[DomusAlbion]

I'd kill for some sushi and a really cold beer right now.

Yeah right! Just wait until the starving hopeless show up at your farm. Then you'll see what you are made of.

I'll probably feed those I can and those willing to work can camp out on the land. To a limit, of course. We don't want Overshoot on the farm.

[PenultimateManStanding]

I'd kill for some sushi and a really cold beer right now.

Yeah right! Just wait until the starving hopeless show up at your farm. Then you'll see what you are made of.

I'll probably feed those I can and those willing to work can camp out on the land. To a limit, of course. We don't want Overshoot on the farm.

And when they come in numbers? I'm sorry, Domus, but it could get real ugly.

[0mar]

Kill or be killed

[Free]

Words are so easy. I think many have the wrong impression of killing due to movies, where it goes "bang" and somebody drops dead.

In reality it is a painfully, dirty, disgusting, sad, absolutely gut-wrenching process if somebody dies. Many victims fecate, urinate, bleed, throw up, utter the weirdest sounds, keep shaking in uncontrolled manner before they finally breathe the last time.

The worst and most despicable enemy suddenly is remembered as this most beautiful living, breathing, human being, in contrast to this pile of spiritless shit that he is now, and that we all will become. It shatters the worldview even of the strongest, coldest people.

[RonMN]

DAMN GOOD POINT Free!!!

[BrownDog]

Other than self defense, I'd use lethal force to stop my wife being raped or beaten (serious bodily injury). My intent wouldn't be to kill, just to stop the assault, but it would be lethal force...

My state allows lethal force to prevent the loss of property (at night, anyway). I doubt I'd actually do so, because stuff can be replaced. Circumstances could change, however, and if the thing they were stealing was necessary for survival, I might change my mind.

Using lethal force to prevent crime against a stranger is tricky business. If you don't know the situation for certain, you could end up really regetting it. Say you see some guy with a gun to another guy's head, and you think that a murder is about to happen. Would you shoot the one with the gun to save the other guy's life? Later you might find out that the gun holder was an undercover cop on a bust. Ooops...

[BrownDog]

Yes, Free, good point. I hope I never ever have to do so.

[frankthetank]

I think the movie "Saw" covers a topic vaguely similiar to this.

Hollywood style, of course

[gego]

I think lorenzo was talking about the US civil war and not WWII with only 2% willing to kill. By WWII those willing to kill were in the majority. By Vietnam, well it was just what everyone did. When the enemy looks like a different species it is different.

If you want to find out if you are a killer, maybe you need to sign up for the "War in Iraq". That sure will tell you something about yourself, about killing, and make your dreams when you return forever different.

Sort of scary what people can do to oneanother when push comes to shove.

[drew]

I recall reading about some nice boys caught by the red army in the ukraine during the 30's who had made up a hearty soup during the forced starvation imposed by stalin. The soldiers were drawn to the hut by the good aroma. Guess they were hungry til they noticed the hand....

Would I kill for food?

I have killed before, and I will leave it to the hunters.

I have no problem with hunting what so ever BTW, I just don't feel like enjoying the rush when something is in the sights.

Hunters, you know what I mean.

I would kill for self defense, etc..

Drew

[threadbear]

What would I kill for? A trip to Napa Valley, a pair of Guccis with a matching bag and a really good tan. Oh, and I'd kill for a reiki session and relationship advice from my favorite guru. But that's just me-- just spiritual I guess.

Seriously though. I would kill for sport.

[MicroHydro]

With 6.5 billion people on Earth, there are too many "bad' people in existence to make the open ended hunting of "evildoers" rational or practical.

However, if a particular person inflicted an atrocity on a loved one, and there was no functioning law and order, I could contemplate a personal revenge killing. Most primitive cultures consider such acts to be justified, even an obligation. As a practical matter, I would not have the resources to hold someone captive for life. The death penalty could not be outsourced to the state if there was no functioning government. Personal enforcement of the death penalty would be the default option. On the other hand, if my adversary fled and vanished, I could not pursue to the ends of the Earth.

[Yavicleus]

I'd kill everyone in this room for a drop of beer.

[Jack]

I figured most would say they would kill in defense... although buck fever could prevent even this.

But what about less clear cases?

What if you walked into a room where your wife was being brutally raped?

The perp would be terminated. If I could get away with it legally, I would take considerable pleasure in executing the individual no matter how great the time lapse between the crime and retribution. Under some circumstances, I might choose to purchase a one way ticket.

And, if I could, I would go far beyond termination.

What if the woman was a stranger?

Or if it was a man being raped?

