Are conceal carry permit holders as well trained with their sidearm as the cops?

[gbran]

2 Points;

1. Prior to the 9-11 hijackings, we assummed the hijackers had demands and negotioations would occur and we should just be calm and do what they say. After 9-11, we all know that even if someone is hurt, we do everything possible to overwhelm and take out the hijacker. Riding the plane into a building is not an option.

And.......... when a heavily armed person comes into a school, mall, workplace or other crowded gun-free zone, we gotta kinda assume he's intent on a mass killing. We need to take him out at all costs and yes, that means others might get hit in the process. Life ain't perfect. I don't want someone in a setting like this holding fire for fear another might be hit while the perp continues to shoot.

2. Sadly, not all ccw holders are well trained. Here in CA, I have to renew my ccw every 2 years. We take a 4 hour class which includes 50 rounds of range time. You'd be amazed at how unpracticed many of the shooters are. I stress the word "unpracticed".

 

[yhtomit]

gbran:

Yes, I'm surprised (disappointed is more like it) that the hijackers-school shooters connection is not more often recognized. If someone's willing to die in a blaze of infamy (and clearly, that's at least a common scenario for the school shooters of the past several years), it's worth thinking of them the same way.

The good news is, schools aren't at 20,000 feet, so if enough (one? two?) people can resist a sole attacker in time, no one has to die in a crash.

timothy

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Being an LEO has no bearing on whether you enjoy guns on the side or can shoot well. I would wager that the same percentage of non LEOs that like guns and can shoot well applies to LEOs as well. If 2% of America were gun enthusiasts and shot regularly, I would bet it would be no more than 5% within the LEO community as well.

 

[GunTech]

Depends on the agency of course. My wife's agency has 6 training shoot per year, each requiring one or two days. 4 handgun only, 1 threegun (pistol, shotgun, rifle) and one night shoot.

Some agencies shoot once a year.

 

[IronSightRot671]

I've do range time with Local Swat once in awhile, I'm a CCW holder. and also going through MP training this mid year. So, i'm in between.

 

[JerryM]

I suspect that the CHL holders who frequent these forums are overall better qualified in shooting than the vast majority of cops.

I do not believe that CHL holders in total are better qualified than the average cop. I know those who have CHL and do not practice any more often than the qualifications required by various LE departments.

Jerry

 

[hobgob]

i shoot almost 200 rds a week if i can, 100 at least, how many rounds or how much range time do cops log in a week?

 

[FieroCDSP]

I've been slacking on the range time since it's been winter, and I can definitely see and feel the difference at the local IDPA and USPSA comp nights. I fired exactly zero rounds between weekends and my first set was not the greatest. After the muscle memory kicked in, my groups tightened up and my consistancy was better, but that required the muscles to re-learn the way the gun, trigger, and recoil felt.
On the other side of the coin, a few months back I went to the range and put 300 into the paper, then shot my first time in USPSA locals that evening. My rapid-fire shots were nice and tight, because I had practiced it earlier.

My point is that shooting is a perishable skill, and one that, should you be required to need it in your job, should be practiced more than quarterly, and certainly more than once or twice a year. I know budgets are tight and that's not likely to change, but...well...you get the idea.

 

[RancidSumo]

U.S.SFC_RET:

when I go to shoot the LEOs I see

Sounds like a dangerous practice

 

[Erik]

"Are conceal carry permit holders as well trained with their sidearm as the cops?"

Some are not, some are, and some are more so.

 

[stubob2517]

Knowing several LEOs that are ex-fill in the blank with the Spec Ops field of your choosing, I would have to say that depends on the LEO.

Knowing several civilian CCW permit holders from the same background, I would say it depends on the CCW holder.

Rancid, I like your Campus CCW quote - nice touch.

 

[shooter3435]

Hats off to DougW, you hit the nail on the head! I shoot a lot of Ipsc, IDPA, and 3 guns I do pretty well but, then again papers dont shoot back. I rest my case.

