Another ethical hypothetical for the pacifists among us.

[Bake]

You couldn't pull the trigger on Hitler. OK. I can understand that ... you hope somebody else does it so you don't have to.

Here's the hypo: It's 1:00 A.M. A psycho breaks into your house. He's not there for a social call. You have a wife and young children, and you have a gun. Nobody else but you can defend your family. The cops, even if you call 911, are an eternity away. Do you kill him to defend your family?

As for me, if it's him or my family? It's going to be him.

Bake

[quinnox]

1. Hmm, and why must we kill them?

Couldn't we just hold them at gunpoint, or if we had to shoot, wound them in the legs or arms to incapacitate them? Sorry, but this scenario isn't working for me.

[Bake]

3. Let's assume the "hold them at gunpoint" isn't working.

He's a psycho, remember?

He's going to come at you, take the gun away from you, and kill you AND your family.

What do you do?

Bake

[quinnox]

5. then I would shoot to wound him

I would not aim to kill them.

[Bake]

13. That's Hollywood, and you're dead.

I had a Sunday School teacher, a cop (narc squad, actually) who I respect to the max. Even at church, he always had a .357 under his sport coat, because hey, he was a narc and you never know ...

Anyway, he told us (I was a 7th grade kid at the time) this: that "wing 'em" stuff is for the movies. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to shoot it. You don't shoot it unless you intend to kill. Aim for the biggest part of the body; otherwise you'll miss and die.

Bake

[ClassWarrior]

15. Then I'd come back from the dead and put a force field around him and telepathically call INTERPOL.

:rofl:

NGU.

[spin]

48. In real life you do not come back from the dead. ...

Mother nature does not play WoW.

[jmg257]

133. What would Jesus do? nt

[Starboard Tack]

104. Depends what you're shooting him with.

A 12 gauge shotgun is a very effective stopper if fired at the legs. If he keeps coming, aim higher and use the other barrel. At least you tried.

[GreenStormCloud]

114. You can bleed to death in minutes from the femoral artery.

There is no safe place to shoot someone that is also an effective stopper.

[Starboard Tack]

117. You are correct, shooting someone is always life threatening

Shooting them in the legs, not so much.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Right, because the femoral artery isn't located in the legs or anything.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn first aid before shooting someone?

[AtheistCrusader]

122. I carry an airway and a first aid kit when I carry.

But no, the odds are so stacked against you, that advocating shooting someone in the legs, is a sure sign of someone who doesn't know a damn thing about what he or she is talking about.

It's a difficult target. It's a potentially lethal target. (First aid cannot always deal with a bleed-out from an artery by the way, and if the person is still conscious, you better hope he or she allows you to work on the wound anyway) And even if you hit someone in the legs, it is not terribly likely it will stop them from closing the gap and grappling with you.

Police officers, even SWAT do not train in this manner for a reason. It's a childish, tinkertoy fantasy. No serious adults consider it.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Well, that's very considerate of you to carry a first aid kit.

But in an encounter within one's own house, I think an initial shotgun blast to the lower legs would be a stopper. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Why do you think a shotgun to the legs is a stopper?

If you're shooting buckshot, you're basically firing 6 or 9 rounds of 9mm ball, in a narrow cone. At distances inside a normal house, it won't even expand enough to help with your aim.

A shotgun isn't a death ray.

[Starboard Tack]

125. For your education and enjoyment

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/12.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

127. That's nice.

The only reference to 'legs' is accompanied by 'hoping'.

"The standard buckshot is worthless against armored targets except for taking out the legs and arms, hoping for enough wounds to cause incapacitation."

As for the less lethal rounds, even stupider to aim at limbs. It won't incapacitate. Also, you can't buy a lot of that stuff without law enforcement letterhead/purchase orders in entire states, and many municipalities across the country.

Try to read your own link sometime, eh?

[Starboard Tack]

128. You brought up buckshot. Don't pretend to be stupid.

There are all kinds of less than lethal ammo out there for all guns that is available in most states.
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/lessthanlethal-ammo-pistol-ammo

[AtheistCrusader]

129. And that less lethal ammo won't incapacitate if you shoot someone in a leg.

It MIGHT. Chances are, it'll just hurt a lot though. If buckshot is unrelable for this purpose, a rubber pellet isn't going to work either.

Nice link to snap caps by the way.

[Starboard Tack]

130. You can shoot center mass with less than lethal.

That's why it's less than lethal and should be the ammo of choice for toters. It would help get most of us off your backs.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. "A 12 gauge shotgun is a very effective stopper if fired at the legs. If he keeps coming, aim highe"

"r and use the other barrel. At least you tried."


