That's why I titled the thread 'How Relevant' rather than 'Is It Relevant'. I acknowledged its (LE and military experience) relevancy. Just trying to spark a discussion of which aspects are relevant and how relevant they are.

That is going to depend on each individual's LE/military experience. Certainly the experience of resolving problems through the controlled application of violence has some overlap. Not all military or LE personnel have the same (or any) level of experience.

[Chris Rhines]

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

The two things that vex me the most about USPSA are all the skilled people leaving the match unarmed or armed with a vastly compromised gun, and having to deal with the cold range. I think it's enormously to my benefit to deal with it though. I would be a worse pistol shooter if I let those issues stop me from participating.

For some of us, it's because we live in a state where concealed weapons permits are basically unavailable, and a first offence concealed weapon charge is a felony. Just sayin'.

[Mr_White]

For some of us, it's because we live in a state where concealed weapons permits are basically unavailable, and a first offence concealed weapon charge is a felony. Just sayin'.

Totally. I have no criticism for a person in that situation. I am referring to here where almost everyone could carry if they wanted. But it's still their business anyway.

[ffhounddog]

Carrying a concealed weapon has become more of an issue with where they are carrying. I had orders that said I had to carry concealed a M11 in places that I was told by state department that I was not allowed to carry. My commander said you will carry concealed. Recongnizing threats is important and staying out of danger when you do not need to be there more important.

Now the whole nightsight black sight thing I like black sights for guns that do not get carried alot or in storage. My M11 did not have nightsights on it but we made due. Just glad we never had to use them to get to other guns in the SUVs.

Now Teaching I look at SF guys (because most should be able to teach), Civilian instructors, and LE folks the same what is their background and can they teach. I can tell you that it would be hard for me to take instruction on pistol shooting from a Signal Officer whom only shoots a pistol once a year at qualification.

[ST911]

The two things that vex me the most about USPSA are all the skilled people leaving the match unarmed or armed with a vastly compromised gun, and having to deal with the cold range. I think it's enormously to my benefit to deal with it though. I would be a worse pistol shooter if I let those issues stop me from participating.

Concealed BUGs are a great answer to "unload and show clear."


I don't. That's why I titled the thread 'How Relevant' rather than 'Is It Relevant'. I acknowledged its (LE and military experience) relevancy. Just trying to spark a discussion of which aspects are relevant and how relevant they are. :D

You bet. And that wasn't directed at you specifically.


What percentage of LE and military folks do you think carry concealed when not on the job? Not that I have an answer and I don't know if you do. I would guess that it's more than the general population (especially for LE?) but a lot less than 100%.

I think you'll find more cops armed off the clock than mil or general population. Even with that, the number of LE that carry anything OD any amount of time is low. The number that do it regularly lower. The "always" crowd is tiny. Smaller still, those that will OD CCW a primary and BUG both.

Heck, it's hard to get some to carry the gun while they're working. Especially if they're not in a uniform, or if the uniform top is white. :D

[Drang]

What percentage of LE and military folks do you think carry concealed when not on the job? Not that I have an answer and I don't know if you do. I would guess that it's more than the general population (especially for LE?) but a lot less than 100%.
I was astonished the first time I heard about cops who weren't ALLOWED to carry off-duty. Dad was always armed, I just ass-you-me'd that all cops were armed off-duty.

As for .mil, the percentage is probably as low or lower than the general populace where they are, or are from.

Look, just because a person is in uniform doesn't mean that he or she is a "gun person." And if he or she lives in on-post housing, especially the barracks (or dorm, for those in the Air Force instead of the military :cool: )(yeah, I know, going for the cheap shot) they cannot legally carry.
An 11B10 will be able to tell you whatever his Drill Sergeant and Squad Leader have trained him to parrot, but he's probably less knowledgeable than the average ARFCOM denizen.

OTOH, I am aware of several attempts by Corps Commanders to get an inventory of every gun owned by every soldier in their command, "on or off post."
Guess what, military members of the gun culture are at least as prickly about "Nunya Budness" as civilians.

Also had a battalion commander at Ft Lewis who directed his company commanders to provide a roster of personnel who had WA CPLs. Apparently, none did. Including me... :rolleyes:
The CSM then explained to the First Sergeants that the intent had simply been to ensure that all personnel were aware that a state CPL is not valid on post, and Briefings Were Conducted.

At the same time, I knew several senior NCOs, especially 1SGs and CSMs, who were carrying anyway, in the wake of discovering that some of their troops had gang affiliations, but hadn't been caught in violation of any regs that would justify booting them.

SOME .mil experiance may be relevant. Don't assume that anyone who possesses a DD214 is an expert on anything. Shortly after 9/11 a lot of us retired NCOs were networking, and I got forwarded an email from a retired CSM who was consulting on training for Iraq; one observation he made was "We need to get away from the idea that any soldier who likes guns and shooting is some kind of untrustworthy militia nut."

SOME Law Enforcement experience is certainly relevant. Plainclothes officers can provide input on carrying concealed. Note the threads here about, i.e., carbine v shotgun, or various loads.

[ST911]

Another thought...

There have been several mentions of plain-clothes officers. "Plain clothes" is a pretty broad term, and could mean back-office compliance and regulatory folks, desk officers, detectives, admins, the walking wounded, and UC folks. Many plain clothes types are notoriously bad about concealing, practicing open carry, or something more like "discreet" carry than concealed. I would also make a distinction between "concealed" and "covert" carry, for the context and stakes which apply to each.

[Odin Bravo One]

RobS may very well be as good of a shooter SeanM is and may actually be a better teacher

I hate to throw Rob under the bus on this one, as I have not met him............but the chair you are sitting on is probably a better teacher than I am.

I used to do small open courses here and there, from time to time as my schedule allowed. But every time I start to consider doing it again, I think better of it. I don't have the patience, or tolerance to deal with the things I have had happen on ranges where people have a different perception of acceptable behavior with firearms than I do. My methods for correcting safety deficiencies are not as gentle as others.

It is also difficult to interact with so many new faces all of the time, given how shy I am.

[jlw]

I hate to throw Rob under the bus on this one, as I have not met him............but the chair you are sitting on is probably a better teacher than I am.

I used to do small open courses here and there, from time to time as my schedule allowed. But every time I start to consider doing it again, I think better of it. I don't have the patience, or tolerance to deal with the things I have had happen on ranges where people have a different perception of acceptable behavior with firearms than I do. My methods for correcting safety deficiencies are not as gentle as others.

It is also difficult to interact with so many new faces all of the time, given how shy I am.

I can understand this (although I make no claims at anything close to equal skill). I teach very basic intro classes to the public, and I teach peace officers. Occasionally, I will work with folks outside of those parameters provided they are a known quantity. I've had a couple of people take me to task for not doing open enrollment courses to the point that one accused me of "not wanting to teach 'peons'". It's actually the opposite. I don't see why people would pay me when there are better options available than me.

[Odin Bravo One]

I've had a couple of people take me to task for not doing open enrollment courses to the point that one accused me of "not wanting to teach 'peons'".

It's the morons that keep me from teaching. Best that I don't waste anyone's time.

Mostly my own.

[Surf]

Without a doubt teaching is a skill. I too like instructors who are teaching within their own lane so to speak. I can however take instruction from a competition shooter as an example and perhaps find a way in which those skills apply to a defensive or combat shooting type of application. I also like that the instructor is highly proficient or experienced within their own lane. If I am going to learn competition shooting then I want a high level competitor type, etc...

I will say that I have met and know of countless LE and Military types who are currently riding the "firearms training" wave and IMO are poor examples of people that I would wish to take a course from, nor would I suggest them to others. I will also throw in the fact that there are far more instructors without LE or military experience teaching topics that they have no personal firsthand experience with, but are rather parroting what they have picked up along their own training experience. Quite frankly I want to puke at how many Holiday Inn instructors there are out there, who's curriculum and catch phrases are pretty much summed up as "Poly want a cracker". This is not restricted to any one category of instructor type and can be seen in civilian, LE and Military type instructors, who may teach within their own lane so to speak but may not have good first hand knowledge / experiences of their curriculum. They may also be parroting from within their own lane.

For LE and Military, there are definitely different things I might look at. I will note that just because a LE guy may have been on a SWAT team, that means little as most LE SWAT guys are part time, so they would need more credentials than just a former SWAT guy. "I am a firearms instructor for podunk county multi-jurisdictional SWAT team" might not mean much in comparison to an instructor from a major metro agency assigned to a full time team. While there might be exceptions, this would be a good guideline to start with. Same thoughts can be applied to military types, even SF guys. Just because they are or were with a high speed unit does not necessarily mean that they are the best shooters or can teach. Their entire package often makes them the formidable opponent that they are. So for myself it depends on what I'm looking for and the individual instructors credentials on an instructor by instructor basis as opposed to their general background is what should be looked at. Are they at the top of instructors from within their own field, is the question that I would want the answer to. Now if I am looking for instructors I would tend to look at the entire package that they bring to the table. While a LE or Military background may not be at the top of the list, it is definitely a huge plus on my personal checklist.

As for LE carrying off duty. I do it about 98% of the time and many of my guys do it with regularity. Is this the norm? Some places yes, some places no. From what I have seen it can vary greatly from agency to agency, city to city, county to county, or regions of the country.

[Kevin B.]

For LE and Military, there are definitely different things I might look at. I will note that just because a LE guy may have been on a SWAT team, that means little as most LE SWAT guys are part time, so they would need more credentials than just a former SWAT guy. "I am a firearms instructor for podunk county multi-jurisdictional SWAT team" might not mean much in comparison to an instructor from a major metro agency assigned to a full time team. While there might be exceptions, this would be a good guideline to start with. Same thoughts can be applied to military types, even SF guys. Just because they are or were with a high speed unit does not necessarily mean that they are the best shooters or can teach. Their entire package often makes them the formidable opponent that they are. So for myself it depends on what I'm looking for and the individual instructors credentials on an instructor by instructor basis as opposed to their general background is what should be looked at. Are they at the top of instructors from within their own field, is the question that I would want the answer to. Now if I am looking for instructors I would tend to look at the entire package that they bring to the table. While a LE or Military background may not be at the top of the list, it is definitely a huge plus on my personal checklist.

Well put.

[KeeFus]

My list is short. Tom Givens and TLG. I've taken in-service LE weapon classes but they were geared toward low light/no light, Close Quarters Pistol & Officer Survival. Probably one of the best classes was a Raleigh SWAT guy that also (wait for it) shoots both IDPA & USPSA. His skills and knowledge base are very applicable to what he was teaching. I will be taking an advanced pistol class from him in the near future.

My own experience with LE and off duty carry is that by and large they don't. There is an agency in my area that will not allow their officers to take their issued weapons out of county. Just recently I was out with my wife in town and ran across a couple of guys I work with, one of which is one of our firearms instructors. Neither of them were carrying but I was. I would venture to say that in my area a very small percentage carries off duty.

[jlw]

It's the morons that keep me from teaching. Best that I don't waste anyone's time.

Mostly my own.

Amen. I'm sure the guy who accused me of being a member of the Schutzstaffel because I wouldn't promise to murder federal agents who come to confiscate guns would be fun to have in a class.

[Chuck Haggard]

It makes baby Odin weep how few coppers in my area carry off duty. I have worked on breaking that trend for 26 years and made some headway, but I'd bet it's still maybe 25%

[Casual Friday]

It makes baby Odin weep how few coppers in my area carry off duty. I have worked on breaking that trend for 26 years and made some headway, but I'd bet it's still maybe 25%

A relative told me that less than 10% of his department ever carry, probably less than 5% of those carry all the time.

[Tamara]

It makes baby Odin weep how few coppers in my area carry off duty. I have worked on breaking that trend for 26 years and made some headway, but I'd bet it's still maybe 25%

This gives me a sad. Any time I've been in a position to do so, it's been discounted ammo and free range time for anybody with a badge. I just wish I got more taking advantage of it.

When I was still living in Tennessee, the local Sheriff's Dept. had a particularly embarrassing incident that drew heavy negative press involving a few deputies, a dude who was trying so hard to commit Blue Suicide that he'd helpfully drawn a bullseye on his chest, and the better part of a box of ammunition. The score at the end of l'affair du nutcase was one grazing wound to the shoulder at about 15 yards, and a few dozen gutterballs perforating the landscape of suburban Knoxville. (The backstop for the whole OIS was a thin greenbelt of mature loblollies behind which was another complex of stick-built apartments full of sleeping no-shoots.)

The next morning, one of our regular customers, also a deputy, came into the shop while on break. Shannon and I looked up from behind the counter.

"Hey," he held up his hands, palms out, "I wasn't there last night. If I was, did you think I'd be in here today without a bag over my head?"

"I didn't think you were," I replied, "I know you can shoot better than that. But who-all was there?"

He sighed. "Let's put it this way: Nobody you'd know from a gun show or a shootin' range."

Ah. Them. :(

[GardoneVT]

This gives me a sad. Any time I've been in a position to do so, it's been discounted ammo and free range time for anybody with a badge. I just wish I got more taking advantage of it.

