It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How hard would it be for you to kill someone?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:26 AM
a reply to: droid56

hmm i'm not entirely sure having not been in that situation (touch wood) instinctively though as a mother, i would give my life or kill to protect my child from harm, any other scenario outside of that, i'm not entirely sure how i would react.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:50 AM

originally posted by: droid56
If you were involved in combat, the stay alive imperative might kick in, and most of you would do what needed to keep you alive.

But I finally watched the beginning of Breaking Bad, and the science teacher finally killed the chained guy once he knew he had a shard of plate intended to kill him.

When morality is removed, and survival and family needs become the main thing, could you kill? Talk is cheap.

Just the wife, all others will survive


posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:04 AM

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Shiloh7

There was a survey of European and American veteran soldiers. One of the findings was that some 9 out of 10 never fired a bullet at the enemy. They claimed to have fired higher, lower or anywhere else but at another person. IIRC the results were accepted as broadly accurate. The Army can be said to have strength in numbers, but also needs the 10% of soldiers who are willing to kill.

That's consciences speaking. I imagine once someone has knowingly killed an enemy it gets easier and readily justified.

As a fellow Brit, you might also remember Harry Patch? He was the last WW1 veteran to die in England. He recalled facing a German in the trenches who was dying from a stomach wound. The guy begged Harry to kill him and he could only stand there with sidearm he hesitated, the man's eyes faded and he died. I think he served in two wars and didn't kill anyone.

Set and Forget weapon systems would be fine
Drone weapon systems would be fine
Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger at close range at a fellow human not so

Strange though, looking down a scope at a target 2 miles away and hitting it kinda works for me, so, on that note, only if i was a sniper.

Bless Harry P, in pity and if the other guy was in agony, i could do it, purely to put the other person out of their misery


edit on 2015-08-11T07:06:52-05:002015Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:06:52 -0500bTuesday0608America/Chicago157 by corblimeyguvnor because: contradiction removed

edit on 2015-08-11T07:09:17-05:002015Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:09:17 -0500bTuesday0908America/Chicago157 by corblimeyguvnor because: typo

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:18 AM
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

I could be wrong here, but it used to be said that firing squads would have mostly blanks and maybe one or two live rounds. This was so the soldiers wouldn't know if they'd fired the fatal shot and allow them that uncertainty. It's that 'up n close' body heat and breathing thing maybe...

You're probably right in saying it's easy (or easier) to kill at a distance...further the better. Then again, there's a story out there of a US drone operator who developed PTSD after watching so many die at the end of his Xbox paddle. Maybe some people just aren't mentally/emotionally equipped for killing? Who knows?

Like you, I *think* I could kill someone to put them out of their misery and especially in a war situation like Harry's. Otherwise, most of us will never know how hard it is to kill until the situation is forced upon us.

As an afterthought, we shouldn't forget the doctors who are regularly asked to kill patients through euthanasia. Sometimes we have to do things that go against our consciences in the line of duty.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:28 AM
I'm not a violent person, so I know it would haunt me afterwards, but for the tiny handful of people I Love in this world, I would do anything to protect them, and that's not coming from an ''i'm tough'' standpoint, it would be pure instinct.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:31 AM
a reply to: Kandinsky

Acknowledge and respect your comments.

Regarding drone weapon systems, from what i have seen they are largely grey scale, the final "scene" is largely bright flashes which disguise any gore so it is still emotionally detached, could be wrong though.


posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:47 AM
It depends.

If someone had bombed or droned my family to death, I would find it very easy to kill those responsible or associated with it.

It a normal situation I would do everything in my power to avoid violence.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:49 AM
Like H.L. Mencken said...

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:53 AM
Honestly if its kill or be killed I'd kill every time.

I justify this reasoning by knowing I'd never intentionally take another persons life. If someone moved to kill me it would not be because of something I'd done, therefore I have every right to fight for my life.

With that said, I'd move to disarm the asailant before using deadly force, however if for some reason they had the upper hand and I could only stop them by delivering a fatal blow so be it.