This is stupid advice that gets people killed, gets people thrown in jail, and apparently assumes everyone has either an over-under, or a stagecoach shotgun. A two-shot max? Give me a break. This isn't the 1800's.

Warning shots, with lethal force, have been found by courts to constitute prima facie evidence that the victim who fired the shots was not in imminent danger. Not a stretch to think that a less lethal round, 'in the legs' or otherwise, wouldn't amount to the same thing.


Safety slugs? Sure. Nobody likes over-penetration. But less lethal ammo? Fucking stupid. We are not law enforcement. We are not charged with apprehending people. We have NO BUSINESS shooting someone with a firearm unless we are willing to KILL THEM, and such an act is totally justified.

You are encouraging stupid shit that, even if legal in a given state, will lead to stupid headlines you get to mock later. :thumbsup:

[Starboard Tack]

132. Wow! "Give me a break. This isn't the 1800's."

That is hilarious, coming from you. :rofl:
When do you think the slave owners wrote your precious second amendment?

[AtheistCrusader]

134. In the 1700's.

History not your strong suit? Way to ignore the rest of it.

[Starboard Tack]

135. In the 1700's exactly

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Well, I'm sure you think you have a point.

Doubt anyone but you knows what it is.

[HALO141]

156. O rly?

The page you linked shows only Pachmayr snap caps.

Do you even know what a snap cap is? (No googling before answering, now.)

If so, please explain how this is useful.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

141. Why?

If I'm shooting him, I don't much care if he lives or dies.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

142. Shooting them in the leg

Is stupid - and it only works in Hollywood. In real life, the legs are a damn difficult target to hit.

[SteveM]

145. Of course, this was posted a few days ago...

http://www.bnd.com/2011/10/19/1906554/clerk-kills-would-be-robber-who.html

[gravity556]

157. And a shotgun is an even more effective stopper when

fired center of mass. That's also the largest target, reducing the chance of missing. There's a reason the cops don't "shoot the gun out of his hand" or "shoot him in the leg". If you are in a situation warranting the use of a firearm, it is a deadly dangerous circumstance. Search the "21 foot rule". If an individual with a knife is within 21 feet, they are deadly close, even if you blow their heart out of the back of their chest, they can, particularly if on drugs or hyped up on adrenaline, cross that distance and carve you up into bits fit for the butcher counter before they lose conciousness.

The "shoot to wound" idiots don't understand that hitting a moving target is difficult, hitting a small moving target is even harder, then add in your own adrenaline and figure low light (since most happen at night) and hitting a small moving target becomes next to impossible-particularly when that target is moving toward you with ill intent. You shoot to stop the threat-that means that they no longer are willing or capable of continuing to be a threat. There are about 3 ways to do so-CNS disruption (bullet through the spine), a headshot (small moving target-not easy to hit) and a pelvic girdle shot (breaking the pelvis, immobilizing the threat, but since you're perforating the bowel and possibly descending aorta, still fatal).

The folks who say "You barely have to aim a shotgun" have no idea what they're talking about-in living room distances, the shot column is only going to expand about 5 inches, meaning you still have to be accurate. Add in the growing trend of home invasions wherein the shitbags wear vests, and a rifle is a better choice. Regardless of weapon choice, practice is critical. You have to be able to clear jams, and keep your gun running by reflex. Buying a shotgun and tossing it in the closet, hoping to rely on the myth of "the sound of a pump gun will send criminals running!" is not something you should stake your life on.

[Bake]

26. And you'd miss ...

And be dead.

Bake

[quinnox]

29. Well, in my hypothetical I hit him with a great shot in his legs

and he goes down without further resistance, and I'm the hero on the 5 'O'Clock news.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. That isnt a hypothetical...

that's a fantasy. In real life, you'd miss and then proceed to get your head stomped in by the criminal.

[spin]

54. If you did manage to hit him in the leg, you might damage the femoral artery ...

And he would bleed out right in front of you and die before EMS could reach him.



The attacker might have a higher chance of survival if you hit him in the "kill zone", especially if you were using a handgun.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

126. And now you have opened yourself up to a HUGE lawsuit...

from the guy you just shot.

Well done.

[ObamaFTW2012]

100. Then you would likely end up

becoming a murder victim, along with your family members.

[ClassWarrior]

7. No, wait! Wait! Let's say he's a zombie! Yeah... And he has a bazooka! Yeah, yeah...

:eyes:

NGU.

[Bake]

14. If he's a zombie, you can use Hornady's Zombie Max ammo.

See previous thread.

