# "On Killing"....



## NARC (Dec 28, 2005)

I had the pleasure of sitting in on a lecture given by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing, How people commit acts of violence.
Fantastic speaker, dynamic kept our attention the full time.
Numerous issues covered ranging from "Bullet Proof Mind Set", Post Tramatic Stress Disorder, conditioning young people to kill through video game use, the incident in Beslang, Domestic and International Terrorism etc.
Most of all the issues of DENIAL that the general public has towards VIOLENCE, the idea that "it won't happen in my town"; or school or workplace....
There is much more to write but I'll leave that to &quot;Chad&quot;...
I would highly recommend those of you in military/LEO/Security fields to seek out Grossman's lectures!!

I will leave you with one of the following scriptures cited by Grossman : Romans 5


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Dec 28, 2005)

Cool.  I've read "On Killing" and it is excellent.  Anyone read "On Combat?"  I have it on good authority that it is excellent as well.


----------



## still learning (Dec 29, 2005)

Hello, His subject on "Killology" looks very interesting.  He mention that our mass media influence more killings of people in our society. The more we see it the more it has an inpact on the behavior of people.

X-box, play stations....do you feel is adding to this?..............Aloha


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 29, 2005)

I've listened to a number of interviews with the author and I think he makes a lot of good points and his work is essential reading, IMO, for those in security professions. However, I think he does overemphasize the role of video games. I could play "Doom" all day long and not go out and shoot somebody. While media, IMO, can _contribute _to violent behavior, the person has to already be disfunctional to act violently. Perhaps he would agree with me, though, if I were to speak with him in person.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 29, 2005)

The "it wont happen to me" thing is write. Some dude rapped a girl at my school. The staff is planning on having all the students go to the auditorium to preach how it will never happan again, it wasn't there fault, and a bunch of other stuff that isn't really true. They could have done something to prevent it. How is anouther matter.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## BallistikMike (Dec 29, 2005)

This is a fantastic book. One of the few that you can reread throughout life and gain new perspectives that you didnt have before in life. 

Its one of those books that grows with you as you grow.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 29, 2005)

mikes discription sounds like one that Musashi gave "The Book of Five Rings".


----------



## BallistikMike (Dec 29, 2005)

More then likely that is why the thought came into my head.


----------



## NARC (Dec 30, 2005)

Mike you cite that you train in WWII Combatives? under who and where?
Is it Gung Ho Chuan by any chance. Great stuff! currently training with 
a guy who has background in it.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 30, 2005)

Narc was kind enough to arrange for me to come down for the day; very, very, worthwhile session.  Grossman is a fantastic motivational speaker, and bring a wealth of needed information to the table.

On Combat is excellent as well.  

As to the role of media violence, I used to think he over-stated the case.  I am still not 100% convinced, but I am more persuaded by his more recent work.  His point is not that violent video games creat school shooters, but rather that a major common thread among school shooters is violent video gaming as their ONLY social interaction.
Grossman goes out of his way to state that those involved in sports, martial arts, student government, etc. are not the problem.  He also discusses the role of psych meds in shootings (none).
Maybe the most disturbing element of his class was a discussion of the deliberate targeting of of schools and school children by Islamic terrorists, focusing on Beslan as a case study.  Taking advantage of his suggestions for further reading I'm seeing that, if anything, he understated the case.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 30, 2005)

Grossman is somewhat controversial...and I have to confess I have some problems with some of his premises.

His attitude on video games is unfounded, and panders to a prudish and paranoid segment of our culture that runs across the liberal and conservative spectrum. 

We follow a tendency to blame fix.  Video games lead to violence, pornography leads to rape, marijuana leads to harder drugs...all premised incorrectly and with faulty data to support it.  It leads to a growing mythology and a "Chicken Little" mentality.

Video games have increased in popularity over the last decade, yet violent crime decreased during that time according to the Department of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

We all know kids who have played violent games.  Somehow the vast majority of them don't turn into raging sociopaths.

This process is nothing new.  In the 19th century novels were supposed to have corrupted young women.  In the 1920's people fretted about the influence of "moving pictures" on the morals of our youth.  In the fifties it was rock music (Elvis in particular), and--I'm not making this up--comic books featuring Superman and Batman.  Fringe elements today lambast Harry Potter for "teaching witchcraft," and of course more mainstream critics attack video games.

There is, interestingly, an occasional splitting of hairs.  I know Evangelicals who will allow their children to play military based "first person shooters," but won't let them play "Doom."  If it is has a semi-patriotic and pro-military theme, apparently, it causes no harm to the child.  If it involves shooting fantastical demons with the occasional earthy invective, then it is evil.  "SOCOM" is okay...but don't let your child play "Tomb Raider."  Lara Croft is far too scantily clad and might arouse unholy passions in a tender soul.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## NARC (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve if you can go to one of Grossman's lectures and see what you think then...


