The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately

[Jared Traveler]

Sure dude.

Armed cops also have a terrible track record of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and paranoia, and beat, shoot, arrest, and kill people all the time, and a lot are innocent.

It's stressful all around, and on both ends.

Oh and suicide. Cops are at the top of the list, sadly.

There's a lot to consider if you really want to stab at "reality". In fact some people believe it's futile to try, and better off listening to others and constantly re-evaluating your views. E Pluribus Unum.

I dominated a big cop on the mats once. We both learned something. I think he was humbled, but I know I was. I felt terrible, at his defeated face.

You realize you just criticized me for prideful statements and are now bragging about dominating a cop on the mat.

I also have thoughts on PTSD and suicide related to police work. Which I don't suffer from. But that's another topic.

 

[Oily Dragon]

You realize you just criticized me for prideful statements and are now bragging about dominating a cop on the mat.

I also have thoughts on PTSD and suicide related to police work. Which I don't suffer from. But that's another topic.

I just told you how bad I felt for the cop, dude. That was just sincerity, it wasn't bragging. I was humbled by the experience, not emboldened. He looked like he was imagining him getting far worse from a non-friendly. It stuck with me.

Bragging would be like saying I could dominate you on the mat, which I never would, even if I thought I could.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I just told you how bad I felt for the cop, dude. That was just sincerity, it wasn't bragging.

Bragging would be like saying I could dominate you on the mat, which I never would, even if I thought I could.

Okay. It's certainly easy to miss read motives.

 

[Steve]

Okay. It's certainly easy to miss read motives.

That’s for sure.

 

[tkdroamer]

I think you have a valuable perspective. But respectfully, I don’t think you are right. I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand. Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.

you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message. I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.

It seems you have been knocked off your pedestal and feel your only argumentative recourse is to use the lame ad hominem cop-out (no pun intended).

History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time. It would serve you well to do a little unbiased study.

At no time in the thread has attacked you. Instead, they have done exactly what you advocated, which is debating the topic. Remember, discussion is a two-way street.

 

[mograph]

History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time.

In which jurisdictions?

 

[Steve]

It seems you have been knocked off your pedestal and feel your only argumentative recourse is to use the lame ad hominem cop-out (no pun intended).

Hey man. I'm on no pedestal and wouldn't want to be. You think I'm being argumentative, but that's really not my intention. The sum total of what seems to be getting you heated is I suggested that not all cops need guns all the time. I shared that in answer to a direct question from @Jared Traveler. If I had to guess, you're reading a lot more into that statement above than is intended. I am not anti-gun nor am I anti-cop, and I tried to be really clear earlier that it could be that 99% of cops need guns 99% of the time, or it could be 100% need guns 50% of the time... but if it's zero sum, all or nothing, we're just going to need to agree to disagree.

History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time. It would serve you well to do a little unbiased study.

Ooooh, that's pretty interesting. I have done, and am open to reading more. How about this? If you care to share some unbiased history with me, I will read it with interest. AND, what history I've read suggests otherwise, but as you say, maybe I've only ever found the biased history. Shoot it to me in DM or post it here. Either way, I will read it.

At no time in the thread has attacked you. Instead, they have done exactly what you advocated, which is debating the topic. Remember, discussion is a two-way street.

You're coming across as a little attacky right now. But maybe that's me. Are we discussing or are you upset? If you're upset, let's call it a day and let it go. I'm fine with that. And if you think you and Jared "won" the argument, that's fine with me, too. He thinks I'm living in a fairy tale. Okay. It's a data driven fairy tale, at least.

 

[mograph]

data driven fairy tale

Dibs on the band name.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time. Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.

100% of anything though? That's a bold claim! What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year? Can't be that high even in America. Somebody find that number because it'll be more telling than all these random 99s, 100s etc.

And in some towns, being a cop is a kind of religion, and a scary one that. Whole history of local police departments abusing the civil rights of many groups...minorities, gay people, immigrants. "Protect and serve", remember? Doesn't always work out that way, largely due to cops with egos, grudges, bias, prejudice, paranoia, or just plain fear.

Once people fear the police, the police have lost the public trust. The "Blue Wall of Silence" isn't fantasy....talk about data driven. Google Frank Serpico.

 

[Jared Traveler]

The reality is you are sending cops into

I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time. Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.

That's a bold claim! What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year? Can't be that high even in America. Somebody find that number because it'll be more telling than all these random 99s, 100s etc.

And in some towns, being a cop is a kind of religion, and a scary one that. Whole history of local police departments abusing the civil rights of many groups...minorities, gay people, immigrants. "Protect and serve", remember? Doesn't always work out that way, largely due to cops with egos, grudges, bias, prejudice, paranoia, or just plain fear.

Once people fear the police, the police have lost the public trust.