Personally, I use Hornady's Critical Defense rounds.

Bake

[deutsey]

28. And he can shoot death beams from his eyes!

:rofl:

[rdking647]

4. never try and shoot to wound

in a stressful situation always got for the largest center of mass. hitting the arm or leg is hard. hitting the chest much easier..

[quinnox]

8. Above all else I would try not to kill them

That would be my number one priority.

[Dr. Strange]

24. Then you shouldn't shoot at all.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. Why?

He is intent upon killing you and your family.

Do you seriously believe that not killing the criminal is a higher priority than keeping your family alive?

[tigerfang]

10. Is that what you'd REALLY be thinking in this situation?

You're saying that, in this situation, "must I kill?" would take precedence over "I must protect my family"?

[quinnox]

11. How can we know?

Its a hypothetical. I wouldn't know what I thought for sure until I was faced with the situation.

[LAGC]

31. Well, you really ought to mentally prepare yourself before it happens...

You likely won't have the time to deliberate once it does, and delaying could be fatal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. If you don't know for sure...

...if you would put your family's life ahead of an assailant, you have no business having a family.

I don't know that I have ever heard anything so pathetic in my life.

[spin]

55. No. The reality is that you want to stop the attack ...

A possible side of your actions is that the attacker dies.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. Among other reasons....

If you're shooting at the arms or legs, you're very likely going to miss and shooting to wound is a strong indication after the fact that you were not in danger. In other words, YOU will be going to jail.

It only works in the movies. In real life, you NEVER shoot to wound. You shoot to stop, which may or may not kill the target.

Oh yeah - shooting someone in the leg is a very good way to kill them. You hit the femoral artery and they're dead ...fast.

[one-eyed fat man]

70. Fall asleep in biology class?

Unlike the movies, a hit in the shoulder is not a benign consequence. Severing the subclavian or radial arteries can result in death by exsanguination in a matter of a few minutes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=434148&mesg_id=435063

Likewise a hit in the leg that severs the femoral or popliteal artery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=470320&mesg_id=470444

If you ever have to shoot you need to keep shooting until the attacker is out of the fight. Even that is problematic. You could drill him clean through the heart and in 20 or so seconds of useful consciousness he has left he could still shoot back, pull the pin on a grenade or otherwise make sure he is not dying alone.

Unless you have had some real up close personal, hand to hand type combat experience you are totally and completely clueless. Like prepubescent boys telling each other what sex is like, after finding their father's stash of girlie magazines.

Even using a ball bat, kitchen knife, camp axe or other improvised weapon it pays to know something about phsiology and anatomy so you can quickly and rapidly incapcitate the attacker. You must remember, in any defense involved edged weapons, you will most likely get cut as well. So unless you have the will to press your counterattack until the assailant is out of the fight then you might consider complying with their demands and hoping they are merciful.

[Bake]

76. Just shoot for the chest, hit him, and empty the clip.

Is that so hard? I don't need to know biology for that one.

BAke

[one-eyed fat man]

84. You might be disappointed

The don't fly back like in the movies, sometimes they just stand there like nothing happened until they figure out they are dead and fall down.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bourke-killing.html

Not surprisingly, therefore, combatants interpreted their battleground experiences through the lens of an imaginary camera. Often the real thing did not live up to its representation in the cinema. The twenty-year-old Australian officer Gary McKay was slightly disappointed by the way his victims acted when hit by his bullets: it `wasn't like one normally expected after watching television and war movies. There was no great scream from the wounded but simply a grunt and then an uncontrolled collapse to the ground', he observed morosely.

There are plenty of combatants who were shot damn near to pieces, yet continued the fight and others who gave up unwounded. Killing is a skill, knowing where and how to most effectively place a bullet, a blade, a club, is part of that skillset. No different, in theory, than in knowing how best to turn a deer's carcass into steaks, roasts and chops. Someone who knows how, can deftly use a knifepoint to pop a hip joint and remove and entire leg. Ineptitude reduces potential round steaks to hamburger.

[ObamaFTW2012]

99. Ummmm

At 1AM, fearing for the safety of your family against an unknown and potentially lethal threat, do you believe you possess the marksmanship skills needed to hit the non-vital areas of an aggressor with a bullet, in what would likely be a dimly lit confrontation? What if the aggressor fails to heed your warning and advances on you and your family, despite the weapon you point at him? What if he's standing 10' away with a large kitchen knife in his hand?

At what point does the scenario "work" for you?

[ClassWarrior]

2. My brains are more powerful than any firearm. Aren't yours?

NGU.