 

[Zoogster]

Police are a public servant, working for the public, payed for by the public.
A public servant is held to the standards the public decides is appropriate.
People should never forget that. The police only have the powers you give to them, which you as society can take away as well, or demand dismissal of individuals not meeting those standards.

This modern concept of asking the police for something is backwards. It is the police who are supposed to ask the public for permission, and the public who can cut thier funding or do away with them altogether or replace them if desired.


A private citizen is a private individual, they are not a public servant subject to standards as a term of employment.

People are going so far from the ideology that has been the foundation of the US and its freedoms it is scary. Police forces are payed for by your taxes, represent you and your city, and are employed to hold individuals localy accountable to your expectations which are legislated through law and ordinances.
That means they are merely supposed to be an overseer enforcing the will of the people, which must be in accordance with the Constitution (which protects the minority from tyranny by the majority.) Once anyone asks them for permission for anything you are treading on dangerous ground, and sliding towards a loss of freedom and liberty.

If people start to allow that to be seen as the norm, well that is the fate which they are choosing. Make sure you are conscious of that choice.

 

[TwitchALot]

I can point to three school shootings whereby the good guy(s) did not even need to fire a round, and captured the shooter alive in all three cases. Obviously, the death toll was not nearly as high.

http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/gun/index.html (Appalachian Law)

http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/25/school.shooting.pm/ (Edinboro)

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/3200997344/p/4 (Pearl High)

Can anyone point me to a single school shooting whereby an armed citizen made the situation worse by unarguably killing/shooting more people than the actual shooter would have killed/shot had he not been stopped right then and there?

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Superlite27
The entire argument that an untrained CCW holder might accidentally hit an innocent bystander is entirely moot due to the fact that if the CCW holder does nothing, the mass murderer WILL continue to INTENTIONALLY aim, and PURPOSELY KILL more people. The arguement is senseless in, and of, itself.

Agreed.

In this type of situation, the innocents being shot at will either duck down or run AWAY from the shooter.

This would give the typical CCW holder a good chance of taking the perp down without hitting innocent bystanders.

Even if an innocent bystander was hit by the CCW before he could take the perp out, it would still be far better than letting the perp chase a lot of people down and continue blowing them away.

Innocent bystanders sometimes get hit by LEOs. It's unfortunate, but the police in many cases were still right to shoot. That doesn't mean we should keep all LEOs disarmed.

Soldiers in the military sometimes get killed in crossfires by fellow soldiers. An unfortunate accident, but that doesn't mean we should keep all soldiers disarmed.

More and more students are getting blown away by crazies. Just because an innocent bystander might get hit, is no reason to not let teachers and students with permits carry concealed, if they meet the legal requirements to do so.

Bottom line---Bratton is your typical buffoonish law enforcement careerist bureaucrat, beholden to L.A.'s political power structure, rather than the people.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Police are a public servant, working for the public, payed for by the public.
A public servant is held to the standards the public decides is appropriate.
People should never forget that. The police only have the powers you give to them, which you as society can take away as well, or demand dismissal of individuals not meeting those standards.

This modern concept of asking the police for something is backwards. It is the police who are supposed to ask the public for permission, and the public who can cut thier funding or do away with them altogether or replace them if desired.


A private citizen is a private individual, they are not a public servant subject to standards as a term of employment.

People are going so far from the ideology that has been the foundation of the US and its freedoms it is scary. Police forces are payed for by your taxes, represent you and your city, and are employed to hold individuals localy accountable to your expectations which are legislated through law and ordinances.
That means they are merely supposed to be an overseer enforcing the will of the people, which must be in accordance with the Constitution (which protects the minority from tyranny by the majority.) Once anyone asks them for permission for anything you are treading on dangerous ground, and sliding towards a loss of freedom and liberty.

If people start to allow that to be seen as the norm, well that is the fate which they are choosing. Make sure you are conscious of that choice.

