Would you kill kill an intruder?

[Tubbsalot]

Shoot him in the legs? You probably still killed him.

WTF is with this "non-fatal shooting" thing?

Well it's better than shooting his face or lungs, now isn't it.

[Kreanoltha]

I would shoot his legs, I feel to bad if I kill someone(this is my speculation), but I wouldn't like to lose all my items

Never shoot to wound. Shoot to stop or don't shoot at all.

[Geniasis]

Shoot him in the legs? You probably still killed him.

WTF is with this "non-fatal shooting" thing?

Well it's better than shooting his face or lungs, now isn't it.

Not particularly. It's easier to miss the legs.

[Godular]

Shoot him in the legs? You probably still killed him.

WTF is with this "non-fatal shooting" thing?

Well it's better than shooting his face or lungs, now isn't it.

You're SUPPOSED to shoot the perp in the chest. Aiming for extremities increases the risk of missing and harming/killing innocents nearby.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Shoot him in the legs? You probably still killed him.

WTF is with this "non-fatal shooting" thing?

Well it's better than shooting his face or lungs, now isn't it.

Lungs? No, not really. You have two of them, they don't necessarily bleed extensively like an artery would (unless you hit an artery, of course), and they're easier to treat than most other gunshot wounds for immediate first aid. Make a one-way valve with some tape and foil, or use an Asherman and he should be alright until the ambulance arrives which is like 20 minutes. At least you're not zip tying his thigh so he doesn't bleed out.

They cover these things in basic first aid classes.

Were I going to get shot, I'd rather be shot in the chest than anywhere else.

[Neo Arcad]

Only a pussy would hesitate to kill someone who was trying to kill him. So yes, I'd never even hesitate, nor would I have any regrets afterwards. It's not killing in cold blood if you kill in self defence.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Only a pussy would hesitate to kill someone who was trying to kill him. So yes, I'd never even hesitate, nor would I have any regrets afterwards. It's not killing in cold blood if you kill in self defence.

itg

[Distruzio]

What do you think soldiers do?

Soldiers kill for their country, Mercenaries kill for money

Then soldiers shouldn't be getting paid. At all.

[Kreanoltha]

Only a pussy would hesitate to kill someone who was trying to kill him. So yes, I'd never even hesitate, nor would I have any regrets afterwards. It's not killing in cold blood if you kill in self defence.

itg

I concur.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Castle laws have been in many states for years now, as we all know. Also the general answer you will get from cops about if you shuld shoot to kill is "kill them, they cant sue if they are dead"

So, here is the scenario. You live in a state where it is legal to shoot and or kill a tresspasser. One day a robber breaks into your house and starts stripping it to the walls. You notice the robber also has a large knife.

Assuming the robber doesnt want to kill you unless he knows he has been caught

You have a gun. Assuming the robber doesnt want to kill you unless he knows he has been caught, do you shoot to kill, shoot to wound, or let him strip your house to the walls?



Personally, id probably shoot to kill. He is armed and poses a threat. he is also trying to steal everything ive ever owned for the express purpose of getting money.

I wonder, is the double placement of the word 'kill' in your thread title a mistake?

To answer the question, if the intruder is threatening to my family, yes, I would kill him/her. How? With whatever I have available.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Soldiers kill for their country, Mercenaries kill for money

Then soldiers shouldn't be getting paid. At all.

According to a Marine recruiter I spoke to, "volunteer" is a euphemism for "mercenary". He says the only reason people nowadays join is for enlistment bonuses, the health insurance, or other GI bill.

There is no difference, when you get down to it. Mercenaries just lack the tyrannical theft aspect.

[Kreanoltha]

Then soldiers shouldn't be getting paid. At all.

According to a Marine recruiter I spoke to, "volunteer" is a euphemism for "mercenary". He says the only reason people nowadays join is for enlistment bonuses, the health insurance, or other GI bill.

There is no difference, when you get down to it. Mercenaries just lack the tyrannical theft aspect.

