Long enough... like three seconds? It's a bit odd that you were teaching this and had to think about it! Seems pretty obvious to me that butchering a living human with a knife is going to be a very disturbing experience. Not one I'd like to have in the ol' memory banks, thank you.
Well, given the line of work I was doing you could be watching a man's activity for an entire day or even an entire week. You get to know the guy a bit watching him through either an observation scope or rifle scope. It's not just a "point shoot" type of deal a lot of the times. Makes it a little more personal. I never really felt much of anything as a spotter. When it comes to the act of shooting everything washes out though, close or long range. If you're trained, the only thing you're focusing on is sight alignment, if you're not you're probably going to miss.
I read about this a while ago, about snipers having traumas because they kept seeing their killshots in their dreams and having a too vivid memory of the scenes. It's not that strange actually, since they can see the full detail of their shot as opposed to soldiers killing someone during suppressive fire.
Honestly? No, well at least not that I can tell from training. It is a case of "fix the problem" in many ways - within a military environment it is probably different due to the operational necessity
I'd have a hard time killing someone but could quite happily heel hook both legs so they never walk right again.
Not the same way during the deployment as I do now, and to be honest none of it really bothers me at all due to the context of the environment and the effectiveness of our actions. It's not something I feel like boasting about to people, but it's also not something I'm deeply ashamed of. It's been about three years now, maybe I'll feel different down the road? I don't think so though. Keep in mind I'm talking about personal actions and outlook here, not my opinion on my place in our actions as a society and our reasons for engaging in a war effort.
That's interesting. I'm a little torn because of how squeamish I get with animals (only a few experiences, I'm not some animal killer or anything!). That said I probably wouldn't be squeamish if the animal was attacking me, and I wouldn't be attacking a human at close range unless they were attacking me or there was a threat involved with them, so I might not be squeamish at all. Part of me wants to know, the majority hopes I never have to find out!
How far could you imagine doing the same things without the social "excuse" of it being your job (I don't mean "excuse" in a pejorative way, just the best word I can think of right now)? I mean, if you didn't have the uniforms, orders and command structure etc., do you think your mind would process it differently? Of course, that would lead down a bitter and unfruitful avenue of discussion. It would also be :topic:
Well, the closest job in normal society where the act of killing is involved would be in law enforcement. If I were part of SWAT or a designated sniper, I probably wouldn't feel bad about anything at all. Those tend to be forceful and aggressive operations with a higher alert level than normal. The way I view normal police is that they are there to serve the public, not kill them off. When I was thinking about joining I had it in my mind that I would go into it with knowing I could be harmed but I would rather risk getting harmed in most situations than using force to solve them (which seems too common sometimes with police in some situations in the States). It would have to be a very specific situation (like a shootout) for me to not think twice about it if I were normal police. I didn't end up joining because the people I did a ride along with didn't have that kind of mindset, it was very "protect myself at all costs" and I didn't want to be in an environment where my ideals clashed with others, not good for a working environment. That's a military mindset, and having been in the military with that mindset I feel like my judgment is appropriate. I'm not making this judgment off of a feeling of detest or hate for police, I honestly feel like that profession should have a different mindset to it regardless of the potential harm. As just a person living life, there are few situations somebody can find themselves in where they have to kill somebody (in developed countries), especially if you're training martial arts (with regular sparring!) and you are capable of subduing somebody or getting away. That said, obviously there are a few situations where I would certainly kill somebody but they are extreme and rare and not really worth spending a lot of time to think on. If our society collapsed and people were out raping, murdering and pillaging then I would have 0 problems.
Yeah, I meant more along the lines of just doing it off your own back; observing someone for a few days without their knowledge then shooting them. I guess what I'm trying to say is: can you seperate the act of killing from the sense of duty, in your mind?
No. If I were going to stalk somebody and kill them in the civilian world I would certainly be doing it out of a sense of duty to something, lol. If not, then I think that's what psychologists call a "psychopath." I have no urge to just go out a'killin'.
That's a strange question isn't it? Take away the prize money, audience and the belts and boxing becomes nothing more than violence. Pondering the difference with or without those is unnecessary because it changes the whole act.
It's interesting though, isn't it? There seems to be an innate barrier to premeditated murder in the vast majority of people, unless the will of the tribe is with them. It seems to make evolutionary sense, on the surface of it. What is weird is how society can exploit that; whether that's killing a man thousands of miles from home because it's your job, or sacrificing fellow tribe members to appease an imaginary deity so the crops won't fail. This seems true across the board, whether the killer is in the military, an enforcer for a street gang, or a state executioner. It all falls apart without duty to the tribe.
To the OP: presuming you are not talking about premeditated killing, I doubt whether rules will have much impact on action. Interestingly, and relevant to the above, professionals do not have to decide their own rules so much as justify and prepare for following institutional procedures and protocols. I actually think that justification will come after the fact. So, in a bit of circular reasoning, it is ok to kill when you kill, because you would have to justify actions that weren't made with the "rule-making justification" part of your mind. Minds are tricky like that.
To me killing is justified when it is in defence of other lives. So if someone is doing there best to kill me, I consider it moral to use lethal force, if someone is trying to kill another person and killing them is the most viable way of preventinng that, again moral. In terms of killing someone at close range to long distance, I actually think it would be easier to do it at close range because you are more likely to feel that threat to yourself. If the person is 200 meters away and swinging around a sword, I'm not feeling much threat. Make it 5 meters away the threat is much greater. As for the "everyone deserves the right to live" argument, in all honesty I don't believe that, I think you earn the right to life by not impinging on other peoples fundamental rights like the right to food, health, shelter, to not be physical or mentally abused/tortured, the right to self defence, to live in peace etc. If you repeatedly show that you can't respect other peoples rights and use force/trickery to take that from them for personal gain, I'm not sure that you deserve to live. The big problems is knowing with 100% certainty that you have the right person.
But is this "innate barrier" purely down to social conditioning or is it physically hard wired into us? From the moment we enter society we learn the rules, and in most cases those rules include don't cause harm to others for personal gain. If you could create a fully grown clone of someone and give them no social conditioning whatsoever would they feel a compulsion not to harm others or would they simply fulfill whatever needs they have by whatever means necessary?
I would kill in an instant if the outcome of me not killing meant either death to me loved ones or some "innocent" bystanders. For example I don't think anyone should hesitate to shoot to kill for example a terrorist about to blow up a public place if it meant saving the people there.
