And maybe he just misspoke and should have said "need". I mean, really, where did all the techniques we do come from after all? Do you practice with a bokken? Do you think a sword is about *not* killing them? There are ideals then there is the messy, gray, difficult to predict "real world" (patent pending). Frankly I find myself dabbling in other arts for the express purpose of understanding the variety of techniques out there to better understand the evolution of techniques. You watch empty hand throws in some styles that end with what looks like a strike to the chest. In reality in some styles that isn't a strike -- what you don't "see" is the consistency of training in teaching someone that at that point you pull out your tanto from your obi and sink it into their neck. The "strike" at the end is a vestige of a larger context of training where students were taught consistent actions throughout a more comprehensive training that included more weapons. So that "strike" ain't really a love-tap, now is it... Nor is it a strike really. It would be a killing blow.

Obviously someone "wanting" to kill in the sense of being excited about the possibility of actually doing it raises troublesome questions about someone's mental state. But if we recognize that there are dangerous situations and if we are training with the intent of doing something more than attaining a blissful oneness with the universe you might "want" to know *how* to kill. That does not mean you have a *desire* to kill, just that you have a desire for the knowledge and ability should the situation arise where it becomes necessary.

I'm going to go way, way out on a limb and venture a guess that this new student thought that physically and verbally demonstrating his pre-existing knowledge would gain him respect. What do you think? Safe bet?