Answering the "civilians don't have LEO training" objection to firearms carry

[rbMPSH12]

We all know that a common "argument" anti-gunners make against people being allowed to carry guns in public is that the average civilian doesn't have the training that police officers have and therefore can't respond in a reasonable way to a threat, becoming a danger to everyone around them. We also know that this "argument" is flawed because a lot of LEO training is irrelevant to the armed civilian. I also learned from my LEO friend that they are not required to practice with their firearm as much as one would think (twice a year shooting paper targets?). But surely they have other types of training.

So my question is this, and maybe some LEOs can chime in. In terms of just the types of training that are relevant to the armed civilian, how much (frequency etc) and what types of training would a civilian need to be considered "LEO-equivalent" in those aspects of training? It may be a tough question to answer, but I'm just not familiar with what types of training LEOs go through for things such as stress inoculation, mindset, fight training, gun training etc... I guess I'm asking at what point could someone honestly answer that objection and be able to say that they are legitimately LEO equivalent in relevant aspects of training? I'm not saying that "LEO equivalence" is necessarily the goal of civilian training. I'm just trying to compare civilian training to LEO training.

 

[GIJEW]

This sounds like a good thread for the 'training forum'

 

[rbMPSH12]

I thought it could go either way. It's about carrying and training. Whatever the mods wanna do with it.

 

[wtfd661]

As I recall from the academy we spent a week out at the firing range for qualifications, plus there were FoF training with simunitions, FATS training, class room instructions on the legal aspects of using deadly force, gun retention training during PT (Physical Tactics), active shooter, but to be honest I can't remember exactly how many hours it totaled up to for the entire academy. As far as my department is concerned we qualify 4 times a year (quarterly) plus in between those times we will continue to work/train doing either PT work , FoF, class room etc, whatever the firearms instructor comes up with .

As far as the original question goes about the anti-gunners making about anyone carrying a gun in public, my answer would be, there is no training requirement to exercising a constitutional right.

 

[hpclayto]

Way less training than you would think.

 

[Alamo]

Aside from the rights-based/constitutional and political reasons that make such anti-gun arguments irrelevant...

It sounds like what you are really asking for is "What training does the State of Indiana require for a law enforcement officer to legally carry a handgun?" I would imagine that Indiana has an agency that sets the training standards for initial (e.g. at academy for new cops) and recurrent training (in the department). This training would not be just bang-bang at the range, but include law on legalities of use of force and deadly force and decision making in a violent incident. This would be guided in part by Tuttle vs Oklahoma http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=808 in which the SCOTUS declared that

For law enforcement firearms training to be valid, it must incorporate: stress, decision making, attitude, knowledge, skill, shoot-don’t-shoot, moving targets, officer required to move, low light or adverse light shooting, in-service training and shotgun training.

Indiana most likely either incorporated that into a statute directly or created a law that assigned a state agency to formulate the minimum training requirements that incorporate Tuttle vs Oklahoma, and any other relevant court cases along the way. So find the agency, find their requirements for police officers, and there you have your answer. (It might be helpful to search on "POST" Peace Officer Standards and Training). I am sure there are police departments who require a bit more training than the state standard, but there are probably many that don't as well.

I have been to quite a few firearms self-defense courses with Farnam, Dalton, Human, Puzikas, and others, mostly attended by regular Joes, but always a few police officers. These courses usually incorporated the legal/moral dimensions of use of force as well as bang-bang. Without exception, at the end of the course the police officers would state that we had received more relevant, serious training in one weekend than most police officers have been exposed to in a career. These cops were often instructors/trainers in their own department, and all bemoaned how hard it is to get most cops to show up for their annual or semi-annual qualification with their handgun, never mind get any extra training.

There are a number of police officer that do seek more and better training on a recurring basis, but that actual requirements to be authorized to tote a sidearm seem to be pretty low. So I don't think "as well trained as a police officer" is a terribly high bar. (See first paragraph of this: Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?)

Of course this is all irrelevant to those who make the argument you are trying to refute, because those who expouse it don't really care if civilians are as well or better trained or not - they are just popping smoke and spreading chaff. Their opposition to armed citizens is not based on "training."

(Which is why this thread probably doesnt' belong in the Training Forum )

Perhaps you will get a more detailed answer from one of the LEOs on the board who can point you to the state requirements.

 

[SSGSAD]

We all know that a common "argument" anti-gunners make against people being allowed to carry guns in public is that the average civilian doesn't have the training that police officers have and therefore can't respond in a reasonable way to a threat, becoming a danger to everyone around them. We also know that this "argument" is flawed because a lot of LEO training is irrelevant to the armed civilian. I also learned from my LEO friend that they are not required to practice with their firearm as much as one would think (twice a year shooting paper targets?). But surely they have other types of training.

So my question is this, and maybe some LEOs can chime in. In terms of just the types of training that are relevant to the armed civilian, how much (frequency etc) and what types of training would a civilian need to be considered "LEO-equivalent" in those aspects of training? It may be a tough question to answer, but I'm just not familiar with what types of training LEOs go through for things such as stress inoculation, mindset, fight training, gun training etc... I guess I'm asking at what point could someone honestly answer that objection and be able to say that they are legitimately LEO equivalent in relevant aspects of training? I'm not saying that "LEO equivalence" is necessarily the goal of civilian training. I'm just trying to compare civilian training to LEO training.

