What is handgun competency to you

[Kong Soo Do]

Just curious....what are your qualifications?

You stated your a State certified police firearms instructor.....do you work for an agency as a firearms instructor?

Yes. I'm am a State certified instructor in firearms and defensive tactics and have taught academies, EOT and in-service. I'm 27 years into my career as a Deputy for one of the largest agencies in my state. Additionally, I have several advanced instructor certifications, one of which is as an Israeli Instinctive Shooting Instructor which is the IC method plus other tactics. My BIL, niece and nephew are or were active IDF (detective, presidential protection (PM actually as well as visiting dignitaries). I also have credentials in Executive Protection and in the military.

None of this is said as a pat on the back, I've just been fortunate to have had the opportunity to take a lot of high level training over a very long career. I'm still on-the-job and still learning.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As I stated above, the differential in time in inconsequential.

Right. So as I said, it's slower. Thanks for admitting it. And it's more complicated. Which means more prone to error.
You can rationalize it in any way that makes you happy.

 

[CB Jones]

Yes. I'm am a State certified instructor in firearms and defensive tactics and have taught academies, EOT and in-service. I'm 27 years into my career as a Deputy for one of the largest agencies in my state. Additionally, I have several advanced instructor certifications, one of which is as an Israeli Instinctive Shooting Instructor which is the IC method plus other tactics. My BIL, niece and nephew are or were active IDF (detective, presidential protection (PM actually as well as visiting dignitaries). I also have credentials in Executive Protection and in the military.

None of this is said as a pat on the back, I've just been fortunate to have had the opportunity to take a lot of high level training over a very long career. I'm still on-the-job and still learning.

Your Agency allows and/or teaches Israeli Carry?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

That makes sense.

As to your above point, that's an advantage of someone being trained more, rather than an advantage of IC. I prefer not to confound the two. Just because the average IC user is more trained than the average carrier, that is not really an argument for or against either - rather, it's an argument for training. Personally, I'd rather be highly trained in a slightly more complex method than untrained in a really simple method. But that says nothing about the value of either method; I'd just rather be highly trained than untrained.

Normally I am all for keeping things as stupid simple as I possibly can. And to be honest, prior to becoming an instructor in the method I was skeptical (the whole class was mainly because we were all instructors in other methods and doubted the voracity of IC). After taking the class, well, while being the most painful firearms course I've ever taken it was also 'flat out and hands down' the best...by far! Pure combat shooting.

So it goes down to the old saying of, 'if it looks stupid but it works...it's not stupid'.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Your Agency allows and/or teaches Israeli Carry?

No, policy dictates a round chambered because not everyone has been trained in the method. Fiscally it is difficult to do that level of training with thousands of Deputies. Particularly when tens of thousands of dollars have already been spent on each Deputy in another methodology from the Academy and up.

However, our regional training center offers this training which is where I became an instructor.

 

[CB Jones]

No, policy dictates a round chambered because not everyone has been trained in the method.

If that method is better....Why not change policy that if trained in method the deputy is allowed to use that method. Furthermore, from this point on start training all new hires in this method and phase out the old method with time.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If that method is better....Why not change policy that if trained in method the deputy is allowed to use that method. Furthermore, from this point on start training all new hires in this method and phase out the old method with time.

Couple of issues. First, it would have to change on a state-wide level. Recruits are taught in an academy, in a regional training center. The outline is one that is approved by the state's L.E. standards and training. By statute and state policy certain things have to be taught the same for standardization purposes. That way Officer so-in-so in a small rural dept. has the same mandated firearms and DT training as Deputy so-in-so in a large dept. At least that is the theory. It often ends at the academy level unfortunately. Only then are the recruits sent to the agency that hired and/or sponsored them for orientation and field training.

Now imagine a dept. like mine that has 2K+ sworn. You'd have to retrain each new hire to the new methodology that in part differs from the methodology they just learned and qualified in to graduate. In addition you'd have to implement a program to retrain veteran officers/Deputies otherwise you'd have a mix-match of training which is unsound in a tactical situation. All of this while you are still having state mandated training in all the other areas a Deputy is required to be re-certified in i.e. DT, CPR, AED, Baton, ASR, less-than-lethal, bean bag, long gun, driving, CIT, ethics, law, blood borne pathogens and the list goes on and on and on. I can't speak for any other state or their departments but we are always being updated in training or recertifying or learning new stuff. For example, Taser just changed procedures so everyone department wide gets updated.

All of that with a training staff already obligated in fifty other projects as well. It just isn't feasible or physically possible even if the training staff were increased substantially. And then this goes into the fiscal aspect. We already go through who knows how many rounds in a year for normal training. That costs money, both for the FMJ training rounds (to include .380, .38, 9mm and .45) but also the GD hollowpoints issued. Duty round is .45acp but off-duty the other calibers are authorized which means $ has to be spent in all those other calibers for training and qualification.

The state isn't about to change their standards. First because there are those that don't understand the methodology or what the system offers as a whole. Secondly, again the budget. All the instructors statewide would have to be retrained into the methodology. Just isn't going to happen.

However, the method is valid on an individual basis for those (CCW holders) that would like to learn. That's why I teach it if it is desired. At the very least, all the stuff I mentioned in my first post should be incorporated into training regardless of actual carry method.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If that method is better....

