If John wasn't fucked up too, the show wouldn't be half as much fun.

Oh, yes. It's all glorious, interlocking dysfunction.

It did imply he'd be willing to use deadly force to deal with a non-lethal situation

Huh. I would totally tell people I (c/w)ould kill them in order to shorten a physical altercation. It seems so ethically a non-issue to me, because it's so damned expedient. It's not sadistic, and as it was delivered it wasn't even egotistical. It was just impatient. It's about as morally fraught as pointing a gun at someone who's trying to hurt you with their fists.

I thought you weren't supposed to point a gun at someone unless you were willing to kill them with it.

If I had a gun to hand and someone was trying to beat me up, I probably would point it at them to get them to stop (of course, in my real world situation, I don't know that I'd trust them to stop at beating), knowing I might kill them with it. But (hope) I wouldn't pull it out knowing someone's being an asshole with no intent to go beyond bruises. I don't think killing people is an appropriate response to anything but them attempting to kill other people.

I don't think saying, "I kill people, so stop hitting me to pick fights" is the same as pulling a gun. It's not as dangerous.

I thought you weren't supposed to point a gun at someone unless you were willing to kill them with it.

No, you're not. But you're also allowed to defend yourself with deadly force in a situation where you're being attacked and they haven't escalated to deadly force yet.

I don't think saying, "I kill people, so stop hitting me to pick fights" is the same as pulling a gun

I don't either. But I think pulling a gun to stop a fight where someone is intent on injuring you is perfectly reasonable, so the lesser step isn't morally complex at all.

But I think pulling a gun to stop a fight where someone is intent on injuring you is perfectly reasonable, so the lesser step isn't morally complex at all.

I think it depends on how much injury you are reasonably expecting. If I'd gotten into a physical fight with my sister (which didn't happen often--too big an age difference) and pulled a gun to stop it that would be way out of line. No real expectation of serious harm. I think it would be wrong, to a lesser extent, for me to tell her I'd been trained to kill, with the implication I would do the same to her, to get her to knock it off. With people I don't know as well my ability to judge expected damage would be different, so I think I'd have a lot more justification to go for the implied threat or gun.

So when I'm looking at John's actions, I'd wonder if he really felt threatened. Sherlock had hit him. Did John have reason to expect Sherlock would go further, once his goal of getting John to hit him was met? Debatable. (I'm not saying I like Sherlock's methods, although they made good tv.)

I'd put John's implied threat at a far lower level than Irene's or Mycroft's actions. Still, I think it's a bit not good.

I'm perhaps tainted by hanging out with people I know can kill me, but I'm surprised and a bit chastened to see judgment of what seemed to be simple, factual, and relevant. More than all of that, provoked. It is by far the better resolution to the scuffle, when compared to compared to an escalation of force. He chose the method of talking it down, instead of hurting Sherlock enough to end the fight. It seems the best way out to me. I am confused by the idea that it is even fruit to the oranges of murder and extortion.

I was thinking of it more along the lines of Sarah covering up for John's sleeping on the job. But I do see your point about it being a quicker way to end things than an escalation of force. I don't know that Sherlock's punching would have continued this time once Sherlock got his way--John was the one who continued it past returnng the face punching. But because John was willing to both add the extra punches and the verbal warning, Sherlock did walk away with something more than, "Punching John gets me what I want." And that's good.

I think John's response at the end of Study in Pink also has bearing on how he relates to killing people (even if they aren't very nice). I agree with the assessment that it's more on-par with Sarah.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself

Mm-hm. We just haven't seen it yet. And, really, the stuff I like best is often stuff I wouldn't go for in real life. Defenestrating prisoners, even those that torture little older ladies? Sorry--trial and sentencing, please. On Sherlock ? Totally satisfying and comedy gold.

Adler's specifically called out as an adventuress in ASiB.

She's called that by the king initially, and he's portrayed as a self-important douche. If he genuinely thought she was just a malevolent social climber, his reaction of "Oh, she promised not to use the photo? Problem solved!" makes no sense.