Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech campus

[bigred389]

1)I'm not quoting him word for word. The point is you need to overcome that response.
2)A mother defending her child arguably has at least one MAJOR natural instinct directing her to fight.
3)A soldier is indoctrinated into defense of his nation, and commitment to the Army and all his fellow soldiers.
Civilians do not get the same experience.
4)Well of COURSE we can't quantify moral and ethical character. The point is that the data at the very least indicates that it is DIFFICULT to overcome the natural reluctance to kill, unless there is a strong overriding influence.

It's interesting that in all the cases of heroism you mention, and we saw from the VT incident, involve service to others rather than mere survival...which is what your average shooting victim is more likely to experience...right?

[bigred389]

That's very interesting, in terms of your viewpoint.
Sources?

Grossman summarizes it fairly well(IMHO) in On Combat and On Killing.

He derives a lot of it from studies by Marshall(WW2), the experience and anecdotes from the Falklands, Vietnam, and the modern day.

As well as countless other anecdotes...not the best scientific evidence, but I found it fairly convincing.

[bigred389]

One student who never experienced pure malice pushed a table against the door... how do you explain that? Also, the professor in question didn't kill anybody. So I don't know how good your analogy is.

Lastly, my not citing a different source by the same author is different than not giving both side of the source I mentioned. Not to split hairs.

Pure chance. Just one. Out of hundreds. Some people are perhaps mentally "ready" whether by genetics perhaps, or life experiences. How many others successfully overcame their stress response in that room?

As for the professor, like I said, he had faced pure hatred unlike what damn near ANY group of people has ever faced. And he survived. So he didn't freeze up in the submission reflex.

Again, I'm personally uncomfortable "criticizing" anything the victims did, as I feel it's very disrespectful, but given your argument, i'd point out he did not seem to attempt to "kill" the threat.

[bigred389]

Here's a critic of Grossman:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html

The same author really takes apart S.L.A. Marshall's argument about 75% of WW II soldiers not shooting -- a claim Grossman relies on heavily:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pageone.htm

Also think about the 55,000 that were killed in the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you think all that killing was done just by artillery?

The critic seems much more inclined towards disproving the claims that video games are effective tools to turn children into killers. Which I don't entirely disagree with.

However, some of his counterpoints stick out to me as poorly researched, or misinterpreted. For example, he cites panicked wild firing during WW2 as a "counterpoint" to Marshall's research.

However, Grossman goes into GREAT detail describing the differences between killing at various ranges, unseen, silhouettes, and up close and personal.

He also brings up various cultures(ie the Aztecs) that were known for their savagery as another "counterpoint." This seems almost a moot point, as we all know how malleable children are when influenced from an early age. I think the Spartans are another pretty good example of that.

As for the 55,000 at Gettysburg, Grossman also presents another excellent point regarding the "black powder age." When considering the infantry v infantry tactics of the day, it is actually quite shocking battles went on as long as they did.
They were essentially marchd up within very close range, where they could not POSSIBLY miss, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons of the age. Then they were trained with repetitive drill to take AIM and fire at their targets. When considering the rate of fire involved, it makes absolutely no logical sense that armies did not absolutely mow each other down within minutes.

Those would be the flaws I see in those arguments at least...

[Troll Virus]

By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

That's very interesting, in terms of your viewpoint.
Sources?

[treelizard]

To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.

One student who never experienced pure malice pushed a table against the door... how do you explain that? Also, the professor in question didn't kill anybody. So I don't know how good your analogy is.

Lastly, my not citing a different source by the same author is different than not giving both side of the source I mentioned. Not to split hairs.

[treelizard]

Here's a critic of Grossman:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html

The same author really takes apart S.L.A. Marshall's argument about 75% of WW II soldiers not shooting -- a claim Grossman relies on heavily:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pageone.htm

Also think about the 55,000 that were killed in the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you think all that killing was done just by artillery?

[bigred389]

Perhaps a less condescending wording of your questions is in order but you bring up a (some) good point(s).

It seems clear that this event is outside the experience of most folks (including martial artists)

At least one student mistook the gunshots for "construction noise".

How many of us train with real weapons? Exposed to live fire? Can we still do the dirty deeds with our ears ringing? Blinded by muzzel flash?

I wonder?

Sorry, I'm a little testy when I've been called "defeatist", "politically correct", and "morally insane."

And I feel if someone's going to cite a source, then it'd only be fair to present the rest of the material given by that source.

[Tant01]

Well, how closely have you read Grossman?

