The Truth about Killing

[Cosmoline]

There is no dout that the underlying methodology for Marshall's study was even more flawed than that underlying "Arming America." By modern standards there was no methodology. It was a joke. Unfortunately, the Army in its wisdom took the joke seriously and since WWII has set about trying to overcome the supposed reluctance to kill. Now you have generations of soldiers who are convinced that humans won't kill unless you put them through intense and brutal psychological training. Never mind that something like 15,000+ people are killed every year in this country by folks with little or no training.

Later studies conducted on men in Vietnam and in subsequent conflicts have become more and more accurate as sociological research has grown from a soft science joke to something which can actually give us useful information. IRONICALLY, however, as the research shows a higher kill rate because the reaserch gets gradually more accurate and scientific, the defense dept. takes credit for these results and pats itself on the back for training better soldiers!

So it's a myth that's taken on a vibrant life of its own. It's like having a massive undercount of cattle, hiring new hands and then patting yourself on the back because the next count accurately shows you weren't missing any cows to begin with!

This business of artillery killing most men is also nonsense. Until recent decades nothing in our artillery arsenal could do very much to the deeply entrenched enemies we faced. And make no mistake--by the time the US engaged the enemy in both world wars the enemy was VERY well entrenched. You'd be lucky to ever get a clear shot at your foe. This is explained in detail in every first-hadn account I've read.

 

[Cosmoline]

And while all this has been going on within the DOD, there's a whole industry of PTSD psychology and a massive anti-war movement that's grown up around the notion that people will not kill each other unless the State forces them to, and that forcing them to kill is terribly damaging. As pointed out, this is disproven by our very existence. You don't get to the top of the food chain by being nice. We are the killer apes. I could take human life right now if the need arose, and so could all of you. That's not something a pacifist wants to hear.

 

[Cosmoline]

As far as Grossman, just take a look at his www.killology.com website.

Some aspects of his CV:

Grossman, D., "Violent Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior," in Media Violence: Opposing Viewpoints, L.I. Gerdes editor, Greenhaven Press, 2004.

Grossman, D., "Teaching Kids to Kill", in Social Problems 02/03, Kurt Finsterbusch editor, McGraw Hill/Dushkin, 2002.

Grossman, D., "Trained to Kill," in Toys, Triggers & Telecommunications: Violence and Youth in the 2000s, O. Abrahams editor, Gun Control Australia, 2000.
---

Video games training us to kill Lordy lordy. Never forget, folks, that the doctrines we are discussing are at the very root of the notion that only "professionals" who have been properly trained should even be allowed to have firearms. The rest of us are peaceful sheep who couldn't kill if we tried. How many times has an anti thrown garbage at you such as claiming your gun would be taken from you, or that you would never be able to use your firearm if you had to? ALl of this bravo sierra comes from the notion that humans cannot kill without extensive deconditioning and training.

I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong.

 

[moa]

I wonder if one reason some troops in combat never or hardly ever fire their weapon (supposedly), it was because they did not want to reveal their position.

Also, it has been the habit of the American military to often keep units that are the "tip of the spear" always in the thick of the fight battle after battle. As a result, that might explain why so few troops overall did not have to kill anyone, or even fire their weapon.

Regarding killing, my mother had several brothers in the 29th Infantry Division during WWII. The 29th was in many fights. She says they told her that they killed a few of their fellow GIs because those GIs were giving away their positions because they so scared they were screaming and crying.

 

[BigG]

That actually is even more dismal than the 80/20 rule that says in any human endeavor 20% carry the load. I ALREADY KNEW 80% were drones, but when you say 98% ARE DRONES. Sheesh!

 

[cdbeaver]

Cosmoline;

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

I bow to your superior knowledge. I can only speak from personal experience.

In Korea, October 1952 at Triangle Hill, Chinese artillery and mortar fire rained down on our attacking battalion at the rate of 10 rounds a minute. Our guys were not in trenches, but were attempting to dislodge enemy troops who were in trenches.

During the course of the three-day battle, our regiment (31st Infantry) sustained more than 400 dead and wounded. Most injuries came from artillery and mortars--as well as grenades--not from the AK47 or burp gun.

 

[Cosmoline]

But as is typically the case our side was NOT deeply entrenched. The US military doesn't dig in for years, it keeps moving. I was referring to the fact that OUR troops tended to attack very well entrenched foes who had had months or years to dig in. With that kind of entrenchment it falls to infantrymen to get the job done. I sometimes get the sense that these people think our soldiers were crapping their pants and firing in the air while the real work was done with bombs and shells. I reject that argument.