Would it make a difference to you?

What if you caught him, right after the rape?

It would depend on some factors that I so no reason to define. All other things being equal, I'd call the police.

[k_semler]

Other than self defense, I'd use lethal force to stop my wife being raped or beaten (serious bodily injury). My intent wouldn't be to kill, just to stop the assault, but it would be lethal force...

My state allows lethal force to prevent the loss of property (at night, anyway). I doubt I'd actually do so, because stuff can be replaced. Circumstances could change, however, and if the thing they were stealing was necessary for survival, I might change my mind.

Using lethal force to prevent crime against a stranger is tricky business. If you don't know the situation for certain, you could end up really regetting it. Say you see some guy with a gun to another guy's head, and you think that a murder is about to happen. Would you shoot the one with the gun to save the other guy's life? Later you might find out that the gun holder was an undercover cop on a bust. Ooops...

Use proper escalation of force, and stop at the level nessecary to eliminate the threat/properly evaluate the situation. Don't just shoot the asshole, (alleged asshole that is), make GOD DAMN SURE that the force you are about to apply is absolutly called for. If the threat does not subside, and you have properly evaluated the situation at hand given the current conditions, then you have every right, (under WA State law anyway), to use any reasonable force to stop the threat, even if that force ends up being lethal. Just renember: Proper escalation of force. Use no more force than requred to end a situation, and no less than requred. Try and talk them down first, (if under direct threat skip to step two. Then draw your weapon, (MAKE SURE READY TO FIRE), and warn the aggressor that you are prepared to use lethal force if nessecary, and order him to lay down his arm and step away from it. If he fails to do so, repeat the warning in a more severe overtone. If that fails. Fire a non-lethal shot if possible to just incapacitate the agressor but not kill him. If that does not succeed, the agressor is obviously intent on commiting a violent felony. Escalate the force as you deem nessecary for the situation, and the statutes in your state allow. Just renember, if you are going threaten to use lethal force, you had better be damned well ready to apply that force if requred. Never draw your weapon if you are not prepared to discharge it, and never point it at any object, (or person), that you are not willing to destroy.

Keep your finger OUT OF THE TRIGGER GAURD until you have confirmed your target and evalutated possible over-penetaration/ricochet. Never sqeeze that trigger until you are ABSOLUTLY CERTIAN that this remains the only solution left to spare life or limb. ALWAYS RENEMBER: BULLETS CAN NOT BE TAKEN BACK!!

[seahorse]

Gego,

Lorenzo was fairly close on his WWII stats. There is a book called "War on the Mind", written by a retired Army psychologist, don't remember the name, who wrote about how the military has changed its training over the years after WWII to up the number of people willing to sight in on someone and pull the trigger. Apparently, although no good studies were done, the Army was not pleased with what it found. Everyone would risk their life to save someone, but not kill someone. So, changes were made. For example, round bulls eye targets were replaced with man size silloettes. He gives other examples, so that by the time of VietNam, an estimated 80% of the people were willing to shoot to kill. He also notes the number of PTSD people has increased. Today, soldiers practice shooting at moving targets with faces on them, as well as live fire shoots at video images (doesn't get any more real than that). I don't know what the stats are in Iraq right now, but with one Arkansas National Guard Unit that just returned from Baghdad, it was estimated that 90% of the soldiers in the returning infantry company had killed someone, not just shot, but actually killed someone. That's a high stat, and sure to be some high psychological fallout. There is another book, more recent, called "On Killing" written by yet another retired Army guy on the subject.

[Chocky]

If people were really honest they'd say 'I'll kill if someone else tells me to.' If history is any guide, that is what people will do, Lorenzo's dodgy 2% statistic not withstanding.

My recollection of those statistics is that only 10% of soldiers in WW2 fired their weapons at the enemy. It was supposed to reflect the relatively small proportion of soldiers engaged in combat where they actually saw the enemy, rather than the proportion that were capable of killing.

[MonteQuest]

You guys are a piece of work. You do know Aaron is fishing, don't you?

Open wide!

Speaking of killin'...

“Poor people aren’t necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn’t mean you’re willing to kill.”—President George W. Bush May 19, 2003

Mr. Lynch,
Thank you for corresponding with us.
The peak oilers appear to be morphing into a fascist movement whose immediate goals are authoritarian government and mass murder.

[k_semler]

Fishing for what? Are you telling me Aaron is a Federalie??

[MonteQuest]

Fishing for what? Are you telling me Aaron is a Federalie??

No, but I bet a punch line to prove a point is coming.

Here fishy fishy!