The Truth about Killing

[Viking6]

For further discussion on this topic go to http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03autumn/chambers.pdf for an article about SLA Marshall methods.


Another Okie "Dinner table conversation a long time ago doesn't count for much. "

You're right. I didn't elaborate because I don't recall every detail. But this was THE Army historian at the time at the Center for Military History. Were SLAM's conclusions right or wrong? God only knows. When I said he said that SLAM fudged the numbers I couldn't recall his exact words. But I do know he said in no uncertain terms that SLAM did not interview/survey everyone that he attributes his data to because it was a physical impossibility. I also know from personal experience that the history books don't always get it right either and two people at the same place don't always see it the same way.

Lastly, this I know without a shadow of a doubt. I asked my late father who was an infantry light machine-gunner during WWII in New Guinea and the Phillipines if he ever killed anyone. He told me he didn't really know but he sure shot it a lot. He never went on with war stories and I had to coax almost every bit of info from him.

 

[MicroBalrog]

"This business of artillery killing most people is also nonsense."

According to the UN, most war casualties are killed with small arms.


As per violent video games: No psycho crazy killer was as yet inspired by Doom II. Some where by "Catcher in The Rie". Your point?

A murderer serving life-without-parole for five separate gruesome murders escaped from his Oregon maximum-security prison this past week. He stole a car and made his first stop outside Pocatello, Idaho. He watched a residence and saw a family pack their suitcases into their car and leave. He immediately pulled his vehicle into their driveway, then broke into their house from the rear. Unfortunately for one, the traveling residents realized they had forgotten something for their trip and returned within a few minutes, finding their house broken into. The father confronted the intruder (not knowing the felon's history) and ordered him to leave. The felon said he just wanted some food and clothes. At this point, the father rattled the felon with a shovel across the head. One more smack with the shovel ended the conversation. When the police arrived, the father was in the backyard with the felon lying at his feet. The father was resting, leaning on the shovel. After the police picked up the felon the family continued on their trip.

Many important questions arise. Which shovel is best for self-defense? A dirt shovel? A snow shovel? A coal scoop? Is a lightweight model with a shortened grip better? Would this make it a "concealed shovel"? If the shovel had been purchased at a nationwide home-improvement retail chain, would they have to issue new policies and have a press release expressing regret? Could the father's shovel be construed as an assault shovel? The father used only two blows. If this shovel had been capable of more than ten blows, would that make it an evil shovel without any sporting use? (My son claims that no shovel has a sporting use.)

The police did not confiscate all the father's shovels. He may have more. He also did not keep a safety lock on the shovel. Rumor has it that his children had easy access to the shovel without parental guidance, though there is no evidence that they ever used it without constant parental supervision.

The father has not suffered any post traumatic syndrome. In fact, no member of the family has sought psychiatric counseling. Believe it or not, that very night they all attended the state high school basketball championships in Boise. The father didn't even care to be interviewed by the press and go on Larry King Live. How will a plaintiff's attorney in a wrongful recapture case present this to a sympathetic jury? (Wait. This is Idaho. There will be no sympathetic jury. Heck, there won't even be a lawyer to entertain such a case.)

 

[fix]

Orion

You are saying you were there on D-Day but your profile lists your birthday as May 25th 1968. How does that work?

Step forward and clarify please.

 

[moa]

Art Eatman asks:

"More back toward combat: I've run across the allegation several times through the years that guys from a farm/ranch background, who were hunters, were considered the best as actual shooting soldiers. Anybody seen any sort of verification of this?"

Only verification I know of are some of uncles who served in WWII in the 29th Infantry Divisions in Europe. They were farm boys used to hunting for the table and dressing game and domestic animals. I remember them say that many of the city boys did not fair well on the battle field. The country boys had a edge on them. All of my uncles survived the fighting. I do not think any of them was wounded. One was captured at the Battle of the Bulge.

