[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Col. Grossman interview (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/28/2012 8:04:52 PM EDT
|
Link
Put on by the USCCA. It's well worth your time.....Or it's not. |
|
Quoted:
Got to attend a presentation he gave at a SOF schoolhouse. Eye opening and motivational. Great speaker! He's coming to Nebraska later this year. I'll bet his presentation will be similar to those that I've seen, but I'm sure it will still be worth the time. |
|
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Not that I know of. He uses that as a means to show us how we have "progressed" throughout our history. Can you provide the links where his stuff was debunked? I'd like to see the research. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here. 
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here. Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here.
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here.
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Here's a good start - this article sources Prof. Robert J. Spiller, Dept. Director of Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. S.L.A Marshall's "research" was about as credible as most of that cranked out by the Brady Campaign, and those who willingly repeat it after it has been so thoroughly discredited are suspect. Oh, and Col. David Hackworth idolized S.L.A Marshall... until he met him and saw the scum's "methods" personally. Grossman has made a lot of money and built quite a career out of the "people must be trained to be butchers" shtick, and repeating it as often as he is sufficiently paid. He worked hand in hand with the now-disbarred psycho lawyer Jack Thompson during the latter's anti-gaming crusade. Grossman's contrived, ridiculous conclusions - built on discredited foundations of fraudulent research by a liar - were parroted and further trumpeted by anti-psychology groups with ties to the more extreme entities within the anti-psychologist Church of Scientology, such as the man-shaped mass of shit we call David Miscavige. Grossman chooses very suspect company, has built his career on fraudulent and discredited so-called "research" that was at best massaged or at worst fabricated, and in doing all of that he has made a tidy chunk of change for himself campaigning against the recognized, constitutionally protected freedom of expression and freedom of speech of those that create, sell, and partake in video games and similar entertainment. The man is an opportunist, a sham, a swindler, and a liar, and I will happily say that to his face. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Bet your pretty good at MW3 on Nintendo Never played it. Put the xbox down and I bet you could actually insult people properly. The fact that Col. Grossman still hems and haws and dances around the issue like Holder testifying to Congress, instead of admitting the research he used was fraudulent... well, that says more about his integrity and real motivations than I ever could. |
|
Met LTC Grossman at a book signing back when "On Killing" first came out. Nobody knew who he was, nobody knew the book. Poor guy was sitting there at a table outside the bookstore at Fort Lewis with nobody paying any attention to him whatsoever. I'd read his book, and I felt sorry for him, so I went over and talked to him. This was well before he came out on TV against video games, and all this other crap he's done.
Interesting guy, very nice, very professional and well-spoken. But... He's got his ideas and he cannot or will not see the flaws in his reasoning. Then, as now, I saw issues with his idea that a willingness to kill has to be trained into everybody. I brought up examples like the Mongols at Samarkhand, Somali gunmen, and a whole bunch of other issues. He kept returning to his argument that people aren't natural killers. I still have to disagree with him on that, because it's my opinion that the atypical human being is the civilized one. Killing comes pretty naturally, if you don't have twenty years of programming from mother, father, church and society that it's wrong. I think what he has to say has a lot of application, inside the context of western civilization and a fully acculturated citizen-solder. Outside that context? What he's been saying for years is mere wishful thinking, and it's dangerous to assign values to people's behavior that they don't possess. You don't see too many Palestinian terrorists experiencing PTSD or having second thoughts about killing Jews. They do get PTSD after spending hours being hunted by IDF troops, or coping with the return fire, but they don't get all guilty and have recriminations about smashing heads of babies against walls. That's where his ideas break down, I'm afraid. We talked for about a half hour, and then my lunch was over and I had to go back to work. Nice guy, smart guy, but I think he's a little off-base with his thesis and reasoning. He's also not able to cope very well with answering questions that contradict some of his ideas, at least not then. |
|
Is there any firearms trainer/combat instructor/combat psychologist/Space Shuttle door gunner expert that is not hated by at least 1/4 of the gun community?
Why can't people just accept that not everyone agrees with everyone? Gabe Suarez had God talk to him one night and thought about killing some JBT's!!!! He knows NOTHING! Travis Haley is a Magpul sellout! He is a sham! Larry Vickers was fat once! He can't possibly teach me anything! Dave Grossman puts on controversial seminars- nothing he says is true and nothing can be gained by listening to his research! WITCH! You guys are certainly interesting sometimes. 
