20 COMMENTS

  1. How realistic can any of these scenarios be? Those of us that are blessed enough to live in a zip code that’s not constitution free are still hampered by the fact that day to day civilian permit holders are packing handguns. Regardless if they’re full size 1911’s or J frame snubbies they’re handguns and the real terrorists are likely to be packing explosives as well as some variation on the AK.

    You try to John MCclane a trained and equipped team of terrorists and the best you can hope for is to get 1-2 before the other 8-10 get you.

    Understand, if you have the time and money to take one of these courses, feel free. just don’t delude yourself into thinking that you’re going to tangle with a group of terrs and come away untouched.

    This is not a mugging or home invasion. It’s a full on battle and one thing I learned from my military experience is that in a battle both sides get bloodied. And if you’re the only one on your team, guess who gets carried out instead of walking out.

    • Couple of things. First of all no one could have imagined a 9-11 style attack in the US until it happened. If you really don’t think that a Mumbai style attack could ever happen here, you are deluding yourself. In fact it’s probably a question of when not if. That is why a lot of police forces are starting to incorporate anti-terror training into their programs.

      The training is not intended to have you go looking for trouble. Rather, what are you going to do if you are in the mall when the shit goes down. You may have the military experience, but most of us do not. I’d rather have a taste of what it feels like as opposed to finding out the hard way should I ever be unlucky enough to get caught in something.

      The other thing is that regardless of the scenario, in f on f training, you get a taste of the real thing. Plugging a “terrorist” with a gun is not much different form plugging the armed nutjob. F on F is just one more link in the training and prep chain and it works. If it didn’t work, the Marines and many police forces wouldn’t use it.

      Take one of these classes, then come back and criticize if you still think they are a waste of time and money.

      • K, let’s talk deluding. You have better odds of hitting the lottery than you do of getting involved in a Mumbai style attack.

        Now let’s suppose you do get caught in the mall that’s targeted. You paid for what, a 1-2 day F on F training session with an instructor who may or may not have ever been in a real shitstorm.

        And then you went home to your real job having learned what? You want to survive a full on terrorist strike at a mall? Did he teach you how to get into the maintance passageways so you could un-ass the place and stay out of the line of fire?

        How many weekend training camps does it take to qualify you to scoop up your kids and run for cover?

        If you’re that worried about such an incident take the money you would have paid your instructor and buy body armor for you and the kids. That would be more usefull than those Walter Mitty training week ends.

  2. Wouldn’t lone spree-shooters be a more practical threat to train against? Holmes, Page, that Korean kid in Virginia, Harris + Klebold, Hassan, Omar Thorton, that kid at a mainly Korean college, etc. Much more common.

    There’s nothing wrong with training for a new scenario. But given the lack of Beslan style events in America I think defending against mentally ill loners is higher up on the priority scale.

    Consider the wider historical contexts of Beslan and Mumbai. Both terrorist acts were extensions of border conflicts concerning Chechnya as Pakistan respectively. It’s easy to find poor, angry, teenage cannon-fodder in both countries. The 16-19 crowd does most of the dying in war anyway. Affluent Canada to the north and cartel ridden Mexico to the south…not exactly hotbeds of ethnic/religious hostility with America.

    You’re more likely to defend yourself against a gang or cartel….one that isn’t exactly lily-white. Maybe Islamic Fundie is a PC way of saying something else. Whatever. But truly dangerous religious nuts (in our hemisphere) are located in Washington and patches of Kansas.

    • The problem with training against a spree killer is that there is no neat definition of one.

      Hassan was an army member who trained with his Five Seven before the incident. Holmes bought his gear and didn’t bother training.
      Cho went so far as to toss his hard drive and mail a video to the press before shooting up his university.

      A spree killer with practice & preparation is exponentially deadlier than some punk with an AR15 and 200 rounds in his backpack, and is thus a different threat entirely. The first guy you shoot in the head at the earliest chance. The second will probably surrender at the sight of a good guy’s gun. Two different outcomes , two different training approaches for two different threat types.

