ProficientRifleman
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 579
That doesn't mean its correct.
The expression "mo-bettuh" is used colloquially also...
Marksmanship: Police vs. civilian
- Thread starter jpruitt
- Start date
- Status
That doesn't mean its correct.
The expression "mo-bettuh" is used colloquially also...
Jeff F
Member
I used to shoot on some leagues in San Jose with a bunch of leo's. They were Santa Clara sheriffs, San Jose and Milpitas pd. The few that were real gunnies could shoot, the others not so much. I shot with Leroy Pile, San Jose pd and one of the best gunnies I've ever had the pleasure of shooting with. Most of the non leo's I shot with were better shots then the leo's but the leo's were better under pressure.
Shooting Ability/Training
This is an interesting post and--a subject of interest to me for many years.
Here in Louisiana a police officer is prevented BY LAW from using the departmental range on other than qualifying days.
If someone is injured by a firearm during training and the head instructor is present--it is considered an accident(generally).However---if the instructor is absent during this event---then the instructor is PERSONALLY liable for the incident.
With this in mind no trainer is going to ever allow someone to use the range when he/she can not be there.
While a reserve I tried for years to get the reserve organizations to lobby the legislature to change this --to no avail.
I do not know if other states have similar problems--but even if a officer here wants to train --it is difficult to impossible for them to have a place to do so.
This is an interesting post and--a subject of interest to me for many years.
Here in Louisiana a police officer is prevented BY LAW from using the departmental range on other than qualifying days.
If someone is injured by a firearm during training and the head instructor is present--it is considered an accident(generally).However---if the instructor is absent during this event---then the instructor is PERSONALLY liable for the incident.
With this in mind no trainer is going to ever allow someone to use the range when he/she can not be there.
While a reserve I tried for years to get the reserve organizations to lobby the legislature to change this --to no avail.
I do not know if other states have similar problems--but even if a officer here wants to train --it is difficult to impossible for them to have a place to do so.
ProficientRifleman
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 579
They can't utilize the same ranges that "civilians" use?
Everyone here who is complaining about police marksmanship needs to start circulating a petition to raise their taxes to pay for more training. If you are too cheap to pay for adequate training for your employees, you have no right to complain about their proficiency.
Jeff
Jeff
Vern Humphrey
Member
Ah, the old "throw money at the problem" solution.
My great uncle was an instructor and range master for the San Antonio, Texas police department in the '30s and 40s. They had high standards -- and low cost.
They issued a certain amout of ammo for practice, and if you didn't qualify, you didn't get paid until you did -- and you had to pay for practice ammo when you ran out of the issue amount.
My great uncle was an instructor and range master for the San Antonio, Texas police department in the '30s and 40s. They had high standards -- and low cost.
They issued a certain amout of ammo for practice, and if you didn't qualify, you didn't get paid until you did -- and you had to pay for practice ammo when you ran out of the issue amount.
Archie
Member
Back to the original question...
Law enforcement agencies do train their armed employees fairly well in marksmanship and gun handling. Between the spread of 'standards' and lawsuits - in many cases the lawsuits generate the standards - agencies have been forced to do so. On the other hand, agencies only train to the level required by the standards. For instance, in my agency, armed officers are only trained in the use of the issue sidearm. I know any number of officers who have never handled a firearm other than their issue sidearm. They are reasonably proficient with that sidearm, and are reasonably safe with it; but they would be lost if handed a single action revolver, for instance.
Agencies - local, state and federal - are run by 'managers', not by officers, cops, lawmen or regular folks. Any training schedule, regimine or program is limited, some times severely, by budget and manpower constraints. A day in training is a day lost in the 'field'. Therefore, the managers keep training to the minimum required.
Non officially armed members of the populace (that ain't gonna work for long) have no imposed budget limits, but most have practical budget limits. We all have to pay bills, eat and put gas in the car - so our shooting money is limited. The upshot is, some 'civilians' are better shooters than LEOs and some aren't. I'd venture to say most of the active shooters on this forum are better marksmen and have a wider range of firearms knowledge than most current LEOs. On the other hand, we all know a couple of people who think a 'Deagle' is a valid self-defense sidearm for general useage.