|
|
Quoted:
he cannot or will not see the flaws in his reasoning. Then, as now, I saw issues with his idea that a willingness to kill has to be trained into everybody. I brought up examples like the Mongols at Samarkhand, Somali gunmen, and a whole bunch of other issues. He kept returning to his argument that people aren't natural killers. I still have to disagree with him on that, because it's my opinion that the atypical human being is the civilized one. Killing comes pretty naturally, if you don't have twenty years of programming from mother, father, church and society that it's wrong. I think what he has to say has a lot of application, inside the context of western civilization and a fully acculturated citizen-solder. Outside that context? What he's been saying for years is mere wishful thinking, and it's dangerous to assign values to people's behavior that they don't possess. You don't see too many Palestinian terrorists experiencing PTSD or having second thoughts about killing Jews. They do get PTSD after spending hours being hunted by IDF troops, or coping with the return fire, but they don't get all guilty and have recriminations about smashing heads of babies against walls. That's where his ideas break down, I'm afraid. We talked for about a half hour, and then my lunch was over and I had to go back to work. Nice guy, smart guy, but I think he's a little off-base with his thesis and reasoning. He's also not able to cope very well with answering questions that contradict some of his ideas, at least not then. It isn't that people are not born with the willingness to kill. Many people are. It is the ability to kill repeatedly without psychological damage that requires communal support. Grossman is correct that the response act is more efficient with training. Every human can be trained to respond more quickly. What he fails to notice is the communal structure aspect of the communities that you referenced. They were designed to support warriors(for lack of a better phrase) in all phases of life. The violent actor is the revered actor in these communities. Let's look at the Saxon warrior during the period of the Norman Conquest. He lives a structured life chosen from an early age to perform as a fighter and bodyguard. His sense of identity is developed from the effective performance of violent tasks. Financial reward comes from success on these tasks. The Saxon housecarl would be rewarded directly from his leader. This serves to provide a framework where violence is a positive behaviorial trait. Yet he is not a sociopath. There are rules and a society that has ritualized violent acts. The housecarl will not be rewarded if he goes around indiscriminately murdering. The key to long term psychological health is that violence is an approved and supported response in the overarching society. It simply isn't in the U.S. anymore. As a result, the modern American warrior is taught from childhood that aggression is bad. That violence is never a solution. That America is not capable of fighting a just war. People do remember violent actions that cause them stress. Without the instruction from society that the acts are: just, necessary and required, soldiers suffer. You don't see this is other cultures. I suspect that the support that they provide their soldiers limits the trauma suffered. |
|
Lots of his opinions on combat, psychology, and killing people in his book "On Killing" are spot of with my personal experiences in Iraq, and the experiences of other Marines and Soldiers I know and have shared experiences with, some of whom have read the same book and agreed with much of it. ETA- I love it when you can talk about Grossman and a shitload of 03's and 11b's say "this guy gets it" and everyone else dogs on him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here.
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Here's a good start - this article sources Prof. Robert J. Spiller, Dept. Director of Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. S.L.A Marshall's "research" was about as credible as most of that cranked out by the Brady Campaign, and those who willingly repeat it after it has been so thoroughly discredited are suspect. Oh, and Col. David Hackworth idolized S.L.A Marshall... until he met him and saw the scum's "methods" personally. Grossman has made a lot of money and built quite a career out of the "people must be trained to be butchers" shtick, and repeating it as often as he is sufficiently paid. He worked hand in hand with the now-disbarred psycho lawyer Jack Thompson during the latter's anti-gaming crusade. Grossman's contrived, ridiculous conclusions - built on discredited foundations of fraudulent research by a liar - were parroted and further trumpeted by anti-psychology groups with ties to the more extreme entities within the anti-psychologist Church of Scientology, such as the man-shaped mass of shit we call David Miscavige. Grossman chooses very suspect company, has built his career on fraudulent and discredited so-called "research" that was at best massaged or at worst fabricated, and in doing all of that he has made a tidy chunk of change for himself campaigning against the recognized, constitutionally protected freedom of expression and freedom of speech of those that create, sell, and partake in video games and similar entertainment. The man is an opportunist, a sham, a swindler, and a liar, and I will happily say that to his face. Newsweek is not credible in my world. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here.
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Here's a good start - this article sources Prof. Robert J. Spiller, Dept. Director of Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. S.L.A Marshall's "research" was about as credible as most of that cranked out by the Brady Campaign, and those who willingly repeat it after it has been so thoroughly discredited are suspect. Oh, and Col. David Hackworth idolized S.L.A Marshall... until he met him and saw the scum's "methods" personally. Grossman has made a lot of money and built quite a career out of the "people must be trained to be butchers" shtick, and repeating it as often as he is sufficiently paid. He worked hand in hand with the now-disbarred psycho lawyer Jack Thompson during the latter's anti-gaming crusade. Grossman's contrived, ridiculous conclusions - built on discredited foundations of fraudulent research by a liar - were parroted and further trumpeted by anti-psychology groups with ties to the more extreme entities within the anti-psychologist Church of Scientology, such as the man-shaped mass of shit we call David Miscavige. Grossman chooses very suspect company, has built his career on fraudulent and discredited so-called "research" that was at best massaged or at worst fabricated, and in doing all of that he has made a tidy chunk of change for himself campaigning against the recognized, constitutionally protected freedom of expression and freedom of speech of those that create, sell, and partake in video games and similar entertainment. The man is an opportunist, a sham, a swindler, and a liar, and I will happily say that to his face. Newsweek is not credible in my world. Newseek has issues, but that article cited its source. Is Roger Spiller not credible "in your world?" Do you not have the capacity to independently verify what he said? Grossman has marketed himself well, but he remains, ultimately, dedicated to self marketing. It is very easy to market to certain people - inflate their ego, tell them what they want to hear. Don't sweat it, though, there will always be people willing to do that for you, so you need not ever have to confront the complex wall of BS you have built to contain "your world." Just keep lashing out at me and any others who threaten those foundations. You're good at it. |
|
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here.
Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Here's a good start - this article sources Prof. Robert J. Spiller, Dept. Director of Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. S.L.A Marshall's "research" was about as credible as most of that cranked out by the Brady Campaign, and those who willingly repeat it after it has been so thoroughly discredited are suspect. Oh, and Col. David Hackworth idolized S.L.A Marshall... until he met him and saw the scum's "methods" personally. Grossman has made a lot of money and built quite a career out of the "people must be trained to be butchers" shtick, and repeating it as often as he is sufficiently paid. He worked hand in hand with the now-disbarred psycho lawyer Jack Thompson during the latter's anti-gaming crusade. Grossman's contrived, ridiculous conclusions - built on discredited foundations of fraudulent research by a liar - were parroted and further trumpeted by anti-psychology groups with ties to the more extreme entities within the anti-psychologist Church of Scientology, such as the man-shaped mass of shit we call David Miscavige. Grossman chooses very suspect company, has built his career on fraudulent and discredited so-called "research" that was at best massaged or at worst fabricated, and in doing all of that he has made a tidy chunk of change for himself campaigning against the recognized, constitutionally protected freedom of expression and freedom of speech of those that create, sell, and partake in video games and similar entertainment. The man is an opportunist, a sham, a swindler, and a liar, and I will happily say that to his face. Newsweek is not credible in my world. Newseek has issues, but that article cited its source. Is Roger Spiller not credible "in your world?" Do you not have the capacity to independently verify what he said? Grossman has marketed himself well, but he remains, ultimately, dedicated to self marketing. It is very easy to market to certain people - inflate their ego, tell them what they want to hear. Don't sweat it, though, there will always be people willing to do that for you, so you need not ever have to confront the complex wall of BS you have built to contain "your world." Just keep lashing out at me and any others who threaten those foundations. You're good at it. OK, I don't really understand why we have to be at opposite ends of every discussion on these types of topics. I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree. Is Grossman marketing himself? Of course he is. It's how he makes a living. Is that wrong? I don't think so at all. He's not forcing anyone to buy anything. He's also not keeping them from buying anything. He's selling his opinion. MOST of which I agree with. I don't know about the violent media and it's effects on children. I'm not terribly concerned with his positions on that. I am concerned with the level of preparedness that most people are satisfied with. Most people trundle around blindly with no concern whatsoever of the dangers that lurk around every corner. I think that is where he does the most good. He is very good at convincing people to be prepared to deal with and confront evil when it raises it's head. I'm no elite operator or anything like that, but I am aware of the dangers this world contains and am willing to confront it when needed. On his "theory" on conditioning the mind for killing, I think it probably does hold some validity. I think video games may contribute to a person's ability to kill another person. I remember the first time I played a "first person shooter" video game. It had an effect on me when I killed a realistic looking character or had a member of my team killed. It no longer has that effect. I also don't care if people or kids play those games as long as the kids understand that it's a game and does not make it OK to take a gun to school and shoot your fellow students. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. I have no knowlege of the trustworthiness of those people and honestly I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching them. I'll take it that they are good to go and cede the point that the level of engagement in those previous wars was probably higher than was stated. To me that doesn't discount what Grossman is teaching. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. I have no knowlege of the trustworthiness of those people and honestly I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching them. I'll take it that they are good to go and cede the point that the level of engagement in those previous wars was probably higher than was stated. To me that doesn't discount what Grossman is teaching. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Uh... yeah, it does. The entirety of his argument and his conclusions are built atop debunked lies and fabrications. Everything on top of that is invalidated until new, credible support can be established for those conclusions. When Brady and Sugarmann and Feinstien make speeches and introduce laws and make accusations based on bullshit skewed "facts", they do not get the benefit of the doubt and have their conclusions accepted as "still more or less factual". You're willing to accept statements from one source at face value, bitch and whine when somebody points out the source you like is full of shit, brush off counter-sources, and then roll your eyes and say that you don't know the counter-sources from Adam and you're not going to bother researching them in order to accept them as valid. Source you like, totally trustworthy at first sight. Source you don't like, bullshit until you research it - and you won't bother to research it. What it comes down to is that you've already made up your mind about how you want things to be instead of how they are, and you don't want to hear anything that might pop your little mental bubble. Critical thinking and exercising some old fashioned logic is just too hard. |
|
Quoted:
... OK, I don't really understand why we have to be at opposite ends of every discussion on these types of topics. I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree. Is Grossman marketing himself? Of course he is. It's how he makes a living. Is that wrong? I don't think so at all. He's not forcing anyone to buy anything. He's also not keeping them from buying anything. He's selling his opinion. MOST of which I agree with. I don't know about the violent media and it's effects on children. I'm not terribly concerned with his positions on that. I am concerned with the level of preparedness that most people are satisfied with. Most people trundle around blindly with no concern whatsoever of the dangers that lurk around every corner. I think that is where he does the most good. He is very good at convincing people to be prepared to deal with and confront evil when it raises it's head. I'm no elite operator or anything like that, but I am aware of the dangers this world contains and am willing to confront it when needed. On his "theory" on conditioning the mind for killing, I think it probably does hold some validity. I think video games may contribute to a person's ability to kill another person. I remember the first time I played a "first person shooter" video game. It had an effect on me when I killed a realistic looking character or