A Critique of “On Killing” by Lt. Col. D. Grossman, USA (Ret.)

Introduction:

The late great, theologian/philosopher Cornelius Van Til observed that, “There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones.” Modern research on the psychology of learning supports him; our brains are not organic computers that add “this fact” to that “fact” to arrive at a logical conclusion but rather we process information within “paradigms” or “worldviews.” A worldview is built upon the presuppositions we accept, and the ones we reject. Furthermore, our worldview tends to make us see what we expect to see and believe what we already assume to be “believable.” In fact, worldview determines whether a particular “fact” is even regarded as a “fact!” For example, research has shown that we all tend to accept as “facts” that which supports our worldview, but misinterpret, under-value or even reject those “facts” that would over-turn them.

When a culture shares the same basic presuppositions, there can be (and often is) much meaningful discussion about the best way to extrapolate from those presuppositions; but when the culture has multiple presuppositions vying for acceptance, people tend to talk past each other. For example, is there such a thing as “man-made global warming?” For those on the “yeah” side, such a question itself is ridiculous; “Everyone” KNOWS that carbon dioxide is warming the planet!” For those on the “nay” side, the “Warmists” refuse to acknowledge that not all glaciers are shrinking (some are actually growing), polar bear numbers are not diminishing, but actually increasing, and that any actual warming is a part of a natural cycle of climate change. They then point out that global temperatures have actually lessened over the past decade (besides which, after the coldest winter in decades, why can’t those “Warmists” see that solar output is the real factor in any global temperature variance?). The “Warmists” insists that the “Deniers” are misinterpreting the data; that all these “facts” are simply aberrations, and that a temporary cool down is simply to be expected before the next great, global temperature spike! After all, we all KNOW that man has been destroying the environment!

There can be no meaningful discussion between the two camps because both begin with different presuppositions, interpret the “data” consistently with those basic assumptions, while placing high value on evidence that supports their position and rejecting any evidence that would undermine them. However, the consequences of both presuppositions are severe; if man-made global warming is happening, it will cause environmental devastation. To prevent it will require drastic changes to our economic, political and social systems; which in turn means that governments are demanding unprecedented power to deal with the “threat.” If on the other hand, man-made global warming is not happening, then the State accruing such power (and handicapping our industrial base) is likely to destroy the economic and political foundation of all industrialized societies.

Our God is the true God; therefore, by necessary implication, any paradigm that denies Him must end in futility, confusion or error; “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” Yet, the Proverbs also say, “Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.” At least one modern application would be to identify the underlying presuppositions of those outside the faith, and then, using their own arguments, demonstrate that their conclusions are contradictory, arbitrary and ultimately self-defeating. Remember, the unregenerate man “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rms 1:18ff) and creates intellectual, rational justifications for his rebellion against God. The first step in evangelism and apologetics is to “blow away the smoke screen” by which sinful men attempt to hide from the truth of God’s word. Only God can grant repentance to such a man (2 Tim 2:22ff); our job is to always be “ready to give a defense of the hope” that is within us (1 Peter 3:16).

In light of the above, let us examine how presuppositions color our evaluation of the world by looking at Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book, “On Killing;” a serious, academic examination of how to transform “peace-loving” civilians into soldiers willing to take human life. This is not a review of his entire book (which honestly, reads more like a Master’s thesis and deserves better treatment than we can give it here) but rather a critique of his underlying presuppositions and how those basic assumptions color his interpretation and extrapolation of various “facts.” Because his premises are wrong, his conclusions are invalid and must inevitably lead to dangerous infringements of our rights. A Biblical explanation will then be offered for why people kill and the morality behind it.

The Humanist Premise: People are NOT “Natural Born Killers”

First, some background; Lt. Col. Grossman is attempting to fuse his own military service, with his academic education in psychology and history to address very important issues. However, several problems quickly become apparent. First, he admits upfront that he was personally never under fire during his military career, which means he really knows nothing more about the subject than any other academic. Granted, he talked with many combat veterans, but he lacks the personal experience that would give him the necessary framework to evaluate his theory. While in many areas of study a lack of personal experience may not be necessary for an objective evaluation (and may actually hinder the assessment), here Grossman is dealing with what is happening inside the human psyche during warfare. There used to be a term for a combat veteran; someone who had “seen the elephant” meaning only a man who had actually experienced combat could really understand it. Grossman is thus in the position of a virgin talking about sex or a childless person giving parenting advice; it is not that he cannot have a valid opinion, but that any opinion is based only on a theoretical understanding. Real life experience can and most likely will change his perception and evaluation

Secondly his education in psychology leads him to interpret the data through the lens of such discredited “experts” as Freud and Kubler-Ross; one a brilliant charlatan, the other morphed into a practicing medium, talking to the “dead.” In what purports to be a serious, scientific study of the psychology of killing, he chooses presuppositions from two people with literally no scientific credibility. Science earns its right to be heard because it is based on certain methods of observation validated by statistical analysis. Freud and Ross were not scientists but philosophers; they interpreted what they observed without any empirical evidence to assess whether their observations were correct. A “scientist” without statistics is just another form of witch-doctor scampering around a fire. Is the shaman really invoking the supernatural, or is he is just uttering gibberish to scare the gullible?  Without statistical verification, nobody really knows – and Freud and Ross did not have that verification.

Colonel Grossman then begins his study with the assumption that man is simply another evolved animal; and since same-species killing is rare amongst most animals, therefore humans killing other humans must be an aberration. He insists that we have a basic, hard-wired biological inhibition against killing each other that must be overcome before the average person can take human life. He must then interpret all the “data” available in light of this basic humanist, evolutionary presupposition.

For example, one of his main lines of reasoning comes from studies of how many soldiers actually fired their weapons in historic engagements; i.e., studies have been done since WWII indicating that less than 25% of soldiers actually fired their weapons in combat. Furthermore, in the days of massed infantry units firing single shot, black-powder weapons (when the two sides faced each other in open terrain and traded volleys), far fewer people died in these encounters than one would expect, based upon the technology and the tactics of the time. His research shows that most of the bullets must have missed; otherwise, the sheer number fired would literally have decimated both sides within minutes. Instead, the combatants sometimes traded volleys for considerable amounts of time, with the casualties being dramatically less than what one would normally expect from such exchanges; unless, he concludes, both sides were intentionally missing.

And that is the crux of his argument; everything else is based on the presupposition that humans have a natural inhibition against killing members of their own species and that this inhibition must be overcome by a variety of training techniques. Successful armies in the past supposedly learned these techniques through hard won experience as generation, after generation went to war with their enemies; perhaps a type of “natural selection” process where armies that developed them did better than armies that did not. Modern armies can develop and improve these same techniques by using studies in psychology, conditioning and social pressure; but there are severe consequences of doing so. He then winds up by criticizing “action” movies and arcade video games as potentially training civilians to overcome this natural instinct, as well as opining that the private ownership of firearms makes killing more likely.

Problems in Interpretation of the Data

The first problem with Grossman’s thesis does not require a Ph.D. in psychology or history to appreciate; people have been killing each other from the very beginning of human history. In fact, rather than needing to be taught to kill, the opposite would seem to be true; children need to be civilized not to kill each other; as illustrated in “Lord of the Flies” (which is just as credible a source as Freud or Ross, not to mention, far more entertaining). Hobbes, trying to defend the divine right of kings, said that man’s life in his “natural estate” is nasty, brutish and short. This folk wisdom has been widely accepted by Western culture all the way back to antiquity; but with the advent of Humanism, modern humanist psychology accepts as a basic presupposition that Man is innately “good” but “corrupted” by early learning experiences (Freud), poor socialization (Rogers) or inadequate reward systems (Skinner).

In the same way, Grossman’s acceptance of humanist and evolutionary presuppositions cloud his argument; he presupposes that we are simply another type of animal, and since animals rarely intentionally kill their own species (unless being specifically bred for it like Pit Bulls), then therefore humans killing their own species must not be “natural.” However, is there any evidence of this anywhere in the last five thousand years of recorded human history? To the contrary, the evidence strongly supports that killing seems to be “natural” to every culture in competition with others for scare resources; cultures that are more pacifistic, tend to get conquered, enslaved, or exterminated (or in rare cases, marginalized into geographical areas where there is little to no competition for resources).

If one “answers a fool according to his folly,” one could argue from an evolutionary perspective that natural selection practically demands that humans willing to kill would tend to survive and pass on their genes while those unwilling to do so would tend to die out, and not pass on their genes. For example, in many species of cats, both large and small, a male will, if given the opportunity, often devour new born kittens; the loss of the kittens then puts the mother back into heat so that the male can breed with her and so pass on his genes. Hence, “natural selection” tends to encourage the adoption of those genes that make male cats eat the babies of their own species and eliminate the genes of those males that do not.

Thus, in the case of humans learning to kill each other, it could be argued that “hundreds of thousands” of years ago, one proto-human developed a random mutation that gave him the ability to kill other members of his own species rather than just drive them off in ritualistic displays as is common amongst certain species of apes. Would this “abnormality” not give his descendants an advantage over every other proto-human who let his competitors survive to possibly spread their genes some place else?

Now, the Christian worldview rejects this explanation for the origin of killing behavior; however it is mentioned to show how the presuppositions of evolutionary theory and modern humanist psychology are self-contradictory; that Man is both an evolved animal and at the same time “naturally” good until his social environment makes him into a “killer.” And the inevitable implication of Grossman’s presupposition is that we can eliminate violence and killing if we change the environment. Of course, that desirable condition can only be achieved if men are willing to be controlled, to be “conditioned” by some all powerful group with a benevolent agenda; Brave New World, here we come!

The second problem with Grossman’s main presupposition is that his conclusion does not match up with the data we do have for people who are not conditioned by the military but nevertheless learn to kill; who is most likely to become a violent thug in any Western society? Grossman makes a fundamental error in logic by correlating playing violent video games with those who commit violent crimes. However, “correlation does not imply causation;” simply because two pieces of data are associated does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. To know if there is a causative relationship, one would have to demonstrate that a significant percentage of all children who play violent video games, regardless of other factors, become killers. However, crime reports over the past fifty years demonstrate that the person most likely to become a violent criminal is someone from a broken home, with no strong, caring father figure. Granted, murders can happen in any social class; for example, an otherwise “normal” person can feel betrayed by their spouse and in a fit of rage, lash out and murder them. The murderer did not have to undergo any specific psychological techniques to enable them to kill another human being; their rage was sufficient motivation. So called “normal” people can kill others because of any number of perceived advantages they might receive. However, these murders, though more rare than television police dramas would have us believe, are of less concern to most people than the fear of the criminal class of predators.

America’s extraordinary murder rates are almost always concentrated in certain social classes; the ones where the father is usually absent from the home. It is not a racial issue, but a family one; for example when black and white crime rates are compared and the existence of intact two parent families is factored in, the rates are very similar. Therefore, it is no stretch to conclude that the high incidence of crime amongst certain minority groups in America is a result of the loss of the two-parent family; the higher the illegitimacy rate, the more likely that children will tend to commit crimes; including violent ones.

Thus, there is something about the intact family that is necessary to teach children how to be civilized, how to resolve their conflicts, develop their gifts and become responsible, contributing members of society; and consequently, not prey on others. If that social training is not done by the parents (and the evidence does not support that day care, public schools and churches are reasonable substitutes), then that “natural” inclination is not inhibited, and individuals (almost always males) are more likely to be involved in violent crime. Every culture, every social class will still have some murders (i.e., unlawful taking of another life) but with intact, two parent families, the overall incidence will be greatly lowered. Even from a humanist, evolutionary perspective this view ought to be self-evident; after all, the “traditional” human family supposedly evolved over tens of thousands of years! However, because of industrialization and urbanization, as well as the “new” morality that encourages recreational fornication and removes any social stigma from illegitimacy or divorce, families have been breaking apart for the past fifty years. We are now witnessing the enormous social damage that comes from a fractured family; a family system that “evolved” to socialize us so that we could live and cooperate together to create a civilization!

The third problem in Grossman’s analysis is his assertion that historical firing rates in battle supports his main thesis that humans do not “naturally” kill; and in fact will even, albeit “unconsciously,” conspire with the enemy NOT to kill each other. However, there are other, more plausible explanations for why either so few soldiers actually used their weapons in a battle, or missed otherwise “unmissable” targets (i.e., mass firing at enemy soldiers less than fifty paces away).

The simplest explanation is that there is a great deal of difference between firing muskets at a clay embankment (which Grossman reports one Prussian general doing to determine the accuracy of firing by volley) and shooting at an enemy when he is shooting back at you. Grossman’s lack of personal experience under fire may be leading him to underestimate just how terrifying combat actually is. Therefore he does not appreciate just how likely that even though a soldier might have gone through all the properly practiced motions, he may be simply unaware of where he was aiming when pulling the trigger (surviving journals demonstrate that many soldiers actually closed their eyes when firing their weapons). Guns are not magic; the projectile goes in the direction where the barrel is pointed. And if soldiers flinch at the recoil, or pull the trigger too briskly, then the barrel may be pointed someplace other than he intended.

In a like manner, when fired, black powder weapons give off a huge smoke cloud, a tremendous “bang” and have considerable recoil. Historical records demonstrate that the British army achieved remarkably high kill ratios compared to other armies of the time because they were one of the few nations wealthy enough to train their soldiers with live ammunition; hence the soldiers grew accustomed to the noise, smoke and recoil associated with firing a weapon. Surely, that had some effect on their accuracy under fire, especially compared with other armies that could not afford to practice with live ammunition?

Grossman gives another example from the battle of Gettysburg where the muskets of the dead were collected. An amazing number of these single shot, muzzle loaded rifles were found with multiple bullets loaded into the barrel; which shows that the soldier loaded his weapon, but failed to actually discharge it. Grossman concludes that the loaded, but unfired weapons support his case that the average soldier of the War Between the States had a natural inhibition against killing! The soldier might have gone through the complicated procedure of loading his weapon and pointing it in the general direction of the enemy (because otherwise, according to Grossman, he would risk the social displeasure of his peers and superiors) but refused to actually fire it because inside, he did not want to take another human life.

Yet, there is another plausible explanation of the same phenomenon; battles are terrifying and confusing. One of the first things lost in a highly stressful situation is fine muscle control. To fire those muzzle loading weapons, a percussion cap had to be fitted on a nipple. When the trigger was pulled, the hammer came down on the cap which then ignited the powder in the barrel, firing the weapon. However, that percussion cap is small and “fiddly;” I have tried to fit them while at the relative stress-free local shooting range; and in an embarrassingly number of times, fumbled the cap and dropped it. So, is it really any wonder that during all the noise, confusion and danger of a 19^th century battlefield, a lot of soldiers would go through the gross mechanical process of loading their single shot weapons, and then fumble, drop or even forget to put the percussion cap on the firing nipple? Yet, Grossman asserts that these men would willingly expose themselves to cannon and rifle fire in a battle line, even charging enemy positions, but would not actually fire their weapons because of some instinctual inhibition against killing. However, if their motivation was not to kill, why not fire their weapon over the heads of their enemies as Grossman insists their smooth bore musket predecessors did?

Or is it more likely that when men actually pulled the trigger on their loaded weapons, the percussion cap was either missing, or ineffective, (after all, manufacturing standards during that time were often suspect) or in the terror of the moment, forgot to actually pull the trigger? The soldiers themselves might never have known that anything was wrong? After all, battlefields during the black powder era were not only filled with smoke, the explosions of rifle and cannon fire, but also the scream of wounded horses and the cries of shattered comrades. Is it not unreasonable that a significant number of men, confused, frightened or just over stimulated by the general stress of combat, might make such a simple mistake? We know, from the letters and journals of the time, that this was a well recognized, even common phenomenon; that many soldiers knew that under the stress of combat, some of their peers (especially new troops) would load their weapons but fail to fire them, even though the soldiers themselves were often convinced they had done so! However, Grossman ignores or undervalues the interpretation of events made by the men who actually fought in those battles because it conflicts with his presupposition about what must have “really” been going on.

This stress factor also holds true for firing rates in the two world wars and Korea; only about 25% of men were observed to fire their weapons in any given battle. However, is the best explanation that the men were “naturally hesitant” to kill the enemy, especially when their own lives, or the lives of their comrades was in imminent danger? The vast majority of soldiers who actually served during those wars would vehemently deny this was their motivation. The real reason is more likely to be found in that to fire at the enemy, one had to expose one’s self to the enemy’s fire in return.

In earlier wars, soldiers on both sides were formed into dense formations and traded volleys with each other at fairly close distances. However, with the widespread adoption of rifling and new, more accurate bullets, combat ranges were greatly extended; literally, from fifty paces to hundreds of yards. At the beginning of the American War Between the States, both sides still used the older tactics of fighting in densely packed formations; until they discovered that the greater range and accuracy of the new firearms technology was causing unprecedented casualties. It was eventually recognized that soldiers behind some sort of cover were able to engage the enemy effectively, while exposing their own side to fewer casualties (e.g., which the Union learned at Fredericksburg and the Confederacy at Gettysburg). The problem though was that the process of loading the weapon was cumbersome and difficult when crouching behind cover. By the end of the war, modern industrial technology was already creating new, faster firing weapons such as machine guns and multiple shot rifles.

Thus, modern wars have a lot more bullets flying around the battlefield; and if a target can be seen, it can be killed. This technical change has had a direct effect on infantry tactics; soldiers in the modern era need to find cover behind some sort of bullet proof barrier, revetment or barricade to be protected from the massive number of enemy bullets fired at them. However, to effectively return fire at the enemy, the soldier has to rise above that protection, visually scan the area, locate the enemy’s position, aim their weapon, fire their weapon and then retreat back behind protection. Every time he attempts to fire at the enemy, the enemy not only has the opportunity to fire back at him personally, but the soldier is also at risk of the thousands of random rounds being fired in his general direction (not to mention all the shell fragments from mortars, grenades and artillery). Battlefields are so dangerous, that entire units have been known to throw themselves down at the first few shots fired at them by the enemy; and without effective leadership will stay there. Is it any wonder then, that so few soldiers are able to fire their weapons in any particular engagement? It may be not so much that soldiers were unwilling to kill the enemy, but that it was simply too dangerous, given the tactical situation they were facing. It is possible that (1) only a few men out of an entire unit were in a position to actually spot the enemy and return effective fire at any one time, and (2) only the most aggressive soldiers will risk injury or death to return fire.

Furthermore, Grossman does not seem to deal fairly with the reality that most casualties in modern warfare come from crew served weapons such as artillery. He thinks that men can operate such weapons effectively because of the team work involved, as well as the emotional distance from the enemy as another human being. However, again, there may be other, better explanations. With the advent of industrialization and better technology, the killing power on the battlefield no longer depends on the individual soldier firing his weapon as many times as possible, but in accurately directing the firepower of artillery and machine guns; (something like 80% of all causalities on the modern battlefield result from artillery and machine guns). The Germans in World War II (widely, recognized as having fielded the most effective infantry on either side) deliberately built their infantry tactics around their machine guns, which had many times the firepower as the rest of the entire squad put together (750-1000 rounds of machine gun fire per minute vs. a few individual soldiers firing bolt-action, limited internal magazine rifles; magazines that then had to be manually refilled before they could be fired again). All modern armies today have essentially copied the German approach with the riflemen there to find and fix the enemy, protect the machine gunner, spot targets and carry extra ammunition – until the officer calls in the artillery to finish off the job.

Therefore, is it not just as likely that most soldiers in modern wars before Vietnam knew that their individual shooting was not the critical factor in the battle; that exposing themselves would just get them killed, while some were simply scared? Furthermore, the American battle rifle of both world wars and Korea used the 30.06 round that demands proper rifle placement on the body because the “kick” is significant. Getting into the right shooting position to handle the recoil is not always possible on the average battlefield. If you cannot get into that position (and to do so requires exposing yourself to enemy machine guns and artillery), you cannot fire your weapon; let along fire it accurately.

Grossman then compares earlier wars in the twentieth century with Vietnam where the firing rate went up to something like 90%. He attributes this to better training methods developed by the Army; and therefore indirectly, how civilians if trained properly, can overcome this “natural resistance” and become effective “killers” on the battlefield. The practice of earlier generations had troops learning basic marksmanship by firing at bull’s eye targets at set ranges. During the lead-up and involvement in Vietnam, soldiers were trained to fire at “pop-up” human shaped targets at various distances that more closely simulates the sight picture of enemy soldiers on real battlefields. This more “realistic” training may well have facilitated better situational awareness and firing by soldiers, but for what it is worth, it is likely that Grossman does not give enough weight to the change in technology. American soldiers since Vietnam have been equipped with the M-16 rifle and its variants. It shoots a .223 (5.56mm) cartridge with significantly less noticeable recoil (and far less lethality – but that is another discussion for another time). Therefore, it is far easier to shoot the M-16 than its M-1 predecessor; in fact, combat footage from Vietnam shows many soldiers routinely firing their weapons, one handed, over their cover, without ever exposing themselves.

This might also explain why so many thousands upon thousands of rounds were fired, for every one that actually hit an enemy soldier; a ratio that has increased almost geometrically in every war as technology has improved. The average soldier during the single shot, muzzle loading era carried 40 rounds into battle; the average soldier today carries HUNDREDS of rounds; with the experienced soldier carrying four times the “recommended” combat load.  However, rather than improved firing rates being the result of a more effective “killer training program” it could be that weapons are just easier to fire; after all, LESS people are being killed by bullets compared with artillery and bombs than ever before. The main point of infantry weapons seems to be to spray enough rounds at the enemy to force him to keep his head down, until your artillery or machine guns can finish the job.

Anecdotal stories from the Vietnam era demonstrate that a large number of incoming soldiers were woefully ignorant of basic marksmanship skills. In some units, when asked to fire at a 55 gallon drum at fifty yards away, most new troops would fire their M-16s, from the hip, on full auto; and the bullets would literally go everywhere. One tactic developed by some units was to identify the “Gomer Pyle” of the group and take him away for a few minutes of private instruction where he would be shown how to zero his weapon, practice breath and trigger control, acquire a proper site picture, etc. Then, that one private was then allowed to shoot at a similar barrel; and of course, put more rounds on the target than the rest of the group combined!

