OK let's finish this: Killing when is it OK in self defence?, read OP before Poll.

[JTsyo]

It has been brought screaming to my attention that I am in the extreme minority when it comes to my views on killing in self defence, which is making me question that perhaps I'm wrong to hold the view that I do. I'm more than happy to be wrong, but I won't accept that I am wrong without a reasoned argument to the contrary, or a superior argument to the one I make. So, here is my argument, the belief I hold with regards to killing a person in self defence.

Premise: Human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, it deserves respect, as human life has created some of the greatest and most terrible things the world has ever known, before that life is over we are unable to determine what potential each life has, whether they are a potential Ghandi or a potential Hitler is unknown, until their life has been lived, it is this potential that is unique to human beings, this potential is what gives a strangers life value, and that value requires respect.

Premise 2: As human life has value and requires respect taking a human beings life should only be done in cases where something of greater value would be lost or taken if no action is taken. I.e. If a person of known value will die, rather than unknown value, if multiple people will die rather than a single person, or if a person who has more potential or a more valuable contribution to the world will die if a person of lesser potential or value does not die. I.e. an 80 year old man has to die to save a 5 year old. Or Hitler has to die to save Ghandi.

Conclusion: In a home invasion scenario the invader should not be killed until it is absolutely clear that he/ she poses a very real an definite undeniable threat to the life or lives of others.

Please feel free to pick it apart, explaining what is wrong with it, how you feel contrary to it, and how I should feel.

Please do not just hurl insults and abuse, it benefits no one.

I am including in this thread a poll, that gives you the chance to say where you draw the line, where you think that killing an assailant in a hypothetical situation is acceptable. The situation is as follows.

A Man has broken into your home, while you are home, and while your family sleeps. You are woken by the noise, you are armed with a loaded handgun. The poll options are different points in this hypothetical at which you can choose to take the mans life, as the situation develops, please choose a poll option, then explain why you feel that way in the thread.

Please note, I won't reply to everyone, I imagine a lot of people will post.

LOL guess living in a country with an aristocracy will warp your views. So if the Queen of England breaks into you house with a knife and tried to kill you, you wouldn't defend yourself since her life value would be greater than yours?

 

[Avalon]

If I were alone, I'd wait for him to make some threatening gesture, either by waving the knife or raising it towards me.

But, the situation is that there's a family asleep. As soon as I saw the knife, and he started walking towards me, I'd open fire.

I wouldn't necessarily be thinking "Man, I need to kill this guy," but I'm definitely going to pop off several at his torso. As the Russian in Rocky IV would say, if he dies, he dies.

Also, I'm pretty shocked and somewhat disgusted that 1/3 of you would look downstairs, and upon just seeing a guy, try to KILL him. I'd have thought most would at least wait until they saw a weapon, or waited for him to start approaching. If the guy is at a distance and "appears" unarmed, why kill him?

 

[roguerower]

Reported also. Repost, troll thread. Ban.

Same. Stop posting this shit.

 

[bignateyk]

If I came down the stairs and there was a stranger in my house, I would give them a warning, at which point they would have about half a second to comply. If they made a single motion from that point I would shoot them.

 

[shortylickens]

She keeps a gun in her shower? How does she keep it from rusting?

www.glock.com

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Ok, for the rest of my reply.

The first thing you state in your second "premise" is: As human life has value and requires respect taking a human beings life should only be done in cases where something of greater value would be lost or taken if no action is taken. Ok, so would you ever value a strangers life over your own? Maybe the queen or prime minister has more "value" than your own life, maybe a friend/family member does. Maybe nobody. Why do you believe that type of person has more value to their life than yourself? Is there any life you believe is less valuable than your own? What about anybody who is less valuable than your family/friends lives? By the rest of your second premise, it hints that you might have some basis to come to the same conclusion some day. A person breaking in to my home has the potential to harm myself AND my friends/family. So as you have said, when it's not a 1:1 valuation then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. So if you're living alone, where is the point at which the scale tips to my life being more valuable (although I think for most people, their own life will be more valuable than a stranger)?

 

[Veliko]

We need to ban these threads. Every week there is at least one pillock posting a story about a criminal who got shot whilst trying to rob someone's ear rings. The resulting posts are always the same.

OMG THIS STORY TOTALLY JUSTIFIES MY INBRED DESIRE TO OWN 50 BAJILLION GUNS AND SHOOT ANYONE WHO SNEEZES WITHIN A MILE OF ME.

no way every life is precious and sacred this is totally out of order and stuff

It's as if there is no middle ground anywhere.

 

[shortylickens]

We need to ban these threads. The resulting posts are always the same.