What does any of that have to do with who is better trained on average?

 

[jakemccoy]

RNB65 wrote,

It's the fools without CC permits that I worry about.

In LA County, you would only trust the stars and rich people. In places like NYC and IL, you wouldn't trust any gun owners. You don't trust anybody with a gun who's under 21. There's a whole lot of fools out there for ya. You must be paranoid and, in fact, anti-gun in many occasions.

 

[owlhoot]

As a former chief of an armed organization and as one who has trained a great many LEO's, I can assure you that the general level of competence is marginal among law enforcement agencies including federal agencies. However, there will be perhaps ten to twelve percent in most organizations who will be highly competent and will work at increasing their skills at every opportunity. Another thirty percent will be generally competent, and one hopes the rest will never have to use their guns in the line of duty. Nevertheless, the average cop is better trained than the average CCW holder. He has been exposed to formal training and "shoot-don't shoot" training. He must qualify at least annually. He has some training in tactics, and he is better trained in the law.

But among CCW's, bear in mind that the people who enjoy guns sufficiently to hang out at gun forums do not represent the norm. Most states do not require an honest qualification for CCW. If a person can demonstrate that he knows the general direction in which to shoot, that will generally do. I know many people who never fire their guns after they have their CCW. Most never receive any formal training. Few do more than plink once or twice a year. The vast majority have no real gun competency whatever.

We represent the enthusiast fringe (lunatic fringe according to the left). We own more guns than we need and we want more than we have. And we spend a large piece of our disposable income on ammunition and much of our spare time on the range. Of course we shoot much better than the average cop. Most of us shoot much better than the average FBI agent, Secret Service agent, or U.S. Marshal. This isn't our job. It is our passion.

 

[Robert Hairless]

What does any of that have to do with who is better trained on average?

Let's try this a different way.

It's completely irrelevant whether civilians are better qualified shooters than the police, just as well qualified, or even completely unqualified when the issue is self defense.

If marksmanship, training, or any other test has anything to do with the issue, all law enforcement officers who arrived at the scene of an active shooting should be required to produce evidence of recent high marksmanship scores before being allowed onto the scene with a firearm.

The issue is the right of every person to defend his own life against the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Chief Bratton and the local sheriff seem to disagree but I think that even people who have no training at all have the right to defend their own lives.

A potential victim--an unarmed student--in a classroom breeched by a crazy armed with more than one gun should not be disqualified by Chief Bratton or the local sheriff from wrestling one of those guns away and attempting to shoot the crazy.

But Chief Bratton and the local sheriff generate fog that would disqualify the victim from doing so because he might hurt someone else while he tries to prevent the crazy from murdering him.

Civilians with concealed weapons permits are not sworn police officers and the rationale on which the CWP is based has nothing to do with the protection of other people. It is based exclusively on their right to defend their own lives and bodies against superior force. The CWP confers no rights on them except to carry a concealed weapon on their person.

I think it's a serious strategic mistake to compare civilians with law enforcement officers in any way except that all are human beings with the right of self defense. CWP holders are not quasi semi hemi cops or vigilantes. They are not protectors of the neighborhood, the classroom, the shopping center, or the streets. They are civilians who have been granted as a privilege something that really is their right.

When Chief Bratton or the local sheriff is allowed to distort the dialogue--or when CWP holders do it themselves in a mistaken belief that they are superior beings, peculiarly well qualified, or even competent to stop wrongdoers from doing wrong--they are helping to destroy the issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits and the only legitimate rationale for issuing them.

 

[dmazur]

+1 to owlhoot

I practice with IDPA targets, following IDPA rules. I intend to get into IDPA competition, when I get the time to drive to the nearest match (2 hrs).

I read extensively about the liability that goes with CCW. I am thoroughly familiar with the weapon I carry, and am a fanatic about firearms safety.

The only formal training I've had was Navy small arms and that required by a local police department to use their range.

