(WP) "Schools Teach the Hard-Edged Lessons of Combat" (duplicate threads merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even when he specifically said otherwise, you're sure he didn't mean it? The arrogance of that statement blows my mind.
The arrogance to assume that he had considered thousands, perhaps millions of individual situations before making the statement blows my mind.
Let me assure you, in no uncertain terms: you think wrong.
Let me assure you, then, that I am right. Even you go on to say, "In a very few things, we do need a very small amount of regulation." I think that proves the point I am trying to make.
But...you said...that um...would not be possible.
No, I did not say that. Please do not misquote me. My statement was simple and direct: "because without regulation we cannot have a functioning society." I did not include anything about industry, make exceptions for government, and so on. Plus I would question the accuracy of a statement that our society is functioning perfectly!
I know you will say you meant regulation in general, but if so, why mention that in this discussion, where the sole issue at hand is the regulation of combat training?
Because the second post in this thread expanded the issue of regulation far beyond combat training to regulation in general. So if you know that I was discussing regulation in general why are you trying to create an issue where none exists?
government regulation has broken, rather than fixed, everything it has touched so far,
We'll have to disagree. I'm not fond of excessive government regulation, but I'm also not fond of no regulation. And some government regulation has been quite beneficial. As just one example, water and air are quite a bit cleaner now than they used to be due in large part to environmental regulations. And I return to the issue of traffic regulations as another example.
2. No one!
Then do you support anarchy?
 
I can't speak for the others, but I chose to speak to the writer because the article was going to be written anyway. In fact, I put him up for a day and invited him to watch activties at Vahalla and speak face to face with students. I gave him every opportunity to ask questions and research the topic.

He chose NOT to use some things that may not surprise you:

He did not use any of the provided information about military outsourcing of high-end tactical training, though he did allude to it a couple of times.

He did not use any quotes from a local Sheriff, whom he had dinner with one evening. The Sheriff spoke highly of VTC and the legitimacy of private sector training and went into detail about the training we provide for his department.

He did not mention my position on screening customers, although he did ask for clarification in an email after his visit.. here's what I sent him:
“No, we do not does those things. We do ensure that students signing up for military, law enforcement or private security related training have a need for that knowledge and we check credentials. There is no way to ensure that ANYONE isn’t going to use this knowledge inappropriately. Character Witness statements mean nothing, criminal background checks won’t screen for aberrant psychological traits that will lead to acts of violence in the future. There is no reliable way to set up a hoop for someone to jump through that I think has integrity. All that said, we reserve the right to remove anyone from the course or refuse acceptance into a course at any time. We have refused clients and we have removed people from courses, but only on rare occasions. More often, I have taken the opportunity to pull a student aside and clarify what I have seen as areas of attitude or behavioral concern.”
The fact is that Police Officers who have gone through extensive Multi-phasic psychological exams, lie detector tests and significant amounts of training in the presence of people who are supposed to be able to pick up on aberrant behaviors commit criminal acts of violence all the time. Military personnel who receive screening, discipline and training also commit similar acts regularly. These individuals are obviously the extreme exceptions, but if those procedures don’t prevent problems, how can any practical process for a paying customer prevent such incidents?
My staff or I also talk to most prospective students on the phone and/or via email which gives up another opportunity to screen potential attendees.


He did not reference the information I gave him about a recent trip to Europe during which I made a presentation at a NATO LE Symposium on outsourcing tactical training for LE & Mil units over there. This is a realtively new idea in that part of the world, but one that makes sense for several reasons.

I figured that the article was not going to paint the most positive light on the industry, but I have gotten positive gun press in the LA Times, USA Today, GQ, ELLE and on World News Tonight and Comedy Central over the past couple of years, so it was definitely worth a shot... it could've been worse.

 
KC&97TA said:
I'm all for regulation of these classes... I think proper assault weapon employment should be required to graduate high school, and M16 & AK47 assembly/disassembly and target shooting should start in Grade School.

... someone actually beat me to saying this. I love this forum.
 
Washington Post article about lack of regulation in gun training industry

This article was sent by a fellow Front Sight member. Observe how worried the author gets about a self-regulating industry, like this one. Notice how the author equates a single, government employee who trained some terrorists, to the entire current batch of private companies who train thousands and thousands of legitimate, decent students per year. Another overblown "problem" to deal with.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700854.html
 
Gee,

About 50,000 people a year die in traffic accidents.

