- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 7,523
- Reaction score
- 4
But that "something else" has a much less likely chance of delivering lethal force. Read the excellent book "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.
This is a great book and a spectacular read.
I see your point. Infantry were more efficient on the battlefield in Vietnam due to their training (psychologically and physically like using different targets) than they were in World War One.
However, you overlook one of Grossman's statements on people's Fight or Flight mentality. This "it's them or me" response.
It's the will to live in a soldier that gives them the strength to take another man's life. (then afterword, they can regress into depression if not psychologically conditioned)
therefore if placed in a self defense situation, and fighting for your life (or your loved ones), most people would be able to pull the trigger according to Grossman.
And at the same time, by his principles, a law abiding citizen who was not psychotic will have a great deal of difficulty pulling the trigger on someone when they are not in a life or death situation.
In short, a mentally stable law abiding citizen can responsibly and effectively use their firearm to defend themselves or their family, and at the same time hold no criminal threat to their environment.
As for the Knife vs Gun debate, Grossman talks about that too.
The main distinction in taking a life and the psychological toll / difficulty to commit is the distance to the target.
In Example.
If you're shooting a man from 1000 yards, it's easier than shooting them with a handgun executioner style. It's a lot like a video game, the author even says.
Likewise, shooting someone under 10 feet from a handgun is in the same ballpark as stabbing someone with a knife.
Therefore if a criminal (psychotic / unstable / felon) was going to commit a violent crime with a handgun, he'd do it with another weapon if given the chance due to the similar proximity to his victim.
According to On Killing: By Col. Dave Grossman.