had a member of my team killed. It no longer has that effect. I also don't care if people or kids play those games as long as the kids understand that it's a game and does not make it OK to take a gun to school and shoot your fellow students. It all comes down to, at its core, who you trust. I first met Grossman when he was still in the Army. He was a mesmerizing public speaker. He had a unique way of making a young clueless Joe feel like he could take on Hell's Army with a pocket knife. He was really that good. When he first started hitting the public speaking circuit, he marketed himself to law enforcement. The concealed carry thing is newer. You know what, though? I'm no longer 20 years old. I have more combat experience than Mr. Grossman, and I am a cynical ass. I see what he is doing now as nothing more than an elaborate con, playing on what has always been his greatest strength. I see the entire industry of people like this, who have taken advantage of the irresponsible torrent of taxpayer dollars to run seminars and conferences to exploit the fears of people who are scared. I see how they use one seminar to pad their resume for pitching the next. Give a seminar to some SOCOM unit? Well, now you "train special operations personnel." In the end, it comes down to integrity. Is their message consistent, or does it sway with the audience to pander to who is paying? When someone they work with is questioned for fraud, do they defend him or do they seriously evaluate their own status? If their own research is questioned? Do they re-evalaute that, or do they obfuscate and redirect, fearing anything that might deter the gravy train? If introduced as a "Ranger," do they correct the person, say they graduate "Ranger" school as a young LT, but that is not the same thing as serving as a Ranger, and that title shold be reserved for the Rangers assigned to Ranger Battalions who have been deploying non-stop for nearly 11 years now? Or, do they smile and nod knowing being a "Ranger" is better marketing? On all accounts, Grossman has come up short. He is still a great and riveting speaker. Then again, so is every con man out there. Just be aware that all he is really selling is an ego boost to his audience, and that - when it comes to actual threat management and risk assessment - he has shown little interest in any research and studies that might detract from that message. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. I have no knowlege of the trustworthiness of those people and honestly I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching them. I'll take it that they are good to go and cede the point that the level of engagement in those previous wars was probably higher than was stated. To me that doesn't discount what Grossman is teaching. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Uh... yeah, it does. The entirety of his argument and his conclusions are built atop debunked lies and fabrications. Everything on top of that is invalidated until new, credible support can be established for those conclusions. When Brady and Sugarmann and Feinstien make speeches and introduce laws and make accusations based on bullshit skewed "facts", they do not get the benefit of the doubt and have their conclusions accepted as "still more or less factual". You're willing to accept statements from one source at face value, bitch and whine when somebody points out the source you like is full of shit, brush off counter-sources, and then roll your eyes and say that you don't know the counter-sources from Adam and you're not going to bother researching them. What it comes down to is that you've already made up your mind about how you want things to be instead of how they are, and you don't want to hear anything that might pop your little mental bubble. Critical thinking and exercising some old fashioned logic is just too hard. What damage is Grossman doing? When I get out of my time machine I'll let you know exactly how many people actually fired on the enemy from those times. Everything else right now is speculation. Can you please quote where I bitched and whined? Because right now i just kinda think you want to argue and be an internet fuckstick. Try having a civil discussion. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Bet your pretty good at MW3 on Nintendo Never played it. Put the xbox down and I bet you could actually insult people properly. The fact that Col. Grossman still hems and haws and dances around the issue like Holder testifying to Congress, instead of admitting the research he used was fraudulent... well, that says more about his integrity and real motivations than I ever could. Grossman's conclusions generally give with what I saw in Iraq and Astan...the vast majority of people rarely returned fire and when they did, it was not aimed. In LE, Use of Force by LEOs trained to do it is still something many LEOs won't do and if they do it, they do it in a very restrained manner. IMO, grossman is fairly close to correct. I don't agree with everything....but human beings from normal civilized countries are pretty reluctant to kill one another. YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
... OK, I don't really understand why we have to be at opposite ends of every discussion on these types of topics. I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree. Is Grossman marketing himself? Of course he is. It's how he makes a living. Is that wrong? I don't think so at all. He's not forcing anyone to buy anything. He's also not keeping them from buying anything. He's selling his opinion. MOST of which I agree with. I don't know about the violent media and it's effects on children. I'm not terribly concerned with his positions on that. I am concerned with the level of preparedness that most people are satisfied with. Most people trundle around blindly with no concern whatsoever of the dangers that lurk around every corner. I think that is where he does the most good. He is very good at convincing people to be prepared to deal with and confront evil when it raises it's head. I'm no elite operator or anything like that, but I am aware of the dangers this world contains and am willing to confront it when needed. On his "theory" on conditioning the mind for killing, I think it probably does hold some validity. I think video games may contribute to a person's ability to kill another person. I remember the first time I played a "first person shooter" video game. It had an effect on me when I killed a realistic looking character or had a member of my team killed. It no longer has that effect. I also don't care if people or kids play those games as long as the kids understand that it's a game and does not make it OK to take a gun to school and shoot your fellow students. It all comes down to, at its core, who you trust. I first met Grossman when he was still in the Army. He was a mesmerizing public speaker. He had a unique way of making a young clueless Joe feel like he could take on Hell's Army with a pocket knife. He was really that good. When he first started hitting the public speaking circuit, he marketed himself to law enforcement. The concealed carry thing is newer. You know what, though? I'm no longer 20 years old. I have more combat experience than Mr. Grossman, and I am a cynical