Hi, Kids! Say hello to the Look-Alike Weapons Safety Act of 2013.

What does it do?

- Current commerce code says that imitation guns sold in the U.S. have to be either completely made of bright-colored material or have a bright orange plug in the muzzle. This Act changes the law to only allow imitation guns with their entire body brightly colored.

Um, Why?

Ostensibly the law is a reaction to the deaths of Tamir Rice and John Crawford. Both were holding realistic airsoft imitation guns when they were shot and killed by police in 2014. The idea being that easily removed or covered orange tips are no longer a viable safety measure in helping police identify a fake from a real gun.

Will it work?

Without getting into a pages-long lecture about the factors that play in a shoot/don't shoot scenario, the short answer is "pretty unlikely."

What are the side effects?

The airsoft sport will suffer, as realistic weapons are a big part of the sport's appeal. Certain reenactors (WWII in particular) will find their supply of weapons drying up overnight, as will the entertainment industry.

What if I just buy some of these bright orange ones and paint them black?

Depends on whose lawyar interperets the commerce code. On the one hand, if they're yours, then you're not buying, selling, or transporting over state lines, you might be good. On the other hand, they might be "entered into commerce." Nobody's so far been charged with the current law, so there's no real case studies to follow.

So, worst case scenario, it's a Federal Offense with no precedent. If you want to risk some prosecutor wanting to make an example of someone...

Wait, isn't there a waiver or something for the entertainment industry?

Technically, yes, but it's a one-at-a-time waiver from the Secretary of Commerce. From what I hear, similar waivers are available today for doing without the orange tips. I'm told the office processes only a handful of waivers a year.

So, get a waiver and make my John Woo tribute series! Let the Hollow-eyed hippies have their bullshit!

Not so fast, cupcake. YOU might be willing to do the paperwork for however many fake guns you want to own. How many manufacturers do you think are willing to? How many wholesalers? How many retailers? This law intentionally shrinks that market to custom fabricators willing to do the paperwork (and cheerfully pass the expense, time and effort on to you).

That Sucks! Who's responsible for this bullshit?

That would be Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Yes, I know we're all shocked that this comes from a California Democrat.

Fuck That! I'm moving to her district and voting her out!

Good initiative, but a little extreme. Besides, she's already retiring. And then you're stuck in California, which has an identical state law that went into effect in January.

Wait, you mean this bullshit can become law?

Maybe. California's law was signed by Gov. Brown back in September, and Ohio (where both Rice and Crawdord lived and died) has a similar bill going around at the state level.

Federally? Unlikely with the Republicans controlling both chambers, but unlikely doesn't mean impossible. I give it one chance in five, and that's being generous.

That's all for today, folks.

~J

The question of "how much training time does one need?" has been on the mind of late.

A couple weeks ago I was talking a friend through purchasing their first handgun, what training they were looking for, how much practice time they could/should take and so on.

And recently it's been a side topic of discussion with some colleagues over how much training time is considered good or adequate or even above average over in the stage/screen combat world.

And few outside the fight choreography world know this, but there's a particular boom-and-bust cycle usually centered around pilot season. It goes something like this:

1. Combat-heavy show is announced in the trades.
2. Every actor fitting the description of the combat-heavy roles chases what combat training they can get.
3. The show gets cast.
4. The bulk of actors training, not being cast, suddenly lose interest in combat training.

The short answer to my original question is the ever-dependable copout of "it depends."

That said, I did some math on real-world operator training time, specifically USMC grunts.

So the question becomes, on average, how much combat training time to people who fight for a living get?

Grab a pencil and a calculator, we're off!

Call it 8 hours training time a day starting from boot camp (8 hour days, my ass, but long hours plus hurry-up-and-wait time makes it close enough for government work.)

8hrs/day, 7days/week. Figure 3 weeks of actual combat training (as opposed to other business being taken care of). That covers grass week, range week, BWT and Semper Fu. That takes us to 168 hours by the end of boot.

Off to SOI (Grunt school). Now, our non-grunts go to a short version of grunt school. It's a month long, 7days/week. That adds another 224 hours. 392 in total by the end.

Now bear in mind, this is for our cooks, clerks, and mechanics. 392 hours to ensure that even if they do nothing but push paper the rest of their careers, they at least know what a raid, ambush, patrol, and guard post look like from both sides.

Refresher training? Figure about 2 weeks annually. Call it 80 hours/year.