Sadly, this is largely true. There is little honor or valor left in modern martial culture.

[Wikkiwallana]

I would shoot his legs, I feel to bad if I kill someone(this is my speculation), but I wouldn't like to lose all my items

Shoot him in the legs? You probably still killed him.

WTF is with this "non-fatal shooting" thing?

Thank hollywood, for giving us all the idea that it's either an instant death bullet or just a flesh wound.

[Risna]

Yes my pocket knife is always on my nightstand right next to my bed at night, I have my compound bow with 3 arrows leaning against my wall, along with my 3 foot wooden sword and my heater shield in my closet. I know not one person can arm themselves with all that, but I keep it there so my siblings could feel usefull if it ever happened.

[Triumphant Trio]

In theory, yes. "When you're threatened, killing a man is as easy as breathing."
In practice, I'm not sure. You never know until you're faced with that situation.

[Naurobia]

I would just shoot him in the limb.

[Distruzio]

Only a pussy would hesitate to kill someone who was trying to kill him. So yes, I'd never even hesitate, nor would I have any regrets afterwards. It's not killing in cold blood if you kill in self defence.

Sociopathic much?

[Distruzio]

Then soldiers shouldn't be getting paid. At all.

According to a Marine recruiter I spoke to, "volunteer" is a euphemism for "mercenary". He says the only reason people nowadays join is for enlistment bonuses, the health insurance, or other GI bill.

There is no difference, when you get down to it. Mercenaries just lack the tyrannical theft aspect.

I agree, 100%

[Geniasis]

According to a Marine recruiter I spoke to, "volunteer" is a euphemism for "mercenary". He says the only reason people nowadays join is for enlistment bonuses, the health insurance, or other GI bill.

There is no difference, when you get down to it. Mercenaries just lack the tyrannical theft aspect.

Sadly, this is largely true. There is little honor or valor left in modern martial culture.

Well good, frankly. War is a grim business. The notion that it's an honorable thing largely died after WWI.

[Robert Magoo]

If I had to, yes; if there were any way to stop them without killing them, no.

[Geniasis]

I would just shoot him in the limb.

Congrats, he's still dead.

[Neo Arcad]

Only a pussy would hesitate to kill someone who was trying to kill him. So yes, I'd never even hesitate, nor would I have any regrets afterwards. It's not killing in cold blood if you kill in self defence.

Sociopathic much?

Not at all, actually. I don't think I could bring myself to kill someone in cold blood, I really don't. The concept of doing so sickens me. But what I'm saying is that if someone tries to kill you, there's a moral disconnect there that would allow you to kill him and subsequently sleep at night. At least that's my theory on the matter.

[Neo Arcad]

I would just shoot him in the limb.

Congrats, he's still dead.

...
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure he'd survive getting shot in a limb, unless you aimed really high on his leg and damaged his pelvis/major leg arteries.

[Geniasis]

Congrats, he's still dead.

...
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure he'd survive getting shot in a limb, unless you aimed really high on his leg and damaged his pelvis/major leg arteries.

Any gunshot wound is potentially fatal. Shooting to wound doesn't exist.

[Distruzio]

Sociopathic much?

Not at all, actually. I don't think I could bring myself to kill someone in cold blood, I really don't. The concept of doing so sickens me. But what I'm saying is that if someone tries to kill you, there's a moral disconnect there that would allow you to kill him and subsequently sleep at night. At least that's my theory on the matter.

Murder is murder even with the State's sanction. I agree with you that protection of yourself necessitates decisive action that will lead to someone dying. But I hesitate to proclaim that I'd be able to sleep at night. It's b/c I'm so religious, actually. B/c murder is the destruction of the image of God. Even killing in defense of God, were that possible, would be repulsive to me. Honestly, I cannot, b/c of my faith and my political orientation, look at the military industrial or the security industrial complex and NOT recoil in utter disgust at every facet of their logic. Including the sociopathic insistence that murder is not murder when the State does it, or when it's in self-defense.