Could You Kill?
Yes
58.2% (131)
58.2% (131)
No
8.4% (19)
8.4% (19)
I can't Say
25.3% (57)
25.3% (57)
Only if they took my Bacon
7.6% (17)
7.6% (17)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Could You Kill?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

From what I can tell you now, probably not. But I really can't say. I've never been in a position where someone has actually threatened me beyond schoolyard torment. And that is almost never justification for shooting someone, but I can understand why someone might feel differently, given I know the mindset of that victim.

I've also never been around any weapons that weren't kitchen knifes or pans in my entire life. Canadian culture, outside of the county in some areas, doesn't really have any gun fixations or love. There are a lot of people that do, but they are somewhat their own culture together, rather than a product of the overarching one. So I wouldn't even know what to do with one.

I think I should have voted "I can't be sure", but on further thought...

Well, for the record, I'm a pacifist. I can't cause pain to people, I hate it. If I were in a random and pointless fist fight, I'd probably allow myself to get beaten up rather than harm my opponent.

On the other hand, if someone pushed be way to far and I had a gun (easy to use, super lethal)? And I mean I was REALLY pushed too far? I'd probably shoot to kill. And empty the whole clip out of reflex.

But you'd have to push me REALLY far. Like, we're talking complete monster kind of far.3

EDIT: FYI, I'm a Canadian. In the suburbs of a major city. We don't have guns 'round here.

Danny Ocean:
That little sentence there makes this a totally vapid question. It seems that you've reduced it to physical capability for killing. With guns, everyone could kill easily (such is the point of guns).

I'm thinking you need to decide whether this is a question of "could" you kill, or "would" you kill.

And then, you need to specify a particular set of circumstances, or else these answers will tell you nothing.

Thats kind of an argument of semantics no? Of course most people have the physical capability, I am interested in mental capability.

Danny Ocean:
For want of a less crass phrase: duh. Everyone knows that legality and morality are not the same thing. It's one of the most common arguments against strict constructivism re: the US constitution.

You would be surprised, some people are like that.

Danny Ocean:

You are not a badass. You should wonder yourself why you used that particular phraseology, when, for example, I would have simply said, "And if they attack the answer is 'yes'."

Oh come now, I wasn't trying to be "badass", I just thought it was witty. There is no need to be so hostile.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
Killing wouldn't be difficult at all for me. If anybody stands between me and my safety by assaulting me or breaking into my home, I will drop them and never feel a moment of regret in my life.

Have you considered seeking professional help for these violent tendencies? Because actively wanting such things in advance and not caring about the consequences to others is a seriously bad sign.

I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

2012 Wont Happen:
I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

No, pre-planning murdering someone who's not a threat, and planning to not feel anything about it, is very much a desire for extreme violence. I'll help you hope it's a tough guy routine and not real.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

No, pre-planning murdering someone who's not a threat, and planning to not feel anything about it, is very much a desire for extreme violence. I'll help you hope it's a tough guy routine and not real.

You realize I stipulated they would have to be standing between me and my safety right? That makes them a threat, the opposite of "not a threat".

Typical liberal. Twisting the arguments of gun owning Americans beyond recognition.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

No, pre-planning murdering someone who's not a threat, and planning to not feel anything about it, is very much a desire for extreme violence. I'll help you hope it's a tough guy routine and not real.

"anticipating possible eventualities...." does not equate to "pre-planning murder". Running through hypothetical dilemmas to test an ethical theory for example, could fall under the first statement. And if you have already concluded that in situation X, deadly force is justified, then you could argue that if you found yourself in situation X you could take the required action and not feel remorse.

I doubt its that simple in practice, I'm not sure you can just logic feelings like guilt away or indeed know beforehand how you will feel. Regardless of that, my point is that there is no reason to believe WontHappen is some kind of violence-crazy psychopath. You're being a bit silly.

I'm generally an easy going person who avoids stress and confrontation, and I certainly know right from wrong and I've never broken the law once in my life, but I generally don't really care about the majority of people except very close family, so yes I could probably kill someone if they deserved it, and I don't think I'd feel too bad about it, but having said that it's not like I'm going to go out tomorrow and murder someone for the fun of it, but if I was provoked and push came to shove, or someone hurt my family, especially my mum, then yes I could do it, and yes I am aware that I have little empathy for others, but like I said it would take a lot for me to actually do it, but if I did I probably wouldn't feel that bad because they'd deserve it, or otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

No, pre-planning murdering someone who's not a threat, and planning to not feel anything about it, is very much a desire for extreme violence. I'll help you hope it's a tough guy routine and not real.