Agreed.
But I suggested this to the mods a dozen times already and nothing ever happens.

I post on other gun threads when I want an intelligent discussion on these matters. VAGunforum is my favorite cuz we talk about local stores and ranges. Recommend everyone else here do the same.

 

[bignateyk]

LOL guess living in a country with an aristocracy will warp your views. So if the Queen of England breaks into you house with a knife and tried to kill you, you wouldn't defend yourself since her life value would be greater than yours?

I LOL'ed at the image of neckbeard cowering in the fetal position while the queen of england beats him to death.

 

[MikeyLSU]

without reading all the first 5 pages, I have to believe OP does not believe in death penalty, even for someone like Hitler or Osama.

The reason I say this, is once they are captured, they don't pose a risk to anyone anymore, and you say you should only take a life if something of greater value is at risk.

First off, I disagree with your premise, not all human life is valued the same. If you break into my home, your life value suddenly diminishes. Taking out a knife even more so.

I voted when you start walking towards me, but I promise if a guy breaks into my home with a knife then starts to run away, I will shoot. My feeling is that by letting him get away, many more lives are at risk, and he needs to be caught, so either he waits for the police, or he gets shot(maybe in the legs, maybe not). But he will not get away.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I just want to know why you think your POV is more logical than mine, it will help me see if there's a better more logical reason out there.

Your POV isn't logical, it's emotional. There's a difference.
Logic dictates facts. You use emotion and assumptions.

Fact. Someone you didn't let in, is in your home.
Fact. You don't know what they are there for.
Fact. You don't want to die.
Fact. Killing an intruder is the best way to ensure your survival.
Fact. You didn't create the situation. Some piece of $#!t that broke into your home started the whole mess. He put into motion the cause of his own death.

Your notion of all life is special blah blah blah, is the telltale sign of someone that has lived a sheltered existence.
In the real world, there are people that would literally kill you for fun.

 

[Farmer]

Shoot on sight no questions asked.

I would also invest in an NFA machinegun to make sure he is totally riddled with bullets.

 

[Cookie]

I chose the third option.

But then I thought of the only time when it actually happened to me. I don't own a gun, but I remember looking out the window in the middle of the night seeing a guy and his friend trying to pry it open with a crowbar, and thinking for a split second that if I owned a gun, I would have shot him already, before he even entered the house.

Instead my roommate and I ran into my bedroom (the window he ended up smashing and crawling through seconds later was in her bedroom) and pushed the bed up against the door. We called the police who were less than a block away still doing paperwork from when we called them 30 min earlier about these guys creeping around the back yard.

As far as I know they didn't get caught. Maybe they went on to be good people and save many lives, but I think it's more likely they just went on to break into someone else's house instead.

Also, I felt my well-being was in danger, not necessarily my life. I think the intent was to steal, not harm us. But at the time, I didn't know, and I didn't care, if I had the means, they would have died.

 

[Farmer]

As far as I know they didn't get caught. Maybe they went on to be good people and save many lives, but I think it's more likely they just went on to break into someone else's house instead..

I would've machinegunned those assholes. Double kill!

 

[CPA]

I'm guessing he's studying philosophy. Everything is so black and white.

I'm not sure I understand your comment, but philosophy is gray, rational logic is black and white. Notice, I said "rational", most of neckbeard's comments and presumptions (like perceived value of a stranger's life) is irrational.

 

[MtnMan]

Evidence that British government brainwashing is more effective than originally thought.

 

[Farmer]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, but philosophy is gray, rational logic is black and white. Notice, I said "rational", most of neckbeard's comments and presumptions (like perceived value of a stranger's life) is irrational.

So what you're saying is HAL9000 captures the innate irrationality of society and in doing so accurately portrays the moral dilemma we are discussing?

If that's the case, you need to purchase two machineguns and fire them simultaneously.

 

[2Dead]

I voted "The man walks towards you with the knife" as that is the first time I would be legally allowed to in my state. Realistically, you may not see the knife before he starts walking towards you. It wouldn't take more than seconds for the attacker to close the distance and perhaps fatally injure you. Sure you may have shot him enough to stop/kill him as well but its not worth the personal risk. Life isn't a movie and even if you get a fatal shot, he probably won't just drop dead on the spot.

 

[Farmer]

I voted "The man walks towards you with the knife" as that is the first time I would be legally allowed to in my state. Realistically, you may not see the knife before he starts walking towards you. It wouldn't take more than seconds for the attacker to close the distance and perhaps fatally injure you. Sure you may have shot him enough to stop/kill him as well but its not worth the personal risk. Life isn't a movie and even if you get a fatal shot, he probably won't just drop dead on the spot.

