Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/17/2005 3:28:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:25:16 PM EDT by AyeGuy]
Long article but interesting.

I don't think there is anything we can do about it though.

There is stuff I don't agree with in the article, but I left it un-edited for your benefit.


*********************************­*******

Trained to Kill

A military expert on the psychology of killing explains how today's media condition kids to pull the trigger.

David Grossman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are kids shooting their classmates?
David Grossman is a military psychologist who coined the term killology for a new interdisciplinary field: the study of the methods and psychological effects of training army recruits to circumvent their natural inhibitions to killing fellow human beings. Here he marshals unsettling evidence that the same tactics used in training soldiers are at work in our media and entertainment. CT thinks that parents, the church, scholars, and the government must come together to study this question more intensely:

Are we training our children to kill?

I am from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I travel the world training medical, law enforcement, and U.S. military personnel about the realities of warfare. I try to make those who carry deadly force keenly aware of the magnitude of killing. Too many law enforcement and military personnel act like "cowboys," never stopping to think about who they are and what they are called to do. I hope I am able to give them a reality check.

So here I am, a world traveler and an expert in the field of "killology," and the largest school massacre in American history happens in my hometown of Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was the March 24 schoolyard shooting deaths of four girls and a teacher. Ten others were injured, and two boys, ages 11 and 13, are in jail, charged with murder.

My son goes to one of the middle schools in town, so my aunt in Florida called us that day and asked, "Was that Joe's school?" And we said, "We haven't heard about it." My aunt in Florida knew about the shootings before we did!

We turned on the television and discovered the shootings took place down the road from us but, thank goodness, not at Joe's school. I'm sure almost all parents in Jonesboro that night hugged their children and said, "Thank God it wasn't you," as they tucked them into bed. But there was also a lot of guilt because some parents in Jonesboro couldn't say that.

I spent the first three days after the tragedy at Westside Middle School, where the shootings took place, working with the counselors, teachers, students, and parents. None of us had ever done anything like this before. I train people how to react to trauma in the military; but how do you do it with kids after a massacre in their school?

I was the lead trainer for the counselors and clergy the night after the shootings, and the following day we debriefed the teachers in groups. Then the counselors and clergy, working with the teachers, debriefed the students, allowing them to work through everything that had happened. Only people who share a trauma can give each other the understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness needed to understand what happened, and then they can begin the long process of trying to understand why it happened.

Virus of violence
To understand the why behind Jonesboro and Springfield and Pearl and Paducah, and all the other outbreaks of this "virus of violence," we need to understand first the magnitude of the problem. The per capita murder rate doubled in this country between 1957--when the fbi started keeping track of the data--and 1992. A fuller picture of the problem, however, is indicated by the rate people are attempting to kill one another--the aggravated assault rate. That rate in America has gone from around 60 per 100,000 in 1957 to over 440 per 100,000 by the middle of this decade. As bad as this is, it would be much worse were it not for two major factors.

First is the increase in the imprisonment rate of violent offenders. The prison population in America nearly quadrupled between 1975 and 1992. According to criminologist John J. DiIulio, "dozens of credible empirical analyses . . . leave no doubt that the increased use of prisons averted millions of serious crimes." If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher.

Children don't naturally kill; they learn it from violence in the home and most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, movies, and interactive video games.

The second factor keeping the murder rate from being any worse is medical technology. According to the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps, a wound that would have killed nine out of ten soldiers in World War II, nine out of ten could have survived in Vietnam. Thus, by a very conservative estimate, if we had 1940-level medical technology today, the murder rate would be ten times higher than it is. The magnitude of the problem has been held down by the development of sophisticated lifesaving skills and techniques, such as helicopter medevacs, 911 operators, paramedics, cpr, trauma centers, and medicines.

However, the crime rate is still at a phenomenally high level, and this is true worldwide. In Canada, according to their Center for Justice, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993, attempted murder increased nearly sevenfold, and murders doubled. Similar trends can be seen in other countries in the per capita violent crime rates reported to Interpol between 1977 and 1993. In Australia and New Zealand, the assault rate increased approximately fourfold, and the murder rate nearly doubled in both nations. The assault rate tripled in Sweden, and approximately doubled in Belgium, Denmark, England-Wales, France, Hungary, Netherlands, and Scotland, while all these nations had an associated (but smaller) increase in murder.

This virus of violence is occurring worldwide. The explanation for it has to be some new factor that is occurring in all of these countries. There are many factors involved, and none should be discounted: for example, the prevalence of guns in our society. But violence is rising in many nations with draco-nian gun laws. And though we should never downplay child abuse, poverty, or racism, there is only one new variable present in each of these countries, bearing the exact same fruit: media violence presented as entertainment for children.

Killing is unnatural
Before retiring from the military, I spent almost a quarter of a century as an army infantry officer and a psychologist, learning and studying how to enable people to kill. Believe me, we are very good at it. But it does not come naturally; you have to be taught to kill. And just as the army is conditioning people to kill, we are indiscriminately doing the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.

After the Jonesboro killings, the head of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Juvenile Violence came to town and said that children don't naturally kill. It is a learned skill. And they learn it from abuse and violence in the home and, most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, the movies, and interactive video games.

Killing requires training because there is a built-in aversion to killing one's own kind. I can best illustrate this from drawing on my own work in studying killing in the military.

We all know that you can't have an argument or a discussion with a frightened or angry human being. Vasoconstriction, the narrowing of the blood vessels, has literally closed down the forebrain--that great gob of gray matter that makes you a human being and distinguishes you from a dog. When those neurons close down, the midbrain takes over and your thought processes and reflexes are indistinguishable from your dog's. If you've worked with animals, you have some understanding of what happens to frightened human beings on the battlefield. The battlefield and violent crime are in the realm of midbrain responses.

Within the midbrain there is a powerful, God-given resistance to killing your own kind. Every species, with a few exceptions, has a hardwired resistance to killing its own kind in territorial and mating battles. When animals with antlers and horns fight one another, they head butt in a harmless fashion. But when they fight any other species, they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranhas will turn their fangs on anything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes will bite anything, but they wrestle one another. Almost every species has this hardwired resistance to killing its own kind.

When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear, we slam head-on into that midbrain resistance that generally prevents us from killing. Only sociopaths--who by definition don't have that resistance--lack this innate violence immune system.

