Intune: I've talked w/ guys south of the Mason-Dixon where not just duty ammo, but duty weapons and even body armor have to be provided by the officer. I know up here in NJ these things are usually provided by the departments, but it is hit and miss on them providing training ammo. PLACES to train are the bigger issue by us--in rural Montana you could set up a tire shoot house in your backyard and not bother anyone but, in densely populated NJ, many indoor ranges are facing pressure from local municipalities over noise issues and outdoor ranges are either in the remote corners of the state or are facing issues of encroaching development. I'm losing a nearby indoor pistol range and will soon be forced to travel over an hour--one way--to the next nearest range (50 yd rifle and pistol but outdoor only, making winter training less likely) or pony up over $200 per year, per shooter to join a smaller private club with it's own indoor range ($400+ total for me and the boss, before we even get ammo).
"Not having enough in the budget to earmark some for firearms training is doing a grave disservice to the officers and the community. Shouldn't that be near the top of the budget?"
No. As others have said, firearms qualifications are often the extent of the training budget. This is because these "standards" are what limit a
town's liability in the event of a shooting--they "prove" that an officer can hit a target at the lowest threshold of accuracy to avoid a finding of negligence. Most so-called "qualifications" or "certifications" for weapons (firearms, batons, OC, et. al.) are to limit liability, NOT for officer safety or actual proficiency. LUCKY officers have departments that budget for more than minimum competency, but that money has to come from somewhere and it rarely comes from an increase in taxes.
Since MOST officers will go their entire careers w/o firing a weapon off the range, MOST training budgets are spent dealing with things that officers are far more likely to deal with on a day-to-day basis--domestic violence, drug interdiction, legal updates, etc. With limited resources, a training officer needs to choose: A) an officer who can only shoot at the minimum standard (but who will
most likely never NEED to do so), or B) an officer who searches cars and people illegally because he doesn't know that the laws/rules have changed.
I've seen some posts that criticize low firearms training budgets and even you say
"If they are being shortchanged by politicians sitting behind a desk that is unacceptable", but how many of you on this forum would equally protest (even more vehemently) a 2% tax increase to fund that training? How many of you will try running for your town council on a platform to
increase taxes to train your officers above your State's minimum standard? Especially in
your town where "nothing ever happens" and "they've never had to shoot anyone anyway". :banghead:
Oh well, guess I'm shelling out that $400 after all...