On Killing by Dave Grossman

[bteague2]

I just "finished" it. I had heard nothing but good things about this book until I started reading it. Some of his points I didn't agree with but it was still an interesting read, until the last chapter of the book. For his solution to the America's problem with violence Grossman starts to talk about how restrictions on the second ammendment are a good thing and necessary due to modern technology and that we should consider restrictions on the first ammendment. Five pages left and I set it down, I'm not sure if I'll finish it.

[Marswolf]

We already have a lot of restrictions on 2A because of technology. Now we are down to restrictions that will prevent us from protecting ourselves from criminals. That's just dumb.

[Im Neero]

You don't agree with what he says about video games causing violence, eh?

[Guest grimel]

David Grossman is an incompetent boob.

His "research" base has long been proven to be false.

==========

Throughout most of human history the effectiveness of weapons available for domestic violence was basically stable, a relative constant. The relative effectiveness of swords, axes, and blunt objects has been basically unchanged, and killing (as an act of passion vs a pre-meditated act like poisoning or leaving a bomb) was only possible at close-range by stabbing, hacking, and beating.

Bows were kept unstrung, not in a state of readiness for an act of passion. It required premeditation plus training plus strength to kill with a bow. Early, muzzle-loading gunpowder weapons were also often not kept in a state of readiness. It required time, training, and premeditation to load and shoot such a weapon. Once loaded, the humidity in the air could seep into the gunpowder and the load could become unreliable. Only in the late 19th century, with widespread introduction of breech-loading, brass cartridges was a true act of passion possible with state-of-the-art weapons technology. Powerful weapons could now be kept in state of readiness (i.e., loaded), and they now required minimal strength or training to use.

AND

The world is just now recovering from the most violent and bloody century in human history, and the streets of the western, industrialized nations are the scenes of a level of violence that is unprecedented in human history. Each individual who is injured or killed by violence provides a point of departure for further violence on the part of their friends and family. Every destructive act gnaws away at the restraint of human beings. Each act of violence eats away at the fabric of our society like a cancer, spreading and reproducing itself in ever-expanding cycles of horror and destruction. The genie of violence cannot really ever be stuffed back into the bottle. It can only be cut off here and now, and then the slow process of healing and re-sensitization can begin.

It can be done. It has been done in the past. As Richard Heckler has observed, there is a precedent for limiting violence-enabling technology. It started with the classical Greeks, who for 4 centuries refused to implement the bow and arrow even after being introduced to it in a most unpleasant way by Persian archers.

In Giving Up The Gun, Noel Perrin tells how the Japanese banned firearms after their introduction by the Portuguese in the 1500s. The Japanese quickly recognized that the military use of gunpowder threatened the very fabric of their society and culture, and they moved aggressively to defend their way of life. The feuding Japanese warlords destroyed all existing weapons and made the production or import of any new guns punishable by death. Three centuries later, when Commodore Perry forced the Japanese to open their ports, they did not even have the technology to make firearms. Similarly, the Chinese invented gunpowder but elected not to use it in warfare.

But the most encouraging examples of restraining killing technology have all occurred in this century. After the tragic experience of using poisonous gases in World War I the world has generally rejected its use ever since. The atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty continues after two decades, the ban on the deployment of anti-satellite weapons is still going strong after two decades, the US and the former USSR have been steadily reducing the quantity of nuclear weapons for the past two decades, and we have seen a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a new movement to eliminate land mines. As we have de-escalated instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction so too can we de-escalate instruments of indiscriminate mass desensitization as entertainment in the media.

Firearms probably will not go away any time soon, but their abuse will almost definitely be strongly influenced by technology that will make guns "keyed" so that they can only be fired by a designated individual and will thereby be useless to all others. Similarly, violence in the media will not go away as long as there is a market for it, but there will probably be movement away from indiscriminate violence-enabling of children through violent video games and violence in the media and toward protecting children from these things while still permitting their availability to adults, in much the same manner as alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, pornography, and guns.

Heckler points out that there has been "an almost unnoticed series of precedents for reducing military technology on moral grounds," precedents that show the way to understanding that we do have a choice about how we think about war, about killing, and about the value of human life in our society. In recent years we have exercised the choice to move ourselves from the brink of nuclear destruction. In the same way, our society can also take the evolutionary steps away from the technology that psychologically enables killing in children. Education and understanding is the first step. The end result may be for weapons evolution to take a considered step backward and for our civilization to come through the dark years of the 20th century and enter into a healthier, more self-aware society.

AND

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.

AND

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.

AND

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

Finally because I'm finally getting sick of reading Grossman's blather and some wind bad will choose to interpret the above as gun neutral at best:

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.

So JJ, what part of "untill we (that'd be Grossman and his compatriots) wean Americans off their guns" do you fail to see as anti-gun??

Game, set, match = Grossman's an anti-gun idiot.

[bteague2]

You don't agree with what he says about video games causing violence, eh?

At first it kind of made sense, but if you think about it. These "poor" kids that join gangs and form pack mentalities if they are so poor how are they playing video games? As games get more violent the technology gets better, which causes them to cost a lot. My room mate has a PS3 with COD4, we play all the time and none of us have killed anyone. Video games, violent movies, and watching the nightly news may help break down the resistance against shooting at people; but it doesn't make you do things. They are called values, morals, not being a ****bag punk; video games aren't the problem: parent's not caring/being parents, schools stupid feel good policies, and lots of other things are the problem.