Throughout human history, when humans fight each other, there is a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission. Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit when one side was fleeing.

"Few researchers bother any longer to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an
effect on kids who witness it."
(Time, April 6, 1998)

In more modern times, the average firing rate was incredibly low in Civil War battles. Patty Griffith demonstrates that the killing potential of the average Civil War regiment was anywhere from five hundred to a thousand men per minute. The actual killing rate was only one or two men per minute per regiment (The Battle Tactics of the American Civil War). At the Battle of Gettysburg, of the 27,000 muskets picked up from the dead and dying after the battle, 90 percent were loaded. This is an anomaly, because it took 95 percent of their time to load muskets and only 5 percent to fire. But even more amazingly, of the thousands of loaded muskets, over half had multiple loads in the barrel--one with 23 loads in the barrel.

In reality, the average man would load his musket and bring it to his shoulder, but he could not bring himself to kill. He would be brave, he would stand shoulder to shoulder, he would do what he was trained to do; but at the moment of truth, he could not bring himself to pull the trigger. And so he lowered the weapon and loaded it again. Of those who did fire, only a tiny percentage fired to hit. The vast majority fired over the enemy's head.

During World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall had a team of researchers study what soldiers did in battle. For the first time in history, they asked individual soldiers what they did in battle. They discovered that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier.

That is the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are able and willing to participate. Men are willing to die, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation; but they are not willing to kill. It is a phenomenal insight into human nature; but when the military became aware of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this "problem." From the military perspective, a 15 percent firing rate among riflemen is like a 15 percent literacy rate among librarians. And fix it the military did. By the Korean War, around 55 percent of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill. And by Vietnam, the rate rose to over 90 percent.

The methods in this madness: Desensitization
How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive, because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain these in the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture.

Brutalization and desensitization are what happens at boot camp. From the moment you step off the bus you are physically and verbally abused: countless pushups, endless hours at attention or running with heavy loads, while carefully trained professionals take turns screaming at you. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked and dressed alike, losing all individuality. This brutalization is designed to break down your existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening to our children through violence in the media--but instead of 18-year-olds, it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what is happening on television. At that age, a child can watch something happening on television and mimic that action. But it isn't until children are six or seven years old that the part of the brain kicks in that lets them understand where information comes from. Even though young children have some understanding of what it means to pretend, they are developmentally unable to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality.

When young children see somebody shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded, or murdered on TV, to them it is as though it were actually happening. To have a child of three, four, or five watch a "splatter" movie, learning to relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30 minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a friend, letting her play with that friend, and then butchering that friend in front of your child's eyes. And this happens to our children hundreds upon hundreds of times.

Sure, they are told: "Hey, it's all for fun. Look, this isn't real, it's just TV." And they nod their little heads and say okay. But they can't tell the difference. Can you remember a point in your life or in your children's lives when dreams, reality, and television were all jumbled together? That's what it is like to be at that level of psychological development. That's what the media are doing to them.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the impact of TV violence. The research demonstrated what happened in numerous nations after television made its appearance as compared to nations and regions without TV. The two nations or regions being compared are demographically and ethnically identical; only one variable is different: the presence of television. In every nation, region, or city with television, there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That is how long it takes for the brutalization of a three- to five-year-old to reach the "prime crime age." That is how long it takes for you to reap what you have sown when you brutalize and desensitize a three-year-old.

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media. The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "the introduction of television in the 1950's caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually." The article went on to say that ". . . if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (June 10, 1992).

Classical conditioning
Classical conditioning is like the famous case of Pavlov's dogs you learned about in Psychology 101: The dogs learned to associate the ringing of the bell with food, and, once conditioned, the dogs could not hear the bell without salivating.

The Japanese were masters at using classical conditioning with their soldiers. Early in World War II, Chinese prisoners were placed in a ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind them. And one by one, a select few Japanese soldiers would go into the ditch and bayonet "their" prisoner to death. This is a horrific way to kill another human being. Up on the bank, countless other young soldiers would cheer them on in their violence. Comparatively few soldiers actually killed in these situations, but by making the others watch and cheer, the Japanese were able to use these kinds of atrocities to classically condition a very large audience to associate pleasure with human death and suffering. Immediately afterwards, the soldiers who had been spectators were treated to sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls. The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure.

The Japanese found these kinds of techniques to be extraordinarily effective at quickly enabling very large numbers of soldiers to commit atrocities in the years to come. Operant conditioning (which we will look at shortly) teaches you to kill, but classical conditioning is a subtle but powerful mechanism that teaches you to like it.

This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training; but there are some clear-cut examples of it being done by the media to our children. What is happening to our children is the reverse of the aversion therapy portrayed in the movie A Clockwork Orange. In A Clockwork Orange, a brutal sociopath, a mass murderer, is strapped to a chair and forced to watch violent movies while he is injected with a drug that nauseates him. So he sits and gags and retches as he watches the movies. After hundreds of repetitions of this, he associates violence with nausea, and it limits his ability to be violent.

Every time a child plays an interactive video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned
reflex skills as a soldier or police officer in training.

We are doing the exact opposite: Our children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume.

After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum.

The result is a phenomenon that functions much like AIDS, which I call AVIDS--Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS has never killed anybody. It destroys your immune system, and then other diseases that shouldn't kill you become fatal. Television violence by itself does not kill you. It destroys your violence immune system and conditions you to derive pleasure from violence. And once you are at close range with another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger, Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome can destroy your midbrain resistance.

Operant conditioning
The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a very powerful procedure of stimulus-response, stimulus-response. A benign example is the use of flight simulators to train pilots. An airline pilot in training sits in front of a flight simulator for endless hours; when a particular warning light goes on, he is taught to react in a certain way. When another warning light goes on, a different reaction is required. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response. One day the pilot is actually flying a jumbo jet; the plane is going down, and 300 people are screaming behind him. He is wetting his seat cushion, and he is scared out of his wits; but he does the right thing. Why? Because he has been conditioned to respond reflexively to this particular crisis.

When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been conditioned to do. In fire drills, children learn to file out of the school in orderly fashion. One day there is a real fire, and they are frightened out of their wits; but they do exactly what they have been conditioned to do, and it saves their lives.

