VeeshanVault

My fiancee and I had this talk last night, and she thinks I'm wierd.

If you're in a situation where: You have a gun, your loved one has a gun to his or her head, and you knew that if you didn't kill the person, your loved one was going to be raped, killed, sold into slavery, whatever - but you didn't have a clear shot.

Would you shoot your loved one and take the risk that they would die from their wounds in order to get a clear shot at the kidnapper? Would you expect your loved one to shoot you in the same situation?

Here comes the story about how Akaran accidently shot his nutsack.

Why would you shoot them instead of the assailant? Unless you had a rifle with a jacketed bullet, the energy of the shot would be gone and not do much if anything to them once it passed through the first person. If yu actually had a rifle in your hands at the time, the odds are that you would be able to hit the assailant with pretty good reliability without putting it through your loved one. If it is a pistol, you better be waiting for an oppurtune shot that you can put into the assailants head or they are going to kill your loved one anyway.

Things don't work like you see in the movies. People don't fly back 10 feet and die instantly from gunshot wounds to the chest.

fucking loon.

Yes I could probably concoct a WILDLY improbable set of interlocking circumstances in which, given sufficent qualification, killing a loved one would be the best bet. But it would have to be so fucking seriously fruitloop mental as to be pointless as a basis for any kind of serious discussion.

"I love you so much I'd kill you if I had to"??? Puh-lease.

So you would rather kill your girlfriend than watch her be raped?

I'd kill the assailant.

It sounds to me like someone is planning an alibi!

norman is smart )

I think that the question is: Would you shoot your loved one aiming for somewhere that isn't fatal in order to cause them to fall to ground giving you a free shot on the kidnapper?

This is taken from Speed. I would certainly shoot Keanu Reeves, but I can't possibly know what I would do to under those circumstances.


I believe that there are certain situations that it isn't possible to accurately predict how one will respond to from an armchair; I think that this is clearly one of those situations. I voted "no" because there is no "I have no idea how I would respond" option.

I'd rather fucking shoot you for asking such a fucking stupid question.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you contemplate having to kill one of your loved ones. I hope you get hit by a truck and they have to put you down you fucking twisted shiteatting douche bag. Fuck off and die. God damn.
Fucking idiot.

Stragi wrote:norman is smart )

norman is an dumbfuck

So your loved one was being kidnapped, and you accidently shot your nut sack in defense? Nice.

I'm saying if you couldn't get a clear shot at the assailant - or if you knew you were a bad shot to begin with.
Would you take the risk?

I'd rather risk scratching my paint job while i encave your skull with the tires of my car as i drive over your rotting corpse.

Someone is off of his meds.

umm ... im scared

In Shaun of the Dead he had to shoot his mom when she became zombified. Not sure that's the same though!

(Sorry spoiler..)

Yes, I would and have recently considered doing so after my Gran suffered two strokes. The state she is currently in is one that she has always said she would prefer to be put out of her misery. Sadly, etuhinasia (sp?) is illegal.

Akaran what the hell is the matter with you. First you post that grade one novel about a child being killed. Then the eyeball burning and now this.

Fuck man you need help.

Now, what if you were being held hostage and the assailant had a gun to your head and you found that you were holding a gun. Would you shoot yourself to get at the assailant?

I bet you had to stop to masturbate in between typing grade one and child.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Why would you shoot them instead of the assailant? Unless you had a rifle with a jacketed bullet, the energy of the shot would be gone and not do much if anything to them once it passed through the first person. If yu actually had a rifle in your hands at the time, the odds are that you would be able to hit the assailant with pretty good reliability without putting it through your loved one. If it is a pistol, you better be waiting for an oppurtune shot that you can put into the assailants head or they are going to kill your loved one anyway.

Things don't work like you see in the movies. People don't fly back 10 feet and die instantly from gunshot wounds to the chest.

While this sounds like a sensible answer, and totally realistic, I don't think that's the reasoning for asking this question. (IE: Yes that's true, but the OP probably was not asking the question for a technical answer on ballistics.)

My guess is that the OP would have liked to ask the question like this:

"Would you hurt (with the possibility of killing them) a loved one if it meant that by doing so you could save their live and/or prevent them from a life of slavery/rape/etc.?"

-=Lohrno

Stragi wrote:I bet you had to stop to masturbate in between typing grade one and child.

No, but I bet you had to stop and beat off because of your incredibly witty response to this thread.

Nice to see another of the sick fuck heads on this board think that child molestation is something funny.

Let me ask you this Stragi, just what do you think is funny about child abuse?

The part where you get so upset about it. Got something to hide?

afk masturbating

Toker: I am a morbid person, so I think about situations like this one from time to time.

The eyeball question is no related to this in any way, shape or form. I asked it because I was trying to describe a corpse that had been discovered in a story I've been writing. I like to be accurate with detail where possible, simple as that.