Thus, the training methods Grossman evaluates as being essential in overcoming the natural resistance to killing does not prove his point, but actually undermines it. More soldiers firing their weapons in battle does not translate into more aggressive “killers” because more enemy soldiers are not in fact being killed by that firing. This principle of more firing not translating into more hits can be illustrated from police work; there are many “close encounter” videos available showing law enforcement officers in a shoot out with an armed, hostile suspect. Sometimes it was “one on one” with a police officer having to draw and fire his weapon at point blank range (i.e., standing outside the driver side door and shooting at the subject sitting in the driver’s seat!). Other times, several officers faced off against a hostile less than twenty feet away. In both situations, the officers usually drew and emptied their pistols within seconds, many of which were large capacity semi-automatics (18 rounds). Literally, scores of rounds were fired at point blank range yet only a fraction actually hit the hostile! Grossman would have us believe that somehow, the “natural” inhibition against killing was affecting these officers aim; in other words, they were deliberately (though probably “unconsciously”) missing the target – even though their own lives and the lives of their brother officers were in imminent danger. However, is it not more likely that even trained police officers, when faced with a life or death situation, were so stressed that they simply were not aiming as carefully as they should? They were faced with danger, they responded by emptying their weapons as quickly as possible, and as a result, they missed most of their shots?

Thus, missing the “enemy” has little, or anything to do with some natural instinct against killing, just poor marksmanship in general, and that the fine motor control necessary to fire any weapon accurately is the first thing to be lost in any high stress situation. And there are fewer situations with higher stress than a battlefield with all the noise, carnage, confusion and risk of imminent death or grievous injury.

Grossman has accumulated some important information, but his presuppositions are such that he cannot properly evaluate the data. The “problem” is not that the average person has a natural resistance to killing; Grossman does not seem to factor in that if such a hesitance could actually be proven to exist in American soldiers it is just as likely to be due to the remnants of our once Christian civilization; children from “normal” families are socialized not to be unnecessarily aggressive (outside of ritualistic sporting activities). “Good” people are expected to be kind, sympathetic, and help others, not kill them. Sure, after eighteen years of this kind of “conditioning,” it may take some “training” to change the civilian’s orientation. But Lt. Col. Grossman seems to think that a recruit singing, “I want to be an airborne ranger, I want to live a life of danger. I want to go to Vietnam; I want to kill some Viet Cong” somehow contributed to the transformation of “innocent teenagers” into mindless killing machines (my words, not his).

However, if he said that in the presence of any conscript soldier from the time of Vietnam they would snort beer out their noses! We might have sung many such aggressive songs in cadence marching in basic training; but nobody took them seriously! They were in-jokes that we had at the “Man’s” expense. It was widely accepted that nobody with an IQ above room temperature would be influenced by this kind of jingoism; after all, the term, “ate up lifer” referred to any one, who at any time actually took the military stuff seriously! The sub-culture amongst enlisted men was that the military was a job; often tedious, usually restrictive of individual freedom, and always pregnant with the possibility of violence (to ourselves or others). You did what you had to do so that you could fulfill your military requirement, collect your benefits and then move on with the rest of your life; but nobody “bought” into the “killer” stuff.

Granted, times have changed - today’s army is composed of volunteers; and those who volunteer for the combat arms are likely to have a different motivation than those who enlist to become mechanics, truck drivers, office personnel or supply troops. Since volunteers for the combat arms already have a predisposition to want to fight, the “motivational” material is not creating a “killer spirit” but rather reinforcing one that already exists. The military may give a recruit the skills he needs to kill on the battlefield; but the underlying motivation comes from somewhere else.

Finally, given Grossman’s presupposition that humans have an innate inhibition to killing each other, one would therefore logically expect that those who went against that “natural” orientation would suffer some sort of traumatic, life altering, deleterious, psychological effect. He spends an entire chapter dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That chapter itself demands a full essay to do it justice; however, books such as “Stolen Valor” demonstrate that the widespread belief in the horribly traumatized, dysfunctional and probably psychotic Vietnam combat veteran is a myth. Most vets claiming to suffer from PTSD never served in combat units, and were never under fire, let alone personally responsible for taking an enemy life. There may well be a biological justification for a percentage of combat veterans having some problems in that stress depletes the neurotransmitters necessary for “normal” thinking and feeling. No matter what the cause, the lack of proper neurotransmitters can cause depression, suicidal thoughts and general dysfunction. Normally speaking, over time, the body will recover and the individual will return to thinking and feeling normally. However, Grossman’s presupposition is that such symptoms result from taking another human life, not the stress associated with being under the horrendous pressure of the battlefield. After all, if so many doctors are diagnosing so many soldiers as having PTSD, then surely it must be a serious problem?

This brings to mind a psychological experiment covered in many introductory courses in counseling. A number of psychology undergraduate students were instructed to go to various mental health facilities and report one symptom; hearing a bell ring. Other than that one symptom, they were to act completely normal (or as normal as psychology undergraduates can act) and take notes about what it was like to be a patient. All the students were admitted for evaluation and immediately diagnosed as schizophrenic! Furthermore, when orderlies and psychiatrists asked them about why there were taking notes, the students replied truthfully that they were simply fulfilling a requirement for a class on what it was like to be a patient. The therapists then added “Delusional” to the diagnosis.

In other words, the psychiatrists expected to see schizophrenic people admitted to a mental health facility, and therefore interpreted every action of the “patient” in light of that assumption; they saw what they expected to see. In a significant number of cases, no amount of evidence could convince the psychiatrist that the students were not schizophrenic; and some had to be rescued by the university!

How does this relate to PTSD? Most modern, humanist psychologists assume, like Grossman, that people do not “naturally” kill other people. Therefore, any one who has done so must be mentally imbalanced, needing some kind of “treatment.” Every symptom therefore becomes self-validating evidence for the basic premise, and any conflicting evidence is discarded or ignored.