The military and law enforcement community have made killing a conditioned response. This has substantially raised the firing rate on the modern battlefield. Whereas infantry training in World War II used bull's-eye targets, now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop into their field of view. That is the stimulus. The trainees have only a split second to engage the target. The conditioned response is to shoot the target, and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response--soldiers or police officers experience hundreds of repetitions. Later, when soldiers are on the battlefield or a police officer is walking a beat and somebody pops up with a gun, they will shoot reflexively and shoot to kill. We know that 75 to 80 percent of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of stimulus-response training.

Now, if you're a little troubled by that, how much more should we be troubled by the fact that every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor skills.

I was an expert witness in a murder case in South Carolina offering mitigation for a kid who was facing the death penalty. I tried to explain to the jury that interactive video games had conditioned him to shoot a gun to kill. He had spent hundreds of dollars on video games learning to point and shoot, point and shoot. One day he and his buddy decided it would be fun to rob the local convenience store. They walked in, and he pointed a snub-nosed .38 pistol at the clerk's head. The clerk turned to look at him, and the defendant shot reflexively from about six feet. The bullet hit the clerk right between the eyes--which is a pretty remarkable shot with that weapon at that range--and killed this father of two. Afterward, we asked the boy what happened and why he did it. It clearly was not part of the plan to kill the guy--it was being videotaped from six different directions. He said, "I don't know. It was a mistake. It wasn't supposed to happen."

In the military and law-enforcement worlds, the right option is often not to shoot. But you never, never put your quarter in that video machine with the intention of not shooting. There is always some stimulus that sets you off. And when he was excited, and his heart rate went up, and vasoconstriction closed his forebrain down, this young man did exactly what he was conditioned to do: he reflexively pulled the trigger, shooting accurately just like all those times he played video games.

This process is extraordinarily powerful and frightening. The result is ever more homemade pseudosociopaths who kill reflexively and show no remorse. Our children are learning to kill and learning to like it; and then we have the audacity to say, "Oh my goodness, what's wrong?"

One of the boys allegedly involved in the Jonesboro shootings (and they are just boys) had a fair amount of experience shooting real guns. The other one was a nonshooter and, to the best of our knowledge, had almost no experience shooting. Between them, those two boys fired 27 shots from a range of over 100 yards, and they hit 15 people. That's pretty remarkable shooting. We run into these situations often--kids who have never picked up a gun in their lives pick up a real gun and are incredibly accurate. Why? Video games.

Role models
In the military, you are immediately confronted with a role model: your drill sergeant. He personifies violence and aggression. Along with military heroes, these violent role models have always been used to influence young, impressionable minds.
Today the media are providing our children with role models, and this can be seen not just in the lawless sociopaths in movies and TV shows, but it can also be seen in the media-inspired, copycat aspects of the Jonesboro murders. This is the part of these juvenile crimes that the TV networks would much rather not talk about.

Research in the 1970s demonstrated the existence of "cluster suicides" in which the local TV reporting of teen suicides directly caused numerous copycat suicides of impressionable teenagers. Somewhere in every population there are potentially suicidal kids who will say to themselves, "Well, I'll show all those people who have been mean to me. I know how to get my picture on TV, too." Because of this research, television stations today generally do not cover suicides. But when the pictures of teenage killers appear on TV, the effect is the same: Somewhere there is a potentially violent little boy who says to himself, "Well, I'll show all those people who have been mean to me. I know how to get my picture on TV too."

Thus we get copycat, cluster murders that work their way across America like a virus spread by the six o'clock news. No matter what someone has done, if you put his picture on TV, you have made him a celebrity, and someone, somewhere, will emulate him.

The lineage of the Jonesboro shootings began at Pearl, Mississippi, fewer than six months before. In Pearl, a 16-year-old boy was accused of killing his mother and then going to his school and shooting nine students, two of whom died, including his ex-girlfriend. Two months later, this virus spread to Paducah, Kentucky, where a 14-year-old boy was arrested for killing three students and wounding five others.

A very important step in the spread of this copycat crime virus occurred in Stamps, Arkansas, 15 days after Pearl and just a little over 90 days before Jonesboro. In Stamps, a 14-year-old boy, who was angry at his schoolmates, hid in the woods and fired at children as they came out of school. Sound familiar? Only two children were injured in this crime, so most of the world didn't hear about it; but it got great regional coverage on TV, and two little boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas, probably did hear about it.

And then there was Springfield, Oregon, and so many others. Is this a reasonable price to pay for the TV networks' "right" to turn juvenile defendants into celebrities and role models by playing up their pictures on TV?

Our society needs to be informed about these crimes, but when the images of the young killers are broadcast on television, they become role models. The average preschooler in America watches 27 hours of television a week. The average child gets more one-on-one communication from TV than from all her parents and teachers combined. The ultimate achievement for our children is to get their picture on TV. The solution is simple, and it comes straight out of the suicidology literature: The media have every right and responsibility to tell the story, but they have no right to glorify the killers by presenting their images on TV.


Reality Check

Sixty percent of men on TV are involved in violence; 11 percent are killers. Unlike actual rates, in the media the majority of homicide victims are women. (Gerbner 1994)

In a Canadian town in which TV was first introduced in 1973, a 160 percent increase in aggression, hitting, shoving, and biting was documented in first- and second-grade students after exposure, with no change in behavior in children in two control communities. (Centerwall 1992)

Fifteen years after the introduction of TV, homicides, rapes and assaults doubled in the United States. (American Medical Association)

Twenty percent of suburban high schoolers endorse shooting someone "who has stolen something from you." (Toch and Silver 1993)

In the United States, approximately two million teenagers carry knives, guns, clubs or razors. As many as 135,000 take them to school. (America by the Numbers)

Americans spend over $100 million on toy guns every year. (What Counts: The Complete Harper's Index © 1991)

Unlearning violence
What is the road home from the dark and lonely place to which we have traveled? One route infringes on civil liberties. The city of New York has made remarkable progress in recent years in bringing down crime rates, but they may have done so at the expense of some civil liberties. People who are fearful say that is a price they are willing to pay.

Another route would be to "just turn it off"; if you don't like what is on television, use the "off" button. Yet, if all the parents of the 15 shooting victims in Jonesboro had protected their children from TV violence, it wouldn't have done a bit of good. Because somewhere there were two little boys whose parents didn't "just turn it off."