Now back to our grunts.

 SOI for grunts is a 2-month course, minus weekends but similar hours.

That gives us 320 hours in SOI, 488 hours total.

That does NOT give me an advanced level of warfighter. That gives me a boot that can be called upon to shoot who they're supposed to 4 falls out of 5.

Let's be generous and say that on dropping to the fleet, what with this, that, and the other, our new Grunt gets about 2 month's worth of training before deploying. That covers ITX (which they used to call CAX, Mojave Viper, and other things) and about a month's worth of miscellaneous field ops, ranges and so on. Add another 320 hours.

Now we're at 808 hours. To get someone competent in at least 3 weapons systems and familiar in at least 4 more. (YMMV depending on specific MOS).

Now deploy them. 7 months. Full time. Is that always combat? Nope. But I'll use the 9-5 M-F option again to distinguish patrols, raids, and combat from working parties, standing post, and suchlike. Again, mileage may vary, but it's the yardstick we've been using so we'll get some good rough numbers from it.

Now we're at 808 hours of training and 1120 hours of experience. 1928 in total. To create what grunts call a "one-hump chump." Still might be a dirtbag of some variety. But on the whole, generally reliable and effective fighters with their own weapons systems. Some may have effective cross-training outside their MOS. A few might even be ready to lead teams soon.

A good skillset. And like all skill sets, perishable if not used.

Not only that, but keep in mind what these numbers don't cover...

- Workouts. Training burns some calories, PT builds more. So tack a good workout schedule on that.

- Study. There are a lot more bibliophilic grunts than you'd think. For every one that's reading Hustler, there's another that's reading Gates of Fire and On Combat, and a third reading both, along with some Clauswitz, Musashi, and Kipling.

-Any manner of super secret special ninjas black classified elite pick-your-own-hardcore-adjective training. I've been talking about standard Marine ground-pounders. Highly skilled, not-to-be-fucked-with ground pounders, but ground pounders all the same.

Something to keep in mind when judging exactly how well trained a weekend seminar makes you.

So, 2 big things happened recently.
One, I've just become an instructor for the SAFD's Theatrical Firearm Safety Program.
Big deal in my case 1) because it's a program I wholeheartedly support and needs more instructors, and 2) I was in the 2nd or 3rd class to take it as a student when it was first fully developed about 5 years back, so it's a nice milestone for me to step up.

The second big thing is that I'm going back to Pinewood. My first seminar over at Act Tactical was so much fun they asked me to come back for more in August.

The pic says the most of it. If you're in Atlanta next month and interested, take a gander at the page for it and see if it's up your alley.

I hadn't planned on blogging today. The day job's been rambunctious and I more or less just wanted to chill for a while. And one thing led to window shopping.
And then I found this.

It's long, so I'll give the short version.

Maxsell is one of the companies I go to for my prop firearms. It's a small business in Florida run by a older gent named Vico who sounds like he walked off the set of the Sopranos. They sell imported prop guns (usually from Italy and Turkey), blanks, and assorted other stuff. He's pretty much stayed out of the news, outside of being sued hard by Glock a while back.

And now his shipments of stock are being seized by U.S. Customs. It's hard to tell with no opposing statement and Vico's curmudgeonly belligerence, but it looks like there's at least a degree of bureaucratic shenaniganry going on in Miami. Paperwork, fines, fees, incompetence, belligerence, you know, government stuff.

It may be another copyright and trademark suit going on (The only firearm manufacturers I know of that license their frames for blank-fire versions are Colt and Walther. Maxsell sells neither.) It may also be related to good old Chapter 76.

I'm personally inclined to believe it's the latter, if nothing else because Front firing weapons are rapidly disappearing off of various commercial sites, while top and side venting ones are staying in place.

It's really too early for me to even see what's going on, let alone make a judgement call over what should be done. But I will point out a few things.

Despite what if-it-bleeds-it-leads excuses for journalism may make it seem, there's a huge world of law and regulation hovering in the background of anything having to do with a firearm in the U.S., real or simulated. It doesn't take public outcry to change the world of guns, it takes lawyers and money.

There are indie directors and performers around the country now who have no idea of the bigger picture, in which the manner in which they fire off blanks before audience or camera is too small to even be noticed. Hell, if the state of New York can pass sweeping firearms legislation while giving no creed to their own entertainment industry (New York! For fuck's sake, New York of all places!), it's entirely possible for a small potatoes prop gun business in Florida to be paperworked off the face of the earth with scarcely a byline to note its passing.