When I was still living in Tennessee, the local Sheriff's Dept. had a particularly embarrassing incident that drew heavy negative press involving a few deputies, a dude who was trying so hard to commit Blue Suicide that he'd helpfully drawn a bullseye on his chest, and the better part of a box of ammunition. The score at the end of l'affair du nutcase was one grazing wound to the shoulder at about 15 yards, and a few dozen gutterballs perforating the landscape of suburban Knoxville. (The backstop for the whole OIS was a thin greenbelt of mature loblollies behind which was another complex of stick-built apartments full of sleeping no-shoots.)

The next morning, one of our regular customers, also a deputy, came into the shop while on break. Shannon and I looked up from behind the counter.

"Hey," he held up his hands, palms out, "I wasn't there last night. If I was, did you think I'd be in here today without a bag over my head?"

"I didn't think you were," I replied, "I know you can shoot better than that. But who-all was there?"

He sighed. "Let's put it this way: Nobody you'd know from a gun show or a shootin' range."

Ah. Them. :(

This anecdote brings up an interesting point: not everyone with a badge or a military uniform has the same skillset. I'll bet there are patrol officers who are better shots then SWAT team members ,and military paper-pushers who shoot more then Security Forces.

[Chuck Haggard]

This gives me a sad.

True story, off duty type, one each;


Setting, half a dozen coppers in a shady place, violating Farnam's rule of being in stupid places.....


Whisper; "Holy kitten, did you see that?"

"Yeah, wish I hadn't left my gun in my truck. You got your gun?"

"No. How 'bout you?"

"Nope"

"You have a gun?"

"Nope"

"Chuck, you got your gun?"

"I have both of mine with me."

"You have two guns?"

"Yeah"

"Can I have one?......"


They thought an excellent plan if things went sideways would be for me to draw my primary as I threw the BUG into the air, and one of them would catch it........

[walkin' trails]

There are a lot of good tools an instructor who draws in his/her LE or military background/experience as part of the course can put in the civilian's tool box. A LE instructor, even if never firing a shot in anger, can offer some insight into post-shooting response that may not always get addressed.

[RBid]

Most of the LEOs I know claim to carry all of the time. I know a DEA agent who goes damn near Tackleberry every day.

Before I got my CHL(s), I made it a point to approach and converse with multiple officers who I didn't previously know. Every one of them said, "get it. Carry all of the time, wherever you can legally carry."

Kind of boggles the mind that many don't. My grandfather is a long retired sheriff. He still OCs a .357 revolver everywhere.

[Josh Runkle]

True story, off duty type, one each;


Setting, half a dozen coppers in a shady place, violating Farnam's rule of being in stupid places.....


Whisper; "Holy kitten, did you see that?"

"Yeah, wish I hadn't left my gun in my truck. You got your gun?"

"No. How 'bout you?"

"Nope"

"You have a gun?"

"Nope"

"Chuck, you got your gun?"

"I have both of mine with me."

"You have two guns?"

"Yeah"

"Can I have one?......"


They thought an excellent plan if things went sideways would be for me to draw my primary as I threw the BUG into the air, and one of them would catch it........

I'm picturing "The Untouchables", and thinking that your buddies all watched it and thought, "That. Yeah, I could do that."

[Al T.]

Know a "nationally known" local cop who has related the tale of being present at a gas station robbery with no gat. He said it was very humiliating having to ask others if they had a firearm he could borrow.

[Wendell]

You know, ever since the Miami debacle in 1986, everyone that has shot more than a hundred rounds into a block of ballistic gelatin is a terminal ballistics expert.

Since 1990 (Gulf War I), everyone with an Infantry/SF MOS is suddenly an expert in all things related to the use of small-arms by civilians and the LE community. If they happen to have access to a square range, they’re suddenly in the weapons training business. And then we have those that have no real experience at anything (but pulling a trigger perhaps) teaching others the application and tactics of personal defense.

If you have no frame of reference or context for the subject matter, I guess some things being taught might sound plausible, but a whole bunch of stuff I’ve seen purported as being relevant is laced with a bunch of nonsense. But instead of trying to take issue with the mountain of things that may be misrepresented, let me just offer this as a suggestion to those serious about their training and/or preparation; EXAMINE WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE REAL WORLD.

Up until the last several decades, we didn’t have the luxury of all the video recordings which are so prolific these days and what actually took place in violent encounters was only observed by a handful of people (mostly cops & robbers). But in this day and age there are literally hundreds of real-life encounters out there for you to scrutinize. Now as often as not, the video may not relate all the facts surrounding the event because it won't capture all the relevant activities before, during and after the fact. But what is captured – is indeed the REALITY - IF it’s viewed in proper context. So, spend a lot of time looking at these videos with a critical eye. If your head is screwed on pretty straight, you will – sooner or later – recognize some common threads to ALL encounters/confrontations.

Now, compare what you see on video with what’s being shoveled out as being relevant with regards to training, tactics and equipment. If you have the ability to see things clearly in their proper context, you can’t help but notice disparity between what’s happening and what some people say is going to happen.

That reminds me of this:


HMA0828
(https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)
Reality Check (https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)
Clint Smith (https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)
Mar/Apr 2008 (https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)
300 or so
(https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)
28
(https://americanhandgunner.com/2008-articles/)

[ffhounddog]

My wife just informed me that her department if she uses something other than her issued G22 she will not have any backing from the department. If she does have a justified shooting she still might be hung out to dry, if she is not defending a high profile politician. She says there have been a few that have been fired for doing cop stuff instead of minding their own busienss off duty. That is why all the time.

[Chuck Haggard]

My wife just informed me that her department if she uses something other than her issued G22 she will not have any backing from the department. If she does have a justified shooting she still might be hung out to dry, if she is not defending a high profile politician. She says there have been a few that have been fired for doing cop stuff instead of minding their own busienss off duty. That is why all the time.


Her department has a crappy program and leadership then. That is a load of BS

[fn/form]

...Surely there are a great many aspects of this, from equipment to tactics to desirable skill level, and ranging from direct 1:1 relevancy to total irrelevancy. But perhaps we can discuss it and see what elements of doctrine we think fit best where.


What a timely topic. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this in the last few months. First, a question.

Given a sidearm, what is the difference in "desirable skill level" for a Direct Action mission in Afghanistan vs. armed assault on Joe Citizen, Anytown USA?

[Tamara]

Given a sidearm, what is the difference in "desirable skill level" for a Direct Action mission in Afghanistan vs. armed assault on Joe Citizen, Anytown USA?

The two are worlds apart, of course, in everything from assets available to primary mission. (I don't have to kill my attacker; I win by default if I get out alive and unharmed, whether he surrenders, runs off, or gets ventilated, or because I skillfully ran away.)

I think that one unexamined reason behind the popularity of a lot of the JSOC rock stars is that they're among the few guys in the .mil whose task purview included a lot of practice around no-shoots, which carries over well to the civilian world where there is very little brown cardboard.

Outside of that "hostage rescue" sort of setting, all the military experience in the world doesn't translate well if Problem Solving Step #1 is tossing a frag through the door.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ref the .mil experience, standards, and relevance;

I had a conversation with Kyle Lamb where he told the story of almost getting tossed from Delta after a shoot house exercise where he clipped a no shoot. Fortunately for him he had a very squared away NCO that both interceded and trained him up so that it never happened again.

Think about the capabilities of a group of guys that take things so seriously you can be fired for one stutter, one time, in one training event, and have this mindset be the expected norm.

[Kevin B.]

The two are worlds apart, of course, in everything from assets available to primary mission. (I don't have to kill my attacker; I win by default if I get out alive and unharmed, whether he surrenders, runs off, or gets ventilated, or because I skillfully ran away.)

I think that one unexamined reason behind the popularity of a lot of the JSOC rock stars is that they're among the few guys in the .mil whose task purview included a lot of practice around no-shoots, which carries over well to the civilian world where there is very little brown cardboard.

Outside of that "hostage rescue" sort of setting, all the military experience in the world doesn't translate well if Problem Solving Step #1 is tossing a frag through the door.

I think you might be surprised at how sensitive many non-JSOC entities are regarding no-shoots. That said, most units lack adequate training to effectively deal with the problem. Civilian casualties are a huge consideration often leading to stupid policies. Regardless, the days of throwing frags through doors (absent some extraordinary circumstances) are over and have been for quite some time.

That is not to say a conventional Soldier's experience is relevant. In most cases, it is not. In some cases, it may be. It all depends on the experience. It has to be looked at in context.

[Tamara]

I think you might be surprised at how sensitive many non-JSOC entities are regarding no-shoots. That said, most units lack adequate training to effectively deal with the problem. Civilian casualties are a huge consideration often leading to stupid policies. Regardless, the days of throwing frags through doors (absent some extraordinary circumstances) are over and have been for quite some time.

Mea culpa. That was a pretty 1999 viewpoint (http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2011/09/thoughts-on-speech-by-major-general.html) I espoused, there.

[fn/form]

The two are worlds apart, of course, in everything from assets available to primary mission. (I don't have to kill my attacker; I win by default if I get out alive and unharmed, whether he surrenders, runs off, or gets ventilated, or because I skillfully ran away.)

I think that one unexamined reason behind the popularity of a lot of the JSOC rock stars is that they're among the few guys in the .mil whose task purview included a lot of practice around no-shoots, which carries over well to the civilian world where there is very little brown cardboard.

Outside of that "hostage rescue" sort of setting, all the military experience in the world doesn't translate well if Problem Solving Step #1 is tossing a frag through the door.

I focused on "desirable skill level" with a sidearm for a reason—to remove a lot of the above clutter.

Using distraction devices is obviously not relevant to OAK’s original statement of purpose. Actually killing someone is a byproduct of the focus, not the focus. Along with the holster used, the gear worn… All of this is missing the forest for the trees.

We are looking for significant skill overlap between LE/Mil and Joe Blow of Anytown, USA.

Given a pistol, the point is to get the pistol in hand and neutralize the threat as quickly as possible without harming innocents. It is the same for JSOC rock star and Joe Blow—both are interested in the fastest way to accomplish that without compromise. The meat of the matter is in the technique of moving pistol from the holster area and making the shot accurately in the least amount of time. Training to a lesser standard (or "desirable skill level") is self-deception in either person's case.

Another overlap is experience in stress environments. Another overlap is movement in/around stationary and mobile structures while evaluating cover/concealment. Low-/No-light techniques. Pre-hospital medical, H2H combatives, retention, inter-personal communication and so forth.

A good Tier 1/SWAT instructor is the practical culmination of these integrated skills. If they choose to conduct an open enrollment class then they understand their intended audience and instruct accordingly.

I don’t know why someone in agreement with OAK’s statement of purpose would choose to train largely outside LE/Mil world. I personally believe LE/Mil (properly applied) should be the starting point and main reference point.

All serious IDOL students, such as given in OAK’s premise, eventually develop an appetite for specific technical instruction. They branch out to less-overlap disciplines that significantly increase their ability.

Back to OAK's purpose. Would the Mindset/Marksmanship/Manipulations/Tactics model be a good set of categories to start organizing all these thoughts?

[GardoneVT]

To dispassionately evaluate where the role of Mr Tier 1 conincides with Mr Joe Blow,we have to look at the job descriptions of both.

The job of Mr Tier One is to execute enemy personell who are Doing Very Bad Things.
The job of Mr Joe Blow is to stop a criminal assault on themselves or immediate compatriots.

Right here we already see a mission divergence.Stopping a criminal assault is not tantamount to necessarily killing someone.Plenty of bad guys intent on crime immediately aborted when their targets shot back.Whether the other guy lives ,becomes a paraplegic,or dies after the fact is irrelevant so long as the attack is halted.Because of the legal entanglements involved with killing someone,it could be said that the ideal defensive encounter is one where the bad guy aborts their attack before a shot even is fired.

Stopping a deadly terrorist ,on the other hand,is a very specific parameter.If the orders say "Bad Guy X thats planning a 9/11 sequel is to be Captured or Killed ",reporting that said bad guy got shot in the gut and escaped to resume their plans elsewhere isn't acceptable.For special forces ,an advanced skillset is necessary because the standard for mission success is very high,and the stakes could have national significance.There's also no legal risk after a covert ops assignment of an operator being sued by,say,Osama Bin Laden's family for wrongful death.

The mindset,accuracy,and skillset training of Tier One guys has relevance in the firearm mechanics and to some degree ,the mindset also.But we must remember that the job of self defense isn't the same as offensively going into a foreign country to accomplish "Mission X".

I hope it's clear that I'm not throwing stones at the good men who do that kind of necessary and brave work.My point is that the skillset required by a woman to stop a rape in progress isn't the same as an SAS member on an hostage rescue raid.

[TGS]

To dispassionately evaluate where the role of Mr Tier 1 conincides with Mr Joe Blow,we have to look at the job descriptions of both.

The job of Mr Tier One is to execute enemy personell who are Doing Very Bad Things.
The job of Mr Joe Blow is to stop a criminal assault on themselves or immediate compatriots.