On the night of the Jonesboro shootings, clergy and counselors were working in small groups in the hospital waiting room, comforting the groups of relatives and friends of the victims. Then they noticed one woman sitting alone silently.

A counselor went over to the woman and discovered that she was the mother of one of the girls who had been killed. She had no friends, no husband, no family with her as she sat in the hospital, stunned by her loss. "I just came to find out how to get my little girl's body back," she said. But the body had been taken to Little Rock, 100 miles away, for an autopsy. Her very next concern was, "I just don't know how I'm going to pay for the funeral. I don't know how I can afford it." That little girl was truly all she had in all the world. Come to Jonesboro, friend, and tell this mother she should "just turn it off."

Another route to reduced violence is gun control. I don't want to downplay that option, but America is trapped in a vicious cycle when we talk about gun control. Americans don't trust the government; they believe that each of us should be responsible for taking care of ourselves and our families. That's one of our great strengths--but it is also a great weakness. When the media foster fear and perpetuate a milieu of violence, Americans arm themselves in order to deal with that violence. And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.

We are trapped in this spiral of self-dependence and lack of trust. Real progress will never be made until we reduce this level of fear. As a historian, I tell you it will take decades--maybe even a century--before we wean Americans off their guns. And until we reduce the level of fear and of violent crime, Americans would sooner die than give up their guns.


Top 10
Nonviolent
Video Games

The following list of nonviolent video games has been developed by The Games Project. These games are ranked high for their social and play value and technical merit.

1. Bust a Move
2. Tetris
3. Theme Park
4. Absolute Pinball
5. Myst
6. NASCAR
7. SimCity
8. The Incredible Machine
9. Front Page Sports: Golf
10. Earthworm Jim
For descriptions, publishers, and prices for these games, including a searchable database for additional recommendations, check The Games Project Web site at: http://www.gamesproject.org/. This list is updated periodically. Others are encouraged to make recommendations in their "Add your favorites" section.


Fighting back
We need to make progress in the fight against child abuse, racism, and poverty, and in rebuilding our families. No one is denying that the breakdown of the family is a factor. But nations without our divorce rates are also having increases in violence. Besides, research demonstrates that one major source of harm associated with single-parent families occurs when the TV becomes both the nanny and the second parent.
Work is needed in all these areas, but there is a new front--taking on the producers and purveyers of media violence. Simply put, we ought to work toward legislation that outlaws violent video games for children. There is no constitutional right for a child to play an interactive video game that teaches him weapons-handling skills or that simulates destruction of God's creatures.

The day may also be coming when we are able to seat juries in America who are willing to sock it to the networks in the only place they really understand--their wallets. After the Jonesboro shootings, Time magazine said: "As for media violence, the debate there is fast approaching the same point that discussions about the health impact of tobacco reached some time ago--it's over. Few researchers bother any longer to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an effect on kids who witness it" (April 6, 1998).

Most of all, the American people need to learn the lesson of Jonesboro: Violence is not a game; it's not fun, it's not something that we do for entertainment. Violence kills.



Every parent in America desperately needs to be warned of the impact of TV and other violent media on children, just as we would warn them of some widespread carcinogen. The problem is that the TV networks, which use the public airwaves we have licensed to them, are our key means of public education in America. And they are stonewalling.

In the days after the Jonesboro shootings, I was interviewed on Canadian national TV, the British Broadcasting Company, and many U.S. and international radio shows and newspapers. But the American television networks simply would not touch this aspect of the story. Never in my experience as a historian and a psychologist have I seen any institution in America so clearly responsible for so very many deaths, and so clearly abusing their publicly licensed authority and power to cover up their guilt.

Time after time, idealistic young network producers contacted me from one of the networks, fascinated by the irony that an expert in the field of violence and aggression was living in Jonesboro and was at the school almost from the beginning. But unlike all the other media, these network news stories always died a sudden, silent death when the network's powers-that-be said, "Yeah, we need this story like we need a hole in the head."

Many times since the shooting I have been asked, "Why weren't you on TV talking about the stuff in your book?" And every time my answer had to be, "The TV networks are burying this story. They know they are guilty, and they want to delay the retribution as long as they can."

As an author and expert on killing, I believe I have spoken on the subject at every Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions Club in a 50-mile radius of Jonesboro. So when the plague of satellite dishes descended upon us like huge locusts, many people here were aware of the scientific data linking TV violence and violent crime.

The networks will stick their lenses anywhere and courageously expose anything. Like flies on open wounds, they find nothing too private or shameful for their probing lenses--except themselves, and their share of guilt in the terrible, tragic crime that happened here.

A CBS executive told me his plan. He knows all about the link between media and violence. His own in-house people have advised him to protect his child from the poison his industry is bringing to America's children. He is not going to expose his child to TV until she's old enough to learn how to read. And then he will select very carefully what she sees. He and his wife plan to send her to a daycare center that has no television, and he plans to show her only age-appropriate videos.

That should be the bare minimum with children: Show them only age-appropriate videos, and think hard about what is age appropriate.

The most benign product you are going to get from the networks are 22-minute sitcoms or cartoons providing instant solutions for all of life's problems, interlaced with commercials telling you what a slug you are if you don't ingest the right sugary substances and don't wear the right shoes.

The worst product your child is going to get from the networks is represented by one TV commentator who told me, "Well, we only have one really violent show on our network, and that is NYPD Blue. I'll admit that that is bad, but it is only one night a week."

I wondered at the time how she would feel if someone said, "Well, I only beat my wife in front of the kids one night a week." The effect is the same.

"You're not supposed to know who I am!" said NYPD Blue star Kim Delaney, in response to young children who recognized her from her role on that show. According to USA Weekend, she was shocked that underage viewers watch her show, which is rated TV-14 for gruesome crimes, raw language, and explicit sex scenes. But they do watch, don't they?

Education about media and violence does make a difference. I was on a radio call-in show in San Antonio, Texas. A woman called and said, "I would never have had the courage to do this two years ago. But let me tell you what happened. You tell me if I was right.

"My 13-year-old boy spent the night with a neighbor boy. After that night, he started having nightmares. I got him to admit what the nightmares were about. While he was at the neighbor's house, they watched splatter movies all night: people cutting people up with chain saws and stuff like that.

