What does a cop know that I don't. . .

[Demitrios]

about shooting? I've heard from some people I know that they don't believe that anyone should be allowed to "carry guns" except for cops. Well this got me thinking, what exactly does a LEO know about carrying, aiming, firing all while dealing with a crisis situation? Now I'm not talking about your average suburban cop who feels a drug bust is finding a kid with an ounce of weed, I'm talking about what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?

This isn't meant to be a cop trashing thread, especially since my brother's a cop and so are a few of my friends. My goal here is the next time I hear, "I think only cops should be allowed to carry guns." I can go into this conversation armed with a little better understand of what differentiates their training the average citizen.

 

[GRIZ22]

Let's start off saying that I think every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a firearm just about anywhere to protect themselves and their family.

Police Officer training in NJ is standardized in NJ so it makes no difference ork in Newark, Camden, or some sleepy hamlet in NJ. Local police get the same training no matter where they go to the academy. It isn't all about shooting skills it's also legal training to know when to shoot. Its also being put through role playing exercises to learn how to disfuse a situation so it doesn't turn into a shooting situation. They go through shoot don't shoot training with FATS, Simunitions, or a combination of training techniques. They are required to qualify 2x a year and have a legal review on lethal force, usually by an asst prosecutor.

Trust me there are plenty of police chiefs that would like to make it so their cops couldn't carry off duty. If you're a plumber and have a disagreeable neighbor they don't call your boss and complain (substantiated or not). If you're a cop they will call your boss and complain. Your life is under constant scrutiny when you're a LEO.

"I think only cops should be allowed to carry guns."

I don't agree with this as I've already said but even those "blessed" with a carry permit in NJ (very few outside of retired LEOs) don't get anywhere near as much training as a cop.

 

[Mousegun]

While doing maintenance on the pistol range of a large governmental agency I was called to the line by the training officer when the police were going through qualification.

I was given a gun and told to shoot the target under the same conditions they were going through.

When the targets were brought back to the line, the training officer held up the results in front of the large group. His statement was, "this is a civilian, you may face someone like this in a gun battle, how do you think you would fair?

At other times, while assisting at police sponsored turkey shoots, I have had to assist more than one officer in the operation of some of the pistols that were being used.

In short, a non police person who associates with guns as a hobby and or sport can easily be as knowledgeable and functional as a "trained' police officer because it is a hobby/sport and knowledge is learned because of a passion not because its a job.

 

[MedWheeler]

Cops, when so "privileged", are so due to politics, not to anything that they may know that the rest of us may not.
However, it would be hard to argue that the average, law-abiding citizen gets as much formal training than does the cop. By training, I'm not just referring to standing on a line somewhere squeezing off rounds at a piece of paper. I'm referring to patrol techniques, legal aspects of deadly force (peruse even this board if you want to find permit-holders who still doubt the quality of their own educations), crisis intervention, appropriate restraint (of both suspects and of themselves), etc..
In order to effectively debate this with someone who offers that view, you will need to appear able to understand why they hold it. Not many non-LE permit-holders have gone through training periods that usually approach four-to-six months or longer. That's one of the points your debate opponent is going to make.
Your counter-point should focus less on the didactic element of firearms training, and more on the simple facts that lawfully-screened permit-holders are less likely than are members of the non-carrying public to commit crimes in general, that they are more likely to prevent or stop violent crimes in progress prior to the arrival of LE, and that they are more likely to survive a violent encounter (and facilitate the survival of other innocent people present.)
On top of that, a higher percentage of permit-holders than cops are actually "interested" in firearms to the point of staying sharp, not only in their handling and use, but in the strategic and legal aspects of their ownership and use. Many cops carry firearms only as part of the job's function (some don't even own any other than the one they were issued), and get little, if any, practice between annual qualifications (which are not training, by the way.)
I just saw that "Mousegun" made the last point in his post as well..

 

[A and O]

Oh Pleeeze. Where does one start to put this myth to rest? Here's an introductory civics class.

Government in it's simplest form is nothing more than a group of folks getting together and hiring one person to protect their homes while they are away from home working the fields or whatever. How silly is it to think that this person YOU hired would outgun YOU or anybody else in the community. Remember this person is pulled from your ranks by you or your representative. That the hired servant should be better armed than his master is contrary to common sense and the laws of nature.