I don't see the MSM screaming for a highly regulated driving school industry, do you?
 
Truly Frightening: WP Article On Move To Restrict Tactical Training

I just read this from the Washington Post and it made my blood run cold:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13017615/

Looks like the anti's and academics are pulling another "new problem sprung up, gotta kill this weed fast before anyone can think about it" fast one. Some of the schools they're talking about are 30 years old! I swear, I used to laugh at the rural-bunker-with-canned-goods-and-ammo set, but I think I'm beginning to see the logic...

Comments/thoughts?
 
I hope this doesn't surprise you. I have seen this coming for years.

One of the true strokes of genius that I credit Frontsight's owner Ignatius Piazza with is how he deals with the media.
First of all, he won't authorize anyone to do a story about Frontsight unless they come and take a full class at Frontsight as a student. Most of the time, after the reporter has actually been there/done that, they have a completely different point of view than they originally did. Obviously, they can still do the story, but they can't come and film classes or interview anyone on their property unless they have frist taken the class.
Second, instead of trying to justify the stuff they teach and the guns they use as "sporting" they specifically tell the media that they are NOT sporting arms. They are weapons designed to kill other humans. In the hands of honest people, they save lives and deter crime. This eliminates one of the big arguments that the antis attempt to use. "That AR15 can't be used for hunting ducks". You are absolutely right, it is used for personal defense if my home is invaded or if my family is confronted with the threat of deadly force. There is nothing sporting about it. This is NOT a hunting rifle.

I am pleased to say that I have personally taken Frontsight's Uzi and M16 four day classes. During those classes, hunting was never mentioned.
 
Linked article for those who wish to avoid the poorly designed add-riddled MSN site.
Schools teach combat skills to civilians
Lack of regulation of private training troubles some
By David A. Fahrenthold
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:27 a.m. MT May 28, 2006

MONTROSE, Colo. - Marcus Klintmalm's two victims lay sprawled on the ground, their weapons released by hands gone limp. Spent cartridge casings, his and theirs, were everywhere -- testimony to two gunfights.

The shooting had stopped. It was time to debrief.

"Where did you hit him?" an instructor asked Klintmalm, referring to one of the assailants. The man was standing now, with a mark of orange wax from Klintmalm's "bullet" on his pants.

"In the hip," Klintmalm said.

If the fight had been real, that might not have been good enough, the instructor said. "He may not be dead."

Such are the hard-edged lessons taught here at Valhalla Training Center, where students learn the basics of urban shootouts in a mock downtown. Special Forces soldiers train here for combat in Iraq, but Klintmalm is not a soldier: He is a 23-year-old aspiring business-school student from Dallas, who gave his current occupation as "ski bumming."

A thriving industry
Valhalla is part of a lightly regulated industry thriving in a time of war overseas and terrorism fears at home. Around the country, at least 16 privately run schools teach civilian students skills usually associated with SWAT teams or military combat -- close-in gunfighting, assault-rifle tactics, sniper shooting.

The reasons for the schools' growth include the U.S. military's increasing openness to privately run training, a rise in public demand for personal-defense skills and a new marketing strategy from some schools, which now sell tactical shooting as weekend recreation. Along with this growth have come concerns, voiced by academic observers and even some in the business, about the leeway afforded these schools to choose who and what they teach.

"You're talking about an entirely new industry that has a patchwork-quilt quality. . . . Some parts are regulated, and some parts are entirely unregulated," said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He said that such a system would be "one thing if we're talking about clown schools," but "it's different when we're talking about private military schools."

The schools, however, say that they strive to screen out clients who might misuse their training.

"They don't show up for class and have a gun in their hand until they've had a criminal background check," said Timothy Beckman, director of the training arm of the High Desert Special Operations Center in Nevada. "You don't get in the door if you don't have good paper."

A survey by The Washington Post of schools that advertise on the Internet and in gun magazines located 19 that offer advanced instruction in the skills of combat, with two more such centers planned in New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Of these, only three said that they limited the teaching of advanced skills to military and police clients.

One thing shared across the industry was a sense that -- these days more than ever -- people want what they are selling.