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 30, 2005)

My thoughts on whether or not porn will make you a rapist, video games make you violent, and reading Harry potter is going to make you a witch is, its BS. The fact of the matter is few people of the Wicca faith (I would know) have actually read Harry potter, or almost any of the really popular forms of fantasy that are blamed for pagans in America. The ones that have that Ive talked to say that if they werent pagans, theyd stay that way because of how ridicules they are.
Porn and violent games may link most rapist and violent offenders, but it also links most Americans ages 12 to 25 (I know 12 seems young, but it is true). As a matter of fact a friend of mine (whos a Buddhist) loves a lot of violent video games. It is true that people can be massively desensitized to violence and gore from playing them. And some people may be temped to act out what they have played, or may actually do it. But that doesnt mean they will. Very little of human behavior is that easily affected, at least from what I have seen. A lot of it is a predisposition to it. Or associating with less then honorables.
            Just my thoughts.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## hongkongfooey (Dec 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Grossman is somewhat controversial...and I have to confess I have some problems with some of his premises.
> 
> His attitude on video games is unfounded, and panders to a prudish and paranoid segment of our culture that runs across the liberal and conservative spectrum.
> 
> ...


 

Excellent post Steve.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Grossman is somewhat controversial...and I have to confess I have some problems with some of his premises.
> 
> His attitude on video games is unfounded, and panders to a prudish and paranoid segment of our culture that runs across the liberal and conservative spectrum.
> 
> We follow a tendency to blame fix. Video games lead to violence, pornography leads to rape, marijuana leads to harder drugs...all premised incorrectly and with faulty data to support it. It leads to a growing mythology and a "Chicken Little" mentality.


 Of course, as violent crime is in the decline, it is evident that video games, in and of themselves, likely don't lead the average child to a life of crime.  I do believe, however, that those with a predisposition to violence are likely further encouraged and desensitized by ultra-violent media.   I don't support this, however, as a reason to ban that material, anymore than I blame guns for violence.  I believe that every person is, ultimatley, responsible for his actions.

As for marijuana leading to harder drugs, it is clear that those with a predisposition to chemical dependency, tend to branch out their dependency.  In that sense, marijuana does lead to harder drugs.  Very few people suddenly just start doing harder drugs.  They begin with marijuana, that's why they call it a gateway drug.  

Of course, that doesn't mean that marijuana automatically causes everyone to do cocaine.  However, the very lifestyle itself increases contact with, the likelyhood of use, of other drugs.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Video games have increased in popularity over the last decade, yet violent crime decreased during that time according to the Department of Justice.
> 
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
> 
> We all know kids who have played violent games. Somehow the vast majority of them don't turn into raging sociopaths.


 Just as I said.  However, the reason that violence is dropping, is that we are increasingly incarcerated the said sociopaths...the ones, I might, most likely affected by violent media.  Again, however, not justification for banning the media.  I find incarceration works subtably.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This process is nothing new. In the 19th century novels were supposed to have corrupted young women. In the 1920's people fretted about the influence of "moving pictures" on the morals of our youth. In the fifties it was rock music (Elvis in particular), and--I'm not making this up--comic books featuring Superman and Batman. Fringe elements today lambast Harry Potter for "teaching witchcraft," and of course more mainstream critics attack video games.


 Yes, but that presumes that everything we believe is ultimately wrong.  Asbestos causes lung cancer, high fat diets result in heart disease, some things are actually true.  They aren't all false because we disagree with them originally.  

It is a faulty assumption to believe that simply because it was believed that Batman and Superman would cause behavior problems, and they didn't, then any such beliefs about anything else are of necessecity wrong.

It is possible to assume that, while Superman and Batman and comic books might not influence aberrant behavior, that Natural Born Killers and Grand Theft Auto might.  Each should be examined seperately, based on their own merits.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> There is, interestingly, an occasional splitting of hairs. I know Evangelicals who will allow their children to play military based "first person shooters," but won't let them play "Doom." If it is has a semi-patriotic and pro-military theme, apparently, it causes no harm to the child. If it involves shooting fantastical demons with the occasional earthy invective, then it is evil. "SOCOM" is okay...but don't let your child play "Tomb Raider." Lara Croft is far too scantily clad and might arouse unholy passions in a tender soul.


 That's not really it.  That has as much to do with the cultural heritage of violence in this country as even religious belief.  We find it easier to identify with certain types of violence than other types of violence.  We become somewhat uncomfortable, however, when we begin mixing violence with sex.  Puritanical?  Maybe, but it could also be that we find mixing the two rather dangerous to the psyche. Who knows.  

At any rate, I find the odd violent video game here and there pleasureable myself.  I've been playing them for years, along with being a fan of other violent media.  Do I want the government to ban them?  Absolutely not.  I'm an adult, and I should have access to them if I want.  Same with pornography.  Does that mean I want my children exposed to it?  Also, absolutely not.  

Have violent video games and other media warped me?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'll allow you to be the judge.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 1, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At any rate, I find the odd violent video game here and there pleasureable myself. I've been playing them for years, along with being a fan of other violent media. Do I want the government to ban them? Absolutely not. I'm an adult, and I should have access to them if I want. Same with pornography. Does that mean I want my children exposed to it? Also, absolutely not.