I have an answer..... Everyone, that wants to carry a handgun, just become Reserve LEO, and POOF, LEO training, and their argument goes away .....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[MisterChester]

Are there any specific classes civilians can take that are similar to these tests of stress, decision making, marksmanship, etc. that police do for training here in IN? Sounds like it's be a good one.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I have an answer..... Everyone, that wants to carry a handgun, just become Reserve LEO, and POOF, LEO training, and their argument goes away .....

So handicapped people that can't pass a physical test to become a reserve LEO can't carry?

 

[drillsgt]

So handicapped people that can't pass a physical test to become a reserve LEO can't carry?

You'd almost have to be "handicapped" not to pass.

 

[Destro]

just become Reserve LEO

Too risky for some INGOers, the basement steps are noisy and they might wake mom up.

 

[Bennettjh]

...As far as the original question goes about the anti-gunners making about anyone carrying a gun in public, my answer would be, there is no training requirement to exercising a constitutional right.

My thoughts as well.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

LEO training varies wildly. The state minimum could be passed by your average grandmother while she knits with her off hand. Some departments go well above this, and unfortunately, some do not.

I am a *huge* proponent of force on force training. Simunitions is a great tool and is very eye opening. You'll learn real quick what works and what doesn't, decision making on the fly, etc.

IMPD has an excellent range staff, and I feel our training is top shelf. We do a lot of fundamental line shooting, but we also do significant amounts of shooting on the move, shoot/no-shoot scenarios, low light, barriers and use of cover, etc. Some specialty units get more training than others. Patrol riflemen get an extra day of in-service each year, SWAT trains a ton, ERG gets a bit of extra training on active shooter type situations. Some small departments just get to shoot paper at an indoor range twice a year.

 

[jsharmon7]

As I recall from the academy we spent a week out at the firing range for qualifications, plus there were FoF training with simunitions, FATS training, class room instructions on the legal aspects of using deadly force, gun retention training during PT (Physical Tactics), active shooter, but to be honest I can't remember exactly how many hours it totaled up to for the entire academy.

LEO training varies wildly.

Some small departments just get to shoot paper at an indoor range twice a year.

I think these two posts highlight the difficulty in answering such a question. There are folks here on INGO who put more rounds downrange in a few months than some police officers do in a career. Some departments don't have the resources or personnel to do much more than punching paper once a year on a 48 round qualification course. I'm fortunate that my department is big enough to be able to do some interesting and applicable in-service training, but some do much more than we do.

The bottom line though, as wtfd661 stated, is that it's a Constitutional right which requires no further explanation or proof of ability than any other Amendment. When we start to negotiate with the anti-gunners and try to conform to their opinions of who and what is proper, we give them ground. It's your right, exercise it responsibly.

 

[ModernGunner]

Whatever the level required by the LETB, and whether or not some departments meet or exceed that requirement isn't really the question. JMO.

EVERY civilian AND LEO that carries should train, and train regularly, to be as proficient as they are humanly capable. Not only 'rounds downrange', but in the aspects of mindset, gun retention, etc. ALL training is beneficial, and ANY training is helpful.

There is no such thing as 'too much', 'cause it all gets 'different' when some scumbag is shooting real bullets at you or your loved ones. God forbid, at that moment, one 'suddenly' realizes they didn't 'bother' to train and qualify (at least to themself).

Sadly, just as in civilian life, SOME LEO's train to the bare minimum. At least with the LEO's, there's the 'requirement' thing, so they're 'forced' to do some (albeit minimal) training and a qualification to demonstrate some level of proficiency. With civilians, there's nothing. While SOME civilians are likely better trained than LEO's, that would be atypical.

Unfortunately, BOTH groups have those that take advantage of that minimal requirement. But, with civilians, it's a much larger group. Add in that on a given day, a bad guy is much more likely to encounter a civilian than a LEO. The nature of crime being what it is (avoiding LEO's, for the most part), encountering a LEO often takes place AFTER encountering the civilian(s).

So, training and qualification for civilians is at least as important as it is for LEO's, and should be.

 

[sloughfoot]

LEO's have documentation of the firearms training and qualifications they have undergone.

Non-LEO individuals should have documentation of training courses and match results from any competitions. EVERYBODY should be shooting matches of some type or another. For proficiency, and to prove proficiency.

JMHO

 

[Bfish]

A buddy of mine says that they don't train, they "qualify"... He said he has taken advantage of several training opportunities but there are many other officers he knows of who have never had any real form of training to default to.

 

[wtburnette]

Another thing to consider is the info in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-defense/352293-when-citizens-fight-back.html

Basically it states that LEO encounters and civilian encounters are very different, so taking LEO training might not be the best thing for a civilian. That doesn't mean you shouldn't train, but you should train to your likely encounters, not to what a LEO might encounter.

 

[TheSpark]

First off, the best training you can have is experience. Many people who carry tend to enjoy shooting their guns and go target shooting quite often. Cops on the other hand often only have a gun because they have to and overall don't show as much motivation to practice. Of course there are exceptions to both groups. Overall though I'd bet people who carry have more experience shooting their guns than police do as a whole.

As for training in self defense with a gun that is totally up to the individual. Lack of training in that area is likely only to hurt them so it is pretty much irrelevant to any argument in my opinion.

Training is a good idea but I do not believe it should be required. I mean, all you really need to know to carry a gun responsibly is:

1) Use a good holster
2) Keep it holstered
3) Only point gun at things or people you intend to destroy/kill
4) Keep finger off trigger unless you intend to fire

Do you really need professional training to learn all that?