"Our business has increased since September 11th, period. People realize since September 11th that they need to be more prepared," said Jane Anne Hulen, marketing director of Gunsite Academy, a school in the Arizona desert that is one of the industry's heavyweights. She said Gunsite's business, which now involves about 1,000 students per year, has at least doubled since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

One engine of the industry's rapid growth is the wartime U.S. military. Private weapons schools now teach thousands of Navy sailors to defend their ships from terrorist attacks, and they put Special Forces soldiers through simulated combat in Middle East villages.

But these days, the schools have an equally big business in teaching civilians. With customers looking for defensive skills or recreation, the industry buzzword is the same one that puts the T in "SWAT."

"This is not a shooting school. It's a school for tactics," meaning the total set of skills useful in actual gunfighting, said Rob Pincus, director of shooting operations at Valhalla.

At many schools, the offerings include "tactical" approaches to personal defense, in which students learn to take on burglars and other assailants in "shoothouses" designed to mimic real life. At Valhalla, there is a fake house, convenience store and barroom where students encounter gun-clutching dummies or live instructors playing armed bad guys . The courses are often intended for people who have permits to carry concealed handguns.

During a recent "Combat Focus Shooting" class, instructor Brad Schuppan sent each student into the shoothouse's fake downtown with a special training handgun -- whose wax-tipped plastic bullets are designed to leave a mark but not injure -- and a set of terse instructions. "Private citizen. Concealed carry. Out and about," he told them, meaning: Don't do anything you wouldn't do in real life.

Not everybody listened. A few steps inside the door, student Mark Youngren drew his gun on the first person he saw, who turned out to be an instructor playing an unarmed bystander.

"Why have you got your gun out?" Schuppan yelled.

Youngren was sheepish under his helmet. "Just habit, I guess," he said, and he reholstered.

Some gun instructors have questioned whether such classes make civilian students such as Youngren too aggressive with their guns in real life. But the schools say they train students to avoid confrontations if possible. They argue that a well-trained civilian should be less dangerous than an untrained one with the same gun.

"We're the solution. People have guns. They're always going to have guns," said Heidi Smith, an owner and instructor at Thunder Ranch in Lakeview, Ore.

But many schools also provide civilians with training that would seem to have few, if any, applications in everyday life.

Thunder Ranch, for instance, offers a class in which two-person teams learn to move and shoot in confined spaces and provide covering fire for each other. One recent class included eight officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and a husband-and-wife pair of junior high school teachers from California, Smith said.

At least seven of the 16 schools teach civilians the use of military-style assault weapons. Some schools say they teach only target shooting using these guns, but at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute outside Las Vegas, there are classes in both the M-16 rifle and the Uzi submachine gun that include tactical simulations and lessons in how to use the guns in "full auto" mode.

At least six of the schools teach civilians how to fire a rifle accurately over long distances. Some focus on hunting or target-shooting skills only.

But not all do: West Virginia's Storm Mountain Training Center offers a "Sniper I" course that, along with shooting, includes the construction of "ghillie suits" like those worn by military snipers to camouflage their positions. "Sniper III" includes training in "sniper mission planning" and the chance to fire live shots as part of simulated tactical missions, according to the school's Web site.

Storm Mountain accepts U.S. citizens who pass a criminal background check and a physical fitness test, Rod Ryan, the school's vice president of operations, said in an e-mail message. At Front Sight, students must pass a criminal background check, sign a "Statement of No Criminal Record, Mental Illness, or Substance Abuse" and provide a character witness who has known them for at least five years, said the school's founder and director, Ignatius Piazza.

Although some schools have even stricter standards, limiting their training to executive bodyguards or security contractors headed for Iraq or Afghanistan, the most common approach seems to be a combination of background checks and character witnesses.

One voice absent from the debate is the federal government's. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which licenses gun dealers, has no similar monitoring for weapons trainers. State-level oversight is also largely absent, school officials said.

The self-regulating system has broken down in the past. In 1993, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officer who offered weapons and survival training in rural Pennsylvania taught a group of men from New York how to fire assault rifles and stage mock assaults on a nearby power substation. The men were later found to have been affiliated with the terrorist group that bombed the World Trade Center that year.

Some anti-violence activists and even a few weapons-school officials say that somebody -- a government agency or an industry association -- ought to set out rules for acceptable training and students.

"I don't think this should be taught to just anybody off the street," said Richard Weaver of ArmorGroup International PLC, which has camps in Virginia and Texas.