I will sleep knowing I did not want to kill this person however their flawed logic left me no choice.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:00 PM
If my life is on the line, they should make peace with whatever deity they pray to, because I'm giving them a one way ticket to meet them. Don't mess with me or my family.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:30 PM
I am pretty sure I could kill someone if the need arose, and not feel bad about it afterwards. I could of been a ninja assasin, but my high-school counselor neglected to give me that option.

edit on 11-8-2015 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:30 PM
Perhaps watch WW2 in HD on Netflix, or Vietnam in HD (same network) instead. Little more realistic on both the time when necessary to kill, the horror or it all, and the fallout (emotional, physical, and communal). Even the ultimate horror of having to let a friend die, or leave one behind (and knowing that by doing so you are killing them in the process), because it is ultimately the best thing to do for the group. It's all punishing.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:49 PM
I don't know, never been in a situation like that-But if I had to, I would probably run and hide and wait until the opportunity to slash the person's neck if it was life or death.

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:37 PM
Do they work for the Department of Motor Vehicles?

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:53 PM
Very easily, yes I would.

A person's life experiences shape their responses.

A sheltered farmboy who was the star quarterback would hesitate to take another life (legally as a soldier).

An urban minority who lived as an oppressed person saw death and killing weekly would probably not

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:42 PM

originally posted by: droid56
a reply to: Aedaeum

But you are life.

I'm allowed to decide if I would rather die than take a life. I won't, however, allow a killer to force that same dilemma on someone else.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 02:31 AM
Of course everyone on here will say things like -if it's me or them then it won't be me, or if they threatened my family I would.
Truth is nobody knows - literally if you haven't done it then you don't know.
You could freeze, faint, run or maybe yes adrenaline kicks in and you take the perp/assailant out - but you do not know until it happens.

You can say you're hypothetically willing to do it or that you feel than in that situation you'd like to think you would do what it takes to survive or protect loved ones, but ya just never know.
edit on 12-8-2015 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:02 AM
Has anyone seen the film 'Men Who Stare at Goats'?

Grossman's theory, based on the World War II research of S.L.A. Marshall, is that most of the population deeply resists killing another human. While Marshall's work has been shown to be unsystematic, his findings have been corroborated by many later studies.[where?]

As a result of Marshall's work, modern military training was modified to attempt to override this instinct, by:
using man-shaped targets instead of bullseye targets in marksmanship practice
practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e., the commanding officer and the military hierarchy (See the Milgram experiment)

By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90% of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.

He also says the act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.

Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization.

In On Combat (Grossman's sequel to On Killing, based on ten years of additional research and interviews) he addresses the psychology and physiology of human aggression.

It is against human instinct to kill another human.
edit on 12-8-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:13 AM

originally posted by: cyan24
Very easily, yes I would.

A person's life experiences shape their responses.

A sheltered farmboy who was the star quarterback would hesitate to take another life (legally as a soldier).

An urban minority who lived as an oppressed person saw death and killing weekly would probably not

Interesting. I grew up the "sheltered farmboy" (but I played defensive line, not QB) and though I have never been a soldier, I've never figured that killing another human being in defense of life or property would be all that difficult to rationalize or live with afterward.

I'm not directly answering the OP question though, because talk is cheap and nobody knows what they're capable or incapable of until they're under the hammer. Simple fact is that I don't know and I honestly hope I never find out what my response would be.

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:00 PM

originally posted by: TrueBrit

It would be hard work. But I think if the circumstances required it, I could find a way to kill if I had to, using most of the items in my house, not to mention the walls, furniture, appliances, and so on. That fails entirely to take into account the kitchen full of sharps, the replica swords in our windows, my personal selection of short blades, and the hatchet, bill hook...

Hay you beet me to it
I was trying to come up with an in depth reply. But you forgot the toilet brush, that thing is like a chemical weapon.

No seriously, just to elaborate my point.
A very timid co-worker asked once if I was scared of going to the parking lot behind our facility, my answer was " No I feel sorry for them"
You threaten me or my loved ones and I don't have the option to retreat, you get hurt. I don't carry a fire arm or any other physical weapon and I don't need to. Heh.

I prefer to run but...

What an odd thread

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in