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.
@bongodeburrito, It’s the survival factor. I’m pretty sure most would even if they said no.
I would kill to protect me or those I love, but I don’t know how I’d feel about it afterwards.
I don’t know about these specific scenarios, I am pretty handy in confrontations and a gun gives you a lot of leverage in negotiations, but I would kill a person in certain circumstances. If someone was on a killing spree, or about to engage in one, I would kill them without a second thought. I have ways of understanding cause and effect, a psychopath to me is not a person to hate because it is a matter of understanding the illness, but this is not to say a psychopath should not be stopped, they should be, innocent people should be protected from those who mean them harm.
@mercurial, I was talking to my friend a few hours ago. Her neighbor is making her really uncomfortable, namely he fixed her door, then cornered her and starting telling her how beautiful she is and she had to force him out of the way. She lives in an apartment alone. I told her to call the cops and ask for a patrol car to hang out in the parking lot. I also told her that if she has these problems when I’m in town I’ll sleep on her couch with a shotgun. I wanted to see how people here felt about self defense.
@mercurial, We’re friends with a mutual affection that doesnt work out due to distance, but that’s irrelevant. I’d do it for anyone if they had a threat they couldnt easily defend themselves from. And mace and tasers are expensive. I can get shotgun rounds for pennies on the dollar. And if you’ve forcefully entered a residence that is not your own, you have forfeited your right to live, in my book and the local law.
Yes. Pacificism doesn’t –for me– obviate self-defense.
|Mongo The DJ|
I know this isn’t very deep, but in the literal scenario I’d probably just shoot knifey in the crotch and call the cops.
@mongothedj, If you shoot to injure instead of kill you’re more likely to be held legally liable than if you just flat out kill them. And the crotch is a short distance from two things. 1) air, empty space, i.e. not the person, and 2) the gut, which is a nice slow painful way to die.
@bongodeburrito, Screw the law. Follow your instincts.
|General Tits Von Chodehoffen|
I’d drop the gun and headkick them into tomorrow.
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.
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.
This is a very simple, very general question. If I had the gun, and someone was coming at me with a knife, I’d shoot them in the knee and restrain the offender. If I had the knife, and was going after someone with a gun, I’d have to be a little more strategic than running DIRECTLY towards the attacker.
If I was caught up in something that involved me having to kill someone for the protection of my self and the safety of others, yes I’d do it without a second thought.
If someone came into my house and attacked my family, yes I would have no problem killing them.
What’s important is that you have an idea of self defense, and you do whatever you can to cripple and disarm the person attacking you before you opt to take their lives.
But if you want my god honest opinion, yes, I would.
If someone else is attacking me, they are taking away my power of choice whether or not to fight back by any means necessary….if I want to live, I have to respond with superior force than I’m being threatened with. Also, if someone else is attacking me, then they are voiding the natural social contract between me and them to treat them with mutual respect, they are willfully choosing to throw that away and I no longer owe them anything. Same with another person being victimized, it just isn’t right to stand there while someone else is being attacked. Having never shot a gun in my life, I don’t know how I’d handle the situation, but if I had, I don’t think I’d worry about aiming…..just about getting myself out of the situation intact. Nor would I feel bad afterwards….this is someone who is trying to make a victim of me. Not gonna happen without a fight.
@mimic, Fear and self defense are two separate issues. If I’m walking through town late at night and someone is following me in a hoodie with both hands in their pockets and makes every turn I do and I turn and shoot, that would constitute acting on fear. But I wouldnt shoot until a definitive threat on my life has been made. On the other hand, if someone breaks into a residence knowing full well that someone is there, they arent too worried about confrontation and I plan on shooting before they get the chance. Fear insinuates confusion and loss of reasoning.
@alexa, If you’re ever in that situation, dont shoot the knee. Its a small target, and an immobile threat is still a threat. Stop your target from doing whatever ill intended thing he/she was doing.
@theskafish, Exactly. If someone attempts to endanger me or someone else, they have lost all rights to me not killing them.
@bongodeburrito, the trouble is, let’s suppose this happens – someone attacks me (in either a public or private location), I fight back, they wind up dead or grievously injured, but they were still the instigator, the source of the problem. Nothing violent would have happened if they weren’t the ones to initiate it. I was acting in self-defense, but can I now be arrested instead?
In real life, a few years ago a couple friends and I were playing tennis in a park, and a bunch of drunk kids tried to jump us (I know, not as extreme as the original post but still a self-defense issue). I wanted to stand and fight them with a bat since they had no right to attack us, but my friends said that even if I fought in self-defense they would wind up winning the case even though they were the ones threatening us for no reason. I’ve been confused on this ever since.
@theskafish, In the US, it all depends on what state you’re in. Some say that as soon as they step onto your property you can shoot, others say if you’re threatened in a public place you can shoot, and others say you have to retreat and avoid the conflict at all costs until you can finally shoot, like locking yourself in your closet and waiting for them to try to break in.
In self defense I’d try to disable him first, to protect someone innocent I’d kill. Hate to say it.
If I thought that killing was the only option I was given, then I would have to. This would apply, say, if I knew that, were I unsuccessful in stopping the attacker, they would 100% murder me or the person I was trying to save.
There is a huge difference, however between this type of scenario and most scenarios.
Also, something else interesting to consider when you think through this concept all of the way: is there a burden on you, at any point, to be prepared for these types of situations.
Say, for instance, you chose to remain willfully ignorant of your environment despite knowing that it was laden with dangerous circumstances. Rather than prepare yourself with a self-defense class or some sort of teachings that allowed you to be more level headed under pressure, you instead deny yourself these valuable options.
With the aforementioned in effect, were you to see yourself or another as a victim, you’d be ill-prepared and might kill someone when, had you tried to prepare, you could have spared a life.
@bongodeburrito, Ugh……I live in Illinois, which I hear is really attacker-friendly….I hate our politicians so much.
@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.
@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.
“”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.
@mimic, Have one of your friends “assault” you with a felt marker without the cap and attempt to disarm them. If you wind up with two or more felt marks on your body/clothing, odds are you’re severely incapacitated. Let me know if you can manage it. And then lets imagine its someone on an adrenaline rush, or meth, or crack, or that’s got 50 pounds on you, or whatever. I’m going to preserve my life, because my life doesnt involve the attempt to take people’s lives.
@alexa, I’m trained by the military and I cant hit a moving target the size of a knee. I dont think Navy SEALs could do that. You shoot to stop. Not to injure. Shooting for an injury means you wind up injured.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.