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.
@bongodeburrito, These type of scenarios are why part of why I want to train in Krav Maga or anything that would allow me to use nothing more than hands and feet to disable the attacker, and if I kill him.. well he was trying to kill me so that sounds like his bad to me. I do own a gun, it’s mostly to shoot for fun, but if I had to use it, I certainly would. (aka my life or one of the people I consider family’s life is in immediate danger)
@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.
“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”
Odds are I’ll shoot them with my hypothetical paintball gun and invalidate this scenario.
“And then lets imagine its someone on an adrenaline rush, or meth, or crack, or that’s got 50 pounds on you, or whatever.”
Adrenaline, meth, crack, makes no difference how you justify it. What about a 10 year old girl who cuts you with a razor because she felt like it? Whose more dangerous?
“I’m going to preserve my life, because my life doesnt involve the attempt to take people’s lives.”
Aren’t you trying to explain why you could intentionally take someone elses’ life? Maybe I’m taking this too literally, my point is manslaughter is stupid and clumsy and in 99% of cases happens because someone didn’t behave rationally.
@mimic, “Like I said, it’s not a matter of lethality that I am against, it’s the excuses behind using it that I find repulsive. If someone dies because you defended yourself, that’s regrettable. If you choose to kill someone because they threatened you, that’s retarded.”
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?
“Against a knife-wielding enemy, you’d use a paintball gun?”
“Well assuming its the 10 year old with a razor, that seems reasonable.”
Perhaps, what we disagree on though is you also consider two shots center mass reasonable if a 10 year old girl threatened you with a knife. Semantics aside, that’s just sloppy.
“It would probably cause most anyone to rethink their decision. But what if they kept coming?”
Then the average person is probably going to get hurt if they don’t run away.
I wouldn’t try to kill them, maybe just really hurt them. Stab them in the thigh and keep the knife in- if they take it out they are dead and if they don’t get immediate medical attention they are dead.
But if someone were hurting my child I would go in for the kill- no pussy footing around or taking chances with his life.
@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.
This is a great question. I have always wondered all my life if my reaction would be fight or flight and two summers ago I found out when my house was broken into. My girlfriend just froze but I jumped out of bed and chased the guy from my house in my boxers. I am so happy that I had a fight reaction. I now have two guns in my room and have taken classes and become practiced in them. I feel completely comfortable and confident in my use of firearms. So with that said if I was being attacked I would definitely kill the attacker. If some one else was being attacked I would do everything in my power to stop the attack with out hurting anyone or using violence and even then I would rather shoot the attacker in the knee and disable them and wait for cops to come than just straight up kill him. However in an adrenaline filled, scary situation I can’t say for certain what I would do.
“I have an innate desire to kill”
“I couldn’t rationalize hurting innocent people, I needed a motivation, a reason”
Like a porn addict who chastises himself for degrading the pixels of his laptop? It’s the closest analogy I could think of…I like your responses. They are mind boggling.
@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.