I have no problem with what he’s teaching, but to reach a larger audience, like Tweva without putting them off, sometimes other methods work better.
“Other methods?” You mean a kinder, gentler, more fuzzy way teach people how to kill another human? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, don’tcha? You think people who can’t handle or are “put off” by strong language are going to be able to handle killing another human being? I’m not talking about some beat cop, I’m talking about a worst-case SHTF scenario.
Example: Someone stuck in a city will have to bug out. A vehicle loaded with goodies is a rolling ATM to the Visigoths, and that 13 year old gangbanger will have no heartburn about blowing Our Hero away to get those goodies. But Our Hero might have reservations about shooting a “child”, even if they have an AK47 pointed at him or her… To think that there’s a fuzzy wuzzy way to teach someone to do what needs to be done?
In my past, I had several instructors such as Mr Mosby, and his instruction style would go over like oilly footprints on new white carpet around here. If for no other reason than its a predominantly Mormon area.
What’s being a Mormon got to do with anything? Granted, I have zero experience with Mormons, but I was raised hard core Catholic and I adapted. Mosby has his teaching methods. Those methods work. Those who cannot adapt have a personal failure they need to overcome.
You will note that I never said that his message wasn’t legitimate or useful.
Did you specifically say that? No. But your tone clearly inferred it.
I did say that I’ve read and heard the same from other instructors, meaning the message wasn’t bad, just the delivery.
In this situation, “bad” is relative. I’ve got no problem with his delivery whatsoever and, in fact, enjoy and encourage it. Jarring people into the realization of the seriousness of what you are training to do is useful. You’re not playing solider or a game of kickball. You are training to close with and destroy someone who is trying to do the same thing to you, no matter who that person may be. It is the most serious of business.
As to all the LEO’s packing full auto, I can say that in my current county, the entire number is two. And both are in admin hands, never to see daylight outside a range day.
1. So, you can speak for your county. Fine. I will accept this as you are employed by your county.
2. If those select-fire weapons are “never to see daylight outside a range day”, then why have them? What justification was used to obtain and keep them?
My previous county, there were technically 7, but everyone had been converted to semi only, for liabiloty reasons.
I do not understand this. You know I’m a ‘smithy, same as you. Went to school for it for two years after I separated back in 2000, as well as training I received in the military. How can something “technically” be select-fire, yet be converted to semi only? A rifle or carbine is either select fire, or it is semi-only. It can’t be both. You will have to explain this to me.
As far as “liability” reasons, I assume this means a combination of insurance, bean-counters, issues with lawsuits, etc.
Most places avoid full auto like Harry Reid avoids the truth. This isn’t Hollywood.
I have a problem with this statement. You have admitted working for one county and currently work for another city/county. Probably somewhere in Utah, given the Mormon reference. So, you can speak with some authority about two counties and one city (size unknown).
But now you say “most places”. How would you know? If you are assuming that everyone does things the way your previous employers have done, then I am assuming just the opposite.
Why? Look at it this way – why would jurisdictions all over the US “give” their respective PD’s and SO’s armored vehicles, tanks, MRAP’s, body armor, chemical weapons, explosives, drones, etc, and NOT give them select-fire weapons? Makes no sense. Plus, I’ve seen the list of free **** (paid for by the US taxpayer) those DHS praetorian thugs (and the DOD) have “given away” over the last few years… the number and type of automatic weaponry is staggering.
There is no way you can say “most places” avoid full auto weaponry and keep a straight face.
And not to pick nits Whirl, because I actually like ya, but I noticed that you avoided everything I have said about the militarization of our police forces and the Old Time “Peace Officer” being replaced by roided up thugs. Which means, to me, that I can infer you either
a) agree with me but don’t want to say anything or
b) you know it’s true, don’t like it, but know a counter-argument will get no traction
So, you focused on the one part of my argument where you thought you could get traction, and ignored everything else…
Just answer me this one question: When did things go from “protect and serve” (which could, and often did, mean that the Peace Officer give his life so that a citizen might live) to “all officers go home safe at the end of their shift”? See, to me that represents a paradigm shift – it used to be about protecting citizens, even at the cost of your own life. Now it’s about going home safe, no matter what – and that by default automatically includes screwing over citizens so you can go home.
And that’s pretty piss-poor.
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1