Nope. That's not what I'm saying. That is one amazing aspect of it though. For instance, lot of people want to shoot well, but not serious about insisting on hitting their target.
Excellent question. The difference between competition shooting and shooting at live targets in self-defense is vast. Here is an example to prioritize hitting the target in self-defense requires you to expose your self to danger, even for a fraction of a second longer than making a casual shot.
On the range, you mean. right? I’m skeptical of the connection you’re attempting to make between the range and under stress.
The connection is there.
Yeah, maybe. We don’t have a lot of data, but what data I’ve seen suggests otherwise. Actual accuracy rates of cops, both under fire and not. I appreciate your confidence, though.
Again, there are very few cops who focus on the mental aspects of handgun shooting.
Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns. Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands. 😅
Excellent answer. Commitment.
I have treated three LEOs for accidental self inflicted gunshot wounds. Two of the three shot themselves in the left distal fifth metacarpal. None of these incidents occurred whilst on duty.
Being willing to die is one of the only legitimate super powers that we can obtain. It allows us to do things normal people can't.
'On the range' is a very general phrase. The average Joe or LEO can go to the range and practice static targets for accuracy and get better, in that environment. As far as I know, all departments require dynamic, TR-22 type training at least annually. In my experience, it was more like monthly.
Thanks. I’m aware and have seen examples of this kind of training.
In that case the minimum requirement to becoming a police officer is being willing to die every second of the day at all times. I'm not talking about the general idea of dying on a shift, rather the idea of being comfortable dying in the next second.
I want to be clear what I'm trying to say. I think good training can make a difference, and I know that there is some good training out there. But for some reason, the training doesn't seem to translate into accuracy rates better than about 35% in any study I've ever seen. As with most things related to police accountability, the statistics are murky, but where they have been collected, it's like 35%. This is the kind of thing that needs to be reviewed in the aggregate, because some cops only fire one bullet, and they hit what they aim at... so 100% accurate. Other cops fire 2 dozen bullets and miss every time. But overall, in study after study, in many different cities, the overall accuracy rate appears to be about 35%.
As is everything related to use of force, each shooting is unique, with an untold amount of variables. Hit rates alone are just one example. Maybe one officer was injured, or had just been in a physical struggle prior to shooting. One may be shooting at contact distance, while another is shooting at a suspect at a distance and behind cover. One may be a hostage shot from a stationary sniper rifle, while another shot is made by an officer with a handgun at a moving vehicle, while round are incoming at him.
The studies are all online, and in recent years, you can also find an annual use of force analysis on most departments' websites. You're filling in gaps with conjecture that are actually pretty well addressed in the studies, if you care to learn more about them. By conjecture, I don't mean that what you're sharing is unrealistic. Only that the situations are pretty well defined in the studies. It's not a free for all, though each department or study group parses the data a little differently.
Who else would it be about? Now I'm really confused. Who did you have in mind when you started the thread? I guess it never even occurred to me that you might suggest civilians who carry a gun have to be prepared for death at any second in order to shoot them accurately under stress. I think that has to be more extreme than you intend.
