Ok, if by distant he actually means "at a greater number of meters," then sure. But that doesn't jive with psychologically easier and impersonal thrown in there.
Well, I'd say its either redundant, or trivially true. Either way, it doesn't seem to me like anything controversial.
If you take "psychologically" off of "easier" then also sure. But that doesn't jive again.
I don't understand your counter argument at all. I'm surprised that "psychologically easier" is even being contested. Note: easi
er. Not "easy."
Easier. Based on my own experience using a shovel. vs. a gun, it seems trivially true. And that was just snakes and other varmints. I'd expect everything to be magnified if a person where the object of my attack.
The soldier analogy probably has some use, in so far as that actually ever happens(I think that's questionable on its own),
If it ever happens I'd be rather surprised. I thought that obvious. It's a hypothetical comparison to illustrate a point. Or, points, actually: Note that the more distant the target is, the more easily the act can become
figuratively distant, and so less personal and, it would follow, less psychologically stressing.
Soldiers aren't likely to only engage enemies in that matter. But they're going to be doing it more often than the mace wielders. I wanted you to consider the rate of possibly-less engaged killing via guns vs. probably-more engaged killing with a mace. If the rate is less with the guns, then you've got a weapon that's
less likely to be personal and
less psychologically stressful. Not "not stressful." Just "less."
I think the button-pressing-killer analogy also breaks down. ... pilot the killer RC airplanes from air-conditioned trailers stateside.... significant PTSD ... It's not that easy to kill humans on a monitor with a joystick it turns out.
Remember: "Easier," not "easy." If you demonstrated that those guys had more or the same rate or severity of PTSD compared to guys facing enemies face to face (or physically in a plane) then I think you
might really have something.
Also - and this is important - did they start coming down with PTSD before or
after they started killing via joystick? I'm pretty sure Akko was focusing on the "before" part: That happy time between the pulling of the trigger and what you've done really sinking in. You can do a whole lota' trigger pulling without being confronted with the consequences ... at least compared to something inherently face-to-face. And, face to face, the consequences are always going to be immediate. You'll
feel the blade go in. When it notches a bone and you have to tug it out - the resulting scream will be right in your face.
Of course the results of gunshots are often horrific. But you don't have to be all that lucky to have those results occurring quite a bit further away. Probably at least partially out of sight.
So, sure, some, after killing X # of people via some remote means, start to get PTSD over it. In a way that's good, in that it should help discourage people from doing it
too often. But that gap between action and regret can be much larger with guns compared to many other weapons. The action needed ... so small. And perhaps directed at someone you can't even see easily, let alone hear or smell. It's much easier for the shooter to be less engaged, viscerally.
I'm not sold on there being much practical difference in psychological ease-of-use between a gun and, for example, a knife. But, based on personal experience, reading, and simple psychology, I think there's definitely some difference in the degree of psychological ease, or the rate-of-increase of psychological trauma.