I've encountered quite a few people at ranges that I would classify as clueless, and that's being charitable! (If they're open to it, I usually try to help...)

Sometimes I worry that our (civilian CCW) skills aren't where they should be. I don't support the idea of mandatory training, so I don't have an answer. Maybe the "enthusiast fringe" will eventually spread the word and help others build their skills...

 

[ptmmatssc]

Being an LEO has no bearing on whether you enjoy guns on the side or can shoot well. I would wager that the same percentage of non LEOs that like guns and can shoot well applies to LEOs as well. If 2% of America were gun enthusiasts and shot regularly, I would bet it would be no more than 5% within the LEO community as well.

An LEO should be able to "shoot well" . It's part of their job . When / if they draw their weapon , they should be as well trained with it as possible . That weapon is part of the uniform and part of the job . You need not be a "gun nut" to be proficient with the tool of your trade .

Now , from observation , I can say most of the local LEOs in my area rarely train / shoot unless qualifying . I spend A LOT of time at our range during the summer ,and the only time an LEO will show up is for qualifying . Because the local forces don't have ranges of their own , they have made deals with us to use the range a few times a year . Yet , there is only one LEO that I know of that has become a member to shoot(practice) at any other time .

I agree that when a stress situation comes about , the CCW holder will generally not be trained for it . But , that doesn't mean they won't be able to cope with the situation . Citizens and LEOs are all human individuals , and either can be "freaked out" or calm during an altercation . The chief's comments allude to police being superior individuals , when in actuality , they are susceptible to emotion/feelings/errors just like the rest of us humans.

 

[1911 guy]

I think the populations (CCW and LE) as a whole are probably even. Those of us who take enough interest to go into forums like this and seek additional training are not the norm for CCW. Minimal training, if any at all is the norm. Qualifying twice yearly is the norm for most cops, but there are some who will seek out additional on their own.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"...if available, refer him to a study that suggests that the typical CC permit holder gets more range time, more practice and is a better shot than the typical cop. Anybody know of such a study or have a link to support this idea?"

I thought the thread title was about training and not practice. If training, then CC folks definitely get less training on average than cops. Some CCW folks may be better trained than some cops, but at least initially, most cops get more training than CCW folks because of mandatory standards that are higher for cops than for CCW folks.

As for a study, there isn't any such study. Typical CC permitees don't practice very often either. Sure some do, but most aren't really gun people just like many cops aren't really gun people. Even worse, cops will usually have a range that will allow them to practice in a manner appropriate for defensive shooting. Many CCW folks don't have access to ranges that will allow for drawing from the holster, shooting on the move, rapid fire, or use of accessories such as barricades, or unique shooting prositions (seated, prone front, prone back, kneeling, etc.). Basically, for most CCW folks, if they do go shoot, they only get to slow fire target shoot.

I have been amazed by the people I have seen at Texas CHL classes that arrive with a new gun that they have never fired, or arrive having never fired a gun before, go through the one day class, and manage to shoot a qualifying score and that will be the last time they shoot until they have to requalify. I have seen people come in, unload the carry ammo they loaded in their gun four years previously when they last qualified (back when Texas was on the 4 year system), shoot their qualifications, then load back in their carry ammo that will sit for another 4 (or 5) years.

These folks are along the similar lines as folks that buy a handgun for home defense and buy a box of ammo and then go to the range one time and prove to themselves that the gun works and that they can reasonably hit targets...then don't ever go shoot again.

 

[Sheldon J]

Speaking for my self yes I am better trained, a better shot, and i buy better equipment than the police supply the guy on the street, am I the exception, no I have seen a heap of others with their CCW do the same thing.

 

[stevelyn]

Being a police firearms instructor myself, I nearly tear my hair out because of officers not putting anymore effort into the firearms training than what is necessary to qualify.

I would bet that probably less than 10% of police officers are gun folk. Guys like me who shoot alot on our own time and grab any gun school we can get probably make up less than 5%.