ass. I see what he is doing now as nothing more than an elaborate con, playing on what has always been his greatest strength. I see the entire industry of people like this, who have taken advantage of the irresponsible torrent of taxpayer dollars to run seminars and conferences to exploit the fears of people who are scared. I see how they use one seminar to pad their resume for pitching the next. Give a seminar to some SOCOM unit? Well, now you "train special operations personnel." In the end, it comes down to integrity. Is their message consistent, or does it sway with the audience to pander to who is paying? When someone they work with is questioned for fraud, do they defend him or do they seriously evaluate their own status? If their own research is questioned? Do they re-evalaute that, or do they obfuscate and redirect, fearing anything that might deter the gravy train? If introduced as a "Ranger," do they correct the person, say they graduate "Ranger" school as a young LT, but that is not the same thing as serving as a Ranger, and that title shold be reserved for the Rangers assigned to Ranger Battalions who have been deploying non-stop for nearly 11 years now? Or, do they smile and nod knowing being a "Ranger" is better marketing? On all accounts, Grossman has come up short. He is still a great and riveting speaker. Then again, so is every con man out there. Just be aware that all he is really selling is an ego boost to his audience, and that - when it comes to actual threat management and risk assessment - he has shown little interest in any research and studies that might detract from that message. I can't argue with this. Your experience and background is shaping your perception, just as mine is. Grossman is relatively new to me and it's entirely possible that I'll change my opinion of him in the future. I take a few things away from everyone I encounter. I don't think he's the Messiah or the end all to self defense. I do think that he is a positive influence and he is very powerful as a speaker. His marketing is typical of everyone that markets themselves. Generally needs a ton of salt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. I have no knowlege of the trustworthiness of those people and honestly I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching them. I'll take it that they are good to go and cede the point that the level of engagement in those previous wars was probably higher than was stated. To me that doesn't discount what Grossman is teaching. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Uh... yeah, it does. The entirety of his argument and his conclusions are built atop debunked lies and fabrications. Everything on top of that is invalidated until new, credible support can be established for those conclusions. When Brady and Sugarmann and Feinstien make speeches and introduce laws and make accusations based on bullshit skewed "facts", they do not get the benefit of the doubt and have their conclusions accepted as "still more or less factual". You're willing to accept statements from one source at face value, bitch and whine when somebody points out the source you like is full of shit, brush off counter-sources, and then roll your eyes and say that you don't know the counter-sources from Adam and you're not going to bother researching them. What it comes down to is that you've already made up your mind about how you want things to be instead of how they are, and you don't want to hear anything that might pop your little mental bubble. Critical thinking and exercising some old fashioned logic is just too hard. What damage is Grossman doing? When I get out of my time machine I'll let you know exactly how many people actually fired on the enemy from those times. Everything else right now is speculation. Can you please quote where I bitched and whined? Because right now i just kinda think you want to argue and be an internet fuckstick. Try having a civil discussion. No, I want you to man up and admit you were wrong. You presented a claim based on specific supporting evidence. That evidence was thoroughly discredited through a variety of counter-sources that show it was full of fabrications and bullshit. Therefore the conclusions based on it - the ones you are arguing for - are completely invalid until such time as credible supporting evidence can be assembled to resupport them. Until you can impeach the validity and credibility of those multiple counter-sources, you are sitting there insisting to everybody that you can sail the seas in a paper boat without a bottom. Not only are you wrong, but the more you vainly argue that you are right, the more ridiculous you look. In this case, Grossman has built himself a career and made a brand of himself based solely on that argument. It's not just your argument that's wrong; Grossman as an individual has destroyed his own credibility through his actions and his Obama-esque refusal to be forthright about the truth and the fact that the lies he built on top of have finally been outed. The highly questionable intellectual company he keeps and the 20 silver pieces he accepts without hesitation from any offering source are almost secondary, but they don't help his cause. |
| While most airchair commandos on the interwebs are quick to criticize his statements on violent video games, shots fired in war, etc., they sure seem to love his wolf/sheepdog analogy. There are a good many gun toters out there who fancy themselves as sheepdogs and the saviors of society simply because they carry. If any of those types had read his books, they would understand that carrying a gun isn't what makes you a sheep dog - no more than being able to conceive makes you a father. There is a lot more to it than just weilding the tool. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Quoted:
Newsweek is not credible in my world. Ahem, to paraphrase: "You know, when you claim that a publication is untrustworthy, or that the sources it quotes are wrong, you have to back it up." I have no strong opinions about Dave Grossman's ideas as regard training people or fighting or the psychology of killing, but I do entirely reject the idea that because there may be a link between violent media and violence that that constitutes a basis upon which to ban all violent media. Over the years hundreds of journalists have quoted Marshall's famous study—including me, in the pages of NEWSWEEK. But last month a reader sent me a copy of a March 1989 article from American Heritage magazine that set me straight. In fact, there is no real evidence that so few soldiers open fire, writes Frederick Smoler in "The Secret of the Soldiers Who Don't Shoot." "It just may be," concludes Smoler, "that Samuel Lyman Marshall made the whole thing up." Smoler reports on the digging of Harold P. (Bud) Leinbaugh, an Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Europe during the war, and a military historian named Roger Spiller. Both men were skeptical about Marshall's claim, and they decided to look into his research. They discovered that among the soldiers Marshall interviewed at Makin Island, a battle in the Pacific, there was a tendency to fire too much, not too little—to blaze away for no good reason. Marshall seems to have just invented his interviews in the European theater.
