How many here could never kill another person?

Not judging - those who can usually do for good reaasons (statistically, at least...)

But who just couldn't kill another person?

But, I feel pretty strongly that if someone tried to harm me or a loved one, and the only means I have is a fatal solution...

I mean, as long as you don't intend the assailant to die, it isn't really murder...

but I do know that when I was mugged, I fought back. so, I think I could kill someone if that person was threatening my life or the lives of my kids... I DEFINITELY think I could kill someone who was threatening my kids.

I headbutted them - and I never do this - and I never knew how - but it just happened.

He fell on the ground and I ran

the two kids mugging me smiled and one started to take my bag off my shoulder. I swung away and started kicking them (I happened to have had on some frye boots b/c it had rained) but when I realized I was fighting them and they might be armed, they knocked me over and messed up my elbow getting my bag.

I was on the phone calling my job to open the bldg b/c it had been accidentally locked, so the people I worked with heard the whole thing.

In today's world I may not try such a thing...this was 1997

It all becomes instinctual... no thought required when someone is trying to kill you.

Survival instinct.

I'm really swamped through the end of the month.

And he said that he was glad he was shooting planes instead of hand to hand combat.

They were in battle and across the valley the germans were launcing V-1 missiles. The soldiers on both sides could see each other, but they left each other alone.

The germans would launch a missile, my grandfather and his crew would try to shoot them down...

Unless it's in reference to Wal*Mart.

There was a time when I would have thought I would never be capable, but these days, just seeing certain people's faces on TV is enough to make me really question that assumption.

Yeah, I could kill, if I had to.

But I'm human, and humans are killers. I'm guessing probably yes...but I dunno.

...is to prevent a greater harm, or harm to the innocent.

I could kill if I had to, but ONLY if I had to. I'd hate myself for it, I'm sure.

even in war, when the enemy is trying to kill you. I think most of us would imagine we could kill an enemy soldier out of self preservation if nothing else, but apparently we're often mistaken in that. In the second world war most allied soldiers were incapable of actually shooting to kill in a real combat environment. a majority of conscripts just intentionally missed their targets. once the u.s. realised this they spent a LOT of money trying to make its soldiers more willing to kill people, and researcching the psychological techniques needed to achieve this surprisingly difficult aim. By vietnam they had largely succeeded, apparently. I also imagine the modern professional soldier will be more capable of killing than their conscript predecessors.

There was a book written about all of this which I'd been intending to read, does anyone know what I'm thinking of? Can't recall the title or author. About the problem of training soldiers to really kill other human beings.

head-and-torso-shaped instead of the standard circular bullseye. Something about shooting at a humanoid form breaks down one of the barriers that made soldiers in real combat hesitate to shoot an actual person.

Don't know the book, but that was in one of my psych major classes (maybe social?).

Was this the book I was thinking of? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological_Cost_of_Learning_to_Kill_in_War_and_Society

edit: yeah, i think that's the one.

This is an interesting little article for an encyclopedia of military history by the author:

http://www.killology.com/article_agress&viol.htm

"One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that such resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. *Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as an official U.S. Army historian in the Pacific and European theaters of operations in World War II. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Key weapons, such as *flame-throwers, were usually fired. Crew-served weapons, such as *machine guns, almost always were fired. And action would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left on their own, the great majority of individual combatants appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.

Marshall's findings were and have remained controversial. Faced with scholarly concern about a researcher's methodology and conclusions, the scientific method involves replicating the research. In Marshall's case, every available parallel, scholarly study validates his basic findings. One of these studies was Ardant du Picq's survey of French officers in the Korean War when the rate of psychiatric casualties was almost seven times higher than the average for World War II. Only after the war settled down, lines stabilized, and the threat of having enemy in rear areas decreased did the average rate go down to that of World War II. Again, just the potential for close-up, inescapable, interpersonal confrontation is more effective and has greater impact on human behavior than the actual presence of inescapable, impersonal death and destruction. "

But that's a highly abstract thing to say about something as real as ending someone's life. I mean, if it was a convicted murderer and the crime was horrible enough, I'm pretty sure I could pull the switch. But that's a state execution, a whole government and a people through their court system made that choice, not just me.

I'm the kind of person who keeps on thinking about the ethics of my really big decisions right through to the end--always questioning, always rethinking. That really isn't a trait conducive to someone just "pulling the trigger" when the time is at hand.

There's also the question about whether I could keep my head in a crisis. I've been in emergencies where I was very clear headed, but I've also been in situations where I was pretty useless. I don't panic, but I do kinda freeze and overthink even when there's really not time to do so.

explanation will be offered from me, if that's OK with you.

Redstone

And for that reason, I realize I could never own a gun

every time I drive down route 3!

Now the question is, by killing do you mean murder?

most people i know in the "real" world are a waste of skin and oxygen. the world would be better off without them.

Or them or an innocent, I might try.

There have been people I wanted dead, but it was not worth destroying my life to kill them. Karma caught up to them, and they destroyed their own lives without me having to lift a finger. They aren't dead, but a few of them probably wish they were, they screwed themselves so bad.

Hope I never have to find out.

violent and unpredictable people to say anything definite.

m

but would is an entirely different story. Lets just hope it never comes to that.

if I'm ever victimized. I also hope I would have the courage to rescue someone else in trouble and would not just walk away or hope someone else will happen by in time.

I'm sure I'd be pretty fucked up afterward by the gravity of it.