[Bake]

9. In this scenario, no. You have only two options.

Out-think a psycho? He's going to kill your family, and you don't have all the time in the world to out-think him.

So I repeat, what do you do? Set up some Hollywood mousetrap mechanism? By then, you and your family are dead.

Thinking is good. Think about your family.

:hi:

Bake

[ClassWarrior]

12. I suspect in any scenario, no.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Bake]

16. That's funny. Real funny.

I'm glad I'm not YOUR kid ...

:rofl:

:sarcasm: for the :rofl:

Bake

[ClassWarrior]

22. Exactly! I would impale him upon my rapier wit!!

:rofl:

NGU.

[Bake]

25. You DO realize you have the word "WARRIOR" in your screen name ...

Such violence!

Bake

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. Nope.

Pretty sure yours aren't either. If you would like to test this theory, by all means, see if your brains can stop even the lowly .22lr....

[rrneck]

118. The real question to ask is

are the brains of the assailant mote powerful than the gun?

[Scuba]

6. Bake, hypothetically all bad guys can be...

... captured and tried, or

killed avoiding capture/trial, or

killed outright.


I favor the first two options. That said, yes, I'll defend my family.

[mmonk]

17. Questions that start with predetermined judgment rarely go well.

[Bake]

18. Not a predetermined judgment for you.

I've already wrestled with this question. Didn't have to wrestle long, but I've considered it.

I'm asking what do YOU do in that situation, with only two options. You either kill him, or he kilss you and your family.

It's up for discussion. You can discuss, or not.

Bake

[GreenStormCloud]

115. That question has really happened to real people in real life.

So it is not unrealistic to consider what you would do if it happened to you.

[Whisp]

19. I would do that too. There is so much ugly crazy out there

I think. (we never know till we are in it, do we?) I would just assume he was there to slaughter my family in front of my eyes.

I would probably also feel shitty about it when I learned he was abused as a child, was a drug addict that couldn't find help, etc., but it is a cruel world and survival would be instinctive.

[City of Mills]

20. It's tough to give an honest intellectual response

It's easy to say no, or you'd try to reason with him, wound him or restrain him, but when you're confronted with the actual scenario and your adrenaline is pumping and your fight or flight is fully engaged, I suspect most would kill to protect their family.

I wonder how i'd feel after it was done though, even if it were justified...it's easy to say I wouldn't feel bad about it, he invaded my home, it was him or me, etc...I like to think I wouldn't feel sick over it afterwards but somehow I think it would haunt me for a long time.

[Bake]

21. Personally, just for me, I wouldn't feel too bad about it.

It might haunt me, but I think I could live with it. Especially when I attended my son or daughter's graduation or wedding ...

Bake

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Oh, tell the truth.

You're ACHING for a chance to do it.

[PavePusher]

52. Hoyt...? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. I hope and pray I never have to do it.

If the situation ever arises though, either the criminal dies, or I die trying to stop him.

I could not live with myself knowing I did not defend my family.

[Bake]

65. You'd like to think that, but no I'm not.

I hope I never have to face that situation. But if I do, I hope to hell I don't hesitate.

And I don't think I would.

Bake

[azul]

23. Sounds most realistic. Emotions take over for survival.

But the question is unrealistic. A pacifist would not have weapons, and would probably not have kids.

[Bake]

27. Why would a pacifist not have kids?

Bake

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Because few women...

want to bear the child of a man who will not defend them. It is simple biology.

Professing your pacifism may get you laid in college, but it isn't something women look for in a husband.

[Bake]

39. Wait ... that doesn't compute ... danger, Will Robinson!

Why would a pacifist not have kids???

That still didn't asnwer my question.

Bake

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. Uh - yeah it does.

Pacifist behavior is not exactly conducive to breeding. Few women wish to have children with men who will not protect them. Hence, it is likely a real pacifist has no children.

[Bake]

64. Excellent point.

So pacifists, by definition, are doomed to extinction.

Good point indeed.

Bake

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Are the mennonites extinct?

Pretty sure they are still around and doing well.


Bake

[We_Have_A_Problem]

78. No they arent....

However, they are only alive and doing well because others are willing to do violence for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Those 'others' used to do violence TO them.

I wonder how they solved that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. The others got tired of killing them

And other people with guns stepped in and stopped it.

Violence by proxy is still violence. Bottom line is, the Mennonites expected others to save their asses. That others did is not a testament to the benefits of refusing to defend yourself, but rather that even the most pathetic excuses for human beings can find SOMEONE to save them if they whine loud enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Nope.

'Tired', really? Is that the best you can do.

