NationStates Jolt Archive

The situation: You are walking down a dark alley. Suddenly, a man jumps out of the shadows. He attacks you, kicking and punching you. He also has a knife, and is attempting to stab you. You have a loaded pistol in your pocket. Do you shoot him in self defence? Is it moral to do so?

Shoot to kill or shoot to wound? I would never kill someone period, in self-defence or not. This doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself. However, I would also seek to not put myself in that position in the first place.

Yeah i'd shoot the guy. :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Morals are relative, so I won't try to answer whether it is moral to shoot him or not. That's something everyone has to decide for themselves. But no, I wouldn't shoot him. I'd fight him. But not shoot him. (In my mind) shooting a man whose only weapon is a knife would be like fighting back an unarmed man with a metal baseball bat.

First of all I would never carry a pistol. I would either carry my FADBA’GS A’12 DB BS or a sword. If I were carrying either weapon I doubt that anybody with any sense would jump me with just a knife.

Morals are relative, so I won't try to answer whether it is moral to shoot him or not. That's something everyone has to decide for themselves. But no, I wouldn't shoot him. I'd fight him. But not shoot him. (In my mind) shooting a man whose only weapon is a knife would be like fighting back an unarmed man with a metal baseball bat.
Unarmed as in no weapons, or unarmed as in no arms as in appendages. I could see your argument for the second case, but not the first.

With my below average reflexes and poor shooting skills (never handled a gun in my life), I'd likely never draw the gun or miss, but if he dies after trying to jump me his life is forfeit if I can reach the trigger before his knife reaches me.

As for morality, there is no morality, but I believe it was justified to shoot in this case.

If I were more skilled, I'd shoot to wound, but even then that decision takes a second or so and the reaction needs to be without pause- there is no time to debate the morality of shooting him in the leg over the chest.

That assuming I'd ever be in a dark alley, which I would take great pains to make sure I never have to be.

Shoot to kill or shoot to wound? I would never kill someone period, in self-defence or not. This doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself. However, I would also seek to not put myself in that position in the first place.

My views exactly.

Unarmed as in no weapons, or unarmed as in no arms as in appendages. I could see your argument for the second case, but not the first.

The first case. If you are fighting an opponent and are armed with a weapon that can break bones in a single swing, and they have no weapon whatsoever, there is no conceivable reason (aside from incredible luck, or a gross disadvantage in size) by which your opponent should pose any real threat.

If at some point, you somehow end up on the losing end, one hard swing of the bat to the skull will cave it in and kill him. Not what I'd call a particularly even fight, nor one where the person with the weapon should have any fear whatsoever.

Why have a loaded gun in your pocket in the first place, if not to shoot?

I think if I could, I'd try to scare the man off with the gun first. If that didn't work, I'd try to shoot him in the leg or shoulder. Someplace where he would stop beating me, possibly run, not lethal but also serious enough that he would need attention. Then have the cops search the hospitals for him when he comes in to arrest his butt.

Morals be damned. In a life or death situation, it's not your morals that take control, it's your instinct to live, no matter what happens to the attacker. Sure therapy might be needed later, but you'll be alive and that's all your brain cares about at that moment.

I would shoot to kill or seriously injure. If some damn fool wants to attack me wth a knife he should get what he deserves. Anyone and i mean anyone who atempts to damage another persons health without provocation should be shot!

Shoot to kill or shoot to wound? I would never kill someone period, in self-defence or not. This doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself. However, I would also seek to not put myself in that position in the first place.
I concur totally with this post.

I might also add, that if I had a gun in my hand for some strange unknown reason, then perhaps I had put myself in harms way in the first place?

I'd shoot to wound, not to kill. But I would shoot.

Anyone who attacks me is fair game,reguardless of what i maybe carrying. :sniper:

Morals be damned. In a life or death situation, it's not your morals that take control, it's your instinct to live, no matter what happens to the attacker. Sure therapy might be needed later, but you'll be alive and that's all your brain cares about at that moment.

But isn't a life or death situation the exact time when morality becomes the most important? It's not a challenge to maintain everyday morality (well, at least for most of us). I know it's wrong to steal a candy bar and it's really doesn't enter into my mind because I can afford to buy it anyway. However, if we abandon our morals in times of crisis, then can we truly say they are ours to begin with? If I believe that killing is, at least for me, fundamentally wrong, but then kill someone when my own life is threatened, doesn't that make me a hypocrite and morally corrupt?

