LEOs have more access to superior training than most private citizens but, as a group, pay far less attention to it, and often don't take advantage of any non mandated training opportunity.
It might come as a surprise to some gun owners, but the majority of LEOs have little interest in firearms and hope they never have a situation where they might need one. To them their career choice is a job, just like any other job and they just want to put in their time, get paid, and go home. Getting involved in serious social situations where guns are drawn and fired is a nightmare to most LEOs, and many go to great lengths to avoid it. The average cop never fires his weapon during his entire career except on the range, and they like it that way.
- Most LEOs tend to be terrible shooters who struggle to pass required proficiency examinations.
- Many LEOs are very careless with their firearms often failing to clean them or check them unless they are attending a mandatory training or qualification event.
- Some actually (in violation of their own agency rules) often work days at a time without being sure where their duty weapon actually exists.
Notes: I had a very good friend (LEO) who unloaded his duty weapon under instruction at a training range, and spent two months on the job carrying a totally empty sidearm before discovering it was empty. I have know at least a half a dozen FBI agents who were always looking for their sidearms when they thought they were going to need them. I was once in a firefight where I had to loan two LEOs two of my backup weapons because the driver couldn't find his (we found it later under the seat of the car) and the other had forgotten his altogether. I once watched two city police officers discharge 12 rounds between them (six each) in an alley at a rabid raccoon without hitting it. When one of them suggested going for the riot gun, I stepped up, identified myself, and dispatched the terrified raccoon with a single shot from my smallest backup weapon. When certain federal agencies were attempting to train experienced officers on single action semi automatics, the number of "accidental discharges" were legion and frightening. Unfortunately these stories could go on and on.
The armed citizen on the other hand knows, or should know, that if firearms are discharged, they often will be the only "good guy" in the confrontation. That means only their skills, their training, and their attitude are going to determine which side is going to win. It also means ten times the potential for immediate hassle, possible arrest, and large legal bills the LEO doesn't normally face which can make the citizen hesitate far longer than they should.
The armed citizen cannot afford to not take advantage of all the correct training they can afford and can access. They cannot afford to not give the training their full attentions and follow up with as much practice on their own as they can manage. The problem is often where and how to get the right training and how to judge if the training is actually appropriate for their needs.
Before jumping into a discussion about training, it is primary to understand what the average armed citizen is training for:
- Encounters, sometimes in the middle of the night, in their own home and on their own property;
- Sudden and unexpected encounters out in public;
- Most encounters will take place at less than 21 feet, and often at arms length.
Armed Citizen Training
Most military or LEO based training has little or no bearing on what the average armed citizen really needs. I am amazed at all the training being offered to concealed carry permit holders that requires scaling walls, constant running, only to shoot at targets 25-50 years away. I am equally amazed at the training gurus who insist you need a black belt in some martial art along with learning how to actually shoot. All of those are certainly valid for the military and for LEOs, but not for the 60 year grandmother or even the 45 year old white collar guy who just wants to protect themselves and perhaps some loved ones.
Do not misunderstand me. For the citizen that really wants to shoot IPSC matches, that is their choice as long as they realize they are learning to play at combat rather than learning to win in the type of firefight they are likely to engage in. At the very least, they will learn how to focus on what they are doing under stress.
Most LEO background instructors are as lousy a choice as most NRA instructors when it comes to instructing armed citizens in what they need to know and what they need to accomplish to protect themselves in the situations they will encounter. Please do not jump to any conclusions. I am a Life Member of the NRA and am an active member. If you do not belong and you own even one firearm you should join. I am also a former LEO firearms instructor. Here are my reasons for my statement:
- Almost every NRA certified instructor I have ever met focuses on safety in every course. That is certainly an important goal because no one wants an accidental shooting during training. The problem is, certain exercises are often avoided because of either increased costs to stage, or because of too much caution, so far too much goes untaught, and some very bad habits can be learned along the way. The very basic courses are very good for those who know little or nothing about the firearms they intend to use and any neophytes should enroll in the basic course and pay attention. Beyond that point, different training is needed and the NRA is not the place to get it.
