I am in favor of a person getting all the firearms training and instruction possible, but I only favor voluntary training. I do not believe state-mandated training is appropriate in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, nor does it enhance public safety. I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has undergone a greater than average amount of firearms training and as also as a certified firearms instructor.
When one looks at various concealed carry systems in other states there are currently four states that do not require any sort of license or permit to carry a concealed firearm. Many others require no permit to open carry, but only to conceal. Of those that require a permit to carry concealed, some have no training requirement whatsoever (e.g., PA and GA), and some require minimal training. Florida, for example, will accept a hunter's safety certificate as evidence of sufficient training. All that is required in Florida is evidence that the person has had some minimal firearms safety instruction. The rest of the State of Florida thinks you ought to know-- the laws involving carrying a firearm for personal defense is contained in a brochure sent to the license applicant. I have found no empirical information to indicate that public safety is at greater risk in states that have no mandatory training requirement. Some people use their imagination and speculate that a lack of mandatory training creates a greater risk to the public, but they are unable to empirical evidence to corroborate their speculation.
Having experienced the state-mandated training necessary to obtain a Minnesota pistol permit I can report first hand that there is little or nothing contained in that instruction that will have an impact on public safety. I am not saying there is no value to the instruction, but in my opinion there is nothing of significant value to public safety in it. The instruction primarily consists of information about legalities of the use and carrying of firearms in Minnesota: where you can go with a gun, cannot go, what authority the police have, and so on. This instruction may have some value in keeping the gun carrier from inadvertently getting arrested or going to jail, but there is nothing to reduce someone’s chances of going to the hospital. The actual shooting portion of the permit instruction did little more than verify that the gun holder was capable of loading and firing the firearm. I suppose one might argue it has the effect of “weeding out” people who wish to carry a gun but have never touched one and who do not know which way the bullets ought to face. Honestly I do not know any adult with that degree of ignorance of firearm operation who wants to carry a gun for personal protection. The information contained in the mandatory training for a Minnesota pistol permit can just as easily be learned from reading a book. Indeed, there is such a book and it is handed to you when you report to the class. In effect, one pays $150 or a similar amount to have an instructor tell you what is contained in the book he handed to you—a book one could simply read on your own.
Don’t get me wrong-- woe unto anyone who would carry a gun in MN without knowing the relevant laws. But such ignorance is primarily a risk only to the gun carrier. Ignorance of gun laws does not present an appreciable threat to the public safety. I’ve traveled to a number of states where I have either openly carried or concealed my firearm and have not needed a permit from that particular state in order to do so. Nor did I have to take a course of instruction from every state I visited. I took it upon myself to have a reasonable familiarity with each state’s laws and procedures before carrying my guns there. Therefore, when I travelled through Montana a couple of times in the past year or so, I knew that it was one of two states that required a firearm to be worn OPENLY when entering a place that serves alcohol. Not knowing that fact would not have put the public safety at risk, but it could have put me at risk for arrest or citation.
Having instruction that improves your odds of avoiding lawyers and jails is fine, but as I see it, it’s more important to avoid the hospital—or the morgue, something that makes avoiding lawyers and courts a moot issue. Firearms instruction that enhances one’s ability to survive a violent encounter and to protect one’s loved ones is not the sort that is contained in state-mandated training. And I’m not sure how it could realistically or affordably be incorporated into it. As a gun instructor, I’m willing to share my understanding of gun-related laws, but my primary objective is to enhance someone’s ability to survive and prevail during a violent confrontation by mastering their firearms shooting, handling and tactics, raising their awareness of security risks and vulnerabilities, and creating the mindset needed to anticipate and respond to threats.
A point is often made that “the police receive intensive firearms training” in order to carry a firearm on the job. The comparison with training that the police receive is overblown and not a fair comparison. The gun skills of a non-law enforcement gun carrier are very different from someone carrying a firearm for the purpose of law enforcement.
Despite Madison Police Chief Wray’s recent assertion, a new police officer does not receive what I consider to be a particularly extensive amount of firearms training before being allowed to carry a firearm. But there are good reasons for police to receive at least the amount of gun training and instruction that they do get. My understanding is that Wisconsin police training standards include only approximately 40-45 hours of mandatory firearms-related training. This includes instruction on lawful self-defense, some basic tactical training, weapons retention, and firearms familiarization with a pistol and probably a shotgun. Depending upon departmental policy, officers must fire for qualification once or a number of times per year. Forty or so hours of instruction will not turn anyone into a firearms expert. And I do not believe there is a really need for the typical police officer to be a firearms expert or master of combat shooting. Police work involves more than carrying a gun which will seldom leave the holster. Excellence in police work demands enhanced social skills, a strong psychological understanding of people, empathy, a knowledge of the law, good investigatory skills, and street smarts. Such things will make a police officer successful more than will the ability to be a master pistolero. Driving skills, not shooting skills, are perhaps more important for a police officer’s survival because vehicle-related accidents are the leading cause of officer deaths. There are indeed some highly proficient pistoleros found within many police departments. They tend to gravitate into SWAT and firearms trainer slots. They are not typical of the average beat cop. They are “gun guys” who are willing to go beyond the minimal training standards of the department. From a time and cost perspective, it is neither feasible nor necessary for all police officers to achieve that higher level of proficiency.
It is true that all police are expected to achieve and maintain a minimal level of proficiency with a firearm. The reason is because there is an important difference between what people who do not work in security or law enforcement need to be able to do, in comparison to what all police are expected to be capable of doing : e.g., apprehend armed suspects and criminals, transport suspects and convicts. They also make traffic stops and enter into nebulous chaotic and potentially hazards situations such as dealing with those who have consumed too much alcohol, mentally ill people and people on drugs. They intervene in nasty domestic or other disturbances, respond to alarms, conduct methodical searches of unknown buildings and surroundings, plus many other hazardous situations that the average non-law enforcement person will very seldom face, if ever.
If we all had the same chance of routinely encountering similar situations, fine; one might be able to argue that we all ought to have similar training. But the average person will rarely, be put into a situation similar to those that we expect the police to handle routinely. As part of their job, the police must insert themselves intentionally into actual or potentially threatening situations, whereas the rest of us can actively avoid or withdraw from them whenever possible. If we see a car full of drunks endangering everyone on the road, we can drop back a safe distance or otherwise avoid them. The cop, on the other hand, has to pursue, stop and apprehend them. It is possible that they will have to perform this dangerous activity alone if backup is unavailable. These are the reasons police receive special training and learn skills that have little relevance to a private citizen who wishes to keep or carry a firearm for personal defense and security.
No comments:
Post a Comment