I get hired a good bit because film culture only talks to gun culture through those who can translate between them. I'm fortunate enough to have the skills and tools to do so, and tell awesome stories and keep my people safe at the same time.

I filmed Just Blanks using weapons bought from Maxsell.

You've sold me worthy tools in the past, Vico. Here's hoping you're around long enough to sell more.

~J.

Had a very successful workshop down at Act Tactical swinging sword & shield. All and sundry worked hard, fought hard, and learned a lot.
All pics courtesy of KMJ Photography.

I've known Matt Clanton (owner of Act Tactical) for a couple of years now. Being the first guest artist down there was a big honor.

Yep. You read that right.
I'm justifying teacupping.
Hell, I've done so once in a private class and once on a gig in the past month, I might as well keep at it.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, "teacupping" is a derogatory term used for a certain way of gripping a handgun that's currently out of favor.

In fact, nowadays I'd have to say in the top ten of "things to make your firearm advisor happy on set," "not teacupping" might rank just below "calling it a magazine, not a clip," and "not flagging me."

So, what is it? What makes it a bad thing? (if it even is a bad thing?) Why the bad rap?

History lesson time.

For the bulk of its existence, the pistol was a one-handed weapon. Once technology could scale down from the "handgonnes" of earlier times, the pistol became a favored backup weapon alongside the saber and cutlass, not to mention reins or rigging. Until WWI, U.S. Army holsters were designed to cross-draw, reflecting a right-handed officer's instinct to use the sword with the right hand and pistol with the left.  

Here and there, two-handed grips were used for whatever reason, but on an ad hoc basis. It's my personal belief that the first use of a two-handed grip was what we now call The Teacup.

This grip is almost invariably the first two-handed grip that an untrained shooter uses.

The reason is simple. With the pistol operable with one hand, the other is relegated to a support role. The most immediately needed support to a new shooter the vast majority of the time isn't against recoil, but against weight. Pistols are heavy, so the support hand naturally rests under the butt to take some of the weight off of the shooting hand.

Looking at it this way, teacupping is the untrained, but natural and instinctive response to having to hold a pistol two-handed.

It felt so natural the U.S. Army was recommending it in WWII.

(Teacupping ensues at 5:20)

So, if teacupping is a natural and instinctive response, what's the big deal?

Well, the major sin of teacupping these days is inefficiency at worst. When actually shooting, the support hand offers no support against the force of the shot (what with coming from the wrong direction and all), leaving the shooting arm to absorb the recoil.

There's a couple different ways to be more efficient. Jack Weaver took a teacup and turned it into a sort of piston grip by having the support hand pull back while the shooting hand pushed forward. This helped get the pistol back on target after the force of the shot lifted the muzzle up.

The most popular grip these days, however, seems to be a wraparound of one kind or another.

In this particular case, the support hand comes up on the side, fingers sliding into the grooves left on the grip by the fingers of the shooting hand. The shooting hand's thumb curls down and forward, paralleling the thumb of the support hand.

(Hint: if you ever hear gun enthusiasts yell "thumbs forward!" while watching an action scene, this is what they're talking about.)

What this grip ends up doing is keeping the grip balanced between both hands, giving the shooter the strength of both arms (and in some instances, the torso) to alleviate the effects of recoil.

That's pretty much it.

So, why teacup in a gunfighting scene if you know that?

Any number of reasons: an untrained character, a period piece (wraparound grips didn't become popular until the great pistol technique argument was kicked off by folks like Cooper, Weaver, and Chapman in the late 50's-early 60's), character fatigue or injury (where a steady shot is more important than recovery for follow-up shots), or any number of other reasons.

I can recognize the teacup isn't the best grip out there. But it's there for a reason. And knowing why and how lets me and my performers come to a more informed choice, and ultimately, a more nuanced story.

~J.

So, a friend of mine has been... less than impressed with certain elements of The Expendables 3 the more that gets released about it. Particularly, with Ms. Rousey's look for it. And what with me being an authority on boobplate and related matters, I suppose I should do a bit of analysis.

Here we have some of the principals. Nothing too unusual here, mostly molle gear, maybe some A.L.I.C.E. stuff for old-school cred. Vests that could be armored (Statham's has a crease on the left-hand side that looks like the way a vest stretches against a SAPI plate), could be just tac vests.
And then there's the newbies...

