Would you kill someone............for a couple of hours or so?

After reading this thread - this thread I had this idea:

**Would you kill someone… **
for a couple of hours or so? There is no legal penalty at all, you would not get caught. You could even choose your victim if you like (maybe someone you do not care for). You could go up to anyone and shoot them, hit them with a brick, saw off their head, blow them up or feed them to ants. But after…say, 2 hours or so they would pop back to life completely fine.

Would you do it?

I don’t want to do it.

It isn’t because I don’t have a list of possible candidates.

It isn’t because I don’t have a spark of violence within my heart.

It’s because I don’t like what the exercise would do to me.


Sounds therapeutic on one hand.

But I would be afraid of realising how brutal I can become.

I would do it, just so that I could kill them again and again. I think it would be quite therapeutic.

YES. I would kill this annoying coworker, just for the 2 hours of silence it’d grant.

Of course, I’d kill him by stabbing him repeatedly in the throat, because I’ve been imagining that with glee for the last 7 months.

I’d whack that John Edward guy from Crossing Over. Maybe all those dead people the fraud claims to speak for could give him a good butt-kicking in the afterlife. Hopefully he’ll learn something from having a grandfather whose name begins with “J” stick a boot up his ass.

You want to talk to dead people, duche bag? I’ll let you talk to some dead people

Not really GD material… IMHO?

Thats called beating someone almost to death. The fact that they survived the ordeal doesnt change the fact that violence was done to them. They will not be completely “fine” unless they forget everything that happened to them. But you will remember and contrary to popular opinion, dealing out that kind of violence is almost as psychologically harmful to the perp as is the victim.

I would not do it. Its againts my principles to deal out violence without a reason and for him not to suffer any aftereffects defeats the purpose of dealing out the violence. Plus they culd just as easily turn around and do the same to me.

It wouldn’t necesarilly have to be violent. It could be an injection, similar to the movie Flatliners in which young medical students would purposely stop their hearts and then be revived a minute or two later. Personally, I would even like to try being the one killed (as long as I could come back), just to see what was on the other side.

I think I’ve played that video game already

Oh no…It would have to be violent:D

Man, think about how PISSED they’d be after being dead for two hours…

“Where is that guy who killed me? He is so DEAD!”

Can’t see the point

I wouldn’t do it. It would change who I am and what I stand for. I would devalue human life and make suffering a game.

I’d kill myself. Not because I’m suicidal, it would be interesting, like that Bill and Ted movie. I’d meet god and whatnot. Even if he snaps that memory erasor camera in my eyes before I return like in MiB, it would be an interesting experience.

If it were necessary to prevent them from committing a crime or something, sure. When you shoot someone in self defense, you are (supposed to be) shooting to stop, not to kill.

Otherwise, how is this different from just assaulting them?

I agree. What is the point of the OP’s question?. Someone else said it should be in IMHO, but it still begs the question.

[ul] *(WHY)*TF do you want to know? :confused:[sup]The point, please.[/sup][/ul]

Yeah, I’d do it. Though really, mostly because I have a friend that would really enjoy it (We’re a little strange :wink: ).

As far as I am concerned, if it requires a gun, I am shooting to kill.

I don’t know where Mount Helicon is, Mockingbird, but in most if not all of the United States you’d better not tell the police that. You are allowed to use deadly force only to stop or prevent assault, rape etc. It’s just coincidence that the quickest and surest method of imobilizing someone tends to be fatal.