There are things worth dying for an morality may be one of them. There is nothing, however, worth killing for and if I abandon this ideal when it becomes tough or inconvenient to hold on to it, then nothing I say or do ever again will be relevant because I've shown that, when the chips are down, I'm willing to abandon my principles.

wtf was i doing with a loaded gun? what was i THINKING? i dont have a concealed carry permit!
now what am i gonna DO with this body? should i just run away so i dont get arrested for carrying an illegal handgun?

as a "girl" i would shoot first and worry later about whether it was deadly force or not

I would shoot. I would probably just shoot to wound, but if I felt that they would still be able to harm me I would kill them. If I had the nerve, that is.

As for the baseball bat scenario, I would swing hard after the very first attack. If someone attacks me, it's not my responsibility to ensure that they don't get too hurt.

But isn't a life or death situation the exact time when morality becomes the most important? It's not a challenge to maintain everyday morality (well, at least for most of us). I know it's wrong to steal a candy bar and it's really doesn't enter into my mind because I can afford to buy it anyway. However, if we abandon our morals in times of crisis, then can we truly say they are ours to begin with? If I believe that killing is, at least for me, fundamentally wrong, but then kill someone when my own life is threatened, doesn't that make me a hypocrite and morally corrupt?

There are things worth dying for an morality may be one of them. There is nothing, however, worth killing for and if I abandon this ideal when it becomes tough or inconvenient to hold on to it, then nothing I say or do ever again will be relevant because I've shown that, when the chips are down, I'm willing to abandon my principles.

But when you're dead, people aren't going to remember the fact that you didn't shoot because it was immoral. They're going to think that you could still be alive if you'd had the guts to wound another human being.

The way I see it, morals are a luxury for the well-off. When it comes down to your life or someone else's, that most basic part of your brain is going to tell you to survive no matter what the costs.

I doubt I would ever be so stupid as to put myself in that situation. Also, if it happened, I wouldn't need a gun to kill the guy. Not that I would actually kill the guy even though I could...I prefer not to kill or even seriously injure people if it can be helped.

Let's give this situation a break down

1. Dark Alley? I wouldn't walk down a dark alley, i watched Sesame Street as a child, I know better.

2. Kicking and punching? What did I do? Do I look ritch?

3. Knife? One of the reaqsons you don't walk down the alley

4. I have a gun? I owuld never carry a gun. Because that just asking for trouble. And it's carrying a concealed weapon, and the cops would arrest you too when they arrived on the scene.

And as a side note, if a guy just started attacking me in the alley with a knife, I'm big enough, and have enough fighting skill to fight him off by hand. But to be honest, I would prolly be freakin' out to much to really think about the gun at all.

As to it being morally sound or not. It really depends on YOUR morals. But to me? Well, I think it's pretty immoral to carry a gun around with me.

I support strict gun control, but there's no way carrying a gun for self defense is "immoral." Stupid hippy.

But when you're dead, people aren't going to remember the fact that you didn't shoot because it was immoral. They're going to think that you could still be alive if you'd had the guts to wound another human being.

The way I see it, morals are a luxury for the well-off. When it comes down to your life or someone else's, that most basic part of your brain is going to tell you to survive no matter what the costs.

That's just it, though. One isn't moral because they want acclaim. They're moral because they believe there is a right way and a wrong way to live their life. If there is any afterlife, I wonder how one can enjoy it if one's last action in this life was to betray their own moral code, at least if that moral code matters to them? I don't care if people think I'm a coward because I'm a pacifist. I don't hold those views for the approval of others, I hold them for myself.

While I understand that you think morality is a "luxury", I disagree. It is one of the things that makes us uniquely "human", our ability to establish a set of standards by which we intend to live our lives. We can then override our "basic brain function" if the cause is great enough for us. To assume that morality is a "luxury" is to discount every act of heroism ever performed.

In a situation like this their are two ways it could go, which is built into everyone. It's called the fight or flight syndrome, either you will stand and fight or you will run away.
The situation would progress so swiftly that morals would not enter into it.
If your going to run away all well and good, maybe you can warn the next person to go down the alley, but if you are a fighter, you will fight with whatever you can get your hands on and use it with as much force as you can, just to live.
In this situation your life is all important, not your attackers.

If I had a gun on me, I would shoot in self-defense though I would be polite and civil enough to shoot the opponent in a location that renders him less mobile than before like the leg or the foot.

Killing in self-defense is not ideal and should be avoided if at all possible. It is immoral to kill in self-defense if that killing is unnecessary.

In a situation like this their are two ways it could go, which is built into everyone. It's called the fight or flight syndrome, either you will stand and fight or you will run away.
The situation would progress so swiftly that morals would not enter into it.
If your going to run away all well and good, maybe you can warn the next person to go down the alley, but if you are a fighter, you will fight with whatever you can get your hands on and use it with as much force as you can, just to live.
In this situation your life is all important, not your attackers.