Uhm, not quite. If 2012 was planning against someone in particular I would agree, however it does not seem to be the case. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you would do in a situation ahead of time; hell its simply sensible.

Shock and Awe:

Thats kind of an argument of semantics no? Of course most people have the physical capability, I am interested in mental capability.

Well, no, it's an important distinction to make. Anyway, it's not an argument from semantics because it's different words.

The distinction between mental and physical... nyeh... still... answers are not going to be particularly revealing, mostly because guilt comes after the act.

Oh come now, I wasn't trying to be "badass", I just thought it was witty. There is no need to be so hostile.

Sorry. I was hungry when I wrote that. :V

2012 Wont Happen:

Typical liberal.

Shut up.

Comments like that don't help anyone- including yourself.

If your stipulations were misinterpreted you should clarify, not attack.

Danny Ocean:

Shock and Awe:

Thats kind of an argument of semantics no? Of course most people have the physical capability, I am interested in mental capability.

Well, no, it's an important distinction to make. Anyway, it's not an argument from semantics because it's different words.

The distinction between mental and physical... nyeh... still... answers are not going to be particularly revealing, mostly because guilt comes after the act.

Oh come now, I wasn't trying to be "badass", I just thought it was witty. There is no need to be so hostile.

Sorry. I was hungry when I wrote that. :V

Well I can see your point, and apology accepted.

Shock and Awe:

Well I can see your point, and apology accepted.

Thanks!

Anyway, I... don't know if I could kill.

My particular familial circumstances have made it very hard for me to lose control. I know a lot of people say that they can be stone cold killers, but I think I really could. I don't like that. There would be no excuse.

The thing is, as I say, there needs to be a specific situation to judge. In abstract I could kill, and in practice I am good with a gun and a decent martial artist, so I am physically capable of doing so in many circumstances (though not most).

I guess I'm seeking clarity.

Im pretty sure violence is very much a part of being a human, hell we only got to where we are by being better at fighting and fucking then other species.

Having said that i think personally id rather die than know that i robbed someone who didnt deserve it of a life, unless it was someone like hitler or some sort of paedo rapist

However theres a gang of muggers in manchester that i wouldnt mind punching a few times.

Stupid cunt took my phone at knife point and told me he'd hunt me down if I cancelled my phone contract like he thinks im going to fucking pay his phone bill indefinitely out of fear

I dont actually think that having the attitude of "if someones going to threaten my life they deserve to die" is particularly unhealthy, but its not for me, too much scope for error, better to keep the killing to a minumum

Agema:

Shock and Awe:
I've been thinking about this for a little while. Partially due to recent discussions on gun control and the use of firearms in self defense, and partially due to my personal religious study. The question is quite simple but the answer has a lot of details, consequences, and implications. Could you kill and under what circumstances?

Except maybe for those people who already have killed or been extensively trained to, probably the only meaningful answer is "I can't say".

It's one of those things where you never really know until it happens, whether you can or under what circumstances you will kill someone.

As per usual, QFT. The only reason I quoted was to also point out that even people with extensive training can have problems killing others and the effect of it after can wreak havoc on anyone.

Killing another human is a surprisingly difficult thing to do considering how much we actually do it.

Edit: As for myself, I'll just say it would depend on the situation and leave it at that.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
I don't desire violence. I do however anticipate possible eventualities of which one is the necessity to commit violence.

No, pre-planning murdering someone who's not a threat, and planning to not feel anything about it, is very much a desire for extreme violence. I'll help you hope it's a tough guy routine and not real.

I don't recall him saying he wanted to murder anyone, he said kill them.

As for me I know all about reasonable force and the law so I also know how to defend my house and family from someone trying to break in.

Yes, only in self defense and most likely even then it wouldn't be on purpose. Of course I've never had a gun pointed at me or been worried someone was gonna stab me, or at least could visually tell it was coming.(have however had the hair stand up on the back of my neck like it was coming) How could I really say I could kill when I could very well freeze up in the circumstance.

I also can't reliably say that I wouldn't end up killing someone with left over testosterone when I could have justifiably ended it. Of course I think this one isn't likely because I've been in several fights and have always left it laughing.

Danny Ocean:

2012 Wont Happen:

Typical liberal.

Shut up.

Comments like that don't help anyone- including yourself.

If your stipulations were misinterpreted you should clarify, not attack.