 
That seems to be the solution regarding violent games and movies - parents DON'T buy them for your kids. That's an easy answer right there. Don't buy your 12 year old a video game that has them stealing cars and running over police officers for points.


----------



## MJS (Jan 1, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That seems to be the solution regarding violent games and movies - parents DON'T buy them for your kids. That's an easy answer right there. Don't buy your 12 year old a video game that has them stealing cars and running over police officers for points.


 
Good point.  A 10yo is going to be getting their money from their parents, and will most likely be driven to the mall or store by the parents as well.  If they are not keeping tabs on what their child is doing, what they buy, etc., then IMO, they have nobody to blame except themselves.  Of course, we all know how that goes though.  

Mike


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Jan 1, 2006)

I agree that violent video games do not necessarily produce violent behaviors.  I do believe that they _can_ be a contributing factor when used for that purpose, perhaps.  I also believe that reading "Harry Potter" is extensively damaging to minds young and old.


----------



## Peter Steeves (Jan 1, 2006)

While I have not yet read "On Killing" or "On Combat" (but will be doing so asap . . . I thought it might help to introduce two texts related to this discussion:

"Protecting the Gift" by Gavin de Becker is more along the lines of how children can be influenced by bad things around them (and how to protect them against such things). Great read - and VERY anti-gun. 

Note: Mr. deBecker also is the lead figure of a prominent executive protection firm (and thereby having more armed citizens might impact his income).

In contrast is "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Read the 2nd edition, because it takes into account (and quotes) many of his detractors. Mr. Lott asserts that not only has crime been on the decline, but has declined significantly when citizens can defend themselves (note that it rises in neighboring areas without such laws in place, too).

He also notes that schools have become greater targets because of the abundance of laws which prohibit weapons within 1000 feet of a school. This is in stark contrast to a few decades ago when many schools had shooting clubs (and university scholarships based on them).

Related to an earlier post, Mr. Lott notes that arrest rates have a significant impact on theft (which often goes up when citizens are armed - criminals are smart enough to "attack" things like cars instead of armed people).

Finally, while I lived in Japan I was inundated with more media violence and sexuality than I am here in America. Japan has a MUCH more open access culture to things like this, and with a MUCH lower incidence of violence.

So, I do not believe that these things are the causes of violent acts. Now, I *do* think that there is something disturbing with the idea of kids playing cop-killer games and such - I simply don't like that.

Are we really more desensitized recently because of these things? Really? Go back 100 years to when there were no TVs or Playboy magazines . . . but more people were born at home, more people died at home, more diseases killed people in un-pretty ways . . . Only in the last handful of decades have we whisked away the uglier side of life from our daily grind.

Now what's the answer? . . . It's all personal responsibility. Live life like a leader. Take responsibility for your own actions, and strongly influence those you can to be responsible, too. This is not a religious motivation, but a safety/peace minded one. Proactive actions is what's most important.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 1, 2006)

I can't take him that seriously because of his views about video games being the blame of kids killing people.  Someone was tweaked to begin with.  If it wasn't video games, it'd be something else that would set them off.

If you're going to blame video games for kids killing people, then you'd may as well blame C&W music for incest.

Cthulhu


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 1, 2006)

Cthulhu said:
			
		

> I can't take him that seriously because of his views about video games being the blame of kids killing people. Someone was tweaked to begin with. If it wasn't video games, it'd be something else that would set them off.
> 
> If you're going to blame video games for kids killing people, then you'd may as well blame C&W music for incest.
> 
> Cthulhu


 
I agree wholeheartedly. These kids would have been disfunctional individuals with or without video games, no doubt about it. However, I think that saturating (or allowing them to saturate themselves) them in violent games and movies can contribute (NOT CAUSE) to setting them down the path of destruction. Bottom line, some people are just plain mean and disfunctional, regardless of what sort of parenting they have. However, parents are under no obligation to buy their kids games where they steal cars and shoot up and run over police officers and innocent bystanders. I literally can't believe what I see at the computer stores. Parents spending hundreds of dollars on the newest video games with their spoiled kids in tow. This doesn't mean that all games are bad, or even that violent ones have no place - only that many parents need to exercise better judgement on their purchases.


----------



## MJS (Jan 1, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> only that many parents need to exercise better judgement on their purchases.


 
I think you hit the nail on the head Jon!!  Problem is, is that parents, well some of them, just don't want to take the responsibility and admit that they may have messed up and made a mistake.  They instead, look for every possible way to blame someone else.

Rather than looking close at what the game is about, they'll blame the manufacturer, saying that it should have been marked clearer, blah, blah, blah.  Hmm... I have a few of those games and they looked like they're clearly marked to me.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That seems to be the solution regarding violent games and movies - parents DON'T buy them for your kids. That's an easy answer right there. Don't buy your 12 year old a video game that has them stealing cars and running over police officers for points.


