I ran into this book at the library (Men Against Fire) and it contained a couple of startling statistics! In world war 2 only 25% of the troups when facing the enemy could fire there guns. It was so bad that they had to change the brain washing training technique in the Vietnam war. The result was a fire rate of 40 to 50%. Much better but still half the troups could not fire!

The point is we seem to have an incredible resistance to killing another human being. IN NORMAL PEOPLE. Even in trained to kill soldiers.

Now looking at that info in the perspective of homesteading protection what do you think? Would we freeze up like our military or easily pull the trigger if threatened?

I just thought this was very interesting. Guns are a hot topic so if you respond please be respectful lest the thread gets tossed!...Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001

Answers

Oops! I searched this book and found this link. Meant to include.

http://www.ou.edu/oupress/mars3280.htm

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

I always have this fear that I might shoot somebody when I shouldn't, and then my big butt would be in serious trouble. Maybe thats freeze up!

-- Russell Hays (rhays@sstelco.com), August 01, 2001.

Guess I'll just quote Harry Truman, There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

-- paul (wprimeroselane@msn.com), August 01, 2001.

I'd question the use of the term "brain washing", but yes - it would be a training issue, not particularly a reluctance to kill. Things happen fast in a lot of situations where you need to use a firearm - even if it's just shooting a duck or a running deer. They'd happen even faster under more difficult circumstances if a whole regiment of deer or whatever were coming at you, ducking and dodging, taking cover and shooting at you, then up and running again while someone else gives covering fire. If people hadn't been trained to function under those circumstances then only a few of them would be able to steady down, pick their shots, and make them. Many people would be unable to attempt a shot because they weren't confident they could get a hit - after all, their training has been about hitting the things they shoot at - targets standing still. While aimed fire is far better than just throwing lead, even that would have some value, but you would have to have been trained to do that too. Incidentally, part of the difference between the two wars is likely to have been that in WW2 aimed fire was necessary; whereas in Vietnam automatic fire was standard, or at least standardly available, and people could feel it was possible to just hose-down an area rather than having to make aimed shots.

Anyway, back to the homestead: the situation is likely to be a good deal less complex and confusing and overwhelming than in a pitched battle. If you did find a situation where it was necessary to use a firearm in self-defense, you'd likely only be facing one or two people - at most a small group, and likely only one or two of those as the stand-outs needing immediate shooting. There's a good chance that standard shooting practice would get you through the situation. In fact, there's a very good chance that standard systematic shooting practice would make you far better-prepared than the sort of hoodlums who start waving firearms around during a crime.

Train so you can handle firearms safely, then train so that you can shoot accurately, then train so you can mount the firearm and shoot readily, then train so you can get off several aimed shots smoothly (which will also automatically give you speed). You ought to do all that anyway, so you can take out that pack of dogs that's attacking your livestock.

That's probably enough, but if you wish to prepare further for that type of confrontation you could follow up with training aimed at using firearms in human confrontations. While using firearms on people is highly undesirable, failing to prepare for something you thought was a strong possibility would not be sane behaviour. Mind you, it might not be sane behaviour to wait around for it to happen either. The best way to win a gunfight, they say, is to avoid it.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 01, 2001.

Very well put Don:

Guns for protection to me are like my insurance progroms. I hate having to purchase insurance (so expensive!), it will never happen to me, etc. But when it comes down to it, I pay my insurance premiums with little hesitation. Because I know that if that circumstance where I need that insurance, than I REALLY REALLY NEED THAT INSURANCE!

The police will protect you as much as Mr. Goodwrench prevents your car from conking out on you on the highway. As much as your plumber prevents your septic from overfilling. As much as your appliance repair man from your refrigerator going out on you. All of these people are available, but YOU have to deal with the situation. Two parties; victim and perpetrator(sp?). Could I kill someone who I felt was trying to harm me? Yes, I think I would. No reason to prefer him/her living over me when I wasn't causing the problem.

But freezing over that decision? I don't know for sure; I had a situation years back that I think tells me that I won't freeze up, but who knows for sure until that moment arrives.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), August 01, 2001.