But no such limitations seem to be on the horizon. Instead, many schools are seeking to expand their civilian clientele by fully embracing the idea of gunfighting as entertainment. The Valhalla Training Center, for instance, already shares space with the Valhalla Shooting Club, which allows clients to live out James Bond-style fantasies such as taking down assailants in an airplane cabin or shooting their way out of a crowded subway station.

Later this year, a gun trainer in Oklahoma plans to create an $11 million "Tulsa Adventure Center" that will combine a climbing wall and a scuba pool with an indoor shoothouse. Jack Randal, the man behind the center, said he thinks his industry is ripe for the kind of transition into big-box prominence that the fishing-tackle industry achieved a few years ago.

"We're taking the mom-and-pop bait shop," Randal said, "and we're turning it into the Bass Pro Shop."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

While an industry association publishing guidelines and standards for Tactical Training might be a good thing so long as it was a voluntary thing, having such regulated and imposed by the Feds would be outside their sphere of authority IMHO. Not that such as stopped the Feds in the past. Having each individual state address the issue may be appropriate, dependent apon what the states constitution says says about such.

My personal opinion: This is just another way for the antis to pull their hair and get thier undies in a knot.
 
It won't stick.

Two problems:

* Virtually all of the schools require flashing a CCW permit, which means a fairly hairy background check with fingerprints via state and fed databases.

* It's a REALLY classic example of "Goldilocks Gun Control". The grabbers shriek that "civilians without proper training are running around carrying eeeeevil guns!" and then when we try and GET that training, whoops, that's "eeeeevil" too? Idiocy on that scale DOES get noticed. It's like a 50lb tumor on a midget...damned difficult not to notice.

The only traction I can see the grabbers getting is the sniper schools. I would suggest they tone it down just a hair (literally - lose the dang ghillie suits guys!) and maybe include at least a smattering of hunting skills.

But if not, well so what? The US has never banned the possession of skills. We don't keep our nuclear scientists under permanent house arrest and they're the most dangerous men in the world, bar none.
 
By seeking to destroy these skillsets the net effect is to reduce the military capability of the US.

To the people at the WaPo, that's a plus :barf:.
 
Link to email the author:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/david+a.+fahrenthold/

Lack of regulation of private training troubles some

Oh, heavens, someone is troubled! Hopefully the gov't can regulate these troubles away.

Ah yes, the journalistic euphemism "some people". Right up there with "studies have shown" as a mechanism to conceal the author's own biases.

One recent class included eight officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and a husband-and-wife pair of junior high school teachers from California, Smith said.

Oh, I bet Handgun Control Inc. is having conniptions about this one! :)
 
Valhalla = home of the chosen slain.

Who would choose such a name for a training academy? Don’t think I qualify, or want to qualify, for that one, CHL or not!
 
I read it this morning and it seemed pretty fair - for the Post.

The Sunday Post gots good comics, book reviews and a crossword puzzle (which I trade to my 80-year-old neighbor for country cooking. :) )

John
 
Not everybody listened. A few steps inside the door, student Mark Youngren drew his gun on the first person he saw, who turned out to be an instructor playing an unarmed bystander.

"Why have you got your gun out?" Schuppan yelled.

Youngren was sheepish under his helmet. "Just habit, I guess," he said, and he reholstered.

Some gun instructors have questioned whether such classes make civilian students such as Youngren too aggressive with their guns in real life.

There was a time when one could expect Harvard University graduates to have at least adequate reasoning ability. It's evidently deficient in young Mr. Fahrenthold, the reporter who wrote that story for the Washington Post,

Mark Youngren started out being too agressive with his gun. Youngren's instructor corrected him. The reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this incident is that the course should make students such as Youngren less aggressive--not more aggressive--with their guns in real life.

Mr. Fahrenthold demonstrates the need for stricter controls over journalism schools and those admitted to them, as well as the need for government licensing of all who claim First Amendment protection as members of the press. Such licenses should require frequent continuing education courses in subjects that include ethics and logic, should require annual renewal, and should be denied to felons or persons under a domestic restraining order.
 
Specialized, you asked for comments, so here comes one.

Please realize that I say this out of a sense of dedication to a cause you and I have in common.

Tone of voice is hard to do over the Internet, and I want to make sure you uderstand that there is no anger nor is there any venom in my words.

