The subject of killing in self-defense does belong because I believe "do not murder [unjustified killing]" was written on the conscience of every human.

Though I try to be respectful of the rule banning religious discussions, I should have elaborated when I said, "There is something specific I will not do to survive." In my belief, there is something specific that you do not do. To avoid religious discussions, I will not mention what that is unless approved by the administration.

If it were to come to that, go against what I believe and survive or stand firm and die, I would be doing a lot of praying to have the strength to do what is right. For those who do believe strongly in something, what would you do in that situation?

Jeanette Isabelle

For me, there is nothing that would be off the table. Everything would be a possibility open for consideration. I would not set anything aside from consideration in advance. There are many things I would certainly not want to consider, and many things I don't think I would do (as I mentioned above, I wouldn't kill someone to take their stuff, but I would kill them to defend myself).

If the time comes, would I actually kill someone if they were intentionally threatening my survival? That, I can't answer. I can only answer that, yes, I have trained and equipped myself to do so. But would I? I can't answer that in advance. FWIW, I don't consider self defense to be murder. Some people do. I don't.

It is interesting and kind of sad that this discussion of survival has focused on the standard, rather weary survivalist scenarioin which society collapses, we all turn to violence in protecting our stash from those who would take it and we go down the rabbit hole of how much ammo, what caliber, etc.

I find these discussion rather tedious because I think if you look at historical instances of tough times, while violence and crime may increase, total anarchy is rather rare. In fact, there is often cooperation, assistance, and aid, sometimes at significant risk.

There are other survival scenarios which are rather common that don't involve social strife. Think of situations like lost and confused hikers caught up in an unanticipated storm, auto accidents or breakdowns on isolated roads. Here the positive side of humanity often appears and folks aid and assist one another, sometimes at real risk to themselves.

Doing volunteer SAR, I and my team mates have sometimes inserted ourselves into seemingly risky situations, but we were trained and equipped for conditions. I vividly remember one operation, deep in a mine shaft, where the situation got a bit out of hand, and I, my companion, and our victims were at considerable risk, but our team mates on the surface pulled through (literally!) and got us out.

The point being that you don't always make a conscious decision to take an unreasonable risk - the situation comes to you and you have to deal with it, since you have this odd desire to keep on living.

Most of my survival situation have involve dealing with natural forces and conditions - hot Arizona deserts, numbing cold, steep and troublesome terrain, dark caves, etc., not social unrest. Often folks cooperate in those conditions in order to survive. To what lengths will you go? You won't know until tested.

I realize that social unrest and crime exists, and one might have to turn to violence to legitimately protect ones self and others, but, rankly, that is rather rare,much less common than cooperation and aid in the ace of adversity.

Some feel conflicted and understandably so; I do agree with you. Though both are ugly and unpleasant, murder and self-defense are not the same.

Jeanette Isabelle

Committing a violent act to survive is not what I considered when I write the opening post; nevertheless, all answers members have posted are valid.

Jeanette Isabelle

This idea originated from the work of S.L.A. Marshall, the Army's Chief Historian in WW2 and Korea. Critics have since seriously questioned his work in coming up with the 'Ratio of Fire' -

Wiki -

Some veterans and historians have cast doubt on Marshall's research methods.[12] Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article, "S. L. A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (RUSI Journal, Winter 1988, pages 63–71), that Marshall had not actually conducted the research upon which he based his ratio-of-fire theory. "The 'systematic collection of data' appears to have been an invention."[13] This revelation has called into question the authenticity of some of Marshall's other books and has lent academic weight to doubts about his integrity that had been raised in military circles even decades earlier.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

I thought the original question that started this thread was "How far would you go?" Further clarified in that first post with "Is there something that you will not do?"

That's asking for the extreme. Not for whether we'd choose matches or a lighter. What different direction were you expecting this thread to take given that initial question?

To answer that question, I have to take it in private.

Jeanette Isabelle

Apparently, there is some great question which can only be discussed in private, not in the open on this forum, so I assume there must be political or religious overtones which render this subject toxic. Big deal.

Something I hope I would not do in a survival situation is knowingly perform an act which would result in my survival, at the expense of the failure to survive of another. I have never been tested in a situation of this nature, so I don't know precisely how I would perform. Until tested, how does one know if they pass?

Makes me wonder why start a discussion if it contains subjects that can not be discussed.