Perhaps they discovered their own humanity. Outgrew their own cruel nature.
http://www.themennonite.org/issues/12-21/articles/Lutherans_express_regret_for_persecution

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. ROFL!

Oh that's funny.

Come on man - you're smarter than that.

You REALLY think I'm going to take some pointless posturing apology 500 years after the fact as categorical proof of the feelings of the people involved?

Really?

[AtheistCrusader]

93. That was one example.

The Mennonites I was referring to, in Colonial America, won not only safety, but other rights (Such as the right to own property) without firing a shot.

It's possible for people to be cruel on the spur of the moment just based on 'not one of us' sort of mentality, but people tend to stop attacking other people that display no threat response. One might speculate we are evolutionarily predisposed to it. It's called 'empathy'.

[SteveM]

146. Both MLK and Gandhi recognized the duty of self-defense...

and delineated between the "active pacifism" of non-violent political strategies and personal self-defense on the one hand, and the vulgar pacifism which would have a person stand by while harm befell his/herself, or the family, on the other hand. Gandhi professed to a higher order of non-violence in which an attacker was to be stopped without injury to the attacker, even at the loss of the victim's life. But he recognized that most people would not achieve this higher order, and counseled self-defense, even by deadly means. He completely condemned the vulgar pacifism of standing by and not doing anything; he termed this "cowardice."

I don't think pacifists are "doomed to extinction," but those who do not defend themselves may face more immediate termination.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Sometimes, I wonder what website this is.

You are, out of hand, shitting on a viable and vibrant culture. With no facts whatsoever to back it up.

[Scout]

158. many women are capable of protecting themselves....

and don't worry much if "their man" can protect them.

ya'll must know a bunch of weak, whiney, helpless screamers ... don't you know any real women?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I was unaware that only males could be pacifists.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

79. Females can too

however, typically it does require a male to have kids. Part of the male's job in a family is to protect it. See how that works?


If you're expecting me to have any kind of sympathy or even the most base respect for a person who will not defend his or her family, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't care what your political or religious views are. If you wont defend your spouse or offspring, you are beneath contempt and sub-human in my eyes.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. I didn't know a pacifist won't defend his or her children.

Perhaps you are using an arbitrarily selected definition of 'defend'.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. No, I'm using the definition of a pacifist.

Someone who refuses to do violence of any kind.

Someone who will not protect their spouse and/or children is the lowest form of scum to infect the planet.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. If by some act, you can lead your attacker to realize he or she is committing a terrible act

and thus stop, are you not protecting your fellows?

There are many ways to protect a person, a people, even an ideal. Not all require violence. By the very choice of non-violence, people have demonstrated the ability to forge lasting peace.

I think that is worth recognizing, and hardly deserves the sort of denigration I have seen in this thread.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. When you're dealing with a situation

where you have time to attempt to educate others, I'm all for avoiding violence when at all possible.

However, when things are at a point where it is kill or be killed, and you choose instead to let your family die because of your personal opposition to violence, you are in my opinion an utterly worthless individual.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. And if your act of sacrifice saves 10 other families?

Where your resistance, if unsuccessful, results in more deaths?

There are no absolutes here. Again, why I am not so quick to condemn pacifists. It really is a hard road.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. That is a different question.

In the one presented in the OP, it was a criminal in my living room. In that case, the criminal is toast or I die trying.

My life for the life of 10 others? The lives of 10 other families?

Hm...nah - fuck em. My life and my family come first every time.

[MicaelS]

155. "Hardly deserves the sort of denigration"???

Why not? People denigrate other people's religious faith all the time right here on this website, as well as others.

Do we have to respect the faith of those who treat women as second class citizens or even property? Who would execute gays for simply being gays? Who would cut off the hands of thieves? I say not just NO, but FUCK NO! I do not, and will not respect such people, I don't give a damn what religious faith they profess. The same thing applies to Pacifists. And while I'm at it, I don't respect the beliefs of people who profess pseudo-mystical bullshit like crystals, indigo children, anti-vaccine or astrology, just to name a few.

Pacifism only works when your opponent is moral, or relatively moral. Gandhi succeeded because the British were moral. If he had tried Pacifism against Hitler or Stalin he and his followers would have been executed.

Personally the best statement I ever read was one by Heinlien who stated:

Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

[rrneck]

116. A pacifist is OPPOSED to violence.

Opposition doesn't necessarily preclude engaging in violence.

[SteveM]

148. Indeed. To do nothing at all is cowardice, according to Gandhi. nt

[SteveM]

147. Gandhi saw self-defense as necessary...

"Even manslaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic, will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man.

