I am totally onboard with you, CL, but here is what is going on in my head:
Could I pull the trigger?
I'm no candy-ass wus. I'm in good physical and mental shape. I hike a lot. I shoot a lot. Beer cans fear me. I especially like long range varmint plinking.
I have never pulled a firearm on someone in anger or fear, much less had to fire. Could I do it? Would I hesitate, knowing split seconds count? I hear armchair cowboys saying they'd blow his head off....or, he messes with me I'll waste him with my trusty 45....but would they? We all know how cheap talk is.
Since I have never been there, I don't know what I'd do, and I doubt I'm alone in this. How can I train for a deadly force situation? I have US Law Shield and know who to call and what to do after an encounter but that is not the issue. Would I fire? I think I would....I just don't know for sure.
You do have a valid question you're addressing...Here is why I would say that.
In his book, "On Killing" (1996), Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true "Revolution in Military Affairs" was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20 percent of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: "Those (80-85 percent) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges" (Grossman, p. 4).
Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers—the five percent who are natural-born psychopaths and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!).
Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
Now there is ONE major difference. In a case of self defense, you can FEEL justified while going off to war for some rich bankers can cause you to have major moral objections especially if you can possibly see YOURSELF as the aggressor.
I was a talk show jock in Asheville for ten years. I interviewed Grossman several times and met him when he came to the local university to speak.
You mentioned a natural reluctance to kill. He said there were civil war soldiers who packed musket ball after musket ball on top of each other rather than fire.
He also talked about the psychological impact killing another human had on the killer, and how distance was a factor. On the end with the least mental anguish was killing from 40,000 feet. It grew in intensity as you got closer to the victim; to killing where you can see the face of the victim, then to killing with a knife, then finally killing with your bare hands.
I bet CL will weigh in on that from a military POV. It seems like Lt. Col Grossman addressed the fact that the games DID desensitize the players. Interestingly enough, it also helped their shooting skills....sight picture-fire, sight picture-fire, sight picture-fire. Grossman said in one school shooting the video-playing shooter had never fired a real pistol, then had 8 of 10 head shots with the real thing.
How would you know, if you've never had a reason to do so? From what I understand, it's the TRAINING that matters. When we are challenged in some way, we respond with the highest level of training we have... If we haven't any training, we will probably flail around. Sounds like you've trained yourself ... Maybe just drill a bit every day? Practice. But as someone who has not trained WITH A GUN, who am I to say? I'm trained in what to do AFTER the gun goes off.
While you can get a gun fairly cheap nowadays, depending on quality, etc .. the next best thing would be a knife. At any rate, you won’t be an easy target that is completely defenseless.
An expandable baton is a pretty decent tool. It is very unobtrusive until you need it, then it opens with a flick of the wrist. It is not a toy. Instructors warn that hitting above the shoulders can be lethal.
I thought Butch Cassidy and Sundance were killed in a shootout in Bolivia while still fairly young ; are you sure you weren’t thinking of Bat Masterson who, after his gunfighting career, went on to become a journalist for a NYC newspaper ? Or have I watched too many gunslinger movies ?
My granddad came from Arkansas. Coincidentally, his father fought in the Civil War, and he came back pretty fucked up, beat the shit out of my granddad so much that he left home to escape him when he was only about 12 or 13... We later thought probably my great grandfather had PTSD... Vaguely related... sorta?
Anyway, things have shifted in my family, I think once I get through my CDL training and get some money saved up, I'm outta here... maybe I'll head down that way... I have no idea. I am without any ties anymore.
I am totally onboard with you, CL, but here is what is going on in my head:
Could I pull the trigger?
I'm no candy-ass wus. I'm in good physical and mental shape. I hike a lot. I shoot a lot. Beer cans fear me. I especially like long range varmint plinking.
I have never pulled a firearm on someone in anger or fear, much less had to fire. Could I do it? Would I hesitate, knowing split seconds count? I hear armchair cowboys saying they'd blow his head off....or, he messes with me I'll waste him with my trusty 45....but would they? We all know how cheap talk is.
Since I have never been there, I don't know what I'd do, and I doubt I'm alone in this. How can I train for a deadly force situation? I have US Law Shield and know who to call and what to do after an encounter but that is not the issue. Would I fire? I think I would....I just don't know for sure.
You do have a valid question you're addressing...Here is why I would say that.
In his book, "On Killing" (1996), Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true "Revolution in Military Affairs" was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20 percent of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: "Those (80-85 percent) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges" (Grossman, p. 4).
Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers—the five percent who are natural-born psychopaths and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!).
Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
Now there is ONE major difference. In a case of self defense, you can FEEL justified while going off to war for some rich bankers can cause you to have major moral objections especially if you can possibly see YOURSELF as the aggressor.
I was a talk show jock in Asheville for ten years. I interviewed Grossman several times and met him when he came to the local university to speak.
You mentioned a natural reluctance to kill. He said there were civil war soldiers who packed musket ball after musket ball on top of each other rather than fire.
He also talked about the psychological impact killing another human had on the killer, and how distance was a factor. On the end with the least mental anguish was killing from 40,000 feet. It grew in intensity as you got closer to the victim; to killing where you can see the face of the victim, then to killing with a knife, then finally killing with your bare hands.
Wonder if that has something to do with PTSD?
You make people think.
I wonder if playing those violent reality Visio games would desensitize the normal soldier to be more aggressive on the actual battlefield ?
I bet CL will weigh in on that from a military POV. It seems like Lt. Col Grossman addressed the fact that the games DID desensitize the players. Interestingly enough, it also helped their shooting skills....sight picture-fire, sight picture-fire, sight picture-fire. Grossman said in one school shooting the video-playing shooter had never fired a real pistol, then had 8 of 10 head shots with the real thing.
Except I was never in the military so a POV from that perspective is not possible.
Seems to me that was the whole purpose, along with what GL says below...
Wow.
You know, somehow that doesn't surprise me.
How would you know, if you've never had a reason to do so? From what I understand, it's the TRAINING that matters. When we are challenged in some way, we respond with the highest level of training we have... If we haven't any training, we will probably flail around. Sounds like you've trained yourself ... Maybe just drill a bit every day? Practice. But as someone who has not trained WITH A GUN, who am I to say? I'm trained in what to do AFTER the gun goes off.
While you can get a gun fairly cheap nowadays, depending on quality, etc .. the next best thing would be a knife. At any rate, you won’t be an easy target that is completely defenseless.
I have a very nice hammer... ;)
I'd like a nice Glock, but... we'll see.
An expandable baton is a pretty decent tool. It is very unobtrusive until you need it, then it opens with a flick of the wrist. It is not a toy. Instructors warn that hitting above the shoulders can be lethal.
I thought Butch Cassidy and Sundance were killed in a shootout in Bolivia while still fairly young ; are you sure you weren’t thinking of Bat Masterson who, after his gunfighting career, went on to become a journalist for a NYC newspaper ? Or have I watched too many gunslinger movies ?
Well, the Butch Cassidy point was just a bit of parody.
I don't carry a gun because I can't afford to buy one.
Move near me and I'll loan you one.
Where are you again?
Near Harrison Arkansas.
My granddad came from Arkansas. Coincidentally, his father fought in the Civil War, and he came back pretty fucked up, beat the shit out of my granddad so much that he left home to escape him when he was only about 12 or 13... We later thought probably my great grandfather had PTSD... Vaguely related... sorta?
Anyway, things have shifted in my family, I think once I get through my CDL training and get some money saved up, I'm outta here... maybe I'll head down that way... I have no idea. I am without any ties anymore.