So, is Frederic Smoler untrustworthy, is Roger Spiller, is Harold Leinbaugh? Why or why not? http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot?page=show The article quoted in and the genesis of the Newsweek article. I have no knowlege of the trustworthiness of those people and honestly I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching them. I'll take it that they are good to go and cede the point that the level of engagement in those previous wars was probably higher than was stated. To me that doesn't discount what Grossman is teaching. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Uh... yeah, it does. The entirety of his argument and his conclusions are built atop debunked lies and fabrications. Everything on top of that is invalidated until new, credible support can be established for those conclusions. When Brady and Sugarmann and Feinstien make speeches and introduce laws and make accusations based on bullshit skewed "facts", they do not get the benefit of the doubt and have their conclusions accepted as "still more or less factual". You're willing to accept statements from one source at face value, bitch and whine when somebody points out the source you like is full of shit, brush off counter-sources, and then roll your eyes and say that you don't know the counter-sources from Adam and you're not going to bother researching them. What it comes down to is that you've already made up your mind about how you want things to be instead of how they are, and you don't want to hear anything that might pop your little mental bubble. Critical thinking and exercising some old fashioned logic is just too hard. What damage is Grossman doing? When I get out of my time machine I'll let you know exactly how many people actually fired on the enemy from those times. Everything else right now is speculation. Can you please quote where I bitched and whined? Because right now i just kinda think you want to argue and be an internet fuckstick. Try having a civil discussion. No, I want you to man up and admit you were wrong. You presented a claim based on specific supporting evidence. That evidence was thoroughly discredited through a variety of counter-sources that show it was full of fabrications and bullshit. Therefore the conclusions based on it - the ones you are arguing for - are completely invalid until such time as credible supporting evidence can be assembled to resupport them. Until you can impeach the validity and credibility of those multiple counter-sources, you are sitting there insisting to everybody that you can sail the seas in a paper boat without a bottom. Not only are you wrong, but the more you vainly argue that you are right, the more ridiculous you look. In this case, Grossman has built himself a career and made a brand of himself based solely on that argument. It's not just your argument that's wrong; Grossman as an individual has destroyed his own credibility through his actions and his Obama-esque refusal to be forthright about the truth and the fact that the lies he built on top of have finally been outed. The highly questionable intellectual company he keeps and the 20 silver pieces he accepts without hesitation from any offering source are almost secondary, but they don't help his cause. Which claim did I present again? You need to read my other posts in this thread. For the record, I think Grossman has some very good points and does a good job marketing his viewpoints. I think the points he makes are valid and relevant. I don't know if you are arguing against preparedness or for it. I just know that you're arguing. This isn't about me, or you. I don't necessarily care who is presenting the ideas, they are the messenger. Everyone that markets themselves tends to focus on the most positive things they have to offer. Some of them embellish those facts, some people lie and completely fabricate their backgrounds. Grossman is using statistics from someone else. I have no clue if the engagement stats are correct and probably neither does anyone else. I am sure there was as much variation among units as there was among the army as a whole. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. |
|
Quoted:
I seem to recall LTC Grossman saying that violent media is fine for adults and teenagers, he just doesn't think it's good for young children. "Simply put, we ought to work toward legislation that outlaws violent video games for children." "...we must also take on the producers of media violence. The solution strategy that I submit for consideration is, “education, legislation, litigation.”" "And we are very close to being able to do to the media, through “litigation,” what is being done to the tobacco industry, hotting them in the only place they understand––their wallets." ""We're going to sue them down to their socks," he said, likening the proposed case which is gaining political support in the US, to big-dollar cases against major tobacco manufacturers. "It's just another industry we have to reel in."" All of the above are from Dave Grossman's own website. Again, I don't make any claims about the validity of Dave Grossman's positions as regards soldiers and cops and citizens and other armed persons confronting violence. ETA: And it's REALLY HARD for me to say that, because his opinions as regard games make me hate him, but I don't think having stupid opinions about games necessarily invalidates his opinions about other things. Other people are handling that part of the argument well enough with the suggestions that his other ideas are based on debunked research. What I have a problem with are his positions on using the government to spit on the games industry, his desire to ban media based on nonsense, and his desire to 'legislate' and 'litigate' his stupid ideas into public policy. Is that really that controversial of a stance to take?
