Gunner Quinn
I would like to begin my topic by examining two concepts. I feel both ideas illustrate the hearts and souls of many men and women within today’s prepper and survivalist communities.
The first one is an analogy. Its origins have most been often attributed to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Lt. Col. Grossman’s premise was that all people can be placed into one of three groups; “sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves.”
The second, frequently attributed as being the words and wisdom of Edmond Burke during the French Revolution. Over the years I have heard this in several variations, but it goes something like this; “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Many of us would likely consider both ideas to epitomize what is good and honorable. We might even say they represent qualities that we should aspire to. However, in the interest of complete disclosure, the first was not originally uttered by Grossman, and the second seems to have been more likely the original work of John Stuart Mill in 1867.
*I don’t want ABC to fact check me and determine my entire premise is incorrect.
Should the actual source really matter?
The first misconception likely evolved due to Grossman’s frequent reference to the idea in his presentations, and within two of his books, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, and On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace.
Besides, Grossman is on record as stating he first heard the story from a retired Colonel, a Vietnam veteran, no less. Within law enforcement and military circles, Lt. Col. Grossman’s analogy during his many seminars has elevated the story to the greater good of all. Particularly those people who might be the ones to take the lives of others for the safety and well-being of others.
As for the second, whether it was first coined by Burke or Mill, the simple truth within both ideas continues to inspire many to step forward. I believe these two ideas continue to be the driving force of many people within prepper and survivalist communities today. Understanding this helps us in two ways:
First, it is important to understand the motives and character of prospective members during screening member candidates for our groups or communities.
Second, I believe knowing and understanding the driving forces of candidates is necessary to make the best decisions. Not only regarding new member selection, but also in directing their training and placement following selection.
Here, I should preface my thoughts regarding this subject by acknowledging that I have made several generalizations throughout this article. My hope is my concerns are seen less as criticism, rather than my words might serve as a driving influence to elevate training programs to the next level. To be clear, there are some excellent group and community training programs functioning quite well already.
My question is: But are they the norm?
An overview
Across America today we have significant numbers of survivalist and prepper groups preparing for a future that is both uncertain and, if many of us are correct, will likely be profoundly brutal. The driving force for a great many of these men and women, and thus the collective groups represented is a desire to protect those around them. It is the safety and well-being of their families, friends, and neighbors.
Additionally, these men and women are typically self-sufficient…or at least they strive to be. Within our ranks, we find people whose tendency is to run into the burning building to save others, rather than run from it or cower in fear. It is not that they do not feel fear. Rather, the need to come to the aid of others in peril overshadows our own potential mortality.
I believe that over the last few years we have seen an increased awareness, an awakening of interest in self-sufficiency lifestyles, and interest in prepper and survivalist groups in general. It is my hope today that our groups and thus the lifestyle that many of us embraced long ago are a bit better understood, and possibly to some degree more appreciated. Although we will never hear such words uttered from the left.
Speaking generally, we believe preparation is the best way to stand ready to assist in the aftermath of tornados, fires, and earthquakes. We are the souls that rush to the overturned and burning vehicle, pulling occupants from the wreckage. We take seriously the ideal and Biblical precept that we are responsible for everyone under our roof, and likewise even the stranger. To that end I would like to examine what I feel are the two basic styles of training often commonly being used by prepper/survivalist groups in this country today:
“Static” Training, Style A
Although some aspects of group training will likely always find it necessary to utilize a “static” style, we must keep in mind it should not be the only tool in the proverbial toolbox. This sort of training might be best illustrated as we consider basic firearms training. Somewhere in America today, this hypothetical image likely plays out daily. Groups of men and women, on well-groomed shooting ranges engaging targets at 50 and 100 yards, in an effort to dispatch targets that don’t shoot back. We often hold weapons that have been meticulously cleaned just the day before. Should a forecast of rain or snow threaten, it is too frequently called off “for bad weather.” To this picture we should also add the mental image of coolers packed with plenty of food and drinks and cell phones in our pockets should we feel the need to call the wife to let her know we might be late.
In describing this training style, we might likewise envision such a group with training stations. Station “A” is set up for a presentation on water filtration. Station “B” is set up to teach fire starting. Station “C” is set up to present aspects of medical care. Without question, there will always be a need for this training style.
Here I must ask: Are we taking training to the next level?
“Simulated” Training, Style B
Today this training style seems to often involve using paintball, or airsoft (milsim) in an attempt to provide a more realistic training environment, but one devoid of the risk of potential firearms accidents. Admittedly, I have not always been an advocate for this training style, and on occasion even been critical. I’m also big enough today to say, I was wrong!
If managed well, this training style can certainly add a degree of realism and foster individual growth and problem-solving, not to mention confidence. However, that is not to say these should be a monthly “free for all.” Trainers must not take the easy road. Instead, they should create conditions and scenarios that foster continued growth.
Blending both styles
As we consider the above two very different training styles we should likely seek to find a middle ground. If we become locked into either of the above training styles, or simply become complacent in training preparation, our group members may often become bored and lose interest. Comparing these, I think we can agree that although we would never wish to diminish the importance of training people to shoot well; ensuring both good technique and respectable accuracy (muscle memory), we likewise can see the wisdom of pushing people beyond their present boundaries and skill levels.
I would advocate that your group should strive to add elements of problem-solving and obstacles. Yes, many groups are already doing an excellent job applying this idea. There are excellent training programs that have an increased focus during firearms training of deliberate misfires and stoppages/jams on the firing line. They are intended to simulate what can and unfortunately will happen in real life. The individual shooters must then work the problem. Shooters must first deal with the threat in front of them, then correct the weapon problem! I do not believe, however, that they are the norm.
Some might ask, but what about the training of new members? Certainly a valid question. Hopefully, your numbers have grown to the point where you can designate specific persons, individuals that have demonstrated proficiency in “core topics” to teach new member classes. Only after they have completed their core proficiencies can they proceed to the next level.
Another option might be to designate certain core training stations with each monthly group outing. In this way, your group members can help teach and foster development of your new recruits. This idea is analogous to the regimental military system that began its return to the U.S. Army in 1981. (The Cohort program, if I remember correctly…) In applying this training style to your group training program, and upon a candidate/member’s completion of your group’s basic “core topics” the recruit could then join the more challenging and interesting training — but possibly with a field training officer (FTO) to buddy up with the new person, to maintain safety. This latter element is more commonly utilized in law enforcement circles.
What are we training for?
To the aforementioned suggestions, I would add the suggestion that we challenge our groups, and ourselves a bit further. Some might ask why? The reason is simple. In almost every conceivable scenario regarding a collapse of society, there is a high probability that preppers and survivalists will at some point face established regular (standing) armies. Also, consider the significant numbers of young military-age males — young men too frequently from countries known to be very adversarial to the U.S. — who have entered our borders, both illegally and with the blessing of the current administration, through a lax entry process. They pose a major threat to infrastructure and high-value targets. Or to use that movie line, a “clear and present danger.” Again, we must understand the likely motivation of these people! Even if we only consider them distasteful raider elements, they will become battle-hardened, with time. As such they will likewise become organized, and thus even more deadly. Rest assured, if TEOTWAWKI comes, we will each face worthy opponents!
The question that I will pose to you is: “Will your group be ready?”
Personally, I don’t want to just train people to just punch holes in paper, or to ring steel consistently at 600 yards. Although these are talents we certainly want to foster, I feel training should be so much more. I want warriors!
(To be concluded tomorrow, in Part 2.)
Read the full article here