Lt. Col. Grossman "on killing"

rod

New member
I don't know if anyone here has read Col. Grossman's book "on killing" but it is very thought provoking.

Now the media has been waving the red flag of "gun violence" around for weeks now hoping to distract attention away from themselves with regard to the latest spate of killings. The latest polls consistently show a larger proportion of Americans blame violent media and video games for these tragedies than blame guns. They're in trouble here and their own overblown "tragedy hype" that overstates and overdramatizes the real incidence of crime may come back to bite them.

Can they be trusted to honestly explore there own role in these tragedies (silly question I guess):

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


Videos `train' kids to shoot, soldier says
Games similar to firearm training, police chiefs told


By Cal Millar
Toronto Star Staff Reporter
HAMILTON - Violent video games are like firearm training simulators and
are teaching children to become mass murderers, says a retired U.S. Army
colonel.

``We are facing the most confident group of killers the world has ever
seen,'' retired Lt.-Col. David Grossman told delegates at the 94th annual
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police conference yesterday.

Grossman, a psychologist and author of the soon to be released Teaching
our Kids to Kill, said there are links between military conditioning and
video games.

Killing, he argued, does not come naturally. Soldiers are prepared for
combat by firing at human-shaped targets that pop into view. Only with
constant repetition does this become a conditioned response.

In combat, conditioning takes over, even in soldiers who become frozen
with fear.

Children, Grossman said, inadvertently learn the same type of reflex
through video games.

``What the children have been drilled to do is to kill every living
creature in front of them until they run out of targets or run out of
bullets.''

In firearms combat situations, trained police officers have a 20 per cent
hit ratio, but because teenagers are getting so much practice with violent
video games, their shooting skills are much more developed, Grossman said.

The youngsters involved in recent school shootings in the United States
honed their skills by playing video games, he said.

For example, Michael Carneal in Paducah, Ky., had never fired a gun before
he went on a killing spree in his high school two years ago, Grossman
said. But the 14-year-old had fired tens of thousands of rounds playing
video games and had an automatic response to hit anything that moved, he
said.

``You can see the imprint of the video games on the crime. He only fired
one shot at every target . . . The natural response is to shoot at the
target until the target drops.'' The teen fired eight times and hit eight
students. He killed three with shots to the head and left another
paralyzed for life.

When young killers like Carneal open fire they are on autopilot, Grossman
said. ``In school shootings, students open fire, then keep on going.
Police ask them why and they say they don't know. But we know. . . . Kids
who have never shot a gun practise with tens of thousands of bullets
during video games.''

Jefferson County Sheriff John Stone, who led rescue teams during the April
massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., says teenage
shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were avid fans of video games. The
two, who committed suicide after killing 12 classmates and a teacher,
played a game called Doom, which involves hunting down people and shooting
them.

``When one of the kids in the library asked what are they doing . . . they
just smiled at him and said `We're killing people,' '' Stone said. ``They
moved on beyond him and just went over and shot other people. It was
almost like it was a fantasy for them.''

Just a week later in Taber, Alta., a 14-year-old student killed a
schoolmate and wounded another at W. R. Myers High School.

Retired Lethbridge constable Dennis Reimer, who serves as the school
resource officer in Taber, said the incident came without warning.

The gun, tobacco and alcohol industries to accept restraints on their
products when it comes to children, but the video game industry has not,
Grossman said. ``They say, `We're driven by the market. If people didn't
want it, we wouldn't make it.' ''

He showed police chiefs advertisements from various video games and said
that some actually focus on death. ``Kill your friends guilt free,'' read
one ad. Another said: ``More fun than shooting your neighbour's cat.''

The families of the three people killed in Kentucky are suing video game
manufacturers, and U.S. President Bill Clinton has ordered a high-level
investigation to determine if there is any link between school shootings
and video games, he added.

Brockville police Chief Barry King said the chiefs group's law amendments
committee will be asked for recommendations to help Canadian lawmakers
deal with the production of video games promoting violence.

``The glorification of violence, in actual fact, turns out to be a
liability,'' York Region police Chief Julian Fantino said yesterday. ``We
are programming children to be desensitized to violence and creating an
environment where they don't believe there are consequences. We have to
hold those who promote and glorify violence accountable for what is
happening.''

***********
=rod=
 
Bought and read the book about a year ago; have used some passages in it in letters to the editor. It is an excellent book and deserves to be widely read. I have always wondered what it is in people who have never seen the actual results of violence that makes them think it is 'entertaining'. The irony is that they think people like me are the problem...

