On the Subjects 0f Education, Training, and Practice

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,313
"How often do you train?'

That question often belies a basic misunderstanding to the word. Training is very important for those who carry and use firearms, but it is not sufficient. For our purposed here, we will limit the discussion to the subject of lawful self defense by civilians who are not swear to enforce the law.

Let's look into the meaning of some important terms.

Training refers to inculcating or instilling into a person specific skills, through instruction and through the actual doing of things. We distinguish here between that context and that of athletic training, which would involve diet, exercise, and repeated performance.

Training for self defense may involve learning how to draw and fire, to move, to use one's hands in various ways, to use of less-than deadly force, to clear of malfunctions and to reload, tp use cover and concealment, to recognize and react to potential threats, and other things.

The best training involves one or more qualified instructors who know the subjects and how to teach them.

How important is it to avail oneself of such training? Here's a good way to think about it: a violent criminal attack is not a good situation in which to try to learn new skills.

Obviously, simply going to the range and shooting at a stationary target in front of us does. not fit our definition very well.

But it does take us into the discussion of practice.

Practice involves the repetitive implementation of the skills learned in training, with the objectives of continuous improvement and of maintaining perishable skills.

Live fire shooting would qualify, but there's more. Drawing from concealment, moving off line, disarming an attacker, moving to ensure a safe shot and back-stop can be done at home, without firing a real firearm.

So, is seeking training and doing some practice all that we need? NO!

There is the little matter of education.

Education involves gaining knowledge about relevant facts, principles , rules, and concepts. Without it, we cannot know much about why our training instructors try to teach us what they do, and we therefor will not understand it very well.

Probably the first thing that comes to mind when we think of education for self defense is the subject of use of force law, such as Massad Ayoob's excellent classroom courses, or Andrew Branca's books and podcasts, and numerous other books on the subject.

Remember that the objective is not to learn when we would be permitted to shoot someone.

We must now that it is a very broad subject area.

But there is a lot more to self defense education than the law.

Let's take wounding mechanics, for example. What we see in screen fiction, with slow, deliberate scripted movement and one-shot stops can lead us astray. Those who have no idea about how handgun projectiles can effect timely stops in a violent attack, and how they may fail to do so, are likely to not understand what the instructor means when he or she speaks of speed and precision, and of the need to quickly fire several shot very quickly.

It is also important to understand the psychological and physiological effect of stress on one who is involved in a violent encounter. Rob Pincus covers that subject well in his courses.

Education, training, practice--a triad, if you will, what can help you preserve your life and your clean record..
 
I like your missive,but I don't know if Mr Pincus has ever actually used force or deadly physical force in his litetime .

I am of the firm opinion that you MUST have experiences tachyschia,epenephefrine overload,tunnel vision,and all that accompanies the actual stress of a really CLOSE quarter combat situation = before you can actually teach it to others.

I am positive that many will object to my opinion.

Also positive that those that object are those that have not the actual experience,and "wish" my opinion to be wrong.

A bag full of wishful thinking and beliefs is an empty bag,nonetheless.

I have met many who have seen "the eye of the tiger" and they try to explain it to the best of their abilitys,experience was a better teacher.

But that being my opinion,I also see that actual "force on force" training from those that have been & done,is a true safe way to see how you react under REAL stress.

And yes,I pooped the bed more than once as the camera don't lie.

But thankfully ,life was forgiving when TSHTF..

5 minutes with Mr Lutrell,or Edmundo Morales is my choice of a way to learn .
 
I am of the firm opinion that you MUST have experiences tachyschia,epenephefrine overload,tunnel vision,and all that accompanies the actual stress of a really CLOSE quarter combat situation = before you can actually teach it to others.
If we were to seek knowledge only from those who have actual experience in very infrequent events, we would have very few teachers for all who need them. Moreover, the knowledge base of each teacher would be limited to the one or two variables that were relevant to his or her experience at best, if he or she had really understood what unfolded.

And then, it is doubtful that any of them would know how to teach.

Teachers can certainly relate what others have learned, and what they have heard in the post-event testimony of others
 
I am of the firm opinion that you MUST have experiences tachyschia,epenephefrine overload,tunnel vision,and all that accompanies the actual stress of a really CLOSE quarter combat situation = before you can actually teach it to others.



