Killing the Hypothetical

[Cinjin]

Afterthoughts on remarks made prior:


We live in a society where killing people is not something that most of us see ... ever.

That wasn't always so.  There was a time when violent death was very commonplace, even for us American/European types.  
Most of us revile any real violence because we have been raised so, but put a gun in someones hand and threaten the people he loves and hatred of guns suddenly goes out the window.  Even if it's temporary.  

...well, not for everyone.  Thus the poll.  My wife just read this and I was shocked to find that even she said she didn't know if she could pull the trigger if her own life was threatened.  

WHAT?!?!  

[Napoléon]

The point is that Cinjin wanted to know something.

By his own admission that's evidently not the case, exactly as I suspected upon reading the OP. 

Sorry if that makes me a dick, but I would rather if people had a point to make, to just make it, as opposed to saying "you've made my point for me", when they're just being coy and making a thread under the guise of "just asking a question". 

[Alex K]

One has to add that shooting is not automatically shoot to kill. There's a good chance youll stop the offender, who will nevertheless survive.

[Koolman]

It's not like it would be an easy thing to do, but of course as already mentioned, it would have to be under certain circumstances.
Given the right set of circumstances, I think anyone is capable of anything.
There are good people and then there are bad people, my subjective labelling, and I won't bore you with the details.
The fewer bad people, the better.

Anyone who sits there and says they would never do it, really doesn't know themselves very well. We're animals, and the "gods" we construct disappear when they're most needed. You're on your own mate, always have been always will be.

[Pyrrho]

One has to add that shooting is not automatically shoot to kill. There's a good chance youll stop the offender, who will nevertheless survive.

You seem like someone not trained in gun use.  Of course, you are right, that the person may not die from being shot.  But you absolutely never should even point a gun at someone if you are not okay with the person dying.  If you shoot someone in a leg, for example, trying only to wound the person, you might sever the femoral artery (the main artery in the thigh) and they could bleed out pretty quickly.  So if you are not okay with killing someone, never shoot them or even point a gun at them.  This is one of the first things one should learn before handling a gun.

[Mudhammam]

If I HAD to kill someone, there's no other "cleaner" way that I can imagine having to do so than with a bullet to the head. Could I knife someone to death? Or use some sort of a blunt object? Idk. That sounds way worse... I'm not much of a fan of blood to begin with...

[Koolman]

If only life was black and white,
and well, it probably is, it's just the humans

[Cinjin]

The point is that Cinjin wanted to know something.

By his own admission that's evidently not the case, exactly as I suspected upon reading the OP. 

Sorry if that makes me a dick, but I would rather if people had a point to make, to just make it, as opposed to saying "you've made my point for me", when they're just being coy and making a thread under the guise of "just asking a question". 

You make it sound as if I'm about to spring some sorta trap on an unsuspecting victim.  

A person can't just be curious about the nature of both pro and anti-gun people?

There's no agenda here.  Like guns, don't like guns.  I don't care.  I was curious what sort of responses I'd get from both sides of the argument.
  Also, whether or not you made a good point for me doesn't mean that I had some ulterior motive in the thread.  It's just a question man.  

If you don't like the nature of the threads I start please do feel free to avoid them and place my name in the 'Ignore' file.

[Pyrrho]

...

I'd be very surprised if anyone would say no, and surprised further still if those who did would actually sit by and watch their loved ones be harmed in the scenario in the OP.
...

A devout Quaker or other pacifist would tell you that they would not (or, at least, should not) kill someone in such a scenario.

As for what people would actually do, the only way to be sure about that would be to put them in the situation in question.  People are often bad about predicting their conduct in stressful situations.


For the OP, I think I would be willing to kill someone to prevent the person from seriously harming someone else.  And I think I would be willing to use whatever means were at my disposal; a gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.

I am an American, and I have owned a gun, though I do not presently keep one.  Although I did not officially give it to a brother, I have effectively done so, as it is at his house,  in his possession.  I do not feel the need to have a gun, and so I do not have one.  I learned to use a gun, and fired several guns, before I learned how to drive.  Frankly, if I felt the need to have a gun where I presently live, I would move rather than get a gun.  But I know how to use one, and know how to select one that would be suitable for killing people; different ones for different situations.

[Whateverist]

Of course I could kill someone with a gun. That's why they're called "the great equalizer". Hell, even toddlers can kill with a hand gun, and do.

Could I do so on purpose. As has been stated by just about everyone, yes, for my defense or that of loved ones I'd do it.

More to the point, would I keep a gun for that purpose? Hell no.