I'm a grandma who sometimes is alone a great deal. I also have a 9- millimeter pistol very handy...with the safety off at night! You can bet your bippy that if someone is entering my bedroom, they aren't looking for a cup of coffee. And, yes, I will shoot to kill!

-- Ardie from WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), August 01, 2001.

Sorry, but I don't believe those statistics. Particularly as they apply to Vietnam. My husband is a Vietnam vet and had to kill his first person who was standing not ten feet from him (popped out of the tall grass) on the first day of his arrival. The enemy had trouble with his gun which allowed my husband time to react, otherwise he would have been killed first. He was so new that he just wasn't ready for such an immediate and close encounter. We also have quite a few friends and acquaintences who are veterans of Vietnam. Not a single one of them had any trouble shooting at the enemy when the enemy was shooting at them. In a war, when someone is actually shooting you, it is much easier to shoot back then to be a conscientious objector and think about it. In Vietnam, if you were out in the bush, someone was always shooting at you. There is a big difference between going after a prowler who is not actually trying to shoot you but is just trying to break in and steal something and having someone actually coming at you with the intent to kill you before you kill them. In war, it is understood the enemy is going to try to kill you if they see you so you better be first or be dead. That makes the decision a lot easier. In a homestead situation, I would agree that this is a whole different dynamic and hesitation is much more likely to occur. There is more of a gray area. You have to mentally make the decision, is this person a real threat to my life or is it just a burgler only interested in stealing my television. Obviously, the latter doesn't need to be killed, maybe slowed down a bit, but not killed. Even though I am a person who has no interest in guns and in fact we don't even own a gun (I'm going to have to borrow a friend's just to shoot the groundhogs in my garden this week), I am absolutely certain that I would not hesitate to use a gun if I thought I was about to be raped or killed. I even tease my husband when we are watching true television shows about women who have restraining orders issued against ex-spouses who then come and kill them, that my restraining order would be a gun if I felt I needed it. I think the real test is how great the threat to your life is and how soon you perceive of the threat in time to react. Some people, particularly in domestic situations, don't believe that the person really intends to harm them until it is too late. I believe that most people, once they totally realize that the person confronting them intends to kill them, they would not hesitate to shoot. The problem is that most situations are not that clear.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 01, 2001.

I would not think twice .I am over protective of my children {don't even like hubby punishing them }If someone where to try to break in my house and threaten there safety I would shoot.Besides for hunting thats why we have the guns ,home protection .

-- Patty {NY State} (fodfarms@slic.com), August 01, 2001.

When it comes to my family's safety over an intruders safety, I definitely would put my family first. You better believe...I would shoot to kill !!

-- Brenda (CherokeeMaiden2@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Would you shoot social workers if they came to take away your children? I would!!!

-- somebody (someone@somewhere.com), August 01, 2001.

uh that's not me, looks like it's time for a new signature.

-- somebody(Dave) (something@somewhere.com), August 01, 2001.

heck there's days I'd probably say 'thank god you're here, let me get their suitcases' ; ) just kidding...

on a more serious note, I'd have no problem shooting someone if my or my kids lives were threatened. Just make sure they're a valid threat and not some drunk who stumbled into the wrong house or something because people do get sued alot nowadays for those things. I keep a pistol within my reach at night. I used to carry one with me at all times when we lived around urban areas but unfortunately it's impossible to get a ccw permit in the Peoples Republic of California even though I had one from another state when I came here.

-- Dave (something@somewhere.com), August 01, 2001.

Colleen, I think I've heard those statistics or highly similar ones before, and I think a critical phrase that I heard before was "in any engagement". In other words, say half the people didn't manage to get a shot off. Other cases, similar figures, but a largely different 50% managed and didn't manage to shoot. I find that believable, whereas just "half never fired" isn't.

Also, I received a nice - even complimentary - message from someone who basically had heard that "Australia had very stringent laws regarding gun ownership, almost to the point that the common private citizen couldn't own any gun, even for hunting/predator control". I'll respond to it here, for the sake of any others who might be interested.

