-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would you have the balls to shoot someone?
- Thread starter Wreck-It Ralph
- Start date
- Status
Right, I mean, if he's unarmed and no longer attacking, it's not about defense anymore.
Ban Puncher
Member
Shoot them in the balls.
Don't forget the one-liner like "You're nuts".
Don't forget the one-liner like "You're nuts".
Spring-Loaded
Member
If I truly believe he'll be locked away forever without any means of retaliation/escape, and he has no personal vendetta against me/others, then no. If there aren't law enforcement/military/whoever right there to take him away, I'd shoot him in both kneecaps so that he can't pull a needle out of his urethra when I'm not looking and kill me. Then, since I shot him, he'll seek revenge and we'll have a sequel.
If he's like Hannibal Lecter or some villain who wants vengeance against me/the world at all costs, I'd kill him the first chance I got. It's so easy to pull a trigger that having/not having the balls to do it is irrelevant. It's more about consequences rather than the horror of killing someone. I'd rather have to deal with that than with the guy continuing his evil.
If he's like Hannibal Lecter or some villain who wants vengeance against me/the world at all costs, I'd kill him the first chance I got. It's so easy to pull a trigger that having/not having the balls to do it is irrelevant. It's more about consequences rather than the horror of killing someone. I'd rather have to deal with that than with the guy continuing his evil.
Cameron122
Member
Yea but I'd feel bad afterward.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I'd shoot the gun out of his hands, then disable him by shooting him in the foot. Because I'm a bad ass like that.
Always-honest
Banned
Chances are i'd miss. But, with a gun and the opportinity to save a lot of lives, yes i would.
Though it's hard to guess how i'd really feel and react in a situation like that. Other people are braver than me. But given the opportunity, i'd like to think i'd man up and take responsibility.
Though it's hard to guess how i'd really feel and react in a situation like that. Other people are braver than me. But given the opportunity, i'd like to think i'd man up and take responsibility.
Blood Red Sky
Banned
No. There are some major arteries in the legs, OP. The person would probably bleed to death pretty sharpish.
soundscream
Member
Shooting someone isn't that difficult IMO. Now stabbing someone is a whole different ball game. You have to get up close and personal.
Saintguine
Member
Easy, there's plenty of horrible people that my conscience will have no problem with killing if I had the chance to.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
If they are bad enough, sure. Ted Bundy-like person? No prob.
mrduckbear
Neo Member
nope. killing someone should never be an option as it will only make you as bad as the killer. the way of a buddhist philosophy is to take your shooter down 
Blargonaut
Banned
Absolute yes, in both the hypothetical situations you described. Doubly so in the post-apocalyptic scenario. If I was Mr./Ms. Paragon facing down Mr./Ms. Renegade, I'd have no qualms shooting him/her dead. I'll empty that clip and fling the spent gun at their smoking corpse. Drink a tall glass of water after too (I don't smoke, minus to coolness meter I guess). Why wouldn't I sacrifice a life, an evil one to boot, to potentially save more, as well as avenge those already lost?
The immoral act of killing him is justified in my eyes if it's a known fact that Mr. Renegade will undeniably kill more if I let him go. Only if I know as an absolute fact that he/she won't kill or hurt anyone after I let them go, will I let them leave.
How about a more iffy situation:
(somewhat Dexter-ish, I know, but indulge me)
A long corridor. Two locked doors. No escape for you or her. You have the lone rifle. She has the door keys. You can take them from her corpse, or she'll let you out guaranteed if you let her go.
Ms. Renegade has only ever killed other murderers. Her work is impeccable; she never hurts innocents, doesn't harm the environment and even composts and recycles the remains when she's done. She executes them in the same exact way however they've executed their victims. If you let her leave, she promises to continue killing other murderers. If you kill her, you end her bloody spree once and for all, but this will allow all her potential victims to live on in society and possibly kill again. She won't be stopped by anything other than a single fatal shot; crippling her won't stop her from continuing her work.
Do you shoot to execute her, or not?
In this case, I personally wouldn't kill her, and I wouldn't feel remorse in letting her go. It would mean the deaths of tens, of hundreds of more people, but all of them would be guilty of murder, and she never targets innocents anyway.
lifeexpectancy
Member
In this hypothetical scenario where they are unquestionably the bad guy, a terrorist, w/e and they've already killed people, then the only hesitation I would have would be how long it would take my finger to squeeze the trigger.
Unfortunately, life is almost never that black and white.
Disclaimer: Firstly, I've never shot a gun, and lol I've definitely never killed anyone.
Anyways, if I could send him to prison, I wouldn't shoot him. I'm no judge. Let the justice system handle his life.
If there was no police system to bring him justice, and I knew FOR SURE (like he was 100% evil) that this guy would do harm (like kill someone innocent) if I let him go, then yeah, I'd shoot.
Disclaimer #2: Of course, this scenario assumes I have time to think about it, which I probably wouldn't, and I hope to never find myself in this situation.
Anyways, if I could send him to prison, I wouldn't shoot him. I'm no judge. Let the justice system handle his life.
If there was no police system to bring him justice, and I knew FOR SURE (like he was 100% evil) that this guy would do harm (like kill someone innocent) if I let him go, then yeah, I'd shoot.
Disclaimer #2: Of course, this scenario assumes I have time to think about it, which I probably wouldn't, and I hope to never find myself in this situation.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Anybody can say they'd do anything. It's meaningless until you're actually in the situation.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
nope. killing someone should never be an option as it will only make you as bad as the killer. the way of a buddhist philosophy is to take your shooter down
False equivalence. Love it.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Totally. Never handled a gun before, but I figure as long as I aim with one eye down the sights, I should be able to do some damage (soon as I control my trembling hands)...
