Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
smellslikemichigan wrote:
I found then lost an article on the development of human targets. It was very informative. I'll try to find it. The idea certainly has a psychological aspect. The gist of the article stated that in WW-I only about 10% of the soldiers fired their guns at another human, unless directly under the control of an officer. These solider used circle targets for training. It was thought that there is a subconscious and ancient part of our brain that tells us not to kill other people, that we as a species prefer to flight as opposed to fight or harm another person if at all possible. By WW-II the army started using human targets and the firing rates rose. By Korea they used human targets that fell when hit, again fired shoots increased. By Vietnam the rate was over 50%. The theory is that the soldiers were conditioning that part of the brain to over-ride that flight impulse. So firing at human targets have a real purpose in training for war or self-defense. Hench the use by LEOs. The study did say that the training just conditions us to fire when needed, that the training doesn'tturn you into a cold blooded killer.Hench the video game comparison.
The article gave an example of an LEO that practiced disarming a person with a hostage. Lots and Lots of practice. He would train by taking away the BG's gun (another officer playing the part) then after the disarm he handed back the training weapon to the BG (LEO)...over and over. You can see where this is going. One day in a real situation he disarms the real BG and out of habit handed the weapon back to him. The article didn't mention what happened then.
smellslikemichigan wrote:
Venator wrote:
that's true, they probably aren't going to shoot the people in the games in the real world. but then again, they are using a plastic controller and not a firearm with live rounds. i think my comparison between human profile and animal targets still holds water when you consider the mindset behind shooting at those style targets is preparation for shooting a human or animal. playing a video game is not practice or preparation for shooting anything.smellslikemichigan wrote:Fair enough, you realize that shooting paper targetsis not the same as shooting a real person, if it was many video games would be banned, where kids shoot at images of people with graphic detail. Are they likely to go and kill the people that are portrayed in the game? There is no solid evidence that this is the case.Venator wrote:
i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.smellslikemichigan wrote:Well we disagree again. It's along the line of flag burning. Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined. Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership. Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a targetis paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives andso does the living thing symbolized on the paper.PT111 wrote:then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
I found then lost an article on the development of human targets. It was very informative. I'll try to find it. The idea certainly has a psychological aspect. The gist of the article stated that in WW-I only about 10% of the soldiers fired their guns at another human, unless directly under the control of an officer. These solider used circle targets for training. It was thought that there is a subconscious and ancient part of our brain that tells us not to kill other people, that we as a species prefer to flight as opposed to fight or harm another person if at all possible. By WW-II the army started using human targets and the firing rates rose. By Korea they used human targets that fell when hit, again fired shoots increased. By Vietnam the rate was over 50%. The theory is that the soldiers were conditioning that part of the brain to over-ride that flight impulse. So firing at human targets have a real purpose in training for war or self-defense. Hench the use by LEOs. The study did say that the training just conditions us to fire when needed, that the training doesn'tturn you into a cold blooded killer.Hench the video game comparison.
The article gave an example of an LEO that practiced disarming a person with a hostage. Lots and Lots of practice. He would train by taking away the BG's gun (another officer playing the part) then after the disarm he handed back the training weapon to the BG (LEO)...over and over. You can see where this is going. One day in a real situation he disarms the real BG and out of habit handed the weapon back to him. The article didn't mention what happened then.