12 elements Of Firearms Training

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

smince

Member.
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
1,329
Location
Northeast Alabama
Although geared for LE, there are quite few lessons for the rest of us in this article:
It can easily be argued that the job of a law enforcement firearms instructor is more difficult today than ever before. With everything now required from our already strained training resources, it has become increasingly difficult to even establish what the right questions are, let alone find the right answers. To help build a solid foundation and establish some basic criteria for what a law enforcement training program should include International Training, Inc. has adopted the 12 critical elements outlined below.

The information gathered for this analysis was obtained from several surveys conducted by the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) and the FBI. The FBI has collected data on officers killed and assaulted since 1945, and California POST started collecting such data in 1980. The surveys cited in this study encompass those conducted by the FBI from 1995 through 2004. After summarizing these studies, the following guidelines were drawn for police firearms training.

FBI Analysis of Officers Feloniously Killed from 1995-200

545 total officers feloniously killed with firearms

Broken down into two category distances: under seven yards and over seven yards.

Under Seven Yards:

0-5 feet, 268 officers killed, 49% of total
6-10 feet, 107 officers killed, 20% of total
11-20 feet, 65 officers killed, 12% of total
Note that the percentage totals indicate that 440 officers killed (81%) with firearms in the time frame specified were killed at distances under seven yards.

Over Seven Yards:

21-50 feet, 47 officers killed, 8% of total
over 50 feet, 41 officers killed, 7% of total
distance not reported, 17 officers killed, 3% of total
Totals for officers killed at distances over seven yards (or not reported) was 105 officers or 19%

1. Prepare officers for immediate, spontaneous, lethal attacks
2. Prepare officers for assaults by multiple threats and uninvolved subjects
3. Integrate the sudden transition to firearms from arrest and control techniques, including searching and handcuffing
4. Base training on the fact that most officers are killed at short distances (I believe 'people' can be substituted for 'officers')
5. Base training on the fact that officers will have limited fine and complex motor control
6. Integrate two-person contact and cover teams involved in realistic scenarios
7. Emphasize the survival mindset and the will to win in all skills training
8. Integrate one-handed firing of a handgun. Include dominant and support hand, plus drawing, reloading, and stoppage clearing
9. Integrate close-quarter structure searching and clearing plus indoor combat tactics
10. Emphasize dim or no light situations as much as daylight training
11. Integrate moving then shooting and moving while shooting techniques
12. Integrate engagement techniques for moving targets, both laterally and charging
Click to expand...

Read the article here:

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Operations-and-Tactics/12-Elements-of-Firearms-Training/3$49345
 
I met first Bank Miller about 6 years ago (give or take) when he was running the Sig-Sauer Academy and we were both teaching at the annual MLEFIAA seminars.
I am surprised that point shooting is not mentioned in that essay since Bank was instrumental in getting point shooting adopted by the academy.
Funny, but the first time that I taught point shooting at MLEFIAA was in 2001 and I was treated like a leper by many of the other, more established instructors.
Flash forward to 2007 and there must have been close to half a dozen threat focused classes being presented.
This year I taught a class combining WW2 commando hand to hand combat with close range point shooting (skills that I always thought were lacking in the law enforcement community.) that was very well received by the attending instructor/students.
Hopefully some big name agencies will soon offer similar training.
I do think that point shooting--in various flavors and by a variety of names--is slowly being accepted.
Or should I say re accepted.
 
If one excepts #s 3 and 6 from those 12 concepts, we're left with a solid and workable curriculum for generic CCW training, and much the same blueprint for the last handgun course I took (last weekend, Ed Santos). I thought it to be quality reality-based training, and I feel that the field is going to lean this way in the next several years, much as Matt notes.
 
Has anyone seen any data that includes HOW the shooting took place at such close range?

It is crucial to know not only the RANGE of the most common encounter but also how the assailaint brings their weapon in to play.

I can only assume that most of the assailants either had their weapons ready to employ in an "ambush" setting, or they pulled it at the last minute.
 
Here's the problem as far as I can see. Basing your training around when officers are KILLED and preparing them for those situation ignores the other half of the data, which is much less well studied. Specifically, the far more numerous violent encounters resolved in FAVOR of the officers. Either by the death of the suspect or his successful arrest. What were the officers doing in those cases that kept them from getting killed or injured? That's a critical question.
 