Based on the totality of this post, its clear there is a lot of baggage here. I hope objective reasoning regarding this subject can still occur. Giving the benefit of doubt, I will continue engaging regarding the actual subject.

Any traffic cop, or desk cop or parking cop (if those actually exist) who have the duties and responsibilities of responding to a violent felony in their presence, absolutely need to be armed at all times. That would include any working cop that is actually a real police officer.

Cops are paid partially to resolve violent felonies and make arrests on people who are violent criminals. That can happen at any time during a shift regardless of your assignment.

No amount of personal animosity anyone has on this forum doesn't change the reality that cops need to be armed.

 

[Steve]

To try and pull this back to the topic, the OP suggests that prioritizing living over hitting the target can lead to inaccuracy. The reason cops got brought up at all is because there are some accuracy statistics available, and they aren't great. OP suggested that few cops prioritize hitting the target over survival.

So far so good. My opinion is that people who aren't well prepared to carry a weapon probably shouldn't carry one. So, the question is, if people... cops or anyone else... are not well prepared to hit the target, however that is defined, are they competent to carry that weapon? If someone isn't well trained with a sword, we hear around here often that they shouldn't train with a live blade. Is this synonymous with that?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time. Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.

Really? My mother and two of her brothers were Highway Patrol. My uncle pulled a fellow over to tell him he had a burned out tail light. Turned out he also had a felony warrant of some kind. When my uncle got out of his patrol car, the fellow leaned out his window and shot him. Fortunately it wasn't center mass. My uncle returned fire and killed him.
I'm awfully glad our Highway Patrol disagrees with your suggestion that they be disarmed. Because my uncle is a nice guy.

One of our sons and one of out Son in Laws are with the local PD. Our son was involved in the pursuit of a guy with a murder warrant. That led to him grabbing a shot gun. I'm really glad those cops weren't disarmed. Both our kids are nice guys.

100% of anything though? That's a bold claim! What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year?

Unless you know a way to predict which cops those will be, and when, it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Jared Traveler]

To try and pull this back to the topic, the OP suggests that prioritizing living over hitting the target can lead to inaccuracy. The reason cops got brought up at all is because there are some accuracy statistics available, and they aren't great. OP suggested that few cops prioritize hitting the target over survival.

So far so good. My opinion is that people who aren't well prepared to carry a weapon probably shouldn't carry one. So, the question is, if people... cops or anyone else... are not well prepared to hit the target, however that is defined, are they competent to carry that weapon? If someone isn't well trained with a sword, we hear around here often that they shouldn't train with a live blade. Is this synonymous with that?

You are still trying to asses if cops should be armed, that's not a reasonable starting point to even begin to ask the right questions. I repeat, this is an obstacle to having a meaningful conversation, based on addressing the problem and real solutions.

Of course they should be armed! The real question is, what constitutes being armed and prepared?

My original post was never intended to discuss or even dream of how to turn every cop into a lethal expert at firing under stress. That is as unrealistic as expecting cops to stay safe without weapons.

I was analyzing how a highly motivated and dedicated individual could significantly increase their accuracy under stress. You can not mass produce this, because to reach a high level takes personal motivation and mental dedication(as discussed in my original post).

We could discuss ways to improve firearms training for cops. However expecting everyone to be experts at shooting under high stress is beyond unrealistic. Also advocating for disarming them because they aren't Delta level experts is an irresponsible and unrealistic idea.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You are still trying to asses if cops should be armed, that's not a reasonable starting point to even begin to ask the right questions. I repeat, this is an obstacle to having a meaningful conversation, based on addressing the problem and real solutions.

Of course they should be armed! The real question is, what constitutes being armed and prepared?

I got a different question from his, not should they be armed (though from the earlier posts that's obviously his question). The question that came to my mind is-should the be cops? If someone is unable to shoot accurately under stress, if we assume that they need to be armed for their job, should they have that job? Or should they be denied, and people that can fire under stress be chosen instead.

Or alternatively, should there be a division for people that don't need cops. So you could split the police departments into different roles/responsibilities, and have 'desk jockeys' that have lost their ability to shoot/can't shoot under stress for whatever reason, so don't have a gun, but are also not expected to be involved in the apprehension of violent criminals.

This all seems to be irrelevent (as you point out in the middle of your post) to your initial idea though, and should probably tend back to the topic and away from politics.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I got a different question from his, not should they be armed (though from the earlier posts that's obviously his question. The question that came to my mind is-should the be cops? If someone is unable to shoot accurately under stress, if we assume that they need to be armed for their job, should they have that job? Or should they be denied, and people that can fire under stress be chosen instead.

Or alternatively, should there be a division for people that don't need cops. So you could split the police departments into different roles/responsibilities, and have 'desk jockeys' that have lost their ability to shoot/can't shoot under stress for whatever reason, so don't have a gun, but are also not expected to be involved in the apprehension of violent criminals.