 Exactly.  It's as much a symptom, as the actual problem.  Parents won't parent.  If my child has something I don't agree with it, I simply will throw it away.  There's no discussion.  I have an obligation to know what my child is doing, 24/7.

The whole Columbine issue is a prime example.  Did violent media contribute?  Possibly, but it's also a symptom.  How do teenagers stock-pile large amounts of weapons and explosives in a home without someone know it?  

If my child had been in the trouble that the two boys at Columbine had been, they'd be under 24 hour watch.  They wouldn't have a door on their room, and i'd conducted spot checks all the time.  How do I know?  Well, i've got two young children, who no where near that age, so I don't know because of them..... but I have a teenage cousin who had gotten in to trouble (stealing, drugs, running with a rough crowd), and his mother asked me to keep him one summer, because she couldn't handle him.  

The first thing I did was spell out the rules, in detail, to him.  I told him that he had no real expectation of privacy, if I decided he did not.  I also spelled the consequences for the types of behavior he had been engaging in at home, along with the fact that consquences would be both SWIFT and SEVERE.  The whole summer, he exhibited model behavior.  We worked out together, and he helped around the house.  He never once even raised his voice to me, not even once (so he never had to experience those 'severe and swift' consquences).   If your child loves and respects you, fine.  If he's the more prickly sort who respects very little, then a little healthy fear is a good close second.  Parents...parent.


----------



## bignick (Jan 2, 2006)

What I got when I read On Killing was not that video games cause kids to kill, but gives them the same experience that caused the kill rate to rise dramatically in the Vietnam War.  The soldiers were desensitized to shooting at a human form, instead of a bullseye, you have a human sillouhette.  Of course, you are also rewarded for this behavior, with marksman badges, etc.  This training didn't make U.S. soldiers into crazy killers, but it did desensitize them to shooting at the human figure, and made it reflex.  

Video games won't make kids killers, however, I cannot believe, that playing a game where you can blow someone apart limb by limb, and be rewarded by getting the high score, or passing the level, does not have any effect on someones head.  Although I enjoy a good game of Grand Theft Auto as much as the next college student, I can easily see what type of effects that doing these things could have.  

The majority of On Killing is about how unbelievably hard it is for humans to kill humans.  Violent video games don't make you kill or drive you to kill, but if you were demented enough to make that decision you are already gonna have a lot of practice pointing that gun and someone and pulling the trigger.


----------



## NARC (Jan 2, 2006)

Take a look at amazon.com for a overview of his second book....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 2, 2006)

Interesting discussion:

As a friend and I were stopping off at another friends house on Friday to have him look at a gun that was damaged. Their were kids in the street with Cap Guns who were having a "Gun Fight" and were almost like the Gangster street, of walk up to someone and start to shoot versus the old "War Games" played when I was a kid where you had to have cover. 

Since this was before video games, this was caused by the news of Vietnam? or was it the WWII movies and the Old West movies with the Indians? 

Very curious if boys will play this game to some extent anyways, even without additional sensory overload?

We also played cops and robbers on our bikes, no shooting you had to chase the people on their bike with your own bike and catch them by a clean cut off, over being able to do a slide by or into them with your back tire. The girls on our dirt road even played this game. 

No arguement about the desensitivity, just curious as all.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 2, 2006)

bignick said:
			
		

> What I got when I read On Killing was not that video games cause kids to kill, but gives them the same experience that caused the kill rate to rise dramatically in the Vietnam War. The soldiers were desensitized to shooting at a human form, instead of a bullseye, you have a human sillouhette. Of course, you are also rewarded for this behavior, with marksman badges, etc. This training didn't make U.S. soldiers into crazy killers, but it did desensitize them to shooting at the human figure, and made it reflex.
> 
> Video games won't make kids killers, however, I cannot believe, that playing a game where you can blow someone apart limb by limb, and be rewarded by getting the high score, or passing the level, does not have any effect on someones head. Although I enjoy a good game of Grand Theft Auto as much as the next college student, I can easily see what type of effects that doing these things could have.
> 
> The majority of On Killing is about how unbelievably hard it is for humans to kill humans. Violent video games don't make you kill or drive you to kill, but if you were demented enough to make that decision you are already gonna have a lot of practice pointing that gun and someone and pulling the trigger.



I find it difficult to believe that the human sillouhette targets introduced to the military had any profound effect on the kill rate in Viet Nam. It is black and only approximates the human sillouhette, with no identifying features such as ears or a nose. Note too that the tradition of awarding badges dates back to at least World War I...if not earlier. So the "reward" has been there for some time.

It would be far easier for me to believe that the introduction of better weaponry and the massive increase of firepower at the squad level had something to do with the increased lethality of the Viet Nam war. I don't recall if Grossman's data accounts for that, nor if it adjusts for increased efficacy of combined arms (artillery and air in conjunction with ground combat), or, for that matter, reputed inflation of "body counts."