"Shut up"? Still hungry?
While I agree with you, you are kinda shooting yourself in the foot. Clarify, do not attack.

BOOM headshot65:
If we get in a fist fight, I am aiming for the dirty hit areas (ie, hitting guys between the legs, hitting girls in thier chest) and will bite and claw at you.

I've never understood why this is considered normal practice in hand to hand combat outside of duels and matches.
Also kicking girls in the groin works rather well aswell, and they don't see it coming.

Gethsemani:
Lots of posturing going on in this thread. As has been noted by several other posters before, this is one of those questions you simply don't know the answer to until you've had to do it. Psychologically there are all kinds of biases that go into this answer, most notably our own confirmation bias about ourselves, and there are plenty of factors that we just don't know about that influences this kind of decision.

So yeah, I answered that I don't know and hopefully I'll never have to find out either.

this is an often reflected position in threads like this.

i would caution however to bear in mind that the internet is, like society, predominately "middle class".
however its also pretty easily available from the lesser wrungs of society and to those who were once there.

both i and at least one other of the Scottish posters here that i know of grew up on shitty "little boxes made of ticky-tacky" council housing estates at the height of 70/80s poverty and "deprivation" levels and in the middle of a heroin epidemic.

there was a time i walked around that estate with a machete down the back leg of my jeans.

i am not "proud" of this fact and the life surrounding has been the contributing factor to two "breakdowns".

by the time you have drawn such a weapon twice you know the answer to the question being asked in this thread.

my point is yes for the majority you'll hopefully never find out and its right that you should aspire to that.
but there are some people around who haven't been as fortunate and it isn't always "posturing".

for some it takes a bit to be that open about things, for them and for others "bravado" is often used to hide something else.
people assume its "cowardice" which has always stuck me as a bit odd.
because talk like that IRL gets you into fights (not that i haven't known people like that).
but i guess "internet".

however many times ive seen it used by people with real violence present in their lives.
sometimes as perpetrator but also often as victim.

then again sometimes it can just be plain old "bravado" and "posturing" like you said.
but not always.

LetalisK:
As per usual, QFT. The only reason I quoted was to also point out that even people with extensive training can have problems killing others and the effect of it after can wreak havoc on anyone.

Killing another human is a surprisingly difficult thing to do considering how much we actually do it.

Edit: As for myself, I'll just say it would depend on the situation and leave it at that.

I did know a guy who ended up in a fight for his life, and at the crunch point chose to not kill his assailant even as he was being strangled to death. He was able to tell the tale because, after he was unconscious, someone else intervened just in time.

And this would not be a particularly unusual reaction. Many people, given "just cause", opportunity, and even being at mortal risk themselves do not kill (they might still fight and try to incapacitate, of course). We know that many who have killed in those situations carry the guilt and regret to their deathbed. We know that merely witnessing (never mind committing) violent death is frequently psychologically traumatic.

When I think about a "culture of violence", I think to a large extent about the portrayal of violence in media - action films being very obvious - where popping the bad guys is just part of a day's work, then the credits roll and everyone cheers. I really believe that many people's claims that they could kill and how it would affect them are fantasies and posturing derived from this sort of influence, because in the absence of such an alien experience it is what they use to fill the gap.

It depends on the person. If it's Hitler, Stain, Mao, secret police of those people yes. I though about it too how can those secret police people just order a mass of people to died, it's because they lack being human, so I am going to kill them to stop more people from being killed. That, and self defense if the other guy has a gun or a sword.

I probably could kill only under the circumstances of war, self defense, or a life or death situation.

I think my main problem in a Life-or-Death situation is that I would try to give them a chance to back out. I realize that hesitation might cost me or my family, but I'd rather give them the opportunity to surrender.

If it becomes obvious that they're not interested in that, however, I say: adios!

I'd do it and it would be easy. Living with it...that's another story. If it's to protect my boyfriend, I'll sleep soundly every day for the rest of my life. I don't care if it's disproportionate or if I could have been less itchy on the trigger. I want him to be safe. Anything that threatens that gets no mercy from me. If you put me in that situation, you're going to wish you didn't.

If it's just me, I don't know. I might see it as necessary, and it might well be, but part of me sees it as convenience versus what is correct. I don't shoot to kill if I shoot (opposite of most teachings) and I try not to shoot at all. I don't want to kill that person if I'm the only person in my care.

2012 Wont Happen:
You realize I stipulated they would have to be standing between me and my safety right? That makes them a threat, the opposite of "not a threat".