Studies demonstrate that the vast majority of combat veterans lead perfectly normal, stable lives after leaving military service. Their crime rate is actually less than the general population that did not serve in the military. Now in a large population, there are always some people at both ends of the spectrum; and therefore, when hundreds of thousands of soldiers serve during a war, simple statistics says that some of them will tend towards dysfunctional behavior in some way. If one assumes that PTSD is the cause, then every time a veteran comes to a VA hospital asking for some sort of help, his symptoms will be interpreted in light of that presupposition.

Furthermore, studies in the psychology of learning demonstrate that if there is a “culture” where the individual is told something, repeatedly, by different sources, many of them authority figures, the tendency will be to accept and internalize those statements, regardless of the accuracy. An example of this is the many poor souls convinced by sincere, but misguided therapists that they were victims of childhood sexual assault. False Memory Syndrome is the result of being told a lie, and then guided through a visualization process that creates a memory that seems absolutely real; even if the event never actually happened. The therapists assumed, before hand, that sexual assaults on children must be happening more frequently than was being reported. Since clients had no memories of such assaults, they had to be in denial, suppressing the memories. Then, usually under hypnosis, the client was guided through a process that created a memory. The client ended up convinced they were the victims of sexual assault and in some cases, innocent people went to prison. However, the assaults never took place even though the memory seemed so real. The therapists however often deny any culpability; they were simply acting out of their own presuppositions and interpreting the client’s problems consistently with those presuppositions. And when the evidence could not be found, they literally created a false memory to prove their case. In the same way, if veterans are told that their divorce, depression or general ennui in life is a result of PTSD, they have they every incentive to agree with the assessment; especially when the possibility of benefits is thrown in.

Now, the above is not in any way intended to dismiss the very real psychological trauma that some veterans experience as a result of their military service; it is not the stress and its effects that is being denied, but rather the idea that the stress resulted from violating some natural, inhibition against killing. This may be why most combat veterans will only talk openly with other veterans; a good rule of thumb is that the more that a former soldier is willing to talk about the men he killed in combat, the less likely that he ever saw any combat at all.

The public perception is that a man must somehow be traumatized by having taken another person’s life; therefore actual combat veterans simply refuse to discuss their experience with outsiders. They are told they are supposed to feel bad; but the reality is that most of them are simply happy to have survived; and usually proud of what they have done. But the culture keeps telling them that they must be “messed up” inside; those who have not experienced combat cannot really understand it so veterans simply do not talk about it, except to other combat vets. If such men ever do go for some sort of counseling, even for an unrelated problem (i.e., trying to forestall a divorce, dealing with the depression that comes from a lost job or a failed career), then the counselor will often hone in on the veteran’s combat experience as being the “cause” of the present plight.

The reality is that as long as a killing was “lawful” as in self-defense, war or a police action, generally speaking, the “killer” is just fine, emotionally and psychologically, unless he is told by his peers, family, community and therapist that he has PTSD. Grossman acknowledges this, but suggest that the well adjusted veteran is in denial, uses rationalization or some other psychological technique to either distance himself from his actions or hide from the “pain” of having killed. It must be so, because his presuppositions demand it; but the reality is that the average combat veteran is just as “normal” as anyone else. He killed, because it was necessary and then, put it behind him and went on to live his life. Grossman’s paradigm about why people kill fails.

The Biblical Alternative:

So, from a Biblical perspective, why do men kill each other? The answer is found, like many other questions, in the book of Genesis. God created the heavens and earth; and out of that earth made both Man (Gen 2:7) and Beast (Gen 1:24). The difference between the two is that God made Man in His image and breathed His own Spirit into what had been the “dust of the earth.” Basic Christian theology is that the “image” of God in man is not a physical one (for God is Spirit and does not have a body) but rather refers to Man’s reason, creativity, and moral sense. Thus, though Man does share some things in common with the beasts (for both were created out of the “earth”) he is also distinct from them because of the image of God built within him.

In the original creation, there was no death. Death entered the world as a righteous response of a holy God to Man’s rebellion against His sovereign rule; because of sin, God pronounced a death sentence against Adam and all his descendants. Now, we need to take a step back for a moment and look at what was reported here in Genesis. The sin that brought God’s righteous curse was more than simple disobedience; Adam had attempted a revolutionary act - he wanted to become like God and “know” (or “determine”) good and evil on his own. Ever since, the totality of Man’s being has been affected by that original sin; body, mind and soul. Our bodies grow old, weak, sicken and die, our minds plan wicked things (e.g., Rms 3:10ff), and we are spiritually dead until God in a gracious act, brings us back to life (Eph 2:1ff). However, the basic, sinful orientation of every human being is a desire to be as God, to have one’s own way, to lust, covet, deceive, or take what is not ours; and we will even kill if necessary to have our own way. The Apostle Paul is clear; wicked men suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rms 1:18); professing to be wise, they become fools (Rms 1:22) and worship and serve any one, any thing, other than acknowledge the One True God as Lord or obey His holy will.

In the fourth chapter of Genesis the first human murder is recorded; brother killing brother. God had rejected Cain’s sacrifice but rather than repent and offer the proper sacrifice, Cain brooded (Gen 4:6-7) and blamed his brother Abel. Eventually, this led to him killing Abel, and being banished by God. Cain did not have to undergo a complicated training process to overcome some “natural” resistance to killing his brother; he just had to follow his feelings of bitterness, resentment and jealousy.

