anotherlife

Gold Member
Nov 17, 2012
6,456
377
130
Cross-Atlantic
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
 
If in defense of life or limb, or presented with imminent danger - I would pull the trigger twice ( Double tap to the chest - as I have been taught ) on a bad guy.

If the situation called for it, such as a person laden with explosives, or holding a hostage.....I would shoot him in the head. ** YOU NEVER let the hostage leave the area ( kill zone ) ** ; because if you do....they are at the mercy of the hostage takers and will most likely die later anyway....probably a horrible or gruesome death......or die slowly ( Drown - bleed to death ).

If a hostage gets injured or dies......it is right there on the scene - that YOU control. Shoot the tires - engine block - take a shot on the hostage taker(s) ----> But the hostage takers do not leave the area with the hostages. If I was a hostage, I would not want to leave with my hostage takers....and die at their hands ( slow or painful ). I would want to get hurt...or killed "On scene" where I could be taken care of.....and not dumped in a ditch - lake - river - side of the road - rot in a abandoned house.

I would want my loved ones, friends and people I cared for......to die right there with me, in my arms. If something goes wrong......it goes wrong on scene. YOU control the situation......not the bad guys. Don't give them room to negotiate - do not give them room to bargain. If the hostage(s) die.....they die too.

In the movie "SWAT" ( with Samuel L Jackson ) - the black SWAT Commander give the sniper the command ( during the bank robbery in the beginning ) "Don't let him get mobile". He was right.

I consider myself and expert marksman with a handgun, and I can accurately shoot silhouettes at 80 yards.


Shadow 355
 
Last edited:
In the U.S., "thou shall not kill" is... more or a guideline than a rule

9e2cV5Z.gif
 
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?

Hi anotherlife.

I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)

Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.

And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...




-
 
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?

Hi anotherlife.

I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)

Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.

And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...




-


In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise. Does this apply in terms of war too?


"Thou shalt not kill....."

Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".

The Bible has many holly wars in it. I wonder how that works.
 
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?

Hi anotherlife.

I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)

Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.

And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...




-


In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise. Does this apply in terms of war too?


"Thou shalt not kill....."

Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".

The Bible has many holly wars in it. I wonder how that works.

Vey simple...
The Roman Catholic Church did not want rebellion so they purposely changed "Thou shalt not murder" to "Thou shalt not kill"; a pure abortion of the original intent.
Your life is endangered, you kill.
 
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?

Hi anotherlife.

I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)

Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.

And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...




-


In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise. Does this apply in terms of war too?


"Thou shalt not kill....."

Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".

The Bible has many holly wars in it. I wonder how that works.

Hi anotherlife,

As I understand it, Christianity is against the use of violence but Jesus did say near the time of his crucifixion if I'm not mistaken for his disciples to "buy a sword;" I can only guess that fighting for Christians was supposed to become allowed upon the return of Jesus but you should rather ask those questions to a Christian pastor which I am not.

I am neither Christian, nor a pastor/Reverend.

A1977:)




-
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.

I also taught them that's a horrible responsibility, and while should not be rushed into, must not hesitate when it's time. He who hesitates is lost.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.

If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.

If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
---
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.

However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?

All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.
 
I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.

If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
---
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.

However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?

All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.

Yes, I will be ok with that. If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..

My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance. If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.

I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job. Without them, where would you be?
 
---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.

Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.

If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
---
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.

However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?

All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.

Yes, I will be ok with that. If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..

My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance. If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.

I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job. Without them, where would you be?
---
A note/clarification from me ...
I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are competently performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.

From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.

In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "use-of-force policy", which is a step toward a rational balance in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
.
 
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.
---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.

If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
---
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.

However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?

All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.

Yes, I will be ok with that. If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..

My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance. If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.

I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job. Without them, where would you be?
---
A note/clarification from me ...
I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are competently performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.

From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.

In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "use-of-force policy", which is a step toward a rational balance in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
.

You mean the case where the boy pointed a gun at an officer? Turns out it was a toy gun, but have you actually bothered to look at it? Amazingly realistic looking toy, which the officer would have no way to know. Threat....put down threat.

Knife...threat. Put down the threat.

Stupidity has it's own price. Sometimes the price is death, as it should be.
 

Forum List

Back
Top