These guys get some sort of flight suit with what looks like paintball pads strapped onto the torsos (although they could be some sort of new body armor I haven't heard of. Though last I checked, the Expendables universe was fantasy, not scifi. They also have this weird snake-scale camo pattern I haven't seen before.
And then there's Rhonda Rousey's outfit...

... which for some inexplicable reason has no armor, shoulder cutouts, and a boob window.
Not exactly helping say anything more than "hey look, we've got a chick fighting with us!"
Still, it could be worse. Poor Antonio Banderas looks like he's doing an internship with team Zissou.

And Glen Powell drew the short straw of getting a hoodie instead of some sort of tactical top.
Oh, and he's the one who has to do the butt pose.

And to be perfectly fair to whoever did design Rousey's gear, they did better than this fan poster.

And after all, critiquing a blow-em-up action fest like the Expendables franchise for its costume choices is silly. I mean, it's not like anyone is going to be foolish enough to emulate a film series like this just because the costumes look cool or anyth....

Um... yeah... It's coming out in August, I'm seeing it!

~Jay

Been a busy time the last month and change.

The biggest for anyone reading this is the move of the site over to the current digs, which are much, much easier on my limited coding skills. Between a host and a wysiwyg editor that even a savage like me can understand, I got this place up and running in an afternoon, where the old site would have taken me weeks. As an unfortunate consequence, the old email (Jay at Jaythebarbarian dot com) no longer exists. It was mostly a redirect anyway, and there's a handy button at the top that will accomplish the same thing.

Went up to Cincinnati OH to T.A. at the Cease & Desist workshop. Fun was had all round, saw a lot of old friends and made some new ones. Actually went up a day early to go shooting with some friends. Ready Line outside Cincy is a brand new facility with a really nice setup.

Did some work on Public Enemy #1 (an action-comedy short) and a music video for a film school bud of mine, along with a day of military advisement for a production of Ruined.  

Gig-wise, its been a tad slow lately. But I haven't minded, as that means I've had the time to photograph and catalog my rental stock page. Local business has already picked up, and made the "Jay, do you have a ...?" questions answerable with a quick url.

And in the coming soon section, the Theatrical Firearms Handbook, penned by Kevin Inouye over at Fight Designer. Definitely looking forward to this one.

Spent the last several days in the shop, making about a dozen viking-style round shields. By the end I may well have enough to build a literal wall.

~J.

Oh yeah, my new business cards came in the other day, too.

Over in my last post, I gave an overview of killology and my current thoughts on both the science and the 2 seminal works on the subject. This time around, I’ll be using killology in the sense of breaking down a kill made by a theatrical or cinematic character.

For the purposes of this piece, a kill is considered what happens when one character actively takes the life of another. No leaving someone to die, no ordering someone killed (though these facets may get explored in a later piece), this is to explore someone who takes action themselves to end another’s life.

I’m going to try and avoid following any particular acting style here, regarding this less as a step-by-step process and more of a list of things worth keeping in mind. We’re also focusing on the act instead of the person to break away from both the idea that a “killer” is a certain type of person as opposed to someone who committed an action, as well as the rigid sheep/sheepdog/wolf categories of sheepdog theory.

A cinematic or theatrical kill consists of four parts: The decision, the circumstance, the action effects, and the aftermath effects.

THE DECISION

Based on decision, there are three kinds of kills: A rational kill, an instinctual kill, and anundecided kill.

In a rational kill, the killer actively and consciously considers the circumstances surrounding the kill before making the decision.  The killer might not consider all circumstances, and might or might not consider them very carefully, but the killer will make such considerations before the decision to kill is made.

A rational kill that is unlawful would be considered a premeditated murder.

Theatrical examples: Hamlet’s killing of Claudius, Clarence’s murder from Richard III

In an Instinctual kill, the decision happens as a direct result of a particular stimuli, with no conscious consideration leading up to the decision and subsequent action.  If considered unlawful, an Instinctual kill would be considered 2nd-degree murder or a “crime of passion.”

Keep in mind that a kill that happens quickly is not an Instinctual Kill by default. Say a commando enters a building with rules of engagement to kill any armed person not a member of their team, then an armed man jumps out of the closet and the commando shoots and kills him. Despite its speed, it is considered a rational kill, as there is significant conscious thought before the decision.

