When cops talk about guns pay no attention

Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
54,019
Likes
53,277
Location
Chelmsford MA
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
Fred Reed writes another good column:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed143.html

Roll Over, Bark, and Beg
by Fred Reed

Oh god. There is no hope.

The other day I glanced at the web site of the Lake Chapala Society, a social club of sorts for expats around Mexico’s Lake Chapala, an hour south of Guadalajara (where I live). Clicking on “Safety,” I found a long list of reasons why you should never, ever use a firearm to protect your home and family. No. See, you might miss, or be scared, or the intruders might take it away and shoot you, and they might be all mad and hurt you when all they wanted was your television. No, the best thing is to let them do what they want, and then maybe they won’t do anything bad to you.

This supposedly was written by a retired cop but, if so, he (or quite possible she, judging by the tone) doesn’t sound like any cop I have known, which is whole lots. Anyway, his, her, or its advice, is “Leave the guns to people who are trained and prepared to use them.” Which he says he is.

Nuts. To begin with, cops usually know little about guns. They get a bit of training in the police academy, and then once or twice a year go to the range to fire a couple of magazines. Being actually good with a pistol requires putting tens of thousands of rounds downrange. Street shooting, which is what cops do in the unlikely event that they do any shooting at all, requires training of the sort offered by IPSC or, years back, Jeff Cooper and Chuck Taylor.

A few cops will learn on their own. When I went to shoot at the NRA range on Waples Mill Road in northern Virginia, I saw an occasional dedicated cop. But police departments don’t engage in real training because it costs a lot, takes a lot of time, and just isn’t worth it. The average cop never fires his weapon in line of duty. It serves chiefly as a badge of authority.

Smith (I’ll call him or her) implies further that no one who isn’t a cop knows how to use a pistol. He needs to get out more. In the small-town South of my boyhood, everybody had guns. We used them for hunting, for shooting varmints, and for plinking. My father gave me my first rifle when I was eleven in Athens, Alabama. In high school in Virginia, the first day of deer season was a school holiday because the teachers knew the boys would all be in the woods. When I was fifteen, friends and I often went to the dump in Colonial Beach at night to snap-shoot rats.

I later went to a federal fire-arms school at Parris Island in South Carolina. You may have heard of it. So did hundreds of thousands of other kids. The emphasis was on deadly force. At Camp Lejeune we did fire-and-maneuver with live ammo. (Also flamethrowers and 3.5" rocket launchers, though I do not recommend these for home defense.) If Smith were to check the number of men who have gone through the Army or Marines, he would find that very large numbers of people have had training in the use of firearms.

But what I dislike most about Smith’s advice is his advocacy of helpless passivity. It embodies a profound change in American attitudes, which once favored self-reliance. Now it’s reliance on the group. Don’t take primary responsibility for your defense. No, that would be violent, or scary, or macho, and all. No, let the criminals do whatever they want with you, rely on their merciful natures, and call 911 if you survive.

This is exactly what Smith advocates. If I were a criminal, I would love this guy.

His advice is bad. He says, correctly enough, that most intruders want chiefly to steal things. Think a little. At two a.m., you hear a noise and turn on the lights. You find two guys with knives. You can now identify them. They have knives. Focus on this point. Knives, and you can identify them. Do you see where this leads?

If they leave you alive, you will call the cops immediately after they leave. They know this. If they tie you up, well, you are tied up in the presence of two career criminals with knives. This may work for Smith, but I’ll pass. It just isn’t optimal. If they leave you conscious and tied, you will begin shrieking for the neighbors as soon as they leave. The neighbors will call the cops – and you can identify the intruders.

In the real world, criminals are not always interested only in your television. They will accept such side benefits as offer. This engenders fascinating situations. They discover your daughter of sixteen in her bedroom. “Hey, little girl, you’re real cute. Let’s get a better look. Take those pajamas off.” You get to watch. They may or may not choose to leave witnesses.

If you think these things don’t happen, regularly, you have never been a policeman in a big city. A friend of mine, a Chicago cop, tells of arriving at the scene of a break-in. The intruders had beaten the man unconscious and, among other things they did to her, bitten the woman’s nipples off. Literally.

I remember going one night to a hospital with a DC cop to interview a rape victim of fifteen. She was screaming, sobbing, choking, the doctors trying to sedate her. Messed up for life. Smith is right: Don’t have a firearm in the house. It might make them mad. They just want your TV, see.

In Virginia to get a concealed-carry permit, you attend a mandatory class on how to use a pistol. One of the instructors when I did it was a (very competent) female agent of the FBI. She talked to the class, some of whom were women, about rape. She made the obvious point that very few women have the slightest chance of fending off a two-hundred pound deviate perhaps armed with a knife. A small concealed-hammer revolver, fired maybe through a coat pocket, can easily be handled by a woman of ninety pounds. Studies show that a rapist who has been shot several times loses ardor. We’re talking way beyond Viagra.