But Specialized, if this one little WaPo story makes your "blood run cold" then I would have to guess that you just haven't been paying enough attention to the situation for oh, about the last 40 years or so.

If you think that this one little WaPo story is really scary, then I'd have to say you've got a lot of catching up to do in your reading. This story is pretty mild compared to what gets churned out day after day, year after year.

Specialized, the WaPo (and about 99% of all other urban American newspapers) has been furious over the fact that any civilians own any guns since before there was dirt.

Glad you realize that now.

But I must say that I'm really confused why it took you so long to realize this truth, especially considering that you're apparently in Illinois.

It's really hard to find a state with more anti-gun laws and anti-gun politicians than Illinois.

hillbilly
 
Why thank you, hillbilly, for your conscientious input. I don't know where my head could have been for the last forty years. Would you do me the honor of one more favor? Please be so kind as to direct me to all the articles about efforts to regulate tactical training, as opposed to tactical implements, that have littered the landscape over the last four decades. I'd like to better myself and become more conversant in the history of this movement. Thank you very much for your time and efforts.

Kind Regards,
 
Specialized, Lexis-Nexis doesn't give URLs or Links, but here are some articles critical of civilians having access to "tactical training"

I'll post only a couple, and then just give newspaper and date for others.





Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

October 11, 2002 Friday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 28

LENGTH: 1175 words

HEADLINE: THE MARYLAND SHOOTINGS: GUN OWNERS;
Subculture of Snipers Disowns a Marksman

BYLINE: By FOX BUTTERFIELD

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Oct. 10

BODY:


For the state of the art in personal firearms, few weapons can top the Robar RC-50. Though it weighs 25 pounds, it has few peers when it comes to accuracy. In steady and experienced hands, it can propel a devastating .50-caliber round into a helicopter or armored vehicle up to a mile away.

The RC-50, which sells for about $5,000, is one of dozens of models of high-tech "precision" rifles that gun manufacturers are supplying -- not only to soldiers and police officers, but also to a rapidly growing band of civilians who cultivate sniper skills as a hobby.

In fact, the recent series of deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area has cast a light on what many gun experts say is an expanding sniper subculture with Web sites, books, training ranges and a growing supply of new and advanced weapons.

It is the sort of attention that sniper enthusiasts wish would go away.

"This guy is not a sniper," said Rodney Ryan, who runs a sniper training center in Elk Garden, W.Va.

The term sniper, Mr. Ryan said, refers to a military and law enforcement specialty. "He is just a crazed gunman, and he is giving snipers a bad reputation."

To Mr. Ryan, a former Army sniper and former member of the Washington police SWAT team, the growing interest in sniper training and equipment is a legitimate outgrowth of the need for expert long-range marksmen in the military and in law enforcement, combined with the development of more advanced gun technology.

Mr. Ryan said his Storm Mountain Training Center, which opened in 1996 and has had more than 5,000 students, required every applicant to submit a criminal background check in advance from the applicant's local police department along with a letter of recommendation from someone like a minister.

"We don't want some knucklehead crazed criminal coming here," Mr. Ryan said.

Robert Barrkman, president of Robar Companies Inc. of Phoenix, said that the primary market for his expensive sniper rifles was law enforcement and military agencies, but that he also sold some rifles to "very affluent civilians" who use them for target shooting.

In the 1990's, the market for sniper rifles expanded, Mr. Barrkman said, but his market share has dropped in the last few years because most of the large gun makers had also entered the business, making less expensive versions.

About four years ago, Robar stopped calling its guns sniper rifles and began selling them as "precision rifles" or "counter-sniper rifles," Mr. Barrkman said. The term "sniper rifle" was bad for business, he said.

But Mr. Barrkman said he had no qualms about about selling such a powerful and accurate weapon to civilians. "Why shouldn't civilians be able to buy such guns?" Mr. Barrkman asked. "As a citizen of the United States, a person doesn't have to have a reason to buy a gun."

Gun control advocates see things differently and say the growth of sniper shooting as a hobby would inevitably lead to violent deaths. "Given the development of a whole sniper culture over the past 10 years, it was almost inevitable that some deranged person or a terrorist was going to be drawn in to acting out the sniper mentality," said Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group here.

"The sniper's motto is, 'One shot, one kill,' " Mr. Diaz said. "That's what this guy has been doing right here around our nation's capital."

No accurate statistics exist on the number of sniper rifles being manufactured or sold in the United States, in part because neither the firearms industry nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms breaks down figures for rifles into the sniper category. Moreover, some weapons used by snipers are modified versions of standard military or hunting rifles.

In fact, the rifle employed by the Washington sniper, judging by the .223 caliber of the bullet fragments and shell casing that have been found, is probably a version of the standard American military M-16 or a Remington or Bushmaster hunting rifle, the A.T.F. has said.

But as one indication of the size of the market for sniper rifles, Mr. Diaz estimates that 15,000 to 20,000 sniper rifles just of the largest legal size, .50-caliber, have been made for civilians over the last two decades.

Mr. Diaz and sniper enthusiasts differ on what has driven the increased interest in sniping, which combines long-distance marksmanship with the arts of stalking and concealment. To Mr. Diaz, a good part of the answer is that gun sales have been declining for years, as the number of hunters has plunged.

"In order to rejuvenate its sales, the gun industry has gone out and marketed sniper rifles," he said.

As evidence, he pointed to statements in gun magazines by gun industry leaders. For example, Mr. Barrkman told Jane's International Defense Review that "the proliferation of sniper weapons is one of the few growth areas that exist for small-arms makers."

Similarly, Tactical Shooter magazine, designed for snipers, said in a recent article that "the real future of tactical shooting, like it or not, is at the civilian level."

But Mr. Ryan, the head of the Storm Mountain Training Center, sees a different motivation. The people who attend his sniper courses do it to personally challenge themselves, he said. Some are former military people who always wanted to be snipers but may have failed to qualify while they were in the service. Others are doctors or lawyers who sign up for the weeklong course for the challenges of hiding in the forest in heavy camouflage gear and learning how to calculate a range with the wind blowing.

Mr. Ryan and Norm Chandler, a retired marine lieutenant colonel who teaches sniper courses at the Blackwater Training Center in the Great Dismal Swamp near Moyock, N.C., said the Washington sniper was not a very good shot.

"It takes very little training to hit a target at 100 yards," Mr. Chandler said, noting that the Washington sniper was believed to have fired from about 100 yards.

Mr. Chandler said he was skeptical that the Washington sniper had a military or police background and was more likely a civilian. "He is using .223 caliber," he said. "That is small and not as accurate. If he were military or police, he'd used a .308."

"He is probably a fringe puppy, a sniper wannabe," Mr. Chandler said.

He said he tries to discourage such people from attending his sniper classes at Blackwater. "There are these idiots out there," he said. "The sniper culture is faddish, very stylish," for some people who want to claim they were in the military at a time when fewer Americans actually enroll in the armed forces.

Mr. Chandler and Mr. Ryan speculate that the Washington sniper may be operating as part of a two-man team. Military snipers generally work as a team, with one soldier spotting the target and calculating the range while the other concentrates on firing, and at least one witness has said he saw the sniper driving away in a white truck with two passengers.

To Mr. Ryan, there is another reason the sniper has a partner. "He is doing it because he wants someone to brag to," he said.


URL: http://www.nytimes.com

GRAPHIC: Photo: In addition to sniper training, the Storm Mountain Training Center also offers equipment for sale, including this "rifleman kit" for about $300.

LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2002
 
Here's some more.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0210snip.htm

with the key excerpt:

Cultivation of a sniper subculture within the gun community. A collateral aspect of the marketing of military weapons has been the encouragement of a sniper subculture in the United States. This includes the marketing of books, paraphernalia, training, and assorted gear. Thus, although the rifle used in these shootings has not yet been identified, the attacks are consistent with a clearly growing subculture.


And another one.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0210snip2.htm


And another story discussed on another forum.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-134523.html


Discussion on the same forum about a CNN story about teaching long-range shooting.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-135382.html


Here's another one linking civilian firearms training in the US to terrorism.

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/creditcardarmies.pdf#search='civilian%20firearms%20training%20and%20risks'


Horror of horrors...teaching kids to shoot!!!

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2936


http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/08/family.crossfire/


http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:131486823&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=



And here's another article on kids getting training in Scotland.

