@write2topcat said:

I like this charcter, John, the guy with the fancy revolvers who said he used to work as a trick shooter as side shows.

But I get a little tired of him and Morgan acting like using lethal violence isn't ever acceptable.

Clearly, this perspective is something that John and Morgan might have bonded over -- their quaint non-violent attitudes in the ZA. Then again, John did just shoot a man's finger off, huh?

@write2topcat said:

I like this charcter, John, the guy with the fancy revolvers who said he used to work as a trick shooter as side shows.

But I get a little tired of him and Morgan acting like using lethal violence isn't ever acceptable.

[Also, in this recent episode we saw that group of smug bastards who demanded all the stuff of the group at the stadium finally attack the others. I knew this was coming. That group demanded all the provisions and belongings of those people, and said they would take it all from them once they were dead. As soon as that guy said that I would have given the signal to kill them all. Now I know some will say that would not have been justified, and by our legal system they are right. But I knew these guys were not going to sit back and wait forever for them to starve and turn to walkers. Anyone who demands your belongings like he did is willing to take them by force. This confrontation was coming eventually. It was just a matter of time. Plus that guy effectively tried to kill them all when he sent that little girl in there to infect their crops, to starve them.

Now that the stadium people have ample supplies he is no longer willing to wait them out and is bringing lethal force to bear upon them. They would have been better off to have shot them from cover when he was sitting in their parking lot. ]

I'd gave to agree. Strike while you have the advantage.

@Satch_the_man said:

@write2topcat said:

I like this charcter, John, the guy with the fancy revolvers who said he used to work as a trick shooter as side shows.

But I get a little tired of him and Morgan acting like using lethal violence isn't ever acceptable.

Clearly, this perspective is something that John and Morgan might have bonded over -- their quaint non-violent attitudes in the ZA. Then again, John did just shoot a man's finger off, huh?

Clearly that shows his skill as a trick shooter; such accuracy on such a small, fast-moving target under pressure (2-way shooting range) is so exceedingly rare as to strain credulity. There are perhaps a few people in the world who could make such a shot better than 75% of the time. Really, point shooting and hitting such a small, fast-moving target as a trigger finger under the threat of death is exceedingly difficult to do. Even police who train regularly rarely can hit the boiler room ( heart and lung area) of a combatant drawing on them in anger in under half a second, much less a smaller moving target. The people who can make a shot like John's are very, very rare. And even they still shoot for the chest.

John and Morgan will use violence in self defense but have apparently decided they won't use lethal violence under any circumstances. (The traumatic loss of a finger is rarely a fatal injury provided the victim is awake to apply pressure to the bleeding stump.) While I can respect the position that they intend to avoid having to kill people if at all possible, I think that ruling it out under any circumstances (as is apparent from Morgan's categorical statement "I don't kill"; we have heard him repeat this, without qualification, several times. And John seems to be in agreement with him on this) is almost childish, and willfully blind to reality. Are there no possible circumstances under which they can rationalize the use of lethal violence? By categorically stating I don't kill, without qualification, it seems Morgan has decided that there are none.

Of course the writers can fashion the script such that they may be able to always employ less than lethal force to resolve problems which arise, and thus validate Morgan's (and John's) faith. I say faith because their belief that non-lethal means will always be sufficient to save their lives and the lives of other innocents isn't completely rational, and cannot be supported by fact. It has an almost religious or spiritual element to it.

Certainly the extraordinarily remarkable shooting skills John demonstrated would allow him to avoid having to shoot for center mass in order to stop threats. As I said, the writers can make it all work out for them. But it lacks verisimilitude. In the real world, you can't count on writers to save the day.

I don't mind at all that they wish to avoid killing people; in fact it is laudable and definitely the preferable way to approach conflict resolution. And if the writers were merely promoting that idea I would not be put off by their writing.

But promoting and validating the idea that lethal violence is never the answer to any problem isn't practical in the real world. Such a position is willfully blind to the darkest side of human nature, e.g. really evil, determined killers (some of whom seem to soak up bullets and keep coming), some almost totally lacking empathy or guilt toward their targets (like Richard Kuklinski), who will kill unless stopped. There are situations which call for lethal violence in defense of life and limb of innocent persons, situations where nothing less will save them.

The writers are free to ignore such realities when promoting this simplistic idea (killing is NEVER required to resolve a situation), but the idea appears neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of the issue. And that is what bothers me about the way they treat the subject. Idealistic viewers will accept this idea, adopt this philosophy.

It is closely related to the idea that one should refrain from seriously hurting one's attacker in defense. There are plenty of murder victims who learned the hard way that holding back from truly hurting an attacker wasn't sufficient to stop him.
The woman who claws her attacker's face does help the police find her killer by collecting his skin cells under her fingernails, but she doesn't dissuade him killing her. Had she been trained to gouge his eyeball with all the force she could muster she may have halted his attack long enough for her to escape (poking the eyeball is so very painful as to temporarily debilitate a person), or retreat to a stronghold, or to a lethal weapon.

I generally like the characters of Morgan and John. I think the actors portraying them are good. But I hate it when they push this simplistic, unrealistic, and dangerous idea.

@write2topcat said:

The woman who claws her attacker's face does help the police find her killer by collecting his skin cells under her fingernails, but she doesn't dissuade him killing her. Had she been trained to gouge his eyeball with all the force she could muster she may have halted his attack long enough for her to escape (poking the eyeball is so very painful as to temporarily debilitate a person), or retreat to a stronghold, or to a lethal weapon.

I have taken self defense classes for women and they tell you do not use half measures. If you are going to resist or fight back you have to go full force. Eyeball poking is taught and recommended as a good technique.

I'm glad to hear that Jonnieblack. I hope you always stay safe and never need to fight anyone off. But it's good to hear that you know what to do if in the gravest extreme you must defend your life. The attacker gives up any right to peace or health when he decides to attack an innocent person.

Thank you for your support, cat.