What is true of intruders is that they don’t want a firefight. When you rack a round into the chamber of a semi-auto, the sound is unmistakable and means only one thing: Someone is preparing to fire. You have to want a television very badly to go against someone who audibly is planning to kill you and audibly has the means.

You can do as Smith wants – let them do it, whatever it is, and then call a qualified professional. Or you can shoot the sons of bitches. Your choice. I don’t care.









July 9, 2008

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just-published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be. Visit his blog.
 
He could do without these:
Street shooting, which is what cops do in the unlikely event that they do any shooting at all, requires training of the sort offered by IPSC
Uhhmmmm, NO. Gun games are not training. Not even meaningful practice.
When you rack a round into the chamber of a semi-auto, the sound is unmistakable and means only one thing: Someone is preparing to fire.
[rolleyes]

Otherwise good.
 
Some of the worst shooters at my range are LEO's. As a matter of fact , every time someone is making me nervous it is because they have the air of " I am a trained Professional " while doing stupid things like holding their pistols sideways - as in pointed at the rest of us shooters - while unloading and fumbling with mag changes ...

Please keep the damn thing pointed downrange , always. But whatever. ... lately I have been wondering if we are even on the same side.

What really struck me is the advice & mentality of " Sit back and give them anything they want , then the police can come to clean up the mess." Now , I can understand a bank telling it's employees do act this way. But I can not fathom ANYONE advising this to the general population as a basic plan of action when faced with a Home Invasion.

When did this helpless , suicidal , ... stupid .... advice start to seep into American culture ?
 
When cops talk about guns pay no attention

Does this mean that I should not have listened to the Massachusetts Chief of Police who told me that "You have a duty to protect your family." as he endorsed my previously neutered LTC to allow me to carry concealed?

Some (albeit far too many) cops do take the approach Mr Reed decries in his generally good article. Some but not all.

Learn to distinguish between the two and support the ones who support you.
 
He could do without these:

Uhhmmmm, NO. Gun games are not training. Not even meaningful practice.
[rolleyes]

Otherwise good.

Yeah, drawing from the holster, doing reloads on the move, shooting on the move, shooting multiple targets, shooting around barricades, none of thats meaningful practice.[rolleyes]

Sounds like someone got their ass handed to them at a match and now to protect their ego, craps all over competition
 
Yeah, drawing from the holster, doing reloads on the move, shooting on the move, shooting multiple targets, shooting around barricades, none of thats meaningful practice.[rolleyes]

Sounds like someone got their ass handed to them at a match and now to protect their ego, craps all over competition

+1 for sharing my thoughts!
 
Yeah, drawing from the holster, doing reloads on the move, shooting on the move, shooting multiple targets, shooting around barricades, none of thats meaningful practice.[rolleyes]

Sounds like someone got their ass handed to them at a match and now to protect their ego, craps all over competition

Rep point from me too.
 
Some of the worst shooters at my range are LEO's

What??? Every keeps saying that LE never train outside of the department, now they are at the range. Can't be????? Maybe those guys learned from the two members at our club who were suspended this week for unsafe actions on the range....Or the guy who almost shot his toe off with his 1911 at a practice session. Guess they should get a application for their department.

Funny how some can pick and chose what to publicize and totally disregard other incidents to try and make a point. Kind of like statistics. They can be bent to show whatever you please.
 
Funny how some can pick and chose what to publicize and totally disregard other incidents to try and make a point. Kind of like statistics. They can be bent to show whatever you please.

Unfortunately this is the way too many articles are written. It is like the subject (cops in this case) are one monolithic block of faceless clones who all share the exact same characteristics.

I have shot IPSC with some very good street cops out in Washington state who knew shooting backwards and forwards. But I also know that there are many cops who are almost clueless about shooting.

And that is the fatal flaw in Reed's arguement. He treats the subject as having only one opinion on the subject.

+1 rep pt for rscalzo.
 
Some (albeit far too many) cops do take the approach Mr Reed decries in his generally good article. Some but not all.

Learn to distinguish between the two and support the ones who support you.

I think this might be a regional/cultural thing. In the Northeast where most of us have been brainwashed (or attempted) by the media, schools, etc. that guns are bad, fewer LEOs are otherwise familiar with firearms.

In places where plinking, hunting, etc. were a way of life that they were brought up with, probably (I've never lived in such an area, so I'm speculating) they are more familiar, comfortable and practice safety as second nature.

Although it's unfair to paint all LEOs with a single brush (just like gun owners), my personal experiences are more like the former than the latter.