- Instructors with LEO backgrounds do have some advantages over many NRA instructors, but most LEO instructors developed their expertise training uniformed officers who (see above) rarely are interested in doing any more than passing the training and the range requirements. They are used to training people to semi accurately punch paper targets at far longer distances than any armed citizen is likely to need. They are also used to people carefully drawing a sidearm from a LEO style holster before even thinking about acquiring their target, which is absolutely wrong for an armed citizen suddenly facing a deadly threat.
There have always been exceptions. I would have loved to have access to training by Jim Cirello when he was with FLETC. Massad Ayoob is an exceptional trainer in many areas of importance to armed citizens and a valuable contact if an armed conflict occurs and expert testimony is required. Bill Jordan, now long gone, lacked patience at times, but knew what needed to be known.
Why are some LEO firearms instructors very good at proper instruction and others either not so good or horrible for training non LEOs? Part of the reason is that many, if not most, LEO firearms instructors aren't even very good at training LEOs that work as investigators or agents. Those LEOs working as undercover agents or investigators are especially often undertrained or trained incorrectly.
Those working in undercover assignments, like the armed citizen, generally when confronted with a life or death situation have only themselves to rely on. They, like the armed citizen, are normally carrying handguns only, and they are carrying them concealed. Most of the confrontations are at 15 feet or less, and they may be facing multiple adversaries who caught them more or less by surprise.
Conventional LEO and military training does not contain the right components to prepare either the undercover LEO or the armed citizen very well for these types of encounters, nor does the civilian training that focuses or prepares someone to hit targets accurately at longer distances. Because of safety concerns, almost no military or LEO training spends much if any time having trainees drawing from concealment and firing live ammunition at a target. The ease and speed of the draw is extremely important for both the armed citizen and the lone LEO, and yet it is almost never taught, nor is on your own practice encouraged as much as it should be.
In some ways, this is "shades of the old west", but in many important ways, it is completely different. The fast draws seen in old westerns, and the fast draw competitions that still exist depend largely on specially created guns and highly engineered holsters designed to be carried openly. The special aluminum barrels make the gun itself faster to draw, and the steel lined holsters with just the right pitch and cant make sure the gun can be drawn quickly and that, with operator training and coaching, will naturally force the gun to present itself at the target easier than other, more conventional holsters. Unfortunately, these rigs and guns are totally impractical in real life. These setup are as far from what a uniformed LEO needs as the the uniformed LEO rigs are from what an undercover agent or armed citizen is going to be using to carry concealed.
The painful truth can be easily seen in the firearms retention systems chosen by most armed citizens. The systems often chosen are inadequate and not truly purpose driven. While it is important to choose a system that one can live with and will use - meaning it is comfortable over long periods, it is equally important that that system be both reasonably secure against loss during a struggle and fast to access and draw from. Serious questions must be considered when thinking about "on the body" systems as opposed to "off the body" systems, and whatever system is chosen, that real time and live ammo practice with that system be a regular part of any training. Unfortunately, very little of that type of training is actually done or advocated by most LEO or NRA instructors.
One of the most important factors in selecting a training program is to research the instructors themselves. From my perspective any instructor who hasn't been a part of serious social situations (read gunfight) and hasn't been faced with the need to respond by shooting at another human being in order to survive themselves isn't the right person to be instructing. Those who have been actually shot in a situation also bring real value to training. There is no substitute for real life experience.
Unfortunately, people who have this experience are very shy in today's world to publicize or talk very much about it. Charles Askins who certainly had all the expertise anyone could ask for, was very public about his gunfights in the U.S. Border Patrol was often shunned and even ostracized for his public reputation. At one point he was even asked to his face if he considered himself a "psychopathic killer". Jim Cirello was denied promotions in the New York City Police Department because of his reputation. Other very qualified and experienced people learned from this early, and rarely discussed their actual gunfight experience other than what they might have written prior to learning the lessons of others.