Solution: Riddle him full of bullets.

A very smart physicist once noted that, if there are infinitely many holes in an object, then that object does not exist.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I think your second premise is flawed. Not every human life has value. You admitted in the premise that some lives may have more value than another life (e.g. the Queen is more valued than a street beggar) and that many lives would hold more value than one life... since you have stated that lives have a varying degree of value wouldn't it stand to reason that some lives have no (or at least approaching zero) value?

The bottom line is we all have the right to defend ourselves and in a lot of cases biology takes over. While we all talk a lot of game, few of us want the burden of taking a life. However, if a criminal puts us in danger then it is likely that the criminal will force us to take an action we do not want.

Do you have children, HAL9000? I value the mental well-being and innocence of my children above ANY life on this planet, period. If I even caught someone simply molesting my child with no intent to kill I would kill them on the spot.

Again, your premise is flawed. There are much things worse than death and we are all animals. The meth junky burden on society that is trying to take away what I've worked so hard for all my life is not worth the $1 it costs to shoot him with my .454.

To your question - if I walked down the stairs and NEW there was an intruder, I would put my gun on them and tell them to stop moving and get on the ground. If they didn't comply immediately I would kill them. If they did, I would hold them at gunpoint until police arrived.

In America this notion of shoot to maim is not mainstream because of our litigious society. Criminals will bring civil suits against those that hurt them, even in the commission of the crime. Dead men cannot sue and ruin your life.

Again, I must tell you, not everyone believes human life has an intrinsic value. I certainly don't.

 

[TuxDave]

I guess I imagined the scenario wrong. "the man starts walking towards you" I imagined he was quite a distance away and was walking slowly towards me. If I saw he had a knife and suddenly made movement towards me I probably would shoot (if I owned a gun )

 

[Krazy4Real]

You come down the stairs and see the man standing there

 

[MisterJackson]

Yeah, if someone is in my home and I don't know who they are then I'm shooting. When it comes down to it though, taking a life, even in self defense, is a life altering event, no matter how you look at it. If it comes down to me vs. him then I will do all I can to survive and ensure those I love survive and deal with the emotional end of it later.

Ideally, if you're a good shot, and the time/situation allots it, you can wound/maim and not have to kill. If I see a knife I'll likely shoot low of center mass to stop him while avoiding vital organs. If he continues after that then it's center mass time.

If I see, think, or feel the intruder has a firearm I will aim for vital organs, no questions asked.

It's easy for any of us to say what we'd do with time now to think about it all, but in the heat of the moment, your fight or flight instinct kicks in, along with adrenaline, so unless you have serious training odds are you're fucked if you're gonna wait around to see if this guy came to kill/rape/rob or just have some fucking tea and crumpets. Each moment you waste exponentially increases the odds you'll wind up dead by his hands.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Yeah, if someone is in my home and I don't know who they are then I'm shooting. When it comes down to it though, taking a life, even in self defense, is a life altering event, no matter how you look at it. If it comes down to me vs. him then I will do all I can to survive and ensure those I love survive and deal with the emotional end of it later.

Ideally, if you're a good shot, and the time/situation allots it, you can wound/maim and not have to kill. If I see a knife I'll likely shoot low of center mass to stop him while avoiding vital organs. If he continues after that then it's center mass time.

If I see, think, or feel the intruder has a firearm I will aim for vital organs, no questions asked.

It's easy for any of us to say what we'd do with time now to think about it all, but in the heat of the moment, your fight or flight instinct kicks in, along with adrenaline, so unless you have serious training odds are you're fucked if you're gonna wait around to see if this guy came to kill/rape/rob or just have some fucking tea and crumpets. Each moment you waste exponentially increases the odds you'll wind up dead by his hands.

Great way to get yourself in more legal trouble than killing them outright.

IIRC if shooting a gun in self defense means you believe your life is in danger. If that is true, then you should be responding with deadly force. Responding with less than deadly force indicates you weren't threatened enough, and shooting was not a justified response. Or at least that's how courts can see it...

 

[imported_noonedoes]

My friend's father regretted not killing a burglar. His neighbor tried to break into his house once. The burglar threw a brick through the window to see if anyone was home, my friend's dad was home but decided to wait in the dark with is gun to see if the guy would come back. Sure enough, an hour later the neighbor broke in to the house and my friend's dad shot him in the leg and called the cops.

A few years later, the burglar was arrested for raping and murdering a girl. He regrets not killing him that night because he could have saved her life...but hind sight is 20/20.