Basically, that's propaganda put out by an element of your pro-gun lobby, and untrue. My personal opinion is that they're making a big mistake by telling lies - they're going to get caught out, and their own lies will be a big part of the reason why they lose their case - and your "right to bear arms". And that won't be good for any of us, anywhere in the world, because firearms are essential tools (call them power tools) of anyone who keeps livestock, and of most crop farmers too. If you can't control predators (those dog packs I mentioned, or foxes or feral cats, or dingos or coyotes or skunks or raccoons or opossums or pumas or bobcats or wolves or bears or lions or leopards or tigers or whatever) that are killing your livestock, or half-killing them and leaving them dying in agony; or if you can't put down an injured animal, then you have no business keeping livestock. If you want to grow crops, circumstances will often arise where animals start destroying the crop, and the only control that works is killing them - they've got a taste for the crop, now they can't be chased away.

I've said on this forum before, and strongly believe, that anyone who tries to arrange for the raising of livestock without the availability of firearms is deliberately arranging cruelty to animals. If it happens to be legislators doing it, then they're trying to enforce cruelty to animals by law, and they should be treated accordingly - at the polls at least. If it happens to be farmers or homesteaders, they're still guilty of the same crime - just not as many times.

Another thing you'll often see or hear is that since the outlawing of firearms in Australia, crime, particularly firearm-related crime, has soared out of control. Tain't true. The fact is that, regrettably, crime was increasing anyway. Stricter gun-control didn't affect it one way or the other. Stricter gun-control didn't control crime. Stricter gun-control didn't make things worse. Stricter gun-control just plain did nothing - except make shooters' lives more difficult, and use a lot of taxpayers' money to no good effect. Well, that's not strictly true - the much tougher laws on keeping firearms securely locked away did cut down on accidental firearm deaths in children - but it didn't effect crime trends at all. Following the "Port Arthur massacre" the politicians underwent their spasm and outlawed self- loading firearms (POINT: NEVER say automatic or semi-automatic - paints a picture the whackos who want to enforce cruelty to animals can use. Self-loading is accurate and less emotion-laden these days.) In fact, they used taxpayer money to finance the largest re-armanent of private Australia since fifty years before, just after the end of WW2. They paid good money for self-loading firearms (often old and shot-out); and people then used it to buy new bolt-action or lever- action or pump-action rifles. Unfortunately, they also almost totally outlawed self-loading and pump-action shotguns, many of them family heirlooms, and people had to replace them with under-and-over or side- by-side shotguns.

So ... the situation in Australia is that shooters have to be licensed, and firearms have to be licenced to licenced shooters. It's a stricter control than is necessary (as I said, the actual licensing hasn't achieved anything worthwhile).

We have never had the same attitude towards pistols as has the USA. In fact, we've always (in and after the 20th Century, anyway) regarded firearms in the hands of the public as either tools or sporting goods. It's only in the hands of the military or the police (or certain strictly-licensed people in security-related jobs, such as security guards) that firearms have been regarded as weapons. In fact, self-defense is not a legally valid reason for a private individual to have a firearm (although it's quite possible for people to take part in pistol-shooting as a sport).

For permissable long-arms, however (any rifle which isn't self- loading, any double-barreled or single-shot or even bolt-action shotgun); it's pretty-well a matter of giving a reason, and getting your license, then buying the firearm, and having them get a licence for it for you. You also need to get a secure gun-safe (strict design rules about what can work, and what needs to be done to install it. Licences aren't cheap, but they're fairly readily available. Some police officers are idiots about it, but in that case just change your address to that of a friend who lives outside that police area. Acceptable reasons are hunting or predator-control or vermin-control or target-shooting - NOT self-defense.

As it happens, I don't currently own a firearm. However, I have access to more than I could use on the family farm, and they make an exception to licensing requirements for entirely on-farm use.

P.S. Australia has just started manufacturing lever-action shotguns. It's a long time since anyone else did this, but an Australian firm rose to the challenge and opportunity presented by the huge number of Western-Action (i.e. cowboy) shooters.

