Training For You

[herrwalther]

Then again, they point out that despite the “news”, needing a firearm or actually using one is minuscule, in that profession.

I just read that a LEO is only 12% likely to be involved in an on duty shooting. Having worked for my county sheriff's department, I know there hasn't been an on duty shooting officer death in 25 years. Vehicle accidents, yes but different story. One of my soldiers was a reserve police officer for a major metropolitan area. He got more time off from on duty shootings than he got for regular paid time off. Just a few miles away looking at jurisdictional lines. Mileage varies a lot in that profession. In his county, a week off every month, especially in NARC. In my county, holster rust from an untouched firearm is more common.

 

[film495]

If it was required to sign up - and fill out papers, I would probably just be a criminal then.

 

[labnoti]

A training requirement is not a justification for infringement. There's no exception for that in the law.

But we can certainly discuss what a person might desire for training. Since people are starting from different skill levels and learn at different rates and have different potentials and personal needs or desires, there is no one right answer. Most schools or academies measure their training in hours, but they tend to count breaks and round up to an eight-hour day. Since this practice is fairly consistent and "hours of training" is only an approximation of what is learned, it remains popular to quantify training by the hour.

Some people are interested in comparing training they have or might receive with how many hours police officers are trained. I've heard students specifically inquire about those hour figures. Some sources indicate recruits receive about 120 hours of training in the academy, but a closer look will show this is for both firearm and other self-defense training. 80 hours is typically the amount spent specifically on firearm training. That's about 10 days of classes. This is probably enough to equip anyone without serious disabilities with skill to handle firearms safely and to shoot with basic skills. It doesn't absolutely prevent negligence, carelessness, or foolishness, but it's enough time to warn someone, instruct them, and have them practice properly while being corrected when they make a mistake under supervision. It's also not intended to be the end of their firearms training. They can expect to continue to train with their hiring agency and according to the needs of their assigned role. Whatever level of skill they achieve would also need to be maintained for it to be relevant in the present.

Similarly, we could consider how many hours a recruit receives in basic training. This might be of greater interest with respect to carbine skills if that were a person's interest.

Are hours of police or military training relevant to the civilian? Good arguments could be made that hours don't mean any more than round counts. But to the person who desires to compare the number of training hours they've undertaken to police and military, it might be a part of an assessment they form along with their own evaluation of the quality of the training and how much they progressed in skill and understanding.

To the civilian who takes a more active interest in their training and skills, an hour-count and some rough equivalency to a rookie traffic cop isn't likely to be the measure by which they evaluate themselves. What might be some better measures? I suppose for some it is their performance in competition, either against some standard or other competitors. For me, a really practical measure is simply how many relevant classes I have taken compared to how many are offered.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Everyone should be trained in anything important.

No one should be required to be trained unless their occupation requires it.

I believe in Robert Anson Heinlein's grand statement:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.

 

[CeltKnight]

Plenty have said this already, but I'll weigh in. There should not be any mandatory training requirement in order to use a right acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Imagine: A state decided to mandate certain training that is only offered semi-annually, schedules it in the middle of the day and at the busiest times of year so few can take off work, and charges an exorbitant rate so most cannot even begin to afford it. Bam, nearly no one gets a permit and it's all nice and legal. This, of course, has pretty much been done. The training requirement opens up way too much liability.

I was once addressing gun-rights and gun-safety to a class of seniors ("snow birds" who were wintering in my area). Many of them were in favor of mandatory training. I asked what if, in order to exercise the 4th Amendment Rights, one had to show he/she'd passed a mandated course in Constitutional Law and had tested successfully on the year's updates? Oh, hey, wouldn't it be great if we only allowed "properly educated" people to vote? --- Suddenly no one in the group wanted mandatory training for any right.

I'm all for training, don't get me wrong. I've trained more people than I can remember. I worked hard to set up a regular public training class in my old city, wanting it offered at minimal cost (I mean like $10). My chief was all about it, the mayor was all about it, but, alas, the city attorney mentioned the "L" word (liability) and despite the full-page waiver I'd drawn up, the city council shot it down (no pun ... wait ... yes pun ). SO, then, I'd just take folks for free, a couple at a time, whenever I could and work with them. I've also helped a buddy of mine who runs a shooting school. His courses start at about $150 or so but that's, IIRC, a 2 or 3 day course and is quite intensive. If someone wants training, I'm all for it, and I think it behooves the local constabulary to offer up as much help as they can. It's great PR and nets them a lot of allies. But required training is something to be avoided. My state used to be a "may issue" (which was treated pretty much like a "shall issue" so long as the sheriff didn't have a problem with you). We went to "Shall Issue" several years ago. We don't have a bunch of folks putting holes in themselves or others due to ignorance.

I remain against any further infringements on our 2A rights, or anything that can be used as a road to further infringements.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Yep.
First they require training to get a gun.
Then they limit who can train.
Then they limit the conditions under which the training can occur.
Then they make the training functionally unavailable.
Voila.
No new gun owners.

 

[ATLDave]

I don’t care about others’ training. I care about their competence. I don’t care how much time they have spent being told what the law of self-defense is, I care whether they can basically comply with it. I don’t care how much face time they have had with a tier 1 operator, I care whether they can generally hit what they are aiming at.

I think it is sloppy thinking at best when people use the term “training” to mean competence. Some people never achieve competence despite a lot of training.