When Gandhi was asked by his eldest son what action he should have taken had he been present when Gandhi was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen his father killed or whether he should have used the physical force that he wanted to use in defense of Gandhi, he was informed that "it was his duty to defend me even by using violence".

http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/Weber.htm

I think Kind thought along much the same lines. I believe this country's society as a vulgar definition of pacifism which seems to mean: Do nothing to defend you and your's, stand idly by.

Do the Mennonites believe this?

[spin]

56. Shooting another person is not easy and it goes against basic human nature ...

In a person's first gun fight he often hesitates. If he survives, he never hesitates again.

[rug]

30. There's a quantitative a qualitative difference.

Immediately stopping a burglar in your bedroom is not the same as deliberately mobilizing a nation's resources over time to kill strangers on an ideological rationale.

[Bake]

63. And that is not the question presented here.

Answer the question presented. Or go to another thread.

Bake

[rug]

77. Here's your answer.

I'd crack his skull.

Now here's a question for you.

Does that justify this summary execution of Qaddaffi? Or are you just satisfying idle curiosity?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. Has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Besides, the US didnt execute him. His own people did.

Now that your pathetic attempt at thread derailment has been shut down, shall we go back to the issue at hand?

[rug]

83. You do have a problem.

First, that was a direct answer to the OP's question.

Second, He was executed after a US drone hit his convoy.

Third, you don't really know what pathetic means.

[LanternWaste]

32. I imagine many people believe that additional options...

I imagine many people believe that additional options other than the merely obvious are always available to us, regardless of whether we have the depth of wisdom to perceive them or not. That in effect, Option A and Option B (e.g., "him or my family?"), while being the most obvious, are simply two of many options available to the wise.



That being said, too many times I've heard too many people state far too often what they would do in a particular situation-- only to do something completely, which leads me to believe that we either rarely have the strength of our own convictions (i.e, we self-servingly boast of things we'd never do), or that we simply grasp onto the most convenient conviction in any given situation.

[rrneck]

38. Yes. But it would still be wrong. nt

[Bake]

40. Wrong?

Really? In your black and white world, maybe.

In the real world, not so much.

Bake

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Principles are black and white.

Even in the real world.

Bake

[Bake]

42. You haven't wrestled with the ethical question.

Go back and do your homework.

Then come back and report in.

Bake

[rrneck]

57. The OP is a variation of the trolley problem.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

It forces us to evaluate the value of a life under the pressure on inevitability. While I don't consider myself a utilitarian by any means, the fact that everyone gets exactly one irreplaceable life and every life is precious it makes the most sense to place the moral imperative there.

To make your hypothetical more balanced, and hence a better tool for investigation, what if the psycho was your son?

It seems to me that the best approach when reality doesn't give us time for careful reflection is to never judge someone with a gun in your hand. Just as "winging someone to stop them" is a Hollywood trope, so is establishing a particular quantity of personal outrages to justify the morality of violent reprisal.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. What is all this bullshit about if the pacifist is going to shoot to wound or shoot to kill?

The pacifist will not have a gun in the house.

Why would a pacifist even have a fucking gun? You invalidate your hypothetical in its very premise.

THIS 'pacifist' would lay into him with bat or a butcher knife (or the sword or battle-axe I have hanging on the wall) before letting him harm my (hypothetical) family.

I have made a moral decision that I will not harm another if there is a way to avoid it. I guess that makes me a pacifist. Even Gandhi said it was permissible to act in self defense. I will not do the same to protect my DVD player.

[spin]

51. The first question I always ask a person who asks me if they should buy a gun for self defense ...

is, "Are you willing to use a gun to severely injure or kill another person."

If they say that they could never do such a thing, I tell them to find other ways to defend themselves.

There's nothing wrong with either people who would hesitate to use a firearm in an emergency or those who would. People simply differ.

[Bake]

66. OMG??? Why do you have a baseball bat????

Just in case? Or do you just like sports?

I sat up one night with a microphone stand, after somone tried to push in the front door when we were on the other side trying to get it locked. We learned the next day it was an escaped prisoner. Threats were drawn in the dust on the back of my Chevy Blazer, about what "I'm gonna do to your girl ..."

That was the last night I sat up without my two friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

I won't hesitate to defend my family.

BAke

[PavePusher]

112. Soooo.... "pacifism" with a bat or knife is O.K......

but non-"pacifisim" with a gun is BAD.

Did I get that right?

I believe I smell fermenting piscines in a southern Scandinavian nation...

[SteveM]

149. I generally agree with you. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

44. This smacks of the arrogance and derision displayed by teabaggers when a mennonite college opted to

not use the National Anthem at sporting events, due to it's war references, as they are pacifists.


