By Sheldon Greaves

Behind the idea that everyone should be armed and dangerous is an unspoken, yet insidious assumption: the average person has the mental capacity to take the life of another human being. This neglected angle of the gun debate ignores the well-established fact that humans by nature don’t like to hurt other humans. The exceptions to this rule are what we call sociopaths. There is a very deep, powerful aversion to physically harming other humans, and when we go against this aversion, there are consequences. Although it is certainly possible to overcome this aversion through environment or training, learning to kill comes with a psychological cost.

Killers: Not Natural-Born

This has been understood for a long time. After World War II, S.L.A. Marshall conducted a famous study in which his team interviewed thousands of American combat veterans. The results, published in the study Men Against Fire, found that only 15 to 20% of American riflemen had actually pulled the trigger on their weapons. Among weapons served by gun crews–artillery or heavy machine guns, for instance–the rate of fire was much higher; social cohesion can overcome many inhibitions. But the trained individual rifleman, faced with the prospect of killing another human being, far more often discovered that they were a conscious objector and refused to pull the trigger. This was true even in cases where their lives were in jeopardy, and some even lost their lives because they refused to kill. An excellent summary of Marshall’s study, along with additional historical evidence that supports and illuminates his findings, is in Dave Grossman’s excellent book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.

The report sent shockwaves through the U.S. military, which altered training programs to improve the firing rate. By the time of the Vietnam War, the firing rate was over 90%, but the training itself became a significant contributor to what we now call PTSD, which manifested in veterans who hadn’t been anywhere near a combat zone.

My point here is two-fold: first, the “everyone needs a gun” gospel of the NRA ignores a salient reality about human nature. Second, in order for that policy to work, we would all have to become sociopaths. Given the screeching rhetoric from the NRA and its allies against every kind of boogyperson, real or imagined, and the demonization of anyone who might be, but almost certainly isn’t a threat, they seem to be intent on precisely that outcome.

A View From the Other Side

What happens when someone takes the life of another? Grossman reports in his many interviews with veterans, they would talk easily, or even joke about being shot at by the enemy. But emotions started to surge and strong men broke down in tears was when they recalled having to kill someone, especially when they could see their victims. The closer the range, the greater the trauma. In fact, just being in a situation where they were expected to kill took its toll, even if it never happened.

It’s well-known that a police officer will be given leave and access to counseling after a fatal confrontation. But we seldom hear about ordinary people who must deal with the moral and psychic trauma that comes with the act of taking a life. A new film, Behind the Bullet, attempts to discover this unexplored terrain:

Every year, almost 40,000 people are killed by guns in America. Each shooting devastates and forever changes the victim’s family and friends. The new feature documentary, Behind the Bullet, explores a side of gun violence that’s rarely talked about- the impact a shooting has on the shooter. The film answers the question, what does shooting and killing someone do to a person whose intentions are good. Each subject in the film tells the story of how the pull of a trigger, changed them emotionally, physically, psychologically, and spiritually.

I have written previously about how gun violence seems to be a result of a larger disintegration of our social fabric, but it didn’t occur to me at the time that the effects of gun violence could be fraying society from the standpoint of the shooters, even the ones who were justified. The stupid canard of the NRA, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six” is yet one more example of the false dichotomies that are almost a requirement of most NRA rhetoric. Taking a life has serious consequences. Even if the law absolves you, your conscience may not. And living with such a trauma is not a trivial matter.

Kudos to the producers of this film for adding this crucial piece to the national discussion on firearms in society.