I've personally experienced/witnessed more safety gaffs by the LEOs I worked with/qualified with, than by "general members" at gun clubs over the years. HOWEVER, LEOs that tend to belong to gun clubs, who actually use their personal time/money to train/shoot, tend to be safe shooters like the vast majority of general law abiding gun owners out there . . . they just happen to be a minority of LEOs in this region (based strictly on my experiences).
 
In places where plinking, hunting, etc. were a way of life that they were brought up with, probably (I've never lived in such an area, so I'm speculating) they are more familiar, comfortable and practice safety as second nature.

That was my first thought when I moved up north. Our club and myself personally work with seven area departments who use the club facilities for qualifications. I've noticed that the ratio of experienced to inexperienced/interested/non-interested or whatever you would call it didn't change to any significant degree. That surprised me to a great extent. Even with the ability available there was not that great a difference.


The big difference is the facilities are larger and allow for a more varied training syllabus with much less scheduling problems.
 
And that is the fatal flaw in Reed's arguement. He treats the subject as having only one opinion on the subject.

I agree that one should never generalize, but anecdotally, I would say that the views expressed by the retired LEO in the article represent the views of many police administrators around the country, especially those who are in large urban areas.

To a degree I also believe that there is a regional dynamic in law enforcement attitudes towards firearms and civilian ownership of firearms. I also believe that many police officers are simply indifferent to firearms and view them like any other piece of equipment.

Again, in the context of my own experience, I find older officers with a strong street background tend to be more pro-gun than many of the younger officers with more limited experience.

Mark L.
 
To a degree I also believe that there is a regional dynamic in law enforcement attitudes towards firearms and civilian ownership of firearms. I also believe that many police officers are simply indifferent to firearms and view them like any other piece of equipment.

Again, in the context of my own experience, I find older officers with a strong street background tend to be more pro-gun than many of the younger officers with more limited experience.


Well put....
 
Please don't let this turn into a cop bashing thread. One complaint I get from LEOs that frequent this board (usually as lurkers, not posters), is that there are too many cop bashers here.

Here's the thing...

Some cops are gun guys and some aren't. The ones that are gun guys tend to be good shooters, and they are more likely to be like Frosty's chief in that they also support our rights to defend ourselves.

The ones that are not gun guys tend to be like the guy in the article. They want us to roll up like pill bugs at the first sign of trouble, and leave it to them. Kind of ironic, isn't it? The non guns guys want us to leave the wet work to them.

Like Len said, I think that many people tend to paint all LEOs with a broad brush. They're not all the same.
 
well, we all can agree that we disagree with one retired officers remarks.

I have an acquaintance, when he was a deputy in California he could drop by the county range any time and get a box of ammo to shoot there. He did that pretty much daily, and it shows.
he was amazed, when he started working for a department on the east coast, at how little shooting they do. He now shoots on his own dime, once a week, with a few other officers who are of a like mind.
 
Uhhmmmm, NO. Gun games are not training. Not even meaningful practice.
An interesting proof by assertion, but I don't agree with the last part of the statement.

Developing skills with guns is a meaningful component of training, but certainly does not constitute a comprehensive plan. I know several people who, as a result of honing their skills in the competitive arena, get hired as guest instructors at places like Ft. Bragg, US federal agencies and foreign governments to teach shooting skills.

I've seen a number of people who are over-schooled but can't shoot worth a dang. You've probably seen the type - been to many big name gun courses, can talk about the difference between LFI, Gunsite and Thunder Ranch - but can't produce speed and accuracy in the controlled and calm environment of a match. Someone in the "gun camp" mindset is always in pursuit of more training, rather than devoting a portion of their efforts to develop and test their skills under pressure.

Is one to assume that all the "training" will kick in if the s hits the f and there is a real encounter, or that people like TGO, Todd Jarret and Michael Voigt are helpless because the closest thing they have come to a gunfight is winning a national or world IPSC match? I'd place my bets on TGO over your average cop any day.
 
Last edited:
I would agree with much of what you say Rob. The roots of IPSC certainly go back to the concept of competing in scenarios that reflected the real world. The problem, of course, is that the "gamesmen" took over the sport and frankly IPSC today is certainly not the sport that people like Cooper and Chapman envisioned it.

Modern defensive pistolcraft continues to evolve, and I notice that today many emphasize short contact distance to target, and less emphasis on tight shot groups. I recently took a course at the S&W Academy and it is amazing how far things have evolved. IPSC is certainly not the "cutting edge" as a training tool or an adjunct to training that it once was, but anyone practicing that shooting discipline successfully would be a formidable opponent in a gunfight, IMO.

Mark L.
 
I would have to say that I see police as generally broken up in to two groups. And again, generalizing big time..

Group one tends to be those that are active shooters and gun people. They tend to be pro 2A. And take the view that YOU are your best protection. They tend to be pro citizens being armed. And tend to view CCW as positive. These LEOs also, from my experience tend to be the better, more professional, down to earth and rational people.

Then there the ones that seem to be on a constant ego trip. They seem to believe that being issued a badge gives them magical powers that enable only them to be proficient in the use of guns. No mere unbadged mortals should ever be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of proecting your self or having the means of doing so. They are the ones that tend to say just let the criminal do, take, have whatever they want. As only the badge is suffient protection for such Gangsta-Fu. They also look down from mount Badge-lympus and take no pity on mere mortals. I think they also tend to dress up in ninja out fits when off the clock. But as they are rendered invisable, I have never seem them off duty.
 
Yeah, drawing from the holster, doing reloads on the move, shooting on the move, shooting multiple targets, shooting around barricades, none of thats meaningful practice.[rolleyes]

Sounds like someone got their ass handed to them at a match and now to protect their ego, craps all over competition
The difference between what is time-expedient in a match and what is tactically sound in real life is huge.

Methinks the one with an ego problem is YOU.
 
The difference between what is time-expedient in a match and what is tactically sound in real life is huge.

Yet the basic skills are the same; smooth draw, rapid target acquisition, smooth transitions and, if necessary, efficient reloads.

Ego not required.
 
Please don't let this turn into a cop bashing thread. One complaint I get from LEOs that frequent this board (usually as lurkers, not posters), is that there are too many cop bashers here.

Here's the thing...

Some cops are gun guys and some aren't. The ones that are gun guys tend to be good shooters, and they are more likely to be like Frosty's chief in that they also support our rights to defend ourselves.

The ones that are not gun guys tend to be like the guy in the article. They want us to roll up like pill bugs at the first sign of trouble, and leave it to them. Kind of ironic, isn't it? The non guns guys want us to leave the wet work to them.

Like Len said, I think that many people tend to paint all LEOs with a broad brush. They're not all the same.

Just for the record - I did not post this article to have it turn into a cop bashing thread. Just a slice of life on what one person's experience and opinion was when exposed to a law enforcement officer who was less than enthusiastic about civilians owning guns.

For whatever it is worth I think it is a good thing that cops frequent this forum and read these opinions. I personally would not expect every cop to be a "gun guy", being a gun guy is not all the job entails. Frankly having a bunch of people who wanted to be cops just because they liked guns would trouble me a little bit too.

For any cop who thinks that we civilians should "leave the wet work to them" they should bear the following in mind. When I went for my LTC A I was pleasantly surprised by the attitude of the inspector who did my interview. She informed me that the police chief in my town believes in the right to own firearms and she joked around about a few things that made me view the police in a different light than I had previously - at least the ones in my town. As a civilian I have to say this: if I believe that the police have my best interests at heart - the right to own firearms being one of the big ones along with the right to defend myself, I am MUCH more likely to support the police in whatever way I can - including trying to help an officer in trouble or even defend him in an extreme situation if that situation were to arise (there are a number of Youtube videos around incidents just like this where civilians saved an officers life).

On the other hand - if I believe that the police view me as a civilian to not be worthy of defending myself -and not worthy of owning firearms, then I am conversely MUCH LESS LIKELY to ever help the police or put myself at risk on their behalf. I would in fact actively work against them when it came time to vote on such things as funding and so forth - this is for the simple reason that in this case the police have proven themselves to be a defacto enemy of mine by arguing for taking away my rights.

Any officer who thinks that by disarming civilians and telling them that they should not defend themselves is doing him or herself and the LEO's they work with a big disfavor by taking this attitude - you are turning the public against you and putting yourself in MORE danger - not less.

Finally I have to say this - LEO's are the one's who have the most influence over their fellow officers - the ones who believe in civilian self defense and 2nd amendment rights are the ones who should be leading this fight - they have the most opportunity to change the attitudes - and the most to lose if the anti self defense contingent gains ground.

I don't want to live in a society where I fear the police - the police themselves are the ones who have the most influence over whether this is true or not.
 
I am MUCH more likely to support the police in whatever way I can - including trying to help an officer in trouble or even defend him in an extreme situation if that situation were to arise
Realistically speaking, the time you will have a chance to return the favor is not some one in a million dramatic situation, but it the voting booth when the police chief and town manager want a debt exclusion override to build a new police station. It would be tough to vote no if you've been give the "bright green town" treatment. The opposite is equally, perhaps more, true :)
 
Calsdad... Absolutely! Agree 100%

Like anything or any group. People either support the Constitution and other people's rights or they don't. And supporting the Constitution and rights means all of it. Not just picking and chosing the parts you like and leaving off those that you don't agree with. None of the rights for me and not for thee stuff..
 
I think a lot of regular cops get crap because they have COPs like Gemme. Public face and all that.
 
Back
Top Bottom