Poll: Sniper

[Hive Mind]

He did have a nice bounty on his head...

Gaming bills? What gaming bills? *strokes state of the art super computer*

 

[Sarge034]

It's a classic but still pretty badass:

This is good, but I have another. It was the biggest one I could find.

It says, "Emotional turmoil: The only thing you should feel when shooting terrorists is recoil.

OT- Depends on my orders. I would kill him without hesitation.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Id say yes because if i was a sniper, and i was ordered to kill Bin Laden, then i would do it, because if i was a sniper I would have no problem killing, and if I was in the Army, and given such an important mission, I would obviously be known for following orders

 

[Spade Lead]

73.5% people say yes. Either they took military training as a pre-requisite of having the oppurtunity or chillingly they are pretty confident with guns.

Rifles are pretty easy to shoot, once you learn the basics (They are WAY easier than, say, pistols). The elongated barrel makes the sights more accurate, and the bullet stay on the intended course far more accurately. The question is, do you have the the necessary abilities to learn to shoot accurately, and the answer is, yes, you would (all it takes is some basic math and a steady hand). The hard part, for me at least, is having the necessary coordination. My hands shake a bit. I probably could hold a rifle steady enough to take the shot and hit him, but I can't say I would risk my country's well being on it, and I would set up a coordinated shot with a secondary sniper who would also take the shot at the same time as me. Or I would just keep firing until he went down. A lot of shooting involved in that last one...

 

[Spade Lead]

It's a classic but still pretty badass:

This is good, but I have another. It was the biggest one I could find.

It says, "Emotional turmoil: The only thing you should feel when shooting terrorists is recoil.

OT- Depends on my orders. I would kill him without hesitation.

That is a great picture... I truly love them both.

 

[Knusper]

I wouldn't, although being in an intense raid for the world' most wanted man might be too much pressure.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

i read the question too fast and tought it said Obama. so i answered no

hehe its okay. Anyone else reminded of this?
http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/files/2011/05/fox40_news_obama_bin_laden_dead.jpg

It's Fox News, the premier Republican news network. What did you expect?

But still, Epic Fail on Fox's part.

I bet viewers insta-came as they tuned in and saw that headline.

 

[Free Thinker]

Yes. It'd be a headshot too. I'm one away from Red Tiger.

 

[Katnap_Devikat]

Meh given the supposed circumstance, sure i'd do it for the fame and such that would come from committing such an act. Plus his beard is better then mine.

 

[S3Cs4uN 8]

I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.

Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.

Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.

Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.

Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.

And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.

after seeing how long it to america to finally kill osama i believe there must be some really incompetent generals up their.
but then again killing osama wont do america any good anyway.

 

[retterkl]

$25m bounty on his head, doa.

 

[General_Potatoes]

It's a classic but still pretty badass:

Now that is just epic. You sir, have made my day

 

[Peteron]

If I was ordered to. I am not the type who goes around killing people, but there is absolutely no reason not to kill that man.

 

[therockdemon]

as a sniper (i am a sniper for the british army) it is not your call to take the shoot, your spoter gives you all the information to be able to take the shot but if a important target is seen then you have to call it in, so it is never your call to kill a target

 

[binvjoh]

If I was confident I would hit him, then yes.

No real moral objections on my part and from what I remember there was a sweet bounty as well.

 

[Sethzard]

I would shoot his bodyguard and capture him. It this is not possible then probably.

Why?

Why does he deserve life but not the body guard?

Because his body guard would shoot at me, and Osama is more likely to be made a martyr, it would be better to give him a public trial than anything else.

 

[Valdus]

I'd do it. He's killed and the money is sweeeeeeeeeet!

 

[Sethzard]

I would shoot his bodyguard and capture him. It this is not possible then probably.

Why?

Why does he deserve life but not the body guard?

Because his body guard would shoot at me, and Osama is more likely to be made a martyr, it would be better to give him a public trial than anything else.

You're a sniper in this hypothetical.

You still need to consider the real world consequences of what would happen. The point of hypothetical situations is that they still consider real world effects, they aren't consequence free environments.