Should a police officer find a violent video game among the effects of a criminal, what can we conclude? That a violent person was driven to violence because of the video..._or attracted to it because of his nature?  _A non-violent person might as well own the game, and millions do, but they don't kill. They have a conscience over-ride that prevents them from doing so. The killer does not, and needs no incentive to pull the trigger. Both sociopaths and people with consciences buy the games...the latter in greater numbers than the former. We don't see a shift to sociopathy in our society.

For those that took the time to click on the DOJ website link I provided, you'll note that gun crimes--as well as all violent crimes--have _decreased _dramatically in the last twelve years...and "first person shooters" were introduced about twelve years ago and have escalated in popularity. 

Grossman's hypothesis doesn't stand, given that. I could easily, and perhaps more cogently, argue that the rise in popularity of violent games in America has reduced violent crime due to the catharsis of the games. Like Grossman, I'd be wrong...the data supporting that hypothesis also is weak.

Someone suggested here that I go listen to a Grossman lecture. I wouldn't hesitate to attend one. However, charisma and presentation don't equal truth. While I don't for a moment think he's intentionally misrepresenting the facts, it is clear to me his arguments concerning video games are unsupported. 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 2, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Exactly. It's as much a symptom, as the actual problem. Parents won't parent. If my child has something I don't agree with it, I simply will throw it away. There's no discussion. I have an obligation to know what my child is doing, 24/7.
> 
> The whole Columbine issue is a prime example. Did violent media contribute? Possibly, but it's also a symptom. How do teenagers stock-pile large amounts of weapons and explosives in a home without someone know it?
> 
> If my child had been in the trouble that the two boys at Columbine had been, they'd be under 24 hour watch. They wouldn't have a door on their room, and i'd conducted spot checks all the time. How do I know? Well, i've got two young children, who no where near that age, so I don't know because of them..... but I have a teenage cousin who had gotten in to trouble (stealing, drugs, running with a rough crowd), and his mother asked me to keep him one summer, because she couldn't handle him.


 
That's the thing I don't understand - how did their parents let it get so far? Once, when I was in my early teenage years I was caught with something minor (one thing) that I definitely should NOT have had. My parents searched my room for any other "stuff" that I might have had and shouldn't. Resentment? No, I was caught dead to rights and they were excecising their parental duties (to myself AND others who could be harmed by my behavior). Case closed. 

In another school shooting, despite several severe behavioral problems, the parents bought the kid a handgun and allowed him to keep it in his room loaded - as an expression of their trust for him. Now I know many teenagers are extremely responsible around firearms, but you don't take a kid who has already acted out and hand them a loaded gun as a "peace offering". 

While these kids would probably have been greatly disfunctional (they were sociopaths, IMO), they, with proper parenting, would have been stopped before they were any where near able to do the damage they did.

Why are so darn many parents unable to say NO to their kids? There is a difference between being "mean" and having high standards of behavior enforced.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 2, 2006)

Didn't the DC shooters practice their "trade" with video games?

I have a lot of experience with "at-risk" kids who have a hard time separated reality from fantasy and I can tell you that video games and the media has a HUGE effect on this population.  They fantasize about it and write about it and talk about it and no matter how many times certain individuals are referred to batteries of psychologists, it doesn't seem to matter.  

I'm a firm believer that most individuals are not going to go out and kill because they played video games (however, I'm pretty confident that it desensitizes people to violence and that can be a good and a bad thing).  Yet, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot handle these things...and they too have very easy access.

What do we do?

1.  We need to restrict the access of young people to these images and educate parents better.  We already do this (to our detriment in many cases) in regards to sexual images and I think that society can demand this in regards to violent images.  I think that it is ironic that my child could (if I wasn't paying attention) turn on the TV at 8:00 pm and watch someone get blown away, but they couldn't watch a woman pull out a breast and feed their child.  

2.  We need to hold children and parents accountable for not monitoring their children.  When a minor commits a crime they held to a lesser standard of punishment because it is known that their minds are not developed enough for true adult decision making.  Yet, if we look at punishment and guilt from Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianist ethical position and examine the "total weight" of what occured, their is still a "debt".  In my opinion, it is logical that it be paid by the parents.  The bottom line is that parents are supposed to help kids make good decisions.  If they do not do this, I see no problem is letting them share the criminal burden.

No one can make the bad apple go away...so we just need to deal with that.  

upnorthkyosa

ps - I find this debate extremely ironic considering our societies weirdness regarding sex and I often wonder if this hyperfocus on violence and the proclivity toward sexual taboo are major factors in some of the problems we have in both areas.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 2, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Didn't the DC shooters practice their "trade" with video games?
> 
> I have a lot of experience with "at-risk" kids who have a hard time separated reality from fantasy and I can tell you that video games and the media has a HUGE effect on this population. They fantasize about it and write about it and talk about it and no matter how many times certain individuals are referred to batteries of psychologists, it doesn't seem to matter.
> 
> I'm a firm believer that most individuals are not going to go out and kill because they played video games (however, I'm pretty confident that it desensitizes people to violence and that can be a good and a bad thing). Yet, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot handle these things...and they too have very easy access.