-- Don Armstrong (from Australia) (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 01, 2001.

Two issues that need to be adrressed by ANYONE getting a firearm for protection.

FIRST is training. If you dont know how to use it before its needed you will not know how to use to when your under stress. Training also means re-training. you need to activly use the gun. It can just set in a lock box until an emergency comes about. This is extreamly true if your using any semiautomatic firearm. TRAIN, TRAIN TRAIN.

Second issue, You need to work through you mind. Are you willing to KILL!!! someone to protect you and your family? If the answer is no then the gun should not be considered for defense. If you have any quams about it now, how do you think you will act with faced with a stranger?

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), August 01, 2001.

Don I use the term brainwashing only if people are trained to do something that comes unatural to them. Killing another human I would suppose is an unatural act for sane folks.

At a country farm setting, I wonder how many people train to have to shoot another person? How is it done? If the military can't do it I would have to question that its such an easy thing to do for an average homestead person.

Patty makes an interesting point tho. Maybe protecting your family might make a person act swiftly while a soldier does'nt have babies to consider.

Thanks for your replies.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

I for one have had to shoot someone. They broke in on me in my hotel room, had guns in hand. I shot them and my hubby and I ran because they had bigger guns and all I had was a 22.

I didn't like how I felt afterwards and my hubby came and got me while I was standing there with blood all over my slip. He was gone approx. 15 minutes and some hoodlums saw him leave.

I blocked out everything for years. If they hadn't been at close range it probably wouldn't have done any damage and I would have been dead.

Would I shoot again? Yes!

-- stephanie (pospossum@earthlink.net), August 01, 2001.

I take it the stats did not include weapons that did not fire because of malfunction. I know that alot of boys were just plain scare when facing NVA and with a M-16 there was no aiming just BacBac and it didn't matter who was in front of them.

To actually shoot someone on a homestead is very,very remote. You would probably need protection from coyotes or bears before humans,unless you are some deep seated militant. But for the actual shooting of someone in a non-war situation,no ones knows until the time comes whether they will or not. But if you have qualms about beheading chickens,or skinning a deer,or even spanking a dog the odds are that you will not be able to shoot another person unless actually having no way out and even then some people just won't do it. They fall apart,shake uncontrollable,cry and bascially just do a mental breakup and that is even when they or someone else is in a life threating situation. To shoot someone else one-on-one you have to have a very,very strong survial instinct inside yourself. Just being in a scared situation (prowler,strangers,etc.)really just leads to pulling the trigger as a reaction not a planned move, no matter how big people talk.

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), August 01, 2001.

Personally, I had been opposed to owning a handgun for years. I won't bore you with all of the reasons. Suffice it for now to say I wasn't comfortable with the idea of having one. In recent years I've known a three people in my line of business shot in robbery attempts (really stupid in that we don't have much cash anyhow). Of the three, one was a fatality and another might have been better off to have been one (shot in the head at close range but "survived"). That has really changed my view.

One of the reasons I never wanted a handgun was because I believe I would have absolutely no compunction whatsoever in taking a human life defending myself or my family. That frightens me a little.

When I applied for my Concealed Carry Weapon Permit at the local police station I happened to run into a couple officers I've known for years. Naturally the conversation turned to why I was there. When I told them their responses were, "What took you so long?" and "Why didn't you have one before?"

I couldn't help but think if the police, with all they know and see that we don't, feel I should have one on me at all times, maybe there's good reason.

As to statistics on guns, here's one I heard and have no trouble believing. The smarter/more educated a person is, the less likely they are to be the one to walk away from an armed confrontation.

Apparently, the time it takes to consider all of the potential consequences and possible ramifications of pulling your trigger is long enough for the other party to shoot you.

In that situation I'll suggest you remember the old saw I've heard from law enforcement officers for years;

"It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Being a Viet Nam veteran, USMC, Hq.Bat., 12th Marines; "I"core, 1968-1970 I can totally assure you that any Marine that did not fire back to protect his paltoon members would never dare sleep anywhere the members could find him, if inthe event he made it back to the compound alive. This stastic about 50% not firing back is in total error conserning Marines; other services maybe, I wasen't in the other services, I don't know about them.

