Why didn't guns protect Chris Kyle, The American Sniper?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



This shooting was a point blank ambush. Not sure if the gun used was legally owned by the killer or not.. Plenty of questions regarding this specific case. Can the law prevent someone like this from setting foot on a shooting range while firing another's legally owned weapon.


No, no law can prevent a situation like this. The point is that gun advocates claiming everyone should be carrying guns around wouldn't prevent a situation like this either...or Aurora....or Newtown...or any of the other recent shootings.


His impaired mental state should certainly be at the forefront of this debate as well as what the legislators aim to do regarding the proper documentation of those with known mental incapacities. To bad the ACLU will be all over this debate while waiving their HIPPA manual up in the air. The background check paperwork asks all of these questions and their is no way to tell if someone is lying. If they lie on the background check they have already committed a felony!! before even paying for the weapon.


The problem is Mental Illness isn't always present. He could have legally bought the gun, been 100% mentally fit when he did, and gone nuts after. This is why we need much stricter regulations on not just gun sales, but gun ownership. We have to renew our drivers license, why not have a gun license that you have to renew each year with a background check and full psych eval? If you fail, your registered guns (which is why we need a national registration) are confiscated until you get treatment and can pass your license test. The test should also involve safety and knowledge of current gun laws.

Let me guess...I bet you won't go for that...and yet you admit mental illness is a problem.




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
WOW!!!!!
You just won the award my friend.

I want to believe that your thread is merely satire or some sort of sick twisted joke but......


something tells me you're serious.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
One of the most highly regarded experts in guns in the United States, a highly trained military sniper with a large number of difficult kills to his name was not able to protect himself from a gun carrying crazy person at a GUN RANGE.

What makes anyone think they'll be able to use guns to protect thmeselves in their own home from such a person?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


You don't get it but I doubt you care. One of the major arguments against 'gun free zones' is the idea of deterrent. Why do you think they put armd marshals on airline flights? To shoot it out with a potential hijacker? MAD is the same strategy. Make the perpetrator have to worry about who might be armed.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BlesUTP
 


Problem is... you can't strangle 10 people in 3 sec. Even if its 1 person, even if he gets your from the back, there is a fighting chance.

Of course violence is not going to stop, so you suggest making it easier for them to obtain a lethal weapon?
Maybe we could thinking about it if all the murderers are killing people with forks, but almost all of them are going for guns as their primary weapon of choice.

Gun Control is about controlling the supply of guns and getting rid of unauthorized guns. Not about taking away all the guns.

Less guns in the pool, less probability of it being used.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Why don't you ask this woman.

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 





Why didn't guns protect Chris Kyle, The American Sniper?

Because guns don't have minds of their own, its just a tool.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Talk to the ACLU and the HIPPA advocates.... They fought long and hard for what they got and will not be willing to cough up so easily.

As for annual testing and licensing of gun owners.... I believe that the same day the DMV starts testing Senior Citizens aptitude and physical ability to safely operate a vehicle in the presence of countless innocent drivers who share the road with these ticking time bombs...



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
What does it feel like to be blissfully ignorant? I mean using straw man arguments as your entire OP? I can do it to, wanna see? Cops weren't there to protect the man that was shot, so there is no real use for cops anymore, and I just can't see why anyone needs them around. I mean they are supposed to be there to protect and serve, but they obviously weren't, and this man died as a result of that. Looks like it's time to get rid of the entire police force across the country because they didn't protect this one man this one time.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 





What makes anyone think they'll be able to use guns to protect thmeselves in their own home from such a person?

Break into my house and you'll find out.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Ted Bundy strangled all his victims. He was on the loose for more than 3 seconds.

Limit the right of honest folks to own a gun for protection and you leave them at the mercy of others who don't have their best interest at mind. Nothing is wrong with being properly prepared.

If you want to be defenseless in your home, that's your right and I respect that. Why can't you respect our right to be prepared?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


He was shot in the back at point blank range. He never had a chance to defend himself... But that's already been said multiple times in this thread...



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
One of the most highly regarded experts in guns in the United States, a highly trained military sniper with a large number of difficult kills to his name was not able to protect himself from a gun carrying crazy person at a GUN RANGE.

What makes anyone think they'll be able to use guns to protect thmeselves in their own home from such a person?


Do you people even read the stories before commenting? He was a FRIEND of theirs (supposedly) he shot them in the BACK, it wasnt a shoot out or a quick draw gunfight, they NEVER saw it coming.
I emphasized certain words with caps so that maybe it will SINK in this time.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SwissMarked
 



If people hate this country so damn bad why don't they just leave... we have a set of rules... everyone is supposed to follow them... if they don't or don't like them then go to one of the many Islamocommufascist "utopias"... there are plenty to choose from... stop ruining this country with the mental illness known as progressive liberalism


Umm...Conservatives fit in much better with the Islamic ruled countries than Liberals do.

Relgious based laws, no gay marriage, women are treated like sub-humans...you know...the common Conservative beliefs.

And I'm sorry...but I don't run away from the problems I see in this country...I work to fix them. Sorry I'm running your "utopia" of 1950s America....where racism and sexism were the norm



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
How many guns are in the US? About 300,000,000 (that's three-hundred million)? More than any other country in the world right?


www.washingtonpost.com...

We also have more gun murders per capita than any other "developed" country. Could there possibly be a connection? How many more guns will it take to provide the security people expect of them?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


If this same man would have been armed and inside the Aurora movie theater or Sandy hook elementry school what do you think the chances are that he would have changed the outcome?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlesUTP
 



Yet is it the gun to blame for someone getting shot instead of the PERSON WHO MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION.


A knife or your hands can't kill multiple people within seconds.

If you don't see the difference between a knife and a gun...well I guess everyone should be able to own a nuke...because according to your logic, the level of how lethal and how many people it can kill quickly doesn't matter.

I'll stick by my declaration of who is delusional in this debate.


The bottom line is: people will find a way to kill. Don't get on your self righteous high horse and try to limit the freedoms of people who have never done anything. Do you really think that a politician is going to do anything to benefit you? The government can't even run the USPS, but you're willing to let them legislate everyones guaranteed rights?


The Constitution can always be changed. Nothing is guaranteed.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Sorry I'm running your "utopia" of 1950s America....


There we have it folks. xedocodex is running our utopia. Lets arrest him/her for global manipulation. Problems of the world solved.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
This whole thread's basis is kind of looney. You're comparing Aurora, where 12 people were murdered and 58 were injured, to 2 people dying at a gun range? From the news article, he shot 2 people and then fled in his truck. Notice, he didn't attempt to kill everyone at the gun range. He ran. He would've been shot if he tried to kill anyone else, or at the very least he was worried he was going to get shot.

2nd thing to note is, at a gun range all you can hear is shots being fired. So unlike anywhere else, you hear a couple rounds go off, and you don't hit the deck or defend yourself.

What a lousy argument.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
for me the trouble with the OP's point, is precisely -because- it took place at a shooting range.
thing is it's hard to think of a more appropriate and legitimate place to shoot than a range. right?
so even in a country where shooters can only practice at a range, this could just as easily still have happened.

stands to reason tho though that when it becomes apparant that somebodies mental state put's other people at danger, then measures are taken to limit this risk.

so i guess the key is drawing that line re mental state at a sensible and realistic point (ie not just: "he was depressed") and then spotting it and acting appropriately. i guess a lot of readers here though would not trust their govt to spot, assess and enforce this sensibly tho.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join