Every parent in America desperately needs to be warned of the impact of TV and other violent media on children. But the TV networks--our key means of public education in America--are
stonewalling.

"I called the neighbors and told them, 'Listen: you are sick people. I wouldn't feel any different about you if you had given my son pornography or alcohol. And I'm not going to have anything further to do with you or your son--and neither is anybody else in this neighborhood, if I have anything to do with it--until you stop what you're doing.' "

That's powerful. That's censure, not censorship. We ought to have the moral courage to censure people who think that violence is legitimate entertainment.

One of the most effective ways for Christians to be salt and light is by simply confronting the culture of volence as entertainment. A friend of mine, a retired army officer who teaches at a nearby middle school, uses the movie Gettysburg to teach his students about the Civil War. A scene in that movie very dramatically depicts the tragedy of Pickett's Charge. As the Confederate troops charge into the Union lines, the cannons fire into their masses at point-blank range, and there is nothing but a red mist that comes up from the smoke and flames. He told me that when he first showed this heart-wrenching, tragic scene to his students, they laughed.

He began to confront this behavior ahead of time by saying: "In the past, students have laughed at this scene, and I want to tell you that this is completely unacceptable behavior. This movie depicts a tragedy in American history, a tragedy that happened to our ancestors, and I will not tolerate any laughing." From then on, when he played that scene to his students, over the years, he says there was no laughter. Instead, many of them wept.

What the media teach is unnatural, and if confronted in love and assurance, the house they have built on the sand will crumble. But our house is built on the rock. If we don't actively present our values, then the media will most assuredly inflict theirs on our children, and the children, like those in that class watching Gettysburg, simply won't know any better.

There are many other things that the Christian community can do to help change our culture. Youth activities can provide alternatives to television, and churches can lead the way in providing alternative locations for latchkey children. Fellowship groups can provide guidance and support to young parents as they strive to raise their children without the destructive influences of the media. Mentoring programs can pair mature, educated adults with young parents to help them through the preschool ages without using the TV as a babysitter. And most of all, the churches can provide the clarion call of decency and love and peace as an alternative to death and destruction--not just for the sake of the church, but for the transformation of our culture.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expert on the psychology of killing, retired from the U.S. Army in February. He now teaches psychology at Arkansas State University, directs the Killology Research Group in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and has written On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Little, Brown and Co., 1996). This article was adapted from a lecture he gave at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, in April.


Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:38:21 PM EDT
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:41:04 PM EDT
I read his two books "On Killing" and "On Combat". Good reads both. Tag to read later.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:41:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.



Heavy metal made me do it.......all I needed was audio...
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:43:38 PM EDT
Killing is perfectly natural. Every other vertebrate does it. *shrug*

It isn't nice, polite, or even pleasant, I would imagine, but we are conditioned against it--it isn't some deep seated disinclination....


GT
speculating...
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:44:18 PM EDT
Shitty parenting, improper guidance, who knows? What pisses me off the most is that people are so quick to blame everyone and everything when something goes horribly wrong in a child's life. But society is so hesitent to take a closer look at the family, and the upbringing, which is where the problems most likely took root. It seems that external factors are always to blame (environment, bullying, violent T.V. etc.).....but I'll bet my life that in 99.9% of the cases, the causes developed somewhere within the family structure. Of course, there are some people that are so emotionally disturbed that they most likely could not be helped, but it's the family who is initially responsible for identifying the problem and trying to intervene.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:44:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.



Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:44:58 PM EDT
Boy I hope so there is a bunch of people in this world that need killin.

<­BR>



Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:45:06 PM EDT
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.

There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:55:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.

There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.



There is.
That statement, IMO, invalidates most of his other findings.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that shit can't have many great ideas.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:58:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
Killing is perfectly natural. Every other vertebrate does it. *shrug*

It isn't nice, polite, or even pleasant, I would imagine, but we are conditioned against it--it isn't some deep seated disinclination....


GT
speculating...



But not killing it's own kind.
"On Killing" by Grossman goes into this in detail.
Stats: During WWII Only 15 to 25 % of Combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles.
During Korea, Only 50%
Vietnam maybe 90%
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:05:49 PM EDT
I gotta be honest, as a modern teenager I almost hope that the violent video games and such have desensitized me to killing, at least to the point where if it comes down to me (and/or my family) or him I will have no hesitation pulling the trigger.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:08:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:08:30 PM EDT by happycynic]

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

David Grossman is a military psychologist who coined the term killology for a new interdisciplinary field: the study of the methods and psychological effects of training army recruits to circumvent their natural inhibitions to killing fellow human beings.



Can we say "pseudo-science."
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:08:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By highdraglowspeed:

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
Killing is perfectly natural. Every other vertebrate does it. *shrug*

It isn't nice, polite, or even pleasant, I would imagine, but we are conditioned against it--it isn't some deep seated disinclination....


GT
speculating...



But not killing it's own kind.
"On Killing" by Grossman goes into this in detail.
Stats: During WWII Only 15 to 25 % of Combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles.
During Korea, Only 50%
Vietnam maybe 90%




"...And Cornelius says Ape, shall never kill Ape.

But some Apes, they gotta go.

We kill the ones that we don't know...."

It's a philosphy thing--If I know that you are a person, I might hesitate to shoot you. Momentarily at most, but still some hesitation. If you're a "Kraut" or a "Gook" or a "Headshot bonus", then that hesitation is removed.

I see it in my cousins--they grew up on the CNN night vision view of war. To them, it's targets. They'd never think of someone they know like that, but someone they've never met? Well, I wouldn't want to be downrange...

Life used to be cheap.

Then we became Civilized.

Then we became Cultured.

Then only the Civilized and Cultured lives had value.

Life is Cheap.

GT
Why are we in this handbasket, and where are we going?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:10:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.

There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.



There is.
That statement, IMO, invalidates most of his other findings.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that shit can't have many great ideas.




+1 Many countries that have banned guns are seeing their murder rates increase.
It has nothing to do with the tools avalible, only the desire to kill.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:10:58 PM EDT
I thought we were all teaching our kids to be politically correct, tolerant, diversified faggots.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:12:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.

There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.



There is.
That statement, IMO, invalidates most of his other findings.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that shit can't have many great ideas.