Could I fire today, that depends on the range of the weapon in the posession of the assialent; the intended target; my connection to the target person; split second decisions that a combat experienced person can make. Rule of thumb: To stop an attack shoot below the waist; if your hit fire above the waist.

-- mitch hearn (moopups1@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Kirk, I believe you're incorrect. Not that I'm jumping up and down and slanging off at you, but I believe you're under a misapprehnsion about people. I think that killing people (or anything else) is as natural as breathing - an animal function built in to the human organism - and I'm not addressing the question of who built it in.

I think that NOT killing is the result of brain-washing, or conditioning, or even call it "toddler taming". It's definitely a good thing that we've learnt how to control those impulses so strongly that people think of it as instinctual: that that conditioning is so strong, and so basic to our society, that it takes a massive effort for someone (armed forces, or someone trying to get themselves set up for self defence) to overcome it. However, that's what it is - conditioning, not instinct. In fact, a lot of societal problems we're seeing these days is because children are no longer being inculcated with the beliefs and attitudes they would previously have aquired at their mother's knee, or out in the field with their father, or while chatting to the huge strong admirable (village blacksmith? Carter? Merchant? Priest? Midwife? Carpenter? Cook? Choose whichever other adult a child would find to consider likeable and admirable in a small society, and who would re-infoce what they'd learnt from their parents). These days, a lot of them aren't learning it from their parents in the first place (and indeed a lot of idiots with degrees are trying to ensure parents won't teach their inherently wild children these things). That is, I believe, why we're now seeing an upsurge in high-school killings - we're into a second generation (the first was the ones who "went postal") of people who we've failed to civilise. They are savages in the sense that we haven't taught them to value society and their fellows.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 01, 2001.

If push comes to shove, you have to fire the weapon. It's either your live or the other person's, and if you are in the right, you shouldn't have a problem doing so.

Would you feel "great" doing it? Probably not, but the bottom line is your family depends on you. Allowing someone to kill you and possibly your family isn't the right thing to do.

-- Lew Ricker (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

This is going to sound weird but its just me, I would have trouble killing a animal, If I had to I could kill a human who was going to hurt someone close to me.My step father taught me, never point a gun at some one unless you intend to use it.

-- kathy h (ckhart55@earthlink.net), August 01, 2001.

Oh My God Stephanie!! I'm sorry you had to go through that. You are one brave woman!! Are you fully over that trauma yet? Thank you so much for your post...Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

Don: I must say I was taken back a bit by your theory. See I always thought that as animals went up the food chain that there was a taboo against killing their own species. I never thought that we were born to kill our own kind and had to be programed not to. Is that what you mean? I must think about that and maybe I can find some research in that area.

Nice to be able to discuss some of these topics without the bashing isn't it? Thanks....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay!@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

Kirk, yes. I think basically that is what I am saying, although on re- reading I may have overstated my case a bit, or at least omitted a qualifier. People (like prides of lions, or packs of wolves, or baboons, or whatever) handle small numbers of close relatives moderately well (although there are plenty of examples of familial murder, from Cain and Abel and on). Humans in a state of nature are cursorial hunters - that is, we run our major prey down, and that takes a pack to manage best. We appear to be be so constituted that we can work co-operatively in small groups - up to a maximum of about eighteen, according to research. Beyond that, the numbers of interactions become too complex, and the group becomes unstable and eventually splits up some way - either in acrimony, or simply by fission with part of the group moving on to other fields, or two groups merge and then split as three. That number could probably be stretched to eighteen or twenty families in a hunter-gatherer society, since the males and the females would mostly be acting separately during the day. Basically, we work best in a group the size of a small hamlet, a hunting group, or a squad, a platoon, maybe a company. I guess armies do know something about getting people to work together under stressful conditions. Larger social structures probably evolved when people started swapping women between groups - forcibly or voluntarily.

