Something else to worry about?

old lady new shooter said:

Being that the media are now reporting that the Dallas killer attended a tactical shooting course, I'm wondering if the gun community should be worrying that such instruction will be the next target of the antis.

He participated in a "tactical applications program" ("TAP") at the Academy of Combative Warrior Arts in the Dallas suburb of Richardson about two years ago.

I'm sure the reputable schools vet their students, but they wouldn't have found anything on him -- he received an honorable discharge from the Army despite their prior recommendation that he should receive an other than honorable discharge, although the attorney who represented him said "Someone really screwed up".

As far as I have seen the Army did not train him for combat, he did other work while enlisted.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't think any schools would be vetting their students beyond minimum pre-requisites.

There is a clear anti-gun mentality that is prevalent throughout the mainstream media. They will seize on any opportunity to make the gun community look bad. There were some Reader Comment posts on Yahoo last night pushing back on tactical training that I responded to. My position was simple, don't be contradictory, you (the anti crowd) keep saying you want gun owners to be trained so don't complain when they get training.

With that said, you have to agree that from an outsider's perspective, some of the AR15/AK47 based classes look like nothing short of militia training and some might question why we need civilians trained as militia when we have a standing army. I didn't say I agree with that stance, I'm saying it would be easy for the general public to go down that road.

I can see some people throwing verbal barbs at people who offer and people who obtain tactical training but in the end I don't see the anti crowd being able to affect this business. The sale of body armor is a whole different story, I'll leave it at that for now rather than be accused of hijacking your thread.

Old Lady New Shooter said:

I'm sure the reputable schools vet their students

Click to expand...

I am certified to teach our state's concealed weapons permit (CWP) class. The state does not expect us to do any vetting, that is their job before they issue the permit. We have asked a few students to leave based on their verbal comments or other behavior. I've assisted other instructors with advanced concealed carry classes and here again, we don't have access to any databases to vet students. We do watch for odd behavior and safety violations but aside from that there really isn't anything we can do to vet students other than ask to see their carry permit (in the advanced classes)which shows us that at some point they have been vetted by the state and have received some basic safe gun handling instruction, depending on whose class they went through to get that permit.

old lady new shooter said:

Being that the media are now reporting that the Dallas killer attended a tactical shooting course, I'm wondering if the gun community should be worrying that such instruction will be the next target of the antis.

He participated in a "tactical applications program" ("TAP") at the Academy of Combative Warrior Arts in the Dallas suburb of Richardson about two years ago.

I'm sure the reputable schools vet their students, but they wouldn't have found anything on him -- he received an honorable discharge from the Army despite their prior recommendation that he should receive an other than honorable discharge, although the attorney who represented him said "Someone really screwed up".

As far as I have seen the Army did not train him for combat, he did other work while enlisted.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I saw an interview last night with the owner of Academy of Combative Warrior Arts. He said the only training the guy did was hand-to-hand on the ground combat.

If we have to have a battle with the anti-gun crowd I would hope it is not about tactical training. It is not easy to make the argument that such training is appropriate or needed or Constitutionally protected, other than the more general argument that the law, in a free country, should not be dictating what is legal or illegal in terms of education. If a law could ban tactical gun training, could it also ban how to be a commuity organizer, or any subject at all that offends part of the population? I could argue that we should ban any religious education that preaches violence or the taking over of secular governments.

We live in strange times. Support for gun rights at the State level is probably higher now than it ever has been. Numerous states have passed increasingly strong laws protecting gun rights; some states now allow concealed carry without a license, open carry is more legal than ever before. But at the same time the media is more outspoken than ever about the "need" for "something" to be done in response to recent horrific mass shootings. We have had landmark Supreme Court rulings, notably Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago, at the same time we know that the additon of a single anti-2nd Amendment justice to the Supreme Court could change everything. I have no idea where we will end up, but it is hard to be optimistic for the 2nd Amendment.

I see the way the media will deal with the training issue the same as I do the way they sensationalize more than a few guns and hundred rounds of ammo a an arsenal or any vest as bullet proof.
Send a camera crew out or use a YouTube video in their report and scare the hell out of the sheeple.
There might be some move to restrict or ban those schools from lowly subjects but I doubt it could pass legal review unless they want to outlaw all other martial arts.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

vito said:

If we have to have a battle with the anti-gun crowd I would hope it is not about tactical training. It is not easy to make the argument that such training is appropriate or needed or Constitutionally protected, other than the more general argument that the law, in a free country, should not be dictating what is legal or illegal in terms of education.

Click to expand...

Why would training of any kind be considered something that is Constitutionally protected?

Do martial arts classes need to be Constitutionally protected?

Do boxing classes need to be Constitutionally protected?

Do fencing classes need to be Constitutionally protected?

Do chemistry classes need to be Constitutionally protected?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are supposed to be held accountable for our ACTS under the law...not our POTENTIAL.

I am not a criminal for knowing how to make nitrate based explosives with chemical timers. I'm a criminal if I use nitrate based explosives with chemical timers to commit a crime.

I am not a criminal for knowing how to crush someone's throat with my bare hands. I'm a criminal if I murder someone by crushing their throat with my bare hands.

I saw an interview last night with the owner of Academy of Combative Warrior Arts. He said the only training the guy did was hand-to-hand on the ground combat.

Click to expand...

Exactly, even the news media in Dallas is anti-gun and are quick to jump on untruths to serve their purposes.

<speculation>

I have no doubt he got a couple of phone calls and emails from Party Central urging him to "Push it now, push, push push. Anything you can think of, like training classes for those gun nuts! We've got them on the run! Do it for The Cause, Mike! You do want The Party's support in the next election, don't you? How does a Senatorship sound to you? Push it, man! Don't let this tragedy go to waste!"

</speculation>

Terry

What if the killer watched CNN before murdering the cops? Should CNN be worried?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a good thing the bias, deceptive, agenda driven mainstream media/news outlets didn't get the Dallas shooter all worked up and mad over something that was misrepresented, leading to the murder of 5 police officers, and shooting injuries of 7 others.

If the media tries that rebuke them directly and ask them, "So you do not advocate firearms training for gun owners?"

I'm a 22 year veteran of the US Army Reserves, Infantry, Ordnance, MP. There are over 25 million prior servicemen and women in the military, and 99% have been trained on the use of full auto fire from the M16/M4 and M60 or M249 automatic machine guns. It's part of Basic Training to understand how to operate those weapons for unit security. Many others train on the M203, M2 .50 BMG, anti tank, and anti air weapons as part of their career development in combat arms. Since that composes well over 10% of the total branches in the Army alone, there are already a lot of trained professionals out there who can operate the weapons.

Add in ALL of the Marines who are trained to be marksman with rifles first, and who have to meet that standard. They don't get a pass just because they are going to be some other skill.

There's quite a bit of experience and ability out there, taxpayer supported, and it's exactly what America is recruiting to fill as positions become vacant. Just because the newsmedia is jumping on that at present means it's simply something they can spin and create controversy with. Nothing much will ever come of it - the only answer would be to disband the Armed Forces and stop all the training, right?

There IS a program being used by the administration to jerk the financial rug out from under pro gun businesses, called Choke Point, and some training companies have recently found themselves insolvent due to a lack of financial services. Whether its actually because Choke Point got their banks to pull the plug on their services remains to be seen - it's always hard to sort it out and there are usually businesses on the edge of solvency at any given time. In point of fact over 90% of new ventures close in the first ten years due to poor management or simply changing tastes in consumer buying.

If training is an issue, be advised that with competent training, rehearsal, and some expertise, an individual with the motivation wouldn't let themselves get trapped into a building or be caught at all. Most of the shooters we have dealt with were making public exhibitions and had the obvious intent of making a major statement thru their own death. True pro's live to fight another day - and there's not much the .Gov will ever be able to do about that. A comparison to serial killers who roam America over years and decades - many of who never had military training at all - would be horribly enlightening about easy it is. If someone doesn't accept the ethical and moral prohibitions to not kill other humans it takes a larger organized effort to stop them.

We simply aren't reaching out to those who might be so inclined - there is no large and organized effort. We aren't letting them slip thru the cracks as much as just ignoring it because of competing financial efforts - and never forget, profit is what really motivates Americans. There's simply no profit in finding and helping those who get sideways with our culture and who can't accept their place in it. That's the real problem, but the anti gunners can't and won't focus on that.

It's an election year, one party is using the anti gun message as a plank in their platform of ideas. It's a good smokescreen for the reality of some of the others and it's being focused on by a complicit media as it's an easy news story to manipulate. They will take advantage of every facet and it's going to continue until the election is decided - at which point it very well may continue.

We won't see the end of this spin and manipulation for a while, it was too quiet in the past few years and it was the calm before the storm.

Ummm...

Be careful of what you deem to be "accurate" statistics. Almost every time I hear something like "90%", "99%", "99.999%", etc, I get the distinct impression that it's nothing more than a rhetorical statement and not based on any actual valid statistical sampling/study.

I spent 20 years in the Navy and my career path was Naval Nuclear Propulsion. I was a Reactor Operator aboard submarines. My career path, and that of many other ratings in the Navy as well, did NOT take up down training paths that included full auto fire or anything. I qualified pistol, rifle, and shotgun. And the rifle was semi-automatic...not even a select-fire M16.