That said, in my local PD several members are avid hand loaders/shooters on the side and are very good at it I might add. Most of the rest of the group could not out shoot my wife. Who is actually a pretty fair shot.

 

[LHRGunslinger]

All the extra BS aside I think the LEO would know the legal end of when to and when not to shoot a bit more intamately than you would. But in reality it all boils down to how passionate you are about firearms and operating them in a legal manner.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Since I have no familiarity with the OP, it's hard for me to compare him to an "average" LEO. Here's my generic $0.02:

There are both LEO's and civilians who are unqualified to carry a gun. Legally, they are guaranteed the right to do so by the Second Amendment. However, one man's rights end where another's begin. When your right to own/carry a gun infringes upon my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or any other of my rights) your right should be terminated. This is, in part, why those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are prevented from purchasing guns. The problem is, judging someone involves another person's opinion. Who has the right to limit my rights via their opinion? Tricky, huh?

 

[TheProf]

I think that myth/assumption that cops know more about guns than civilians is that most cops go through some kind of formal training. On the other hand, not all civilians go through formal training.

Some civilians go through formal training. Some train themselves. But there is a third and dangerous group. Those that have firearms (and are willing to use it in a public setting) that do not feel that they need to practice at all. This third group of civilians want to practice the right to bear arms....but ignore the responsibility of being competent with their firearm. You cannot divorce "rights" without "responsibility".

I am a big supporter of our 2nd amendment. I believe all free citizens should be armed. But this 3rd group of irresponsible citizens causes me concern. I think that this is the root of the anti-gun crowd's mentality when they say that only cops should have guns.

 

[IlikeSA]

While the police may not know more about different weapons function or even shooting techniques than a non-police officer, most police officers have a LOT more experience in high risk, potentially violent situations than most people. They also have more experience when working under a crises situation and making command decisions without freezing. Notice I said most police officers, and most people, not all for either. There is more to shooting than simply accuracy, as one must know when a threat is ready to be engaged, and how to remain calm and control a crises.

 

[BADUNAME37]

What does a cop know that I don't?

Where all the doughnut shops are.

 

[Peakbagger46]

A continual exposure to bad situations and adrenaline as well as training (though I believe the first two are more crutial). That is what makes the average cop better apt to gunfighting. Not better at shooting, but better at gunfighting.

The argument that "only cops should carry guns" is an obsurd one. The second amendment is not based on one's ability to shoot, but rather ones right to be armed.

"Now I'm not talking about your average suburban cop who feels a drug bust is finding a kid with an ounce of weed"

If that were only the nieve world we as cops could live in. Give me a break.

 

[4sooth]

Police Training

Jeff Cooper once wrote that the people who do best at anything are the enthusiasts. So true.

The average police recruit comes to his or her department never having handled or shot a firearm--especially in the heavily industrialized areas of our country such as the mid-west and northeast. Due to financial (and political) constraints the majority of these officers never receive more than a rudimentary amount of training in the use of a sidearm or long gun. In addition to poor training the recruit may be (and is) subjected to political conditioning which causes them to not realize how lacking their training is.

When I became a reserve we had four to five hours of classroom and then went to the range to qualify!!!! Not surprisingly more than half the class could not shoot scores high enough to make the minimum requirement. They were allowed to shoot again and again until two scores combined met the requirement.

As of five years ago a recruit going through the FBI academy shot about 6000 rounds during the firearms portion of his/her training. This seems a lot of shooting--and for many is but it only brings the trainee up to a minimal level of skill--about the upper D/lowerC in IPSC. If they continued to train their skill would of course increase but this is the last time most of them due any serious shooting for the rest of their career. The same holds true for the average line officer of any given department.

Throw in the expense of ammo $200-$250 per thousand for 9mm and (especially in Louisiana), restrict the officers from discretionary use of the department range (if the dept. has one) and court time, night shifts, and of course tons of paperwork it is no wonder most police don't shoot well.

 

[whalerman]

Demitrios, I have to start off by complimenting you on raising one of the most interesting questions I've seen posted in a long time. This is something we could debate from a lot of angles. I am a LEO, and I can give you my views on some of these things.

First off, police are just like everyone else. Some are very dedicated about firearms law, firearms practice, firearms proficiency, and overall knowledge. Some are not. Its great to have an officer around who is all of the above, but its even better to have one blessed with a quick mind and common sense. And in this venue, we try our best, but again, we're not perfect.

Police are not more important than citizens. They are not necessarily more skilled than citizens regarding weapons use. They are more experienced with the situations that can lead to violence. And in that regard we should defer to their expertise. Always remember, we don't know whose window we are walking up to. Help us out.

There are many things that I believe are necessary for becoming, and more importantly remaining, a good officer. The main thing in my opinion is humility. If we are to maintain your respect and support, we have to keep learning and remember that we are there for you. We also have to remember that you, the good citizen is at the top of the food chain. Sometimes, often really, we get the idea that everyone is a, problem, so to speak. We get to thinking a little too highly of ourselves. Completely unacceptable. Back to humility.

I firmly support the rights of law abiding individuals to use firearms for any reason they see fit. I don't understand how any reading of the Constitution could result in any other interpretation. The problems we face are not caused by law abiding citizens who respect one another. But I'm not telling you anything you do not already know.

 

[Jon_Snow]

Cops are people, just like all of us. Some of them are 'gun people,' people who have expressed an interest in spending their free time learning more about guns and shooting techniques. I have no evidence to support this, but it would surprise me if the percentage of cops who are gun people is significantly higher than it is for the general population.

Yes, police officers go through a rigorous training regimen to get their jobs. That training is NOT just shooting though. Friends who have gone through the academy have told me that it was a fairly small part of their cirriculum.

Cops who train just enough to qualify will tend to shoot poorly, just like a civilian who trained just barely enough to pass a CCW class. Cops who dedicate themselves to training beyond the bare minimum or who compete will shoot at a level consistent with civilians who do the same. Some officers deal with stressful, aggressive situations on an almost daily basis and are therefore well equipped to deal with the pyschological effects of being in a gunfight, just like some bouncers, firefighters, EMTs, boxers, professional fighters, martial artisits, some athletes, etc. Some officers spend most of their time behind a desk or driving around quiet suburban neighborhoods and are ill-equipped for a gunfight, just like those of us whose jobs keep us at a desk 9-5. Trying to lump all police officers into one group and saying they are or are not more qualified than the rest of us is a meaningless and pointless exercise. Their tasks, duties, training and experiences are as varied as they are for the rest of us.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

A lot of times civilian shooters are in fact better shots that some cops. I know there's members of this forum who put more rounds through a pistol per week than some cops will in their entire careers.

But the things with cops is, their training is verifiable. Everything a police officer does has a certificate and a stack of paperwork behind it. No so with everyday people. And since a lot of what a cop does is under the eyes of lawyers, that paperwork goes a long way. Sure there are training places that offer shoot/don't shoot training, force on force, and FATS scenario training if you can pay the money to do it. But when a cop does it, it can be taken to court. "Officer Schmucketeli exercised judgment to the level he was trained for under this state's law enforcement guidelines when he discharged his weapon...blah blah blah". That's not something that really applies to everyone else. If you get in a shooting, you can't really make much of a defense out of "Well I own a lot of guns, reload my own rounds, and post a lot on THR" in court. Even if you and a cop take all the same training, his comes with authority and verifiability of the state, yours does not.

But as far as your actual central idea, the answer under the context you gave is: nothing. The kind of people who make the "I think only cops should carry guns" don't know much about cops and don't know much about guns. It's really an emotional reacting. To some (not all) people, cops represent authority and trust. At times this can be good. If it causes someone to call the police when something is wrong, or for a little kid to approach a cop if they need help, those are good things. That sort of trust and authority is welcome. BUT if it means the people don't really trust anyone else than it's bad.

So I can see where they are coming from with the "cops are the armed legal authority of my state so they should be trusted with weapons" line of thought. But when it becomes "ONLY cops should be trusted with weapons" it loses its base in rational thought. I can think of a lot of reasons cops should be trusted with guns. But none for why regular people shouldn't.

A continual exposure to bad situations and adrenaline as well as training (though I believe the first two are more crutial). That is what makes the average cop better apt to gunfighting. Not better at shooting, but better at gunfighting.

I somewhat disagree with that. Know one knows how they will react when they get into their gunfight. Not even police. There are many documented, even videotaped incidents where police officers with years of dealing with bad guys have froze on the spot in a gunfight. Google "Deputy Dinkheller", though I warn you it really is not for the faint of heart. That video can darken your day for sure. I saw it during my academy, and the lesson hit home. But it is a good example of the fact that even if one wrestles with crakheads and gangbangers every night for years, that doesn't necessarily mean they're not gonna lock up when the big day comes.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Well this got me thinking, what exactly does a LEO know about carrying, aiming, firing all while dealing with a crisis situation? Now I'm not talking about your average suburban cop who feels a drug bust is finding a kid with an ounce of weed, I'm talking about what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?

I don't think you can speak in absolutes here. I doubt you will find many officers who can aim and fire better than a Jerry Miculek, Dave Sevigny or another civilian shooter who can spend all day shooting. However, police do receive firearms training, and qualify so they know a heck of a lot more than a civilian anti who is scared to even touch a gun.

Likewise, I am sure there are numerous civilians out there who can keep their cool in a crisis situation and be more useful in any situation than an overweight police receptionist that spends her day filing her nails. However, a hardworking veteran cop who patrols a rough area (the type of cop who always caries a BUG), probably knows more about fighting under stress as well as a combat veteran.

what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?

The privilege is does not come directly from a policeman's training. It comes from the fact that years ago society decided years ago it was better to let the government monopolize force so that there isn't a Hatfield v. McCoy situation where everyone is trying to kill everyone else over a slight that nobody can remember. Since a police officer is a neutral arbiter coming into frequently dangerous situations, society has given them quite a bit of leeway 1) take control of a tense situation, and 2) make reasonable mistakes.

I think one thing that makes America great and separates us from the rest of the world, is that almost everyone, anywhere in America can call 911 and have a hardworking cop appear in a matter of minutes to take control of a situation and kick a bad guys behind if he gets out of line. IMHE, even in downtown London, the police have no intention of interrupting a crime, they come hours later to take a report.

I think the deference given to the government on what an officer is required to know is getting a little strained, however I blame politicians for passing so many stupid laws for that, not the police.

 

[Oyeboten]

In theory, Police are people, drawn from the ranks of general Citizens, who happen to enlist for providing a public service for dealing more directly with peace keeping and crime matters.

With this come certain privledges and responsibilities the average Citizen does not have.


Because they may drive Squad Cars does not make them Mechanics or Automotive Engineering students nor necessarily even good Drivers.

Because they wear Uniforms does not make them experts in Textiles or Tailoring or Style.

Because they carry Guns, does not make them anything in particular in that regard.

Etc...

 

[Dimis]

honestly the answer isnt skill related but falls unfortunatly in the "police cynicism" catagory
not bashing cops in any way but veteran police officers begin to mistrust the public in general

if you were lied to constantly and put in harms way on a daily basis and all this was your JOB and unavoidable you may become skeptical of the public too

think of it like when your driving along the highway and theres some guy in the left lane holding up traffic the classic "rolling roadblock" you think to yourself I wish people like that couldnt get a licence or own a car well thats how the police see gun owners all they see is the criminal on a daily basis with the wrong attitude and poor judgment involving firearms so they begin to think ANYONE with a firearm is a threat and dangerous

so the next logical step in there eyes is to voice the opinion of no one should have guns except us and givin that they are only thinking this way on a survival related thought pattern its not that they truely are after our guns they just want there jobs to be safer

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think one thing that makes America great and separates us from the rest of the world, is that almost everyone, anywhere in America can call 911 and have a hardworking cop appear in a matter of minutes to take control of a situation and kick a bad guys behind if he gets out of line. IMHE, even in downtown London, the police have no intention of interrupting a crime, they come hours later to take a report.

True. But careful not to take that too far. The government had a monopoly of force in the USSR too. But that didn't make them good guys.

think of it like when your driving along the highway and theres some guy in the left lane holding up traffic the classic "rolling roadblock" you think to yourself I wish people like that couldnt get a licence or own a car well thats how the police see gun owners all they see is the criminal on a daily basis with the wrong attitude and poor judgment involving firearms so they begin to think ANYONE with a firearm is a threat and dangerous

so the next logical step in there eyes is to voice the opinion of no one should have guns except us and givin that they are only thinking this way on a survival related thought pattern its not that they truely are after our guns they just want there jobs to be safer

I think the OP was referring to anti-gun civilians who think police should be the only ones who own guns, not police who think that. In fact, I don't know many officers who even do think that only police should own guns. That's mostly a brass/administrator opinion. Most patrol officers I know are very much in favor of lawful gun ownership.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

True. But careful not to take that too far. The government had a monopoly of force in the USSR too. But that didn't make them good guys.

