Poll: Your Daily Dose of Morality

Recommended Videos

The Rockerfly

New member
Dec 31, 2008
4,649
0
0
EmileeElectro said:
My science teacher told me shooting someone in the leg is the worst place to shoot them, a main artery is in your leg or something.
That along with your kneecaps, massive amounts of nerves and the artery

So you loose massive amounts of blood due to the artery, will not be able to feel anything in your leg at (probably damaging your crotch nerves too) and will not be able to walk again. Yeah shooting him in the knee is probably worse then killing him

OT: I'm a pacifist to the extent of self defence. Threaten my life or my families lives directly and I will defend myself. However I wouldn't have a gun, I would talk it out first and only if he threatened me or my family
 

Hashime

New member
Jan 13, 2010
2,538
0
0
Huddo said:
Alrighty then, time for a question about your morals to brighten up your day!
So...

An armed man bursts into your house holding a gun in his hand. He rounds you and your family up and tells you he's going to kill you and your family right now.
Now, you happen to have a fully loaded gun right by you at the time. You pick it up; hold it in your hands.
Here's the dilemma.

You have no option to shoot the intruder's foot or any other part of the body that will only wound him. You either kill him or he kills you and your family. Now, it goes against all your moral and religious beliefs to murder another human being dead (for the sake of this question, let's say that you are of a religion that disapproves of this), would you shoot the intruder dead to save your family? Or die upholding your beliefs?

That is the question I ask you, Escapists.
Assuming you are talking about Christian beliefs, you can kill as long as the person isn't innocent (tyring to kill you, someone else...) and you can only sin if you have free choice (which in this scenario you don't). So based on those 2 principles behind the church's stand on murder, I would have no problem shooting the man. Of course it would be better if I could just incapacitate him.
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
well i dont like shooting people but i hate getting killed even less the family surviving is a bit of a bonus
and also on the weighting scale i use the action is good since it saves several lives that are more important than the other the intruder is less important since he is a criminal and i am more important because i am not
 

swolf

New member
May 3, 2010
1,189
0
0
RanD00M said:
swolf said:
That is correct. It's called the femoral artery and, when ruptured, the person would die within 2 1/2 minutes. Proper treatment is to clamp the artery but that artery retracts when cut so it's quite rare (to my knowledge) for somebody to survive that type of trauma. (In case you are wondering, I was a Combat Medic in the U.S. Army so that's how I know.)
That is exactly what happened in Black Hawk Down.And I remembered it.
And people keep saying that these kind of movies are rotting my brain.
Yeah, that movie was correct. Though I believe that patient's life was sustained for a little while by pumping him full of IV fluid (I can't remember the name of the likely fluid. Like, I would recognize if I heard it but it's evading me right now...it's been a few years. I will try to remember to look it up and edit this post accordingly). That movie was surprisingly accurate. Many people don't believe that final scene where the soldiers are entering friendly territory and are greeted by locals holding silver platters with glasses of water. Well, one of my instructers was there as a medic (on the base to treat incoming patients, not in the field) and he said that is exactly how that happened. The only inaccuracy I can think of right would probably be the discussion between the sargeant and the (private? I don't remember his rank.) He likely would not have thrown the basketball or talked to him in that manner. He would, more than likely, have been more respectful. I mean, yes, there are those that don't mind being talked to that way but others of that rank expect to be talked to respectfully. I remember one time, in training, seeing a private lounging around at the CQ desk while an Infantry sargeant and his buddies were waiting to talk to the Drill Sargeants. So the Private asked the Sargeant about what it's actually like after training and what it's really like in an Infantry unit. Well, the Sarge told him that in a real infantry unit he probably would not have finished asking that question since he wasn't standing at ease (a sign of respect). Instead, the Sargeant's buddy would have already started beating the private for his disrespect. I mean, if somebody saved your life, wouldn't you be angry with anybody disrespecting that person? I understand that not all Infantry Sargeants are like that but there are some and that's not a risk I would take. It's better advised to be respectful.

The Rockerfly said:
EmileeElectro said:
My science teacher told me shooting someone in the leg is the worst place to shoot them, a main artery is in your leg or something.
That along with your kneecaps, massive amounts of nerves and the artery

So you loose massive amounts of blood due to the artery, will not be able to feel anything in your leg at (probably damaging your crotch nerves too) and will not be able to walk again. Yeah shooting him in the knee is probably worse then killing him

OT: I'm a pacifist to the extent of self defence. Threaten my life or my families lives directly and I will defend myself. However I wouldn't have a gun, I would talk it out first and only if he threatened me or my family
Yeah, damaging the knee cap causes immense pain (been there, done that, went through physical rehab...still walk funny from time to time). A bullet wound to the leg is practically a death sentence (when hitting the right area). So, yeah, not being able to feel the leg should be the least of the worries (that's if you're lucky enough to not be able to feel it...otherwise, it's a painful death). If I did do that to somebody, I would probably shoot them in the head to end their misery...because I don't want to see that or have my family see that.
 

s0denone

Elite Member
Apr 25, 2008
1,196
0
41
Are you fucking kidding me? How is this question difficult in any way? Just because a question is about "morality"(whatever vague definition) doesn't make it a good question.

A man breaks into your house and will kill you and your family, if you don't kill him. Allow me to repeat myself:
Are you fucking kidding me?

Of course I would shoot the man. Nobody wouldn't shoot the man. Give me one reason not to shoot the man. Give me one person that wouldn't shoot the man.

Show me someone who honestly answered "No", and I'll show you a big, fat liar.

The answer is a given.
 

RanD00M

New member
Oct 26, 2008
6,947
0
0
swolf said:
Epic snip to you good sir.
Yeah,it was IV fluids.Although they din't really sustain his life for all that long.