 
Well said! There are kids who are affected by this stuff and as many have mentioned in this thread, they need their access restricted. I think that most of us are agreed that while video games and violent imagery do not CAUSE violent behavior, they, in certain disfunctional individuals, can CONTRIBUTE to it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I find it difficult to believe that the human sillouhette targets introduced to the military had any profound effect on the kill rate in Viet Nam. It is black and only approximates the human sillouhette, with no identifying features such as ears or a nose. Note too that the tradition of awarding badges dates back to at least World War I...if not earlier. So the "reward" has been there for some time.


 Actually, they weren't measuring the kill rate, they were measuring the rate at which a shooter would shoot at an exposed enemy.  The actual kill rate in Vietnam was quite low, but the rate at which soldiers would shoot at exposed enemies was quite higher than in World War II.  Again, difference between kill rate and the rate at which many would fire at an exposed enemy.  

The actual accuracy in Vietnam was lower, due mostly to the different docterine of fully automatic resulting in HUGE expenses of ammunition, with less enemy actually hit.  The main battle rifle of World War II was the highly accurate M1 Garand, which had a higher hit per shot rate than the M16.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It would be far easier for me to believe that the introduction of better weaponry and the massive increase of firepower at the squad level had something to do with the increased lethality of the Viet Nam war. I don't recall if Grossman's data accounts for that, nor if it adjusts for increased efficacy of combined arms (artillery and air in conjunction with ground combat), or, for that matter, reputed inflation of "body counts."


 Again, two different concepts.  It isn't the 'kill rate', it was the tendency of soldiers to fire at an exposed enemy.   It's been studied since at least World War II.  It was determined that shooting at round bullseye style targets was less advantageous to shooting at more realistic human sillouettes.  The tendence to fire at exposed enemy was 50% in WWII, 70% in Korea, and 90% in Vietnam....Note, that's the number of Soldiers activily TRYING to shoot the enemy, not the number successful, which actually fell in Vietnam due to poorer shooting discipline.  What's more, these aren't the conclusions of Grossman, they are considered military doctrine, after decades of research.  Grossman cited them, he didn't invent them....so you're not arguing with Grossman.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Should a police officer find a violent video game among the effects of a criminal, what can we conclude? That a violent person was driven to violence because of the video..._or attracted to it because of his nature? _A non-violent person might as well own the game, and millions do, but they don't kill. They have a conscience over-ride that prevents them from doing so. The killer does not, and needs no incentive to pull the trigger. Both sociopaths and people with consciences buy the games...the latter in greater numbers than the former. We don't see a shift to sociopathy in our society.


 Violent video games don't drive individuals to violence, they enable and enhance violent behavior already present.  A non-violent person DOES have a violence override.  However, some people who don't can be further enable by conditioning.  That is the point.  Just because someone has a predisposition to violence, however, doesn't mean that stimuli and conditioning won't further enhance violent behavior.  That happens all the time.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> For those that took the time to click on the DOJ website link I provided, you'll note that gun crimes--as well as all violent crimes--have _decreased _dramatically in the last twelve years...and "first person shooters" were introduced about twelve years ago and have escalated in popularity.


 The reason violence has fallen, is that increasing numbers of violent individuals are incarcerated every year.  That means the number of those who have a predisposition to violence are less and less in circulation.  It doesn't mean they aren't prone to being influenced by violent media, it just means they aren't out here with us for very long.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Grossman's hypothesis doesn't stand, given that. I could easily, and perhaps more cogently, argue that the rise in popularity of violent games in America has reduced violent crime due to the catharsis of the games. Like Grossman, I'd be wrong...the data supporting that hypothesis also is weak.


 Well, this isn't really about Grossman, the vast majority of psychological studies of the last 30 years show a direct link between media violence and real world violence.  The amount of data is staggering, and it's not Grossman's data.  Grossman just has become an easy target by people who believe they can make this topic go away just by attacking Grossman.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Someone suggested here that I go listen to a Grossman lecture. I wouldn't hesitate to attend one. However, charisma and presentation don't equal truth. While I don't for a moment think he's intentionally misrepresenting the facts, it is clear to me his arguments concerning video games are unsupported.


 I don't think every point he's made is true, I do believe there is a definite causal link.


