@Noodleman: Your question is covered in either the book I mentioned or one of his other ones, On Combat. There was a study done in the military to determine exactly that.

You can read the Der Spiegel artcile through the supplied link in this story, but here is a modern day example perhaps of conscience and killing remotely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch....

The thing is, it is all relative. The motives of the Pakistani terrotist who wanted to avenge the deaths of U.S. drone attacks in Afghanistan by blowing up a New York City landmark, are the same motives of young Americans who volunteered to fight in Iraq after 9/11. At least the Pakistani man got the country right.

best. ticker. ever.

On my only successful hunt, age 20, I shot a rabbit at about 50 yards with an M1 carbine. He left a blood trail on the snow 20 feet long and 5 feet wide on each side of where he ran. He stopped and kicked it out, maybe within 5 seconds of my shot.
There was a lot of blood in that little rabbit. It was a solemn experience walking up to the body lying in the bloody snow.
I agree with Gen's sentiment and above commenters with respect to people facing the reality of eating meat. Killing my own food was an education in what "killing" really means and what a bullet does to living flesh.

There really is something I think people are missing on this topic. That is the joy at being alive, of being an active participant in nature, instead of a passive shopper and consumer. The pleasure that comes from butchering hogs with a group of family and friends. Where everyone has a job to do, the killing and gutting and cutting and packaging. Making sausage, cooking some right there and everyone testing the recipe as you work. Or processing a deer and cooking the loins straight out of the deer, then eating the animal with friends as you talk about the hunt. It's just being alive.

Now Bert, imagine that video is of U.S. territory "after the curfew" and UNDERSTAND that those trained FLIR-equipped Apaches manned by superb trigger-pullers WILL be engaging "freedom fighters" here - - - and, you've got the full picture.

Oh absolutely, they are going to bring that **** home and use it on us, it is just a matter of time before the government openly views us as the enemy. Congress is being exposed for the criminals they are over the last few years and the changes that need to happen cannot happen because government is bought. It is a vicious circle of corruption both Dems and Repubs alike and our leadership is VERY HAPPY with the current system and is not looking for change.

Privately, our leaders must view the American public as easily swayed dumb Muppets.

Every point Karl brings up whether it be banking or Health care runs up against the same roadblock of a bought government. If a politician wants to go against health care then instead of being able to collect a 100k in donations from health care, it turns into a donation to your opponent so in essence it becomes a 200k "mistake". You could explain this to a 5 year old with a couple pieces of candy and they would "get it".

As long as we are captured by our current corrupt system we are up against the wall. These matters are not even open up for discussion by the media, who fall under the same pressure from advertisers.

You pick the topic.. the majority of society pretty much gets it wrong.
Corruption, stupdity, greed, emotion over logic, brainwashed indoctrination..

Here is one example related to the taking of life. Animal research. More then half of Americans are agaisnt animal research.

I had an opportunity to hear a very good speaker explain how animal researchers are heroes. Anyway these researchers really care about the animals in the studies. One researcher left his half destroyed home and family to check on the lab animals - (there was a huricanne). He called them his babies - piglets. These researchers cry when they lose lab animals. I know pharma and the healthcare system are far from perfect but there have been many human lives saved and reduced suffering due to advances made from these studies. (Maybe the few good things Universities produce anymore) Anyway.. just wanted to point out another ****ed up view so many people have...

just another example of why we are swirling the bowl.

The book of the same title "On Killing" by Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman talks about this subject in great depth, specifically about humans killing humans, great book written almost 20 years ago and updated recently...

Amazon Book Description:
The good news is that most soldiers are loath to kill. But armies have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion. And contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army's conditioning techniques, and, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's thesis, is responsible for our rising rate of murder among the young. Upon its initial publication, ON KILLING was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence. Now, Grossman has updated this classic work to include information on 21st-century military conflicts, recent trends in crime, suicide bombings, school shootings, and more. The result is a work certain to be relevant and important for decades to come.

From Publishers Weekly
Drawing on interviews, published personal accounts and academic studies, Grossman investigates the psychology of killing in combat. Stressing that human beings have a powerful, innate resistance to the taking of life, he examines the techniques developed by the military to overcome that aversion. His provocative study focuses in particular on the Vietnam war, revealing how the American soldier was "enabled to kill to a far greater degree than any other soldier in history." Grossman argues that the breakdown of American society, combined with the pervasive violence in the media and interactive video games, is conditioning our children to kill in a manner siimilar to the army's conditioning of soldiers: "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it." Grossman, a professor of military science at Arkansas State University, has written a study of relevance to a society of escalating violence.

From Library Journal
Grossman (psychology, West Point) presents three important hypotheses: 1) That humans possess the reluctance to kill their own kind; 2) that this reluctance can be systematically broken down by use of standard conditioning techniques; and 3) that the reaction of "normal" (e.g., non-psychopathic) soliders to having killed in close combat can be best understood as a series of "stages" similar to the ubiquitous Kubler-Ross stages of reaction to life-threatening disease. While some of the evidence to support his theories have been previously presented by military historians (most notably, John Keegan), this systematic examination of the individual soldier's behavior, like all good scientific theory making, leads to a series of useful explanations for a variety of phenomena, such as the high rate of post traumatic stress disorders among Vietnam veterans, why the rate of aggravated assault continues to climb, and why civilian populations that have endured heavy bombing in warfare do not have high incidents of mental illness. This important book deserves a wide readership. Essential for all libraries serving military personnel or veterans, including most public libraries.

By the way, here is his take on preventing school violence:
http://www.killology.com/school_notes_pr....

as a woman, i don't like the idea of sport hunting much.

it creeps me out, and i only personally believe in guns for defensive purposes.

i would never want to watch the light leaving something's eyes.

So you don't eat meat of any kind, right? What about poor defenseless vegetables?

Ever see how chickens are raised commercially or been on a feed lot?

Floridasandy, that is funnier than ****. Before there was money, a woman's "catch" was the best hunter as he could provide. When people go hunting they eat the kill, nothing goes to waste. The only reason it is called "sport" is because people have other professions as their full time occupations and hunting is done in off time away from work. I would reckon to bet that kids that went hunting with dad on the weekend probably grow up having a better perspective on reality rather than watching TV, playing computer games or internet surfing on facebook.

Women still gravitate to the best hunters, only the game has changed as to what is necessary to provide for a woman's needs. If you spend a little time to think about it, it might dawn on you that whatever you are feeling is actually misplaced based on the history of humans. Something to think about next time you bite into that Big Mac or Chick-Fil-A. That **** died too in order to go down the pie hole.

We've grown soft - that will change or you will die. Merry Christmas.

That was a really great essay, Mr. Denninger. While I don't agree with you on everything you write about, this essay was damn good. You have a way with words that a lot of times gets me thinking...

Thank you.