Right here we already see a mission divergence.Stopping a criminal assault is not tantamount to necessarily killing someone.Plenty of bad guys intent on crime immediately aborted when their targets shot back.Whether the other guy lives ,becomes a paraplegic,or dies after the fact is irrelevant so long as the attack is halted.Because of the legal entanglements involved with killing someone,it could be said that the ideal defensive encounter is one where the bad guy aborts their attack before a shot even is fired.

Stopping a deadly terrorist ,on the other hand,is a very specific parameter.If the orders say "Bad Guy X thats planning a 9/11 sequel is to be Captured or Killed ",reporting that said bad guy got shot in the gut and escaped to resume their plans elsewhere isn't acceptable.For special forces ,an advanced skillset is necessary because the standard for mission success is very high,and the stakes could have national significance.There's also no legal risk after a covert ops assignment of an operator being sued by,say,Osama Bin Laden's family for wrongful death.

The mindset,accuracy,and skillset training of Tier One guys has relevance in the firearm mechanics and to some degree ,the mindset also.But we must remember that the job of self defense isn't the same as offensively going into a foreign country to accomplish "Mission X".

I hope it's clear that I'm not throwing stones at the good men who do that kind of necessary and brave work.My point is that the skillset required by a woman to stop a rape in progress isn't the same as an SAS member on an hostage rescue raid.

I guess that all might make sense if everything that SOF conducts was direct action velcro-n-helmets commando raids.

I think you highly underestimate and/or misunderstand what some SOF units do, which can often include going incognito with a CCW. And instead of civil suit from Osama's family, they go to trial for espionage or just skip that whole process and go straight to prison for man-love thursday or the gallows. Or, if they make it back, they're still held to incredibly strict standards on how many rounds they shoot and into what people, so I think it's massively incorrect to imply they lack liability in what they do on missions compared to Joe Schmoe.

I'll go so far as to suggest they're subject to much more personal liability.

[fn/form]

To dispassionately evaluate where the role of Mr Tier 1 conincides with Mr Joe Blow,we have to look at the job descriptions of both.

The job of Mr Tier One is to execute enemy personell who are Doing Very Bad Things.
The job of Mr Joe Blow is to stop a criminal assault on themselves or immediate compatriots.

Right here we already see a mission divergence.Stopping a criminal assault is not tantamount to necessarily killing someone.Plenty of bad guys intent on crime immediately aborted when their targets shot back.Whether the other guy lives ,becomes a paraplegic,or dies after the fact is irrelevant so long as the attack is halted.Because of the legal entanglements involved with killing someone,it could be said that the ideal defensive encounter is one where the bad guy aborts their attack before a shot even is fired.

Stopping a deadly terrorist ,on the other hand,is a very specific parameter.If the orders say "Bad Guy X thats planning a 9/11 sequel is to be Captured or Killed ",reporting that said bad guy got shot in the gut and escaped to resume their plans elsewhere isn't acceptable.For special forces ,an advanced skillset is necessary because the standard for mission success is very high,and the stakes could have national significance.There's also no legal risk after a covert ops assignment of an operator being sued by,say,Osama Bin Laden's family for wrongful death.

The mindset,accuracy,and skillset training of Tier One guys has relevance in the firearm mechanics and to some degree ,the mindset also.But we must remember that the job of self defense isn't the same as offensively going into a foreign country to accomplish "Mission X".

I hope it's clear that I'm not throwing stones at the good men who do that kind of necessary and brave work.My point is that the skillset required by a woman to stop a rape in progress isn't the same as an SAS member on an hostage rescue raid.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, just as I agree with a lot of what Tamara said. But it is not relevent to OAK's goal. We're back in the weeds again.

There are many Tier 1 supporting skillsets and missions that do not match Joe Blow's life. We all understand that, we're not discussing that.

The actual mechanics and techniques of getting pistol in play and bullet on the way ASAP are the same. Follow?

Human threats should be killed if we're executing the "fundamentals" well. No matter if you're Tier 1 or Joe Blow. You target the same areas of the body. The only reason human threats don't die in the first few shots is neglect of things we CAN control (training, pistol/ammo selection, etc.) and due to things we CANNOT control (incident dynamics, actual terminal ballistics, etc.). Of course, there is also training/follow-up procedure to make sure those who go down, stay down.

[Tamara]

The actual mechanics and techniques of getting pistol in play and bullet on the way ASAP are the same. Follow?

Okay, I'm tracking you.

So basically it's the discrete mechanics of gun-handling that I worry about refining so that I free up processor cycles for all the other stuff I'm doing?

[Dr. No]

Okay, I'm tracking you.

So basically it's the discrete mechanics of gun-handling that I worry about refining so that I free up processor cycles for all the other stuff I'm doing?


Bingo.

This is another thing that I emphasize as a big advantage of competition. If you become so familiar with your weapon system that running the gun is subconscious it frees up your mind to process all the other things that are going on in a lethal force situation ... which is a lot. I remember bumping another guy out of my line of fire because I was taking up the slack - I only saw him out of the corner of my eye but I knew he was there and I moved and adjusted even while still trained in on my threat. I apologized later for bumping him and he had no clue that it had even happened.

[Dr. No]

To dispassionately evaluate where the role of Mr Tier 1 conincides with Mr Joe Blow,we have to look at the job descriptions of both.

The job of Mr Tier One is to execute enemy personell who are Doing Very Bad Things.
The job of Mr Joe Blow is to stop a criminal assault on themselves or immediate compatriots.

Right here we already see a mission divergence.Stopping a criminal assault is not tantamount to necessarily killing someone.Plenty of bad guys intent on crime immediately aborted when their targets shot back.Whether the other guy lives ,becomes a paraplegic,or dies after the fact is irrelevant so long as the attack is halted.Because of the legal entanglements involved with killing someone,it could be said that the ideal defensive encounter is one where the bad guy aborts their attack before a shot even is fired.

Stopping a deadly terrorist ,on the other hand,is a very specific parameter.If the orders say "Bad Guy X thats planning a 9/11 sequel is to be Captured or Killed ",reporting that said bad guy got shot in the gut and escaped to resume their plans elsewhere isn't acceptable.For special forces ,an advanced skillset is necessary because the standard for mission success is very high,and the stakes could have national significance.There's also no legal risk after a covert ops assignment of an operator being sued by,say,Osama Bin Laden's family for wrongful death.

The mindset,accuracy,and skillset training of Tier One guys has relevance in the firearm mechanics and to some degree ,the mindset also.But we must remember that the job of self defense isn't the same as offensively going into a foreign country to accomplish "Mission X".

I hope it's clear that I'm not throwing stones at the good men who do that kind of necessary and brave work.My point is that the skillset required by a woman to stop a rape in progress isn't the same as an SAS member on an hostage rescue raid.

I think you have a very narrow view of what MIL missions encompass. It is very rare that they are sent on a 'execution' mission (your words). Often times they are doing reconnaissance, captures of personnel and intelligence information/equipment, identifying enemy personnel, personnel rescue, hostage rescue, etc .... all of which are not offensive missions. Often times they are engaged during these operations and must defend themselves.

The rifle is not their only tool in this. They must be familiar with hand to hand techniques, deescalation, knowing when to regroup and when to fight, etc. Sound familiar?

You go to these men because they have walked the walk. They have experienced sheer terror and come out victorious. They can provide insight into that one really bad day you may have one day. Often times they just teach how to run a gun, but a good instructor will provide more than that in terms of mindset and tactics.

[GardoneVT]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, just as I agree with a lot of what Tamara said. But it is not relevent to OAK's goal. We're back in the weeds again.

There are many Tier 1 supporting skillsets and missions that do not match Joe Blow's life. We all understand that, we're not discussing that.

The actual mechanics and techniques of getting pistol in play and bullet on the way ASAP are the same. Follow?

Human threats should be killed if we're executing the "fundamentals" well. No matter if you're Tier 1 or Joe Blow. You target the same areas of the body. The only reason human threats don't die in the first few shots is neglect of things we CAN control (training, pistol/ammo selection, etc.) and due to things we CANNOT control (incident dynamics, actual terminal ballistics, etc.). Of course, there is also training/follow-up procedure to make sure those who go down, stay down.

Agreed.

With that being said,we come to another application difference.

Are those techniques useful given limitations on a civil gun owners ability to shoot? A Tier 1 guys ammo bill is paid for by his agency.Joe Blow ,meanwhile,has to come out of pocket-if Mr. Schmoe can get ammo at all.While techniques matter,at some point you run into the reality that you get better at shooting by doing it.How does an advanced LE or military skillset honed over the course of 500k rounds help someone who logistically can only shoot 50 rounds a month for practice?

Again,I'm not throwing stones at anyone.Im just another newbie wondering how the skills of an ubermench shooter translate to the real world benefit of Joe Schmoe who can't hope to match Mr. Ubermenchs practice tempo.

[GardoneVT]

I think you have a very narrow view of what MIL missions encompass. It is very rare that they are sent on a 'execution' mission (your words). Often times they are doing reconnaissance, captures of personnel and intelligence information/equipment, identifying enemy personnel, personnel rescue, hostage rescue, etc .... all of which are not offensive missions. Often times they are engaged during these operations and must defend themselves.

The rifle is not their only tool in this. They must be familiar with hand to hand techniques, deescalation, knowing when to regroup and when to fight, etc. Sound familiar?

You go to these men because they have walked the walk. They have experienced sheer terror and come out victorious. They can provide insight into that one really bad day you may have one day. Often times they just teach how to run a gun, but a good instructor will provide more than that in terms of mindset and tactics.
Fair enough.

Thanks for the well thought out explaination.

[Dr. No]

Agreed.

With that being said,we come to another application difference.

Are those techniques useful given limitations on a civil gun owners ability to shoot? A Tier 1 guys ammo bill is paid for by his agency.Joe Blow ,meanwhile,has to come out of pocket-if Mr. Schmoe can get ammo at all.While techniques matter,at some point you run into the reality that you get better at shooting by doing it.How does an advanced LE or military skillset honed over the course of 500k rounds help someone who logistically can only shoot 50 rounds a month for practice?

Again,I'm not throwing stones at anyone.Im just another newbie wondering how the skills of an ubermench shooter translate to the real world benefit of Joe Schmoe who can't hope to match Mr. Ubermenchs practice tempo.

If you think all mil/le get to shoot every day and are putting 10k down a year, you really have no idea how the real world works. There are very very few units that have that kind of budget.

If you don't know why learning from an expert is a good thing, I think this whole conversation is lost on you.

[GardoneVT]

If you think all mil/le get to shoot every day and are putting 10k down a year, you really have no idea how the real world works. There are very very few units that have that kind of budget.

If you don't know why learning from an expert is a good thing, I think this whole conversation is lost on you.

That's why I said Tier 1.

Goodness knows the people in my AFSC weren't high speed/low drag.

[Odin Bravo One]

It's been politely mentioned a few times already...........

It's worth considering when multiple people point out that a generalized view of specific organizations is flawed.

Regardless of how much someone wants it to be like Call of Duty, doesn't make it so. There is not hidden milvan made of gold and filled with every piece of HSLD gear one can imagine, ammunition isn't a "all you can shoot for $free.99" buffet, nor is the "Green light" for summarily executing any "bad guy" who crosses their path is always on.

[DocGKR]

As noted before, let's not forget that lots of people in the military have families just like many civilians and when off-duty those military personnel may wish to protect their loved ones from harm--just like any other citizen might desire...

[fn/form]

Okay, I'm tracking you.

So basically it's the discrete mechanics of gun-handling that I worry about refining so that I free up processor cycles for all the other stuff I'm doing?

Not exactly. I believe the freeing-up comes with more with conscious competence + repetition. But it's still related to what I'm talking about.

Specifically, the benefit of learning a matured system of mechanics from the beginning. Keeping with the sidearm track: A good instructor has already gotten into the nuts and bolts of recoil management and such. He has already optimized a basic system that works across the board; from a barricade, inside a vehicle, inside a structure, etc. He gives you a great way to do it from the get-go. Given the time, the instructor can explain all the Whys. But in a class setting there generally isn't time to explain how this all plays out.

You likely don't see all of it come together until you progress to the next level or add a different skill. But either way you have bought into a mature system that is already optimized and will allow you to add skills without having to re-learn basic mechanics. And here's where it's related to your freeing-up; you learn a way to do it that's worth your time spent in repetition.

The good instructor does the above while integrating constant situational awareness, appropriate aggressiveness, realistic follow-through, etc. I don't know where else, outside LE/Mil, you can find such appropriate mindset, manipulations, marksmanship and tactics for things that happen outside a square range.

[fn/form]

Agreed.

With that being said,we come to another application difference.

Are those techniques useful given limitations on a civil gun owners ability to shoot? A Tier 1 guys ammo bill is paid for by his agency.Joe Blow ,meanwhile,has to come out of pocket-if Mr. Schmoe can get ammo at all.While techniques matter,at some point you run into the reality that you get better at shooting by doing it.How does an advanced LE or military skillset honed over the course of 500k rounds help someone who logistically can only shoot 50 rounds a month for practice?