Do you mean, for example, if your main squeeze is being held at gunpoint and the gunman's head is being blocked by your squeeze's arm...would you shoot through their arm to kill the gunman? Something like that?

Does anyone in this scenario have wires attached to their genitals?

wtf winnow

yes, no (ouch)

this sounds strangely like a scenerio put forth in an episode of CSI.

A couple finds themselves in a situation in which a gunman has a gun to the husbands head and gives him the option to kill his wife by slitting her throat, or sit back and watch her get brutally raped then killed anyway.

Do you love your wife enough to kill her in order to prevent her from being raped?

Would you kill a loved one in order to save them from incurable cancer? insufferable pain? rape? torture? certain brutal death?

Did you just read or watch Mice of Men Akaran? Pretty much the same scenario...

Spoiler:
George and Lenny are traveling workers during the depression. Lenny is very slow and has a knack for ruining jobs by petting soft things and not knowing his own strength. George knows this and tries to protect Lenny at every cost. Lenny eventually kills the farmer's daughter in-law by accident trying to cover her mouth and shut her up, he breaks her neck. He also killed his puppy by accident scolding it for biting him. George realizes that this will never change, and as the hunting party goes after Lenny to bring him to justice (where they plan to kill him), George finds him and shoots him in the back of the neck where he'd feel no pain.
/Endspoiler

Oh come on Rivera, we have spoiler tags. You didn't have to ruin it for me...

fine... i'll put it in black... but the book was written in the 1930s, and the movie was made in the early 90s with John Malcovich and Gary Sinese, if you havent seen or read it by now, you weren't going to heh...

Yeah, I was completely kidding. Everyone should know that story by now.

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:fine... i'll put it in black... but the book was written in the 1930s, and the movie was made in the early 90s with John Malcovich and Gary Sinese, if you havent seen or read it by now, you weren't going to heh...

If you're using the latest version of Internet Explorer on XP with Service Pack 2 installed you may need to go to Internet Options in the control panel, and under the "Advanced" settings, turn off the sarcasm filter.

noel wrote:If you're using the latest version of Internet Explorer on XP with Service Pack 2 installed you may need to go to Internet Options in the control panel, and under the "Advanced" settings, turn off the sarcasm filter.

Juzt another reason to use Firefox since that is off by default.

noel wrote:

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:fine... i'll put it in black... but the book was written in the 1930s, and the movie was made in the early 90s with John Malcovich and Gary Sinese, if you havent seen or read it by now, you weren't going to heh...

If you're using the latest version of Internet Explorer on XP with Service Pack 2 installed you may need to go to Internet Options in the control panel, and under the "Advanced" settings, turn off the sarcasm filter.

Yeah I just installed it the other day and I haven't changed any of the setting away from default yet.

the question is a lil too sketchy imo.

would I shoot a loved one if I knew it would save their life? yes.
the scene at the opening of SWAT? (terrible movie)

would I shoot to kill a loved one if I knew it would save them from a darker fate? unless I was 100% certain they would suffer the worser fate, probably not.

it would also depend on the loved one. I doubt the body of my cousin serving in Columbia would react the same way as my great grandmother's whos currently loafing in VA.

If my loved one was stuck under a car which was on fire and the flames started to burn them, yes, I would shoot them to save them from a more painful death.

This is almost as silly as the "is it sex if you use a condom?" conundrum.

Lynks wrote:If my loved one was stuck under a car which was on fire and the flames started to burn them, yes, I would shoot them to save them from a more painful death.

Why not just give them a good whap on the head and knock them out? That way in case by some miracle, they are pulled from the wreckage in time, they won't be dead.

Sheesh! : )

Winnow wrote:

Lynks wrote:If my loved one was stuck under a car which was on fire and the flames started to burn them, yes, I would shoot them to save them from a more painful death.

Why not just give them a good whap on the head and knock them out? That way in case by some miracle, they are pulled from the wreckage in time, they won't be dead.

Sheesh! : )

Pistol whipping them never came to mind Although I must admit, if that situation really happened, I don't think I would be calm enough to do either of those, I'd probably just try to roll the car over.

I'd take any excuse to use my pre-ban rifles on full auto. Now that the assault weapon ban expired maybe i can add to my collection.

Hmmm.....quad .50's mounted on the back of my pickup truck.....

She dies, he dies, they all die.

[this is stupid.]

I second the this is stupid line.

I would use my witty one liners to distract the perp, and tag him with a .375 round to the skull when he leaned forward to make a comeback.

If it was between me watching my girlfriend get raped, kidnapped, etc, and taking a shot that would either kill the assaliant or her....it would be taking the shot, because atleast i would of done something.

Kylere wrote:I would use my witty one liners to distract the perp,

Great, now you and your wife are both dead, wtg!