</rant>

[Guest gsbell]

David Grossman is an incompetent boob.

<snip>

Game, set, match = Grossman's an anti-gun idiot.

Doesn't he also spout off about how you are going to melt into a little puddle if you ever have to shoot someone? Or is that some other jackass?

Edited June 27, 2008 by gsbell
forgot a sentence

[Punisher84]

Doesn't he also spout off about how you are going to melt into a little puddle if you ever have to shoot someone? Or is that some other jackass?

Conversation I overheard my friend having with his buddy in Iraq on computer chat. It was his first gunfight since he'd been in country.

Friend 1-So what happened again?

Friend 2- They shot at the vehicle in front of us and we returned fire.

F1-Anybody hurt?

F2- Not any of my guys. Those *expletive* aren't shooting anything anymore though.

F1- You ok with everything?

F2-Huh? Oh yea I'm about to go eat. It's mexican tonight I think...

Not what I'd call all melty.

[Im Neero]

At first it kind of made sense, but if you think about it. These "poor" kids that join gangs and form pack mentalities if they are so poor how are they playing video games? As games get more violent the technology gets better, which causes them to cost a lot. My room mate has a PS3 with COD4, we play all the time and none of us have killed anyone. Video games, violent movies, and watching the nightly news may help break down the resistance against shooting at people; but it doesn't make you do things. They are called values, morals, not being a ****bag punk; video games aren't the problem: parent's not caring/being parents, schools stupid feel good policies, and lots of other things are the problem.

</rant>

I don't agree with it either. I've played video games all of my life, and haven't killed anyone yet.

[Marswolf]

It's mexican tonight I think...

Not what I'd call all melty.

And all I got were C-rats.

[Guest jackdog]

Oh god Mars don't remind me of Ham And Lima beans.

[Guest db99wj]

Conversation I overheard my friend having with his buddy in Iraq on computer chat. It was his first gunfight since he'd been in country.

Friend 1-So what happened again?

Friend 2- They shot at the vehicle in front of us and we returned fire.

F1-Anybody hurt?

F2- Not any of my guys. Those *expletive* aren't shooting anything anymore though.

F1- You ok with everything?

F2-Huh? Oh yea I'm about to go eat. It's mexican tonight I think...

Not what I'd call all melty.

Well the food was melty....

[Guest grimel]

Doesn't he also spout off about how you are going to melt into a little puddle if you ever have to shoot someone? Or is that some other jackass?

That's him.

[Guest mtsusean]

I've got that book here somewhere and can't find it right now. There is a quote in there he used that I think is actually attributed to somebody else. Wish I could find it.

I met him some 12 years ago or so while I was at Ft. Lewis. He came out and spoke to us and I remember at the time the enlisted guys making fun of him, etc. because he didn't know what he was talking about. The book had either just came out or was about to and he was pushing it.

[towerclimber37]

I don't agree with it either. I've played video games all of my life, and haven't killed anyone yet.

just you wait..you're going to snap any minute and go on a shooting spree...you HAVE to...you've been 'conditioned'!!

that's a load of crap if you ask me.

if a person doesn't know the difference between real life and a video game, there's something wrong with him..and it's not conditioning either...

[Marswolf]

I really don't know a lot about Dave Grossman. I know he was a Lt. Colonel, but there about as many useless Lt. Colonels running around the Pentagon as a gofer as Kelloggs has cornflakes.

According to his bio, "Col. Grossman is an Airborne Ranger infantry officer, and a prior-service sergeant and paratrooper, with a total of over 23 years experience in leading U.S. soldiers worldwide." Nowhere can I find that he actually fought in combat. Anyone know about that?

Looks like he makes his living by being a self-proclaimed expert and BSer.

My personal first experience with killing was when we were ambushed while I was on a patrol in Vietnam. When we got back to the assault base (firebase) I got sort of quiet and one of the guys came over to see about me. He asked if it was bothering me and I told him that I had heard it was supposed to bother me. What was bothering me was that it wasn't bothering me. I felt pretty good about it. I had killed someone who was trying to kill me and had properly supported my team. I suspect I would have felt the same if I was in my house or on the street and someone tried to harm me or my family.

Seems to me that society puts pressure on folks to feel bad about killing scum, even when obviously justified and you did a service for the world in killing him. I'd suggest you tell the whiners to go do themselves and feel proud for your service.

[Guest grimel]

According to his bio, "Col. Grossman is an Airborne Ranger infantry officer,

He finished the school.

[Guest Mugster]

http://www.killology.com/military_bground.htm

EIB not CIB. Head shrinker.

I wouldn't hold that against the guy actually. My guess is he does awareness training for stress reaction, which is probably ok. I could see where a bunch of guys in a combat unit would laugh at him. Thats probably ok too. His book is not on my reading list.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Mugster

[Guest SUNTZU]

Wish I'd seen this thread before buying the book. Thanks for the heads up, Grimel.

R.I.P. Shannon.

[Guest grimel]

Wish I'd seen this thread before buying the book. Thanks for the heads up, Grimel.

R.I.P. Shannon.

Everyone needs a copy of some idiot's book. If nothing else it gives a point of reference.

FYI, he is now blathering on about first responders. He is nicely vague enough that you aren't sure if he includes permit holders as first responders to active shooters or if he considers them another problem for officers to handle. He is a money motivated person. He will tailor his program to the group that makes him the most $$$$. I think he has realized there is more money to be made giving private citizen lectures/classes than military/LEO. So, he has to make the change of spoken opinion.