Would you kill someone in defense of yourself and/or someone else?
If you had a gun and someone charged you with a knife, would you kill them? Likewise, if they were attacking someone else, would you kill them in that scenario? Really basic examples, but in any case, would you do it? I would. I’d probably feel bad about it after the fact, but I know I’d pull the trigger without hesitation.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
How is this even a question? Anyone with the physical ability to pull the trigger and chooses to not do so is proof of Darwin’s theory. I would pull the trigger to protect myself or anyone else from serious injury, nonetheless probable death.
@bongodeburrito, if anyone tried to harm my mother, father, sister or closest friends – hell yes I would kill them. And of course in my own defense if I was well equipped. Stay the fuck away from me and those who I love if your looking to kill.
This isn’t even a difficult question. If your life or the life of an innocent person is being threatened you take action to stop it.
For anyone who has any type of gun training, especially military, you know that when lives are at stake, and your adrenaline is flowing, your fine motor functions are gone and you rely on instinct and whatever training you may have. So to anybody who thinks that they’re going to just be able to plant one in the attacker’s knee while they’re running at you, or maybe shoot at their feet and make em dance like in an old western movie, you’re fooling yourself. Or you can just spray and pray, but then you end up with a situation like at the Empire State Building, those were trained police officers and when that guy pulled his gun they unloaded and 8 bystanders got injured.
I agree with @mimic, somewhat, mistakes will be made in these situations, between panic and adrenaline, a weapon is a very dangerous thing. But if that person valued their life, they wouldn’t have made yours or an innocent persons feel threatened. Maybe everybody should be trained in proper weapon usage, whether they want a gun or not. It’s not bad training to have.
@Mime, what is the difference between self-defense and self-preservation? It sounds like you’re just playing an unimportant game of symantics. Also, what’s your fixation with a paintball gun?
Many people have this misconception that they are going to be able to react to acts of violence with superhuman reflexes and/or have time to grab a weapon of their own before harm can be done to them. In reality, if someone is attacking you with a knife, you aren’t going to already have a firearm pointed their way, in fact, you probably won’t even see it coming.
In a, I was young and spinning out of control so my mind went to thoughts like that as a pathetic attempt to try to seize some control, kinda way. I’ve grown out of it, but the thoughts still emerge.
In a, I want to align my actions to only positive consequence outcomes, kinda way.
There’s no guilt involved.
@lytning91, I would stand by my belief that if you physically threaten someone to the extent that I feel could include death, I will kill you. You have forfeited your life in favor of your victim. I’m not saying if someone is beating the shit out of someone I’m going to shoot. I’m going to hold them at gunpoint then. If they pull a deadly weapon like a knife or gun, I’m not giving them the opportunity to you is. Now, that being said, were I to see a conflict in public that I felt could escalate into a life-death scenario, I would attempt to defuse it by all reasonable means.
While Illinois has not adopted a modern castle law, it does have a statute on the books protecting citizens’ right to self-defense in the event of an attack within their home. The law does not require a duty to retreat but does require that victims “reasonably believe” that an attack that could cause serious physical harm is imminent. The law allows for the use of physical or deadly force only when the invader has forcefully entered the home or when the homeowner reasonably believes that a felony is about to be committed. Illinois provides immunity from civil liability for residents using physical or deadly force under such circumstances.
That’s a reasonable law for the home. I didnt check the rest to see if it mentioned public areas.
“So in the scenario I presented, someone attempting to attack you with a knife, which is an immediate threat to your life, it would be retarded to kill them? I dont understand where you’re coming from. What would you consider defending yourself?”
Yes, it would be retarded to kill them, given the option. People have different priorities though, so don’t think the word retarded means anything beyond inconvenient.
I wouldn’t trouble yourself with understanding my perspective, it’s pointless. I’m not saying you’re wrong to kill someone.
it seems to me that most people would be willing to kill in order to defend themselves or others. That is fine and that is what I expected. Dwelling on a simple question like this seems beneath us as a community. Maybe we could talk about ways to avoid a situation in which someone dies? Realistic ways
“@Mime, what is the difference between self-defense and self-preservation? It sounds like you’re just playing an unimportant game of symantics.”
