What is with all the hate for LTC Dave Grossman?

C

ChaseReynolds

New member
I have been seeing more and more on the internet a growing dislike for what I consider a great author. Some people even tend to make a mockery of his work. I take it with a grain of salt, people are going to hate and try to disprove his research, but I haven't found any of his work questioned by psychiatrists, only trolls on the internet.

Did I miss a memo from the gun community about the Sheepdog concept being bogus?
 
Yes. Among many audiences -- even in the gun advocacy crowd -- the larger responsibility of the "sheepdog"
concept is considered to be stepping out-of-bounds. Surprisingly this view is as strong or stronger among
the CCW'rs.

I do not hold to that view.


.
 
Last edited:
He talked here at FT Riley last year and it was pretty good. As a soldier I could relate to what he was saying. Nothing new with dealing with politics in military ops. Not sure what he did to make people up in arms.

BlackSheep6
Manhattan, KS
07 FFL
 
There is some disagreement within the tactics folks about being a sheepdog. That is not a simple conversation although some try to make it such.

Among the psychological world - there is a fierce battle about the video games being a major factor in rampages.

Some claim they are causal - which is hard to support. Others say that if one is prone in that direction they channel you towards specific actions and train in techniques. Grossman argues that the games help remove natural inhibitions towards close in violence.

All these are debatable based on evidence. Hate though is stupid - he makes good points to consider and his books are a worthwhile read.
 
Active shooters; Brad Thor...

Author Brad Thor quoted LTC Dave Grossman in one of his recent novels, saying; "people have two speeds; walk & stampede".
I think Grossman offers good insight about active shooters & spree killers.
I read the 2009 version of On Killing. I don't agree with all of LTC Grossman's views but I understand his point(s).
As a veteran & armed professional, Id advise anyone with an interest in these topics to read On Killing or On Combat.

I really got insight when he wrote about the meaning/understanding of personal, mechanical & distance kills.

ClydeFrog
 
ChaseReynolds said:
Did I miss a memo from the gun community about the Sheepdog concept being bogus?
Click to expand...
I don't think you missed any memo, and I don't think the concept of the sheepdog is in any way "bogus." What seems to be the issue is that some (many?) people within the "gunny" community don't want to be sheepdogs. Their view is that they pack heat to protect themselves and their family, and that they don't intend to intervene on behalf of innocent third parties.

The fact that some people with carry licenses/permits prefer to be poodles or labradors or dachshunds rather than sheepdogs does not, IMHO, in any way invalidate the sheepdog concept.
 
Dachsunds were bred to hunt weasels (miniature Dachsund) or badgers (standard dachsunds).

If you want to pick on a small dog for having more bark than bite, maybe a Maltese or Pomeranian would be the better fit.
 
I respect Grossman as a writer. I don't agree with everything he writes...as with most writers. I'm not against the sheepdog concept, but there are two things I disagree with him about.

The first, is that not everyone wants to be a sheepdog, and this goes with people carrying a gun.

The second is that carrying a gun does not automatically give you the obligation to be a sheepdog.

The #1 reason I carry a gun is to protect my family. Personally, if my family is in danger, I will happily give up my life to protect them. But, even if my family isn't present, intervening means I'm putting my life on the line to protect someone who didn't think it was a good idea to protect themselves. And that puts my family on the line also (if I'm gone, my wife becomes a widow, and a single mother, my kids get to grow up without their dad...and anyone who's watched Maury knows how well that works out for them).

Having said that, I cannot tell you how I would react if someone else was in danger. My inclination is to help, in spite of everything I wrote above.
 
Grossman; "sheepdogs", concepts....

There is I think(and I wish LTC Grossman was able to respond or clarify his remarks here directly), a distorted view of what he means by "sheepdog".
I think he uses the term to imply that bad guys(armed felons, terrorists, spree killers, home breakers, car jackers, rapists, etc) are the wolves with a predatory nature ingrained into them. SHEEPDOGS(armed professionals, military service members, concealed license holders, first responders, etc) also have a predatory nature but they can restrain their urges/impulses & they are protective-securing of the "sheep" or docile creatures who are non threatening/meek.