It's a balance. I think we do a better job than any other country. However, everyone gets screwed when the balance falls out of whack.

I disagree that the USSR had a monopoly on force, but I'm sure the politburo liked to think that they did. Since much of their economy was illegal, most transactions occurred without police review. You can't call the police if someone steals your potatoes if it was illegal to grow and have them in the first place. - So you have your brother or someone handle it for you.

 

[Gouranga]

IMO, standard cops (talking non-SWAT type) have equal or in many cases LESS training/experience on shooting than a lot of shooters. My sister is a Capt in a small town police force, her husband is a Det on that same force. Between January and April of this week, I fired more shots than they will all year combined.

What they do have, it more authority (as they should with their job) in using the weapon.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I've heard from some people I know that they don't believe that anyone should be allowed to "carry guns" except for cops. ...what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?...

[1] I'm all in favor of private citizens being able to legally carry guns for protection. I have several concealed carry permits and carry a gun whenever I legally can.

But I'm also dismayed at the number of private citizens who aren't terribly interested in getting some decent training and who don't feel the need to train and practice.

For example, here's what someone wrote on another board:

Beginners need to go to http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ and check out the huge numbers of people (in the archives) who've managed to defend themselves with a firearm and yet have NEVER had one minute of specialized training.... it's just common sense.

But let's compare some requirements for private citizens and LEOs.

[2] The training required of a private citizen for concealed weapons permit is nothing like that of an LEO.

Many States have no training requirement for the issuance of a concealed weapons permit. Some require only some minimal showing of the most basic familiarity with firearms. Often mere completion of a Hunters' Educations or NRA Basic Handgun class will suffice, and such classes really have nothing to do with practical weapons craft in a violent encounter.

Even in those States with a specific training requirement, it is extremely modest. It's usually a very basic one day class. Only a few States, I believe, require as much as two whole days of training.

On the other hand, most States require considerably more firearms and use of force training for an LEO. In California, for example, the minimum required is a 64 hour course, with 40 hours of instruction in the legal aspects of arrest and use of force and 24 hours firearms training, with satisfactory demonstration of proficiency. Many agencies provide and require additional training. And LEOs must re-qualify at least annually.

[3] LEOs are subject to a far more stringent screening and background check process than private citizens applying for a concealed weapons permit.

Private citizens applying for a concealed weapons permit need merely to pass a records check. This is the same sort of background check folks like school bus drives need to pass. It merely establishes that as of the time of the check the person whose fingerprints were submitted does not have a record of a criminal conviction appearing on the data bases checked.

On the other hand a person who has completed the [often extensive] educational requirements for a sworn LEO position will generally, in most jurisdictions, be subject to a far more extensive and intrusive screening:

[a] He will have to undergo and successfully complete a psychological evaluation.

He will complete an extensive personal history questionnaire and be subject to multiple interviews probing his personal and social history.

[c] He will be subject to a background check that goes well beyond a mere records check and will include interviewing his friends and neighbors.

[d] And he still won't get the job unless that leadership of the employing agency decides that he satisfies their standards.

[e] If he gets the job, he will be on probation for at least a year and carry out his duties under the close monitoring of a field training officer.

In addition --

[a] An LEO operates under the supervision of his supervisors in a highly structured chain of command and subject to detailed policies and procedures.

An LEO, as a condition of employment, does not have a right to remain silent. He is required to cooperate with any investigation of his conduct, and he must answer questions. In some cases he can be required to submit to a polygraph examination.

 

[Gouranga]

fiddletown, I see what you are getting at but for #3 and LEO SHOULD get more background checks not because of firearms but because they are given a huge level of authority over citizens. They are given arrest authority, looser restrictions on use of deadly force, and many other levels of authority that should NOT be given lightly.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

fiddletown, I see what you are getting at but for #3 and LEO SHOULD get more background checks not because of firearms but because they are given a huge level of authority over citizens. They are given arrest authority, looser restrictions on use of deadly force, and many other levels of authority that should NOT be given lightly.

Which, as a rule, means firearms.

 

[Gouranga]

Which, as a rule, means firearms.

Not just the carry of firearms but the use of them. The training they need and screening is because of that authority not just possessing a firearm.

As an armed citizen my use of deadly force (as defined in the State of NC) is much more restricted than an LEO. They also can carry just about anywhere, vs my carry rights are restricted even with a CCW.