In today's politically correct world, it would be career suicide for a LEO who has been heavily engaged in gun fights to discuss them publicly. Incident reports are heavily edited and even the collective data gathered by various law enforcement organizations are difficult to interpret and often far from complete.
Worse, the known experts are mostly gone now or so old they are no longer active. The new ones with real experience rarely talk about their background in a public setting but they do exist and they are worth seeking out if one is looking for real world training.
Why are some LEO firearms instructors very good at proper instruction and others either not so good or horrible for training non LEOs? Part of the reason is that many, if not most, LEO firearms instructors aren't even very good at training LEOs that work as investigators or agents. Those LEOs working as undercover agents or investigators are especially often undertrained or trained incorrectly.
Those working in undercover assignments, like the armed citizen, generally when confronted with a life or death situation have only themselves to rely on. They, like the armed citizen, are normally carrying handguns only, and they are carrying them concealed. Most of the confrontations are at 15 feet or less, and they may be facing multiple adversaries who caught them more or less by surprise.
Conventional LEO and military training does not contain the right components to prepare either the undercover LEO or the armed citizen very well for these types of encounters, nor does the civilian training that focuses or prepares someone to hit targets accurately at longer distances. Because of safety concerns, almost no military or LEO training spends much if any time having trainees drawing from concealment and firing live ammunition at a target. The ease and speed of the draw is extremely important for both the armed citizen and the lone LEO, and yet it is almost never taught, nor is on your own practice encouraged as much as it should be.
In some ways, this is "shades of the old west", but in many important ways, it is completely different. The fast draws seen in old westerns, and the fast draw competitions that still exist depend largely on specially created guns and highly engineered holsters designed to be carried openly. The special aluminum barrels make the gun itself faster to draw, and the steel lined holsters with just the right pitch and cant make sure the gun can be drawn quickly and that, with operator training and coaching, will naturally force the gun to present itself at the target easier than other, more conventional holsters. Unfortunately, these rigs and guns are totally impractical in real life. These setup are as far from what a uniformed LEO needs as the the uniformed LEO rigs are from what an undercover agent or armed citizen is going to be using to carry concealed.
The painful truth can be easily seen in the firearms retention systems chosen by most armed citizens. The systems often chosen are inadequate and not truly purpose driven. While it is important to choose a system that one can live with and will use - meaning it is comfortable over long periods, it is equally important that that system be both reasonably secure against loss during a struggle and fast to access and draw from. Serious questions must be considered when thinking about "on the body" systems as opposed to "off the body" systems, and whatever system is chosen, that real time and live ammo practice with that system be a regular part of any training. Unfortunately, very little of that type of training is actually done or advocated by most LEO or NRA instructors.
One of the most important factors in selecting a training program is to research the instructors themselves. From my perspective any instructor who hasn't been a part of serious social situations (read gunfight) and hasn't been faced with the need to respond by shooting at another human being in order to survive themselves isn't the right person to be instructing. Those who have been actually shot in a situation also bring real value to training. There is no substitute for real life experience.
Unfortunately, people who have this experience are very shy in today's world to publicize or talk very much about it. Charles Askins who certainly had all the expertise anyone could ask for, was very public about his gunfights in the U.S. Border Patrol was often shunned and even ostracized for his public reputation. At one point he was even asked to his face if he considered himself a "psychopathic killer". Jim Cirello was denied promotions in the New York City Police Department because of his reputation. Other very qualified and experienced people learned from this early, and rarely discussed their actual gunfight experience other than what they might have written prior to learning the lessons of others.
In today's politically correct world, it would be career suicide for a LEO who has been heavily engaged in gun fights to discuss them publicly. Incident reports are heavily edited and even the collective data gathered by various law enforcement organizations are difficult to interpret and often far from complete.
Worse, the known experts are mostly gone now or so old they are no longer active. The new ones with real experience rarely talk about their background in a public setting but they do exist and they are worth seeking out if one is looking for real world training.