Again,I'm not throwing stones at anyone.Im just another newbie wondering how the skills of an ubermench shooter translate to the real world benefit of Joe Schmoe who can't hope to match Mr. Ubermenchs practice tempo.

The answer is in your argument. The guy who can only afford 50rds/mo. needs to know the better ways of doing things from the beginning.

600rds/year + a great way to do things is much more valuable and effective than than 2000rds (pre-panic ammo price equiv of a training class cost) spent doing it some half-arse way from who knows where. Including dry fire.

[ffhounddog]

Her department has a crappy program and leadership then. That is a load of BS

It is run by politicians what do you expect. They are so afraid to do cop stuff off duty that she went off and got a CCW so she can be covered even if her department throws her under the bus. She works at Capital Police a Fed LE agency. They only time she has had full on backing is when she goes on details with Congressmen and Senators.

[rob_s]

Okay, I'm tracking you.

So basically it's the discrete mechanics of gun-handling that I worry about refining so that I free up processor cycles for all the other stuff I'm doing?

I think this is exactly it. You can't be focused on winning your fantasy gunfight, or shooting match, if you're still having to think about what makes the gun go bang.

Unconscious incompetence (don't know what you don't know)
Conscious incompetence ("holy crap! There's a lot I don't know!")
Conscious competence (where most shooters live)
Unconscious competence (master-class shooters)

[ST911]

See also: Driving

[BaiHu]

See also: Life

FIFY

[Suvorov]

Conscious competence (where most shooters live)


You really think most shooters live here?

[Mr_White]

What a timely topic. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this in the last few months. First, a question.

Given a sidearm, what is the difference in "desirable skill level" for a Direct Action mission in Afghanistan vs. armed assault on Joe Citizen, Anytown USA?

That was a nod to this post: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9529-quot-Bad-Software-quot&p=160652&viewfull=1#post160652 which I used as a segue into this thread.

[fn/form]

That was a nod to this post: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9529-quot-Bad-Software-quot&p=160652&viewfull=1#post160652 which I used as a segue into this thread.

Ahaaa. It appears a much wider scope was intended. My mistake.

[ToddG]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.
That's a problem for me.

I just wanted to +1 this but also point out that it has to be taken in context. A guy whose only concern is drawing from a race rig to hit a target with a guaranteed-safe backstop and whose greatest penalty for a "deadly" mistake will be losing a match may have different priorities when choosing what techniques (and gear) he uses and recommends.

Does that mean he's got nothing worth learning? No. Just understand what he's teaching in his context. Not everything that works best in a game is best in a fight.

This exact same contextual analysis applies to LE, MIL, CCW, or any other experience & training. A fantastic example is the difference between what instructors teach in terms of "lone man" room clearing. Some actually have a system built around the lone defender, Southnarc's AMIS being the best well known around here. More commonly, instructors adapt institutionalized team tactics by teaching you what the point man should do plus some "check six!" thrown in for good measure. (note that both sets of instructors have cool sounding LE or MIL credentials, but only some of them are teaching to the proper context)


It's the morons that keep me from teaching. Best that I don't waste anyone's time.
Mostly my own.

There are plenty of ways to minimize moronity as long as you're willing to accept that morons tend to pay well and you're giving up that revenue stream. I'm a perfect example of how easy it is not to have a "level 1" type class, teach regularly, and not deal with as many morons.


Probably one of the best classes was a Raleigh SWAT guy that also (wait for it) shoots both IDPA & USPSA. His skills and knowledge base are very applicable to what he was teaching. I will be taking an advanced pistol class from him in the near future.

Is that Tom? I've taught at some of the same IALEFI conferences he has and have been to his advanced carbine class. He's an incredible instructor and is totally wasted staying close to home instead of hitting the national circuit. SLG and I tried to explain it to him over dinner one night but he seemed happy doing the work/family thing instead of living the excitement of airport security checks and random unfamiliar shooting facilities. :cool:


I focused on "desirable skill level" with a sidearm for a reason—to remove a lot of the above clutter.

... but then you list:


Another overlap is experience in stress environments. Another overlap is movement in/around stationary and mobile structures while evaluating cover/concealment. Low-/No-light techniques. Pre-hospital medical, H2H combatives, retention, inter-personal communication and so forth.

And I'd suggest that no one from any unit, agency, or walk of life is truly world class at all of those things, especially when it comes to having an ability to communicate and transfer skill to another person.


A good Tier 1/SWAT instructor is the practical culmination of these integrated skills. If they choose to conduct an open enrollment class then they understand their intended audience and instruct accordingly.

Some do, some don't. There are more than a few guys on the circuit who do quite the opposite, attempting to give their students the look & feel of a "high speed SPECOPS ninja" training experience for a couple of days. Bringing this back to the first post I quoted above, an instructor who shows up with a retention drop rig to teach from, then takes it off and doesn't carry a gun (or sticks a j-frame in his pocket) doesn't understand me as an audience and probably hasn't instructed "accordingly."

But -- just like the competition instructor who doesn't carry -- that doesn't mean he didn't cover good stuff that I can use. LE/MIL guys are far more likely to have received proper training on combat-related stress management (pre-, during, and post-event), and are far more likely to have personal experiences to which they can relate that training, than someone who hasn't had a career like that. They probably have a far better understanding of fight chaos and how much more multidimensional a life-or-death shooting is likely to be than any range exercise can simulate. Etc.

Put another way, if not for the training I've had from LE/MIL guys, I don't think I'd even understand the "context" issue to begin with. The fact that it's taught me there are differences between their context and mine doesn't change that.

[KeeFus]

Is that Tom? I've taught at some of the same IALEFI conferences he has and have been to his advanced carbine class. He's an incredible instructor and is totally wasted staying close to home instead of hitting the national circuit. SLG and I tried to explain it to him over dinner one night but he seemed happy doing the work/family thing instead of living the excitement of airport security checks and random unfamiliar shooting facilities. :cool:



Yea, he's one of them. I took his Close Quarters Pistol class back in the late 90's. Great class! Did it with a Sig P226 in a Safariland 070 holster. Tom retired as a Captain a few years ago but I understand that he is still teaching in some local community colleges.

More recently another Raleigh SWAT guy is teaching a lot of classes. "Dave" recently got promoted to Sgt and I think he is back on the road but he may now be back in SWAT. His low light/no light class is second to none. He's a beast. I want to say that he's also sponsored by a few companies for IDPA/USPSA and I think that he's now evolving into 3-gun.

[fn/form]

... but then you list:
...
And I'd suggest that no one from any unit, agency, or walk of life is truly world class at all of those things, especially when it comes to having an ability to communicate and transfer skill to another person.
...
...Some do, some don't. There are more than a few guys on the circuit who do quite the opposite, attempting to give their students the look & feel of a "high speed SPECOPS ninja" training experience for a couple of days. Bringing this back to the first post I quoted above, an instructor who shows up with a retention drop rig to teach from, then takes it off and doesn't carry a gun (or sticks a j-frame in his pocket) doesn't understand me as an audience and probably hasn't instructed "accordingly."

These are the reasons I carefully chose the words "good instructor" and "practical culmination".

I started to address those who don't fit the mold, but to encompass all their shapes and sizes would be a waste of time and a lot of words. And I'm sure I'd still miss a few. We're only interested in those who are able, the "good instructors".

To call Tier 1 The Culmination is unrealistic and also holds them to an unrealistic standard. Hence the "practical" modifier, which is no lesser accomplishment, just reflecting they're human. Do I have to spell out the fact some are better at recon, others shooting, still others at medic or comms? It should go without saying.



But -- just like the competition instructor who doesn't carry -- that doesn't mean he didn't cover good stuff that I can use. LE/MIL guys are far more likely to have received proper training on combat-related stress management (pre-, during, and post-event), and are far more likely to have personal experiences to which they can relate that training, than someone who hasn't had a career like that. They probably have a far better understanding of fight chaos and how much more multidimensional a life-or-death shooting is likely to be than any range exercise can simulate. Etc.

Put another way, if not for the training I've had from LE/MIL guys, I don't think I'd even understand the "context" issue to begin with. The fact that it's taught me there are differences between their context and mine doesn't change that.

I agree 100%. I took the long way around. I'm guilty of seeking the Holy Grail of training--and writing off certain competition events in the process.

It turns out I can't afford the Holy Grail, and I can make more a lot more than a purse out of a sow's ear. I'll take what I can get.

[Grizzly21]

My list is short. Tom Givens and TLG. I've taken in-service LE weapon classes but they were geared toward low light/no light, Close Quarters Pistol & Officer Survival. Probably one of the best classes was a Raleigh SWAT guy that also (wait for it) shoots both IDPA & USPSA. His skills and knowledge base are very applicable to what he was teaching. I will be taking an advanced pistol class from him in the near future.

My own experience with LE and off duty carry is that by and large they don't. There is an agency in my area that will not allow their officers to take their issued weapons out of county. Just recently I was out with my wife in town and ran across a couple of guys I work with, one of which is one of our firearms instructors. Neither of them were carrying but I was. I would venture to say that in my area a very small percentage carries off duty.

I work with KeeFus and I'm one the agency firearms instructors(however not the one mentioned above). I always carry off duty, 1 for sure, 2 most of the time and 3 on occassion depending on my daily activities. In my experience a large majority of LE does not carry off duty because they look at the issued handgun as just that, its part of the equipment issued for work so why do I need to carry a gun when I'm off duty. In NC the minimum firearms qualification score is 70% and with our agency we have a small percentage of officers that shoot between 70 & 80% and a majority that shoot between 81 & 90% and a very small group that shoots 91 & 100% consistently every time at the range. Most officers don't have the desire to go to the range even when the department is providing the ammo so there is very little if any improvement from year to year. Very few officers seek out any additional firearms training throughout the year. I teach in-service firearms and civilian concealed carry classes and for the most part the civilians are more focused and want to be in the training. Most civilians have the idea that police officers can shoot and carry guns all the time and I explain to them how a large percentage of officers don't carry off duty and are not as proficient as most would believe. I try to emphasis to the civilian students to seek out additional training from other qualified instructors whether they are civilian, LE or military.

I have completed various types of basic and advanced firearms classes throughout my career however the most significant classes were not about shooting but mindset and situational awareness/observation. I attended LTC Grossman's seminar in 2012 and an officer safety/survival class geared toward indicators that people may give that they are armed and or possibly involved in some type of suspicious/criminal activity. This lesson plan was written and taught by the NC State Highway Patrol and is titled Surviving the First Three Seconds.

[Joseph B.]

I think it depends on the type of skills you ar attempting to learn/develop. I also think if you try to lump anyone with X background into a "group" you are doing an injustice to many of the very competent instructors. Do I think military or law enforcement backgrounds carry over to CCW? Absolutely, however, it doesn't mean no other person can teach CCW, or that all MIL/LE instructors are the perfect fit for CCW classes. In a perfect world you could have a guy who spent 30+ years of civi CCW experience who, had been involved in several shooting successfully, who also competed in some kind of practical shooting sport, that had 20 years of instructional experience, with multiple students who had also been successful in shootings, etc, etc...

Reality is if that guy was around, he would offer an opinion worth listening to regarding MIL/LE instructors and how relevant or not they are to preparing a civi to use a CCW to defend their life (of course that would be debated to no end). Until then, its just guesstimating by many, to include myself. That's coming from a Mil guy, who has been carrying concealed since well before I joined.

Outside of this, I can only say that if I was having to put my life in someones hands, a combat (as in pulled the trigger on someone, taken life) experienced military veteran would be my first choice. But that's probably a bit biased on my part. $.02

[LtDave]

A relative told me that less than 10% of his department ever carry, probably less than 5% of those carry all the time.

That was my experience as well. 10% at most. And that was in SoCal where no one other than LE can legally carry since permits were unobtanium.

Another observation is that detectives often do run into the same situations that private citizens do. I walked into a bank robbery in progress while doing an unrelated follow up investigation. Luckily it was with a note instead of a takeover. One of my detectives was the recipient of an attempted carjacking by a knife wielding perp whose criminal carreer was cut short by the rule one violation.

Lots of LE guys won't be great gun fighters, but any of them who spent any time doing actual police work will be excellent at reading body language and dealing with uncooperative, potentially violent people.

[1986s4]

"Lots of LE guys won't be great gun fighters, but any of them who spent any time doing actual police work will be excellent at reading body language and dealing with uncooperative, potentially violent people. " LT Dave.

This is the training that I would really like, carrying or not, potentially very useful.

[Chuck Haggard]

"Lots of LE guys won't be great gun fighters, but any of them who spent any time doing actual police work will be excellent at reading body language and dealing with uncooperative, potentially violent people. " LT Dave.

This is the training that I would really like, carrying or not, potentially very useful.

MUC you need, or even better ECQC

[BaiHu]

MUC you need, or even better ECQC

Second that one.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Alaskapopo]

I just wanted to +1 this but also point out that it has to be taken in context. A guy whose only concern is drawing from a race rig to hit a target with a guaranteed-safe backstop and whose greatest penalty for a "deadly" mistake will be losing a match may have different priorities when choosing what techniques (and gear) he uses and recommends.

Does that mean he's got nothing worth learning? No. Just understand what he's teaching in his context. Not everything that works best in a game is best in a fight.

This exact same contextual analysis applies to LE, MIL, CCW, or any other experience & training. A fantastic example is the difference between what instructors teach in terms of "lone man" room clearing. Some actually have a system built around the lone defender, Southnarc's AMIS being the best well known around here. More commonly, instructors adapt institutionalized team tactics by teaching you what the point man should do plus some "check six!" thrown in for good measure. (note that both sets of instructors have cool sounding LE or MIL credentials, but only some of them are teaching to the proper context)



There are plenty of ways to minimize moronity as long as you're willing to accept that morons tend to pay well and you're giving up that revenue stream. I'm a perfect example of how easy it is not to have a "level 1" type class, teach regularly, and not deal with as many morons.



Is that Tom? I've taught at some of the same IALEFI conferences he has and have been to his advanced carbine class. He's an incredible instructor and is totally wasted staying close to home instead of hitting the national circuit. SLG and I tried to explain it to him over dinner one night but he seemed happy doing the work/family thing instead of living the excitement of airport security checks and random unfamiliar shooting facilities. :cool:



... but then you list:



And I'd suggest that no one from any unit, agency, or walk of life is truly world class at all of those things, especially when it comes to having an ability to communicate and transfer skill to another person.



Some do, some don't. There are more than a few guys on the circuit who do quite the opposite, attempting to give their students the look & feel of a "high speed SPECOPS ninja" training experience for a couple of days. Bringing this back to the first post I quoted above, an instructor who shows up with a retention drop rig to teach from, then takes it off and doesn't carry a gun (or sticks a j-frame in his pocket) doesn't understand me as an audience and probably hasn't instructed "accordingly."

But -- just like the competition instructor who doesn't carry -- that doesn't mean he didn't cover good stuff that I can use. LE/MIL guys are far more likely to have received proper training on combat-related stress management (pre-, during, and post-event), and are far more likely to have personal experiences to which they can relate that training, than someone who hasn't had a career like that. They probably have a far better understanding of fight chaos and how much more multidimensional a life-or-death shooting is likely to be than any range exercise can simulate. Etc.

Put another way, if not for the training I've had from LE/MIL guys, I don't think I'd even understand the "context" issue to begin with. The fact that it's taught me there are differences between their context and mine doesn't change that.

I think that it depends on what you want from the instructor. If I want the best possible instructor on how to actually shoot and manipulate the weapon I want a grand master world class shooter. If I want to learn good tactics to use then I want a former military or leo guy with lots of experience in that area. I also want training pertaining to what I need. Frankly at the level I am in my shooting ability its hard to pick a worth while training class. Not saying the instructors out there are not great but generally you end up going to a class and its just review with a lot of shooting. Frankly I can do that on my own time a lot cheaper. Plus the instructor is paying more attention to the students who are struggling so that means the shooters with a solid base get even less bang for their buck. To really learn something earth shattering it takes money for one on one instruction or very small class sizes.

I think all new shooters should get some solid training it creates a solid base from which they can work. I personally have progressed a lot once I started shooting competitively. It pushed me to get out of my comfort zones and the friendly competition of wanting to beat your buddies has made it fun and challenging. I would much rather spend money to attend a major three gun match than to attend a class.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

"Lots of LE guys won't be great gun fighters, but any of them who spent any time doing actual police work will be excellent at reading body language and dealing with uncooperative, potentially violent people. " LT Dave.

This is the training that I would really like, carrying or not, potentially very useful.

True and fortunately most dirt bags are practicing with their weapons even less.
Pat

[SansSouci]

OrigamiAK,

The primary difference separating cops & private citizens is decision to engage. Cops have to respond to calls that can result in gunfights. On the other hand, the primary thought of private citizens is escaping w/o engaging. On-duty cops have luxuries of exemplary training, best equipment, communication, and utmost is ability to summon as any cops as necessary to help. Most likely, a private citizen is on his own.

When I got into law enforcement, I was taught that when off-duty it is wise to become a good witness. Now retired, I've never forgotten that sage advice. Were I to make a decision to engage, it would be to protect lives of my family members, lives of cops, and my life. Other than that, I will retreat.

BTW, that brings up a point. I have never attended a private self-defense course. I keep reading of posters discussing how to gunfight. Do civilian training courses teach students how to avoid gunfights? Keep in mind that the only certain way of surviving a gunfight is to not get in one, and that if you're in a gunfight it's because a bad guy wants to kill you.

It would be a whole lot better if all of life were sans souci or without worry.

[ToddG]

On the other hand, the primary thought of private citizens is escaping w/o engaging.

If someone breaks into my house, my primary thought is not "escaping w/o engaging."

If someone is endangering my wife, my primary thought is not "escaping w/o engaging."

If someone is slaughtering innocent people in front of me and I don't have to worry about protecting my wife (see above), my primary thought is not "escaping w/o engaging."


On-duty cops have luxuries of exemplary training, best equipment, communication, and utmost is ability to summon as any cops as necessary to help.

Those things may be true under ideal conditions but they're far from universal. I've met career LE firearms instructors who couldn't walk and shoot at the same time, literally. I've met plenty of LEOs with such poorly chosen and poorly maintained equipment that their partners should have beat them with a rubber hose. And I imagine it won't take long for some of our more rurally located LEOs to talk about how far away backup can be compared to, say, bullets traveling in one's direction at 1,000fps.

I'm all for "be a good witness" when the situation allows. But assuming the situation will always allow that, or assuming that's always going to be the best or safest course of action is just setting oneself up for the "I couldn't believe it was really happening!" moment.

Furthermore, all of that becomes meaningless if something happens that doesn't allow a private citizen to "escape w/o engaging." Law books are full of examples where there was no reasonably safe means of retreat...

[Alaskapopo]

OrigamiAK,

The primary difference separating cops & private citizens is decision to engage. Cops have to respond to calls that can result in gunfights. On the other hand, the primary thought of private citizens is escaping w/o engaging. On-duty cops have luxuries of exemplary training, best equipment, communication, and utmost is ability to summon as any cops as necessary to help. Most likely, a private citizen is on his own.

When I got into law enforcement, I was taught that when off-duty it is wise to become a good witness. Now retired, I've never forgotten that sage advice. Were I to make a decision to engage, it would be to protect lives of my family members, lives of cops, and my life. Other than that, I will retreat.

BTW, that brings up a point. I have never attended a private self-defense course. I keep reading of posters discussing how to gunfight. Do civilian training courses teach students how to avoid gunfights? Keep in mind that the only certain way of surviving a gunfight is to not get in one, and that if you're in a gunfight it's because a bad guy wants to kill you.

It would be a whole lot better if all of life were sans souci or without worry.

I disagree as cop if anyones life is in danger I will act and I am always armed off duty. At the end of the day its more than a job its a calling and I don't think I could live with myself if I stood by and did nothing to help someone who was under assault.
Pat

[SansSouci]

Hi Pat,

I'm good. We all have to do what's right for us.

Did you happen to see the training film about the Los Angeles deputy sheriff whose 3 year-old daughter was murdered after he decided to engage robbers while he was off-duty?

A friend of mine with whom I used to work was murdered after he decided to engage when he was off-duty. Every so often I think of him. He'd be retired today.

[SansSouci]

Hi Todd,

I had referred to decisions to engage outside of homes. I should have been precise. Even in homes, not engaging would be the right way to go if it's a doable option. If it's doable, my advice is to stay put in a room, dial 911 & stay secure until cops arrive. Moreover, I'd rather have a bad guy come to me rather than looking for him.

Todd, I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say they know cops that can't shoot straight. While I have knowledge of only CA, I can tell you that CA cops have to demonstrate firearm proficiency.

[SansSouci]

Todd,

BTW, while you will engage in the scenarios you've presented, my first thoughts would be avoidance, and that includes inside of my home.

Todd, were misfortune find me in the midst of carnage & I had my kids with me, my only thought would be getting my kids as far away from gunfire as possible. My paramount priority is protecting my kids.

[Suvorov]

Todd, I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say they know cops that can't shoot straight. While I have knowledge of only CA, I can tell you that CA cops have to demonstrate firearm proficiency.

Define "firearm proficiency" please.

[SansSouci]

It's here: http://post.ca.gov/

[Suvorov]

That pretty much means nothing. I'd put money down that everyone on this forum could pass the POST with little problem. Many support hand only.

Just because a guy or gal passes an Academy and then shoots enough holes into a target once or twice a year doesn't mean they are proficient with a gun, just that they have demonstrated the minimum standards that make the lawsuit adverse brass comfortable.

[SansSouci]

That pretty much means nothing. I'd put money down that everyone on this forum could pass the POST support hand only.

Sounds good to me.

Take care

[LittleLebowski]

Todd, I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say they know cops that can't shoot straight. While I have knowledge of only CA, I can tell you that CA cops have to demonstrate firearm proficiency.

First thought that popped into my head was two separate but related incidents involving a Honda Ridgeline and a Toyota Tacoma :D

[trailrunner]

BTW, that brings up a point. I have never attended a private self-defense course. I keep reading of posters discussing how to gunfight. Do civilian training courses teach students how to avoid gunfights? Keep in mind that the only certain way of surviving a gunfight is to not get in one, and that if you're in a gunfight it's because a bad guy wants to kill you.


I have only taken a small amount of training compared to the veterans on this forum, but yes: avoiding the threat, avoiding the situation, and avoiding the bad guy(s) was a major part of the training that I've taken. We learned how to read body language and strategies that thugs employ, and although I'm probably not as good as the cop on the street, it was useful nonetheless, and raised my awareness considerably.

[ToddG]

First thought that popped into my head was two separate but related incidents involving a Honda Ridgeline and a Toyota Tacoma :D

Ha!

[jlw]

It's here: http://post.ca.gov/

I'm a POST certified firearms instructor in GA. The requirements in CA may be tougher than our's here, but our qualification course would be considered simple by IDPA/MM standards.

[Alaskapopo]

Hi Pat,

I'm good. We all have to do what's right for us.

Did you happen to see the training film about the Los Angeles deputy sheriff whose 3 year-old daughter was murdered after he decided to engage robbers while he was off-duty?

A friend of mine with whom I used to work was murdered after he decided to engage when he was off-duty. Every so often I think of him. He'd be retired today.

It is easier for me as I don't have a family to worry about. Not judging you just saying what I could or could not live with.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

That pretty much means nothing. I'd put money down that everyone on this forum could pass the POST with little problem. Many support hand only.

Just because a guy or gal passes an Academy and then shoots enough holes into a target once or twice a year doesn't mean they are proficient with a gun, just that they have demonstrated the minimum standards that make the lawsuit adverse brass comfortable.
While police standards needed to be improved they are much higher than the CCW standard in any state and many states require nothing at all for CCW holders to pass before they carry.
Pat

[LittleLebowski]

While police standards needed to be improved they are much higher than the CCW standard in any state and many states require nothing at all for CCW holders to pass before they carry.
Pat

Indeed that is true but has no relevance upon Suvorov's point so we really don't need to make this into an us vs them thing, thanks.

[ToddG]

While police standards needed to be improved they are much higher than the CCW standard in any state and many states require nothing at all for CCW holders to pass before they carry.

How did CCW training standards get brought into this?

[Alaskapopo]

First thought that popped into my head was two separate but related incidents involving a Honda Ridgeline and a Toyota Tacoma :D

What was the number or rounds expended by the US military again before a single NVA soldier was hit in Vietnam? Not an US vs them thing just pointing out that peoples hit ratio's generally go down considerably under the stress of real life.

[LittleLebowski]

What was the number or rounds expended by the US military again before a single NVA soldier was hit in Vietnam? Not an US vs them thing just pointing out that peoples hit ratio's generally go down considerably under the stress of real life.
Pat

OK.

[jetfire]

What was the number or rounds expended by the US military again before a single NVA soldier was hit in Vietnam? Not an US vs them thing just pointing out that peoples hit ratio's generally go down considerably under the stress of real life. When it happens with cops some loves to throw it in our faces.
Pat

Unless those people are Tom Given's students, those lowly peasant-CCW holders. Who seem to be a lot more accurate on average than most cops.

[Alaskapopo]

Unless those people are Tom Given's students, those lowly peasant-CCW holders. Who seem to be a lot more accurate on average than most cops.

Please don't imply that I look down on CCW holders. I was one well before becoming a cop. Also there are cops who are also exceptional shooters. Although the best shooters out there are competition shooters who eat live and breath shooting.
Pat

[Dropkick]

True and fortunately most dirt bags are practicing with their weapons even less.
Pat

Sorry, but no...
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/training-vs-experience

The first thing that the researchers learned is that our assumptions about criminals not training are wrong. Nearly 40% of the criminal attackers in this study had received FORMAL firearms training (mostly in the military). More than 80% of the criminal attackers regularly practiced with their firearms, with an average number of 23 Practice Sessions Per Year! They conducted these practice sessions in trash dumps, wooded areas, back yards and “street corners in known drug trafficking areas”. What that means is that the practice sessions were taking place in realistic environments, under conditions similar to those the attackers were likely to face in combat.