Some people really will turn the other cheek, even at great personal cost. That is their right. I find it difficult to fault people for it, and find it rude and unproductive to try and paint them into corners with 'hypothetical' situations.

[Bake]

45. I can damn sure fault them for it.

If you choose to die, fine. But if you choose for your innocent family to die? YOu can go to Hell. Straight to Hell. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Any man who won't defend hs family is not a man. Not human.

Bake

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I am not a pacifist, but I disagree with your conclusion.

I can think of many historical examples where pacifists, specifically mennonites took lumps (including murder) initially, but in the end, won.

It's not my way, but it has, in some situations been undeniably successful, and as it is their lives on the line, I will not criticize them for it. I think it takes a certain level of bravery NOT to fight, and I can respect that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. Won is a relative term.

In a few circumstances, yes, pacifists eventually got their way, but not because they actually "won"...more because the other side got tired of killing them.

It takes some bravery not to fight, but it takes a truly twisted person in my opinion to let his family get slaughtered rather than defend them from a criminal.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. No, not relative. I mean "Won", period.

Covered in american colonial history.

[Bake]

62. Really? They WON??

Is their family still DEAD?

How is that winning? In the hereafter? I'll take my chances with the here and now.

Bake

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Political recognition. The right to worship freely.

The right to hold office. To not pay taxes to support a rival church. To be an officer of the state (including something like being a lawyer).

Etc. Violence was visited upon them by a dominant religious majority, but they won, non-violently.

As I mentioned, it takes a certain amount of bravery to be willing to die for your convictions. It's rather trivial for you and I to resolve to kill for them.

[jeepnstein]

139. Dead isn't quite as big a deal to some of us.

I won't turn this into a theology thread but let's let it be sufficient to say that some people truly believe there are far worse things than dying. I'm not going to second-guess them on their choice.

[oneshooter]

140. The story of the Quaker that upon hearing a noise at 3am entered

His kitchen with a shotgun. He found a burglar loading the family silver into a bag. Pointing his weapon at the thief he said "Sir, I would not harm thee for the world. But thou are standing where I am about to shoot."

Pacifist and family protection combined?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

151. Oh, that's a good one! nt

[oneshooter]

103. During WW2 many pacifists refused to serve with the military.

They did however volunteer to be a part of a very important medical experiment. They were starved to save lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Could you do the same?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[petronius]

111. That's really quite interesting - thanks for the link! (nt)

[SteveM]

150. I see your point, but you are defining the perfect "man's" actions...

Probably, we all will take whatever actions to defend our family and ourselves, given the life we lead. Some of us are unarmed, and have an abhorrence of firearms (I don't). But that doesn't make them any less a "man" for not taking the action you deem more effective and appropriate.

I can't fault a person who does not strike out at an attacker, but I would fault the person for not doing something to stop the attack, either by Ahimsa, corporal striking out, or shooting. I might call a person foolish for taking on armed home-invaders by trying to seize the nearest one, but I will not call someone taking those bad odds "not a man."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. Yes, it is their right.

It is also my right to consider them beneath contempt and call them out on it at any opportunity.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Yep. Your right to form such opinions. Others are forming opinions about yours as well.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Feel free.

I don't worry about it because, quite simply, my opinions are just that - Mine. I need not justify them to anyone.

[Bake]

67. It's nice to feel superior, isn't it?

It's nicer to grow old in the company of your family who is still alive.

BAke

[AtheistCrusader]

72. It's nice that you are so certain such a tradeoff can always be reliably made.

As I mentioned, I am not a pacifist at all. I am capable of staggering amounts of violence in self-defense. I am simply hesitant to dismiss another's freely chosen mode of resistance, out of hand. Certainly not one to condemn others for their preferred mode of resistance.

I do not pretend that I know what is best for them.

[pipoman]

113. Really? Who here has a superiority complex?

"Any man who won't defend hs family is not a man. Not human.",

[We_Have_A_Problem]

143. It isnt a complex.

I am superior to some piece of shit who will not defend his family.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. To me it isnt even a question worth considering.

Family first - period. I will kill him or die trying.

[Bake]

68. There it is!

Anything less, to me, is just unacceptable.

BAke

[Hoyt]

92. Ridiculous hypothetical not worth thinking about further.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. I don't know...

Some of the discussion in this thread has been very revealing. I encourage you to wade in.

[Hoyt]

96. Since chances of psycho breaking into my house are quite small, I prefer to think about real threats

to my family. But if it helps you guys rationalize another gun purchase, or the last one you made, go for it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. You prefer to think about the real threats?

