Why DON'T you kill people?

[Key-Glyph]

Ever since I was a child I've frequently manifested rather severe reactions to depictions and descriptions of horror, body damage, and distress. I know it sounds silly -- certainly everyone gets deeply disturbed by things, right? Maybe I'm just a bigger wuss than most? -- but my particular case is something that's been universally considered oddly extreme in comparison to most other people throughout my life. It's also not entirely predictable, which makes it even more of a puzzle. Because of this I'm always amazed by people who can handle, and even enjoy, hyper-violent movies, or who can "will away" and/or fend off mental paralysis from disturbing media/knowledge. I am not capable of this, and I'm continually fascinated by the question of why.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be capable of murder, but to answer the original question, I think whatever this deficiency or unsolved trauma is that I'm suffering from is largely responsible for my nonviolent nature. If my or my loved ones' death was not 100% imminent without intervening action, I assume I would need to be pushed beyond the average threshold to be capable of seriously harming another human being, and most living creatures at that. But I am familiar with the cited experiment, and know that everyone without exception is capable of heinous acts if the situation is right.

I used to think a lot about joining the military and particularly about whether I could kill another man. I believe I have the capacity to do it.

I've wondered the same sort of thing, but in context of whether or not I'd be able to harm someone if I were in danger and had enough time to think before acting. There are all sorts of techniques to use if you're being mugged, or kidnapped in a car, and whathaveyou, and I've often tried to figure out if I would actually use the brutal or potentially fatal ones. For instance, if the situation were dire enough, could I really bring myself to maim someone's eyes?

I make the distinction of "having time to think before acting," because I am absolutely positive that the "SAVE MY HUSBAND/BROTHER" reflex would override everything else if there were an immediate, unmistakably deadly threat. I'd wind up taking a person out and having one of those "Oh my God, what have I done?" moments afterwards -- even if it were the only way. Kind of like what Ack was talking about.

My father was a soldier and has several confirmed kills, but though he did them during wartime, it bothers him to this day. Yes, he killed someone, and legally faced no repercussions because it was an act of warfare. But the psychological scars are still there, no matter what he has done to deal with it.

I really enjoyed that you brought this up. Very powerful. It reminded me of this StoryCorp recording.

[SamuraiMegas]

Why don't I kill people? Where could I hide the bodies? How could I easily clean up? How could I lift a 150 pound person with noodle arms?

[ZeroAX]

The only reason some people I know are still alive, is because I don't want to go to jail.

[chilimac]

The only reason some people I know are still alive, is because I don't want to go to jail.

Yep, same here. There's some people I know that better hope I never get cancer.

[AppleQueso]

I don't feel I have the authority to take another person's life. Even if I knew I could get away with it, I still wouldn't want to do it.

In special circumstances like those ones elmagico was coming up with... I honestly don't know how I'd react in that situation. I'm not a vindictive individual and have never been too fond of the idea of revenge, and I imagine that even if I did snap and do something, I wouldn't feel good about it.

Even if killing someone meant I was saving someone else, even if it were the right thing to do, I still wouldn't feel good about it I think.

I'd probably make a pretty damn terrible soldier.

[Thierry Henry]

It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances (almost a "perfect storm" type scenario) for me to even scratch the surface of entertaining the thought to commit murder.
I do believe though that even the most gentlest of souls can be forced to a point of no return. If you set off the "right" triggers even in the most placid of individuals, the results could be chilling.

[Hazerd]

Is this thread really still going, i fear for you all!

[deathclaw]

Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-med ... 6RzMeef.99

As for me, I don't kill, because it would be very tough for the people related to the dead person. It would hurt them immensely. And I don't want to make people suffer.

[J T]

Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-med ... 6RzMeef.99

This is crazy paranoid rambling. Please don't take it seriously.

Psych meds do not make you kill people. This is even worse than the reports claiming that video games make you kill people because it's possible this will scare away people from taking the medications that actually keep them stable. And trust me, I'm not a huge fan of psychotropic medication on the whole. I'm well aware of their limitations. I'd rather see people get behavioral therapies for many disorders, but even I have to admit that SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs have their place.

Here's what happens... someone goes on a killing spree. People say, well let's figure this out. What did the killer eat? What did he wear? What activities did he usually engage in? What were his beliefs. We're doing all of this after the fact and looking for something that might possibly make sense. As soon as we find something that looks a little bit different from ourselves, we think: "OH! That must have made him a killer!"

But guess what? About 80% of the people in the killers age group play video games and very very very few kill anybody. Millions of people take SSRIs and very very very few of them kill anybody. Billions of people have various mental disorders and very very very few of them kill anybody (though the likelihood is a bit higher with antisocial personality disorder). It absolutely does not make sense to pin the blame on games, on SSRIs, or on aspergers or depression. The evidence does not suggest, in the slightest, that these things led the killer to do what he did. I could just as easily say "It turns out that the killer drank water! He had jugs of it in his fridge! He ceremoniously drank five 8oz glasses of water a day. We should ban water! As it turns out, Ted Bundy also drank a lot of water! As did Son of Sam, and Jeffry Dahmer! Why are we allowing ourselves to drink this stuff when it's so clearly the drink of choice that leads up to people murdering hundreds of innocent people?"

You see? Just because two things occured together doesn't mean that you can claim one caused the other.

[deathclaw]

Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-med ... 6RzMeef.99

This is crazy paranoid rambling. Please don't take it seriously.

Psych meds do not make you kill people. This is even worse than the reports claiming that video games make you kill people because it's possible this will scare away people from taking the medications that actually keep them stable. And trust me, I'm not a huge fan of psychotropic medication on the whole. I'm well aware of their limitations. I'd rather see people get behavioral therapies for many disorders, but even I have to admit that SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs have their place.

Here's what happens... someone goes on a killing spree. People say, well let's figure this out. What did the killer eat? What did he wear? What activities did he usually engage in? What were his beliefs. We're doing all of this after the fact and looking for something that might possibly make sense. As soon as we find something that looks a little bit different from ourselves, we think: "OH! That must have made him a killer!"

But guess what? About 80% of the people in the killers age group play video games and very very very few kill anybody. Millions of people take SSRIs and very very very few of them kill anybody. Billions of people have various mental disorders and very very very few of them kill anybody (though the likelihood is a bit higher with antisocial personality disorder). It absolutely does not make sense to pin the blame on games, on SSRIs, or on aspergers or depression. The evidence does not suggest, in the slightest, that these things led the killer to do what he did. I could just as easily say "It turns out that the killer drank water! He had jugs of it in his fridge! He ceremoniously drank five 8oz glasses of water a day. We should ban water! As it turns out, Ted Bundy also drank a lot of water! As did Son of Sam, and Jeffry Dahmer! Why are we allowing ourselves to drink this stuff when it's so clearly the drink of choice that leads up to people murdering hundreds of innocent people?"

You see? Just because two things occured together doesn't mean that you can claim one caused the other.

I see what you mean. But even though not very many people take psych meds (at least compared to drinking water or even playing video games), 90% of the killers did take psych meds. So it sure isn't a coincidence, BUT psych meds don't necessarily have to be to blame. It's probably that those people would go on a killing spree anyway, had they been taking psych meds or not. I don't really know, I'm not a psychiatrist.

Here's another article though and I can relate to it much easier. I've been thinking about this for years, and here it is, somehow scientifically proven:
"Video games credited for drop in US crime rate"
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/30 ... rime-rate/