TexasCHLforum.com

I agree about the militarization but they still need to be adequately trained in firearm usage. Like a lot of other jobs they should take it upon themselves to learn outside of work on their own.

...this brings to mind my Grandpa's story of being sent to the woods with a rifle and one .22 short...expected to bring back a rabbit or squirrel or the unfired round...that's the way shooting used to be taught...the standards, like so many things in life today, have been dumbed down to allow those to reach them who are not willing to stretch and improve ...when my 18-year-old was 12, he could outshoot me with my own .45...he has young eyes...and he was CAREFULLY taught...not just how to do the mechanics, but the weight of every round fired...far more than 230 gr....excellence is more often an exception, rather than the norm...

OldCannon wrote: We want police officers to improve, but I'd rather see more training in first-responder first-aid, community engagement, and knowledge of laws.

Perhaps I'm an odd one, but I see the increasing "militarization" of the police force as an undesirable thing.

bronco78 wrote:

A ND is likely to happen to anyone

Can not disagree with that, self justifying and absence of understanding more completely.

ND's are NOT likely to happen to anyone.. Period, never, No sir. It takes an improper action, a decision to place our self in a position to have that improper action happen, and it will never be "likely to happen to anyone."

With millions of gun handlers mistakes will happen and do happen, regardless of training. Look on any shooting forum and do a search for negligent discharge. It happens. Training helps prevent bad things happening as a result. That is why the 4 rules back each other up hopefully preventing bad things happening.

For example, a couple of decades ago I had what I would call a negligent discharge although the use of the term could be debated. I'd shot an exceptionally bad string. With what I thought was an empty gun, I brought my gun up to the target, sighted in and pulled the trigger thinking of doing a dry fire, BOOM. Surprised and scared the heck out of me but all that resulted negligence was another hole in the target. I hadn't counted my shots correctly. STUPID MISTAKE!

Negligent, I'd say yes BUT other than losing round count I'd followed the rules other than thinking the gun wasn't loaded at that time. I didn't put my finger on the trigger until I was on target. Lesson learned.

Following the rules negligent charges can and do happen but the feces won't hit the air conditioner.

wharvey wrote: With millions of gun handlers mistakes will happen and do happen, regardless of training. Look on any shooting forum and do a search for negligent discharge. It happens. Training helps prevent bad things happening as a result. That is why the 4 rules back each other up hopefully preventing bad things happening.
For example, a couple of decades ago I had what I would call a negligent discharge although the use of the term could be debated. I'd shot an exceptionally bad string. With what I thought was an empty gun, I brought my gun up to the target, sighted in and pulled the trigger thinking of doing a dry fire, BOOM. Surprised and scared the heck out of me but all that resulted negligence was another hole in the target. I hadn't counted my shots correctly. STUPID MISTAKE!
Negligent, I'd say yes BUT other than losing round count I'd followed the rules other than thinking the gun wasn't loaded at that time. I didn't put my finger on the trigger until I was on target. Lesson learned.

Following the rules negligent charges can and do happen but the feces won't hit the air conditioner.

I don’t think anything I wrote, disagrees with what you wrote, and I agree with what you responded with.
I never said ND's won’t happen Just that, the premise that a ND can happen to anybody is a “Pre Excuse” for most. And simply not true.. Some amount will have an ND, agreed, but the statement “Anyone can have an ND” infers it’s just an odds things, fate, no control.
And I agree, what you did was an ND.. An unintended discharge of a fire arm caused though negligence. You activated the trigger believing the gun was empty.. That was negligent.. Thankfully you seem to be a attentive shooter and followed all of the safe handling rules. So your ND, resulted in a new hole on target .. Never the less in my mind (and yours it would seem) we agree, it was still an ND.
Such an event is a learning experience, nothing more.. as it should be.. Same for a LEO on the range, who shoots the dirt, in front of the bench when his finger was covering the trigger and the guy in the next stall touched off a .338 WIN MAG round from a Kimber Rifle.. A real event, as I pulled the trigger on the .338, and the LEO next to me was an AK trooper, and a friend of mine. We discussed the event, he learned, and like you, because he applied the principles of safe shooting otherwise, his ND resulted in a hole in the dirt.

100% of ND's are preventable.
A much smaller % of ND's are due to malicious willful neglect,
Not every ND should result in a punitive or criminal action.., only those that are done though malice, or willful disregard for other safe handling rules.
Quick draw play games with a loaded weapon, resulting in an ND and a injured person… Trial, convict, punish. (4 months ago, happened here, shooter WAS a 18 series soldier and an NCO)
Failure to properly clear a rifle, (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round in to the clearing box. Retraining.. no punitive punishment. (happened here, more than 38 times in the last 5 months across 36,530 people)
Failure to properly clear a rifle (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round in to the officer floor. Punitive punishment, retraining. (happened here, several times in the last 5 months across 36,530 people, and other times walls, trucks.)
Failure to properly clear a rifle (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round though the B-Hut wall (thin plywood) struck a person on the outside leaned over a vehicle fender repairing the truck.. Killed him instantly. Punitive punishment, jailed, will be fired after jail time. Happened here, once in the last 5 months across 36,530 people.)