Theatrical examples: Romeo’s killing of Tybalt. (1)

In an Undecided kill, the decision is either not made at all or made to kill someone besides the intended victim. In other words, an accidental or negligent kill.

Theatrical examples: Hamlet’s killing of Laertes, Tybalt’s killing of Mercutio(2), any number of “taking a bullet for someone else” scenarios.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES

Circumstances will sound familiar to the dramaturgically inclined among us. It examines a lot of the same cultural, religious, and socioeconomic ground that happens in the analysis of any scripted world. But Circumstances here revolve around reactions to the kill.

Tangible rewards and punishments

These are the various consequences of a kill: the legal process including fines, jail terms, and likelihood of arrest and conviction, what government officials, religious authorities, and the character’s employer are likely to do, and the economic ramifications  (legal defense, loss of employment and the like) of all of the above are. This also includes rewards such as medals, bounties, and commendations.

Intangible rewards and punishments

Intangibles fall under unofficial, individual reactions. How would the character’s family, romantic interests, coworkers, and passersby react in response to the killing? Would the kill increase or decrease their social status? reputation? sexual attractiveness?

The character’s thoughts

The character’s own thoughts come into play with what they believe concerning the kill they consider. Bear in mind A) what the character would or would not admit to another, or even themselves, B) what they believe the result of the kill would be, regardless of what the more likely scenario actually is and C) what the character hasn’t considered in regards to their own opinion. After all, how many people sit down and seriously contemplate how they feel about killing someone?

These thoughts can and often do intertwine with other circumstances mentioned. Hamlet’s refusal to kill Claudius at prayer may be considered an intangible reward/punishment (what the predominant faith believes will become of Claudius’ soul should he die in a state of grace), but it also stems from Hamlet’s personal desire to see Claudius experience prolonged suffering as opposed to simply die at his hands.

general vs specific

When looking at all of the above, bear in mind the difference between a kill in general terms and the specific kill committed by the character. Relationship between killer and killed, social status of killer and killed, method used, and cause to take deadly action all influence the circumstances surrounding the kill.

THE ACTION EFFECTS

Action effects cover the physiological state of the character leading up to, during, and immediately after the kill. Current science does not know why certain effects happen to certain people and not to others. What is known is that the effects shown below do happen on a frequent basis.

((Side note: the Color Condition Code

I could write a whole piece just on the possible theatrical applications of the color code(and might). In a killogical sense, the code developed by Cooper and expanded on by Grossman tracks a state of readiness, with accompanying tracking of heart rate, blood pressure, and motor coordination.

Plot the character’s condition using the code through the entire sequence that features the kill. Keep in mind that the character does not have to follow a linear path from white to yellow to orange and so on. The character may or may not skip steps altogether, or enter the scene in a different condition than usual. Tracking the character’s condition through the act of the killing while exploring the action effects can give us a rough framework for the character’s physiological and psychological state during that time frame. ))

time dilation

Time dilation is when the character’s perception of time alters during a combat situation. Time may seem to speed up, slow down, or both.

Cinematically, we’re most commonly accustomed to time dilation in the form of slow motion. Diegetic time dilation is rarely shown explicitly, but it does happen (3).

Having experienced this one myself, my pet theory on time dilation is that the sensory input comes in too fast for the brain to process, resulting in the fighter’s perception of time slowing down. This is similar to a high-speed camera taking many more frames per second than normal, which becomes a slow-motion shot when played back. The fighter may well be moving extremely fast, but will experience it in slow motion until processing catches up to input.

sensory alteration

Going about in our day-to-day lives, our bodies tune out a lot of our sensory input to prevent our minds from being overloaded with the nuances of what is around us. This is aided by modern marketing’s constant fight over the attention of consumers, which attempt to drown each other out even as people actively or otherwise tune their messages out as well.

In a deadly encounter, the human body opens up the senses in an attempt to gain as much input as possible, whether from the viewpoint of a predator (what bit of information will let me catch lunch?) or prey (what bit of environmental knowledge will keep me from becoming lunch?). The trouble with this is that the little-used instincts of the body now have to decide and emphasize what it thinks is important.

The results can be selective hearing (not hearing gunfire while hearing the ratcheting sound of a gun’s action and the clinking of brass hitting the ground), selective vision (not seeing the face of an opponent, but seeing their weapon hand detailed enough to know the length of the fingernails and engravings on finger rings, visual distortions (especially tunnel vision), and imbalanced reaction to touch (ignoring serious wounds while reacting to simple cuts and bruises).