[John Hearne]

There are so many fundamental differences between the dynamics of armed citizen shooting and uniformed LE shootings that I liken them to the Super Bowl and the World Cup. Sure, they're both football championships but that classification is all they share.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

[Alaskapopo]

Sorry, but no...
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/training-vs-experience

That link is to an advertisement to a training school. What is the actual source material for the stats listed?
Pat

[SansSouci]

What was the number or rounds expended by the US military again before a single NVA soldier was hit in Vietnam? Not an US vs them thing just pointing out that peoples hit ratio's generally go down considerably under the stress of real life.

That's it right there.

BTW was the ratio 1 to many tens of thousand rounds?

[SansSouci]

I have only taken a small amount of training compared to the veterans on this forum, but yes: avoiding the threat, avoiding the situation, and avoiding the bad guy(s) was a major part of the training that I've taken. We learned how to read body language and strategies that thugs employ, and although I'm probably not as good as the cop on the street, it was useful nonetheless, and raised my awareness considerably.

Sounds like you've received excellent training.

[SansSouci]

How did CCW training standards get brought into this?


Todd, I believe you brought them in.

[ToddG]

Todd, I believe you brought them in.

Please point that out to me.

I responded to your suggestion that all police officers "receive exemplary training" by commenting that I've some who received nowhere close.

Then in my next post I said, and I quote in its entirety: "Ha!

And then I asked how CCW standards got brought into the discussion.

[Alaskapopo]

Unless those people are Tom Given's students, those lowly peasant-CCW holders. Who seem to be a lot more accurate on average than most cops.

Also I bet even students of Tom Givens will suffer degradation to their shooting ability under the stress of an actual gun fight. I hope they never find out however.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

That pretty much means nothing. I'd put money down that everyone on this forum could pass the POST with little problem. Many support hand only.

Just because a guy or gal passes an Academy and then shoots enough holes into a target once or twice a year doesn't mean they are proficient with a gun, just that they have demonstrated the minimum standards that make the lawsuit adverse brass comfortable.
Actually it does mean they are proficient with a firearm as described in their particular training program. Firearms trainers are going to disagree on what is and what is not proficient. I think its a never ending road personally of self improvement.
Pat

[SansSouci]

Hi Todd,

I probably inferred it from your post.

Sorry.

[SansSouci]

Law enforcement training isn't judged to be sufficient by armchair quarterbacks. It's determined by law. Agencies have to be prepared to defend their officers' use of deadly force in court. Opinions of the uninitiated have zero merit where it counts & that's in court.

[Dropkick]

That link is to an advertisement to a training school. What is the actual source material for the stats listed?
Pat

If you actually read the entire article, it says it's from "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers." published by the FBI.

Smurfs... It even includes a link to the original document.

[TR675]

Also I bet even students of Tom Givens will suffer degradation to their shooting ability under the stress of an actual gun fight. I hope they never find out however.
Pat

The nice thing about Tom is that he's tracked upwards of 60 of his students who have won actual gunfights. His breakdown of 10 representative samples is illuminating.

[Alaskapopo]

The nice thing about Tom is that he's tracked upwards of 60 of his students who have won actual gunfights. His breakdown of 10 representative samples is illuminating.

Still would like to see the hard data, operation definitions etc vs. an advertisement.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

If you actually read the entire article, it says it's from "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers." published by the FBI.

Smurfs... It even includes a link to the original document.

Lol practice sessions in wooded areas and in gravel pits. Wow that is good training. Laughing my kitten off. Also while most cops are only required to shoot one or 2 times a year most of us shoot a bit more than that. While I don't have a study myself I know from 14 years of actually doing this job that not many criminals that I have contacted train at all beyond the gravel pit shooting when their drunk with their buddies. It has been well documented that most criminals don't carry quality weapons and often are so stupid they have them loaded with the wrong ammunition.

What I see on that link is this. Scare tactics and then selling you on their training so they can make a buck. Great marketing but not much else.
Pat

[TR675]

Still would like to see the hard data, operation definitions etc vs. an advertisement.
Pat

We may be talking about two different things. Tom is out of Rangemaster in Memphis and isn't affiliated with the link posted earlier in the thread.

[SansSouci]

Hi Pat,

I have known many people that have confused target practice with law enforcement training. I've had to explain to friends that were not in law enforcement that informal target practice was not tactical training. I've even had people try to tell me that they were trained because they have periodically shot targets at a shooting range.


Stay safe,

Sans

[Suvorov]

Law enforcement training isn't judged to be sufficient by armchair quarterbacks. It's determined by law. Agencies have to be prepared to defend their officers' use of deadly force in court. Opinions of the uninitiated have zero merit where it counts & that's in court.

You are right, law enforcement firearms training is largely determined by legal concerns and I'll add cost concerns. It doesn't mean that bare minimum POST requirements instantly turn a graduate into a truly competent shooter. I have trained with and run though plenty of California LEOs through M9 qualifications who barely passed or even had to be recycled to be unimpressed with a simple set of credentials to show me someone has good gun fu. If you have trouble with the Army's pop up qualification, then I'm sorry, you suck and no badge or fancy POST certificate on your wall is going to change that. Assuming by your posts that you are a California LEO - can you honestly tell me that all of your colleagues are truly proficient with their firearms?

Now please DO NOT MISINTERPRET what I'm saying. This is NOT an us versus them thing and I am not implying that all LEOs are bad shots, actually nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that when people start down the "Only One" road and then claim their LEO (or military) training and credentials alone means that they are "proficient" or more "proficient" with a firearm, I call B.S. I will also agree there is a HUGE difference between shooting stationary targets and survival based shooting, and add that NO ONE on this forum is beginning to argue such a thing. I may not be the steely eyed Tier 1 gunslinger that many on this forum are, but I have been enough places and gotten enough T-Shirts to know the difference.

[Suvorov]

Actually it does mean they are proficient with a firearm as described in their particular training program. Firearms trainers are going to disagree on what is and what is not proficient. I think its a never ending road personally of self improvement.
Pat


Agree 100%, but you and I also know that there is a big difference between what is stated as proficient and what is really proficient when it comes to standards for large agencies. You and I also know that while some may travel down that never ending road of self improvement, others will not and will even regress and continue to slip though the cracks. I see it all the time in my primary line of work which is frankly a lot more concerning.

[Alaskapopo]

Agree 100%, but you and I also know that there is a big difference between what is stated as proficient and what is really proficient when it comes to standards for large agencies. You and I also know that while some may travel down that never ending road of self improvement, others will not and will even regress and continue to slip though the cracks. I see it all the time in my primary line of work which is frankly a lot more concerning.

Yep I agree standards are not reality based in my opinion. Heck most departments are still running off a timer and a stationary target mine included where most of the shoot decision in real life is based on visual stimulus. Some wealthy forward thinking departments are getting target systems that show themselves for a set amount of time and some times face the no shoot towards the shooter so he or she can't go on autopilot. But back on topic yes standards are not high enough in my opinion to give our people the skills they need to survive a gun fight.
Pat

[TheTrevor]

You are right, law enforcement firearms training is largely determined by legal concerns and I'll add cost concerns. It doesn't mean that bare minimum POST requirements instantly turn a graduate into a truly competent shooter. I have trained with and run though plenty of California LEOs through M9 qualifications who barely passed or even had to be recycled to be unimpressed with a simple set of credentials to show me someone has good gun fu. If you have trouble with the Army's pop up qualification, then I'm sorry, you suck and no badge or fancy POST certificate on your wall is going to change that. Assuming by your posts that you are a California LEO - can you honestly tell me that all of your colleagues are truly proficient with their firearms?

Now please DO NOT MISINTERPRET what I'm saying. This is NOT an us versus them thing and I am not implying that all LEOs are bad shots, actually nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that when people start down the "Only One" road and then claim their LEO (or military) training and credentials alone means that they are "proficient" or more "proficient" with a firearm, I call B.S. I will also agree there is a HUGE difference between shooting stationary targets and survival based shooting, and add that NO ONE on this forum is beginning to argue such a thing. I may not be the steely eyed Tier 1 gunslinger that many on this forum are, but I have been enough places and gotten enough T-Shirts to know the difference.

What Suvorov said. In all respects. I was trying to find a non-confrontational way of saying the same thing, but kept having to delete my attempts, so I'm glad someone could clearly articulate this.

I'll add one more point from recent personal experience: I'm currently private-coaching a shooter who is active duty CA LE, but (a) was not filled with confidence in their shooting skills even after passing firearms qual at their academy, and (b) isn't comfortable with their issue weapon. None of this person's core issues were properly diagnosed and they were not given an improvement and skills-maintenance program to ensure that those issues didn't recur, particularly the ones related to hand & wrist strength. The shooter in question wasn't at the bottom of the class in firearms qual scores, despite struggling a bit before passing. I'm no HSLD operator either, yet because I've put in the time to both learn to shoot acceptably well AND learn to help other shooters with core skills, it's me (the non-LE/mil civilian) helping LEOs find their paths to skill improvement, not the other way around.

From many, many discussions I've had with CA LEOs of all types, I assert that there is little-to-no correlation between significant firearms proficiency and having passed the academy or periodic quals. The folks who are good with a gun, or several types of gun, are the ones who have a combination of at least some natural talent and an inclination to develop their skills. This most decidedly does not represent 100% of CA LEOs, or indeed, the federal LEOs that I used to hang out with.

[SansSouci]

Suvorov,

It seems that you want to impose what you believe to be acceptable firearms training standards on POST & every law enforcement agency & officer in the nation.

In California (and assuredly true with every federal, state & local law enforcement agency in the nation) every cop has met or exceeded standards of firearms training. Either that or he's not employed.

Could you imagine financial liability were an agency to hire or retain a cop that did not/could not meet CA POST firearms standards?

[SansSouci]

TheTrevor,

Are you asserting that the cops of who you wrote did not measure up to your standards?

Just how would you assess firearm competence? What metric do you use?

[SansSouci]

Suvorov,

I am a retired cop.

BTW, do not confuse military training with law enforcement training. They are not congruous.

I have trained MP's. Most were fine cops. However, some confused warfare with law enforcement. We had to try to disabuse them of their willingness to trade their lives with bad guy lives.

The goal of civilian law enforcement is to not use deadly force. The goal is bad guys go to jail and good guys go home. Some MP's were willing to take casualties. Federal, state, & local law enforcement agencies spend millions of buck each year trying to figure out ways to avoid casualties.

[TheTrevor]

TheTrevor,

Are you asserting that the cops of who you wrote did not measure up to your standards?

Just how would you assess firearm competence? What metric do you use?

Interesting that you should choose such a, what is the polite term... creative interpretation of what I wrote.

I don't foresee any useful exchange of views or knowledge to be forthcoming from continuing this conversation, therefore I am done.

[BLR]

Just how would you assess firearm competence? What metric do you use?

Good question.

Reading through the POST link provided, I would not think that measures up to the definition of proficient, which is: skilled, skillful, expert, experienced, accomplished, masterly, etc.

[jlw]

Law enforcement training isn't judged to be sufficient by armchair quarterbacks. It's determined by law. Agencies have to be prepared to defend their officers' use of deadly force in court. Opinions of the uninitiated have zero merit where it counts & that's in court.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a GA POST certified firearms instructor. In addition to that, I am also a graduate of the FBI Police Firearms Instructor course, and I am a Chief Deputy.

The training and qualifications courses are more concerned with getting as many as possible through without losing employees than they are with the actual measuring of proficiency or preparation for court as they suck at both.

I've tried to make some very simple changes and have run up against a brick wall, and you'd think I was killing puppies by beating them to death with kittens over some of this stuff.

[jetfire]

Suvorov,

It seems that you want to impose what you believe to be acceptable firearms training standards on POST & every law enforcement agency & officer in the nation.

In California (and assuredly true with every federal, state & local law enforcement agency in the nation) every cop has met or exceeded standards of firearms training. Either that or he's not employed.

Could you imagine financial liability were an agency to hire or retain a cop that did not/could not meet CA POST firearms standards?

Yes, but those standards are REALLY EASY.

[KevinB]

This thread went sideways...

You can pretty much learn anything from shooting with someone, even if its not to go shooting with them again.

Shooting Mechanics classes are probably best taught by M/GM level shooters.
I think in this aspect the best one can do is 1 on 1 instruction (why I go shooting with ToddG ;) )
In this aspect everything from your draw to re-holster is looked at. I really prefer shooting with Todd, as he is an all the time-carry guy, so his shooting is based around CCW. Before Todd's head explodes ;) I'm not going to say he is the only one doing this - but if you choose someone who is an USPSA/IPSC or IDPA guy your not getting the same picture -- you may get a presentation, prep, shot, follow thru, re-load etc but not the draw/carry aspect. Also while they may teach something, it may not applicable to your needs.

