Shoot to kill, how many people can do it.

[yuanqufucius]

Strictly in the context of military conflict.

 

Came across this youtube video on killing

 

The basic premise is that, majority of soldiers cannot shoot to kill, not only so they purposefully shoot to miss. So in actuallaity, the majority of the dead people are killed by only a minority of people.

The military honor such as Victorian Cross and Medal of Honor are not awarded to those who had the most kill count but rather to people who put them selves in harms way to save their buddies. 

Che Guevera in all his sadism did not dare to stare into his victim's eyes when he executed them.

This behaviour has evolutionary basis as it is safer to let a defeated man go as opposed to make him fight to his last breath.

 

This brings a total different understanding that "Killing splits a person's soul" from Harry Potter.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

[dsayers]

Shoot to kill is a misnomer. Any malady a human suffers is potentially lethal. You could potentially survive a headshot or bleed out from being hit in an extremity.

[shirgall]

Thoughts?

 

Shoot to stop, not to kill.

 

As for the rest, I refer you to Lind: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Warfare-Handbook-William-Lind-ebook/dp/B017IP1JM2/

[RichardY]

Strictly in the context of military conflict.

 

The basic premise is that, majority of soldiers cannot shoot to kill, not only so they purposefully shoot to miss. So in actuallaity, the majority of the dead people are killed by only a minority of people.

Yes I guess that makes sense. Thought not people, I know that a lot of the farmers around where I live like to kill pheasants for fun, thousands of them don't know if they even use all the carcasses spend over £20,000 on a shotgun. My father not a farmer, will also kill stuff for fun, just pheasants and pigeons though, leaves the carcass though, hate that,  found a video on the Internet for preparing birds.  

 

The military honor such as Victorian Cross and Medal of Honor are not awarded to those who had the most kill count but rather to people who put them selves in harms way to save their buddies. 

Which IMO kind of sucks, I think military honours should only go to those with the best kill count, like Micheal Wittman or the Red Baron, makes me think of a scene from the film Gran Torino. The real medals should go to people who prevent conflict in the first place cough* like Obama with his Nobel peace prize.

 

Che Guevera in all his sadism did not dare to stare into his victim's eyes when he executed them.

What a real cop-out, no wonder he didn't make President. Personally I generally don't have a problem looking a creature in the eyes and putting it out of its misery if it is badly injured. A person though no idea. Though I'm reminded of the scene from saving Private Ryan where a guy says "don't shoot let'em burn".

 

This behaviour has evolutionary basis as it is safer to let a defeated man go as opposed to make him fight to his last breath.

Makes sense, I will personally pass-out at the sight of blood, especially the idea of it being cold. Though maybe its a reaction that can be overcome.

 

This brings a total different understanding that "Killing splits a person's soul" from Harry Potter.

No idea.

Thoughts?

I'm reminded of a story that was on the news a while a go about a British marine in Afghanistan who shot a wounded Taliban fighter. I think they called him Marine "A" or something there was a clip with someone saying "He's faking he's dead, he's faking he's dead" Bang! "He's dead now". Might be the same story. Personally if I had been in that situation and I don't know if I ever would be. I'd have shot the Taliban guy in the head, no hesitation IMHO. Would have said I thought he was reaching for his Grenade or pistol, even if the guy surrendered I'd still probably shoot him.  As I'd probably do the same roles reversed, not going to saw my head off.

[Mister Mister]

I don't know, and I don't think you can know until you are in that situation, but I would say this:  I was jumped by some kids once, and I pulled a knife on them, and I am 95% certain I was ready to stab them in the neck or below the ribs, but they ran scared, and I was relieved I didn't have to make that choice.  Fight or flight responses put you in a completely different mindset, most people don't know what they'd be capable of.

[Donnadogsoth]

Cf. On Killing by Lt. Col. Grossman

 

Killing someone implants a memory that is trying to turn you into a different person.  Killing face to face is the most powerful form of this.  Do this kind of thing enough and you won't remember your childhood, your dreams, your hopes, beauty, truth, goodness.  You'll turn into a stone killer who has lost all colour to his life aside from concentrated alcohol and disgusting sex.  Don't kill people if you don't want their ghosts to haunt you, if you don't want to kill a part of you you'll regret is gone, until you've even forgotten the regret.