And you were correct on the ranks.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Huddo said:
Alrighty then, time for a question about your morals to brighten up your day!
So...

An armed man bursts into your house holding a gun in his hand. He rounds you and your family up and tells you he's going to kill you and your family right now.
Now, you happen to have a fully loaded gun right by you at the time. You pick it up; hold it in your hands.
Here's the dilemma.

You have no option to shoot the intruder's foot or any other part of the body that will only wound him. You either kill him or he kills you and your family. Now, it goes against all your moral and religious beliefs to murder another human being dead (for the sake of this question, let's say that you are of a religion that disapproves of this), would you shoot the intruder dead to save your family? Or die upholding your beliefs?

That is the question I ask you, Escapists.
Well taking away the fact guns are illegal in Australia etc, if I was in that situation I would not hesitate for a second to shoot the intruder. Self defence and defence of family is both a legitimate legal and in my books very moral and valid reason to kill. While I would prefer to disarm, if killing is the only course of action I would do it.
 

blackhole1

New member
Jun 7, 2010
77
0
0
One life lost instead of (in my case) four...I'd say that is an pretty easy call. Dunno if I'd be able to do this in the actual situation since I am rather squimish.
Needless to say that I hope to whatever god is still out there that I am never forced into such a situation.
 

Captain Schpack

New member
Apr 22, 2009
909
0
0
No religion'/morals on this Earth holds a candle to the joy of a family and the insane grief that would ensue if they died and even worse if they died because of you. I'd shoot him to save my family and I'd shoot him repeatedly to save my "future family"

[sub](This being a hypothetical thing, if the intruder came in now when I'm 14, I'd kill him. If he came in when im older and have a family I'd shoot himreapeatedly.)[/sub]
 

eggy32

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,327
0
0
Well, my family consists of me and 3 other people, so the life of some honest people I like most definitely take priority over somebody who would try and murder them.
If I could shoot him and not have anyone die then I'd go with that.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Corum1134 said:
He would have never had the chance to round up my family. I would have heard him break in and he would have died the moment I saw a gun.
Agreed with this guy, if I had a weapon in my house I would have intercepted the guy before my family was put in danger.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
blue_guy said:
AngloDoom said:
EmileeElectro said:
My science teacher told me shooting someone in the leg is the worst place to shoot them, a main artery is in your leg or something.
...The worst?

I hope this teacher isn't in biology. I'm no doctor, but I imagine someone would have a high chance or survival if I shot them in the leg than if I shot them in the head.
Head shots arn't nearly as lethal as they are in video games and movies.
While I've no doubt that's true, leg-shots won't be as damaging as a shot to the brain. A shot to the leg means it has to hit main arteries to cause you to bleed out. The brain is just a mass of veins, arteries, and controls all the important functions that keep you alive. Again, I imagine being shot in the leg usually results in lots of pain and sometimes death, while being shot in the head usually results in death, and sometimes just a life as a vegetable.
 

Mookie_Magnus

Clouded Leopard
Jan 24, 2009
4,011
0
0
I would shoot the burgling bastard the instant I saw him in my house.
I wouldn't let him get the chance to touch my family.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Enemy Of The State said:
I'd shoot the guy but tell the wife and kids etc etc to close their eyes first. I wouldn't want to traumatise the family.
By which time your dead because the guy with the gun would have shot you first.... silly.
 

BuchalBainne

New member
Apr 2, 2010
118
0
0
I would kill the guy (as I have to).
Most religions say your not allowed to murder, this is not murder. This is self-defence.
 

Forgetitnow344

New member
Jan 8, 2010
542
0
0
Y'know, I'd like to contribute that I would consider the act of sparing the trespasser his life as myself murdering my own family. It would be absurd to not pull the trigger.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
blue_guy said:
AngloDoom said:
blue_guy said:
AngloDoom said:
EmileeElectro said:
My science teacher told me shooting someone in the leg is the worst place to shoot them, a main artery is in your leg or something.
...The worst?

I hope this teacher isn't in biology. I'm no doctor, but I imagine someone would have a high chance or survival if I shot them in the leg than if I shot them in the head.
Head shots arn't nearly as lethal as they are in video games and movies.
While I've no doubt that's true, leg-shots won't be as damaging as a shot to the brain. A shot to the leg means it has to hit main arteries to cause you to bleed out. The brain is just a mass of veins, arteries, and controls all the important functions that keep you alive. Again, I imagine being shot in the leg usually results in lots of pain and sometimes death, while being shot in the head usually results in death, and sometimes just a life as a vegetable.
I'm no expert or anything, but I think it depends on the type of ammo. Hollowpoint (I think?) fired from a handgun would have a decent chance of getting stuck in your skull or bouncing of, but if fired into someones thigh would expand and cause a massive hole, making it likely to rupture that artery. FMJ rounds fired from a rifle would go straight through your skull and likely kill you, but if fired into the thigh would likely only cause a very nasty wound.
Very, very true points. I suppose there's no right or wrong answer, so let's assume the intruder has a hand-cannon. Then every shot is deadly, and we have a more urgent need to kill him if we so choose.

Yay for compromises!
 

Riddle78

New member
Jan 19, 2010
1,104
0
0
"Deliver evil unto evil"
He deserves to be shot dead if he shoots up innocents for jollies. I'd either aim for the forehead and hit the prefrontal cortex,which would shut down all involuntary reflexes,including heartbeat and breathing. If that shot is unavailable,I'd aim for the lower-left quadrant of the chest;instant kill shot,as it would tear through all chambers of the heart.
Yes,I know the biology of killing a man.Big whoop. -pulls out an arctic ice knife- Wanna fight about it?