----------



## NARC (Jan 3, 2006)

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman will be returning to the Northern VA Criminal Justice Academy on June 28,2006 for those of you who may think of attending.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 8, 2006)

my comments for those of you are getting upset on this matter. rember that this is based on years of sceintific research and i hold to be true:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
_cann't breath i'm laughing so hard_
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
_haaah, my side hurts i'm laughing so hard_
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
_ouch, i fell out of my chair_
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
_more darth vader breathing_
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
_luke, i am your father_

 the point is, the guy is a partly right, but wholly wrong. chill out, 'cause some of you seem to be getting testy. yes parents are partly to blame for the crapp that video games are being blammed for.
Here are some more fun facts for you guys. I play a lot of violent video games and watch corny and violent Chinese martial arts flicks. Yes Ive been in a few fights, and only the last one I didnt a good reason. Most people who are deeply into violence will beet there friends and girl friend, disrespect their parents, and gloat about their fights. I rarely hit with the intent of hurting. And I have never done that to one of my friends. While I hate my dad I have overwhelming respect for my mom and older sister. And I have talked about the fights Ive been in with seven people. Im terribly ashamed of the fights Ive been in. only two people know the whole story about my last fight. That gave me a choice in the matter. I hate talking about my fights, and normally get really blank-ed off when Im asked about them. 
My point is, the so-called reasons for violent crime are something I enjoy, but did not affect me the way people think it would have. Another matter, PEER PERSURE IS NOT AS BIG AS PEOPLE THINK IT IS!!!!!! Parents, if your kids break the rules or the law and they say it was peer pressure, smack them. It does not exist as much as people think it does. It is like media and games. It has an effect, but most kids dont care enough to listen to there friends. At least if there parents are half way decent. If you are a good parent, its almost will not going to happen. But if it does, its not because of peer pressure. Though it does have more of an effect on behavior then games, movies, and the like.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## MJS (Jan 8, 2006)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> Another matter, PEER PERSURE IS NOT AS BIG AS PEOPLE THINK IT IS!!!!!! Parents, if your kids break the rules or the law and they say it was peer pressure, smack them. It does not exist as much as people think it does. It is like media and games. It has an effect, but most kids dont care enough to listen to there friends. At least if there parents are half way decent. If you are a good parent, its almost will not going to happen. But if it does, its not because of peer pressure. Though it does have more of an effect on behavior then games, movies, and the like.
> 
> Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,
> 
> John


 
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this.  How can you assume that peer pressure is not a big deal?  Are you lumping all kids into the same group, or just from what you've seen in your area?  

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2006)

Check out the movie "Thirteen" for a pre-teen's perspective on peer pressure. If you have any young females in your family, it will knock your socks off.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 9, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Check out the movie "Thirteen" for a pre-teen's perspective on peer pressure. If you have any young females in your family, it will knock your socks off.


 
I saw that movie ... and it was intense.

It should be required viewing for parents (or guardians) of teenage girls. The MOST informative part of the movie was seeing that the mother, although involved and caring, had no idea how far things had gotten until it was almost too late. Yes, Shesulsa, this is a good movie *to add to this thread. *I'm really glad you mentioned it. Parents watch this movie!

Like the other posters, I have mixed feelings on LTC Grossman's conclusions; but no mixed feelings about this - don't buy impressionable teens and pre-teens video games where you get points for stealing cars and running over police officers.


----------



## Henderson (Jan 9, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> How can you assume that peer pressure is not a big deal?


I will tell you how he can assume peer pressure is no big deal. The original poster of this comment, coungnhuka, is 15 yrs old (according to the profile). Of course, he's going to say he doesn't submit to peer pressure. No offense intended Coungnhuka, it's just simple fact. All kids will deny peer pressure as a means to try to assert their self-reliance and independence.

Respects to all,

Frank


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 21, 2006)

Henderson, thanks, and that was rude. Most of the people around were I live (so it might be just were I live) don't give in to what other people tell them to do. Not just me. If parents are involved, at all, it doesn't happen nearly as much as people think. It's mostly an excuse used by bad parents for why there kids do something bad. The kids of invloved parents don't do worse then cheating on tests, or copying homework. Little drug use, or being _very _active sexually. The people who do these things, have abusive, or unattentive parents. Be invloved, show them the right way, and tell them what will happen if they go the wrong way.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> Henderson, thanks, and that was rude. Most of the people around were I live (so it might be just were I live) don't give in to what other people tell them to do. Not just me. If parents are involved, at all, it doesn't happen nearly as much as people think. It's mostly an excuse used by bad parents for why there kids do something bad. The kids of invloved parents don't do worse then cheating on tests, or copying homework. Little drug use, or being _very _active sexually. The people who do these things, have abusive, or unattentive parents. Be invloved, show them the right way, and tell them what will happen if they go the wrong way.
> 
> Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,
> 
> John


 If parents are involved, kids don't succumb to peer pressure because the parents don't allow them too.  It's hard to go somewhere and fall in with the wrong crowd....if you're grounded and on lock-down at home.  That's why children of involved parents don't succumb to peer pressure, they don't allow their children to run guideless and adrift, through those turbulent and formulative years.

The very worst thing a parent can be is an understanding and accepting friend to their children.  They have been where their children are at, and they know many of the ultimate consequences of those choices.  Children, not having seen the outcome of growing up, and not having experienced the trials and errors of their parents, are complete without a map and compass.  Worse, they don't even believe that anyone else has ever even been through what they are going through, so they are not likely to just accept guidance.  Parents have to be parents.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 21, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If parents are involved, kids don't succumb to peer pressure because the parents don't allow them too. It's hard to go somewhere and fall in with the wrong crowd....if you're grounded and on lock-down at home. That's why children of involved parents don't succumb to peer pressure, they don't allow their children to run guideless and adrift, through those turbulent and formulative years.