The 29th was a National Guard division. 60% of its troops that landed at Normandy were National Guard from Maryland, Virginia and PA. During its 11 months of combat the 29th had 211% casualties. Nickname of the 29th is the Blue And Gray Division. At full strength the Divisions was 15,000 men.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

St. Johns, shooting at other soldiers who are just guys in the same boat as you, who you don't know, and have no personal reason for wanting to kill, is not the same thing as shooting an armed robber or armed home invader. In these latter cases, you have every reason to shoot, consistant with the survival instint.

 

[Cosmoline]

Despite hunting, cleaning game, and guns in the house, I still got a little emotional over this stranger's death.

Certainly, but that hardly means you would be unable to kill someone if your life were in danger or if you were in the middle of combat. Getting disturbed by gore and pulling the trigger are two distinct issues.

 

[Iain]

St. Johns, shooting at other soldiers who are just guys in the same boat as you, who you don't know, and have no personal reason for wanting to kill, is not the same thing as shooting an armed robber or armed home invader. In these latter cases, you have every reason to shoot, consistant with the survival instint.

I understand that. I guess in a combat situation when the 'survival instinct' kicks in as Preacherman and others have pointed out, then your ability to kill kicks in too.

As for Orion - I think he was implying a) he has been in combat and b) a point about the D Day landers. If I recall they were in separate paragraphs and not linked.

I am more interested to read this thread than to post on it, both sides know more than me. Thanks all.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, I haven't read any book on the impact of FPS games, nor would I. The notion is absurd. I've played them, and I know what they're all about.

Perhaps the notion seems absurd because you haven't read the book and are mischaracterizing Grossman's work based on brief summaries and heresay rather than actual knowledge of his entire argument?

Doesn't it bother you in the least to have spent so much time in this thread slagging a book you've never read? Most of the criticisms you've made of the book are actually addressed in the book; but then you would have to read it to know that, eh?

 

[Harold Mayo]

I'm afraid these arguments collapse when some logic is brought down upon them.

They might. I'm still waiting for the logic to be brought down, though....

 

[Lone Star]

I think a lot of this has to do with social conditioning. I think I can kill, and wasn't worried about it while in the military, although I never went to Vietnam. I was involved in protecting our greatest secrets and at times, our nuclear-loaded bombers.

In more "normal" police situations (I was an Air Force cop), I never felt any moral problem with shooting to stop someone who might put me or a partner at risk. I would have felt that I'd let down my co-workers and my badge and oath if I didn't kill when the situation called for it.

Frankly, I was far more concerned about proving that a shooting was necessary than I was about the actual act of killing someone who merited it.

But I was raised in the Southwest, and my boyhood heroes were famous hunters and soldiers and Texas Rangers, etc. My chums mostly had dads who were combat vets, and I just didn't think it odd that one would kill in battle. I was really startled to read the above sources about how few men fired at the enemy. (I read this info many years ago, originally.) And I've never fully understood Massad Ayoob's articles about how much stress people are supposed to suffer from killing when warranted.

I don't think I'm a sociopath. I don't think Joe Foss or Erich Hartmann or other famous air aces were, either. I think the men at the Alamo and at Rorke's Drift meant to hit the enemy.

I guess much depends on how one is raised...

Lone Star

 

[MicroBalrog]

It has to be pointed out that Jeff Cooper doesn't subscribe to the entire PTSD theory, and he's a greater expert than I?

 

[Trebor]

Viking6,

Thanks for posting that article on Marshall's methods. It's not the same article I read, but I'm sure the article I saw is one of the ones mentioned in the notes.

I've read "On Killing" and I think Grossman overstates his case and makes determinations that are not supported by the evidence he presents. Just because he can make an argument, and offer support for it, doesn't mean that it's true.

 

[Trebor]

It has to be pointed out that Jeff Cooper doesn't subscribe to the entire PTSD theory, and he's a greater expert than I?

I think it's more of a case that since Cooper hasn't experienced the effects of PTSD himself, he is unwilling to admit that it is a concern for others.

PTSD is by no means universal to those who have experienced a traumatic experience. Some people will suffer PTSD effects, some won't, and the severity of those effects will also vary from person to person.

 

[Viking6]

No problem, Trebor. I wish I could find a copy of the "Killers, Fillers and Fodder" ; that was a very interesting article not so much on a person's willingness to fight but more of their aptitude to fight.