    • I’m not sure why you consider the scenarios useless. Are you willing to bet your life that something like this would never happen? Granted, they may be far fetched, unlikely, etc., but any scenario that gives you a taste of what it feels like when bullets start to fly is hardly useless. I would argue that static range training is a lot more useless than any F on F scenario because no matter what happens, the bad guy is not going to stand there calmly 20 or so feet away not moving while you line up the perfect head shot.

      Real Life is dynamic and some portion of your training should be as well.

      • May be useless is a bit harsh to describe civilians training to take head shots on suicide vest wearing terrorists on buses. I often find myself on public transportation wishing I had spent the time and money to train to shoot the many terrorists that attack Matro lines in and around Houston. I guess any sort of mall ninja training is useful, I just see how that specific scenario justifies the money spent on it. Do you spend you free time moon lighting for the U.S. Special Forces, because that would be a justifiable tax write-off. But like I said, it looked fun.

  3. Questioning the scenarios is silly – the benefit of any of this training is obvious simply because of the way our brains work. We experience new situations, analyze and learn from them and we are then able to improvise and adapt to differing scenes in the future. Maybe one day of training won’t make a big difference. But it’s easy to imagine that getting over nerves, dropping mags and standing still like a dumbass is your MAIN objective at first, not worrying about whether you are training against a real “terrorist” or “lone shooter.” Wouldn’t it make sense to practice not making stupid mistakes that get you immediately killed? Sure, this isn’t the real thing but I can easily imagine that doing a few of these courses would dramatically increase the likelihood of making a difference in a real scenario.

  4. This training sounds awesome, exciting, fun, and to a point, useful. But to extrapolate that the every day concealed carrier should consider carrying enough ammo to take on a well armoured squad of jihadists is ludicrous. Seriously? Let’s think back to Foghorn’s post a day or two ago. VAST majority of ccw use is one perp within a few feet.
    Imagine the GZ story if he’d been packing 4 spare ˝high capacity˝ mags. Let’s not encourage Rambos.

  5. “killing a bystander or worse, a cop.”

    Why is killing a cop worse than killing a bystander? An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless of occupation. I think it’d suck either way.

    Totally agree on the rest of the post. Force-on-force training is invaluable!

  6. Fun? Yes. Practical? No. It comes as no surprise to me that at the range I frequent the very large majority (most all) of the shooters are all over the target. They have no idea what it takes to make a good shot. Learning how to make a good shot is what all these people need to learn first. And center mass is not good enough, by the by, Shrink that to grapefruit size and then you have something.

    “Aim small, miss small” – There is no substitute.

    J.

  7. People in the states are way too paranoid, how about stop invading countries and cleaning them out of their resources and you won’t create war upon yourself. Leave the opium and petrol to the locals.

  8. Force on force training is the very best thing you can do. It is the closest you will ever get to a real gunfight,I’ve done both, and still get the adrenaline dump, though not as intense, with force on force training. It also opens your eyes as to why things happen in gunfights that maybe you didn’t understand before while sitting behind your keyboard. Get the training if you can find it.

  9. I love how all these internet “experts” jump on to declare what other could do, could never do, etc.

    It’s a common expression of insecurity – “since in my heart I know that could do little more then soil my shorts, I’ll poo poo other peoples preparations in the hopes I can bring them down to my level.

    People who train the least always seem to have time to insult the training other people do. That’s ok though, because if the shit ever really hits the fan all you keyboard warriors will be food for the machine 🙂

  10. The training looks exciting, fun and first rate. I watched 9/11 unfold live from my office window in Newark, NJ. The idea of a terrorist attack happening and me being stuck in the middle is very real to me now. Being in an urban setting and riding public transportation every day (the train), I am concerned that I might not be able to run for any cover. So any training that gives me an advantage and some hope of surviving is worth it’s weight in gold.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here