Many ratings in the Navy do not take people down such paths. And I suspect there are a few ratings (or whatever the other services call them) in the other services (every Marine is a rifleman not withstanding) which are similar.

The Navy is unique, in that the Marines are part of the Navy and provide for some such services. Some ratings in the Navy require such training. The rest do not.


The Army and Marines I can understand where a very high percentage of people are actually trained on such weapons. I'd have to ask one of my older brothers, or one of my nieces, about the Air Force's training on such. Perhaps others can chime in here.


OVERALL, however, I have to agree with you...those who serve in the military DO, as a rule, have significantly more such training than most civilians.

old lady new shooter said:

As far as I have seen the Army did not train him for combat, he did other work while enlisted.

Click to expand...

We (army) are all trained for combat no matter what your MOS (job) is.

Tirod said:

I'm a 22 year veteran of the US Army Reserves, Infantry, Ordnance, MP. There are over 25 million prior servicemen and women in the military, and 99% have been trained on the use of full auto fire from the M16/M4 and M60 or M249 automatic machine guns. It's part of Basic Training to understand how to operate those weapons for unit security. Many others train on the M203, M2 .50 BMG, anti tank, and anti air weapons as part of their career development in combat arms. Since that composes well over 10% of the total branches in the Army alone, there are already a lot of trained professionals out there who can operate the weapons.

Add in ALL of the Marines who are trained to be marksman with rifles first, and who have to meet that standard. They don't get a pass just because they are going to be some other skill.

Click to expand...

Ooops, sorry about that, I didn't see Tirod's post. He beat me too it and he did it much more eloquently.

taliv said:

I don't remember which incident caused it but I remember when several of the big name carbine instructors adopted a policy that you couldn't take the class without a valid carry permit or statement of character from chief local Leo

Chief when you teach a class on chemical timers let me know

Click to expand...

All a "chemical timer" is my own term, which probably isn't any real technical term, and is a chemical reaction that culminates in some set time. You can use them to set off your explosive or thermite compound in a delayed fashion without having to go through the process of building a mechanical or electrical timed detonator.

For example, if you put a few drops of glycerin on potassium permanganate, the glycerin takes a few seconds to soak into the powder. Then the reaction causes the mixture to bubble up in a few seconds, which then hardens over and a few seconds later will burst into flames.

You can also make something which reacts to, say, water and use water as the method of establishing the time and conditions of the bomb detonation. If you were an arsonist, for example, you could spread this wherever you wanted to start a fire and when the dew point causes moisture to accumulate, set an entire range of forest on fire and you could be nowhere near the scene, hours or days away.


My point being that ANY person with even a basic education in high school chemistry could do this, and without any exotic chemicals or supplies at all. Heck, I was an avid reader all my life and had figured out a lot of stuff like this long before I was in high school.

While I'm far from any kind of actual EOD kinda guy, with no formal training at all, it's not difficult to do this. Approach it as any engineer would: "What do I want to do? How can I do it?" Then get creative with what you have.

Jeff White said:

Tirod,
No one is suggesting that there is a movement to shut down military training. However had the Dallas cop killer taken a carbine course from a nationally known instructor or even a local vet trying to cash in on his experience you can bet there will be a hue and cry to stop the "training for war" that's going on in the private sector.

Click to expand...

Well, the problem with this...and it's a problem of "logic" which the Left is not noted for when it comes to such matters as gun control (and restrictions in general)...goes something like this:


LEFT: "People who want to own firearms and/or carry them shouldn't be allowed to without (fill in the blank) training, because it's unsafe."

LEFT: "People who receive (fill in the blank) training are a danger to society and aren't safe.

REALITY: Millions of people have lots of training, varying from bare minimum on how to handle a firearm enough to make it go bang to varying levels of formal training which includes all kinds of military hardware.

So, the Left wants to place a restriction on ownership based on "training"...but "training" makes you dangerous, therefore you should not have a gun. So their very restriction in turn makes you ineligible. Catch-22.


LEFT: "Guns only belong in the hands of the military and police because they have the training and the need for them."

LEFT: "People who serve in the (police, military, etc) are subject to PTSD and therefore should not be allowed to own firearms.

REALITY: The people who make up the military and the police come from the civilian population and are, in fact, functioning members of society both during their terms of employment/service and after. But serving in the only acceptable groups of people who "need" firearms also makes them ineligible for ownership. Catch-22.


The restrictions they want CANNOT be effectively implemented without literally establishing a totalitarian government. And, interestingly, totalitarian governments spawn groups of people very intent on improvising a LOT of violence targeted at their oppressive government.