THE AFTERMATH EFFECTS

Aftermath effects follow anywhere from the first few moments to several months or more following a kill.

The important thing to keep in mind when exploring aftermath effects is looking at whether such effects are the result of the kill itself, or the result of surrounding circumstances (sustained wounds, excess adrenaline, an arrest or detainment, deaths of companions in the same scene, ect).

Memory

As a result of the altered senses described in combat effects, it isn’t unusual for someone experiencing a life-or-death fight to have gaps in their memory, especially if specific aspects are looked for. It would easily be possible for someone to not remember the face of someone who wounded them, but remember what their hands or weapon looked like. Sequence of events, number of shots fired, and any dialogue may be remembered differently or even forgotten by a character.

Interactions with others

The heightened sense of readiness and awareness of the killing character do not die with the one killed. Depending on the circumstances, the character may remain in a high color code condition (red, black, or gray) for several minutes following a kill.

Following the scene, the character’s interactions will likely be colored by the circumstances of the kill. How the character chooses to continue their life will govern their behavior to a large extent.

Keep in mind that there is a major difference between the character coming to terms with their kill and themselves, and the character coming to terms with the reactions of others to that kill. A character who is perfectly content with the kill they made within their own mind may still be reticent in discussing it among colleagues, friends, and family members. They may also face various social pressure to speak of the kill in certain ways as opposed to others.

Fatigue and sleep

Combat is a physically intense activity.  Prolonged fighting, especially in lethal scenarios, can easily lead to exhaustion.  Once a character’s body is convinced that the need to keep in a fighting state is over, heavy fatigue is extremely common, and sleep comes easily (which in some circumstances can be its own danger).

Sleep reactions in the days and months following a kill are most commonly depicted in two forms. The first is a “light sleeper” mentality, when the character maintains a certain state of readiness while sleeping, the better to react if another deadly encounter happens. The second are the adverse reactions of insomnia and nightmares.

Appetite and Libido

Evolutionary biology claims that human beings have four main drives: the need to fight, flee, feed, and fuck, respectively. While it’s not uncommon for a lack of appetite for food or sex to follow a deadly encounter (particularly ones that overwhelmingly disturb the character), it may be even more common for a character in the aftermath of a killing to crave both.

As far as food goes, the high-intensity nature of combat can easily be considered to drive up the metabolism as well as the appetite. This is especially true if the character purged themselves (from either end) before, during, or after the kill.

As far as sex is concerned, “combat as an aphrodisiac” may well join the pile of whole new articles I need to write. Some may consider it an evolutionary impulse: an instinct to breed before one dies. For other characters, it may be a need for intimacy following a traumatic event. And for others, it may be a need to burn off excess energy following their hyped-up state.

((A side note on PTSD: Once more, the subject for a whole ‘nother article. But as someone who has experienced combat but has never had PTSD, I have intentionally excluded its effects in this article. Aside from my own personal inexperience, I have been rather disturbed by the use of PTSD as a cheap source of drama in the past decade or so of cinema. After seeing comrades experience it and having been repeatedly tested for it, I can honestly say that medical science has only scratched the surface of what PTSD is and how it affects trauma survivors. With our understanding of what it exactly it is so premature, we do our survivors grave injustice by depicting it as a one-note way to raise dramatic stakes. They deserve better, and so do our audiences.))

Without going on for more pages than I care to think of, this is a rough guideline to consider when depicting a character’s kill. There are no real cut-and-dried solutions, only ideas from what has come before.

What we remember from characters is what we remember from people: the things that make them unique in how they go through the world: The way they talk, the way they walk, the way they kiss. The way one kills is as unique as the rest of their actions, and should be examined accordingly.

~Jay

Endnotes:

(1)Depending on interpretation, this can be argued, as Romeo does have time to speak, which implies time to think. But the short time frame of the scene combined with Romeo’s “either thou, or I, or both must go with him” convinces me that nothing in Romeo’s thoughts is actually considering the ramifications of killing Tybalt, making the kill itself an Instinctual one.

(2)Varies by interpretation. In this instance, I’m going to take Mercutio’s line “I was hurt under your arm” and roll with it as a killing blow intended for Romeo that catches Mercutio instead.

(3) Most notably in the recent movie Dredd, where the lead villain deals in a drug that alters the user’s perception of time.