I'm not sure if I count as a Law Enforcement Agency shooter or a civilian shooter. I'm 'officially armed'; I have an issued badge and gun and arrest authority. For the record, I learned to shoot from non-official sources; my Dad, shooting buddies, older Marines, retired lawmen from earlier eras, older hunters and so forth. In terms of organizations, the National Rifle Association is the greatest source of marksmanship and firearms handling information in the nation, and probably the world.
Who would I trust more? (Or any LEO in uniform while performing duties.)
Consider this: I know the training given to my agency colleages. (I also know who can't shoot or aren't very 'steady' emotionally.) I do not know any of you on the street by sight. So I have no idea if you have any ability or not. As fellow citizens of the United States, I trust your hearts and intent, but without solid information, I don't know if you can shoot or not.
Background may or may not mean anything. Even with prior armed forces service, one might not be much of a shooter. A person who served six years of active duty as a mortarman or tanker may or may not know anything serious about operating a pistol. An Olympic Free Pistol gold medalist might not be the person to pick in a gunfight, either.
Statistically, I've read 'civilians' shoot fewer of the wrong people than active Lawmen. As mentioned, it's probably because 'civilians' primarily shoot attackers in the act. Target identification is simplified when they're attacking you.
Law enforcement agencies do train their armed employees fairly well in marksmanship and gun handling. Between the spread of 'standards' and lawsuits - in many cases the lawsuits generate the standards - agencies have been forced to do so. On the other hand, agencies only train to the level required by the standards. For instance, in my agency, armed officers are only trained in the use of the issue sidearm. I know any number of officers who have never handled a firearm other than their issue sidearm. They are reasonably proficient with that sidearm, and are reasonably safe with it; but they would be lost if handed a single action revolver, for instance.
Agencies - local, state and federal - are run by 'managers', not by officers, cops, lawmen or regular folks. Any training schedule, regimine or program is limited, some times severely, by budget and manpower constraints. A day in training is a day lost in the 'field'. Therefore, the managers keep training to the minimum required.
Non officially armed members of the populace (that ain't gonna work for long) have no imposed budget limits, but most have practical budget limits. We all have to pay bills, eat and put gas in the car - so our shooting money is limited. The upshot is, some 'civilians' are better shooters than LEOs and some aren't. I'd venture to say most of the active shooters on this forum are better marksmen and have a wider range of firearms knowledge than most current LEOs. On the other hand, we all know a couple of people who think a 'Deagle' is a valid self-defense sidearm for general useage.
I'm not sure if I count as a Law Enforcement Agency shooter or a civilian shooter. I'm 'officially armed'; I have an issued badge and gun and arrest authority. For the record, I learned to shoot from non-official sources; my Dad, shooting buddies, older Marines, retired lawmen from earlier eras, older hunters and so forth. In terms of organizations, the National Rifle Association is the greatest source of marksmanship and firearms handling information in the nation, and probably the world.
Who would I trust more? (Or any LEO in uniform while performing duties.)
Consider this: I know the training given to my agency colleages. (I also know who can't shoot or aren't very 'steady' emotionally.) I do not know any of you on the street by sight. So I have no idea if you have any ability or not. As fellow citizens of the United States, I trust your hearts and intent, but without solid information, I don't know if you can shoot or not.
Background may or may not mean anything. Even with prior armed forces service, one might not be much of a shooter. A person who served six years of active duty as a mortarman or tanker may or may not know anything serious about operating a pistol. An Olympic Free Pistol gold medalist might not be the person to pick in a gunfight, either.
Statistically, I've read 'civilians' shoot fewer of the wrong people than active Lawmen. As mentioned, it's probably because 'civilians' primarily shoot attackers in the act. Target identification is simplified when they're attacking you.
Vern,
How many departments nationwide do you think even issue practice ammo? Given the cost and availability of ammunition these days many departments issue exactly enough rounds to qualify, no more, no less.
How many departments have the manpower to cover the street while half the dept is on the range training, or the money for overtime to pay the officers to train?
Perhaps you'd like to look at a few line item budgets and see what service you'd cut in order to train?
Jeff
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The small town PD Chief where I grew up was a good friend of mine.
