Are you responsible [Part 2a]

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not hijack an excellent serious discussion but when praticing hostage rescue shots or in matches, when the no-shoot is a spouse, sometimes inappropriate humor bubbles to the surface.

I always thought a great episode of Law and Order would be when the spouse of some competition master was taken hostage and the other spouse fires two rounds and one does in the spouse.

Jack McCoy (notoriously antigun DA) would try to prove that they were having difficulties and with the spouse's expertise the no-shoot hit was on purpose.

Older folk with a few marriages under their belts find this possible.

 

[raimius]

I'll take the 30% chance of success and 10% risk to innocents over the 80% chance of success and 80% risk to innocents or the 0% chance of success. It's still a poor option, but I think it is better than the others.

The OP asked that the numbers not be changed. He stated that the firing was the only option that could prevent death or serious injury to your family.......

The choice not to fire will most likely result in the grievous injury or death of yourself or a loved one

........Under most conditions the gun is the last resort anyway. Once you get to it your other plans have probably failed. Once you get to it you will likely have no time or desire to rationally calculate statistics.

While the OP's question is a good way to discover people's values, it is not a realistic scenario. (Kind of like the ones with babies raining from the skies...)

Under the scenario presented, I would not fire.
I would note, as I tried to in my previous post, that not being able to safely fire does not preclude further resistance in many cases. Of course, in cases where lethal force is justified, a firearm is often the most effective weapon. Trying to stop a lethal attacker with an improvised weapon isn't a fun prospect, but it is better than shooting an innocent in the process. (My opinion.)

Would I react the way I voted, under this scenario, in real life? I hope I never have to find out! Stress can do strange things.

 

[animal]

The application of force is almost NEVER the solution to a problem. If force is required, many, many things have already gone terribly wrong.

Well, yes and no.
"Many things have already gone terribly wrong" could be true but may have occurred years before the scenario. The upbringing of the bad guy can make him into a creature that only understands fear and violence. Most good people don’t like to even consider the existence of these people, and if forced to recognize them, choose to focus on whatever thread of potential they might have for redemption.
While the potential for one of these people to turn their life around is precious, it cannot have measurable value in a time-limited scenario because in the present time, it is not yet real.
On your entry to the scene, force may be the correct and first option to solve the immediate problem.

Taking WildAlaska’s "shoot into the schoolchildren" option would be no different than running away in a sense, though the immediate result would be more devastating. You would be relinquishing control to the bad guy rather than working towards gaining control. If you shoot the kids, he still has your wife at knifepoint. Shooting them would be illogical because there is no gain and the bad guy cannot be trusted to honor any "deal".

In both cases, there is no value in imaginary gain after the scenario ends. When you are "in the moment" the future is irrelevant except for your goals.

 

[bikerbill]

Been mulling this over for a while, and I still don't have what I would call a satisfactory decision ... there are a lot of much smarter people on this forum than I, and it seems the conclusions they reach are all over the map.

However ... in the case where an innocent MIGHT be injured but my wife WOULD be killed, I'd have to take the shot if I had no other way to solve the problem ... I'm not sure life would be worth living if an innocent died so I or my wife could live ... but as many have said before, your decision if faced with that awful scenario won't be made after hours of contemplation; it will have to be made in a split second ... that's why I love these kinds of questions; they give you a chance to find out where you stand on moral issues and issues of life and death ... practice those head shots!

In Wild's school children scenario, I would NOT shoot the kids, no matter the outcome ... I think I'd rather be dead and I know my wife would; assuming you somehow escaped imprisonment, how could you look at each other every day and remember you're alive because you killed a child at a pyscho's bidding? that way lies suicide down the road ...

I'm going to stay in the house and have my groceries delivered; too dangerous out there ...

 

[.22lr]

continuation with a shift in focus

All,
I'd like to continue this discussion while adding a new thread "Are you responsible [Part 2b]" which will explore a different aspect of risk / responsibility as it relates to self defense.

Thank you,

~Matt

 

[Evan Thomas]

Last edited by .22lr; Today at 02:34 PM. Reason: stinking typos... that I accept both moral and finanacial responsibility for...

Sir, you are a mensch.