I knew some people were going to reject the whole article because of those lines, but I left them in anyway; rejecting a whole suite of ideas just because one of them hits your hot button is sophomoric.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:14:32 PM EDT
gat
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:15:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clippen:
I thought we were all teaching our kids to be politically correct, tolerant, diversified faggots.

we are. kids these days are pussies.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:15:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:17:31 PM EDT by MOS2111]
Is this where as a teacher I shouldnt say-
" I am teaching my child to use his brain." That said, sometimes in a bad world, bad thing happen to bad people. As long as my child is looking out for himself and helping others, violence is NOT a bad thing, but a way to keep the bad people from becoming the alpha males.
One team one fight.


"we fight on princaple in this house young man"

ETA: That is why we have a USMC. One of the big reasons I joined was I thought it would be great to blast 'fools with out judgement.
My how time and experience change your perspective.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:16:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:18:20 PM EDT by luckypunk]
DP
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:16:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.

There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.



There is.
That statement, IMO, invalidates most of his other findings.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that shit can't have many great ideas.




I knew some people were going to reject the whole article because of those lines, but I left them in anyway; rejecting a whole suite of ideas just because one of them hits your hot button is sophomoric.

I don't reject it all, but I do reject that conclusion.

I've read LTC Grossman's book On Killing and found it very interesting and thought-provoking, but his statistics on youth and violent crime seem pretty skewed to me. On that topic, and that topic alone, he seems to be trying to make the data fit his theory, rather than the other way around, and I found that disturbing. Thus my comment. There seems to be a flaw in his logic on that point.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:16:45 PM EDT
This is a very, very good read. Don't be a ADD wanker, it's very interesting and not difficult to work through.

I agree whole heartedly that our culture is changing and embracing violence too much. I myself have been conditioned to enjoy the idea of killing someone, as have the thousands of teenagers who play online shooter games for hours at a time. With online play, it's even more gratifying, because you get to talk shit, etc. etc.

Granted, there is a HUGE chasm between playing a video game and actually getting a gun and killing somone...

HOWEVER, violent video games does make the leap to real life violence not as difficult for the less well adjusted members or society... If we did not have violent video games, and entertainment, I do believe that we'd have less violence in our society... But I love violent action movies and games!

haha. It's a problem, with no real solution. No way in hell we should allow stupid soccer moms who want to "do it for the kids" try to regulate entertainment that's meant for adults anyway...
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:16:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By highdraglowspeed:
<Snip Stats: During WWII Only 15 to 25 % of Combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles.
During Korea, Only 50%
Vietnam maybe 90% <Snip>


SLA Marshall's outrageous claim that we somehow won WWII even though virtually nobody had the balls to fire his rifle has long been, shall we say, "called into question".

Marshall was a lying assmunch and the good Colonel here has fallen for it.

Lying Assmunch Exposed, So To Speak

Grossman claims that the majority of troops in the Civil War fired over the heads of the enemy. As that talking owl would say, O RLY?

I'd like to know how this was determined because it's the first I've ever heard of it. As in EVER. But, let me get this straight: the ghastly one day death toll at the battle of Antietam was caused by a mere fraction of the troops on the field because most of them were firing over the heads of the enemy?

Gonna have to give me some evidence for this, and finding some rifles that had been loaded multiple times in one spot is not evidence. It's going to have to be consistent from battle to battle, unit to unit. Again, if this was the case it's the first I've ever heard of it.

But then, I've spent more time studying Hoplite warfare than the American Civil War. Maybe someone could enlighten me to whether or not our ancestors were frightened of firing their weapons.

But as far as Grossman's assertion that television warps children's minds? I'm 100% behind him on that. Televison, which originally held so much promise, has become the second most fiendish engine of mass stupidity in the history of the world (just behind communism).

Just don't quote Slam Marshall to prove a point.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:17:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.






awe c'mon that was funny
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:24:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

Originally Posted By highdraglowspeed:
<Snip Stats: During WWII Only 15 to 25 % of Combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles.
During Korea, Only 50%
Vietnam maybe 90% <Snip>


SLA Marshall's outrageous claim that we somehow won WWII even though virtually nobody had the balls to fire his rifle has long been, shall we say, "called into question".

Marshall was a lying assmunch and the good Colonel here has fallen for it.

Lying Assmunch Exposed, So To Speak

Grossman claims that the majority of troops in the Civil War fired over the heads of the enemy. As that talking owl would say, O RLY?

I'd like to know how this was determined because it's the first I've ever heard of it. As in EVER. But, let me get this straight: the ghastly one day death toll at the battle of Antietam was caused by a mere fraction of the troops on the field because most of them were firing over the heads of the enemy?

Gonna have to give me some evidence for this, and finding some rifles that had been loaded multiple times in one spot is not evidence. It's going to have to be consistent from battle to battle, unit to unit. Again, if this was the case it's the first I've ever heard of it.

But then, I've spent more time studying Hoplite warfare than the American Civil War. Maybe someone could enlighten me to whether or not our ancestors were frightened of firing their weapons.

But as far as Grossman's assertion that television warps children's minds? I'm 100% behind him on that. Televison, which originally held so much promise, has become the second most fiendish engine of mass stupidity in the history of the world (just behind communism).

Just don't quote Slam Marshall to prove a point.

Well, the majority of battlefield causalties has pretty much always been from artillery rather than small-arms fire. Have you read On Killing? Grossman does some pretty thorough research, and I found his theory pretty convincing. It is (and should be) very difficult to kill someone you don't know, and it requires some pretty rigorous training to develop the ability to kill as a reflex.

Where I differ with the good Col. is in extending a video game into real life. Pixels ain't people, and your brain knows it. A game controller is not a firearm. Now, when it comes to those games that include a realistic firearm that recoils, and a screen large enough to immerse yourself in the alternate reality, he might have a point, but sitting in front of a keyboard or a Gamecube playing Halo isn't the same thing as combat training.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:24:45 PM EDT
Right, the "multiple loads in Civil War muskets" evidence was just wrong to cite for this theory.

The Civil War battlefield was noisy and smokey, what with soldiers shooting from closed ranks; no wonder some guys did not notice they misfired and loaded multiple times...NOTHING to do with not wanting to hurt another person IMHO.