You should also recall, if you read it thoroughly, that it is important to simulate the situations with high fidelity.

If you've also read On Killing, you'll also recall what he said about the "unnatural fear" that arises when you're staring another human being intent on killing you in the face. Humans are apparently the only species that regularly does this...and it is rather "unnatural."

The instincts of hiding under a desk, he links to the submission response in all mammals. When two members of the same species fight, if one feels it is overmatched(someone brandishing a GUN) typically submits, which leads to the other walking away(in mammals...or taking your money). Unfortunately, we humans have both sociopaths(a psychological definition in itself) and crimes of passion(which overrides natural programming).

This is why the military has instructors acting as if they absolutely hate and loathe trainees. According to him, for most, it's their first encounter with someone who appears to have no care how much they suffer, and is intent on making them suffer.

I honestly feel this is why the professor who was a Holocaust survivor was able to react the way he did. He's already been faced with hostile intent and survived it. When someboy started shooting, it may have just been "another" Nazi, another person who wanted him dead.
To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.
By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

Perhaps a less condescending wording of your questions is in order but you bring up a (some) good point(s).

It seems clear that this event is outside the experience of most folks (including martial artists)

At least one student mistook the gunshots for "construction noise".

How many of us train with real weapons? Exposed to live fire? Can we still do the dirty deeds with our ears ringing? Blinded by muzzel flash?

I wonder?

[bigred389]

I read in one of those warrior books, I think On Combat, that the more you have thought about a situation the less likely you are to freak out when it happens. Or maybe it was the opposite--if you experience a situation you have never visualized, you are more likely to freeze up from fear when it does happen. So visualize it, train for it.

Well, how closely have you read Grossman?

You should also recall, if you read it thoroughly, that it is important to simulate the situations with high fidelity.

If you've also read On Killing, you'll also recall what he said about the "unnatural fear" that arises when you're staring another human being intent on killing you in the face. Humans are apparently the only species that regularly does this...and it is rather "unnatural."

The instincts of hiding under a desk, he links to the submission response in all mammals. When two members of the same species fight, if one feels it is overmatched(someone brandishing a GUN) typically submits, which leads to the other walking away(in mammals...or taking your money). Unfortunately, we humans have both sociopaths(a psychological definition in itself) and crimes of passion(which overrides natural programming).

This is why the military has instructors acting as if they absolutely hate and loathe trainees. According to him, for most, it's their first encounter with someone who appears to have no care how much they suffer, and is intent on making them suffer.

I honestly feel this is why the professor who was a Holocaust survivor was able to react the way he did. He's already been faced with hostile intent and survived it. When someboy started shooting, it may have just been "another" Nazi, another person who wanted him dead.
To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.
By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

[DickHardman]

Yet another going postal incident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/nasa_evacuation

HOUSTON - A
NASA contract worker took a handgun inside an office building Friday at the Johnson Space Center and fatally shot a hostage before killing himself, police said. A second hostage escaped with minor injuries.

The gunman was able to take a snub-nosed revolver past NASA security and barricade himself in the building, which houses communications and tracking systems for the space shuttle, authorities said.

NASA and police identified him as 60-year-old William Phillips. He had apparently had a dispute with the slain hostage, police said.

NASA identified the slain hostage as David Beverly, a civil servant who worked at the agency. Beverly, who was shot in the chest, was probably killed "in the early minutes of the whole ordeal," police said.

A second hostage, identified by NASA as Fran Crenshaw, escaped after being bound to a chair with duct tape, police Capt. Dwayne Ready said.

"Right now we're trying to understand why this happened, how this happened," Mike Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center, said at a news conference. He said they had reviewed their procedures earlier this week because of the Virginia Tech shootings.

"But of course we never believed this could happen here to our family and our situation."

NASA spokesman Doug Peterson said the agency would review its security.

To enter the space center, workers flash an ID badge as they drive past a security guard. The badge allows workers access to designated buildings.

The gunman, an employee of Jacobs Engineering of Pasadena, Calif., shot himself once in the head more than three hours after the standoff began, police said.

Reports indicated two shots were fired about 1:40 p.m. and another shot was heard about 5 p.m.

John Prosser, executive vice president of Jacobs Engineering, confirmed that the gunman was a company employee but declined to release any information about him.

Police said homicide investigators searched the gunman's house where he lived alone and found no guns or any evidence at all about the shooting. Police Chief Harold Hurtt said there was apparently a dispute between Phillips and Beverly, but didn't elaborate.

"I do not know what occurred between the two gentlemen today," Hurtt said.

