Poll: Could You Pull the Trigger?

[EightGaugeHippo]

I would never kill an unarmed person: No need to waste Human life is theres no imidiate threat.

Dude, you are aware that an unarmed attacker is still a huge threat, right? In a sense, they're almost more dangerous than an armed combatant, because they're less predictable. If they're trying to kill you, it might be an idea to kill them first.

Tang Su Do back belt. Im not to worried about unarmed assailants.
Also if their unarmed and I kill them, the court only has my word that he attacking me. Where as if they have say a knife, their fingerprints would be on it ect.

 

[bobknowsall]

I would never kill an unarmed person: No need to waste Human life is theres no imidiate threat.

Dude, you are aware that an unarmed attacker is still a huge threat, right? In a sense, they're almost more dangerous than an armed combatant, because they're less predictable. If they're trying to kill you, it might be an idea to kill them first.

Tang Su Do back belt. Im not to worried about unarmed assailants.
Also if their unarmed and I kill them, the court only has my word that he attacking me. Where as if they have say a knife, their fingerprints would be on it ect.

Buddy, a black belt ain't gonna save you. If three unarmed assailants jump you, are you saying they're "nothing to worry about"? If you honestly believe that, your arrogance will be your downfall.

If your main reasoning is that you'll get in less legal trouble, your logic is a bit skewed. Survival is paramount; everything else is secondary.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I would never kill an unarmed person: No need to waste Human life is theres no imidiate threat.

Dude, you are aware that an unarmed attacker is still a huge threat, right? In a sense, they're almost more dangerous than an armed combatant, because they're less predictable. If they're trying to kill you, it might be an idea to kill them first.

Tang Su Do back belt. Im not to worried about unarmed assailants.
Also if their unarmed and I kill them, the court only has my word that he attacking me. Where as if they have say a knife, their fingerprints would be on it ect.

Buddy, a black belt ain't gonna save you. If three unarmed assailants jump you, are you saying they're "nothing to worry about"? If you honestly believe that, your arrogance will be your downfall.

If your main reasoning is that you'll get in less legal trouble, your logic is a bit skewed. Survival is paramount; everything else is secondary.

Nobody said anything about 3 attackers your just making things up in an attempt to sound clever, and no I porbably could not take 3. 1 unarmed attacker with out matial arts training would not be a problem (im not saying it would be easy) and as far as I can read, thats what the OP's question was.

And what good would survival be if you are sentenced for murder? thats x amount of years wasted and when you do come out, you will have a criminal record and it would be hard to find a job ect ect.

For me survival is not the most important thing, others are. and I would not be prepared to take their life when that can be avoided, I stand by that rule and nothing you say will change it.