------------------
 
I have not read his book. I might someday (I hardly have time to shoot, much less read).

But, I have read an article online written by him. It was very thought provoking. He's also an advocate of strict gun control. I will try to find the link ASAP.

Here's the link:

eotw.orac.net.au/articles/trained.html

------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm]www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm[/URL" TARGET=_blank>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm</A>




[This message has been edited by Dan (edited August 31, 1999).]
 
He doesn't strike a vehement anti-gun stance in his book. In fact he quotes one expert in the field of the psychology of killing as saying something to the effect that: We pay way too much attention to the devices and means of killing and too little to the motivations.

He also seems to defend gun owners, and in particular "assault (weapon/rifle)" owners saying they are not homicidial maniacs but for the most part good citizens.

However near the end of the book he says we may need to ban certain firearms like assault weapons and handguns that are frequently used in crime (on the theory I suppose that if mass murders can't get the particular type of firearm they want... well they'll just give up and go get a job).

A mixed bag on firearms but he has studied the "problem" of getting soldiers to kill for many years and helped the military prepare soldiers psychologically for killing. These methods have, according to him and many other credible sources, gotten the "firing rate" up from 15 to 20% of all soldiers before the Korean War, to 50% during the Korean war and 90% from Vietnam up to the present. He claims that video games provide the operant conditioning and television and movies the desensitization that replicates this military training.

If you'd like to read it Amazon has the book: "on killing" By Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman; ISBN:0-316-33011-6.

=rod=
 
I read the book last month and I Really Liked some of the things he had to say. I have spent a lot of time researching the topic and I think he makes some very valid points. In fact, I alluded to his book in a private Email a couple weeks ago when a TFLer asked me about a shooting in his home town.

The book isn't casual coffee table reading, but it is worthwhile for anyone who really wants insight into mankind's propensity to kill (or lack thereof).

The book concentrates on military scenarios for the most part, and draws a few conclusions that I really disagree with, but the meat of the work makes for very interesting reading.


-Rob
-Sheepdog



------------------
-Essayons
 
Before you get carried away... I believe this is a big crock of you-know-what... It is another liberal "blame the tool" ploy. If only there were no video games! If only there were no guns! Get a grip, this guy is overeducated beyond his capacity... Do not be deceived.

------------------
Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up... Yankee Doodle
 
Don't trash him yet.

Tools (ex.: guns) and training (ex.: violent video games) DO make killing easier. Heck, that's why _we_ have good guns and spend big bucks on training. Don't trivialize the effect that "accidental training" has on perps; in one recent school shooting, the perp executed a perfect series of game-like shots.

I'm NOT saying blame the tool/training/whatever. We need to harp on _choice_: item X may increase a killer's ability to perpetrate harm, but he still had to CHOOSE to do it. And that makes ALL the difference.
 
sounds like the same nut on fox that equated playing doom as perfect training for making headshots. if it is the same guy, he came off as an anti-gun, anti-game, anti-freedom *sshole who wasn't even very bright (well he sounded stupid with his sarah brady logic).
 
Guys,

I would caution everyone to not be too quick to condemn this entire work based on the guys feelings about the media. Personally, I hated some of the guys conclusions, but the book itself contains some valuable insight.

The meat of the book is well over 300 pages long, let's not play the game of the Anti's or the "Buzz phrase" media and beat to death a couple lousy chapters....



------------------
-Essayons
 
So, if this line of reasoning is to be followed, I should have had uncanny skill with a gun the first time I picked one up, due to years of Duke Nuke'em preparation. I assure you, it didn't happen that way. I'll admit that video games can sharpen the killing response, but I can't say anything for their effect on skill.
 
True, it didn't improve your actual shooting skill. But it got you past the mental barrier of shooting humanoid targets that hinders many/most people.
 
Mort,


ctd has gotten the premise correct. The Col. is not saying there is some physical skill correlation, but rather a breaking down of the natural human tendancy not to kill.

I am not agreeing with his premise, mind you. Just want to make sure that everyone understands it.

One of his theories that I DID like, I alluded to in my first post above. He contends that while less than 5% of the population is people who do have a propensity to kill, or at least do not have an overpowering instinct not to, very few of them are dangerous. In fact, many of them put themselves into a position that they can protect the other "weaker" members of society against the potential predators. The soldiers and cops become Sheepdogs, protecting the flock of sheep from the hungry wolves. I kinda liked the way that sounded. I say that many CCW's would fall into a category much like the sheepdogs, at the very least they are Sheep with fangs.....

