You wouldn't kill to prevent something truly terrible from happening to you, but you'd kill out of revenge after it occurred?
Sounds odd when you put it like that....but yes. It's like, if I was being attacked, my priority would be to get myself out of danger. I wouldn't purposely try to kill my attacker, I'd just do whatever's needed to be safe. But if I really hated someone and wanted revenge, then my priorty would be hurting the other person, not self defense.
Depends on the circumstances. If someone killed someone dear to me by accident and I then killed them for revenge then I'd say that makes my killing worse than theirs. But if someone killed someone dear to me just for fun and I killed them for revenge then I'd say that makes my killing less bad. Not nessarily the right thing to do, but less bad. Not that I'm advocating revenge killings, mind. And I'm not saying that I'd do such a thing. Just arguing that there are relative degrees of badness, in my book.
When I was with the army, you didn't really have a choice. If a firefight occurs you have to kill. You either win the firefight or you're getting shipped home in a box. I know which I'd choose. The fact is if someone attacks you with a knife with intent to critically wound, then they are prepared to kill. They deserve no quarter and absolutely no mercy. They made their choice and I'd be damned if some scum was going to take away my chance to watch my child grow up. Too much at stake my end. It might sound horrid, but I'll quote Geoff Thompson on this one. ''Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6''
I don't think so. I think it's more your lifestyle choice dictates your possible outcome. The live by the sword type of thing. A history of violent behaviour brings with it certain risks. For some reason people get pretty ****ed when you take out a member of their family. That feeling trickles down the violence scale. Revenge is a strong motivator
If someone right now walked into this office with a knife and was in anyway a threat I would shoot him with the 9mm I have hidden in my vest. According to the sign on the building im not armed but why does anyone need to know the truth. I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who meant to do me the same but I know some couldn't do it. I doubt I would lose any sleep over it.
What leads you to this conclusion? Easy to write it down, different to do it. What sort of place are you in that requires you to be armed in an office?
you never have to kill anybody if you get enough control in a confrontation...example..if i disarm the attacker and get the gun or knife i dont need to shoot them dead i can shoot or stab them in a non fatal spot that will stop them..otherwise i could only accidently kill someone in some struggle for my life that i dont grasp enough control of and strike out blindly or to fast without a clear view. anyone who intentinally shoots or stabs an attacker to kill when they have the control in the confrontation is just a murderer as there doing something that could have been avoided.
I would probably try to kill him, but I wouldn't necessarily WANT to.. But I wouldn't want to die either, think about the pain your family would have to deal with. I'd rather have him die than me.
If the minimum amount of damage required to my attacker for me or mine to safely escape is death, I have absolutely no problem in killing. It isnt my favorite outcome or my perfered choice.
Don't bother lol. that wolf guy always seems to have a slight disconnect with reality judging from what I've seen of his earlier posts. I seriously doubt he has a gun on him at all but he seems desperate to prove himself to be the kind of character steven seagal plays in all his movies.
To be honest I go bac kto my previous statement. I think you should all reply "I don't know" until you've actually been in said situation and had to decide. Something like this never pans out the way you boast about on the internet.
My religious convictions lean me towards not killing. But my personal experiences have ingrained in me the belief that some people are best off dead. So as much as I'd like to take the moral high ground, I'm gonna have to be realistic and vote yes.
In the classic work "On Killing", LTC Grossman would agree with you. In WWII, they read a study where only a certain percentage of those under attack actually fired at the enemy, and of that a fair percentage were actually just firing in the direction of the enemy rather than the enemy itself. The new military now has a better conditioning program to improve the firing rate, but those who actually aim to kill is still a lot different from those who even shoot. I recommend the book to everyone.
Sounds like it is but is that the one about PTSD and how soldiers cope with shooting people? The bit about how the army's conditioning has changed since ww2 sounds familiar