No you didn't. You wrote that if they enter into your home, you would murder them.

Not to mention I rather question the definition of 'threat' as used by gun lobby fanatics. Often things like 'being black', 'knocking on the kitchen door' or 'being out at night' or 'looking suspicious' are already what they'd define as a threat, somehow.

Xan Krieger:
I don't recall him saying he wanted to murder anyone, he said kill them.

Yes, with the only 'justification' being a perception that someone might want to steal something by entering his house. That's not self-defense, that's murder. Premeditated murder even because the decision to kill was taken way in advance.

Shock and Awe:
Uhm, not quite. If 2012 was planning against someone in particular I would agree, however it does not seem to be the case. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you would do in a situation ahead of time; hell its simply sensible.

Not if it's a plan that involves "I'll murder whomever does X", because that's planning killing, or in legal terms, premeditating a murder.

It always works like that. If you're recruiting people, getting floor plans, balaclavas and planning a robbery on a bank, that's also a crime. Same for planning out how you're going to blow up a building in a terrorist attack. If that happens, people don't go 'oh, he's just thinking it, that's alright'.

Boris Goodenough:
I've never understood why this is considered normal practice in hand to hand combat outside of duels and matches.
Also kicking girls in the groin works rather well aswell, and they don't see it coming.

Because it tends to work best for people without further training.

It tends to be a good way to get hurt though, because when someone isn't intimidated by a little scratching or a groinstrike misses, then they're going to be very angry. Seen it happen that someone tried to kick another in the balls, but he saw it coming, got his shin in between, and bad things happened.

Ussually it's the best advice to not fight unless you know what you're doing either in terms of technique or mentality. To quote my krav maga manual 'you must become wild uncontrollable animal', including the broken English apparently. And that counts for a lot, but it's always a risk you take.
The surprising thing is that if you act purely defensively, not even trying to hit back but just trying to block or dodge, you ussually end up pretty good. And as a bonus you don't get to waste hours filing statements with the police about what happened, whether you were right or wrong.

Blablahb:

2012 Wont Happen:
You realize I stipulated they would have to be standing between me and my safety right? That makes them a threat, the opposite of "not a threat".

No you didn't. You wrote that if they enter into your home, you would murder them.

Not to mention I rather question the definition of 'threat' as used by gun lobby fanatics. Often things like 'being black', 'knocking on the kitchen door' or 'being out at night' or 'looking suspicious' are already what they'd define as a threat, somehow.

Xan Krieger:
I don't recall him saying he wanted to murder anyone, he said kill them.

Yes, with the only 'justification' being a perception that someone might want to steal something by entering his house. That's not self-defense, that's murder. Premeditated murder even because the decision to kill was taken way in advance.

Shock and Awe:
Uhm, not quite. If 2012 was planning against someone in particular I would agree, however it does not seem to be the case. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you would do in a situation ahead of time; hell its simply sensible.

Not if it's a plan that involves "I'll murder whomever does X", because that's planning killing, or in legal terms, premeditating a murder.

It always works like that. If you're recruiting people, getting floor plans, balaclavas and planning a robbery on a bank, that's also a crime. Same for planning out how you're going to blow up a building in a terrorist attack. If that happens, people don't go 'oh, he's just thinking it, that's alright'.

Boris Goodenough:
I've never understood why this is considered normal practice in hand to hand combat outside of duels and matches.
Also kicking girls in the groin works rather well aswell, and they don't see it coming.

Because it tends to work best for people without further training.

It tends to be a good way to get hurt though, because when someone isn't intimidated by a little scratching or a groinstrike misses, then they're going to be very angry. Seen it happen that someone tried to kick another in the balls, but he saw it coming, got his shin in between, and bad things happened.

Ussually it's the best advice to not fight unless you know what you're doing either in terms of technique or mentality. To quote my krav maga manual 'you must become wild uncontrollable animal', including the broken English apparently. And that counts for a lot, but it's always a risk you take.
The surprising thing is that if you act purely defensively, not even trying to hit back but just trying to block or dodge, you ussually end up pretty good. And as a bonus you don't get to waste hours filing statements with the police about what happened, whether you were right or wrong.

Here in America in many states if someone breaks into your home you have the right to remove them. If it takes violence then that's part of defending your property. Here's why, when someone breaks into your house you don't know their intentions therefore if the first thing you do is shoot them it's legal because 1. you were defending your property, 2. you were potentially defending your life.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Uhm, not quite. If 2012 was planning against someone in particular I would agree, however it does not seem to be the case. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you would do in a situation ahead of time; hell its simply sensible.