Sad to say but he spent many of his weekends at the reloading bench and melting lead for bullets to give his guys some more practice time.
He would go around and ask for lead tire weight donations from the local tire places.
There was no budget for ammo at all, even for qualifying. The guys had to pay for that on their own.
Now due to liability concerns he's had to stop with the reloads and they just give a couple of boxes a YEAR to each guy, for "training".
As I believe another post mentioned, there are LEOs who are good shots, and some less so, which is the same that can be said of private citizens. Some LEOs are firearms enthusiasts, and some are not, which is also true of private citizens.
Police will always shoot the "wrong" person a higher percentage of the time, because LEOs are dispatched, sent, or otherwise prompted to go into unknown situations. A private citizen usually acts when prompted by the situation in which he finds himself, defends himself or those known to him, and he will have no duty to interrupt a fight in which he has no part.
Yes, it is deplorable that many LEOs only qual once once a year, but many private citizens NEVER qual, unless they need to do so for their carry permit, and that qual may only happen once in a lifetime, when obtaining the permit for the first time. In my state, the CHL qual target has quite generous scoring compared to the qual target I must use for my annual qual.
It is also deplorable that many LEOs practice so seldom, but some private citizens NEVER practice, ever. Some weapons kept ready for home defense are grandpa's old guns, still loaded with grandpa's ammo, and dust bunnies in the barrels. I have been approached by folks with CHLs, who wanted to ask questions about firearms or laws, and in the subsequent conversations, learned they had never fired the handgun they were carrying at the time.
The performance of the members of a shooting club should not be used to estimate the shooting abilities of the public at large.
Police will always shoot the "wrong" person a higher percentage of the time, because LEOs are dispatched, sent, or otherwise prompted to go into unknown situations. A private citizen usually acts when prompted by the situation in which he finds himself, defends himself or those known to him, and he will have no duty to interrupt a fight in which he has no part.
Yes, it is deplorable that many LEOs only qual once once a year, but many private citizens NEVER qual, unless they need to do so for their carry permit, and that qual may only happen once in a lifetime, when obtaining the permit for the first time. In my state, the CHL qual target has quite generous scoring compared to the qual target I must use for my annual qual.
It is also deplorable that many LEOs practice so seldom, but some private citizens NEVER practice, ever. Some weapons kept ready for home defense are grandpa's old guns, still loaded with grandpa's ammo, and dust bunnies in the barrels. I have been approached by folks with CHLs, who wanted to ask questions about firearms or laws, and in the subsequent conversations, learned they had never fired the handgun they were carrying at the time.
The performance of the members of a shooting club should not be used to estimate the shooting abilities of the public at large.
Intune
Member
PR, thank you for the chuckle! Very astute, Sir.
sacp81170a
Member
While I understand the sentiment, the standards we're being held to on the streets now are very much different. In the 30's and 40's, the circumstances under which a peace officer could use their firearm were, shall we say, a tad "looser"?
These days, you better have about three levels of justification before you even draw your sidearm. What would have gotten your great uncle a pat on the back would get a lot of officers fired, prosecuted, and jailed, along with suits against the city for excessive force. The legal environment of today requires quite a bit more judiciousness in the use of force and causes hesitation that in some cases is contrary to officer survival. Not saying this is a bad thing, it's just different.
The urbanization of the environment is also a problem. I remember when I was a kid over in Madison County. We could go just about anywhere, set up a few cans and start plinkin'. As long as we weren't shootin' towards anyone's house(it was a lot easier to find a safe direction then), everything was cool. I've been back to my old haunts and there are so many houses around now that I wouldn't feel safe squirrel hunting with a .22, though a shotgun would be okay.
It truly is a different world, and careful documentation of all phases of LEO training is used in court all the time. Unofficial, unapproved, unsanctioned practice is something that might come back to haunt you. It's a truly sad state of affairs, but there it is...
Mt Shooter
Member
I don't know about where you all come from, but there are usually 3 to 7 sheriff deputies that show up the the USPSA match's. Some of those use there spare time at the range and toss a couple hundred down range all the time. They pay/load there ammo just like I do.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Apples and oranges. What we're talking about is the psycho-motor skill of shooting, not the cognitive ability to determine if you should shoot or not.
Scoutsout2645
Member
According to Webster's:
"civilian: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
"citizen:
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state" (emphasis is mine)
A: this part of the debate is dramatically off topic from the OP
B: as a current LEO, prior military, and civilian for 18 years before that, since when did the term "civilian" become inherently derogatory? Yes, SOME people can use that term in a derogatory way, but I have heard people use the term "American" as an intended insult and I do not consider that as an inherently negative term. I am married to a "civilian", my mom is a "civilian"...heck, some of my best friends are "civilians".
C: when faced with a fight (gun or other) where your safety is in danger: an individual soldier who flees and leaves other troops in jeopardy can face charges under the UCMJ, an individual LEO who flees and leaves other citizens in jeopardy can face departmental or possibly criminal charges, any other individual citizen who flees and leaves others in jeopardy will face NO repercussions from the State. This third category is the civilian. This term has nothing to do with their training, competence or anything else--just whether or not they have an obligation to act due to their job or position.
To address the actual OP...I wish I could say that all LEO's were crack shots, recieved plenty of training time and resources to hone their combat skills with hands, batons and firearms, and had training officers in their departments who were skilled and capable of providing effective realistic training that tested your skills under stressful conditions. This is simply not the case.
SOME officers take it upon themselves to train frequently. SOME take courses to improve their abilities (often on their own time and their own dime). SOME officers have departments who actually emphasize training, have skilled, involved and approachable training officers and who provide ammo and resources to their officers who train on their own (I am fortunate to be one of these). MOST do not and, as has been stated, only fire their weapons at annual or semi-annual qualifications. Many fall into this habit because, outside of Hollywood, the majority of LEO's will never HAVE to use their firearms or fall prey to the "can't happen to me" mindset.
Similarly, SOME civilian gun owners train irregularly (if at all). However, for many people who decide to own a gun, shooting is an enjoyable hobby and is practiced as often as possible with an effort to improve their skills. If they decide to CCW it is often precisely because they have a "it CAN (or WILL) happen to me" mindset.
Finally, to repeat other posters, most civilian HD or SD shootings are close range--often static--affairs, minimizing the probability of a stress-induced miss, or happen in an area (like inside your home) where you KNOW that anyone in front of you is a threat to be dealt with appropriately. I had a home burglary I responded to where I found a neighbor (a good-intentioned agent from a major federal LEO agency) in civilian attire, gun out, clearing the residence--without me knowing he was even in there. This COULD HAVE turned out tragic, adding to the stats above. This is also a situation that the MAJORITY of civilian shooters will never have to face.
And to Dan the Man: I love your training plan for a realistic shooting scenario....please don't talk to my training officer.
"civilian: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
"citizen:
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state" (emphasis is mine)
A: this part of the debate is dramatically off topic from the OP
B: as a current LEO, prior military, and civilian for 18 years before that, since when did the term "civilian" become inherently derogatory? Yes, SOME people can use that term in a derogatory way, but I have heard people use the term "American" as an intended insult and I do not consider that as an inherently negative term. I am married to a "civilian", my mom is a "civilian"...heck, some of my best friends are "civilians".
C: when faced with a fight (gun or other) where your safety is in danger: an individual soldier who flees and leaves other troops in jeopardy can face charges under the UCMJ, an individual LEO who flees and leaves other citizens in jeopardy can face departmental or possibly criminal charges, any other individual citizen who flees and leaves others in jeopardy will face NO repercussions from the State. This third category is the civilian. This term has nothing to do with their training, competence or anything else--just whether or not they have an obligation to act due to their job or position.
To address the actual OP...I wish I could say that all LEO's were crack shots, recieved plenty of training time and resources to hone their combat skills with hands, batons and firearms, and had training officers in their departments who were skilled and capable of providing effective realistic training that tested your skills under stressful conditions. This is simply not the case.
SOME officers take it upon themselves to train frequently. SOME take courses to improve their abilities (often on their own time and their own dime). SOME officers have departments who actually emphasize training, have skilled, involved and approachable training officers and who provide ammo and resources to their officers who train on their own (I am fortunate to be one of these). MOST do not and, as has been stated, only fire their weapons at annual or semi-annual qualifications. Many fall into this habit because, outside of Hollywood, the majority of LEO's will never HAVE to use their firearms or fall prey to the "can't happen to me" mindset.
Similarly, SOME civilian gun owners train irregularly (if at all). However, for many people who decide to own a gun, shooting is an enjoyable hobby and is practiced as often as possible with an effort to improve their skills. If they decide to CCW it is often precisely because they have a "it CAN (or WILL) happen to me" mindset.
Finally, to repeat other posters, most civilian HD or SD shootings are close range--often static--affairs, minimizing the probability of a stress-induced miss, or happen in an area (like inside your home) where you KNOW that anyone in front of you is a threat to be dealt with appropriately. I had a home burglary I responded to where I found a neighbor (a good-intentioned agent from a major federal LEO agency) in civilian attire, gun out, clearing the residence--without me knowing he was even in there. This COULD HAVE turned out tragic, adding to the stats above. This is also a situation that the MAJORITY of civilian shooters will never have to face.
And to Dan the Man: I love your training plan for a realistic shooting scenario....please don't talk to my training officer.
sacp81170a
Member
I agree in principle, but the reality is that the administrative and legal culture currently in vogue leans more toward the "solve problems without shooting" school of thought and this is reflected in training. If you've got a limited training budget and the state requires all your officers to take a refresher course in "profiling" and "cultural awareness", guess where your training dollars go first?
I can remember when we used to brag about how tough our sheriffs and police were. Not anymore. I'm not saying that peace officers shouldn't be better trained in handling and shooting firearms, I'm saying that the overall culture has shifted away from making that a priority. Again, I agree, apples and oranges. When's the last time you heard a chief LEO brag about what good shots his officers were? Maybe in private, but never where an ACLU lawyer could get wind of it, that's for sure.
I would like to say that I agree that LEO's should be paid MUCH more than they currently are. I don't think that a six figure salary is out of the question at all, not for the stress that they and their family have to endure. I also feel that they should have other perks at taxpayer expense. I don't want an officer shooting around my home when he has only fired one box of issued ammo for the year.
However, what I and others would like to see happen and what the current reality is are two different things. An officer has a deadly weapon that he/she is responsible for. If that officer has to use his own dime to make sure that he can properly use that firearm, then so be it. Yes, it is a damn shame and a disgrace that the people that citizens rely on to protect them are paid next to nothing, probably around the poverty level. But that officer still has to be responsible enough to take the initiative to be a damn fine shooter.
As far as shooting the wrong person under stressfull conditions, I am fully aware of that. Stress should not be used as an excuse, but as a reason to find a better way. You can train to function under stress and the fog of war, but it takes someone willing to do it (repetition, repetition, repitition). And I feel that if you are going to take on the responsibility of having a firearm that you may be called upon to use in your duties, then you owe it to everyone to make sure that when the time comes, you are prepared to handle it as best as possible. Only shooting what is issued to you is not responsibility, it is complacency.
And BTW, that also goes for anyone who chooses to carry, concealed or otherwise.
However, what I and others would like to see happen and what the current reality is are two different things. An officer has a deadly weapon that he/she is responsible for. If that officer has to use his own dime to make sure that he can properly use that firearm, then so be it. Yes, it is a damn shame and a disgrace that the people that citizens rely on to protect them are paid next to nothing, probably around the poverty level. But that officer still has to be responsible enough to take the initiative to be a damn fine shooter.
As far as shooting the wrong person under stressfull conditions, I am fully aware of that. Stress should not be used as an excuse, but as a reason to find a better way. You can train to function under stress and the fog of war, but it takes someone willing to do it (repetition, repetition, repitition). And I feel that if you are going to take on the responsibility of having a firearm that you may be called upon to use in your duties, then you owe it to everyone to make sure that when the time comes, you are prepared to handle it as best as possible. Only shooting what is issued to you is not responsibility, it is complacency.
And BTW, that also goes for anyone who chooses to carry, concealed or otherwise.
Quote:
Just one question Catherine. I know I am not in the USA, and maybe you have no words for that, but how would you call us swiss for example ? We are Citizens, or Civilian, whatever, but get a military training and equipment for 4 months.. and than 3 weeks a year for ar least 6 or 7 years (more if you are an officer..)