Incidentally, one of the most successful demonstrations of that group dynamic is internet forums. You can stretch the numbers a bit in "real life", with good will, and when you're getting the visual feedback and cues about reactions that we're built to be able to use. Without that visual feedback (as in posting to a forum) it takes an enormous amount of constant active goodwill to stretch things beyond that limit of eighteen active contributors.

To take it much further, you need to start introducing structure and authority - an officer, a mayor, a sheriff, a forum moderator (Hello, Ken).

All that was the qualifier. We can more or less, mostly, get on within those limits. However, anything more is unnatural - we have to learn it - be conditioned to it. In clan or tribal societies, the stranger was always different, distrusted, and more or less fair game. After all, who was going to know, who was going to avenge? You can see this pattern emerging all the time in humans - New Guinea villagers, street gangs, internet gamers, a stranger in a bar in a small town, a white walking through Harlem after dark, the KKK, anything. We need to LEARN to co-operate at anything more than that basic level. You can see it emerging in the Bible, as the Hebrews moved from nomadic herdsmen (who were limited in size of groups by their herds' ability to forage), through to an established nation. "Thou shalt not kill" really meant "don't murder", with murder being a legal term meaning "knock off fellow Hebrews". It took a long time for them to expand to limited consideration for non-Jews within their society, and it wasn't really until Jesus came on the scene that Gentiles started getting more-or-less equal consideration - and then that was only a start. It took non-Jews to give Gentiles a real run, and then they turned around and started instituting pogroms.

Other examples - the Vikings had no compunction about killing their victims while they were raiding - it was simpler and safer than leaving live enemies. Genghis Khan considered wiping out the Chinese to give his ponies more grazing land (a Chinese adviser convinced him they'd be worth more than the land if he simply taxed them). And on and on it goes. You want to think about tribal warfare in Africa today? Or the killing fields in Indo-china? Or the Balkan snake-pit, which has been simmering constantly for about three thousand years now?

Simply put - we're not naturally tame. On balance I think that's good, but it does mean we've got to put the effort into taming ourselves and our children on our own terms.

Gee, I love being able to converse occasionally on this level. Can't take too much of it, but I don't get it in my private life, and it's great.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 02, 2001.

On our local news yesterday, they interviewed a 70+ year old woman who had been shot by people trying to take her goat. They tried to catch and steal her goat while on her property. The woman, watching this from her home, walked over and told them to stop. She didn't threaten them, didn't pull a gun, anything like that. She just told them to leave her goat alone. After a heated discussion, she walked away, when apparently one of the perpetrators reached into their car, pulled out a shotgun loaded with birdshot, and shot her. This happened 10 days ago and she is recovering okay, the interview was done outside her home.

I think it is getting to the time when homesteaders are going to realize that having guns for self protection is not an option; it is now considered a necessity. Criminals do not care about property rights, whether in the city or country, and do not fear getting caught by the county sheriffs. Law enforcement is spread too thin in the cities already; it is nearly non existent in the country.

I know that people are very hesistant to consider this decision, but this question is very important. As people have pointed out, you have to decide now if defending yourself and your family is worth risking your life. Ugly but very important topic.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), August 02, 2001.

Don: One reason to think we're *not* born with the "kill the humans" instinct is that most of our instincts are in place for the purpose of survival. We're born with the instinct to suck, for example.

Also, almost every society in humanity's history has viewed murder as morally wrong and socially unacceptable (yes, Rome had her "gladiator games," but even there, simply running around the streets killing people was not condoned - and I never said all societies were logically consistent in their practices).

Children have little or no concept of "mortality," "death," or "killing," much less an instinct to do it.

Anyway thats the way I lean but you sure gave me something to think about. Thanks for the discussion and you may have the last word if you want! Ha! What a guy huh?.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

Can't address the homestead part of the question, nor the pulling the trigger aspect, but I have used a handgun to save my life and limbs about four years ago. Yes, in a situation where there is no question in your mind that you are in danger of being killed, you might be surprised what you can do. In my case I did not have to pull the trigger but the gun was leveled on a man, the trigger was cocked, and I was dead calm and ice cold. Had the man not turned and fled at the moment he did, he would have been killed, no doubt about it, as my finger was already tightening on the trigger.

