Lets say you're out walking in the woods one day, a really nice, sunny day. There is little or no wind and the sun is at your back.

You get to the top of a small hill and you see a large meadow opening out before you for 300 yards in every direction. Short grass, not even 8 inches tall.

Looking around, you notice a rifle leaning up against a tree. Nothing fancy, just a bolt action .22, but it sports a Ciener suppressor and a run of the mill scope.

Just then your eye spots movement in the distance, you pick up the rifle, look through the scope and there, a couple hundred yards off, is your worst enemy, the guy you love to hate.

Nobody knows you are there, there is no one else around. You're already wearing gloves, your enemy doesn't see you. The rifle can't be traced to you, and there is extra ammo laying on the ground.

What do you do?

Take the rifle and shove it up my enemy's ass. It's well worth walking the 300 yards.



[This message has been edited by hp (edited 07-25-2002).]

The same as hp, but sideways. Oh, and first, I steal the supressor and scope, and hit him in the nuts with the butt of the gun.

depends on how badly he deservies it. still i'd go no farther than shooting out his kneecaps so he can't run, then clubbing him in the nuts

I don't hate anyone enough to kill them in cold blood.

Shoot the ground in front of him, then keep firing behind him as he runs away. Watching him shit his pants would be good enough for me, and nobody gets hurt.

warning: may contain nuts

quote:

---

Originally posted by Z3m:
I don't hate anyone enough to kill them in cold blood.

---

No where does it say to kill him in cold blood, it does not even suggest it.

It was merely an ethics test, everyone else got it but you.



[This message has been edited by Global Dominator (edited 07-25-2002).]

If it was one of a very few people I hate badly enough, I might shoot him in the ass and laugh at him. Other than that I'd just shoot at the ground to scare him.

you guys are all pussies i would shoot him but make sure i hit him somewhere where it would take like 20 minutes before he died so that he had to suffer

No, a pussy shoots a defenseless person from 300 yards away. A asswipe pussy makes them suffer while doing it.

A practical man would not have to worry, he would have taken his enemy out long before

I can't believe most of you missed the real point of the test.

As you stand on the hill with the rifle in your hands, you are God. You have the power of life and death over someone you despise more than anything on the planet.

If you kill him, you have thrown away a portion of your soul, and you're never able to get it back.

But, on the other hand, if you just send one by his head, letting him see you and know you could have killed him and didn't, you own him for the rest of his life.

That, and everytime he sees you from then until the end of his life, the look on his face is something you could never buy with all the money in the world.

[This message has been edited by Global Dominator (edited 07-25-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Global Dominator:
No where does it say to kill him in cold blood, it does not even suggest it.

---

Doesn't need to when there's an understood implication in its wording.


It was merely an ethics test, everyone else got it but you.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, I did get it. And I answered appropriatly. Everyone must have gotten that but you.

I would not shoot the guy.

At the moment there is no one out there who i hate.

Peace Renegade,

"Doesn't need to when there's an understood implication in its wording."

The understood implication was in your mind.

I would take the gun and sell it.

Im with Z3m on this one. Outside of Self Defense Im not a fucking cold hearted killer.

I think I would just cuss the fucker out and walk away. or scream really loud and let him look up at you and let him see you have this firearm.

The funnything is this. You said a .22 Fucking 22s bounce off of people. and at 300 yards would be like firing a fucking pellet gun at his ass.

You could kill him but odds are against you.

Wish for a 38 or something a bit more of a kick to it.

Mr. Tr0g,

It doesn't say he is at 300 yards, it says he is at 200, I have .22 calibre ammunition that will penetrate ballistic gelatin to 24 inches at 200 yards.

As for the odds of hitting a target at that range consistently with a .22, been there, done that.

But neither of those is correct for the test.

[This message has been edited by Global Dominator (edited 07-25-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Global Dominator:

The understood implication was in your mind.

---

That's where they always are. You're playing with semantics is just getting silly.

the "test" is retarded. the fact that most of the respondants missed the "real point" seems more like a reflection of the test, not those who participated.

quote:

---

If you kill him, you have thrown away a portion of your soul, and you're never able to get it back.

---

who decides this? where does it say that if you take a life that you lose part of your soul? who even says that i HAVE a soul?

quote:

---

But, on the other hand, if you just send one by his head, letting him see you and know you could have killed him and didn't, you own him for the rest of his life.

---

doesn HE owe ME if i let him live?

quote:

---

That, and everytime he sees you from then until the end of his life, the look on his face is something you could never buy with all the money in the world.

---

even better is knowing that im abtter person than to just kill someone over my personal problem with him. besides, killing someone would hardly hurt them to much, they wouldnt really know what happened or what they were missing out on. they might not even know they are dead, depending on your personal religious convictions and thoughts on the afterlife and such. the people who would be suffering most here would be those who loved the person, who lost that person.

once again, the test, its retarded.


[This message has been edited by junglist (edited 07-26-2002).]

Maybe it was just a little too cerebral for some people.

I'm sorry some of you didn't get it.

but youre not going to enlighten them/us with the "real point" of the test, or how they were supposed to answer to be deemed "ethical?"

most people here dont think cerebrally, anyway. youre posing this test to a comminuty full of weapons fanatics and backyard bomb making wannabes. they probably thought what a great day it would be to actually find a gun in the woods, even though they probably dont have the balls to actually shoot someone. which, by the way, is a good thing. you whet their appetites with the thought of free firearms and violence when you wanted insight and poise. just the thought of finding a firearm in the woods probably sent many of their juvenile imaginations zooming about the possibilities.

[This message has been edited by junglist (edited 07-26-2002).]

nobody I hate, but plenty of people I'd kill.

and yes, single bullet to the head, in a second.

It was NEVER about shooting/killing anyone. Some of you read things into what was written that just aren't there.

It was about having the opportunity to do so, but not.

If you shoot him, you and everybody else lose. But if you don't, and he knows it, you win. The person you hate more than anything owes you his life and it eats away at him for the rest of time.

How would you feel if you owed your life to the person you hated the most? Every time you saw him would be a reminder of a debt you could never pay.

From now on I'll stick to "see spot run" questions.