------------------
-Essayons
 
I've read the book and have loaned my copy out. I thought there were/are some very valid points made.

As a non father, I have also noticed some severe differences in the kids that get plonked in front of the tube or in front of a video game.

Very interesting that the assult rate and homicide rate has increased since TV was introduced to the public.

Rob - I was intrigued by the "Sheepdog" theory also. Seems true from my perspective.

Giz
 
In 1965 I was in basic training at Ft. Lost-in-the-woods (Leonard Wood) and we were divided into small groups for a special training program.

The groups had been selected by asking such questions as “how many have never fired any type of firearm” , “How many have fired any type of firearm” , If you have fired a rifle, what type” and so on. This ended up with about ten groups of ten each.

We were told that it was in conjunction with our required firearms training and we would be getting instruction from an officer that was going to join us at the range for about an hour or two each day.

Our first day, to say the least was different, as we were presented with a demonstration of what it was we were going to learn. A technique called “Snap-shot firing” or “Snap-shooting” . This means that when you are about to shoot, you raise the rifle up to the shoulder but you do not perform a proper sight picture; instead you just sight over the top of the barrel and fire. Similar to what a shotgunner does at a trap or sheet range.

Here was a Lt. and two Nco’s showing us how to use BB guns to hit a 5 inch plastic disk that was propelled into the air by means of a foot pump. This set-up was made by Daisy Inc. and was on the open market as a kids toy for rubber dart trap shooting. But they had replaced the dart guns with BB guns.

We practiced with this device for several days and at the start of the third day, they started adding weights to the guns, until by the end of the sixth or seventh session the weight of the BB guns was now closer to the normal weight for a rifle (M14). Also, the target was moved farther and farther away from us until it was like hitting two inch washer.

As the sessions wore on, the groups had been weeded out, that is, those who could not hit the smaller target with the heavier rifle were sent back to the normal firearms training classes. We ended up with about twenty people out of the hundred who started.

The last four sessions were the toughest, as we were now told to use M14’s and live ammo to hit pop-up targets that had been placed along a path on a specially set up range. The targets were the little 50 yard head-and-shoulders type of combat range targets. Some had been placed at ground level, some at waist and some at shoulder level, so as you walked through the course a target would pop-up somewhere to your left or right at different heights.

All of those people who had been given that training; including the ones who “washed-out” , fired as experts their first time on the normal rifle qualification course. The ones who did not receive that training had experts OK but at a extremely lower ratio to the trained ones. So, of 255 people in the company, over 100 scored expert. That’s pretty high ratio.

They told us at the out-briefing that this had been a test of reaction times and hand-eye coordination. And that the test had shown how the common training technique of repetition had been enhanced as it relates to firearms. Now, I never gave the training very much thought as the years wore on. But now it makes sense. If you can train a rifleman to, not only, target and shoot as a sharpshooter but to be able to quickly react to the unexpected targets as well.

Now, to the point of this ramble.

The Lt. was named Grossman. And it is the same man who wrote the book you are talking about. I met him again years later at a Reserve Forces Sessions….. but that is another story.
 
Rob: I found his description of teaching soldiers how to kill using operant conditioning and desensitization the most compelling part of his book. Certainly it is the best supported argument. Granted that shooting reactive targets from a foxhole with an M16 is a lot different from pressing a mouse button in a video game, and the idea that playing video games can make you a good marksman with a firearm seems far-fetchted (this latter point is not made in his book but it seemed to be in the internet article whose link was posted in an earlier message here).

The argument that violent entertainment and particularly television is linked to increased violence in society has a lot of research to back it up. It's a world-wide phenomenon and correlates well with the advent of television.

I don't advocate censorship of television or video games, but I do think that the results of this research should be widely disseminated. If people, particularly parents, know how compelling the evidence is they can at least make better decisions.

I have to chuckle a little at how little of this makes the news though. Big conflict of interest there.

=rod=
 
CHEMNCO917: In Lt. Grossman's book he makes a personal note: "I am a soldier of twenty year's service. I have been a sergant in the 82nd Airborne Division, a platoon leader in the 9th (High Tech Test Bed) Division, and I have been a company commander in the 7th (Light) Infantry Division. I am a parachute infantryman and an army Ranger."

The copyright on the book is 1995 1996 so even giving a few years that he may have worked on the manuscript I don't think this Grossman was your man in '65, certainly not as a Lt.

=rod=
 
Back
Top