 
That's true, and had the Columbine killers had _any_ parental oversight, their actions to date before the massacre would have landed them in 24/7 surveillance and they would not have been allowed anywhere unescorted or allowed to possess so much as a rubber band gun. 

However, going too far the other way likewise encourages rebellion. Both underdisciplining and overdisciplining are dangerous and cause a loss of respect for authority. Many (not speaking of you, or anyone else here) like to quote Biblical Scripture on parent's rights and yet ignore the Biblical commandment "Fathers provoketh not your child to wrath".  Of course, this doesn't mean buy your kid an X-Box if he's acting like a little snot, but it does mean not throwing the book at him or her for every minor offense or overpunishing.

It is important to note that all but TWO of the students at Columbine were victims. Many demagogues have taken this to mean that all teens are potential killers just waiting for a chance to strike. Certainly, as an adult I would hate to be treated so just because a disgruntled adult employee went postal somewhere.

On edit: probably a little more than two as I believe that there were others who were either directly involved or had previous knowledge of what the two killers planned.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That's true, and had the Columbine killers had _any_ parental oversight, their actions to date before the massacre would have landed them in 24/7 surveillance and they would not have been allowed anywhere unescorted or allowed to possess so much as a rubber band gun.
> 
> However, going too far the other way likewise encourages rebellion. Both underdisciplining and overdisciplining are dangerous and cause a loss of respect for authority. Many (not speaking of you, or anyone else here) like to quote Biblical Scripture on parent's rights and yet ignore the Biblical commandment "Fathers provoketh not your child to wrath". Of course, this doesn't mean buy your kid an X-Box if he's acting like a little snot, but it does mean not throwing the book at him or her for every minor offense or overpunishing.
> 
> ...


 In the case of raising children, a child should be treated based on his or her actions.  There should be consequences for negative behavior and reward for positive behavior.  The more severe the negative behavior, the more severe the consequences.  However, those consequences have to be sure, they have to be immediate as possible, and they have to be severe enough to be seen as undesireable on the part of the child.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 22, 2006)

You guys are getting my point, if you get involved, peer persure is no were neer as bad as it could be. Reward and punishment. I have a freind who skipped classes alot, her parents got involved and now she doesn't do it any more. What did her parents do? She was forced into getting a job. Sounds pretty easy, right? Wrong. If she skipps any class, any at all, for any reason, she losses her paycheck. So she works for 20 hours dealing with, well she works at a resturant so figure it out, and if she skipps any class, she loses all her money.
Not to hard, but not to easy. And Sara is good girl, and she doesn't skipp anymore. Peer presure is mostly an excuse for bad parenting. It does happen and some good kids with involved parents go bad, but it's *ALOT* less. Almost never from what I have seen. 

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2006)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> You guys are getting my point, if you get involved, peer persure is no were neer as bad as it could be. Reward and punishment. I have a freind who skipped classes alot, her parents got involved and now she doesn't do it any more. What did her parents do? She was forced into getting a job. Sounds pretty easy, right? Wrong. If she skipps any class, any at all, for any reason, she losses her paycheck. So she works for 20 hours dealing with, well she works at a resturant so figure it out, and if she skipps any class, she loses all her money.
> Not to hard, but not to easy. And Sara is good girl, and she doesn't skipp anymore. Peer presure is mostly an excuse for bad parenting. It does happen and some good kids with involved parents go bad, but it's *ALOT* less. Almost never from what I have seen.
> 
> Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,
> ...


 Exactly.  The teenage years are formulative years.  You can either instill the values you want in to your children, or someone else will.  Peer pressure is simply other teenagers instilling their values in your child, in the vaccum created by inadequate parenting.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 22, 2006)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> You guys are getting my point, if you get involved, peer persure is no were neer as bad as it could be. Reward and punishment. I have a freind who skipped classes alot, her parents got involved and now she doesn't do it any more. What did her parents do? She was forced into getting a job. Sounds pretty easy, right? Wrong. If she skipps any class, any at all, for any reason, she losses her paycheck. So she works for 20 hours dealing with, well she works at a resturant so figure it out, and if she skipps any class, she loses all her money.
> Not to hard, but not to easy. And Sara is good girl, and she doesn't skipp anymore. Peer presure is mostly an excuse for bad parenting. It does happen and some good kids with involved parents go bad, but it's *ALOT* less. Almost never from what I have seen.
> 
> Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,
> ...


 
Good points and you come off as a very mature young man in your post.:asian: 

At times like these, I'm glad I have a high reputation giving power.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 25, 2006)

_"thanks Mr. Randal, gee wiz i shure appreciate it"_ (in the voice of the beaver)(lol)

Anyways. I do appericiate it. And for that matter, so does my reputation. 219 posts, and 398 reputation. O.k. not that cool, but still. I feel like saying it. and I'll leave the mature comment alone, all a matter of oppoin.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------