He said Crenshaw, who worked in the same general area, was presumably taken hostage after Beverly was shot.

"She was very courageous, a calming influence in this whole issue and apparently was a very positive relationship between her and the suspect because he at no time that we know of threatened to do injury to her," Hurtt said.

Beverly's wife, Linda, said her husband was an electrical parts specialist and had recently celebrated 25 years of service with NASA. She said her husband had mentioned Phillips to her before, but she declined to say in what regard. She said it wouldn't be fair to Phillips.

Coats said Phillips had worked for NASA for 12 to 13 years and "up until recently, he has been a good employee."

During the confrontation, NASA employees in the building were evacuated and others were ordered to remain in their offices for several hours. Roads within the 1,600-acre space center campus were also blocked off, and a nearby middle school kept its teachers and students inside as classes ended.

Doors to Mission Control were locked as standard procedure.

NASA employees and contract workers were kept informed of the situation by e-mail.

Michael Zolensky, who studies cosmic dust, said workers were gathered around a television watching news reports of the situation.

President Bush was informed about the gunman as he flew back to Washington from an event in Michigan, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Jacobs Engineering provides engineering for the international space station, space shuttle and other spacecraft programs, and conducts research and development for new technology. In 2005, the company received a five-year contract with the space center worth up to $1.15 billion.

i heard on bbc radio that the guy was really upset over NASAs suppression of free energy that has been gained from crashed interplanetary ships visiting our planet. the stress of living with such a secret supposedly drove him to commit such an act.

[Tom Yum]

Yet another going postal incident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/nasa_evacuation

HOUSTON - A
NASA contract worker took a handgun inside an office building Friday at the Johnson Space Center and fatally shot a hostage before killing himself, police said. A second hostage escaped with minor injuries.

The gunman was able to take a snub-nosed revolver past NASA security and barricade himself in the building, which houses communications and tracking systems for the space shuttle, authorities said.

NASA and police identified him as 60-year-old William Phillips. He had apparently had a dispute with the slain hostage, police said.

NASA identified the slain hostage as David Beverly, a civil servant who worked at the agency. Beverly, who was shot in the chest, was probably killed "in the early minutes of the whole ordeal," police said.

A second hostage, identified by NASA as Fran Crenshaw, escaped after being bound to a chair with duct tape, police Capt. Dwayne Ready said.

"Right now we're trying to understand why this happened, how this happened," Mike Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center, said at a news conference. He said they had reviewed their procedures earlier this week because of the Virginia Tech shootings.

"But of course we never believed this could happen here to our family and our situation."

NASA spokesman Doug Peterson said the agency would review its security.

To enter the space center, workers flash an ID badge as they drive past a security guard. The badge allows workers access to designated buildings.

The gunman, an employee of Jacobs Engineering of Pasadena, Calif., shot himself once in the head more than three hours after the standoff began, police said.

Reports indicated two shots were fired about 1:40 p.m. and another shot was heard about 5 p.m.

John Prosser, executive vice president of Jacobs Engineering, confirmed that the gunman was a company employee but declined to release any information about him.

Police said homicide investigators searched the gunman's house where he lived alone and found no guns or any evidence at all about the shooting. Police Chief Harold Hurtt said there was apparently a dispute between Phillips and Beverly, but didn't elaborate.

"I do not know what occurred between the two gentlemen today," Hurtt said.

He said Crenshaw, who worked in the same general area, was presumably taken hostage after Beverly was shot.

"She was very courageous, a calming influence in this whole issue and apparently was a very positive relationship between her and the suspect because he at no time that we know of threatened to do injury to her," Hurtt said.

Beverly's wife, Linda, said her husband was an electrical parts specialist and had recently celebrated 25 years of service with NASA. She said her husband had mentioned Phillips to her before, but she declined to say in what regard. She said it wouldn't be fair to Phillips.

Coats said Phillips had worked for NASA for 12 to 13 years and "up until recently, he has been a good employee."

During the confrontation, NASA employees in the building were evacuated and others were ordered to remain in their offices for several hours. Roads within the 1,600-acre space center campus were also blocked off, and a nearby middle school kept its teachers and students inside as classes ended.

Doors to Mission Control were locked as standard procedure.

NASA employees and contract workers were kept informed of the situation by e-mail.

Michael Zolensky, who studies cosmic dust, said workers were gathered around a television watching news reports of the situation.

President Bush was informed about the gunman as he flew back to Washington from an event in Michigan, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Jacobs Engineering provides engineering for the international space station, space shuttle and other spacecraft programs, and conducts research and development for new technology. In 2005, the company received a five-year contract with the space center worth up to $1.15 billion.