-- HannahMariaHolly (hannahholly@hotmail.com), August 02, 2001.

Alright, I'm not too proud - I accept.

It's not so much an "instinct to kill" like a cat plays with mice. We WILL kill, as in hunting - heck, even chimpanzees will get together a hunting band and go out and catch some monkeys. What we lack is a general inhibition against killing. Survival instincts only work with close relatives - those carrying our genes, or at least some of the same genes. Killing a stranger and getting all that good gear he's carrying is actually pro-survival at the lowest level (provided you can get away with it and don't get involved in a war or a vendetta). What society needs is to broaden our concept of "us - our group" to include strangers. As it happens, the way we've developed also reflects back into our close group, so there's less likely to be murder among our family and friends as well.

"Every society" - well, that's basically what I've been saying - you can't HAVE a stable society until you've got people controlling their instincts. The early days of societies, though, their prohibitions didn't extend to non-citizens - they'd broadened "our group", but not to the point of including everyone. In fact, I don't think we're there yet.

What I find incredible is that training which has been so successful for so long is now being discarded, or disregarded. The result is predictable, and we're getting it.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 02, 2001.

I have several more comments on some of the other postings.

Higher mammals, at least dogs in particular, have no problem with killing their own kind when it involves dominence for mating. If two dogs are strong and they both want to mate with the bitch, they will fight to the death. It is only when they are not evenly matched and one backs down that a killing is avoided. It is not due to the agressor not having the will or instinct to kill.

Second. I, too, am squeamish about killing an animal but would not hesitate to kill a person. But I think it has to do with the reason for killing. If an animal was trying to kill me, I could kill him without hesitation. But if it is just to kill him to eat him or to get him out of my garden, I have a problem with that (we are going to shoot some woodchucks this week but hubby is getting that assignment and I am not going to be around for the event.)

Third, I agree with Mitch about those that chose not to protect their fellow soldiers in war as my hubby was in the Army in Vietnam and it was the same way. I think the only ones that don't fire back are the ones that are so scared they freeze or their guns malfunctioned. I don't believe any more than one in ten thousand or even greater didn't shoot because they made a conscious decision that killing was wrong when the enemy was right in front of them trying to kill them. I think the instinct to survive is too great no matter how noble you may think you are.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 03, 2001.

in response to the "statistics" i read in Battle Leadership by Captain Adolf Schell where inexperienced units tended to shoot even when there were no targets. in particular he related that one night while bivouacing in a small belgian town, an eager young company commander put all of his men on duty. as the regiment tried to sleep, bursts of gunfire would periodically erupt from the numerous young sentries. in the morning, and several hundred rounds later, the results were one milk cow KIA. my point is that when in real fear the troops will fire recklessly rather than hold fire.

-- Pops (cindy556@devil-dog.com), August 03, 2001.

I havent had a chance to read everyones reply but what i would say is that i cant say for sure but if i had a gun preferably an AK47 and someone started to say that they would take my family away and the likes, if i didnt belong to a militia I would probably let them have the whole magazine because i think there are two kinds of human in this world and it comes down to survival, so have lost thre survival instinct and just sit down and die. others pull that trigger and pray to god one of the other guys bullet doesnt have there name tag on!

I suppose if you put me in a situation where my life was threatened i would let the bugger have it!, all 30 rounds. But i dont know about you but living in the UK we arent aloowed to own guns because of an over paternalistic govt, we can have single shot things but no fully automatic assault rifles and thats put it this way if your confronted with some guy whos going to kill you you dont want to bother taking aim and then reloading do you incase you miss or dont put the guy down first time, you want to hold the trigger down and watch him dance. And always aim for the imaginary "T" across the eyebrows and straight down the middle of the target if you hit them there with a round they arent going to get back up! if you use a single shot or semi automatic weapon remember what the elites forces do it, double tap, or if ya not sure just put the whole mag into them!

-- Craig (ruskie@absolutevodka.fsnet.co.uk), August 04, 2001.