Here's a link to an FBI site with data:


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/methodologykilled.html


One of the things I noted in the 06' data is the total number of officers that fired, attempted to fire, their firearms in their felonious incident.

Off the top of my head for 06' there were 46 felonious fatatlities involving firearms (2 listed as non-firearm):


10 of 46 listed as "ambush" situations.

32 of 46 were killed WITHIN 10 feet!!!!

36 of 46 were killed with handguns

HERE'S the stat that is a REAL eye opener IMO....

22 of 48 officers did not attempt to use their firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table12.html

That's almost half, and in some years, that number exceeds more than 50%.

The 10 foot distance is the most lethal, this we know, however, we don't know WHY, with this data at least.

Are the threats, ie handguns, not recognized?

Is the distance TOO close to do anything but attempt to take away the presented gun?

Is there anything that can be improved on to increase the control of a potential threat, and increase officer safety within that 10 foot range?

As a citizen, this data teaches a valuable lesson about the importance of situational awareness and maintaining distance from a potential threat, a luxury our LEO's do not have. While you can't always avoid being close, citizens do NOT have to search or cuff a potential threat, and therefore can , and should, maintain further distance.
 
We don't worry about "getting out of the hole" because the reality of it is that you won't. Instead, we get comfortable in there...
Click to expand...

The quote above is from the site smince posted and is a good example of mindset imo...

That's a step in the right direction.

I can't think of many ways I can outdraw a dude who has the drop on me from 3 feet away as it takes .2 seconds to fire and it takes me at least .8 seconds to draw and fire.

A different approach is necessary imo, one that focuses on recognition and avoidance of the circumstances that lead to the 10 foot "hole of death" rather than actions inside. At that range with my rifle, it's hand to hand / shove the muzzle through one's throat time should a stoppage occur...
 
During routine contact (i.e. a traffic stop) bad guys and good guys can all look pretty much the same. But even if their is a visual way to discern the BGs, acting on such visual clues is going to get labeled "profiling". Add to the complexity the fact that looking like a "gangsta" has become fashionable.

Our society is going to freek out if LEO's approach every routine contact with their weapon in hand.... or if they engage in some serious profiling....

The BGs are at a distinctive advantage, in that they know who their "enemy" is and they can very well conceal their evil intent.

Donning the uniform of a LEO is a very risky business. Our liberal society boo-hoos every crack addict that gets his wrist hurt during arrest, but doesn't bat an eye when uniformed officers are cut down wholesale.

And what's most innexcusable, is when the BGs are repeat offenders, as society failed to dispose of them properly the first time around.
 
RE: #3 & #6-

#3- How about if the fight (as joe 6pack, or joe keg as the case may be) starts out as a "You lookin at my woman mother%*#%#$?!?!" shoving match that can't be effectively avoided, deterred or de-escalated, moves into the typical rolling on the floor like 3rd graders on the playground wraslin' match & all of a sudden a weapon is produced. Pretty similar circumstances only joe 6er is going to be working from a much different & potentially more severe initiative defecit. The transition from "get this dude off of me" to dealing with a lethal threat is going to be harder than from "control this guy who needs to be cuffed & stuffed." The first just doesn't seem as potentially dangerous to most people. And most people aren't going to have trained enough to be able to notice a shift from playground time to prison yard shanking time.

#6- Like-minded person you're with. Could be the entire shooting class going to lunch/dinner or could be husband/wife or a couple friends. You're afforded some safety in numbers as a group of joe 6ers but as we saw in LODO (Denver) over the last few months the bad guys know that most of their victims will roll over & give up as opposed to fight- even the ones in groups so there's not as much safety in numbers as we might think.

Overall a good article. With some good training & thinking you can overcome the disadvantages of the 0-5' (or 10'- whatever) attack. Unfortunately it's hard work so a lot of people come up with BS excuses like "I'll never let someone get that close to me" or "I'm always in yellow so I'll see it coming."

One outstanding solution: SouthNarc
 
#1 what percentage off officers where killed with their own gun?.
#2 theres a reason there is a 21 foot fire on knife rule
an average man can cover that distance in about 1 second
bottom line is firearms by them selvs are NOT going to save you in every situation
I recommend Martial arts training
Krav Maga and some no gi Ju Jitsu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top