"Week-end warriors" seems fine to me, but it seems that the term is already in use..
~~~~~
Dear Shung,
I would call you a Swiss citizen who is in Switzerland's military. You are 'military'. Until you are completely OUT of the military you are IN the military. Part time-on call military could mean FULL time and/or Full time military = military. (We call it the Reserves or National Guard here. I personally do NOT use the term 'weekend warriors'. That is 'just me' and my quirk - no offense. Many men/women who later on got out of the "regular service" in ALL branches went into the Reserves or Guard - usually back in their home state. For example - my late husband and many other Vietnam Veterans like him. They worked NON government jobs and/or government jobs PLUS served in the Reserves or Guard. Some stayed in the same branch and served their 20 plus years in the "regular service".) When you have completed your military service even though you would be there IF needed, kind of what I think of our (USA) MILITIA... you would be a Citizen. Only the military should call NON military people civilians but I PREFER lady, gentleman or CITIZEN no matter what country you 'hail' from. The Police ARE civilians unless they are in the Military = Military Police, Shore Patrol , etc.
OUR military and NON military folks are Citizens or legal immigrants in this country. Criminals = illegal aliens because they are NOT legal.
Your country or ANY other country, including the USA, has a population of all kinds of people... if those people are BORN there or legally BECAME a citizen... they are citizens. Every country in the world has a population of people and they are citizens of THAT country or SOME other country - perhaps living elsewhere. For example in war torn countries... you could be a citizen of X country but due to a war... you became a refugee or FLED to Y or Z = another country because of the WAR or FAMINE or some other horrible/sad reason.
By the way, I always wanted to visit your country. My late husband visited your country many years ago with some close military friends. They were in Ramstein, Germany (His Air NG Fighter Wing time not his USN Vietnam and around the world time on ship/destroyer.) and they had a GREAT time. They were all over the place. It was his first time in your country but not the first time in Germany, etc. I do not know the name of the towns that he visited though. They rented a vehicle and he did the driving whenever they were OFF duty. All of them chipped in for the rental/fuel costs.
Your country is BEAUTIFUL and I like the principles of some of your 'politics'.
I would love to visit Switzerland... perhaps someday.
Shoot straight, take care and nice to meet you again.
Sincerely,
Catherine
Just one question Catherine. I know I am not in the USA, and maybe you have no words for that, but how would you call us swiss for example ? We are Citizens, or Civilian, whatever, but get a military training and equipment for 4 months.. and than 3 weeks a year for ar least 6 or 7 years (more if you are an officer..)
"Week-end warriors" seems fine to me, but it seems that the term is already in use..
~~~~~
Dear Shung,
I would call you a Swiss citizen who is in Switzerland's military. You are 'military'. Until you are completely OUT of the military you are IN the military. Part time-on call military could mean FULL time and/or Full time military = military. (We call it the Reserves or National Guard here. I personally do NOT use the term 'weekend warriors'. That is 'just me' and my quirk - no offense. Many men/women who later on got out of the "regular service" in ALL branches went into the Reserves or Guard - usually back in their home state. For example - my late husband and many other Vietnam Veterans like him. They worked NON government jobs and/or government jobs PLUS served in the Reserves or Guard. Some stayed in the same branch and served their 20 plus years in the "regular service".) When you have completed your military service even though you would be there IF needed, kind of what I think of our (USA) MILITIA... you would be a Citizen. Only the military should call NON military people civilians but I PREFER lady, gentleman or CITIZEN no matter what country you 'hail' from. The Police ARE civilians unless they are in the Military = Military Police, Shore Patrol , etc.
OUR military and NON military folks are Citizens or legal immigrants in this country. Criminals = illegal aliens because they are NOT legal.
Your country or ANY other country, including the USA, has a population of all kinds of people... if those people are BORN there or legally BECAME a citizen... they are citizens. Every country in the world has a population of people and they are citizens of THAT country or SOME other country - perhaps living elsewhere. For example in war torn countries... you could be a citizen of X country but due to a war... you became a refugee or FLED to Y or Z = another country because of the WAR or FAMINE or some other horrible/sad reason.