Some of my colleagues have been asking me recently about Killology. By that I mean the relatively new branch of science formed by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (ret) and described in the books On Killing and On Combat (the latter co-authored with Loren W. Christensen). It’s been a couple of years since I’d studied either book in depth, so I went back to go over both for the purpose of this piece.

This is actually the first part in a two-part series. Here I’m going to give an overview of killology as described in the aforesaid books, as well as my own commentary on the science in general, some benefits and flaws, and things I found interesting, odd, or otherwise worth mentioning. Part II will be a look at using killology for theatrical or cinematic performance purposes.

Note that for the purposes of this piece, I’m looking purely at what’s written in On Killingand On Combat, not in any supplemental materials. If that makes this more of a book review than a look on the philosophy, so be it.

Killology’s basic ideas boil down to these:

- Killing is not necessarily murder. There are circumstances when taking a human life is the necessary and right thing to do.

- The vast majority of humanity has an inherent aversion to killing, however…

- … said aversion can be overcome with mental training and conditioning, and has been in various ways over the centuries.

Grossman’s works have been studied extensively by the military, law enforcement agencies, and others who study the act of, for lack of a better term, “good kills.” His study of what happens to a human being during the taking of another human life, in the physical, mental, and psychological sense, has been put to good use among those who have had to do so in recent years.

Grossman’s work (particularly On Killing) has included two major side digressions:

- The first explores the rise in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder since WWI and the various factors surrounding that.

- The second is a movement against depictions of violence in various forms of media. Although his deepest disdain is reserved for first-person-shooter video games, violent film and television does not escape his ire. As someone whose career involves designing violent scenes for various media, I’m neither going to pretend I don’t have a dog in that fight nor dwell on the subject. I will merely note that Grossman’s views on the matter are expressed rather bluntly in his texts and leave it at that.

The thing to keep in mind when reading either On Killing or On Combat is that killology is a brand spanking NEW branch of science. Before this, killing was studied either in the context of battlefield effectiveness or murder. In essence, Grossman’s work is to studying killing what Alfred Kinsey did for studying sex. That said, just as Kinsey had some serious gaps in his data and work that went unexplored, I think Grossman’s work is just the tip of the iceberg. The next 20-odd years are going to be interesting times for the field.

Out of the major talking points today, I think Universal Human Phobia is going to be the most changed in the future. While aspects of it may be current sociological phenomenon, too much of history is written in bloodshed for me to believe such a thing to be truly universal. Forgive me for using a Barbarism (hell, if anyone’s gonna, it may as well be me), but in the safety of civilization, we too easily forget humanity’s capacity for bloodlust, savagery, and brutality. And modern America has been civilized for quite a long time.

Of the books, On Killing is more raw in form, and it shows. It’s the culmination of years of research, and it reads like the introductory textbook it has become by default.

I’ll admit, on my initial readings in years past I was struck, as many fighters do, with a sense of “finally, someone who understands me!” With the passing of years and a critical eye, a good bit of that remains, but not enough to obscure the flaws.

What became a rather constant irritation to me is the constant cherry-picking of data to support the theory of what Grossman calls “universal human phobia.” (The inherent resistance towards killing one’s fellow humans found in the vast majority of the population)

Again, I’m giving the man full credit for building a new branch of science, and it’s difficult to get significant data on this sort of thing. That said, his historical theories rely very, very heavily on anecdotal evidence (particularly Marshall and Du Pique). A particular habit of his is to rattle off a list of plausible theories for a particular phenomenon, only to declare later that it MUST be what supports universal human phobia.

Case in point: the multiply-loaded rifles of Gettysburg. Grossman mentions an anecdote where 12K weapons recovered after the Battle of Gettysburg were found not only loaded, but loaded with multiple rounds. Grossman makes the case that most of these weapons were left by soldiers who (not wanting to kill anyone) did not fire, but loaded, aimed, mimed firing without actually doing so, and kept up with the rest of the rifle drill along with the rest of their unit. This left multiple loads in the weapon. Later on, he makes an extensive case for conditioning (in the Pavlovian sense) as being the key to overcoming human resistance to kill. In particular, the use of shooting drill among the mass-formation infantry common during the American Civil War.

So which is it?

I can buy tens of thousands of soldiers being able to shoot by peer pressure and intense multiple-count drill in training being used to overcome the universal human phobia he describes. But several thousand managing to not only break their institutional conditioning, but recondition themselves to go through the motions without following through? That I don’t buy.