[yuanqufucius]

Cf. On Killing by Lt. Col. Grossman

 

That is on my reading list, a friend recommended me to read that.

I don't know, and I don't think you can know until you are in that situation, but I would say this:  I was jumped by some kids once, and I pulled a knife on them, and I am 95% certain I was ready to stab them in the neck or below the ribs, but they ran scared, and I was relieved I didn't have to make that choice.  Fight or flight responses put you in a completely different mindset, most people don't know what they'd be capable of.

 

This makes me question how applicable is the fight or flight in the modern battlefield. You would think that in an actual combat engagement, the participants would be overloaded with fight or flight responses, or full of hate from being shot at. But the battlefield data suggest other wise. In the modern battle field no one sees face to face. Other than the hollywood explosions, the actual casualty is very low. 

[barebones]

This interesting. A few months ago, I was in an indoor range that also trains people to qualify for concealed carry permits. I couldn't help myself. I asked one of the instructors if they also include instruction on how to psychologically prepare a candidate on the ABC's of deliberately killing another human being.

 

While the current level of personal safety that we enjoy in our society persists, the thought of killing another human is alien to most of the population. As things become dire, any hesitation will eventually disappear. To commit homicide or not is decided by the perceived level of threat. A soldier engaged in battle might hesitate to kill by depending on comrades to be doing the job. A soldier alone might relish the benefits of homicide.
 

[shirgall]

This interesting. A few months ago, I was in an indoor range that also trains people to qualify for concealed carry permits. I couldn't help myself. I asked one of the instructors if they also include instruction on how to psychologically prepare a candidate on the ABC's of deliberately killing another human being.

 

While the current level of personal safety that we enjoy in our society persists, the thought of killing another human is alien to most of the population. As things become dire, any hesitation will eventually disappear. To commit homicide or not is decided by the perceived level of threat. A soldier engaged in battle might hesitate to kill by depending on comrades to be doing the job. A soldier alone might relish the benefits of homicide.

 

 

I specifically covered as much of this as time and lesson liability permitted when I taught Personal Protection and Judicious Use of Deadly Force.

[Iron Horse]

Lindybeige is not known for giving the whole story, he does not make note of the fact that this was a war close to home for reasons most people did not know, they were conscripts mainly, forced to fight a war they neither knew nor cared about.  He does not mention that the difference between a Britain, Frenchman and a German is basically location, the cultures are so very similar, the religion identical and their values the same.  Contrast that against an insurgent enemy that shares none of that, that acts and behaves in a way you find abhorrent, disgusting and primitive.

The conditions the men fought in WW2, the depressed, soul-crushing slog of trench warfare is a far cry from the outside the wire for 12 hours and back before lights out.  All of this bred a commonality for the men fighting each other, during Christmas they heard each other singing christmas hymns and with this came the realization that they are not what we have been told.  Again contrast with the increased attacks and suicide bombings that happen around the holidays in the wars we are currently fighting, look at the behavior they condone during their holy days and see why it is no longer the case that most men will refuse to kill.

[dsayers]

This interesting. A few months ago, I was in an indoor range that also trains people to qualify for concealed carry permits. I couldn't help myself. I asked one of the instructors if they also include instruction on how to psychologically prepare a candidate on the ABC's of deliberately killing another human being.

Presuming self-defense, the killing would be anything but deliberate. It'll be the fastest, lowest deliberation you'll ever make.

 

My instructor prepared us by basically saying to not carry unless you're willing to draw, to not draw unless you're willing to fire, and to not fire unless you're willing to kill. The first time I needed to pull, I actually choked out of fear of what an overzealous prosecutor would do. Thankfully, the three others times I've needed to pull, I didn't even need to put my finger in the trigger guard as the mere presentation was enough to diffuse the situation.