Tactics - These classes are often best left to folks who have experience in that arena. Individual tactics are a lot different that a full DA team hit. Slow, Cautious movements with deliberate pieing are required to reduce your exposure if your inside -- on the other hand, outside, action/reaction and movement to cover may require much more rapid action.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________________

Next topic - Standards.
Civilian standards do not exists - so claiming the fact that LE POST requirements are low is a lame duck argument. I agree most LE quals are not hard, but that is my opinion based on how I do on shooting them (though I fail the FAM qual for speed due to my poor CCW draw speed).
My LE pistol qual is a 50rd day/50rd night -- neither Jason Falla, nor I nor 2 former DevGru guys on the dept got 100%, though we where all close (all rounds hit the target - some outside the interior scoring area).
Why - well at night, in the cold, with the lights from the car and siren going, its a little distracting -- but its 99x worse when its for real.

I'm not going to get into the .MIL quals - as the bar is so different from conventional units to the SMU's

My cardinal rules for training with someone is
1) would I feel confident getting into a gunfight with him beside me, cause if not, why am I here with them.
2) always training up.

[ST911]

The training and qualifications courses are more concerned with getting as many as possible through without losing employees than they are with the actual measuring of proficiency or preparation for court as they suck at both.

This. Adding... A LE qual COF is a test of a instructed skill set, developed to limit government's risk and liability exposure. Not to produce gunfighters. While it can be indicative of some overall ability, it's determination of "competency" and "proficiency" with a handgun should be narrow, and restricted to that specific use and COI.

I posted a list of links to state/POST qual standards here at PF for those interested in shooting them.

[ToddG]

Actually it does mean they are proficient with a firearm as described in their particular training program.

By that definition you could call anything proficient.

Starting tomorrow: Cook Small, Bake Small. Todd Louis Green will teach you all of his culinary skills including (a) boiling water and (b) heating things up in a microwave. At the end of the 30-minute $500 class you will receive a certification proclaiming your proficiency as a Master Chef.


Law enforcement training isn't judged to be sufficient by armchair quarterbacks. It's determined by law. Agencies have to be prepared to defend their officers' use of deadly force in court. Opinions of the uninitiated have zero merit where it counts & that's in court.

First, you're on the wrong forum to start telling the general membership we're "uninitiated." I suggest you read a bit more to get an idea of the kinds of experience and training many of our members have before making assumptions.

Second, your argument that courts determine what is and isn't proficient is unpersuasive. By that argument, by definition, lowest common denominator training is acceptable. Someone who can barely shoot your POST qualification course with its generous times and scoring is "proficient" by that standard but certainly not by the standards of those who actually taking training seriously... including countless agency FIs who constantly fight to improve their programs.

It's disingenuous to assume that all non-LEOs are lacking in "real tactical training" and then simultaneously use LE quals -- which are among the least challenging and least "tactical" courses of fire in existence -- as evidence of LEO skill.

[SansSouci]

Todd,

Can you think of how government does not control your life? Even your school is regulated by a governmental agency. Your business license is conditional of government approval. What would happen to your business were you to violate any of the conditions of your business license? I can't even fix a water leak in my home w/o city approval. Hell, the city even regulates human waste. Even the bed I sleep on has been government approved.

Would you teach your students anything that would not withstand a potential law enforcement investigation? A criminal trial? A civil lawsuit?

Todd, the reality is courts will define what is proficient. If you doubt me, invest a few hundred bucks or more on a criminal defense attorney's time. Then invest a like amount on a civil defense attorney's time. When a cop uses deadly force his agency will conduct a thorough investigation to assure it was within agency policy. In fact, I just read an article about a cop that was placed on admin leave because he is accused of murdering a suspect that had been armed with a pointed weapon.

I'm good with your believing what you want to believe. However, after working in a fact-based career for a long time, I know how to avoid what I ought to avoid.

Do your courses include introduction to firearms law?

[JV_]

If you doubt me, invest a few hundred bucks or more on a criminal defense attorney's time. Then invest a like amount on a civil defense attorney's time. When a cop uses deadly force his agency will conduct a thorough investigation to assure it was within agency policy. In fact, I just read an article about a cop that was placed on admin leave because he is accused of murdering a suspect that had been armed with a pointed weapon.You do realize that he worked for the US Attorney's Office in D.C, and is a lawyer, right?

Just in case you glossed over this, you should re-read it:


First, you're on the wrong forum to start telling the general membership we're "uninitiated." I suggest you read a bit more to get an idea of the kinds of experience and training many of our members have before making assumptions.

[Mr_White]

Todd, the reality is courts will define what is proficient.

I am missing something here. Are you trying to say that what a court defines as 'proficient' is the limit of human ability? Many of us here on pistol-forum spend as much time and money as we have available reaching whatever level of proficiency in mindset, tactics, and skill we are able with those resources. Or are you arguing in favor of what amounts to mediocrity? I don't get it.

[jetfire]

Todd,

What would happen to your business were you to violate any of the conditions of your business license? I can't even fix a water leak in my home w/o city approval. Hell, the city even regulates human waste.

You live in a terrible city. You should try moving to America.

[SansSouci]

JV,

If he's an attorney then he ought to know that courts will determine what is proficient, for even his license to practice law is conditional upon his meeting minimal standards that courts have deemed acceptable.

Holding to his rationale, I can determine whether he is proficient to practice law. What if he doesn't meet my standards of legal proficiency? Would that mean he's unfit to practice law?

When lawyers disagree, courts will determine what is factual.

[SansSouci]

BTW, Todd,

When I responded to Pat about the uninitiated, I was referring to those unfamiliar with law enforcement agencies stringent adherence to rules, regulations, policies, & procedures. Cops know that violating any of them will result in discipline.

[SansSouci]

You live in a terrible city. You should try moving to America.


You live in Utopia.

I live in reality.

[SansSouci]

OrigamiAK,

ow did you come up with this: "Are you trying to say that what a court defines as 'proficient' is the limit of human ability?"

[joshs]

JV,

If he's an attorney then he ought to know that courts will determine what is proficient, for even his license to practice law is conditional upon his meeting minimal standards that courts have deemed acceptable.

Holding to his rationale, I can determine whether he is proficient to practice law. What if he doesn't meet my standards of legal proficiency? Would that mean he's unfit to practice law?

When lawyers disagree, courts will determine what is factual.

You seem to be saying that not legally incompetent at your profession = proficient. I would guess that most people don't use "proficient" in this manner. If someone gave you recommendations for an attorney and they said one is "proficient" and the other "probably won't commit legal malpractice against you," would you consider these equal recommendations?

[jetfire]

You live in Utopia.

I live in reality.

South Dakota is pretty close to paradise. Great food, low unemployment, small government, balanced budget, low taxes. All it needs is better weather.

Wait, I live in Utopia but I'm the one who carries a gun every day? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Mr_White]

JV,

If he's an attorney then he ought to know that courts will determine what is proficient, for even his license to practice law is conditional upon his meeting minimal standards that courts have deemed acceptable.

Holding to his rationale, I can determine whether he is proficient to practice law. What if he doesn't meet my standards of legal proficiency? Would that mean he's unfit to practice law?

When lawyers disagree, courts will determine what is factual.


OrigamiAK,

ow did you come up with this: "Are you trying to say that what a court defines as 'proficient' is the limit of human ability?"

Well, basically, I don't understand what you are talking about.

You keep referring to standards enshrined by recognition by the legal system as 'proficiency.' I am getting the feeling that you fail to recognize two things:

There are many levels of skill at (many things, but for the purpose of this discussion, how about mindset, skill, and tactics with firearms carried for defensive use) that go way beyond the level recognized by courts as legally proficient. And, that that is precisely the area of defensive training many of us gravitate toward - the area above the 'proficiency' level recognized by state qualification courses.

You sound as if you are suggesting that some of us are arguing that 'proficiency' can be had at a lower level than recognized by courts. It's quite the opposite - a lot of people here work to be able to exceed basic, rudimentary standards recognized by courts.

[ST911]

I'd like to take a large sample of LE shooters and have them shoot the IDPA classifier. I think the overwhelming majority would fall at MM or below, and even the good shooters only SS. All SSP of course. It would also be interesting to compare agency/program trends, and LE cohorts against classification distribution of citizens in clubs.

[Alaskapopo]

By that definition you could call anything proficient.



That is true but so could you in your class. Its all subjective and arbitrary. You could set standards at one level and another well known instructor could come along and say that is not good enough to be considered proficient.
Pat

[ToddG]

Can you think of how government does not control your life?

It doesn't control, for example, my ability to identify wild non sequitur arguments...


Todd, the reality is courts will define what is proficient.

If you insist on drawing every line to "the courts have the final say" then it's tautological to claim that courts define what is proficient. By that logic the courts define what is hot, what is cold, what is pretty, and what is ugly. The courts define the standard of care I can demand of my doctor... but I don't choose my doctor based on someone who will meet that minimum standard.

Furthermore, you're assuming that the courts simply make these determinations from a blank sheet of paper. On the contrary, there are laws, regulations, and agency policies that heavily influence their decisions. At the end of the day if a state POST says that an officer cannot be qualified for duty unless he can hit a fly's balls at 50yd then that's the standard even if a court might think that's beyond the minimum level of proficiency it can imagine.

As has been explained numerous times to you, courts, legislatures, POST doctrine, and individual agencies are also constantly battling between the opposing forces of "high standards" and "passable standards" to avoid lawsuits, EEOC claims, etc. I'm not sure if you're familiar with those types of proceedings but having been part of those discussions on both the industry and agency sides I can assure you they're not all about maximizing shooting proficiency.


In fact, I just read an article about a cop that was placed on admin leave because he is accused of murdering a suspect that had been armed with a pointed weapon.

Since my employer cannot place me on admin leave that's not a concern. It definitely has absolutely nothing to do with your point about COURTS ARE ALL!

The only thing I have to worry about in a use of force situation is the relevant state self-defense law. Unlike police officers, my actions cannot be judged under a 4th Amendment use-of-force standard.


Do your courses include introduction to firearms law?

Nope.

[TCinVA]

Also I bet even students of Tom Givens will suffer degradation to their shooting ability under the stress of an actual gun fight. I hope they never find out however.
Pat

Caleb was pointing out that Mr. Givens students have gone almost 70-0 in actual shootings, with no bystanders being harmed that I'm aware of. Many of the bad guys DRT.

[LSP552]

I'd like to take a large sample of LE shooters and have them shoot the IDPA classifier. I think the overwhelming majority would fall at MM or below, and even the good shooters only SS. All SSP of course. It would also be interesting to compare agency/program trends, and LE cohorts against classification distribution of citizens in clubs.

If you took a random sample of LE officers you would find most have basic and not advanced weapon skills. The same is true of many LE firearms "instructors". If you took a random sample of people with CCLs you would likely find then even less trained and capable. I'm pretty sure most states don't require annual recertification/training to maintain their license. People who belong to gun clubs and shoot competition are not representative of the average CCL person, anymore than the average cop represents major agency SWAT personnel or law enforcement shooting teams.

I would never hold basic LE training and annual POST certification up as a model to follow for individual excellence. Basic LE training is meant to provide the minimum level of training proscribed by the governing body. It provides a level of liability protection for the agency by providing a defensible minimum standard.

It's easy to forget that you don't have to be a master class shooter to survive or win a gunfight. A proficient shooter with proper mindset, good awareness and tactics will plant a better shooter who is clueless and learned their tactics from Gunsmoke episodes.

To the OP. LE and military training can be relative, but you have to shop wisely and do your research, just like buying a car. Define what you want to learn and then look for who is best qualified to teach it. Casting your training net broadly will develop the knowledge base necessary for chart your personal roadmap to excellence.

Ken

[jetfire]

Caleb was pointing out that Mr. Givens students have gone almost 70-0 in actual shootings, with no bystanders being harmed that I'm aware of. Many of the bad guys DRT.

That's a pretty solid record right thar.

[KevinB]

That is true but so could you in your class. Its all subjective and arbitrary. You could set standards at one level and another well known instructor could come along and say that is not good enough to be considered proficient.
Pat
Sorry for the long and potentially rambling post

Standards are arbitrary... You may feel free to disagree, but pretty much everything in the shooting world has different standards.

I firmly believe that a good attorney could show that may POST or other COF's are not good examples of proficiency. They simply are a mix of what the city/state/entity is willing to accept for liability.

Most LE are pretty poor shooters, in the same vein so are most Mil and most civilians. I use the term in comparison to shooting standard at the NLI/SMU level.
Now training LE to a SMU level would bankrupt most states - so their are willing to accept the liability of the qualification that they set in a cost benefit relationship on the odds that when officers fire and miss that the damages will be less than the training time and budget of a higher qualification.

Proficiency is in the eyes of the beholder -- I've been a LE/Mil Closed HR/CQB Instructor Course and had a LE member ask not to shoot in a certain position during team drills as he did not shoot well under stress (member was from the County SWAT team...) the individual also did not understand why many of us groaned when he said that and one of the guys told him to re-think his job.