Still, I agree with his general theory. Just some of the supporting arguments don't hold up. I, for one, will never give up MY guns!
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:25:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:27:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By luckypunk:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.






awe c'mon that was funny



I tought it was funny too! But is the most warlike emoticon we have!
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:28:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
This is a very, very good read. Don't be a ADD wanker, it's very interesting and not difficult to work through.

I agree whole heartedly that our culture is changing and embracing violence too much. I myself have been conditioned to enjoy the idea of killing someone, as have the thousands of teenagers who play online shooter games for hours at a time. With online play, it's even more gratifying, because you get to talk shit, etc. etc.

Granted, there is a HUGE chasm between playing a video game and actually getting a gun and killing somone...

HOWEVER, violent video games does make the leap to real life violence not as difficult for the less well adjusted members or society... If we did not have violent video games, and entertainment, I do believe that we'd have less violence in our society... But I love violent action movies and games!

haha. It's a problem, with no real solution. No way in hell we should allow stupid soccer moms who want to "do it for the kids" try to regulate entertainment that's meant for adults anyway...



Good point, one I agree with.
Playing violent video games/movies does not make you more prone to violence, but it does desensitize you.
Notice how many people describe violent acts they witnessed/commited as "like a movie" or "it felt like a video game."
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:28:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

Grossman claims that the majority of troops in the Civil War fired over the heads of the enemy. As that talking owl would say, O RLY?

I'd like to know how this was determined because it's the first I've ever heard of it. As in EVER. But, let me get this straight: the ghastly one day death toll at the battle of Antietam was caused by a mere fraction of the troops on the field because most of them were firing over the heads of the enemy?



"firing over their heads." That's a good one. Given the number of people involved, and the fact they were all firing black powder, you could barely even SEE the enemy after a couple of volleys, much less fire over their heads.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:30:12 PM EDT
about his gun control thing:

It's kind of true. I've always loved firearms, and owned airsoft when I was a teeanger (Licensed Para Ordinance IPSC clones baby!) but kind of forgot about once I got a car. Right after Hurricane Katrina, I ran out and built a M4gery using information from this website, and a lot of ammo.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It's easier for people to kill people... when guns are around, wouldn't you say? Not to say that i'm going to give up my M4geries (built another one ) or CZ, but the gun culture does make it easier kids to do crazy shit... Shooting a lots of people, is much more impersonal then stabbing them with knives, swords, etc I would imagine.

But how can one make it harder for kids to get their hands on rifles... without hurting 2nd ammendment rights? There is no effective way except for responsible gun ownership, and unforunately, they don't check your responsibility level on 4473.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:30:50 PM EDT
I just hope Grossman is right about our young people, if we have to fight another infantry-intensive World War (against the Chinese or United Islam for examples).
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:34:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
about his gun control thing:

It's kind of true. I've always loved firearms, and owned airsoft when I was a teeanger (Licensed Para Ordinance IPSC clones baby!) but kind of forgot about once I got a car. Right after Hurricane Katrina, I ran out and built a M4gery using information from this website, and a lot of ammo.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It's easier for people to kill people... when guns are around, wouldn't you say? Not to say that i'm going to give up my M4geries (built another one ) or CZ, but the gun culture does make it easier kids to do crazy shit... Shooting a lots of people, is much more impersonal then stabbing them with knives, swords, etc I would imagine.

But how can one make it harder for kids to get their hands on rifles... without hurting 2nd ammendment rights? There is no effective way except for responsible gun ownership, and unforunately, they don't check your responsibility level on 4473.



dude, you are still in need of deprogramming.
A gun is only a means to an end.

Look at crime in England/Austrailia.
Sure, gun crime went down - guns aren't around anymore.
But now the criminals are useing axes, swords, and clubs instead.
You need to realize that saying the "gun culture" is like saying the "car culture"

You are trying to be reasonable.
Please, for the love of God, stop.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:34:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It's easier for people to kill people... when guns are around, wouldn't you say?



Maybe. You have to consider net effect. Guns make certain crimes - like lone gunman spraying a crowd - more feasible, but make other crimes, like genocide, less feasible. They also give lone individuals the possibility to stand-up to gangs of thugs. Discovery channel had an interesting show where they looked through court records from 16th century London. It was just as violent, if not more so, than DC or New York is today. People were literally fighting with broadswords and longbows during the night.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:35:16 PM EDT
Question is: Is your enemy training his kids to kill your kids?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:38:34 PM EDT
wow summary plz? I'm sorry I couldnt finish it.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:38:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read.

Show me your war face.






awe c'mon that was funny



I tought it was funny too! But is the most warlike emoticon we have!





Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:40:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:48:25 PM EDT by mcgredo]
I think he's got a point that video games can train for the mechanics of shooting people: flash sight picture == fire weapon. But the idea that this leads to more people going bonkers and shooting people is wrong, I think, as evidenced by the dropping crime rates.

Put a kid in front of a FPS game and he may become well trained in the mechanics of shooting. But I think it does next to nothing about the propensity of the kid to start shooting inappropriately in the first place. We run millions of guys through basic training where they receive even better and more realistic training, yet there are no great number of former military mass shootings.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:41:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
about his gun control thing:

It's kind of true. I've always loved firearms, and owned airsoft when I was a teeanger (Licensed Para Ordinance IPSC clones baby!) but kind of forgot about once I got a car. Right after Hurricane Katrina, I ran out and built a M4gery using information from this website, and a lot of ammo.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It's easier for people to kill people... when guns are around, wouldn't you say? Not to say that i'm going to give up my M4geries (built another one ) or CZ, but the gun culture does make it easier kids to do crazy shit... Shooting a lots of people, is much more impersonal then stabbing them with knives, swords, etc I would imagine.

But how can one make it harder for kids to get their hands on rifles... without hurting 2nd ammendment rights? There is no effective way except for responsible gun ownership, and unforunately, they don't check your responsibility level on 4473.

last time i checked the kids doing the killings were not of legal age to purchase any weapons. They took them from their parents.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:42:44 PM EDT
"For the children!"
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:44:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 11:22:35 AM EDT by pathfinder74]

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Too much to read. Show me your war face.



... huh, what? This one will take me a good week to read. Ahhh the joys of cut unt pashte.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:44:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Right, the "multiple loads in Civil War muskets" evidence was just wrong to cite for this theory.