 

[fourdeuce82d]

"He attributes the low casualty rates in combat to a reluctance to kill; but I think there is at least an equally good chance that it is simply a lot more difficult to shoot someone when they are shooting back"

Bingo- he also mentions the reluctance of people to use the bayonet techniques they've been taught, or effective hand to hand techniques like a blow to the throat instead of whaling away with clenched fists.

Sweet bouncing buddha on a pogo stick- that's kind of like asking a boxer "you swung one hundred times- why didn't you just swing once, and knock him out?

techniques that seem easy when performed against an unresisting opponent get a lot harder when that oponent is trying to hurt you- whether with fists, a bayonet, or firearms.

I think he failed to prove that a) most people don't fire at the enemy at all, and b) this is a result of reluctance to kill.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Video games training us to kill Lordy lordy.

This is an interesting quote, Cosmoline. I must assume that you are saying that video games are NOT capable of desensitizing children to violence? That repetition of the actions of purposefully killing imaginary enemies the moment that they pop up will NOT evoke a conditioned response under similar circumstances?

 

[Cosmoline]

This is an interesting quote, Cosmoline. I must assume that you are saying that video games are NOT capable of desensitizing children to violence? That repetition of the actions of purposefully killing imaginary enemies the moment that they pop up will NOT evoke a conditioned response under similar circumstances?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I've grown up with video games including many intensely bloody ones, but I don't believe I'm "desensitized to violence". That doesn't mean I won't kill if I have to, but killing and gore in a video game is not the same as killing and gore IRL.

And if my thousands upon thousands of hourse playing classic Wolfenstein 3D created a "conditioned response" in me like some kind of dog, there would be a great many people dead now that I really pack heat and own real firearms. Lordy, those poor German tourists who harrassed me about packing heat on the trail a few years back would have been dead for CERTAIN If the anti-video game folks were right, I should have been conditioned to kill them as soon as they said "mien lieben!" LOL

 

[Harold Mayo]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I've grown up with video games including many intensely bloody ones, but I don't believe I'm "desensitized to violence". That doesn't mean I won't kill if I have to...

But you're wrong...

Your very statement bears some evidence of the conditioning. We are conditioned to speak of killing in a casual way. I, like you, grew up with violent video games. I'm not a sociopath (or so I think), but I definitely feel that I am less sensitive to violence than many of my peers. Are the video games the reason? Not totally, of course, and probably not even a significant percentage of the cause but I still believe that it is a factor.

We're very much creatures of our past. What we have done in the past defines who and what we are and what we can and will do and are capable of doing. Can you agree with that? If not, then there is no point in further discussion as it is an irrefutable truth.

Why, if someone has played many, many hours of video games, would that not affect them? If you are a 13 year old kid who spends four hours a day playing violent video games and has for several years, don't you think that has some effect?

If you don't think that "gaming" has any effect, then why does the military conduct war games? Why do people in the military and LE who are in high-risk duties train using Simunitions? Why do people train AT ALL if practice of a particular neuro-muscular skill in situations similar to what might be encountered does no good?

 

[Smoke]

ummmm....Ryder?

The key as I see it is in mental justification. I don't see anybody having nightmares when they buy a hamburger, a box of cereal, or a loaf of bread even though animals died to provide those commodities.

What animals died to provide you that box of cereal or loaf of bread?

Buying hamburger off the rack will not desensitize anyone (well, maybe a left wing liberal hippie vegan from California ) but taking a live animal, killing it, skinning it and butchering it can. Does being able to kill and butcher an animal mean one could do the same to a man? I can't say, but I do suspect that it would condition one better to the blood and filth of the matter if only to provide the shooter with a clearer head even if only for a moment.

I have never been in a war. I have never killed anyone. I have pulled the trigger on a less than lethal round from a 12ga. I did not hesitate. Was this due to the knowledge it was a bean bag round? (these have proven fatal) or was it the fact that I have killed countless animals over the years. Or was it the fact that I have worked with animals all my life and have done countless things most people would call gross and disgusting? Or was it the fact that I have undergone professional training for defensive situations and new what to expect both before and after?

I'll let you psych majors decide.

Smoke

 

[Treylis]

What animals died to provide you that box of cereal or loaf of bread?

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

 

[Art Eatman]

I dunno. I don't like violence. Never really have. I had my last fight as a high school senior in 1951, and I didn't start it. I've stayed out of trouble by mostly not running my mouth in that last hour before closing time.

But I've gutted and butchered over 50 deer, and I've helped clean up the mess of dead folks that somebody else killed. Ever notice that all blood smells the same?

I've thought about this a lot, over the years. I just figure that if it's a case of "him or me", I want to be the one to walk away. And if it comes to that, I see no profit in becoming all emotional about it. I never saw any combat; my 1954/1955 tour in South Korea was strictly Occupation Duty. Every now and then we'd be alerted about "problems". I just sorta figured I'd shoot at whatever target showed up; what other option was there?