However in closing
Fact - most LE are better shooters than the Avg Civilian shooter, why: they have had classroom instruction and are (mostly) competent in the handling of their weapons. A simply trip to the NRA Range will show that a vast majority of civilian gun owners don't have a clue how to safely handle their firearms, and make it thru a range practice without an ND more by luck than anything else -- they don't know any better.

Many folks here on the board can sit smugly typing behind the screen believing that they are proficient - but at the end of the day another person looking at the screen may have an opposite believe on what that means.

Gun Games to me need to put a much heavier penalty on missed shots if they want to believe they are relevant to the world outside the range. To me that is the BIGGEST bonus of a LE/Mil Instructor, in that most will have to have made the decision on when to shoot or not to shoot, based on the difficulty of the shot.
They are times in the real world when NOT taking a shot is a much better idea.

[Alaskapopo]

Sorry for the long and potentially rambling post

Standards are arbitrary... You may feel free to disagree, but pretty much everything in the shooting world has different standards.

I firmly believe that a good attorney could show that may POST or other COF's are not good examples of proficiency. They simply are a mix of what the city/state/entity is willing to accept for liability.

Most LE are pretty poor shooters, in the same vein so are most Mil and most civilians. I use the term in comparison to shooting standard at the NLI/SMU level.
Now training LE to a SMU level would bankrupt most states - so their are willing to accept the liability of the qualification that they set in a cost benefit relationship on the odds that when officers fire and miss that the damages will be less than the training time and budget of a higher qualification.

Proficiency is in the eyes of the beholder -- I've been a LE/Mil Closed HR/CQB Instructor Course and had a LE member ask not to shoot in a certain position during team drills as he did not shoot well under stress (member was from the County SWAT team...) the individual also did not understand why many of us groaned when he said that and one of the guys told him to re-think his job.

However in closing
Fact - most LE are better shooters than the Avg Civilian shooter, why: they have had classroom instruction and are (mostly) competent in the handling of their weapons. A simply trip to the NRA Range will show that a vast majority of civilian gun owners don't have a clue how to safely handle their firearms, and make it thru a range practice without an ND more by luck than anything else -- they don't know any better.

Many folks here on the board can sit smugly typing behind the screen believing that they are proficient - but at the end of the day another person looking at the screen may have an opposite believe on what that means.

Gun Games to me need to put a much heavier penalty on missed shots if they want to believe they are relevant to the world outside the range. To me that is the BIGGEST bonus of a LE/Mil Instructor, in that most will have to have made the decision on when to shoot or not to shoot, based on the difficulty of the shot.
They are times in the real world when NOT taking a shot is a much better idea.
Agreed with most everything above. However on the missed shot example. Yes making your hits is critical and your are responsible for the rounds you fire but you also have to realize that when your facing a threat that is actively trying to kill you your first priority is to stop that threat and frankly where a missed shot might go at that point is secondary to your survival check list. Its un realistic to believe that all shots are going to hit their mark in the dynamics of a stressful situation. Especially if its the shooters first experience in that type of situation. Which with everyone but hardened combat vets that is the reality. So while I agree that missed shots need to be discourages if the penalty gets to the point it slows the shooter down to where he is shooting far slower than he would in real life its a liability. I am not as articulate as you are so I apologize if my points are not as easily understood.

Pat

[KevinB]

What is the priority of life in a HR scenario?
Hitting a hostage is unacceptable and should be unacceptable for all LE, and for Patrol/SWAT LE you need to view non-threat civilians as hostages with the same priority of life - we all get paid the big buck and take on unlimited liability when we suit up, so if you need to be a 1/10th of a second or more slower and hit the target, if you eat one in the process that is life.

[Alaskapopo]

What is the priority of life in a HR scenario?
Hitting a hostage is unacceptable and should be unacceptable for all LE, and for Patrol/SWAT LE you need to view non-threat civilians as hostages with the same priority of life - we all get paid the big buck and take on unlimited liability when we suit up, so if you need to be a 1/10th of a second or more slower and hit the target, if you eat one in the process that is life.

I understand what your saying but using your situation if you wait to long and the hostage gets killed by the hostage taker it is a lose situation as well. Speed and accuracy must be balanced and I am sure you agree. That balance however is sometimes hard to put down on paper when your starting a game as everyone has a different opinion of where that balance point is. I don't want to miss in real life however my experience when I was charged by a bear at 20 feet changed some of my thinking from then on. I did not hit the bear with every shot in fact I am sure I missed my first two rounds. The thing was moving at about 30 miles per hour or so (thats what they can run) All I can remember doing was running the action and pulling the trigger and feeling very very alone despite having 1 officer and 2 troopers behind me. I did end up hitting the bear after my first 2 missed shots and all ended well. When I asked the officer directly behind me why he did not fire until the last minute he said he was worried about the houses in the area. I told him " you know what I was worried about? the snarling snapping jaws that I saw coming for me". I can imagine a gun fight is much more intense and its a lot to ask that a person being attacked be so stone cold the can ignore the bullets flying by them to take a perfect shot especially if its their first such experience.
Pat

[KevinB]

I can imagine a gun fight is much more intense and its a lot to ask that a person being attacked be so stone cold the can ignore the bullets flying by them to take a perfect shot especially if its their first such experience.
Pat

My general rule of gunfights is if I know I am going to get into one to preferably do it with folks that have I've been with in gunfights before...
Failing those folks to have others who have been in gunfights before without me.
Then folks who's shooting I trust.

I get what your laying down and its a tough line - however one needs to be be fast and accurate, and misses are worse than worthless, your better off being a little slower and making the hits that count.

FOF and Stress Inoculations can help but the kitten, eh? part of the use of force is that nothing really prepares you for a gunfight like a gunfight, the experience of life and death decisions is hard to simulate...

[KevinB]

I'm going to put my cop hat on for a sec.

Another point I would like to offer in the difference to LE/MIL experience and the Armed Civilian - is that by the time the Armed Citizen needs to act, the decisions for UoF are usually clear. LE and Mil enter uncertain situations and need to make a million split second choices, not just where to place the rounds on the target.

I think this is a huge aspect not to be taken lightly. Some opinions here have been very critical of LE and I don't think its giving LE a fair shake (with the bias that I am a sworn LE officer).

A lot of folks who buy guns simply shoot them once and leave them beside the bed, or int he glove box of the minivan - the fact that this site is focuses on pistol shooters has LE/Mil and CPH/CCW/CLH whatever folks in a very small stream of the populace.

Over half of the LE on the RedBackOne Hostage Rescue course I was on a few months ago did it on their own dime, the departments provided nothing other than letting them take their gear and vehicles. The majority of closed courses I have been on LE folks did it on their own dime. I have only seen three Mil folks take closed classes on their own dime. That said for open courses I would say the civilian to Mil/LE is usually about 90/5/5 %ages

[LSP552]

I'm going to put my cop hat on for a sec.

Another point I would like to offer in the difference to LE/MIL experience and the Armed Civilian - is that by the time the Armed Citizen needs to act, the decisions for UoF are usually clear. LE and Mil enter uncertain situations and need to make a million split second choices, not just where to place the rounds on the target.

I think this is a huge aspect not to be taken lightly. Some opinions here have been very critical of LE and I don't think its giving LE a fair shake (with the bias that I am a sworn LE officer).



IMO, this decison making process also accounts for some of the differences you see in patrol vs SWAT shooting hit rates. It's a lot easier when there is no ambiguity about what's happening.

Ken

[jlw]

KevinB is stating the case effectively. I wrote an article on this topic (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/my-response-to-competive-shooters/) a while back. Competitive shooters look at cops as a single entity in making comparisons, but they often fail to consider that they (competitive shooters) are actually a very small majority of gun owners.

I'd wager that the "average cop" is by far more proficient than the "average gun owner" or average "carry license/permit holder".

I've got deputies who were on the job before I was born, and I have some who were born after I graduated high school. I have deputies that were in combat whilst in the military, and I have some who never touched a firearm until the academy. It's a pretty broad spectrum of folks. The kicker is that shooting a firearm is a very, very small part of their job, and I have some very, very god deputies that are marginal to poor shooters, and while they wouldn't be my first choice to have my back in a gunfight, on the whole they do outstanding jobs. I know some very good shooters that sucked at the other aspects of the profession.

Also, the last time I heard Mr. Givens quote figures, they were 61-0-2 with the 2 being forfeits as they weren't armed when the other shoe dropped.

[jlw]

IMO, this decison making process also accounts for some of the differences you see in patrol vs SWAT shooting hit rates. It's a lot easier when there is no ambiguity about what's happening.

Ken

Absolutely. There is definitely a higher state of awareness in such situations than the proverbial average cop just knocking around on his/her beat that all of sudden finds themselves in a gun fight. There is also time to "get your mind right" on a call out versus the suddenness that even a hot call can bring about.

[ToddG]

I'd wager that the "average cop" is by far more proficient than the "average gun owner" or average "carry license/permit holder".

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the typical CCWer has any measurable skill whatsoever is fooling himself.

Think about this: the typical cop gets 40+ hours of formal firearms training (at least some of which is in low light), use of force decision making training, training about the legalities of use of force, and often at least some force-on-force training. On top of that he's going to have to prove a minimum (and it usually is minimal) level of skill at least once a year when he qualifies. And we criticize that average cop for not taking his training seriously and not really being proficient by "our" terms.

Compare this to the average CCWer who: may or may not have to take a 1- or 2-day class that may or may not require any live fire and (in no State I'm aware of) requires any low-light or FOF training.

How can you even try to compare the two? And that's before you get into aspects like the police officer's far greater likelihood of dealing with UOF decisions multiple times in his career, his exposure to criminals (and probably violent criminals) far more often than the average CCWer, the likelihood that he'll have a decent gun in a decent caliber with which to fight, etc.

I think the typical police officer is woefully, pathetically under-trained with minimal motivation to get better.

I think the typical CCWer is, for all intents and purposes, completely untrained and doesn't even have a clue as to why he could ever need to be better.

Remember, all those guys at the public range we make fun of are the ones who are practicing ... and they probably don't make up 10% of the CCWers out there.

FWIW, it is an article of faith among most of the traveling "name" instructors that the sum total of serious students in this country, the ones who take multiple classes and practice with anything resembling regularity, is less than 10,000. In the country. Total.

How many cops in the US?
How many CCWs?

[Chuck Whitlock]

^^^^^

To add to the thought, Rangemaster's numbers are largely those self-same average CCWers. Tom has said that the majority were not "gun people".

[ToddG]

^^^^^

To add to the thought, Rangemaster's numbers are largely those self-same average CCWers. Tom has said that the majority were not "gun people".

Having been through -- and taught, years and years ago -- "CCW classes" for multiple organizations, I respectfully submit that Tom's version of a CCW class is on steroids and is completely unrepresentative of the norm. Most people teach CCW classes as a side hobby to make some cash by putting people through an assembly line process. Tom does it professionally and with a sincere focus that I'm willing to bet far exceeds his state's mandated minimum requirement.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I would wholeheartedly agree with that submission.

[Alaskapopo]

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the typical CCWer has any measurable skill whatsoever is fooling himself.

Think about this: the typical cop gets 40+ hours of formal firearms training (at least some of which is in low light), use of force decision making training, training about the legalities of use of force, and often at least some force-on-force training. On top of that he's going to have to prove a minimum (and it usually is minimal) level of skill at least once a year when he qualifies. And we criticize that average cop for not taking his training seriously and not really being proficient by "our" terms.

Compare this to the average CCWer who: may or may not have to take a 1- or 2-day class that may or may not require any live fire and (in no State I'm aware of) requires any low-light or FOF training.

How can you even try to compare the two? And that's before you get into aspects like the police officer's far greater likelihood of dealing with UOF decisions multiple times in his career, his exposure to criminals (and probably violent criminals) far more often than the average CCWer, the likelihood that he'll have a decent gun in a decent caliber with which to fight, etc.

I think the typical police officer is woefully, pathetically under-trained with minimal motivation to get better.

I think the typical CCWer is, for all intents and purposes, completely untrained and doesn't even have a clue as to why he could ever need to be better.

Remember, all those guys at the public range we make fun of are the ones who are practicing ... and they probably don't make up 10% of the CCWers out there.

FWIW, it is an article of faith among most of the traveling "name" instructors that the sum total of serious students in this country, the ones who take multiple classes and practice with anything resembling regularity, is less than 10,000. In the country. Total.

How many cops in the US?
How many CCWs?

Totally agree with this post.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

IMO, this decison making process also accounts for some of the differences you see in patrol vs SWAT shooting hit rates. It's a lot easier when there is no ambiguity about what's happening.

Ken

Dead on here. Patrol is far more likely to be ambushed and not know just how deep they are fubared when things start when SWAT generally knows exactly what is going on and they go in with the mindset they may have to shoot some being more likely than not. Plus having a long gun in your hand beats a pistol in the holster any day for hit probability.