OurColony.net

Off Target

Customer Rating:
Amidst the smoke and karaoke crooning of New Year's Eve, a friend and I got to talking about trauma. I'm a US Navy veteran; I never killed, but I served in war zones and as a police officer. Her eyes gleamed as she recommended a book--Dave Grossman's *On Killing*.

Lt Colonel Grossman, retired, claims to publish the first study of killing... albeit built on the research of many others. So imagine my surprise when I found a political treatise against the media.

--On Insults--

Right off the bat, Grossman maligns skeptics of media violence in the paperback introduction. He compares them morally and scientifically to tobacco lobbyists. He sidesteps skepticism with slippery appeals, complete with cute phrases like "Violence Immune Deficiency". Grossman then provokes media control moderates and liberals, by declaring:

"I think most individuals would agree that the `just turn it off' solution probably rates right up there with `let them eat cake' and `I was just following orders' as all-time offensive statements."

In other words, the author compares us to tyrants. He also panders to a populist appeal, all in the same sentence. For an encore, he announces that:

"After nuclear holocaust, the next major threat to our existence is the violent decay of our civilization due to violence-enabling in the electronic media."

Pardon me, Colonel, while my eyes roll right out of their sockets. I thought this was a study of killing. Not only am I hit with a political screed, but the author tips his whole hand:

"Finally, and perhaps most important, I believe that this study will provide insight into the way that rifts in our society combine with violence in media and in interactive video games to indiscriminately condition our nation's children to kill."

--On Histrionics--

I nevertheless gave the main text a chance. Although Grossman professes to examine killing in general, he focuses on the military. Few police sources appear, and little is said of criminals. This actually becomes a problem towards the end of the book, as Grossman misapplies his conclusions to non-military participants and environments. While it lasts, though, this portion of the book is fascinating

The moral tone also raised my eyebrows. Grossman's prose is sticky with sexual and slaughterhouse metaphors. Yet he bleeps out obscenities in soldier's quotes, notably "f---" and "s---". I suspect any text that compares itself to a sex manual for virgins, but strikes out the language.

The author also uses morally-biased phrasing, for example, by repetitious use of "the egalitarian United States", "violence-enabling media", and "conspiracy".

On these bizarre notes, I noticed the book delves into conspiracy theories. From the start, Grossman claims that media violence is a genocidal plot against black people. Section One prattles about national conspiracies to hide the horror of warfare. The Vietnam chapters are similarly paranoid, suggesting an illuminati-like anti-war movement. The final sections builds key arguments off an unsubstantiated *Clockwork Orange* scenario. These creepy assertions bubble out of otherwise sedate prose, and a less discerning reader might float atop without any idea that his or her feet have left the ground.

Grossman further digresses. His Vietnam studies stray into denial that we lost the war, egotistical assertions of American prowess, and diatribes on the treatment of veterans. I sometimes felt like I was reading less sociology and more talk-show rant.

The author even comes close to waxing nostalgic about the good old days of pre-1960's cinema, like a Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich. Which brings me to the climactic argument.

--On Manipulation--

Now I don't doubt that media influences human behavior. Unfortunately, *On Killing* draws far-fetched conclusions from dubious methodology:

>Grossman relies on fallacious arguments from authority, peppering the page with cherry-picked declaratives, and argument from repetition.
>He misapplies foreign studies to American violence.
>Likewise, the author fails to investigate why nations that import our media experience different violence rates.
>Grossman neglects the problem of correlation versus causation, except in dismissive footnotes or comments.
>He suppresses alternate possibilities for violence.

One of the large errors of logic is inappropriate analogy. Grossman's central thesis is that post-1960's electronic media reproduces combat conditioning without safeguards. As a veteran, I can tell you folks that a world of difference exists between battlefield training and sitting on your couch.

Movies and video games do not duplicate the recoil, the weight of the weapon, the specks of carbon flying in your face, and the stench of cordite. A DVD or game controller does not substitute for the experience of clearing a jam, or trying to reload your weapon. I had to run shooting courses, moving from cover to cover while firing at targets, and I cleared entire buildings in dynamic exercises. I had to wear battledress, web gear weighting on my hips. Media, on the other hand, parks the viewer in the safety of Fort Living Room.

After 300-pages of war stories and atrocity, Grossman claims that Dirty Harry is turning our children into murderers. His final chapter advocates (or at least implies) censorship and public censure to control our expression.

This has nothing to do with a study of killing. This *is* another fallacy, related to the "irrelevant conclusion": the author presents an attractive set of arguments--those patriotic soldiers and their sympathetic stories-- then switches to a disconnected thesis. Overall, the book calls itself into question with what amounts to a 30-page non-sequitur.

--On Conclusion--

To paraphrase the text itself, *On Killing* stakes out the same moral and scientific ground as the tobacco industry. I feel the author exploits veterans to trick me into adopting his politics. He insults readers who might have been persuaded to his position. And the histrionics--the melodramatic conclusions, the conspiracy theories, and the twisted morality--makes this sham of psychology as crazy as the patient.


"*" - for original interviews and effort.
"*" - for good war stories.

Outstanding

Customer Rating:
Buy it without hesitation. This is a seminal work. It should be mandatory reading for every law enforcement person if they're serious about truly beginning to understand their work environment.

An eye opening read

Customer Rating:
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing is a phenominal work. It serves to blatantly scrutinize one of our society's biggest blind spots and social taboos: killing. Everything our society thinks it knows about wartime combat is fundamentally flawed; our conception of the righteous (or less so) soldier wading through battle without thought of the lives he takes is a lie. One of the most interesting points is the exploration of firing rates in historical wars and man's natural reluctance to kill, which apparently supercedes the urge of self-preservation or societal pressures. Those that enjoyed the book Ishmael may find a similar vein in this work (in the way that it explores facets of civilization that we turn a blind eye to conciously or unconciously), which strives to explain information vital to the survival of our society as well as the psychological well-being of our soldiers, however uncomfortable that subject may be. An all around fascinating book that "blew my mind". I reccomend this book for anyone with even a passing interest in psychology or combat, and it is definately a MUST READ for anyone working in the field of Veteran's Affairs.

on combat

Customer Rating:
I liked the book. I aspired to be come a marine back in the early 80's after finishing college. I talked with some former viet-nam vets who convinced me that graduate school was a better option. I followed their advice based on the stories they told me...this book is a very good testimony of some of their experiences. now at 49 I wish I had become a marine anyway when I had the chance. I personally was'nt aware of the fact that many soldiers on both sides never used their weapons and I side with the author's view point on peace before war but we must always be prepared to defend the constitution of the United States if necessary. never the less the book is a very good study of the human psyche and of the limits of human endurance....

Must read for the military or police.

Customer Rating:
This book, as many have stated, is great for understanding the psychology of someone returning from the battlefield. But for those who have yet to enter the battlefield, or will shortly find themselves returning, I suggest they read On Combat. That book deals much more with the subject of the physiology and psychology of the act of combat itself and how to prepare for it, rather than how to recognize and deal with it after the fact.