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?

Art

 

[Cosmoline]

If you don't think that "gaming" has any effect, then why does the military conduct war games? Why do people in the military and LE who are in high-risk duties train using Simunitions? Why do people train AT ALL if practice of a particular neuro-muscular skill in situations similar to what might be encountered does no good?

I'm afraid these arguments collapse when some logic is brought down upon them. For one thing, all my 3d games "conditioned" me to do was to hit the "W" key and the "ctrl" key when a little figure appeared in a certain place on the screen. A physical war game is a different matter entirely, but even that doesn't cause a "conditioned response" to kill. It merely helps soldiers think in real terms about concealment, cover, and most of all about how to operate in a large, moving group without tripping over each other.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Cosmoline, have you read the book or are you criticizing based on what you think it will say?

 

[Cosmoline]

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. It's the same reason I don't buy books claiming rock music/role playing games/rap music/80's fasion, etc etc. warp young minds.

Well 80's fashion warped me, it's true.

 

[zahc]

why does the military conduct war games? Why do people in the military and LE who are in high-risk duties train using Simunitions?

Oh boy. I suppose I'm dangerous because I play tournament paintball. I must be a sociopath conditioned to kill. Oh my.

Edited to add-I play GTA vice city too!!!

 

[Lagadelphia]

Maybe I'm the sociopath. I didn't necessarily like killing but I was there. The enemy was there and my comrades were there.

I won't lie to you. I didn't want to go. I'm also certain every man that climbed in an LCT on D-day weighed the possibility of saying "no, I won't go".

I imagine it was even harder for the second wave sitting off shore and watching the sheer madness of the first wave wading neck deep through raging tides into withering machine gun fire.

The bottom line for me and the guys I still keep in touch with was not letting each other down.

Nothing, not God, Country, the Flag, Mom, Apple pie, my dog...nothing mattered more than not letting those guys down.

They went so I went. I went so they went.

You don't face rifle fire for any more noble cause than the guy next to you.

Anyone that says any different was either too high in the air or too far away to know any better.

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

 

[another okie]

I'm still waiting for a real source that says Marshall's book is not sound. Dinner table conversation a long time ago doesn't count for much. Hackworth did not serve in World War II. I've read About Face. Like many combat veterans, he instinctively distrusts and wishes to belittle the theoreticians. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that doesn't necessarily make him either right or wrong.

Many of you seem eager to disbelieve Marshall's research. I suspect it goes against our heroic stereotypes to think that many soldiers never fired their guns. More important than exact numbers is the indisputable fact that Marshall's study changed the way the U.S. Army trains soldiers. Now we teach them that they are fighting for one another, and put them in fire teams. By Korea and Vietnam these lessons were being applied.

The most important outcome of all the studies of combat in WW II was the realization that soldiers fight to keep themselves and their buddies alive, not for the Four Freedoms or the Government by the People, or to stop Hitler. It seems obvious today, but that's because it's been taught to us for fifty years. In 1939 it did not seem obvious at all.

 

[Cosmoline]

"I suspect it goes against our heroic stereotypes to think that many soldiers never fired their guns"

No, not at all. But it goes against common sense and basic logic to conclude fromt his fact that most soldiers were UNABLE to kill an enemy soldier. The realities of the combat they faced encouraged soldiers to hold fire until they had a clear target, and those were rare. Frankly only a tiny fraction of front line infantry soliders in combat, whether today or in WWII will ever have the opportunity to line up a foe and shoot him. Any real statistical evidence must focus solely and exclusively on the group of soldiers who had that precise opportunity. I very much doubt you'd find that most of this group during WWII FAILED to fire their weapons. You cannot go around counting bullets expended by all soldiers together and hope to learn anything from it about the courage of our soldiers. Indeed I bet the best Delta and Ranger units have gone on many a successful mission and fired only one or two rounds, perhaps none. To conclude from that that those folks can't kill would be a very big mistake.

 

[Bridger]

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. It's the same reason I don't buy books claiming rock music/role playing games/rap music/80's fasion, etc etc. warp young minds.

Well, first post here, so I'll dive in having read On Killing myself. Grossman doesn't suggest FPS games are the major one in conditioning, but the light gun games. Things like Time Crisis II and such (my favorite! heh).

And enjoying that game, and the shooting sports, and paintball, I think that I've had a good bit of my mind conditioned into pointing a firearm at another human being and pulling the trigger.

Being conditioned doesn't mean I will become a pschotic killer, Grossman suggests that the problem with the games is that they don't provide the proper structure. I think that's more the problem in his argument, as most games do provide some structure, good vs bad. I've almost always shot bad guys in games, people trying to harm me and other innocents.