By the way, I always wanted to visit your country. My late husband visited your country many years ago with some close military friends. They were in Ramstein, Germany (His Air NG Fighter Wing time not his USN Vietnam and around the world time on ship/destroyer.) and they had a GREAT time. They were all over the place. It was his first time in your country but not the first time in Germany, etc. I do not know the name of the towns that he visited though. They rented a vehicle and he did the driving whenever they were OFF duty. All of them chipped in for the rental/fuel costs.
Your country is BEAUTIFUL and I like the principles of some of your 'politics'.
I would love to visit Switzerland... perhaps someday.
Shoot straight, take care and nice to meet you again.
Sincerely,
Catherine
Vern Humphrey
Member
In the United States, we call such people "Reservists" if they are Federal troops, and "Guardsmen" if they are State troops.
As a general rule, our inactive combat troops are Guardsmen, and our combat service support troops are Reservists.
As a general rule, our inactive combat troops are Guardsmen, and our combat service support troops are Reservists.
Quote:
They can't utilize the same ranges that "civilians" use?
~~~~~
P.R.,
Thank you! I used to drive 30 miles ONE WAY via the $turnpike$ to practice when I first started to BUY my own firearms, my own ammunition and really GOT into self defense and the shooting sports! I don't remember the EXACT cost of one hour of use for that gun store's indoor range but I think it was about $10. or more for 1 HOUR. I bought my guns at that family owned gun store from 1998-2001.
Later on I joined a Sportsman's Club in S. County and that was about 11 to 15 miles from my rural home. OUTDOOR range. Nice people there too and everywhere else. Frank told me about it and sponsored me. I visited many other clubs on personal invitations and for 'shoots' including high power shoots. I went and watched some of my friends and new friends in my state and in MI too. I and/or WE always went up to Camp Perry to watch the competitions and our boat rental docks were up in Port Clinton... river and lake side plus we used the free drops. That was pretty close to Camp Perry. I used to sail my Sunfish sail boat not his boats OFF of Camp Perry's beach - we got in with the military ID cards. Fished off of that big pier too.
Take care.
Catherine
They can't utilize the same ranges that "civilians" use?
~~~~~
P.R.,
Thank you! I used to drive 30 miles ONE WAY via the $turnpike$ to practice when I first started to BUY my own firearms, my own ammunition and really GOT into self defense and the shooting sports! I don't remember the EXACT cost of one hour of use for that gun store's indoor range but I think it was about $10. or more for 1 HOUR. I bought my guns at that family owned gun store from 1998-2001.
Later on I joined a Sportsman's Club in S. County and that was about 11 to 15 miles from my rural home. OUTDOOR range. Nice people there too and everywhere else. Frank told me about it and sponsored me. I visited many other clubs on personal invitations and for 'shoots' including high power shoots. I went and watched some of my friends and new friends in my state and in MI too. I and/or WE always went up to Camp Perry to watch the competitions and our boat rental docks were up in Port Clinton... river and lake side plus we used the free drops. That was pretty close to Camp Perry. I used to sail my Sunfish sail boat not his boats OFF of Camp Perry's beach - we got in with the military ID cards. Fished off of that big pier too.
Take care.
Catherine
Last edited:
The retired and active city police and/or county deputies that I saw at my outdoor range (S. county.) back east and out here at Deer Creek PAY for their own ammunition when they plink, practice or 'compete'. My husband used to compete. I something or other... I can't think of the name but Big Sky Practical Shooting Club is involved. Even though his schedule does not allow him to 'compete' anymore he still belongs to it. We pay for the Deer Creek range, the BSPSC, our pro gun organization, etc.
When the police have to QUALIFY out here and back east... they get their ammunition paid for by the taxpayers. They get ammunition to practice with paid by taxpayers. How much that is NOW - I have no clue. Every local and state department is different. (Same as with the MILITARY. I know that was how it was in the past.) The police force and deputies have been increased in manpower in almost all states along with the Federal grants (Homeland INsecurity.) and so forth. Equipment, swat stuff, etc. There are figures on legit and government websites about ALL of these increases in MORE hiring in various departments on the federal and state levels. Some small departments may have been cut back but even some in small/rural towns their funding has been INCREASED across this nation.