Not if it's a plan that involves "I'll murder whomever does X", because that's planning killing, or in legal terms, premeditating a murder.

It always works like that. If you're recruiting people, getting floor plans, balaclavas and planning a robbery on a bank, that's also a crime. Same for planning out how you're going to blow up a building in a terrorist attack. If that happens, people don't go 'oh, he's just thinking it, that's alright'.

You're forgetting that self defense is a thing in the United States. Despite what you may think of it if someone broke into my home right now I would have every legal right to kill him with no questions asked. I would go to court because there is a dead man in my house but it would be a quick trial due to it being easily under Georgia "castle laws". I could tell the court all about planning and preparing for such an eventuality and how I simply followed a preplanned set of actions; then they'd still let me off. It doesn't matter if it's premeditated its legal.

Shock and Awe:

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Uhm, not quite. If 2012 was planning against someone in particular I would agree, however it does not seem to be the case. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you would do in a situation ahead of time; hell its simply sensible.

Not if it's a plan that involves "I'll murder whomever does X", because that's planning killing, or in legal terms, premeditating a murder.

It always works like that. If you're recruiting people, getting floor plans, balaclavas and planning a robbery on a bank, that's also a crime. Same for planning out how you're going to blow up a building in a terrorist attack. If that happens, people don't go 'oh, he's just thinking it, that's alright'.

You're forgetting that self defense is a thing in the United States. Despite what you may think of it if someone broke into my home right now I would have every legal right to kill him with no questions asked. I would go to court because there is a dead man in my house but it would be a quick trial due to it being easily under Georgia "castle laws". I could tell the court all about planning and preparing for such an eventuality and how I simply followed a preplanned set of actions; then they'd still let me off. It doesn't matter if it's premeditated its legal.

and it should be mentioned NOT murder. Note that we're not saying it's good to kill if it can be avoided, we're saying you can legally defend yourself and your property with lethal force. If someone breaks into your house they have proven they're willing to use force to get what they want whether that's your stuff or your life so you can respond with force.

Xan Krieger:
and it should be mentioned NOT murder. Note that we're not saying it's good to kill if it can be avoided, we're saying you can legally defend yourself and your property with lethal force. If someone breaks into your house they have proven they're willing to use force to get what they want whether that's your stuff or your life so you can respond with force.

That a person is prepared to break into your house is certainly not any proof he's prepared to injure, never mind kill you. They are different levels of transgression. It might suggest he is more likely to be prepared to injure or kill.

Agema:

Xan Krieger:
and it should be mentioned NOT murder. Note that we're not saying it's good to kill if it can be avoided, we're saying you can legally defend yourself and your property with lethal force. If someone breaks into your house they have proven they're willing to use force to get what they want whether that's your stuff or your life so you can respond with force.

That a person is prepared to break into your house is certainly not any proof he's prepared to injure, never mind kill you. They are different levels of transgression. It might suggest he is more likely to be prepared to injure or kill.

It suggests a hostility which makes consideration for his rights seem secondary to protecting oneself or one's property, I'd say. Whatever are the 'natural rights' of a burglar, his actions force someone to make a judgment about his intent with little information, in little time, with high emotional charge and feelings of personal threat. And the consequences of making that judgment wrong, especially if the law is not quite charitable toward the person having his house invaded, could be disastrous. Moreover, I'm not sure what the threat to public order is of people who are particularly vicious toward burglars. That someone will kill in that situation is not necessarily indicative of propensities for violence in other situations.

Seanchaidh:

It suggests a hostility which makes consideration for his rights seem secondary to protecting oneself or one's property, I'd say. Whatever are the 'natural rights' of a burglar, his actions force someone to make a judgment about his intent with little information, in little time, with high emotional charge and feelings of personal threat. And the consequences of making that judgment wrong, especially if the law is not quite charitable toward the person having his house invaded, could be disastrous. Moreover, I'm not sure what the threat to public order is of people who are particularly vicious toward burglars. That someone will kill in that situation is not necessarily indicative of propensities for violence in other situations.

That one may reasonably mount a defence of ones self, associates and property is not controversial: the question society really asks is what extent of violence can be made in that defence. An argument that for someone to break into a house proves that that the intruder would harm its occupants facilitates the idea any amount of force in defence is viable. But the argument is simply wrong.