I could go on.
.
.
SO far... 3 ND Fatalities,14 ND Injuries, 38 other ND’s. Month 6 or 12. 100% were caused by Negligence .. AVG, .0015 % have had an ND…36475 or so did not have an ND

rm9792 wrote:I agree about the militarization but they still need to be adequately trained in firearm usage. Like a lot of other jobs they should take it upon themselves to learn outside of work on their own.

Interesting story here. My daughter is an officer in the Arlington PD right now. She's VERY good at shooting, but really doesn't think about her gun as anything more than another tool on the belt. She doesn't view shooting as a recreational thing and (to my knowledge) only fires her gun as part of her training requirements (if I talk to her about USPSA or IDPA, she just rolls her eyes at me and gives me this look ). That doesn't make her a bad police officer at all -- she knows how to use her gun and carries one all the time, even off duty, but being a tacti-cool shooter isn't her bag. I think she'd be pretty annoyed if somebody told her she needed to spend her off-the-clock time beefing up on her shooting skills.

"...She's VERY good at shooting..." kinda jumped out at me...

OldCannon wrote:And I think the CHL test is a good generalized test for police officers.

I think it's a good starting point, but too easy on its own. I suggested every three months so that they don't have time to lose all their skills if they're too busy to practice.

OldCannon wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:
CHLers are NOT expected to pursue and "take down" bad guys. The CHL is for DEFENSE only...if some want to make it more than that, they can go ahead and do so. I will not...law enforcement needs a much greater range of skills and proficiency, in my opinion.

Wait... what? I didn't realize I was making something.

I think Dave misunderstood your post. You weren't referring to CHL citizens, you were referring to police taking and passing the CHL test.

And I think the CHL test is a good generalized test for police officers. One thing that doesn't seem to be considered is that a police officer _rarely_ has to fire their gun during the course of their duties in their career, and many never do. We want police officers to improve, but I'd rather see more training in first-responder first-aid, community engagement, and knowledge of laws.

Perhaps I'm an odd one, but I see the increasing "militarization" of the police force as an undesirable thing.

Thank you, sorry that I didn't make it clearer. Typing in a hurry without much proofreading can do that.

bronco78 wrote:

wharvey wrote: With millions of gun handlers mistakes will happen and do happen, regardless of training. Look on any shooting forum and do a search for negligent discharge. It happens. Training helps prevent bad things happening as a result. That is why the 4 rules back each other up hopefully preventing bad things happening.
For example, a couple of decades ago I had what I would call a negligent discharge although the use of the term could be debated. I'd shot an exceptionally bad string. With what I thought was an empty gun, I brought my gun up to the target, sighted in and pulled the trigger thinking of doing a dry fire, BOOM. Surprised and scared the heck out of me but all that resulted negligence was another hole in the target. I hadn't counted my shots correctly. STUPID MISTAKE!
Negligent, I'd say yes BUT other than losing round count I'd followed the rules other than thinking the gun wasn't loaded at that time. I didn't put my finger on the trigger until I was on target. Lesson learned.

Following the rules negligent charges can and do happen but the feces won't hit the air conditioner.

I don’t think anything I wrote, disagrees with what you wrote, and I agree with what you responded with.
I never said ND's won’t happen Just that, the premise that a ND can happen to anybody is a “Pre Excuse” for most. And simply not true.. Some amount will have an ND, agreed, but the statement “Anyone can have an ND” infers it’s just an odds things, fate, no control.
And I agree, what you did was an ND.. An unintended discharge of a fire arm caused though negligence. You activated the trigger believing the gun was empty.. That was negligent.. Thankfully you seem to be a attentive shooter and followed all of the safe handling rules. So your ND, resulted in a new hole on target .. Never the less in my mind (and yours it would seem) we agree, it was still an ND.
Such an event is a learning experience, nothing more.. as it should be.. Same for a LEO on the range, who shoots the dirt, in front of the bench when his finger was covering the trigger and the guy in the next stall touched off a .338 WIN MAG round from a Kimber Rifle.. A real event, as I pulled the trigger on the .338, and the LEO next to me was an AK trooper, and a friend of mine. We discussed the event, he learned, and like you, because he applied the principles of safe shooting otherwise, his ND resulted in a hole in the dirt.