In effect, the murder of his brother stemmed from the exact same motivation that caused his sacrifice to be rejected. God performed the first sacrifice in Genesis 3:21 when He killed an animal in place of enforcing His death sentence against Adam and Eve– thus establishing the idea of substitution. He then “covered” their nakedness with its skin; the word “covered” in Hebrew is the same as “atoned.” Hence, God instituted the ritual of a blood sacrifice as a short term “covering” of Man’s sin until His Messiah would come into the world; the future fulfillment towards which animal sacrifices pointed. Cain however did not want to worship God as He required; he did not offer a blood sacrifice, but one of fruits and vegetables. In short, he would determine on his own authority the “right way” to worship God, even if it went against God’s own divine example. Adam wanted to determine good and evil for himself, and so brought sin and death into the world. Cain wanted to determine good and evil for himself in how to worship God; and so committed the first murder.

However, there is likely more to the story than just this; God declared that sin deserved death; He was not only Life-Giver, but Death-Dealer. Therefore, sinful Man also wants to determine who will live and who will die by whatever criteria seems good to him. Cain thus showed himself to be a theological rebel, and then a moral rebel willing to kill: an inevitable implication of his basic presuppositions. Abel died because Cain refused to acknowledge any higher authority than his own will. Cain would be like God and judge who would live and who would die.

Thus, the Biblical account demonstrates two opposite aspects of Man’s nature; on the one hand, it recognizes that having been created in God’s image, every single human being reflects, in some way, His communicable attributes – i.e., that such things as love, kindness, justice, fellowship, mercy, etc., are all good and worthy in and of themselves. On the other hand, because of the taint of original sin, every aspect of Man is twisted by an inner orientation to want to be God; to place his will over others, to dominate when possible, or unlawfully submit when it suits his purposes to do so. Most of human history is a record of a few strong men dominating their weaker brothers; usually in the form of some sort of tyrannical or despotic civil government. Only with the flowering of the Reformation was the “divine right of kings” overthrown, giving the average person more personal liberty than had existed in any previous civilization. And of course, with that liberty came the unprecedented economic and social progress that so many take for granted as a “right.”

Hence, the more consistent men are with working out Biblical presuppositions about the nature of God and Man (and applying them in practical, day to day living), the more that God is pleased to bless and prosper their labors (cf. Deut 28:1ff). When men instead, reject God’s principles, a culture quickly spirals into social, political and economic chaos (Deut 28:15ff) which then creates the perfect environment for tyranny to grow. For example, God established many different laws to protect the family; the basic institution of any stable, civilized society. Perhaps three of the most controversial provisions in the Old Testament law were that adultery, sodomy and being a drunken, violent offspring were capital crimes. Some modern Christians are so shocked by God considering these issues as worthy of death that they have to create an entire theology around dismissing the relevance of all Old Testament laws.

Now, here, we are not defending the application of these laws into modern cultures; however, we list them because they demonstrate God’s concern about protecting the integrity of the family. We now know that generally speaking, lawlessness in society begins with lawlessness in the home. Therefore, to maintain a safe, prosperous and free society, requires that the culture as a whole support, endorse, and encourage the Biblical family.

However, even most Christians today take their model of the family from the secular world around them. They send their children to public schools, they reject the traditional Biblical role of the woman, they denigrate the man as being the head of the family, they tolerate fornication and embrace “no-fault” divorce, etc. And as a direct consequence, the literal God-given bulwark against social disintegration has been systematically undermined, and in some communities, actually destroyed. The result is an ever increasing number of young men who have never been raised to be moral, socially responsible and civilized human beings.

Thus, the one aspect of our nature battles with the other; we know, inside, that we are supposed to be one way – but the taint of sin creates a situation where any person, in any culture, can learn to kill and will kill if given sufficient motivation and opportunity. If there is any “resistance” to killing, it likely comes from the remaining bits of the image of God that all men still possess, in one way or another, and the sociological effects of growing up in a culture that has been deeply influenced by two thousand years of Christianity. However, the more consistent men become with godless presuppositions, the more violent they will inevitably become. If that violence is not constrained by an inner moral compass, informed by a Biblical worldview, and encouraged by an outer culture where these values are reinforced, it must be restricted by an ever more tyrannical State. In times of stress and danger, people will look for someone who promises them security, even if they have to give up their liberty to achieve it.

Life began with God, was a gift of God and therefore always belongs to God. As a necessary implication, life can only be taken on His terms. He has delegated the right to take life to the State, as His chosen avenger of evil (cf. Rms 1:13fff) as well as to the individual in self-defense (Ex 22:2). He gave in His holy Law, specific case law examples of how both the individual and the State are to exercise that right. We are not allowed by God to determine “good and evil” on our own, apart from His inerrant, infallible Word. Therefore, the State must not engage in wars of conquest, or to advance a godless agenda; it is not allowed to execute an accused criminal unless convicted on the evidence of two witnesses – and only then if the “crime” is actually a crime according to God. The individual is permitted to defend himself from a physical attack but is not allowed to take personal vengeance against another (Ex 22:2).

Finally, we live in an imperfect world; we seldom know all that we would like to know before being forced to make a decision. Sometimes, innocent men are killed by the State; and sometimes nations are not guilty of the “crimes” used to justify going to war against them. The fact that mistakes have been made, are being made and will continue to be made does not undermine the basic Biblical presupposition that there are times when killing is lawful and morally appropriate.

Video games do not create killers; and neither does the private ownership of firearms. The State, as God’s avenger of evil has a moral duty to investigate crimes, apprehend suspected criminals, and try them: and when the evidence is sufficient, convict and execute those guilty of capital crimes. However, since the Tower of Babel, men have placed their faith in a “Messianic” State that promises, if allowed enough power and wealth, that it will not only protect them from the violence of other men, but also lead them to greatness. The Soviet Union was supposedly remarkably free of crime under the Commissars; but the price was social, political and economic slavery. Vlad the Impaler (popularly known as “Dracula”) boasted that he could leave a gold drinking cup at a village well and that no one would steal it; because if anyone did, he would then brutally murder the entire village!