Aβydoς
Banned
You can't answer this question until you are in the situation itself.
I bet people who say "I would kill EVERYONE" could freeze, while people who say "I wouldn't have the balls ever" could turn out like fucking Hitman.
You don't know.
I like to shoot, I do it from time to time (in a shooting center obviously, here in Italy, not out in the open). I have a pretty good aim. But in a life/death situation, I'm not sure I would be able to mantain the cold blood to actually aim to kill. Maybe I would shoot in the air scared as shit, MAYBE.
I bet people who say "I would kill EVERYONE" could freeze, while people who say "I wouldn't have the balls ever" could turn out like fucking Hitman.
You don't know.
I like to shoot, I do it from time to time (in a shooting center obviously, here in Italy, not out in the open). I have a pretty good aim. But in a life/death situation, I'm not sure I would be able to mantain the cold blood to actually aim to kill. Maybe I would shoot in the air scared as shit, MAYBE.
If I wrestled the gun away from them and they started to bolt in a scenario like that I probably wouldn't care, unless it was actually breaking into my house/a person that put loved ones at risk. Then I would definitely take the shot.
But yeah, in a split second scenario like this there's no time to hesitate or think on where to go. It's always best to just aim for center mass.
But yeah, in a split second scenario like this there's no time to hesitate or think on where to go. It's always best to just aim for center mass.
I've been trained with firearms, I'm a good shot, if my life, or the lives of those around me, was in danger I would shoot. Centre mass because that's most likely to give a hit, aiming to disable in a dangerous situation is nigh on impossible.
However....they're at my mercy. So no. They'd get their hands and feet zip tied, and the police would be called. No police? Well that's too hypothetical and drifting into fantasy land.
On a side note although I would shoot I am opposed to firearms in all forms in public ownership.
However....they're at my mercy. So no. They'd get their hands and feet zip tied, and the police would be called. No police? Well that's too hypothetical and drifting into fantasy land.
On a side note although I would shoot I am opposed to firearms in all forms in public ownership.
Shoot someone? Sure 
!
!But there is no fun in this, i would just hand them over to the authorities like the good citizen i am.
BrassDragon
Member
For people who study martial arts or self-defense (or just have a morbid fascination with killing), I highly recommend the books by Dave Grossman on the psychology of killing and combat.
Grossman is controversial because he points to movies/gaming as one variable (among many) that increases desensitization to killing but I find his analysis compelling.
In Grossman's terms, the situation described here is meant to increase the victim's 'target attractiveness' - he's a clear-cut villain who can't be redeemed and is an active threat to the killer. But target attractiveness alone isn't enough to pull the trigger. There's a whole cluster of variables at play:
I specifically want to point out the part to the lower left, 'group absolution'. The killer needs to believe that his group (family, department, unit, community etc.) will support him in this act. In most circumstances, group absolution is a bigger factor than target attractiveness.
TLDR, the decision to kill/execute someone is dependent on a cluster of psychological variables, saying the victim is an evil threat is not enough to warrant a kill.
Grossman is controversial because he points to movies/gaming as one variable (among many) that increases desensitization to killing but I find his analysis compelling.
In Grossman's terms, the situation described here is meant to increase the victim's 'target attractiveness' - he's a clear-cut villain who can't be redeemed and is an active threat to the killer. But target attractiveness alone isn't enough to pull the trigger. There's a whole cluster of variables at play:
I specifically want to point out the part to the lower left, 'group absolution'. The killer needs to believe that his group (family, department, unit, community etc.) will support him in this act. In most circumstances, group absolution is a bigger factor than target attractiveness.
TLDR, the decision to kill/execute someone is dependent on a cluster of psychological variables, saying the victim is an evil threat is not enough to warrant a kill.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Provided I was thinking straight, if I had already won the battle I wouldn't shoot him.
Broder Salsa
Banned
Only one way to find out.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I went through the finnish army training where they turn you into a solid stone killer by making you do bunch of mundane shit for 6 months so yes.
benjipwns
Banned
So you're basically saying that you're the next Simo?
Gonna try and stay on your good side then.
Doomshroom
Member
I would take a selfie while shooting him in the dick.
ChainedMaster
Banned
No I wouldn't because guns should be banned and in an ideal world I wouldn't be able to legally use that gun. I'd first hand the gun to the proper authorities who will then destroy the gun. Then I'd deal with the criminal scum.
IsntChrisL
Member
Nice try OP. Or should I say, officer?
Lollipop Dave
Member
Shoot then fondle before it gets cold.
The more important question: is there a computer I can go back to play and browse gaf?
Because I get no satisfaction off killing people, regardless of what they did. Especially not when they are already subdued.
And the second scenario is similarly unlikely: I am no Officer Big Balls, I would be amongst the first to die when an apocalypse comes. I rely on medicine, my eyesight is shit without glasses, I am not willing to go apeshit crazy for supplies... they would get to me first. And most importantly: no internet???
Because I get no satisfaction off killing people, regardless of what they did. Especially not when they are already subdued.
And the second scenario is similarly unlikely: I am no Officer Big Balls, I would be amongst the first to die when an apocalypse comes. I rely on medicine, my eyesight is shit without glasses, I am not willing to go apeshit crazy for supplies... they would get to me first. And most importantly: no internet???
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll