Know Thy Enemy

Discussion in 'Training & Safety' started by BigByrd47119, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Here is a great article which really dives into the minds of criminals that carry, and use, firearms on LEO's. I found it to be a truly interesting read and I hope you will too!

    Beg pardon if it has been posted here before...

    News from The Force Science Research Center

    News from The Force Science Research Center
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  2. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
    Wow! That was an eye-opening read. Should be required reading for all LEOs.

    Sent from my iPhone using FirearmsTalk
     

  3. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I think so too. Lets you know what your up against.
     
  4. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Thats what got my attention. You always hear most of the things mentioned in the article, but I have never seen anyone attempt to actually quantify the points.

    The difference in practice/training really opened my eyes!
     
  5. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    This article has me wondering :"Then why all the broo-hah about

    'assault rifles' ?"
     
  6. BenLuby

    BenLuby New Member

    2,178
    0
    0
    Because the easiest way to disarm a nation is to start with the 'big bad wolf', even if they have to make it up, and go from there.
    Our government tends to approach liberty stomping with the eat an elephant policy. They usually do it a bit at a time, so that the drones in the nation never realize that they lost their rights.
     
  7. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    Most of the information in this article about the police I believe more than the information about the criminals. The police information is more verifiable from official police records (on the other hand I'm not sure the researching did this). The information from the criminal is primarily based on what a criminal is saying!

    From my experience, the level of police training is pretty close to the article. However the level of training the criminal has I think is over stated.

    Regardless, I think the article makes a point well worth the read.
     
  8. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Valid points one and all.

    I will say this though. We don't have any real way of learning more about the criminal element of the equation other than to simply ask. It makes us more or less reliant on what they are willing to tell us.

    I have known many less than favorable characters when I was younger and a lot of what is said in the article seems to be in line with, or perhaps slightly overstated, from what I have known. On the other hand, even when I was younger, I never knew anyone that was bold enough to shoot at the LEO's...
     
  9. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Two things which has stayed with me for years.:

    1)-It's been statistically proven that civilian gun owners

    are generally more accurate than LEOs,

    2)-In repeated interviews with criminals, they openly

    admit they are more afraid of CCWs (us) than LEOs. We

    don't follow police procedure, and we can show up anywhere

    with pop one into them, with no Miranda, warning, or anything.

    And the way the state laws are set up now, they feel we could

    very possibly never even be charged.
     
  10. fmj

    fmj New Member

    3,459
    0
    0
    quoted as FACT!

    What i have never understood is why civies are more proficient than LEOs... imean c'mon. If i had ranges i could shoot for free, got paid to shoot, had paid for ammo etc. I would be pure hell on wheels, a crack shot extrodinare!!
     
  11. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    therewolf,

    Can you list a link to your reference for the above statement. I'm very interested in seeing how the researchers determined this statistic and from which time frame....Thanks.
     
  12. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    No. Everybody gets to do their own google.

    I can, of course, become your research librarian for a fee...
     
  13. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    I didn't ask to put on the spot, I would really like to have that information to make a point. It would appear from your response, you cannot substantiate your statement. Fair enough....

    .
     
  14. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    You have been here long enough to know that stating something as "fact" means you damned well better be able to prove it. If its your impressions or your experience, that's fine, just state it as such. Its considered proper forum procedure here...
     
  15. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    Most agencies only have funding for one maybe two range sessions a year and then only for qualifications. The ranges i frequent have le there on their own dime quite frequuently. But that is likely not representative of the majority. Thee bigger agencies that are big enough for a swat type unit will tend to focus their training funds on that rather than general training for duty officers.

    Not only does it cost the department money for ammo and range time but also training pay to get the officers in to shoot. There may be departments that have shoot all you want policies but i doubt its a large number.

    Couple months ago the wife and i called the local pd to deal with a rabid racoon. Took em 5 shots to dispatch the critter and it wasnt shooting back.

    Not everyone is a instant hero the second the rounds start flying. Its no more different in police than it is for civilians or military personal or even goblins. Its one thing to launch a bullet, being on the recieving end is entirely something else
     
  16. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,232
    268
    83
    My theory to the answer to your question is: Almost all civies who are gunowners are "gun people". We shoot often because we enjoy shooting.

    Some cops really aren't "gun people", they shoot because they have to. If they didn't have to qualify some would probably shoot rarely, if at all.

    When I was taking my training to become a pistol instructor, I was teamed up with a big-city cop who was nearing retirement. I was intimidated in the classroom and dreaded having to shoot next to him. As it turned out, I qualified quickly and this poor guy took hours (if he completed at all). When I left the training, the instructors were going after a .22 target pistol to try to qualify him with. He could not shoot his service pistol.
     
  17. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    A little bit of background....for several years I was the Training Sergeant for Phoenix Company, Arizona Ranger....the last "day job" I had was the Training Officer for Maricopa Country Protective Services Department, of Maricopa Country, Arizona.

    The officers I served with, were not that different for those sworn officers I have trained with from Maricopa County SO, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Butler Township PD, Montgomery County SO, and those officer we have trained at TacTrain, from DPS, Tempe PD, Scottsdale SWAT, MCSO, and others, as well as while at Gunsite with FBI, CIA, and Yavapai County SO.

    In agreement with Chainfire's statement, those who were "gun people" tended to do better at shooting, than those who were not.

    Also, in my experience, there are more "none gun people" going into law enforcement today, than in years past. When I was a teen, almost all "cops" in my community and surrounding towns, had some kind of hunting or shooting experience before their application would even be considered. Now, I am almost shocked how many kids get into the academy's who have never fired a handgun!

    As for civilians, gun people, gun owners.....being better marksman or better shooters than cops.....I don't think so. It seems impossible to me how we could account for this fact, and that is why I wanted to get the background on "Therewolfs" claim he posted previously. out of gun owners in the US, which are "gun people" and tend to shoot more, I would think they are equally split with about the same percentage as are the cops, with good, and not so good shooters.

    .
     
  18. Soliferrum

    Soliferrum New Member

    227
    0
    0
    i agree. its hard to put all cops/sheriffs/highway/constable/swat into a funnel and say average joe is a better shooter. all those tales of cops firing 40 rounds and hitting the perp twice, usually come from inner city police who, i agree, cant shoot for crap. of course the dumb new guy who cant hit the earth with a round is going to make the news, but the cop that was shot 4 times and took out 2 of them with a single mag never make the news.
     
  19. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    delete response to troll
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
  20. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0

    Your statement included "proven". That's pretty definitive. Beings how you also state "statistically" as a basis for this proof, I would really like to use that information. However, how could you, or those whom you have read, quantify that statement through statistics? You would have to have some type of recorded data detailing the accuracy of cops, and then some "like same" data type record of civilians! If you are speaking of open ended accuracy, the data could be developed at the range. You would need some method of randomly selecting the participates for the test. This selection process in itself would probably have a lot of holes in it, not having enough scientific controls to consider a valid statistical measurement. If you are speaking of police shootings, compared to civilian shootings, you have a comparison of apples to oranges and I really don't think there is a method of refining the data from both to make a reasonably defendable argument for either side.

    The word you use which may cover some of the statistical data type mismatches is "generally". And, that is what I was most interested in getting a definition of. Would the variance involved in the classifier of "generally" be that which could defend your statement of "proven"?

    If you state it is your opinion, I think that is fair and I certainly accept it, and "in general" may even go as far as supporting it. If you state your sources from which you have an opinion, that is even better.

    I receive the NRA publications and there is nothing in them which would come even close to anyone forming an opinion of civilian verses police "in general" accuracy. Again, if there is, please point out which issue and article you base that statement.

    When you reference Chris Cox, I assume you mean Chris W. Cox, the NRA-ILA Executive Director. I have reviewed quite a bunch of his work and still found nothing about the statistics comparing civilian and LEO accuracy.

    I hardly think a Reader's Digest 34 years old from 1977 would have the credible information I seek. Nor, do I think it would be timely enough to be substantial. However I did do a search to find the text online, and could not locate the text or the index for the 1st edition.

    I appreciate your reply as well as an opportunity to exchange the basis of your statement. Everyone has an opinion and I respect theirs and yours. I didn't appreciate your previous rude reply, which I felt was totally off base. Like opinions, everyone also has an ass, and yours certainly did show on that post. However your last post was civil and I appreciate your effort. As I stated earlier, I tend to agree with your "statistically proven" statement on a more specific and broader basis in "general". And if there was a believable developed statistic out there, I sure would like to get a hold of a copy.

    .