The average American simply wants to live his life, work at his calling, and raise his family without worrying about being at risk from dangerous predators willing to kill him for the watch on his wrist, or the shoes on his feet. Biblical Christianity provides the social support structure to encourage people to live wisely, justly and safely together. However, without that foundation, some other force must step in to keep people safe; and that usually means a secret police force, large standing armies, oppressive taxation and conscription (e.g., 1 Sam 8:11ff). And those in power want to remain in power; usually at any cost. They may be “idealists” but in the end, they think they know what is good and evil; and they are willing to use the killing power God delegated to the State to enforce their determination of right and wrong.

The Biblical view is that anyone, at any time can become a killer, unless there are inner moral beliefs, supported by certain cultural values. When the State assumes that it can determine good and evil, then we end up with the present chaos of the American justice system where 90%+ of the jailed population will return to a life of crime once released; where people will go to prison for saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time to the wrong person; but murderers will be allowed to walk free after a short incarceration.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, this also will he reap” (Gal 6:7). The growing number of killers produced by modern society is not a result of watching too many “action” movies, playing “violent” video games, the availability of firearms or an unintended social consequence of military training; instead we have mocked God, we have rejected His Law, we have thought we knew better than He – and our culture is dying from its own ethical poison.

Since all men are imperfect, all human societies will be imperfect; no State can ever fully protect all its citizens from those who would prey on them. However, a wide acceptance of Biblical presuppositions, supported by strong, intact families, and the right of every man to be armed for self-defense provides the best compromise. During the days after the War of Independence, businessmen could travel from Boston to Charleston carrying large amounts of gold and never fear being attacked. Not only was Christian morality pervasive during that time, but every man was assumed to be armed as well. In that era, when violent criminals were caught and convicted, they were executed, inhibiting the growth of the criminal class as a whole (while eliminating the “College for Crime” otherwise known as our current penal system). But modern man thinks he is wiser and more gracious than God; so the criminals are allowed to flourish.

All modern States (and those like Grossman who implicitly believe in its promises) begin with the presupposition that they can create the perfect society, if given enough money and power. They pass laws because they assume that laws can make people better. Even though they never fulfill any of their promises, the citizens just keep electing them year after year because they do not have a Biblical worldview to give them a reasonable alternative. The only real way to establish a safe, stable and free society is through creating strong Christian families which requires personal conversion, personal responsibility and individual hard work. However, it is always easier to blame the Republicans, the Democrats, Corporations, the Educational establishment, the Entertainment industry or some other “villain” for society’s problems (just as Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the Serpent, and Cain blamed Abel).

But in the end, God will not be mocked. If we hate and forsake His holy law, families will self-destruct, businesses will become non-productive because of oppressive taxation, workers will be unable to find jobs, and ever more young men will turn to violent crime. The State must either allow itself to be destroyed by increasing social turmoil, or become tyrannical to suppress those crimes.

The Christian, however, must go back to first principles. Many of us have allowed our faith to be infected with various forms of Humanism, just as the Medieval Church accepted alien presuppositions from Greek philosophy. Far too many believers are simply unwilling to work out the implications of a truly consistent, Biblical worldview. Some are even excited when the culture self-destructs because they believe it is a sign of the Lord’s Return. However, just remember, the end of our world, does not necessarily mean it is the end of the world. Most of the Middle East was once composed of Christian nations; but heresy, corruption and syncretism undermined the Biblical worldview and they eventually fell to Islam. Many of the people conquered by Muhammad’s armies must have thought it was the end of the world; but it was simply the end of their world. Have we learned nothing from their loss?

If we begin with Humanist or evolutionary premises, then we must reach Humanist and evolutionary conclusions; when we suppress the truth, even though we profess to be wise, we will become fools. Only God, in Christ, can save men from their sins. Only His holy and inerrant Word can provide the moral basis for how to live life in a manner pleasing to Him, and receive His blessing; and we cannot have His blessings without submitting to His will!

So, if we want to inhibit and even prevent lawless killing, let us be willing to do the hard work necessary to take “every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Let us be consistent with our profession that “Jesus is Lord” and call all men, in every area of life to submit to King Jesus; especially the civil magistrate. Let us always speak the truth in love, never losing heart in doing good to all men, but especially to those in the household of God (Gal 6:9ff). Let us build strong, multigenerational families by learning how to love our wives as Christ loved the church, and respect and submit to our husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:21ff). Let us honor our parents, and learn how to be honorable parents by bringing our children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:1ff). And let us repent of trying to determine good and evil apart from God’s own revelation, as well as deal with all anger, bitterness and covetousness in a proper and godly manner. Let us build strong communities by learning how to let “love cover a multitude of transgressions” and thus show how rich and wonderful life can be by making our churches a refuge from the lawlessness and wickedness of the world.

For Further Reading:

Below are listed some the sources used in the previous essay:

How to Make War: James F. Dunnigan, Quill Publishing, NY, 1983 (deals with infantry tactics, weapons performance and combat training)

Stolen Valor; (deals with the experience of combat veterans, false claims of PTSD and other issues)

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II, James F. Dunnigen, Albert A. Nofi, Quill, NY, 1994 (deals with tactics, problems, motivations, etc. of WWII combat soldiers)

The Institutes of Biblical Law, R. J. Rushdoony, Ross House Books, (deals with the sociological and cultural implications of Biblical law and their importance to social stability, security and prosperity)

In Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til, (deals with a basic approach to Biblical apologetics)