This all seems to be irrelevent (as you point out in the middle of your post) to your initial idea though, and should probably tend back to the topic and away from politics.

There are a lot of people who think it's impossible to expect anyone to predictably shoot a handgun well under that kind of stress.

It's a minority of instructors and trainers who are even significantly raising expectations in this area.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There are a lot of people who think it's impossible to expect anyone to predictably shoot a handgun well under that kind of stress.

Fair. But there could be a determination of what's considered 'well' or 'well enough'.

And also, getting back to your first post, if it's a mental thing, how do we increase that? There's a very similar idea in basketball-they call it confidence. When someone's confidence is up, their shooting percentage skyrockets, and slumps happen/continue when their confidence goes down-they take less shots, and their shots don't go in as often. I imagine something similar happens with pitchers and quarterbacks.

So it might be a good idea to look at how an athlete improves their mentality and see if it can be replicated in training people to shoot.

 

[Jared Traveler]

And also, getting back to your first post, if it's a mental thing, how do we increase that? There's a very similar idea in basketball-they call it confidence. When someone's confidence is up, their shooting percentage skyrockets, and slumps happen/continue when their confidence goes down-they take less shots, and their shots don't go in as often. I imagine something similar happens with pitchers and quarterbacks.

So it might be a good idea to look at how an athlete improves their mentality and see if it can be replicated in training people to shoot.

Great question!!!! And again, lots of things that could be said. But it start with developing the 20 percent of the skill in marksmanship. Being predictably highly accurate under no stress. How do you do that? That's a deep subject, but in simple terms you develop a personal, repeatable process.

Confidence comes from repeating your personal exact process of accurately firing the weapon. If you have a bad shot, no problem, you know the process works, so start over and focus on your next shot.

Most "experienced" shooters haven't developed their process to the right degree of awareness and repeatability. They think they under the 20 percent, but don't understand it well enough to be consistent and have repeatability precision.

Why haven't they? It goes back to the 80 percent mental. They are satisfied with mediocre shooting, or any number of reasons. They aren't motivated enough to learn how to hit the target every time. Back to the original reason they ultimately miss. It starts on the range.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Why haven't they? It goes back to the 80 percent mental. They are satisfied with mediocre shooting, or any number of reasons. They aren't motivated enough to learn how to hit the target every time. Back to the original reason they ultimately miss. It starts on the range.

So if that's right (not doubting you), sounds like higher standards, or more time with a trainer that pushes them would be needed. Like when a team requires you to run a faster sprint to make the team-you learn to get faster, or going to the gym and having someone push you to lift more, rather than be okay with maintenance mode.

 

[Jared Traveler]

So if that's right (not doubting you), sounds like higher standards, or more time with a trainer that pushes you would be needed. Like when a team requires you to run a faster sprint to make the team-you learn to get faster, or going to the gym and having someone push you to lift more, rather than be okay with maintenance mode.

That's an important part of the equation, but not the whole picture. Certainly I have seen some departments who focus more on the fundamentals, and have a budget to pay officers for extra range time, ammunition and instruction. And they do better in shootings. But if it's not mandatory or you aren't being paid, most cops are either too busy working off duty jobs to make enough money to get buy, or are wanting to spend time with their family.

Training time and money is always difficult to get approved. Even when it does, cops need to be trained on such a wide variety of skills that shooting skills administratively get low priority. Because again, they look at the numbers and think:
1. Out officers are already passing the 70 percent minimum score on their qualifications
2. Many of them will not be involved in shootings
3. Ammo is expensive
4. There are only so many training hours
5. They have maybe 1 firearms instructor for every 100 officers (potentially)
6. Sending more officers to become experienced trainers is very expensive in both time and money (most officers can't get a day off approved let alone weeks of firearms instructor training approved).

At the end of the day it's government, and in an environment where many cities are cutting the police budgets.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm awfully glad our Highway Patrol disagrees with your suggestion that they be disarmed. Because my uncle is a nice guy.

You didn't follow my post dude. You missed where I said SWAT, highway patrol, city cops, fine if they face daily danger arm them appropriately (the status quo). Responding to 911 and non emergency calls, sure. But policing is a spectrum and that requires more thought than just guns/no guns.

One of our sons and one of out Son in Laws are with the local PD. Our son was involved in the pursuit of a guy with a murder warrant. That led to him grabbing a shot gun. I'm really glad those cops weren't disarmed. Both our kids are nice guys.

Unless you know a way to predict which cops those will be, and when, it is completely irrelevant.

The context of this discussion is lethal firearms.

100% of cops need lethal firearms? I don't think anyone can show data that supports that.

And cops in the US right now suffer a terrible reputation for using military hardware against peaceful protesters. And even against non peaceful protesters, that's a problem.

Listen you want to share personal anecdotes, I know a 10 year old kid who hates cops now because of seeing them kill and beat innocent people on YouTube. Is that all in her head?