Now, it's true that some license holders or armed citizens may not feel like being "sheepdogs" or protecting others(society) but others, like the late Robert Boatman; www.Boatmanbooks.com has videos on www.youtube.com encouraging citizens to carry firearms & fight-prevent crime that they may witness as law abiding, upstanding citizens.
I can rationalize & understand both sides of the issue but in general I can see the merits of the "sheepdog" concept.

CF
 
I have a lot of respect for Col. Grossman's work, but I think the whole wolves/sheepdogs/sheep concept is an unfortunate one. It encourages people to make decisions based on romantic ideas about being heroes rather than on what is permitted by local law and tactically sound; it fosters a good guy/bad guy dichotomy that's often taken to absurd lengths; and it encourages disrespect for non-gun folks, which is a lousy way to win friends and influence people. I despise the term "sheeple" for that reason.

It's fine to decide to act to protect others, depending on the particular circumstances, but regular citizens aren't required to do so. My goal is to be a good citizen, not to put myself above other people on some made-up ranking system.
 
I never knew who he was. However, I do think that he "sheepdog" concept is silly....
Click to expand...

+1. Along with silly, it is also has some truth to it along with a healthy dose of bravado and some elitism thrown in for flavor.
 
As stated before, I do not hold w/ the above view.
As to "silly," I guess I was raised differently.
...and will probably act so if/when the need arises.

No bravado, elitism, or dreams of heroism involved
Just conscience, ...and responsibility.

Others' mileage may vary.
 
...there are two things I disagree with [Grossman] about.

The first, is that not everyone wants to be a sheepdog, and this goes with people carrying a gun.

The second is that carrying a gun does not automatically give you the obligation to be a sheepdog.
Click to expand...
Grossman say neither.

In fact he goes out of his way to state that there are few sheepdogs, but many, many, many sheep.
Nor does he says that the means to impose [with deadly force] is the obligation to impose. Merely that
a decision must be made. And that decision separates & categorizes who you are.

Posit: You come upon a 12-year old girl in the process of being raped by two hulking 225-lb men in
their twenties. You have the armed means to extend your protection to that girl.

Your decision?

It's called a boundary-value problem and establishes what you are. We can posit all sorts of
additional & conditional factors, but your answer to that relatively simple situation above
sets the baseline..
 
Last edited:
sheepdogs & wolves....

That is true that not EVERY concealed license holder or armed citizen is in fact a "sheepdog".
But some armed professionals or armed citizens do feel they can use their training or skills to react accordingly in a critical incident.

I can tell you directly there are some seriously dangerous & unstable criminals out there.
A drug dealer & convicted felon I dealt with often in 2011 was recently arrested again for carrying a concealed weapon & resisting a le officer. He would NOT hesitate to harm a citizen or armed professional.

ClydeFrog
 
Mehavey, I understand what you are saying. Some people, I feel, look at Grossman's ideas as too agressive and think of it as a sort of wild west gunslinger mentality. The life isn't for everyone, but I will do my best for someone in need and hope they pay it forward.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”


― Dante Alighieri, Inferno
 
I’m a LEO and I attended one of his speaking events which was geared towards LEOs. I was impressed with his presentation, and he has a lot of good points. I know he also does speaking events geared towards educators, military personnel, and I’m sure other groups. I would be interested in seeing how the different presentations differed. The LEO presentation focused on mass shootings, domestic and foreign terrorism, bodily reactions to stressful events, and his Sheepdog concept in general.

I like his Sheepdog metaphor, though it isn’t perfect. While I don’t think most of the general public, or “sheep” as he would put it, are as he describes you don’t have to look far to see perfect examples of his definition of sheep (Bill Maher’s recent comments on the LE response to the Boston Bombings is a good one). I think the Sheepdog concept is misinterpreted as the Krypto-the-Superdog Concept, by people who don’t take the time to listen to his philosophy. Unless you’re an on-duty LEO he doesn’t seem to recommend doing anything as untactful as running towards lethal force events.
 
+1

From the conclusion in his classic Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

"This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum.
On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the
ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.
Most of us live somewhere in between."

The matter of judgement involved in decision for "the greater good" is highly complex, and has to be thought through carefully.
At the same time those decisons have often to be split scond -- and carry grave consequences -- be they good or bad in the aftermath.

The only way to handle that aftermath is to constantly/mentally run through possible scenarios of engage/not engage beforehand.
That won't "tell" you what to do if/when -- but it might help you decide -- and live with that split second afterward
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top