The extent of self-defence afforded to citizens is something they can decide for themselves, and if communities wish to empower their citizens to kill in defence with impunity, they may do so. But whatever they decide, they'd be better off not deciding it on the basis of bad reasoning.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:

It suggests a hostility which makes consideration for his rights seem secondary to protecting oneself or one's property, I'd say. Whatever are the 'natural rights' of a burglar, his actions force someone to make a judgment about his intent with little information, in little time, with high emotional charge and feelings of personal threat. And the consequences of making that judgment wrong, especially if the law is not quite charitable toward the person having his house invaded, could be disastrous. Moreover, I'm not sure what the threat to public order is of people who are particularly vicious toward burglars. That someone will kill in that situation is not necessarily indicative of propensities for violence in other situations.

That one may reasonably mount a defence of ones self, associates and property is not controversial: the question society really asks is what extent of violence can be made in that defence. An argument that for someone to break into a house proves that that the intruder would harm its occupants facilitates the idea any amount of force in defence is viable. But the argument is simply wrong.

The extent of self-defence afforded to citizens is something they can decide for themselves, and if communities wish to empower their citizens to kill in defence with impunity, they may do so. But whatever they decide, they'd be better off not deciding it on the basis of bad reasoning.

Most likely. Sometimes bad reasoning leads to a more favorable outcome by accident, but that is certainly not something to rely on.

Xan Krieger:
Here in America in many states if someone breaks into your home you have the right to remove them. If it takes violence then that's part of defending your property.

That's why you grab a hold of someone if they don't leave, and push them out. It works a lot better than murdering people.

That's way different from "I'm sleeping with a gun under my pillow, and if I see a nigger on my lawn he's dead!" (to illustrate the paranoid and unrealistic nature of how such people think)

Shock and Awe:
You're forgetting that self defense is a thing in the United States. Despite what you may think of it if someone broke into my home right now I would have every legal right to kill him with no questions asked.

That some forms of murder is legal in the US in many states doesn't make a difference. Murdering your wife for disobedience is also legal in some countries, but could I argue on the basis of that, that killing your wife is not a crime, but self-defense of your honour? No, of course not.

Likewise one can't argue that planning in advance to commit murder on anyone who may enter your house or steal from you, is still premeditating a murder, regardless of what some conservative US states may think of it.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Here in America in many states if someone breaks into your home you have the right to remove them. If it takes violence then that's part of defending your property.

That's why you grab a hold of someone if they don't leave, and push them out. It works a lot better than murdering people.

That's way different from "I'm sleeping with a gun under my pillow, and if I see a nigger on my lawn he's dead!" (to illustrate the paranoid and unrealistic nature of how such people think)

Shock and Awe:
You're forgetting that self defense is a thing in the United States. Despite what you may think of it if someone broke into my home right now I would have every legal right to kill him with no questions asked.

That some forms of murder is legal in the US in many states doesn't make a difference. Murdering your wife for disobedience is also legal in some countries, but could I argue on the basis of that, that killing your wife is not a crime, but self-defense of your honour? No, of course not.

Likewise one can't argue that planning in advance to commit murder on anyone who may enter your house or steal from you, is still premeditating a murder, regardless of what some conservative US states may think of it.

Push them out? What if they have a weapon? What if it's more than one person? Also we're not paranoid, just prepared in case something bad happens, same as people who prepare for tornadoes or hurricanes, it's good to be ready in case the worst should happen.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Here in America in many states if someone breaks into your home you have the right to remove them. If it takes violence then that's part of defending your property.

That's why you grab a hold of someone if they don't leave, and push them out. It works a lot better than murdering people.

That's way different from "I'm sleeping with a gun under my pillow, and if I see a nigger on my lawn he's dead!" (to illustrate the paranoid and unrealistic nature of how such people think)

Shock and Awe:
You're forgetting that self defense is a thing in the United States. Despite what you may think of it if someone broke into my home right now I would have every legal right to kill him with no questions asked.

That some forms of murder is legal in the US in many states doesn't make a difference. Murdering your wife for disobedience is also legal in some countries, but could I argue on the basis of that, that killing your wife is not a crime, but self-defense of your honour? No, of course not.

Likewise one can't argue that planning in advance to commit murder on anyone who may enter your house or steal from you, is still premeditating a murder, regardless of what some conservative US states may think of it.

So basically you're arguing off your own preconceived notions with the actual law actually meaning nothing? Then fine, whatever floats your boat. It changes nothing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked