Psychology of killing.

[BadBone 0]

Playing CTF last night, and popping rounds into peoples heads as they stuck out from behind a wall got me thinking about how many ArmA players would be able to do this for real.

If the enemy was square in your sights, could YOU shoot to kill? Answers 1-4

My original answer when i started writing this thread was no, but truth is, if it was kill or be killed my answer is number 2. However, if i was not under fire and there was only one enemy who didnt know i was there and i was told to kill him, i dont think  i could. My answer remains number two though.

If you do vote and dont mind others knowing you are a cold hearted killing machine  

could you please post which country you are from, likewise if you would not shoot?

Anonymous votes very welcome to.

BadBone-   Wales UK.

Quote[/b] ] In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.

In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons.

If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear.

   http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

[JdB 151]

Not really possible to answer this question, even the best trained soldier may hesitate when the time comes, although this is less of a concern due to more intense psychological tests during recruitment, and even the most battlehardened soldier may lose the ability at some point due to all kinds of mental issues.

The only way to really know is to have been in that position before, despite of how "hardcore" some people might make themselves out to be.

[BadBone 0]

Not really possible to answer this question, even the best trained soldier may hesitate when the time comes, although this is less of a concern due to more intense psychological tests during recruitment, and even the most battlehardened soldier may lose the ability at some point due to all kinds of mental issues.

I should of added, 5.Dont know

[nephilim 0]

i prefer killing pixels

and not real beings..

but actually id like to kill one or two morons

GUNS!!!

[evil koala 6]

It would depend on the circumstances, but assuming I'm in combat, I would have no problem with it. I don't desire to kill another person, or any living being (I dont even hunt since its not nessessary for me). But I would have no problem with it on the field of battle.

Death and killing are an unpleasant nessessity in the fight for survival and the preservation of our way of life.

[mattxr 9]

I could kill anything with no side effects, could say i have the mind of a serial killer who hasnt killed yet

"When your ticked off killing is as easy as breathing."

[Arrowhead 0]

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. Just remember that when you start opening up...

[Average Joe 0]

I could kill anything with no side effects, could say i have the mind of a serial killer who hasnt killed yet

"When your ticked off killing is as easy as breathing."

Is that quote before or after Rambo anialates that guys face with the .50?

[Zolner 0]

Circumstances or not, I'd like to think that when I spot an enemy lugging an AK I wouldn't hesitate, wouldn't think, but just fire, letting my hands do the work they've been trained to do instinctually. It may sound heartless but thats the delicate rope combat troops walk in modern day.

[BadBone 0]

It would depend on the circumstances, but assuming I'm in combat, I would have no problem with it. I don't desire to kill another person, or any living being (I dont even hunt since its not nessessary for me). But I would have no problem with it on the field of battle.

Death and killing are an unpleasant nessessity in the fight for survival and the preservation of our way of life.

I teach my kids not to kill even insects...............maybe wasps as they are evil, and if we are going to keep a fish we catch then they must be prepared to eat it.

[ThePredator 0]

Well, if I had the chance, I would've joint the long range, one-shot-one-kill branch. With all the responsibility and duties.

However, I wouldn't even kill animals just for killing sake. In a war-situation, not necessarily threatened, I could go for the pink mist. Don't really know if this would be the case, when it comes to such decision, though.

[bonko the sane 2]

i once held a gangbanger at gunpoint to his head when i worked in a nightclub some years ago, but i seriously doubt i would shoot him there, probably i'd go for a leg (think kneecap ) but....luckily for me it didnt happen, or i would be in jail, so i'll never know

And im quite sure that even the most professional soldier is shit scared when in a firefight, lots of vets from the colonial wars in Africa (jungle warfare mind you) say that basicaly they hid behind cover and shot in the enemies general direction

[shav4life 0]

the question is why become a soldier if you are going to hestitate when it comes to killing the enemy.

when you face your enemy, you have mil-seconds to decide, are you going to kill him, or is he going to kill you.  

if you are going to take sometime to think about it, i think you will be the dead one, and you don't deserve to be given the honour of wearing that country's uniform.

if you think about killing him, before actually killing him it means you thought about putting his life before your country's freedom and independence, and to me, you deserve to be killed for that.

[Törni 0]

Luckily they are so far away when you pull the trigger and do not know them as persons. When they start to be humans it gets more and more difficult. What ArmA misses (and most games do) are the badly wounded who scream for their mothers, for help or just for the plain agony. But who would play game like that?

I think that a clean kill is less evil than a maiming shot that lets you suffer for a long time or leaves you as a cripple for the rest of your days.

[BadBone 0]

the question is why become a soldier if you are going to hestitate when it comes to killing the enemy.

when you face your enemy, you have mil-seconds to decide, are you going to kill him, or is he going to kill you.  

if you are going to take sometime to think about it, i think you will be the dead one, and you don't deserve to be given the honour of wearing that country's uniform.

if you think about killing him, before actually killing him it means you thought about putting his life before your country's freedom and independence, and to me, you deserve to be killed for that.

Wow harsh! Military training does its very best to make you not hesitate, but they cant train you with real people to shoot at with live ammo.

Read the article in my 1st post, if you had your way then 80-85% of ww11 vets deserved to die?

[MehMan 0]

Nobody knows unless you've been there and had to do it.

And I doubt that people here could live without side effects, statisticly there are only 2% of people that can do that.

Your basic human instinct tells you not to kill another one of your kind.

But in times of crisis your other human instinct pops up that tells you to survive and it's stronger than the don't kill.

Better him than me is the logic then.

[shav4life 0]

while it sounds harsh, its true.  

why do ppl wanna be soldiers? to paint glasses? no

its to fight wars, to protect your country and people. finally when you get the chance to do it, you going to hestitate? u gonna think, oo this poor guy is not changing anything so i wont kill him? how could you know who he is? u dnt.  

maybe he is just a soldier or maybe he cud make the whole mess turn into somthing else. or maybe he will kill u, while u r thinkin about not killing him.

ww2 soldiers where not all trained, some of them were very young.   some british pilots would get 8 hours training befire being forced into missions.  if pilots got 8 hours of trainging only, i bet soldiers got none.

untrained = unprepared = bad results.  soldiers are born to protect at all costs, so killing has to be as easy as drinking water.

Like Mehman said tho, you have to be there to know how it feels.

surly u going to feel bad for killing smeone, but u got 20 years of retirement to think about it, not in the moment where your kids, your country and your people await your action.

[Törni 0]

Humans are social beigns. Not to feel any kind of empathy under any circumstances makes you a sociopath.

War is a peculiar situation since most of those who kill each other do it for some abstract reason (honor, country, etc.) It might not have anything to do with your personal goals or values. How many western soldiers are there for personal vengeance for example? You have to actually know someone in order to hate him or her. Otherwise it is totally abstract.

And then there are mercenaries who do it for other reasons.

[baddo 0]

Well first of all I think the web page you refer to really is only speculating and not showing how it ends up in such conclusions. I mean, did they count the number of bullets fired in a war and then compared that number to the total casualties? Like, if a bullet didn't hit anyone then the person who fired it didn't want to hit anyone? Quite nonsense in my opinion... also the point "Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane." really tells us nothing, it could as well be that the pilots that didn't get any kills just were not engaged in such battle situations, or they were so bad they couldn't hit anything even if they wanted to. That article really doesn't give us proof to back up its arguments. It just throws some "facts" at us but doesn't tell how those "facts" were found to be true. Significant problem with the reliability of this information source, I say.

But to answer the question: I picked #1 but with a condition.

I would have to be serving in the Finnish Defence Forces and facing an enemy which is trying to invade our country or something similar. So I would do it only as a defensive measure and when my actions are backed by our legislation and government. I have given an oath in which I promise to protect this country and as part of fulfilling that oath I would need to kill other people if that is what the commanders of our country are telling me to do in an event of war.

As a civilian I will never shoot anyone, I am confident about that. I am by nature a person who does not want to hurt anyone. You can force me into hurting other people but as I said, it requires our nation to be under direct threat. If I get into a "to kill or not to kill" situation as a civilian, I am more likely to choose "not to kill" and find some other way out of the situation, as the "to kill" choice would most likely get myself into prison for a long time and that's really not what I want.

If I had to shoot someone in a war, I am sure the nightmares would disturb me for the rest of my life. So I believe that I would have conscience problems despite of the fact that I now say I could kill someone while at war. I would do it for my nation but it would have a high price, there is no doubt about that.

[gazmen 0]

The problem is not if we will shoot, but what is essential is where to shoot, who & why...

When green light is activated anyone would fire against is enemy... (They are many reason some to protect, state, wife, children, some to revenge against colonialist war crime maker, for political, economical, philosofical or religious reason. The nature is wild, and kill in the nature is something natural).

About nightmare, you should know that army train these fighter since their childhood to avoid such problem (watching execution, explosion, movie made by Paramount, brainwashing music) so if you had not kill yourself before 25, you would probably not have mental problem after that even if you watch war in front of you... Cold Blood !

The major reason that ancient soldier kill them self is because of medic gived to them...

[Kirby 2]

I think too many people have voted that they could without thinking about it. I spent about half an hour pondering if I could shoot someone.

I voted YES, No problem.

The very one I think too many have voted.

If they were unarmed and at a complete disadvantage. No, of course not. Only a maniac or someone with a very strong personal hate against the person could do that.

If they were armed and my enemy, I could.

If I was in a bank, and an Armed robber came in. I could shoot him if I was armed.

If i was at war. I could "snipe" an unawares person. As long as he was an enemy.

England, UK.

[celery 8]

I think I can do it if the situation arises in wartime. A previous poster says the motive for killing is an abstract one but letting the enemy just grab your country may have some serious consequences on the population even after the war, communist countries such as Soviet Union and China are the best examples of subhuman treatment of conquered people (East Europe, Baltic countries, Tibet, Vietnam and Korea). You don't even have to ask if I'm going to defend against an invader from the east.

[FriketMonkey 0]

I think this poll is pathetic. You have to be in a situation like that before you know...

I think if you killed something, you'll never be the same... and thats not in a good way... A lot of veterans are traumatized, and wake up everynight with that face in their mind... thats not cool... It just F**** up your life.....

If you saw a guy, scared, screaming for his mother, shitting his pants... would you shoot him?

Well thats my point.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

Agree that depends on the circumstances.If your country is attacked and there is a danger for your relatives,for your children,wouldn't you kill? But if say about no war time don't think could kill anybody

[Jester_UK 0]

Just out of interest, I'd like to know how many of the folks who've responded to this thread have actual military training and experience.