Copyright 2004 The Press Association Limited
Press Association

March 9, 2004, Tuesday

SECTION: HOME NEWS

LENGTH: 826 words

HEADLINE: CALLS TO SACK 'GUN LESSONS FOR CHILDREN' MP

BYLINE: Rod Minchin, Scottish Press Association

BODY:
Anti-gun campaigners today called for a senior Tory MP to be sacked after he said children should be taught how to handle firearms.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative home security spokesman, said a ban on handguns introduced after the Dunblane massacre had "no effect" on spiralling gun crime.

His comments were immediately condemned by anti-gun groups and politicians who called on Tory leader Michael Howard to sack the MP from the party's frontbench.

Mothers Against Murder and Aggression said Mr Mercer's comments were "crass" and "appalling", while the SNP said the Tories should either "back him or sack him".

A Conservative Party spokesman declined to comment on calls for Mr Mercer's sacking and would only say that the Government's current gun crime policy was not working.

The MP told BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: "While laws have been introduced to ban legally-held pistols in gun clubs, that had absolutely no effect on gun crime.

"If anything, it has driven it up or helped to drive it up."

The Daily Record newspaper reported the Newark MP as saying he wanted to see the handgun ban, which was introduced after the 1996 school massacre, lifted.

Mr Mercer said his comments at a party fringe meeting had been taken out of context.

The politician claimed he had said that children in rural communities should be taught how to use "non-lethal" weapons such as air rifles as a prelude to using shotguns in later life.

"I made no mention of children being taught to use handguns," he said.

"The only thing I said was that in rural areas it made sense for things like airguns and BB guns to be handled by children so that in later life when they have access to shotguns they knew how to handle them safely and with respect."

Dee Warner, from Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, called for Mr Mercer to be sacked.

"Thomas Hamilton and Tony Martin both held legal firearms," she said.

"Tony Martin shot a boy in the back and Thomas Hamilton massacred 16 children and their teacher (in Dunblane)."

She said Mr Howard should take away the party whip from Mr Mercer, as he did with Ann Winterton after she made an insensitive joke about the deaths of 20 Chinese cocklepickers.

"I have been speaking to the other anti-gun groups and we would like him sacked for making such crass comments when so many people are fighting to take guns off the streets," she said.

"I just find his comments appalling. It shows how out of touch he is with what is happening on our streets - teaching children to use firearms is completely misguided.

"This Saturday is the anniversary of the shootings at Dunblane where innocent children and their teacher were killed with a legally-held firearm - good timing, Mr Mercer.

"There have been massacres at schools all over America by young people who use weapons either owned by the parents or bought by their parents for their use in rural communities."

"You do not train children to use dangerous machinery, like combine harvesters, until they are adults," he said.

"I do not see that guns are any different. The Army does not refuse new recruits simply because they haven't fired a gun in childhood."

However, he did not call for the frontbencher's resignation.

"I disagree with what he was saying but I think resignations are the easy way out," Dr North said.

But the retired scientist said Mr Mercer was wrong to say gun crime was rising.

"He should look at the figures. Gun crime in Scotland is significantly down compared to the early 1990s."

SNP leader John Swinney labelled the Tory MP's comments as "disgraceful" and demanded that Michael Howard either back him or sack him.

"Patrick Mercer's remarks are an insult to the memory of the victims of Dunblane and an insult to the families who campaigned so hard to get handguns banned," Mr Swinney said.

"The Tory Party are getting into the habit of making reckless comments and after the Ann Winterton saga, the Tory leadership must now admit Patrick Mercer's outburst is equally disgraceful.

"If Michael Howard does nothing we will be left to assume that he backs his spokesman and that Mr Mercer speaks for his party.

"If he does speak for the Tories then shame on them - if he doesn't, Mr Howard must sack him immediately.

"Too many people across this country have had their lives and families destroyed by gun crime to let Mr Mercer's comments go."

Meanwhile, Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, said: "This is a sick joke by Patrick Mercer and I would expect Michael Howard to distance himself from these extreme comments.

Mr Watson, who has campaigned against gun crime, added: "His remarks are extremely insensitive to all those who have suffered as a result of gun crime."

Lord Cullen, whose inquiry into the Dunblane massacre produced proposals for tighter controls of handguns, refused to comment on the row today when questioned by reporters during an appearance at the Scottish Parliament.

LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2004


Gun training dangerous to women...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-10-palmer_x.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top