Dimensional Vortex said:
That is completely irrelevant to the question. The poster said that you have to kill one of them and he just added in the gun as the weapon. It doesn't matter if you are proficient with a gun or not, the question really falls down to who you would kill. They could both be fighting out in space at one point as an Alien approached you with intent to kill everyone on board, you have to press the button to activate one of two air locks, both will kill the Alien but one air lock is behind Phillip and one behind Daniel, who do you kill?
I really don't understand why so many people have to complicate the scenario with frivolous details.
The problem is that the OP is making you pick a sub-optimal course of action, if it had been kept simple then it would have been a binary choice but by over complicating it he's ruined any chance of actually putting ourselves in that situation.
If he'd have asked which of the two to kill and said one had to die then we'd have picked based on loyalties. But by asking us which to shoot we are faced with other options. With a simple scenario we'd have empathised and projected, but with this more complex scenario it's impossible to ignore the other, more sensible situation. How can I ask myself whether to kill my father or my stapfather if at the back of my mind I'm thinking:
"I don't
have to kill either, this is stupid!"
By artificially preventing us from making the logical choice he's asking us to ignore our gut intuition, our logical process and our life experience. I can't say what I'd actually do because I'm not allowed to do what I'd actually do. Not only is there a situation in which we could win this scenario...but insultingly enough it's
actually the first option most people would think of.
You may as well write a highly realistic lead up to a mugging, setting each detail carefully across a page and then, right at the end, ask "would you leap up the side of the nearest building or summon a dragon?"