On Combat - Grossman

[Michelle]

I did a search, and although there was a thread regarding the book "On Killing", I didn't find much on "On Combat" besides an ocassional mention.

I have a friend who is out in the thick of it right now, and he is worried about some of his younger guys and what they are seeing every day (working in the back of the DUSTOFF helos ).

Wondering if this would be a good resource for them to help the deal.

Although I have read "On Killing" I have not read "On Combat", and I didn't want to buy a bunch of these and send them over there if it's not going to be helpful.

Can those of you who have read it chime in and give me your thoughts?

Thanks

m1

[Razor]

I've just about finished it, and its typical Grossman--full of self-promotion and self-congratulations, sprinkled with his odd sex-fighting-death linkage issues, heavily reliant on the questionable research of others, riddled with claims for which he fails to provide any proof, but containing some pretty interesting concepts that are worth further exploration. Midway through the book are several sections that seem to be a simple rehash of topics covered in "On Killing", and although he says he won't discuss the 'adolescent violence-violent TV and video game' linkage again, he beats that horsehide into a smear on the pavement. I was fascinated by his section(s) on PTSD, and some of his suggested techniques for pre/during/post-engagement training and coping, though. Its not a bad read if you don't mind working hard to find the worthwhile content and discarding the rest.

[The Reaper]

Exactly my sentiments, Razor.

I would also add that like Grossman's other books, it reads like a short monograph that he had to make into a minimum number of pages to get published. Hence the heavy use of quotes, extremely short chapters, rambling theses, etc.

Hey, speaking of PTSD, did anyone else notice that one of the latest bills moving through the bowels of our bureaucracy would put all PTSD recipients on the "no guns" FBI database, if passed. The sponsors are the usual suspects. Glad that I did not claim it, there are going to be a lot of guns illegally held or for sale if it passes.

TR

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by Razor

I've just about finished it, and its typical Grossman--full of self-promotion and self-congratulations, sprinkled with his odd sex-fighting-death linkage issues, heavily reliant on the questionable research of others, riddled with claims for which he fails to provide any proof, but containing some pretty interesting concepts that are worth further exploration. Midway through the book are several sections that seem to be a simple rehash of topics covered in "On Killing", and although he says he won't discuss the 'adolescent violence-violent TV and video game' linkage again, he beats that horsehide into a smear on the pavement. I was fascinated by his section(s) on PTSD, and some of his suggested techniques for pre/during/post-engagement training and coping, though. Its not a bad read if you don't mind working hard to find the worthwhile content and discarding the rest.

I was not aware that he had been in combat...

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Exactly my sentiments, Razor.

I would also add that like Grossman's other books, it reads like a short monograph that he had to make into a minimum number of pages to get published. Hence the heavy use of quotes, extremely short chapters, rambling theses, etc.

Hey, aspeaking of PTSD, did anyone else notice that one of the latest bills moving through the bowels of our bureaucracy would put all PTSD recipients on the "no guns" FBI database, if passed. The sponsors are the usual suspects. Glad that I did not claim it, there are going to be a lot of guns illegally held or for sale if it passes.

TR

I saw that PTSD, gun owning BS!

[Michelle]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Hey, aspeaking of PTSD, did anyone else notice that one of the latest bills moving through the bowels of our bureaucracy would put all PTSD recipients on the "no guns" FBI database, if passed.

TR

When you say "PTSD recipients" do you mean specifically military background or any and all people ever diagnosed with PTSD?

m1

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Michelle

TR

When you say "PTSD recipients" do you mean specifically military background or any and all people ever diagnosed with PTSD?

m1

As I understand it, ALL people who have been diagnosed with PTSD.

IIRC, this is some sort of knee-jerk legislation in response to the Va Tech shootings, and the real goal is to eliminate more firerarms owners, just like the Lautenberg Amendment did.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Exactly my sentiments, Razor.

I would also add that like Grossman's other books, it reads like a short monograph that he had to make into a minimum number of pages to get published. Hence the heavy use of quotes, extremely short chapters, rambling theses, etc.

Hey, aspeaking of PTSD, did anyone else notice that one of the latest bills moving through the bowels of our bureaucracy would put all PTSD recipients on the "no guns" FBI database, if passed. The sponsors are the usual suspects. Glad that I did not claim it, there are going to be a lot of guns illegally held or for sale if it passes.

TR

There was like 8,000 VA patients with PTSD treatment put into the database during the Clinton tyranny.

Next will be the "your on anti depressant meds" push. This would require your doctor to make a written statement that you are "not a threat to society or yourself" kinda thing. I don't see many doc's writing that letter to get you or I backed out of the system. They are not going to try and guess if you are or are not a threat based on their large or limited experience with any patient. The liability would rest on their shoulders and I don't expect any doc to write those type of letters.

Clearly labeling anyone that has visited a psychiatrist as "Nut Job" "Crazed" or "threat to society" Who's actually ballsy enough to make that decsision based on little or no qualified information ?



Just my .02

[x-factor]

Another angle on why this is a bad idea: taking someone's rights away is not really the best way to encourage them to seek treatment they may need. You're essentially punishing people for being responsible about their mental health.

Not smart from either the liberal or conservative perspective.

[jatx]

The legislation referred to is HR 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which passed the House on June 13th. The relevant section is 102(b)(1)(C)(iv), which states:

"A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution (as determined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law."

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see the specific provisions regarding PTSD or broader definition of "adjudication" that Larry Pratt referred to in his widely-forwarded article. I also do not see anywhere in the text provision for wholesale dumping of veteran's medical records into the NICS database, as Pratt claims.

Somebody please correct me if I missed something in my quick reading of the bill, but I think Pratt's tinfoil hat is a bit too tight.

[jatx]

Michelle, I flipped through the book at Borders the other day, and it looked to me like much of the material was a rehash of Grossman's "Bulletproof Mind" seminar, with the addition of some recent articles. Just an idea, but perhaps you could send a copy of the BM DVD, available on his website, and they could view the relevant portions together? That might encourage more discussion than everyone reading the book separately...

[Razor]

Originally Posted by jatx

The legislation referred to is HR 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which passed the House on June 13th. The relevant section is 102(b)(1)(C)(iv), which states:

"A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution (as determined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law."

So how is "mentally defective" defined exactly, or is it at all? Seems a pretty wide net to me.

[jatx]

Originally Posted by Razor

So how is "mentally defective" defined exactly, or is it at all? Seems a pretty wide net to me.

I don't know, but it's the same standard applied in question 12f on Form 4473 that we fill out every time that we purchase a firearm. Unless there is some "rule change" afoot as to how the terms are interpreted, I don't see the issue.

[Michelle]

Originally Posted by jatx

Michelle, I flipped through the book at Borders the other day, and it looked to me like much of the material was a rehash of Grossman's "Bulletproof Mind" seminar, with the addition of some recent articles. Just an idea, but perhaps you could send a copy of the BM DVD, available on his website, and they could view the relevant portions together? That might encourage more discussion than everyone reading the book separately...

That's a fantastic idea! Thank you Sir.

I think I will send them the DVD and ONE copy of the book for them to pass around if they choose to.

If anyone has any other suggestions on materials I could send these guys to help them, please post it here.

m1

[NousDefionsDoc]

I echo Razor and Reaper's sentiments. I don't care for either of the books.