Human beings frequently override "fight or flight" response (firemen rushing into burning buildings, for example), so there's certainly no way to say that morals don't enter into the equation or that it isn't possible to make a concious decision to not kill. Furthermore, there is more to "fighting" than simple agression and there are many different ways to fight.

Again, I'm not saying that I wouldn't act to subdue the attacker, but I would not kill.

I'd shoot to wound, not to kill. But I would shoot.
I keep seeing variations on this, which makes me question strongly the knowledge of the people stating it.
When using a firearm, rule #1 is as follows: Be prepared to kill.
Not being prepared to kill, when using a firearm, is tatamount to suicide, since an attacker can (assuming he's close enough to use a knife) either stab you or take away your gun. Yes, you can shoot to wound, but if you shoot, you must be prepared to kill. In fact, merely drawing a gun means you should be prepared to kill, because you may be forced to once you've drawn your weapon.
Leaving aside the fact that firing on a person is considered lethal force, legally (which means that in order to use it, you must be in reasonable fear of the life of yourself, or another), shooting someone in the leg... is not gauranteed non-lethal. So you may kill the guy, and if you claim you shot him in the leg because you didn't want to kill him, you'll be on trial.
Anyways... I, personally, would shoot the bastard. If I didn't have the gun, I'd probably gut him with his own knife, or possibly kill him some other way. Because he attacked me (in this hypothetical situation) he has forfeited his right to not be killed by me (in self-defence) and if he was stupid enough to do so with nothing more than a knife, that's his problem.

But if you are not a firefighter you are not trained to do the job so you will not be able to override the fight or flight feeling your body gives you.
Fire fighters and other professions like theirs such as police are trained to react to a certain situation and you have time on your hands to assess the situation. In the situation being discussed here their is no time time to think, just to react

But if you are not a firefighter you are not trained to do the job so you will not be able to override the fight or flight feeling your body gives you.
Fire fighters and other professions like theirs such as police are trained to react to a certain situation and you have time on your hands to assess the situation. In the situation being discussed here their is no time time to think, just to react

You don't need to be trained to overcome natural impulses. Some people have steel nerves, others don't. Some can think clearly in the face of danger while others panic.

Moreover, shooting is not a natural reaction to someone lunging at you. You have to pull the gun out, aim it at them, possibly unlock the safety catch, and then shoot. Pushing your attacker away is a natural reaction. Jumping back is a natural reaction. Bringing a gun to the ready position, aiming it, and then shooting it is not. It requires active thought.

The situation: You are walking down a dark alley. Suddenly, a man jumps out of the shadows. He attacks you, kicking and punching you. He also has a knife, and is attempting to stab you. You have a loaded pistol in your pocket. Do you shoot him in self defence? Is it moral to do so?

Seeing how the attacker isn't very considered of me and that's putting it mildly, I wouldn't feel obliged to be considered of him / her, and probably shoot him / her through the head.

Why would I be carrying a loaded pistol anyway? If I knew I was going to be attacked then I’d be somewhere else. If I was afraid of being attacked I’d be walking with some mates. I never carry a gun cause I’d probably end up shooting myself in the foot!

If the guy were close enough to be stabbing at me with his blade, and I genuinely thought he’d kill me, then I’d try throwing or disarming him. I wouldn't have the room to get at the gun and use it properly. If I had a knife as well then I would have no problem slicing him or trying to incapacitate him, but I wouldn’t intentionally attempt a fatal wound, and I’d call a medic (and the cops) while giving first aid immediately after neutralizing the threat.

If someone is (stupid/desperate) enough to keep coming at you with a weapon when your fighting back, then, unless you are completely willing to kill the guy to keep him down, give him your wallet. It’s not worth risking your life for, what, 20/30 bucks.

Never use a weapon in a fight if you can help it. If you don't know how to use it properly then 70% of the time you'll find it used on you. If you do know how to knife fight or shoot then there's still a fair chance of loosing the weapon if forced to use it at close quarters.

Someone attacks you feel free to defend yourself, if their armed and you fear for your life, run like hell, if you can't run, give them what they want and make sure you get a good physical description for the cops later, if they want your life, make a load of noise, fight back, but take the opportunity to run if it presents itself.

It’s not morally wrong to kill in self defence when you believe your life is in real danger, but it is to leave a guy bleeding or kill when you could have run.

He would be dead the minute he started attacking me. It is moral to save your own life in any situation at any other cost.

I would punch/kick the guy off me then level the gun at them, mainly as a detterent, and then have him put down the knife and bring him in to the police.