But I do believe that repeatedly playing those light gun type games does help condition someone to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger. Of course, lots more plays into that as well.

Another point I wanted to make was with regards to the 2% figure.

I think everyone here has taken that out of it's proper context. It's not that 2% are the only killers, just that perhaps 2% are people who actually ENJOY the killing in some way. In fact many more than just 2% were responsible for the killing, though there still were plenty of non-killers and posturers. So all you vets out there don't worry about doing what you had to, as many of you mentioned "it was either him or me", and well, the guy next to you counts for a lot too. That doesn't mean you're in the 2% that is psychopatich or sociopathic, so no worries.

On Killing is worth the read, and as a video-gamer for most of my life I didn't even find it that disagreeable once I actually read it for myself.

 

[Duckdawg]

This is a really intersting thread. But I have a question about why so few humans will kill other humans.

If you don't live under a rock, you no doubt have seen a television news broadcast now and then recently which showed large crowds of untrained, unbrainwashed, non-desensitized civilians running amuck, killing anything in their path and generally raising all sorts of violent havock.

Why do these ravening hords kill and professional soldiers do not?

 

[fourdeuce82d]

"you no doubt have seen a television news broadcast now and then recently which showed large crowds of untrained, unbrainwashed, non-desensitized civilians running amuck, killing anything in their path and generally raising all sorts of violent havock"

As someone who is skeptical about Grossman's work, I have tosay that (to my best recollection about his arguement and it's main points) that crowd behavior doesn't necesarrily disprove his thesis.

For one thing, crowds/mobs often have a bunch of drunk/high people among them- for another, we don't necesarrily know that *most* of the members actually do the killing- the others are perhaps egging on the actors.

Also, the yelling, posturing, etc. may in effect be if not "training" at least an encouragement to the malefactors to disregard their normal inclinations.

I only bring this up because of that time I and everybody else was wicked drunk...and they were shouting "Do it, Do it..." and dammit that WAS a cute sheep.

 

[tex_n_cal]

I can see the point of poorly trained people freaking out in battle and being largely ineffective. While I have never been in a serious fight, I have been in a couple of emergencies that were stressful.

In one case when I was a plant department manager, I was typing away in my office when another supervisor ran to get my attention. One of my guys was working around a machine, swung a hammer to drive a tool in place, and on the backstroke puts the hammer into a large spinning flywheel, which snatched the hammer and his hand past a guard, trapping the guy in the machine.

When I got there the guy was caught in the machine, crying in pain, and by that time about six other employees were there. To quote the old expression, running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I recall the guys, including one lead man, repeatedly seemed to stop moving, look around frantically, then run over a few feet, then stop and look around some more before moving again.

I got to the machine, looked at how the guy was caught, looked up at one guy, pointed at him and said, "YOU! turn off the power!". Next guy: "You! go get me tools!", Then I turned back to the guy and started telling him it was okay, we'd get him out. I studied a little closer how he was caught. God was clearly beside him - the same hammer that had pulled his hand into the machine had also stalled the flywheel.

In hindsight, telling the poor guy, "You! Go get me tools!" didn't tell him a damn thing about WHAT tool I wanted. After a few seconds, I realized what I wanted and ran to a tool box, coming back with a big pair of pliers. The man's hand and arm were jammed under a sheet metal guard, and I started tearing/peeling back the metal with the pliers. In a minute or so he was freed, and started to collapse. Three or four of the guys grabbed him and gently guided him to a seat. We took him to a hospital, and luckily, all he had were bruises.

A little later the other supervisor, who had stood there watching (he was an office guy, had no knowledge of the machine, and deserved no blame for not helping) said, "he's lucky you knew what to do". In thinking it over at the time, it was mainly a mechanical problem - a concern for the guy as well, but mostly I was trying to figure out what to do to free him. With years of work fixing and studying machines, it was a natural thing to do.

I expect soldiering isn't a lot different than other types of emergency work - throw people in with no training, and yeah, they will run around like chickens with their heads cut off and be targets. With conditioning and training, people handle it better. One anesthesiologist told a nurse(my ex) that his profession was hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror.

As far as hunting and killing and video games and all that "Bravo Sierra" desensitizing people to death, I can tell you that last summer I came upon the aftermath of a traffic accident - a bicylcist(he looked like a homeless person) had been hit by a car and was laying quite dead on the street with his head split open. I had no part in the accident, police were already there so I couldn't help, and the guy was not someone of importance to me, yet I still felt troubled by what I had seen for a couple of days. I felt a little better two days later, when I passed the same intersection - a small memorial had been erected, acknowledging the man in name. I felt a little better for him that someone cared enough to remember him. Despite hunting, cleaning game, and guns in the house, I still got a little emotional over this stranger's death.