I don't know. Do you have any evidence besides Dave Grossman's repeated assertions and name-calling against video games and their developers that video games or movies actually cause people to become more violent? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. I respect him within his subject matter expertise. As for video games and other stuff? So he's wrong. Oh, well. I'll defer to experts within the video game community in those cases. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? He served honorably, and I'd think that pretty much fulfills the hero part. He's inspirational, too. Why hate? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? He served honorably, and I'd think that pretty much fulfills the hero part. He's inspirational, too. Why hate? Not hate. Perspective. Retired Lieutenant Colonels are not exactly a rare commodity. |
|
Quoted:
It all comes down to, at its core, who you trust. I first met Grossman when he was still in the Army. He was a mesmerizing public speaker. He had a unique way of making a young clueless Joe feel like he could take on Hell's Army with a pocket knife. He was really that good. When he first started hitting the public speaking circuit, he marketed himself to law enforcement. The concealed carry thing is newer. You know what, though? I'm no longer 20 years old. I have more combat experience than Mr. Grossman, and I am a cynical ass. I see what he is doing now as nothing more than an elaborate con, playing on what has always been his greatest strength. I see the entire industry of people like this, who have taken advantage of the irresponsible torrent of taxpayer dollars to run seminars and conferences to exploit the fears of people who are scared. I see how they use one seminar to pad their resume for pitching the next. Give a seminar to some SOCOM unit? Well, now you "train special operations personnel." In the end, it comes down to integrity. Is their message consistent, or does it sway with the audience to pander to who is paying? When someone they work with is questioned for fraud, do they defend him or do they seriously evaluate their own status? If their own research is questioned? Do they re-evalaute that, or do they obfuscate and redirect, fearing anything that might deter the gravy train? If introduced as a "Ranger," do they correct the person, say they graduate "Ranger" school as a young LT, but that is not the same thing as serving as a Ranger, and that title shold be reserved for the Rangers assigned to Ranger Battalions who have been deploying non-stop for nearly 11 years now? Or, do they smile and nod knowing being a "Ranger" is better marketing? On all accounts, Grossman has come up short. He is still a great and riveting speaker. Then again, so is every con man out there. Just be aware that all he is really selling is an ego boost to his audience, and that - when it comes to actual threat management and risk assessment - he has shown little interest in any research and studies that might detract from that message. An interesting view, and one that I can fairly well agree upon. I'd heard of Grossman before, but didn't read On Killing until after attending a lecture he gave at a law enforcement conference. He geared much of his focus towards convincing his SWAT audience that they should be expecting Al Qaeda to start shooting up schools sometime around noon tomorrow, and distinctly dramatized that as being the most important threat out there. I felt like asking him to give a set of statistics on the number of officers killed each year by terrorists versus reckless driving. At the time it struck me as dangerous to focus those officers on the sorts of one-in-a-billion threats that they'll almost certainly never see, while completely failing to talk about the sort of daily dangers as a felony traffic stop...the things that they really should expect and prepare for according to the statistics. Granted, those dangers are endlessly discussed already, but yet they remain the persistent and dominant threat to be dealt with, not a pie-in-the-sky Red Dawn scenario. Much of his talk was focused on the Beslan incident, but he consistently failed to note or discuss the fact that Russian law enforcement was responsible for a large percentage of the deaths, to say nothing of the vast differences in environment and resources between Chechen separatists in Russia and Al Qaeda in middle class America. Any realistic counter-terrorism expert will acknowledge that the probability of a Beslan-scale attack happening in the CONUS is astronomically small, but that clearly wasn't what Grossman wanted his audience to believe, and I couldn't help but fear that his convictions might divert resources away from far more immediate concerns. My feelings have been rather mixed on his messages and his means of communicating them. While I've never served nor seen combat, his writings on the effects of combat and killing match everything that my infantry friends have spoken about, and he brings up some very relevant points that don't seem to have been properly recognized until just recently: psychological states of readiness, physiological reactions to extreme fear and stress, impaired judgment and perceptions after the fact, etc. In that regard, much of what he's written seems to have at least a fair amount of redeeming value, at least in its context. The shame is that he mixes those sober assessments of psychological impact with screeds upon the danger of video games, and fails to adequately explain the nature of countless other civilizations that apparently did not display the same reservations about killing as our own. There is a strange sense of contradiction when he talks about the dangers of training children to kill via video games, but yet indicates that our soldiers are supposedly far more effective in combat than previous generations (based on the infamous sham SLAM studies). Which is it? One can't help but feel that he's explaining his own religious beliefs about humanity when he discusses certain aspects of human nature, in sharp contrast to the clinical tone by which he describes the straightforward effects of combat. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? I wouldn't put him in the hero class, but it's hard to argue with the fact that he's inspired many people. The info you've provided on him has me a little torn, I don't like the promotion of himself using embellishments, but I think it's pretty typical marketing for "experts". I think he's firmly in the Good guy column anyway. He may be trying to capitalize on his "brand", but I don't think he's doing any harm to us or the country. I do appreciate knowing some of the unpublished background on the guy though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? He served honorably, and I'd think that pretty much fulfills the hero part. He's inspirational, too. Why hate? Not hate. Perspective. Retired Lieutenant Colonels are not exactly a rare commodity. You imply that you'd be more excited about a retired General writing some books? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the haters. That man is a hero and an inspiration. To motivational speakers everywhere? Maybe. From where I'm standing, he's in the "good guy" column, and that's enough for me. That's enough to make him "a hero and an inspiration?" Seriously? He served honorably, and I'd think that pretty much fulfills the hero part. He's inspirational, too. Why hate? Not hate. Perspective. Retired Lieutenant Colonels are not exactly a rare commodity. You imply that you'd be more excited about a retired General writing some books? No. I'm just not going to call someone a "hero and an inspiration" just because they are retired military. It cheapens the concept. Especially when I know hundreds who are doing great things and not promoting themselves on a seminar circuit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has he retracted his writings based on the debunked and flat-out fabricated "research" from World War II that "concluded" most infantrymen did not fire their weapons? Or the bullshit he used to spew about video games... I guess the haters are here. Take what you want from the guy. Obviously you like to play video games and don't like people criticizing the games that familiarize young boys with killing and destruction. I'm fine with that. You know, if he actually had something like facts to back up his opinion it would be one thing. But he flat out makes shit up to "prove" his opinions. You know, when you call someone out for not backing up his opinions.....You have to back up yours. If you can provide links that prove he's making shit up to "prove" his opinions, I'll send you a dollar. Here's a good start - this article sources Prof. Robert J. Spiller, Dept. Director of Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. S.L.A Marshall's "research" was about as credible as most of that cranked out by the Brady Campaign, and those who willingly repeat it after it has been so thoroughly discredited are suspect. Oh, and Col. David Hackworth idolized S.L.A Marshall... until he met him and saw the scum's "methods" personally. Here's a link to the original article referenced by Newsweek: "The Secret Of The Soldiers Who Didn’t Shoot" (American Heritage, March 1989) My favorite part is the story from Makin: The text concludes by noting a problem that required correction: "Much aimless shooting by ‘trigger-happy’ men occurred. … In the early morning its volume increased. Just after daylight a man from the 152nd Engineers ran along the lagoon shore from the direction of On Chong’s wharf toward the 2nd BLT CP, shouting ‘there’s a hundred and fifty Japs in the trees.’ A wave of shooting hysteria swept the area and men started firing at bushes and trees until the place was ‘simply ablaze with fire.’ When the engineer admitted that he had seen no enemy but merely ‘had heard firing,’ shouted orders to the men to cease firing proved ineffectual … flat terrain and limited area made control of fire abnormally difficult.” In short, the men shot too much. Granted, it's anecdotal, but then again that's what SLA Marshall's researach appears to have been as well. No axe to grind against Grossman here, but I do grow tired of people in general regurgitating Marshall's work as iron-clad evidence. Many combat vets of WW2 have laughed at Marshall's claims about a pervasive reluctance among GIs to shoot their weapons. |
|
Quoted:
It all comes down to, at its core, who you trust. I first met Grossman when he was still in the Army. He was a mesmerizing public speaker. He had a unique way of making a young clueless Joe feel like he could take on Hell's Army with a pocket knife. He was really that good. When he first started hitting the public speaking circuit, he marketed himself to law enforcement. The concealed carry thing is newer. You know what, though? I'm no longer 20 years old. I have more combat experience than Mr. Grossman, and I am a cynical ass. I see what he is doing now as nothing more than an elaborate con, playing on what has always been his greatest strength. I see the entire industry of people like this, who have taken advantage of the irresponsible torrent of taxpayer dollars to run seminars and conferences to exploit the fears of people who are scared. I see how they use one seminar to pad their resume for pitching the next. Give a seminar to some SOCOM unit? Well, now you "train special operations personnel." In the end, it comes down to integrity. Is their message consistent, or does it sway with the audience to pander to who is paying? When someone they work with is questioned for fraud, do they defend him or do they seriously evaluate their own status? If their own research is questioned? Do they re-evalaute that, or do they obfuscate and redirect, fearing anything that might deter the gravy train? If introduced as a "Ranger," do they correct the person, say they graduate "Ranger" school as a young LT, but that is not the same thing as serving as a Ranger, and that title shold be reserved for the Rangers assigned to Ranger Battalions who have been deploying non-stop for nearly 11 years now? Or, do they smile and nod knowing being a "Ranger" is better marketing? On all accounts, Grossman has come up short. He is still a great and riveting speaker. Then again, so is every con man out there. Just be aware that all he is really selling is an ego boost to his audience, and that - when it comes to actual threat management and risk assessment - he has shown little interest in any research and studies that might detract from that message. Motivations aside, do you think the ultimate result of his work is damaging or beneficial to his audience? |