[treelizard]

Ummm,
Wasn't this a thread about the victims and cisrcumstances of the mass murder at Virginia Tech? When did we let it turn into "Women are useless!" and "I hope you get dumped!"

It's a volatile issue, sure. But no need to recreate the killings in here.

Fair enough.

[treelizard]

I'd hazard a guess that it's a combination of moral fiber, character, resolute belief in one's core values, and experiences that define one's personal boundaries. Again, that 76 year old professor didn't have specialized SWAT training, but he'd seen enough evil in his time to know that someone needed to act - even if it was a frail old 76 year old.

In short, treelizard, I'm on the verge of conceeding our long-fought "self-interest" argument based on this example. He simply made those other souls in the room more important than his own, bit down, and took a stand.

Ha! But I think I was arguing the opposite in that I said split second decisions like me running that stoplight by accident aren't as conscious...

I'm trying to think about some recent examples of split second decisions... My former karate teacher was at the rollerskating rink (going really really fast) when a tiny kid ran out right in front of him... in a second he decided to wipe himself out rather than hit the kid. I would argue that it is years and years of training with the mindset of protecting kids that gave him the ability to do that... I saw a book which I think was called "Blink" and it was about how we make split second decisions and how to reprogram that... I should have bought it.

Other examples... let's see... I wrote briefly about opening a locked door for the dude pounding on our door at my job, because I thought he was in danger and thought he'd come in and I'd lock the door after him. Afterwards we realized the danger was over by the time he started pounding. And of course everyone criticized my decision, saying I was putting myself at risk. But I think it was a good risk; I think I could intuit the guy wasn't a threat to me (which he wasn't)... Hmmm... What else... When my house was broken into and I woke up half asleep with some dude standing over my bed, all I did was ask him who he was... I didn't "wake up" until after he was gone and yet somehow the detectives think me asking him who he was in itself was a deterrent. I guess other people assumed they knew who the guy was or didn't realize someone was in the room with them or were drunk. So I don't feel like I made a conscious choice to wake up and pay attention (had I gotten to choose my response it would have been far different), but I like to think that years of paying attention to what's around helped me out in that situation. And the last thing I can think of was that today I made some really bad hiking choices and found myself trying to get down a path that was way too steep as it was getting dark. I think I miscalculated my physical prowess, the elevation, etc. and the wild card was that somehow my long lost fear of heights resurfaced. Even though I was actually visibly shaking part of the way down, I was able to breath through it and somehow managed to get back down without any broken bones or even sprains, even with all of the controlled falling. So I like to think the reason I could do this is because I'm getting kind of used to doing scary things anyway. In fact, I seek them out. Whenever something makes me uncomfortable in MMA, I ask if we could work on just that for a while.

I read in one of those warrior books, I think On Combat, that the more you have thought about a situation the less likely you are to freak out when it happens. Or maybe it was the opposite--if you experience a situation you have never visualized, you are more likely to freeze up from fear when it does happen. So visualize it, train for it.

The other thing is that I think "what would you do if someone came into your classroom and started shooting" isn't the only question to ask. I was training with one of Blauer's guys (I love Tony Blauer's stuff) and I asked the requisite "what if someone lifts me up from behind to take me to a secondary location" which is something I've been working on for a couple years now. I'll practice what I learn in WSD classes against MMA guys with padding on and none of the shit ever works. He told me to stand there and do something as soon as I felt a threat. He came up behind me and the instant I felt him (I think he touched my hair or something) I flinched, said something like "Jesus" and immediately turned around in the proper stance and was ready for action. Then I started crying. (I don't know how he made the simulation so realistic but he was really really good.) In fact, I'd say that I could train MMA for fifteen hours a day and it wouldn't be as realistic as a simulation, and it probably wouldn't be as valuable as drills where people actually feel their body freezing up and work through it, or feel intense emotion and work through it, or feel that adrenaline rush and lose feeling in their hands and work through it... I wonder how this ties in with the research on state-dependent learning.

Anyways, the point was that these situations don't happen in a vaccuum (usually), that there are almost always indicators, there are almost always things you can do before you end up in the no-win situation. So the focus should be beyond "what will I do when someone starts shooting in my classroom" or "what if someone lifts me up and my shin kicks and headbutts don't work" or "what if I'm in a situation where I'm caught by surprise and all of the choices suck."

Just some thoughts.

[Tom Yum]

Thanks for bringing that guy up, Mike. He is a true hero.