(There could be slight variation to that but, bottom line is :I would only fire if there was no other choice, and after revealing that i had a w3eapon and giving them a chance to surrender.)

First off, carrying a concealed weapon is a crime (unless you have a permit).

Anyway, sure i would shoot the guy(assuming my reflexes were quick enough). Anyone would shoot the guy, but its a matter of the reprocussions that would follow such an event. Obviously, someone would notice a gunshot at night, and see you run from the alley, with pistol in hand, and a bloody shirt from the shot. So obviously, they would call 9-1-1, and then you'd have to explain why you shot someone. and a whole sticky mess follows from there, possibly resulting in you going to jail for carrying a concealed weapon, or for shooting the man. either way, you gotta ask yourself "was it worth it?" So, in short, yeah i would shoot the attacker, but then i'd realize what a dumbass i was for doing so.

But if you are not a firefighter you are not trained to do the job so you will not be able to override the fight or flight feeling your body gives you.
Fire fighters and other professions like theirs such as police are trained to react to a certain situation and you have time on your hands to assess the situation. In the situation being discussed here their is no time time to think, just to react

But morality is training. It's figuring out what you believe to be right and just and worth guiding your life by and then actually...well, guiding your life by it. If you hold a value deeply enough, then every moment of your waking life is, in effect, "training" yourself to respond in a certain way. I'm not taking anything away from firefighters, but I don't think you're giving common, everyday individuals enough credit.

About my post earlier, I don't haev a gun permit but for the purpose of this question i do

The first case. If you are fighting an opponent and are armed with a weapon that can break bones in a single swing, and they have no weapon whatsoever, there is no conceivable reason (aside from incredible luck, or a gross disadvantage in size) by which your opponent should pose any real threat.
You see the way I figure it if somebody is stupid enough to attack somebody while they have a slugger in their hands. Then the attacker would likely deserve a good crack with the bat.

Geez, everybody wants to shoot him!


O :mp5:
/\ :sniper:
/\ :mp5:

To everyone who said "I would never shoot", what if your child or elderly parent were with you? It's easy to sit at home, in front of your computer and judge the situation from a moral high horse.

Life and Death. No one can know with certainty how they would react under that kind of stress. Even those who support self defense, you may not be able to pull the trigger if the situation actually presented itself.

So I say, Shoot. But I certainly wouldn't judge a person's morals by the decision they make in this situation.

To everyone who said "I would never shoot", what if your child or elderly parent were with you? It's easy to sit at home, in front of your computer and judge the situation from a moral high horse.

Moral certainty isn't the same as a moral high horse, any more than confidence is the same as arrogance. I can say with authority how I would react because I feel incredibly strongly about my beliefs. Many people would betray their morals for money, power, hatred, etc. I would sooner die.

When you have that kind of conviction, yes, it's very easy to know how you'd react.

To everyone who said "I would never shoot", what if your child or elderly parent were with you? It's easy to sit at home, in front of your computer and judge the situation from a moral high horse.

Life and Death. No one can know with certainty how they would react under that kind of stress. Even those who support self defense, you may not be able to pull the trigger if the situation actually presented itself.

So I say, Shoot. But I certainly wouldn't judge a person's morals by the decision they make in this situation.

It's questionable to judge the morality of this situation anyway, at least in an objective fashion. My own morals and strongly held beliefs dictate the way I live my life because I want them to and I value them. That isn't to say they are the absolutely right ones because I can't speak for the experience of everyone on the planet. I firmly believe that there are always other ways. Even in a situation like this and even if my child or parent was with me I wouldn't shoot. This isn't a failure in my personal morality, only a failure of my rationality for getting into the situation in the first place and, in the second place, not being able to think of a way out that doesn't involve violence.

To everyone who said "I would never shoot", what if your child or elderly parent were with you? It's easy to sit at home, in front of your computer and judge the situation from a moral high horse.

Life and Death. No one can know with certainty how they would react under that kind of stress. Even those who support self defense, you may not be able to pull the trigger if the situation actually presented itself.

So I say, Shoot. But I certainly wouldn't judge a person's morals by the decision they make in this situation.

The part about the child or elderly parent isnt the question, and people are thinking too far into it in my view, the question i feel at the end of the day should be:

"gun in hand, life in danger, do you shoot?"

No answer is right or wrong here, and it isnt a case of having a moral "high horse" or being self riteous about your view, not everyone likes the idea of Guns, not everyone likes the idea of dying/getting seriously injured.

I think for me the natural instinct would be to shoot, i am an agressive person truth be told, and i think if someone was putting my health pr life in danger i would do anything to protect that.

What's with all the death talk anyway, can't we all just get down to some serious :fluffle:

-maRk-