I've read many lackluster books by those with experience. I read "The modern day gunslinger" yesterday which was written by a Navy Seal turned competition shooter. Most of what he says he learned was from competition shooters. The author implies the competition guys are better shooters. He goes on to talk about how the military and police stick to rigid training, which is often wrong, and only because they were forced to adhere to it. Most of the quotes he says he learned were from "inexperienced" people as far as defense is concerned. If a SEAL says he learned from "unexperienced" guys then I guess most of us can as well? Of course there is info from many veterans and police and FBI studies.
If you haven't read it it's free on kindle. And only took me an hour or two and that was with constant interruptions (work). Its worth a read. And it does cover the loss of fine motor skills under stress (around 50%) and all of what you mentioned
 
[QUOTE="Kleanbore, post: 11144026, member: 74540"


Teachers can certainly relate what others have learned, and what they have heard in the post-event testimony of others[/QUOTE]

There may be an aptitude for combat that goes beyond being taught or trained.

In World War II in the Pacific, there was no real rotation out for combat infantrymen. My great uncle told me that time and again his company was wiped out down to a handful of faces. After each campaign, when he looked around, there was mostly the same faces. A new man might survive and an old one might disappear, but mostly it was the same ones who lived.

I've spent my lifetime learning what opportunity offered of the rifle, but I'll never be the rifleman my great uncle was in his prime. His ability to decisively handle a rifle in rapid fire awed me. Free targets provided by the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere provided a hardening few men will ever know.

If he had been given a chance to stand up in front of a class and teach, he would have refused. He wanted to be a mechanic and a farmer, and after the war, that's what he was. I suspect few students would have been impressed with a slightly smallish, soft-spoken man with a bent for humor, and who patently refused ever to say anything to make a new person he might meet think more of him.

The desire to teach runs strong in so many. The pool to draw from in finding those who know enough to impart anything worth while is small. The danger is in finding a teacher who imparts nothing beyond a string of clichés and who will leave the wrong kind of student believing he is more than he is
 
If we were to seek knowledge only from those who have actual experience in very infrequent events, we would have very few teachers for all who need them. Moreover, the knowledge base of each teacher would be limited to the one or two variables that were relevant to his or her experience at best, if he or she had really understood what unfolded.

And then, it is doubtful that any of them would know how to teach.

Teachers can certainly relate what others have learned, and what they have heard in the post-event testimony of others
I will again state my 'facts' as I see them.

To quote myself [ I know,bad form ] " 5 minutes with Mr Lutrell,or Edmundo Morales is my choice of a way to learn .".

Those are men who I know will not tell me "storys" others paid for with their life & limb.
 
Well, I think we are getting a bit off on a tangent about the ability of people who haven't actually traded shots to be trainers, or the quality of that training, so I'll keep my remarks on that bit somewhat truncated. There are four of us in the regular instructor group that works together. Two have pulled the trigger. If we were to poll the average class which of the two it was, they probably would get it wrong. There are plenty of people that have been on the sharp end that absolutely suck as instructors and there are plenty of people that have never fired a shot in anger that are wonderful instructors.

Okay, back on the topic of Training, Practice and Education.

I tend to see huge deficiencies in all of these areas in most shooters for various reasons.

I have been professionally carrying a firearm in one capacity or another since 1996 and have been given some excellent training from various government bodies large and small, paid for private training from some of the big name schools and even some "who dat?" outfits. I seek out training at least twice a year still. There is always something new to add to your bag of tricks, or someone elses technique to try, even if the end result is you eliminating that one from your bag of tricks. One of the biggest mistakes I see is people that mistake practice for training. Very good, you can make a small group on a piece of paper. If you ever get assaulted by a piece of paper at 5 to 7 yards, you're golden. Of course, there is the flip side, where someone got some good training but has zero practice. Very good, the Army taught you how to shoot a rifles in 1985 and since you got out you have fired a grand total of fifty rounds. Awesome. Oh, you went to Thunder Ranch ten years ago and don't go to ranges because you've "been trained"..

I'm known to quite frequently say that there are two mistakes I expect people new to IDPA to make: 1) Your draw will suck. 2) You mag changes will suck. Very few people are trained how to do these things and very few people practice these things... even among the people who are great at punching small holes in paper. FYI: Totally not affiliated with either company, don't get paybacks from them am not advertising them.... but: Sirt, the holster you wear normally and Lasrapp make for invaluable practice for holster and magazine work. Just saying. Free advice there. HINT HINT

Okay. Enough beating training and practice to death. Most people that buy a gun at least think about those things... Or at least convince themselves they've taken care of those things with the box of ammo they put through their gun last December. Education is where the biggest failures come in. I can pretty safely say that 75% or more of people I professionally encounter as an instructor don't know the law as it applies to self defense. Oh, they think they do. They don't. Not even close. While I was actively teaching LTC, I really got to the point where if I heard the line "just make sure they are on your property" one more time, I might have gone off on someone. That's just the obvious education failure. Or, at least I would hope that it's obvious to people that carry a gun that they might want to learn the laws pertaining to that. The things that people don't think about get me the most though. How many people look into what to do after a shooting? How many people get some education on combat life saving.. since you know, bullet and lethal force. Oh, BTW: We get back into a training and practice loop for that one.
 
Great post, @Kleanbore .

@scaatylobo I hear what you are saying. Experience in any given field of expertise can be incredibly valuable.
But there is a potential issue.

The first instructor I tried to really learn from was a retired cop. He'd been in gunfights, he provided (as an instructor) training to the the FBI (IDK how much). He was renowned by others as having been there, done that. Seen the elephant.

He was also a jerk and not a good teacher.

I had a realization once when he was pushing people to shoot left handed around the left side of a wall. A student challenged the concept citing that he doesn't shoot well left handed and there is little gain to switching hands.
The instructor launched into "How many gun fights have you been in?" to which the student was forced to say "none."

and thus the instructor justified and taught a bad technique just because he had been shot at before.

This guy had seen combat but somewhere along the line, stopped LEARNING and refining his methods.
Basically he stopped studying what he was teaching.

I don't sign up for classes taught by former Somali pirates. Sure, they have seen a lot of gun fights, but they are missing the study, the academic element.


Like I said, experience is really useful and an excellent indicator of someone who might know what they are talking about. But if experience is all they bring to the table... there could be issues.

IMO it matters a great deal WHAT is being taught.
Shooting skill?
That can be just about anybody that can really teach. Competitive shooters are quickly becoming recognized for this.

Combat?
This is where it gets tricky. Teaching someone what combat is like, or what they will feel/experience is, IMO, almost impossible. Reading accounts of the same battle will yield everything from 'too scared to move' to 'no fear whatsoever'.

/$0.02
 
Pardon me for writing a book.

IME Army marksmanship training is conducted by people who have no idea what they're doing. The only exception to this that I ever saw was immediately before Desert Storm.

My unit had been tasked with sending several detachments to Saudi Arabia and someone arranged for my detachment to spend two days training with people from the AMU. (Julie Golob spent most of her military career assigned to the AMU and representing the Army in various competitive shooting events)

I spent two days learning things that definitely improved my skill at shooting an M16A2. Then our NCOs (who had sat through the training with us) marched us to the range and proceeded to ignore everything the AMU guys had taught them.


I've said this before but one thing I learned in the Army that I did find useful was the emphasis on repetitive, muscle memory training (even if they didn't call it that). I spent my first several months in the Army going over the cannon crew drill over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until I literally could do it in my sleep.

The very first time I fired a live artillery round outside of basic training I got a misfire. Without giving it a second thought I immediately began the cold tube misfire crew drill. I even remember saying "Misfire! Attempt to fire two additional times." Exactly as I had been trained. Long story short the misfire was caused by the Section Sergeant forgetting to put the firing pin in the cannon's firing block, that was corrected and we continued the mission.


The real world application is that when I got my first security job I was assigned to a "remote site" out on the edge of town. I would walk the fence line all night long and ,as the Army taught me, practice drawing my pistol. I never tried to do it fast. I just practiced a four count draw over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until I literally could do it in my sleep or at least without conscious thought.

One night I was out doing my rounds and I startled something. Whatever it was jumped up out of the grass, ran past me, cleared the fence and was gone before I could even think to get my light out but when it was all over I realized my gun was in my hand.

Later I had an opportunity to participate in some professional training. I took essentially the same class from the same trainer three times a year for four years. In every single class he had us practice the same fundamental skills dry the first day and use them on a live range with different drills the next.

The class was taught by two trainers with a lot of training (both gunsight alums) and one trainer with actual combat experience. I didn't notice any significant difference in their training styles.

Finally, I have had a couple of self defense incidents (no shots fired) since taking those classes and what I've noticed is that every single time I defaulted to my muscle memory of the fundamentals that I had practiced over and over and over again in those classes.


What my experience has taught me is,

What behaviors to pay attention to. There are certain behaviors which I've learned from experience that indicate the the person doing them is up to some **** and number one on the list is if they're paying an inordinate amount of attention to what I'm doing.

Pre-assaultive indicators/behaviors. (Really, what they look like in the real world)

How to overcome my natural reluctance to behave outside of established social mores. It's not common or polite to tell some random stranger approaching you to stop or to back off. It's certainly not considered acceptable to ask them to keep their hands visible.

How to deal with the massive adrenalin dump that accompanies the realization that this guy is a predator and he's targeting you.

Those are the things I think can't be taught in a class
 
Last edited:
What my experience has taught me is,

What behaviors to pay attention to. There are certain behaviors which I've learned from experience that indicate the the person doing them is up to some **** and number one on the list is if they're paying an inordinate amount of attention to what I'm doing.

Pre-assaultive indicators/behaviors. (Really, what they look like in the real world)

.... It's not common or polite to tell some random stranger approaching you to stop or to back off. It's certainly not considered acceptable to ask them to keep their hands visible.

Those are the things I think can't be taught in a class

This are very valuable things to know indeed.

But most people will not learn them on their own until it is too late. They are things that good trainers do point out.

In a class? Sometimes. In FoF simulation. By watching the scenarios in The Best Defense and paying attention.
 
Pardon me for writing a book.


.

One night I was out doing my rounds and I startled something. Whatever it was jumped up out of the grass, ran past me, cleared the fence and was gone before I could even think to get my light out but when it was all over I realized my gun was in my hand.

I see this as a key moment that ought to bring with it enormous self-confidence.

How long have I been carrying a gun? If you're young and you're tough and you're at the peak of your training, that means I've been carrying a gun since before you were born--which is another way of saying that if I might not be as helpless as I look, if it's been a long time since I could lay claim to any kind of formidable presence, assuming I would have been willing to do that on the best day of my life..

Your experience reminded me of one I can talk about. I was stepping into the backyard, ready to leave for town: guns, shooting, readiness, the last thing on my mind. Out of the corner of my eye, I catch quick movement. A groundhog runs under a car and stops between two closely parked vehicles. With no conscious memory of drawing, I already had the sights of my 629-1 lined.

Before I begin pressing the trigger, I see the third vehicle forty yards out in direct line of where my bullet is going to bounce. The two close vehicles should have been enough to stop me from shooting. The third absolutely sealed it.

The groundhog ducks under the vehicle closest to the woods, and I run around it. He pauses twenty-five feet away inches in front of the bullet trap where I practice fast double action shooting. A quick shot and it's all over. Even saved the lead.

It's these unplanned situations that tell you something.
 
Do you really think that what one should learn about self-preservation can be learned in five minutes?
OK, I will bite ---------- so to speak.

If you don't grasp sarcasm then 'my bad'.

But 5 minutes with a real gun & war fighter is worth a great deal more than the cute books and videos that are done for nothing but profit by " names omitted due to ban hammer "

Hope you see my point,if not that is ok by me too.
 
I've read many lackluster books by those with experience. I read "The modern day gunslinger" yesterday which was written by a Navy Seal turned competition shooter. Most of what he says he learned was from competition shooters. The author implies the competition guys are better shooters. He goes on to talk about how the military and police stick to rigid training, which is often wrong, and only because they were forced to adhere to it. Most of the quotes he says he learned were from "inexperienced" people as far as defense is concerned. If a SEAL says he learned from "unexperienced" guys then I guess most of us can as well? Of course there is info from many veterans and police and FBI studies.
If you haven't read it it's free on kindle. And only took me an hour or two and that was with constant interruptions (work). Its worth a read. And it does cover the loss of fine motor skills under stress (around 50%) and all of what you mentioned
Just bought this today. Looks like a good read so far.
 
But 5 minutes with a real gun & war fighter is worth a great deal...
Five minutes withsmeone who has fired shots, and or has been shot at , in an incident relevant to lawful civilian defensive shooting may be worn something in terms of discussing the actual experiences of real person, and its may have one value should one encounter a very similar incident.

...more than the cute books and videos that are done for nothing but profit by " names omitted due to ban hammer "
No, those would not be helpful.

Hope you see my point,if not that is ok by me too.
I see your point perfectly, but I do not believe it valid. There are innumerable ways in which a defensive use of force incident may unfold, and there is no single individual on Earth who had experience more than very few of them at most.

There was one exception--accounts of Jim Cirillo's Stakeout Squad could be relevant, but only to incidents in which the defender is lying in wait for attackers.
 
But 5 minutes with a real gun & war fighter is worth a great deal more than the cute books and videos that are done for nothing but profit by " names omitted due to ban hammer "

I wonder if you realize that "real gun & war fighter(s)" Have an extraordinary tendency to produce "cute books and videos that are done for nothing but profit"
 
I wonder if you realize that "real gun & war fighter(s)" Have an extraordinary tendency to produce "cute books and videos that are done for nothing but profit"
Possibly = but not nearly as useless as those who pen a missive or book with NOTHING but what they gleaned from the real deal.

And as I see it ,most of the books and videos and talk & shoot shows are done by those that have not ever been there.

I still believe that any of those who walked the walk,are much more capable to relay teaching & training that is real.

Compared to those "wannbe's" that just decide they know enough to wrote and speak about that which they actually know NOTHING [ just what they read or heard ].

So to sum up,If I am to learn from any = I prefer those that have real world PRACTICAL and gun in hand experience.

Until you have experienced the 'thrill' and all that goes with CQB [ or any such fun ] then----- you know nothing ,John Snow !.

Heresay is not admissible in any court,and all you get from the wannabe's is just that.
 
I still believe that any of those who walked the walk,are much more capable to teaching & training that is real.

When I joined the Army in 1974 virtually all of the leadership had combat experience in Vietnam. But by the time we engaged in the next large scale combat operation (Panama 1989) most of those with combat experience were gone. Moved into civilian life, promoted to positions where they didn't directly conduct training or retired. For the most part the soldiers who performed so well in Panama and a little more then a year later in Kuwait and Iraq had no combat experience and for the most part were trained by NCOs and officers who had no combat experience. The situation was the same 22 years later when the GWOT kicked off. Somehow we managed to prevail and win gunfights without the benefit of being trained by people with combat experience.

The same is true in law enforcement. Very few officers have ever fired their weapons in the line of duty. Our police academies and other training units would be severely understaffed if the only people who could teach were those who had seen the elephant. Yet somehow the police are still winning gunfights. How is that happening?

It's happening because of the advances in training that we have made in the last 40 years. Lessons learned in past fights are documented, broken down into teachable points and taught by trainers who are specifically trained to teach these lessons. It's one thing to win a fight. It's another thing to understand the fight well enough to know why you won. And it's something more to be able to teach others how to do what you did to win.

Then there is the problem that all experience isn't equal. As you well know, luck, fate, karma....whatever you want to call it plays a role in combat that you can't train for. If training and experience was the end all factor in winning a fight we'd never lose a special forces operator or a SWAT team member. But somehow we still do. Former CAG member Paul Howe alluded to this when he said in his first book; "They may be booger eaters, but they are booger eaters with guns".

Under your premise the experience of the guy who survived his gunfight solely by the fact that luck was on his side that day is more valid then the guy who has studied gunfights and learned from them and practiced for decades.

Now we have to look at what it takes to teach. Not everyone is capable of effectively conveying information. Often those people who are at the top level of their pursuits are completely ineffective when they try to teach someone else to do what they do. Part of that is because their natural ability is such that it's hard for them to understand that not everyone has the same ability. Very few managers and coaches in professional sports were star players. Teaching is a completely different skillset.
 
There are plenty of people that have been on the sharp end that absolutely suck as instructors and there are plenty of people that have never fired a shot in anger that are wonderful instructors.
Pretty much. We have one instructor with a great deal of combat experience who in fact does absolutely suck as an instructor, because every class becomes all about him, his coolness and his experiences and why all the officers should learn from him. As far as students actually gleaning any meaningful kernel of knowledge from him, nope, not happening. Our best instructor (never in the military, but almost twenty years on SWAT) has never shot at any human, but his patience, humor and skilled observation of the students in classes is great to see.

I spent twenty years on active duty and made some deployments downrange. I got some good training in the military, but also suffered through a lot that was a colossal waste of time and saw some hideous stupidity by guys who just didn't know what they didn't know. Guys I thought were good to go froze up while one of my unit's resident dirtbags (pending an adsep for some extracurricular drug use) did something incredibly heroic.

It wasn't until after I retired and got the chance to attend a couple great gun schools and go through a couple fairly progressive law enforcement academies did I actually feel as though I'd really finally learned some good stuff and achieved some great training.

I will not ever subscribe to the notion that one cannot get meaningful training from someone who has not "seen the elephant" (and I hate that phrase now, too … I've seen elephants in the wild and they're glorious, but there's nothing glorious about combat, either overseas or on the streets) … but I digress: trainers and instructors who haven't shot at people, or been shot at, are not necessarily "wannabes."
 
Get the best training you can, practice and that is all one can do.

This quibbling over the best method to get the best training from is silly. It's a subjective thought and no ones right or wrong.

Hopefully none of us will have to "walk the walk" but I dont think we should limit the intake of preparation to only those that have.
 
The same is true in law enforcement. Very few officers have ever fired their weapons in the line of duty. Our police academies and other training units would be severely understaffed if the only people who could teach were those who had seen the elephant. Yet somehow the police are still winning gunfights. How is that happening?




Under your premise the experience of the guy who survived his gunfight solely by the fact that luck was on his side that day is more valid then the guy who has studied gunfights and learned from them and practiced for decades.

Now we have to look at what it takes to teach. Not everyone is capable of effectively conveying information. Often those people who are at the top level of their pursuits are completely ineffective when they try to teach someone else to do what they do. Part of that is because their natural ability is such that it's hard for them to understand that not everyone has the same ability. Very few managers and coaches in professional sports were star players. Teaching is a completely different skillset.

I agree that not all can or should teach,even if they have that experience we speak of.

BUT as to LEO's winning gun battles = HUH ?,the majority of officers shot and or KIA in the past few decades has risen.

The number of perp's that are still alive after taking such action is VERY high,unless they took their own lives.

Most of the shooters that taught me were those that had been there & done that.

I learned the most from them,and also saw that it takes the average LEO far too many rounds that are not addressed to anyone ,fired downrange to accomplish the mission.

IF it ever gets done.

I see that training [ NOT target shooting ] is a great start to being ready.

F.A.T.S. machines and live fire TRAINING for "combat" is a better route than spending hard earned cash on the stuff of fluff that is out there.

And it's pretty darned hard to figure out what is stuff and what is fluff.

"The forest for the trees" is how I see it..

As most will allow,"THEIR TEACHER" is the best and they know that because ------ he told them so :)
 
BUT as to LEO's winning gun battles = HUH ?,the majority of officers shot and or KIA in the past few decades has risen.

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Except for 2001, police deaths are down compared to the 70s.

Even then, that doesn't tell the whole story because it's looking at total deaths, not per capita deaths. There are far more people and police officers now than there were in the '70s, but still fewer total police officers deaths. That means that the per capita police deaths are not just down, but way down from the '70s.

A huge amount of the credit for that decline is because of better tactics and training, which again, is being provided almost entirely by officers who have never shot anyone.
 
And last statistic I seen, from the book I mentioned earlier, from an FBI study, was that between 75-80 percent of shots fired by police officers were misses. So while they may have seen the "Elephant", I might rather learn from someone who could actually HIT an Elephant. No disrespect to any of my LEO friends, but even with those guys I actually shoot with, most are pretty lousy shots even without the stress. But two would qualify since they have been forced to use deadly force. They could certainly teach a lot about the financial, legal, and psychology of having done so, but they aren't worth a crap as shooters.
 
You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Except for 2001, police deaths are down compared to the 70s.

Even then, that doesn't tell the whole story because it's looking at total deaths, not per capita deaths. There are far more people and police officers now than there were in the '70s, but still fewer total police officers deaths. That means that the per capita police deaths are not just down, but way down from the '70s.

A huge amount of the credit for that decline is because of better tactics and training, which again, is being provided almost entirely by officers who have never shot anyone.
Guess you misunderstood my meaning.

My thought pattern was that MOST officer involved shooting in the past 2 years,have shown that LEO's are getting shot up and NOT winning gun fights.

And to express your own ,possibly narrow view of the officers you know is a nice idea.

And I will attest to the fact that most officers are not shooters OR gun people.

But the few hundred officers I know,and the thousands I have met were trying real hard to just survive their next shift.

I truly wish that all would take a great deal more training,such as the 2 that I just went to a training session in Tn. [ Carry Trainer ] who spent their own money and it was a pricey thing too.

Sadly out of a smaller agency of 150,these were the only 2 that went [ I am retired,so I don't count ].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top