Though you may not know it from reading the internet, you actually can disagree with someone without resorting to monosyllabic quips or injecting invective. Watch the videos, consider your thoughts, and read the responses. Let us know what you think in the comments, but don’t be a dumbass. Mad Duo
Dialectic Discourse vs. Trolling Tactically
David Reeder
You don’t have to enter every room when you clear a structure. You don’t have to shoot each target exactly twice before moving to the next one. Doorways aren’t always fatal funnels. Disagree with me? No worries. Hell let’s talk about it. First, however, let me make this quick intro.
A while back one of the dudes from 88 Tactical posted a couple videos doing what guys in my circle call “limited penetration” entries; the videos went up on their Facebook page and he subsequently took a ration of shit from a number of people. The “hate” came from a wide variety of people who wanted to know why he wasn’t entering the room, why he wasn’t moving while he was shooting, why he wasn’t “double-tapping”, why he moved across an open doorway, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Now, I know many people will take issue with this, but I thought the videos were refreshing.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, engaging in a tactical race to the back door has always been a bad idea. Speed, surprise and violence of action is all well and good in theory but the fact is, you don’t you have surprise until after the action is over. Sometimes speed just gets you shot faster. Why run headlong into a gunfight? As with any TTP, there is a time and a place for most everything, but almost everything has its exceptions. This includes hauling ass through a house for just about any reason except a hostage rescue or nuke recovery, including narcotic evidence recovery.
Disagree with me? Fine, let’s talk about it.
You see what I’ve done there, twice? I’ve been willing to engage in dialectic discourse. I didn’t just start talking shit or mocking someone or expressing from behind the safety of my keyboard for disagreeing with me.
Grunts: dialectic.
An unwillingness to have an academic discussion is as monumentally stupid as posting a comment without clarifying what you think you’re seeing. Even if you’re on the side of Truth and Right and doing battle with Tactical Turpitude. Conversely, a discussion about a TTP, piece of gear or whatever done in the context of what might be right/wrong/ridiculous without rancor or condescension is how learning occurs. If you disagree with someone, outstanding. I have many opinions, and I’m pretty sure everyone is entitled to hear every. Single. One. If we all agree, no one’s thinking. If, however, you’re adversarial, abrasive or condescending about it, well…that just makes you a:
It’s similarly moronic to take the potential for a learning experience via debate and make it a pissing match over terminology and semantics. The fact is, most people could give a fuck, in the the end, whether you call it a controlled pair or a hammer pair or a double tap or a kinetic flying forward one-and-a-half pike somersault if the argument over terminology detracts from the meat of the conversation. There was a staggering amount of insult slinging-tomfuckery in that original thread (much of it based entirely on the myopic view of a single camera angle, and without context). That’s so foolish (and more important, counterproductive) as to defy description.
Here’s an idea – why not start out with a respectful question? Even if you can prove empirically that what someone posted is incorrect, you’re not going to convince anyone but the people who already think just like you do if you’re argument consist of profanity laden-witticisms and unexplained declamations. Hell, you’d be better off saying “Oh yeah, well your mom is fat!” You’ll achieve about the same amount of persuasion and influence.
Anyway, whether you call it limited penetration, deliberate search, precision MOUT, whatever, we can probably have a pretty good debate about this – especially if everyone acts like a grown up instead of venting the inner troll. Trust me, it works – I’ve seen a bit of both sides lately over on Primary & Secondary Shooter’s Forum. When you leave out the tomfuckery and set ego aside some legitimately awesome conversations may occur.
I lied. That wasn’t a quick intro. Sorry.
Here are the original two videos handily collected in one place by other diligent minions (I’m a Luddite, video editing is beyond me).
Now, here’s TT’s response to the Haterade. Warning, it’s a long one (that’s what she said). If you agree with some or all of what you see, awesome. If not, fair enough. If you understand some of it but have some hesitations, better yet – let’s discuss it intelligently though. Dogmatic adherence to any TTP is rarely a good thing; disagreement is where learning occurs.
P.S. here are a few real world video links for you to review and consider.
1.Bank Hostage:
2.Sydney Siege:
3.Paris Shoot Out:
4.Marines in Fallujah:
5.Israeli two man assault drill:
6.SF Stud: https://youtu.be/XLG99Upcy8k
The rebuttle to this and much more can be found at the Source Article from http://www.breachbangclear.com/dialectic-discourse-vs-trolling-tactically/
About the Author: Someone has to corral the writing team, handle business expenses and bail the Mad Duo (and their minions) out of jail. For years the Pentagon, JSOC and the International Association of Chiefs of Police sought an impeccable man to lead the pedagogic and frequently obstreperous team of Breach Bang Clear writers. They needed someone charismatic, a warrior, able to maintain mental acuity under the worst stressors. Unfortunately the program suffered severe budget cuts so they ended up with David Reeder. Reeder is the Mad Duo’s Chief Wretched Flunky and Breach-Bang-Clear’s HMFIC. A LEO for many years and former AF Security Forces SNCO, his mastery of tactical sesquipedalianism is unmatched in modern times. He’s a self-professed POG who taught MOUT at the Bold Lighting Urban Warfare School and later combat tracking to members of all branches. As a LEO he worked patrol, training, SWAT and counter-narcotics and was on the OC-evaluation team at the National Homeland Security Training Center. You can read more about him here.