Self defense; I’ll kill someone trying to kill me.
Self preservation; I’ll eat someone because I’m hungry.
I don’t need to be convinced of the practicality of lethal force, it’s obvious and understandable. That doesn’t make it any less negligent.
“Also, what’s your fixation with a paintball gun? ”
It seemed an appropriate defense against someone wielding a marker pen.
“Many people have this misconception that they are going to be able to react to acts of violence with superhuman reflexes and/or have time to grab a weapon of their own before harm can be done to them. In reality, if someone is attacking you with a knife, you aren’t going to already have a firearm pointed their way, in fact, you probably won’t even see it coming.”
Now who’s arguing semantics?
There’s two types of confrontation.
One is sporadic, that is – an assailant who doesn’t want to suffer consequence and will probably run away from a gun, his motivation does not outweigh personal safety.
The other is methodic, or – an assailant who will continue regardless of consequence, and often, regardless of how many bullets you put in him.
One should also be aware that if you have a gun that you’ll use without hesitation, the other may also have a gun, and be better at using it.
It’s rather sickening how many of you would blindly kill another person out of fear.
Manslaughter is clumsy and stupid.
@bongodeburrito, That wouldn’t be much of concern for me. Having been trained how to properly use a gun, I have NO doubt in my mind my shot would be a crippling one, giving me enough time to do whatever I need to do to stop said target.
Of course, there are always elements that can and will make the situation more complex than it ultimately should be. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
I would take on whole gang of assailants using nothing but spaghetti to render them unconscious, while at the same time making sure nobody is harmed in anyway. Totally.
This discussion is silly. Of course almost everyone would rather kill an attacker than be killed. This type of romanticized situation is better left to the movies. So are all of your ideas of what you would do in th the scenario.
I imagine that most of you that say you would kill an armed attacker would actually run away, if somehow this ridiculous scenario were to be played out.
What kind of person in the 21st century tries to kill someone with a knife? Either a drunk, a drugged out maniac, or a lunatic. Probably one that has a history of success in violent altercations.
Death sounds like a very serious possibility if you try to attack this hypothetical bad guy. Depending on your surroundings, size, experience, and caliber of your gun, you may have a chance to kill them before you are killed. You still most likely will be injured. A good percentage would either run away or be killed though.
And how many of you carry a fun with you anyway?
@bobbylloydxd, I told her that, and she’s planning on it. But she was really concerned at the time, and its not the first time he’s done something like that. I’d much rather her move than someone winding up hurt.
@mimic, So you’re saying you would shoot them if they were coming at you? And I never said I wouldnt be fearful. I said I wouldnt be shooting him out of fear, I’d be shooting because there is a legitimate threat to my life. I wouldnt be shooting because someone was making me uncomfortable, but because they were clearly a threat.
@smalls, That’s where I was coming from. If I had the ability to disable them without killing them, I’d be more than happy to, but it doesnt work like that.
@bobbylloydxd, I was wondering what people thought about killing in self defense. I dont like violence, but I have no issue resorting to it when the need arises. As far as avoiding the scenario, I believe in heavy doors and locks and alarm systems, along with carrying nonlethal protection. In fact, if it were a requirement that to carry a weapon on you in public, you also had to carry a taser or mace, I would back that up 100%. I’ve been trained to respond to the scenario based on the threat level, and if you can neutralize an enemy in a nonlethal manner, I consider it a win, as opposed to killing them.
This world is infested with too many people. Given the assurance of escape from the folly of our society’s blind morality, any true, strong Man OUGHT to shoot. The human race has gotten out of control; it must be, honestly, restored to a suitable size. The most logical way to contribute is thus to take out the weakest-minded, most imperfect forms of humanity – starting with the given of one coming right at you, made to choose between logic or emotion.
“”Fear insinuates confusion and loss of reasoning.”
So what you’re saying is in a situation where someone threatens you with a knife, you consider it logical to kill them.
It seems very poorly thought out, with absolutely no precautions taken for motive, circumstance, identity, future repercussions etc.
Not to mention that if you can’t disable someone with a knife when you have a gun, that you must be relatively incompetent to begin with.
Hypothetically speaking, as always.