And to clarify, I'm not stating that it is better. Only that if properly trained it can be better overall. That boils down to the commitment of the individual. Also that the system simply works regardless of anyone like YM that offers an unqualified opinion to the contrary.

And I like YM and subscribe to his channel. He's a hoot sometimes and I often agree with him on stuff. But this is an area that he's not qualified to have a valid opinion. Sure, he can have an opinion, but an opinion is only worth what backs it up.

 

[CB Jones]

Still I find it hard to believe if that was a better method or as good a method that your department couldn’t put into place a policy authorizing you to carry IC if you were trained and certified in that method.

That policy could easily be written before lunch.

 

[CB Jones]

Again I like the point shooting but I disagree with carrying with an empty chamber.
In that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

We might not be on the same sheet of music. If you’re talking about on duty, it is not logistically, or financially possible. If you’re talking about off-duty, then it is possible. I can carry IC off-duty if I want to.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Again I like the point shooting but I disagree with carrying with an empty chamber.
In that we will have to agree to disagree.

I tell people to carry as they were trained. I also tell people, to get as much training as possible, with whatever method they choose.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Also, it is not my mission to change how people carry. But as an instructor, fluent in both methodologies, I feel a duty to point out inaccurate statements and false information when I see it.

 

[CB Jones]

We might not be on the same sheet of music. If you’re talking about on duty, it is not logistically, or financially possible. If you’re talking about off-duty, then it is possible. I can carry IC off-duty if I want to.

No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.

 

[CB Jones]

I’m just trying to understand why certify you in IC if the department doesn’t allow it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.

That isn’t true. Waving a magic pen without consideration of uniform tactics is unsound. For example, our dept issues the same duty weapon, same ammo, same holsters for consistency of tactics and training. Some agencies allow staff to carry on duty any weapon they want and can qualify with. That’s not a sound strategy. Let’s say you and I are partners. I carry a Glock in .45acp. You carry an HK 9mm with a thumb safety. One of us goes down or runs low on ammo or has a malfunction involving a magazine. Are you familiar with a Glock .45? Am I familiar with an HK with a thumb safety? Our ammunition and mags are not compatible so we have no available options to exchange for malfunction clearance or ammonia shortage. Tactically unsound. Same if you have some Officers carrying in a different condition. Things go south and under stress it is beneficial for all involved to be as in sync as possible.

I’m just trying to understand why certify you in IC if the department doesn’t allow it.

Dept didn’t certify me, regional training center offered the instructors only course put on by the Israeli’s. As an instructor I feel an obligation to advance as much as possible, not only for my own benefit but to offer the mst I can to a student. Even without empty chamber as a factor the tactics offered in that course were invaluable.

 

[Dirty Dog]

That isn’t true. Waving a magic pen without consideration of uniform tactics is unsound. For example, our dept issues the same duty weapon, same ammo, same holsters for consistency of tactics and training. Some agencies allow staff to carry on duty any weapon they want and can qualify with. That’s not a sound strategy. Let’s say you and I are partners. I carry a Glock in .45acp. You carry an HK 9mm with a thumb safety. One of us goes down or runs low on ammo or has a malfunction involving a magazine. Are you familiar with a Glock .45? Am I familiar with an HK with a thumb safety? Our ammunition and mags are not compatible so we have no available options to exchange for malfunction clearance or ammonia shortage. Tactically unsound. Same if you have some Officers carrying in a different condition. Things go south and under stress it is beneficial for all involved to be as in sync as possible.

So officers aren't smart enough to figure out a thumb safety, but the added complication of loading the gun (under stress) prior to firing isn't important.

 

[Buka]

No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.

I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting anything changed, about anything - takes forever. If at all.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting anything changed, about anything - takes forever. If at all.

But that's more a matter of Cultural Inertia, than actual ability.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So officers aren't smart enough to figure out a thumb safety, but the added complication of loading the gun (under stress) prior to firing isn't important.

Lets take a close look at your question. Officers are people. People react the way they've trained under stress/duress. Unlike Hollywood portrayals, Officers don't shoot three people before lunch or shoot down helicopters with a 9mm. So to begin, I discussed similarity of tactics, holsters and weapons. I have a triple retention holster on duty. I'm pretty darn quick getting the weapon out of that triple retention holster because I've done so in training and for real thousands upon thousands of time. If you have no familiarity with that holster, and you were under duress such as being shot at it would take time to be able to draw from that holster. Doesn't mean your not 'smart enough' as you put it. It means that under duress it is going to take you time with an unfamiliar piece of equipment. How much time will vary from individual to individual. Same with any firearm you're not familiar with. If you aren't a 'gun' person (and most Officers aren't) and you are only familiar with what you've been trained with then you may indeed have a level of difficulty with an unfamiliar weapon. A good example would be an 'American' mag release vs. a European mag release such as on the Walther or HK. It can be figured out, but under duress it becomes more difficult.

Secondly, you use the misinformation of 'added complication of loading'. Well, if the person is trained in IC then it isn't an added complication now is it. It is simply one added step that has been trained for by rote that is no more difficult than using your thumb to drop a mag or using the other hand to grab a fresh mag while your dropping the mag with your thumb. I've done it under duress and since I've trained for it...no added complication. Simply doing the steps necessary to accomplish a task that has been trained for repeatedly.

So your comparing apples and oranges and thus your argument has no validity.