Like those real threats from all those people legally carrying a concealed firearm?

You're a laugh riot Hoyt...

[rrneck]

105. We're not worried about

who breaks into your house either.

[Hoyt]

106. Good. Wouldn't want one of you cowboys shooting someone on my property.

[rrneck]

108. At least we agree

that we are perfectly happy to leave you to the consequences of your blinkered ideology.

Now if you'd just grow up and stop trying to force it on others that would be progress.

But then you would have to give up all that investment in fear and sanctimonious rage.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

144. You don't have to worry about that Hoyt.

Don't worry - I'll happily let him steal your stuff, rape your wife and do whatever he wants to you.

Heck, I'd probably make some popcorn and kick back and enjoy the show.

[oneshooter]

109. Like the evil firearms in your home.

Get rid of them before you are taken under thier evil spell!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Just in case you don't understand :sarcasm:

[SteveM]

152. Hoyt, that's the problem: It IS worth thinking about. nt

[ZombieHorde]

102. How are we supposed to answer if you don't give us the important details? The time doesn't matter,

Is the psycho cute? Is he giving me a sly smile? What is his bulge like? Is he wearing a band t-shirt, and if so, which band? What kind of tattoos does he have? What does he smell like? Has he showered recently? Is he well spoken? Is he wearing glasses? How hairy is he? Is he wearing a wedding ring?

[oneshooter]

110. " Is he using a knife or a club?" n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

119. .

:hug:

[ileus]

107. I explain to him how rude he's being to society, and not to make me be a impolite home owner.

[RSillsbee]

136. I haven't been in the exact situation

But I did come home one afternoon and find someone in my apartment. I am now aware that it was an incredibly foolish thing to do but I attempted to detain the intruder at gun point.

Before going any further I will tell you that the "intruder" turned out to be a half senile maintenance (who'd neglected to inform me he was doing a plumbing repair that day) guy who pooped his britches when he saw the gun.

Now for my point: When I entered the apartment I went through an Adrenalin dump, My pupils were dilated to the point that the sun coming through the West window almost blinded me, I got tunnel vision and all I could actually see clearly was the sights on my pistol, when I covered the intruder all I could see was a dark blur against the sights. I could hear the blood rushing through my ears and My breath sounded like Darth Vader (to me). My mouth was bone dry and the only thing I remember going through my mind was "Please, please,please,please,please God I don't want to shoot anybody." Now mind you I have qualified expert on every weapon the Army has ever issued me and this was not going to be my first gun fight and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind I couldn't have pulled off a "less than lethal" hit under those circumstances no matter whoselife depended on it.

My answer? Center mass and shoot till the target is on the ground.

Mispelling

[jeepnstein]

138. Evey life is valuable.

I preach that every day. I see people differently, I guess. We're all human and made in God's own image. Killing is not something I take lightly. My default assumption that people are basically good has served me well. I do realize that monsters are real and they look just like the rest of us.

Having said that, if someone comes into my house at 1:00 AM they are taking that life in their own hands. Our drill is to call 911, rally the family, and barricade. All this would happen while the dogs are going off, lights flashing, and alarms screaming. If they step into the wrong part of the house I don't have the slightest problem with shooting to stop the aggression.

No holding them at gunpoint. If I've drawn my weapon then it's a good indicator that something or someone needs shot.

No clearing the house by myself. That's just plain tactically dumb, especially considering the police are on the way.

No warning shots. Every bullet I fire has to go into it's intended target.

Response times for a hot 911 call like that in my area is about ten minutes.

Oh, and my wife is perfectly capable of defending the family as well. She's not some whimpering damsel in distress, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Scout]

153. well, i'm not a pacifist ... my house where i live now?

which window did he break in through? which door? did he come through the wall? does he have a weapon? how do you know he's "a psycho" and not just your average person?

i would get my "wife" and young children out of the house, and go to the neighbor's house that is 15 feet to the west, or the one 15 feet to the east, or the one 25 feet to the south. or just out of the house. and i'm not the only one who can defend my family ... my husband is not helpless, and if you were asking him the same question he would say that his wife (me) is not helpless either. i love the way you loaded your question ... a big strong man, must defend his helpless little woman and children... why don't you guys marry a woman who is not a helpless whiner?

although, probably, my 2 german shepherds would have awakened me during the attempted break-in, and either they would have scared him off, or he'd have had to shoot both of them and then me :shrug:

[ileus]

154. Isn't it considered rude not to welcome criminals into your home?

[Xela]

159. I would shoot to stop the threat...

Yes I would.

Xela