There are many men/women who belong in ALL kinds of professions who PAY MONEY out of their own pockets for SOME of their equipment or supplies - you name it!
The nice retired policeman who retired from the city (?) but joined up to a county or some other department out here used his OWN ammunition when he practiced. He is the man who let me use his UZI on full and semi automatic power! His UZI is the one that I have mentioned before, 22LR, 9MM and 45ACP. He had his own ammunition for his other guns too. My husband knew him and the policeman asked my husband, "Would your lady friend like to shoot my UZI?" I was shooting further down at the gongs at the time. He said, "ASK HER!" Nice man, sweet guns, good shot and handsome too! He was FRIENDLY too.
I was going to say more but I am quite sure it would get closed down or deleted by the thought police here.
Back on topic... The policeman with the UZI and other guns was a GREAT shot and is a nice man.
Catherine
When the police have to QUALIFY out here and back east... they get their ammunition paid for by the taxpayers. They get ammunition to practice with paid by taxpayers. How much that is NOW - I have no clue. Every local and state department is different. (Same as with the MILITARY. I know that was how it was in the past.) The police force and deputies have been increased in manpower in almost all states along with the Federal grants (Homeland INsecurity.) and so forth. Equipment, swat stuff, etc. There are figures on legit and government websites about ALL of these increases in MORE hiring in various departments on the federal and state levels. Some small departments may have been cut back but even some in small/rural towns their funding has been INCREASED across this nation.
There are many men/women who belong in ALL kinds of professions who PAY MONEY out of their own pockets for SOME of their equipment or supplies - you name it!
The nice retired policeman who retired from the city (?) but joined up to a county or some other department out here used his OWN ammunition when he practiced. He is the man who let me use his UZI on full and semi automatic power! His UZI is the one that I have mentioned before, 22LR, 9MM and 45ACP. He had his own ammunition for his other guns too. My husband knew him and the policeman asked my husband, "Would your lady friend like to shoot my UZI?" I was shooting further down at the gongs at the time. He said, "ASK HER!" Nice man, sweet guns, good shot and handsome too! He was FRIENDLY too.
I was going to say more but I am quite sure it would get closed down or deleted by the thought police here.
Back on topic... The policeman with the UZI and other guns was a GREAT shot and is a nice man.
Catherine
I hate to say this but you don't have a clue about this.
Jeff
Gee, I figured that you would say that, Jeff. Sigh.
The small town close to my former rural home, 2.5 miles away, has had their FUNDING increased for police protection. This was back east. They don't want to have the sheriff's department cover their town and still want to stick with their own taxpayer funded hired help. The man gets paid well, good benefits and always a nice new vehicle. I would mention the town but that wouldn't be too safe on the internet. I keep up with the people back there and it is in the WC newspaper and in the other county papers too. The people want home town protection so they voted for it. They have always voted for that issue along with keeping up with the community pool, the local library, etc. The local library gets money from the county, some funding from the state and the feds. They recently put up another BIG addition too. Very nice. They have contributors who make donations in books, money and fund raisers. I know because I used to be VERY involved with my local library. My late husband's great Aunts started that library and it used to be in the former opera house now town hall.
I don't think that you know EVERY town and every police department across this nation either. No offense.
Catherine
The small town close to my former rural home, 2.5 miles away, has had their FUNDING increased for police protection. This was back east. They don't want to have the sheriff's department cover their town and still want to stick with their own taxpayer funded hired help. The man gets paid well, good benefits and always a nice new vehicle. I would mention the town but that wouldn't be too safe on the internet. I keep up with the people back there and it is in the WC newspaper and in the other county papers too. The people want home town protection so they voted for it. They have always voted for that issue along with keeping up with the community pool, the local library, etc. The local library gets money from the county, some funding from the state and the feds. They recently put up another BIG addition too. Very nice. They have contributors who make donations in books, money and fund raisers. I know because I used to be VERY involved with my local library. My late husband's great Aunts started that library and it used to be in the former opera house now town hall.
I don't think that you know EVERY town and every police department across this nation either. No offense.
Catherine
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