The Civil War battlefield was noisy and smokey, what with soldiers shooting from closed ranks; no wonder some guys did not notice they misfired and loaded multiple times...NOTHING to do with not wanting to hurt another person IMHO.

Still, I agree with his general theory. Just some of the supporting arguments don't hold up. I, for one, will never give up MY guns!



To summarize his retort to that was that, although thousands of multiple load were found, almost no exploded weapons which would be expect if in fact it was just a random occurrence that someone forgot to cap and fire, eventually some of those multiloads would got it right and the weapon would have been destroyed.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:45:03 PM EDT
You don't need guns to kill people.
Just let some one stew for awhile, bigger and better means are always feesable (sp).
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:46:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:



<Snip> Well, the majority of battlefield causalties has pretty much always been from artillery rather than small-arms fire. Have you read On Killing? <Snip>


Quite true. In most wars the artillery did indeed do most of the killing (I think our military's experience in Vietnam was an exception however, wherein small arms were the primary killer of our troops, followed by mines/booby traps). Still, I am disturbed by Grossman's reliance upon the whole "only a fraction fired their weapons" nonsense. Nothing of the type has ever been shown to be the case and prior to SLA Marshall, no one that I'm aware of even hypothesized such...oddness.

I suppose only a minute fraction of Roman Legionnaires actually poked their swords ("gladii") at the enemy. Most of them undoubtedly just stood there and waved them in the general direction of the Parthians.

Oh, and to be perfectly honest, I read portions of Grossman's On Killing, but I did not read the entire book as everyday events intervened. Consequently, I will only comment upon what is in the above article and avoid commenting upon a book I haven't read and thus revealing my vast "ig-nernce".
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:48:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:
I have one major problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's argument:

And the more guns there are out there, the more violence there is. And the more violence there is, the greater the desire for guns.
Well, there's "more guns out there" now than ever before in history, and violence has been trending DOWN for the last decade, while movies and video games have without question been getting bloodier, more realistic, and more prevalent.



Saw a statistic about how there are guns in 45% of america's homes.

Funny, I rememebr when there were guns in a majority of american homes... and there was less of the criminal killing that was taking place.

Maybe because kids who were exposed to hunting knew what "dead" meant?


There seems to be a problem with his logic on that point.


+1. IIRC this story (article) is a few years old.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:49:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Painter:
Question is: Is your enemy training his kids to kill your kids?



Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:50:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 4:56:33 PM EDT by Ops]
Col Grossman has some valid points, yet he ignores the most salient point - ALL of the mass shooters in the last 11 years were on Prozac, Zoloft, or some other SSRI drug along with other stuff like Ritalin or other 'speed.' Couple this with the fact that most came from what we used to call a 'broken home.' Do not underestimate the involvment of SSRI drugs. IMO they induce a near-hypnotic state of deep suggestibility, where immersion in violent video games and TV could in fact have this result.

A single parent, distracted by their own infatuations and loave affairs, usually results in an ignored adolescent. Adolescence is rough enough as is, but without at least one interested parent, TV becomes the 'norm' for behavior. Video games teach the skills, but it is a lack of parental involvement and role modeling that leads to this, not TV/video games alone. Grossman fails to account for the large percentage of children of single parents with lots of game and TV time who do NOT turn violent.

Thoseof you who know us personally know SBK was introduced to firearms at a young age. I have endeavoured to teach him that violence is a last resort, but it is a resort. Some folks don't gt it unless the pain is their own. He also studies martial arts and is VERY good at it.

I think that warriors are born, not made. Depriving a warrior child of proper instruction will have even worse consequences to society than sheeple kids playing with a first person shooter game that they are are not mature enough to understand.

Ops
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:51:55 PM EDT
We have trained our kids to be sheeple.
When there are those by mental defect or chemical imbalance those who wish to to kill will by what ever means is availible.
I find the bases of his theses at fault. True, there are more firearms manufactured today then before, but access to those arms (at least in the US) is less than ever. Prior to and at the start of WWII almost all American males had access or handled a fire arm. This was one of the things that the Axis soldiers were very clear about. Americans can and will shoot accurately, because the firearm is part of the culture. During that time period school shooting did occur on the rare. In my opinion the break down of the family/moral structure of society has a larger impact then the number of guns.
If you note this was from the time of the Jonesboro shooting which was before Colimbine. I ask how many of you could have had firearms in your bedroom, let alone pipe bombs. that your parents did not know about?
The lack of involvement and interaction of the parents foster the breeding of killers.
I know that I don't have the BS letters after my name but that is what I have seen and I will stand with experiance over the books.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:53:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ops:
Col Grossman has some valid points, yet he ignores the most alsient point - ALL of the mass shooters in the last 11 years were on Prozac, Zoloft, or some other SSRI drug along with other stuff like Ritalin or other 'speed.' Couple this with the fact that most came from what we used to call a 'broken home.'

A single parent, distracted by their own infatuations and loave affairs, usually results in an ignored adolescent. Adolescence is rough enough as is, but without at least one interested parent, TV becomes the 'norm' for behavior. Video games teach the skills, but it is a lack of parental involvement and role modeling that leads to this, not TV/video games alone. Grossman fails to account for the large percentage of children of single parents with lots of game and TV time who do NOT turn violent.

Thoseof you who know us personally know SBK was introduced to firearms at a young age. I have endeavoured to teach him that violence is a last resort, but it is a resort. Some folks don't gt it unless the pain is their own. He also studies martial arts iand is VERY good at it.

I think that warriors are born, not made. Depriving a warrior child of proper instruction will have even worse consequences to society than sheeple kids playing with a first person shooter game that they are are not mature enough to understand.

Ops



Excellent point Ops.
My father has been an LEO for 30+ years.
He has said multiple times that most of the cops he has known would have wound up as criminals had they not wound up as LEO.
Just that restlessness and craving for adventure that leads you to either good or bad.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:56:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

I suppose only a minute fraction of Roman Legionnaires actually poked their swords ("gladii") at the enemy. Most of them undoubtedly just stood there and waved them in the general direction of the Parthians.



The Romans are kind of interesting. They put their youngest soldiers in the front row, the older ones in the middle, and the real veterans in the back. So not only would it be their comrads encouraging them to stick the Parthians, it would be their fathers and uncles and other senior people in their community.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top