100% of ND's are preventable.
A much smaller % of ND's are due to malicious willful neglect,
Not every ND should result in a punitive or criminal action.., only those that are done though malice, or willful disregard for other safe handling rules.
Quick draw play games with a loaded weapon, resulting in an ND and a injured person… Trial, convict, punish. (4 months ago, happened here, shooter WAS a 18 series soldier and an NCO)
Failure to properly clear a rifle, (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round in to the clearing box. Retraining.. no punitive punishment. (happened here, more than 38 times in the last 5 months across 36,530 people)
Failure to properly clear a rifle (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round in to the officer floor. Punitive punishment, retraining. (happened here, several times in the last 5 months across 36,530 people, and other times walls, trucks.)
Failure to properly clear a rifle (did not drop mag) chambered a round., squeezed trigger, fired a round though the B-Hut wall (thin plywood) struck a person on the outside leaned over a vehicle fender repairing the truck.. Killed him instantly. Punitive punishment, jailed, will be fired after jail time. Happened here, once in the last 5 months across 36,530 people.)

I could go on.
.
.
SO far... 3 ND Fatalities,14 ND Injuries, 38 other ND’s. Month 6 or 12. 100% were caused by Negligence .. AVG, .0015 % have had an ND…36475 or so did not have an ND

I think I understand what you are getting at...the "accident chain"...if you break any link in the chain, then the accident can be prevented. However, not all accident chains result in injury or death, just like not all NDs result in injury or death and so the consequences should be appropriate to the circumstances...I still do not believe that 100% can be prevented, either of accidents, or of negligent discharges...but the percentage can be cut down to a point where it is a rare event and that is the goal that should be worked toward.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I still do not believe that 100% can be prevented, either of accidents, or of negligent discharges...but the percentage can be cut down to a point where it is a rare event and that is the goal that should be worked toward.

You may be right about the impossibility of a 100% accident prevention rate, but, I think that you get to the goal of 99.9999% accident prevention by striving for 100% prevention. If you strive for 99.9999% prevention, you'll end up with 98%......and so on and so on. Striving for anything less than perfection will guarantee you lower results than striving for perfection will guarantee.

AndyC wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The logistics are against effectively addressing the training issue because there are too many officers and too few facilities and trainers to get everyone through much more than 1 training day per year. The fact is that officers who won't train on their own time will always perform poorly and will continue to have ND's, regardless of what hardware they carry.

Send some of them to me - I'll train them, and train them to train others

It's horrifying that the police, of all people, are so terrible with firearms when their lives - and that of others - might depend on their skill.

I agree that the current situation is not as it "should" be, but the way it is. A rough calculation shows that training 35000 officers at new officer pay rates (most are paid well above that) costs more than three quarters of a million dollars per day in salary alone, not including overtime paid to other officers to work the assignments the trainees normally fill. Firearms skills are also only one of many training areas that must be kept up to date, along with legal updates, use of force, defensive tactics, dealing with deranged individuals, etc.

In NYC, you can't step out the back door of the precinct and shoot into the back 40. The agency has one 54 acre training range with 230 firing positions. The range is used by many other federal and local agencies (transit, housing, etc.) as well. Their numbers get added in too.

When you do all the math on hours, firing points, and trainees, you come up with some pretty messy scheduling challenges to get each officer out there even once a year for both daylight and low light training.

The bottom line is that the City doesn't have enough resources to bring each officer up to the level of unconscious competence without considerable effort by the individual on his or her own. Under the current constrictions and without individual initiative, average skill levels will never rise to a confidence inspiring point, and 13 pound trigger pulls won't change that for the better either.

Excaliber wrote: The bottom line is that the City doesn't have enough resources to bring each officer up to the level of unconscious competence without considerable effort by the individual on his or her own. Under the current constrictions and without individual initiative, average skill levels will never rise to a confidence inspiring point, and 13 pound trigger pulls won't change that for the better either.

Given the strong trigger pull, it's highly likely they are _increasing_ the chance that an officer will miss their intended target. Considering that NYC's policy seems to be "A criminal's life saved is a voter saved," perhaps that was the intention

Me and my coworkers have to stay current. It's up to us to do so at our own expense. They can too if theyre adults.

Heavens to Betsy, we have to pay for our CHL classes, ammunition, etc. And do it during our free time. It's even worse in NYC. I don't see why NYPD can't do for a job what we have to do for a civil right.

bayouhazard wrote:Me and my coworkers have to stay current. It's up to us to do so at our own expense. They can too if theyre adults.

Heavens to Betsy, we have to pay for our CHL classes, ammunition, etc. And do it during our free time. It's even worse in NYC. I don't see why NYPD can't do for a job what we have to do for a civil right.

There are folks in every line of work who will do exactly the minimum they are paid to do (or that they can get away with), and law enforcement is not exempt.

Most police officers are passionate about their jobs and see their work more as a calling than a paycheck. These officers work hard to stay at the top of their game in all skill areas, largely at their own initiative and expense, and the rest of us benefit from this every day.

However, the reality is that there aren't enough of those folks to fill every open slot, and some of the others see things much differently, even spurning the idea of carrying an off duty weapon because they're not being paid to do so.

It's the difference between warriors and gun bearers.