I find it much more plausible that the proper response to a misfire was for the shooter to remain with the rest of their rank, going through the drill motions and firing in volley until the fire at will command was given. There’s a laundry list of unreliability problems with pre-integrated cartridge weapons out there that could play a part in how many loaded weapons were recovered from that battlefield, be it bad primers, clogged nipples, bad powder, hell, bad weather could have been a factor (heavy rains both preceded and followed the battle, though the first few days of the battle were mostly partly cloudy). But Grossman’s insistence continues to be that universal human phobia combined with human ingenuity met to allow thousands to “get away with” not shooting anyone.

Another aspect of this shows during his crusade against media violence. His claim is that violence in America is skyrocketing, and the murder rate is being held down artificially by advances in medical technology. He therefore uses the aggravated assault rate as an indicator for the increasingly violent actions among the U.S. Population, noting a fivefold increase between 1960 and 1993. (FBI’s Unified Crime report, Aggravated Assaults per 100K people. 86.1 in 1960 vs. 441.9 in 1992). But that argument falls apart in more recent history, as the aggravated assault rate has dropped ever since then, being less than half of what it was in 1993 (252.3 in 2010). I’d venture to go even farther than that, arguing that fights which wouldn’t have resulted in charges (and therefore not counted) are currently doing so. Schoolyard scuffles alone are becoming arrest-worthy charges in ways that weren’t happening just 20 years ago, though I only have anecdotal evidence of that.

To its credit, On Killing does explore a lot of the less often examined aspects of a kill: distance, instinctual responses, group dynamics and an equivalent of the stages of grief psychological model to examine the aftereffects of a killing upon the killer’s psyche. I don’t discredit the book its breadth, but I will say many conclusions seem not only jumped to but tackled far enough for a first down.

On Combat is a more refined book than its earlier cousin, not quite as preachy as its predecessor and less concerned with exploring why people kill as examining the effects that it has on those who kill, whether they be conscious or reflexive, immediate or lingering.

Here is where the limits of killology as it stands now aren’t quite defined but alluded to. Each examination of a lethal force scenario (potential or fulfilled) examine the recorded direct and side effects without trying to draw them up into some breathtaking conclusion. The Cooper color codes are used more as a useful yardstick than an absolute set of limits. Physiological effects (purging, auditory exclusion, memory distortions, effects on the libido) are all listed and examined (occasionally with percentages of known incidents, for the statistically-minded).  Responses, treatments, and preventative measures against PTSD comprise a large portion of the latter half, under the mindset of caring for those who do violence on behalf of others (soldiers, cops, those defending themselves and/or others, and so on). Reading through the various scenarios, I found myself often thinking “yeah, that happened,” rather more often than not.

Where On Combat begins to really quirk my eyebrows is in two places: the constant harping on what Grossman has determined are the necessary elements needed to prevent and treat PTSD, and the (to me) overly simplistic nature of Sheepdog theory.

For those who haven’t heard of sheepdog theory, here’s a link.

Overall, I think there’s a sound idea in there somewhere. But it’s too cut and dried.

I laud his crusade in wanting society in general to treat its warriors better than they have in the last several decades. I particularly laud his mention of those warriors who have had to fight and kill, and then have returned with no psychological trauma, but still face the social stigmas associated with PTSD. After all, who would endure such things and NOT turn out damaged? What was wrong with them in the first place? The idea that nothing is wrong with them was a welcome breath of fresh air.

That said, our limited understanding of what PTSD actually is, let alone any sort of consensus on how treatment and prevention should happen just makes his constant drumbeating about what he believes has to be done more of an annoyance than a call to action in my ears.

As for the sheepdog theory, 2% of the population being the only ones capable of violence? I don’t buy it. It feeds into a heroes, villains and bystanders dynamic more useful to a comic book than reality. Oh, there is a paragraph that mentions this, but it’s buried in the middle of a chapter beating the reader over the head with the idea that sheepdogs are the modern versions of romantic-myth knights of old. While it’s useful as a fable, as far as science goes, Sheepdog theory looks like one of Grossman’s Kinsey moments: he’s on to something important here. What I can’t tell right now is how much or how accurate.

Killology on the whole does exactly what it claims to: looks at killing beyond both the cold judgement of murder and the glorious hails of war stories. There’s a lot more to be learned, and it’s going to take a long time.

It’s a nice start though.