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

reply to post by xedocodex


are you serious?

He died and you try and make this into an "oh look gun people, riddle me this....hoho"

low man. very low.

I will tell you why, because he is not god....that is why.

The same way you can be driving to work tomorrow, have a seat belt on, working air bags, be a good driver and still die in a horrible accident. That is how. Because NO ONE is god.

This is BS.

Originally posted by ZeroReady
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?

And how large is the US in area and population vs 99% of those countries listed?? Do any of those countries also happen to have a second amendment? Just curious.... I love it when people try to compare a miniscule Euro nation to the US. We have states bigger than most of those countries...

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?

I'll ask you too.You are implying that he had a gun.How do you know Cris had a gun?Are you a police officer and have inside info.No I think you are anti gun (victim) with no knowledge of the event just trying to push your agenda using a dead hero's body.The shooting happen at Rough Creek Lodge and Resort,Which has a private open air shooting range.The police haven't released the details yet,we don't know if anyone else was there or if there was more than one gun there.Prove me wrong or shut up.

reply to post by ZeroReady


Bullcrap. That data is cooked. The U.S. is, in fact, 28th. Our homicide-per-gun rank is 64th. UN sourced data and published by the UK Guardian after the shootings. The Washington Post is fabricating or editing the real data.

source data

reply to post by jibeho


Dude, that's why they use per capita. Gun homicides per 100,000 people. Makes no difference how many hundreds of thousands of people there are.

In the US, 3.2 people out of every 100,000 are killed by guns. In the UK, where you are correct in pointing out that the people are not constitutionally protected in their ability to possess firearms, about 0.1 people per 100,000 are murdered by guns.

I can't really explain it any clearer than that.

Originally posted by xedocodex
We have heard over and over that "gun free zones" are the cause of shooters being able to kill people. Chris Kyle was at a gun range, he had guns, his friend Chad Littlefield had guns...so how could he have possibly been killed?

I’m going to say in the same way that people still sometimes die in car accidents with their seat belts on. Sometimes even a necessary and prudent precaution is not enough.

However, that doesn't negate the abvisibility of taking a reasonable precaution that in most cases would mitigate or lessen the impact of the event.

Sometimes the events are extraordinarily unavoidable or unforeseeable and nothing at all would prevent them from happening.

Just like none of the current proposed gun laws would have prevented the recent mass shootings there is nothing that can be done in a situation like this – no time to react you could be Rambo (and Kyle is fairly close BTW) and a sucker shot to the back of the head will take you out.

Can't save everyone all the time. Life is risky... I believe he knew what the risks were when he took the kid out there and being a man he accepted that and drove on with what he thought was the right thing to do. He tried to help the guy. He paid for his risk with his life. He's a big boy.

How can they say this

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country

Then say this, in the same article and keep a straight face?

I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.

reply to post by jtma508


Not sure what you're talking about here. This data is from the U.N.



You can download the excel spreadsheet here.

The data is not cooked.

Wow, I just read the original post of this thread.

You make a great point, just having a firearm does not make a person invincible. In fact, when men go to war they are armed with heavy caliber military grade weapons - yet still many die. The fact remains that they go to war with firearms though, and therein lay the flaw in the original post.

reply to post by ZeroReady


I understand the per capita concept. Thank you. Others seem to negate the cultural and historical differences between nations. Per capita or not, the US is a massive melting pot of cultures faiths and practices when compared to other nations. In fact, the US is hated for that simple reason alone by many in specific "pure" nations.

We have problems and situations that will never creep up in Finland. There are pluses and minuses to being the melting pot of the world. Ever see a gang battle between Asian and Hispanic gangs... It's complicated ....

If you want to get into other aspects of our nations social decay compliments of Hollywood and the entertainment industry I'd love to. Not to mention the intentional marginalizing of specific cultural groups by over powered politicians...who need to keep their thumbs on these folks in order to stay in office. They just ignore the violence and the decay because it does not affect them directly... Blah blah.

Per capita... OK... Looks great in a spread sheet..

Originally posted by xedocodex
The point is...having a gun will not stop a shooting nor will it protect you if someone wants to kill you. I have said it many times before, having a gun is like a baby having a pacifier. All it does it COMFORT you from your paranoia and fear...but it doesn't actually do anything to protect you.

You are proven wrong only 2.5 million times each year.
rense.com...

When a shooter starts shooting or someone breaks into your house & you don't have a gun, what do you do?
You dial 911 to call someone else with a gun! You wouldn't be calling them if they always show up with just pepper spray & plastics handcuffs... wait, you're not in the UK are ya...? LOL

Get a frickin clue, dude, and take some personal responsibility to protect yourself.

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]

reply to post by mal1970


How about you try reading the actual case summary instead of just latching on to whatever part the gun rights activists tell you is important.

The public duty doctrine has long protected municipalities from negligence claims because it establishes that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large,” not to any specific individual. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 3 (D.C. 1981) (en banc). The rationale is straightforward: Courts and juries are illequipped to review legislative and executive decisions about how to allocate limited municipal resources to best protect the public

www.cadc.uscourts.gov...$file/11-7001-1383997.pdf

reply to post by schuyler

Your conclusion is invalid. A couple of guys take a friend to a remote shooting range. They do not consider him a threat. They are not in a defensive mode. They guy takes advantage and shoots them. There's nothing particularly unusual about that.

First off, it wasn't their friend...it was a guy who's mom contacted Kyle to help him out with PTSD. From everything I've read, this was the first time meeting him.

But anyway, you don't consider going to the movies, grocery store, our city council meeting a threatening place either...yet gun owner claim they need their guns so they can shoot the bad guys when they appear.

Their argument is invalid, you can't stop someone from killing you if they are determined to do so. Carrying a gun is just a pacifier to keep you feel all warm and fuzy...except that pacifier can be turned into a lethal weapon if a gun owner decides someone has pissed him off.

If you will recall the recent Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, an armed citizen stopped it without firing a shot himself. It wasn't a massive shooting because he stopped it. That's kind of the point. Every single one of the mass shootings that have taken place have been in "Gun free zones" where there was no one to stop it.

Oh, I'm so glad it wasn't a mass shooting...tell that to the families of the 3 dead people. And no, we don't know that Nick Meli "stopped" the shootings...all we have is him saying he aimed at him and he "thinks" the shooter saw him. And the point about the gun range is that there WERE people there to stop it...and they still couldn't. So keep living in your fantasy Rambo world and continue to deny that we have a serious issue in this country with guns.

reply to post by SwissMarked

Sure and that's exactly what happens on the combat field... a bunch of people running around panicking and scrambling... no one can possibly keep their wits about them and identify a target and eliminate it...

Nice strawman argument...

I have guns... know what I'm afraid of... nothing... know what makes me paranoid... nothing... hell... the only reason I lock my doors is to protect people from me

This is the exact internet tough guy mentality I'm talking about...you have guns...so you are Rambo and no one can harm you huh???

And yes, I'm sure a combat situation is chaotic...but the soldiers TRAIN together for situations like that and they know (or should know) where all their allies are. Unbelievable the ego some of you people have.

And yes, you are extremely paranoid and scared because you have the NEED to have guns to feel safe.

reply to post by xedocodex


Why do good drivers die in car accidents?

Why do trained cops shoot bystanders sometimes?

Why do non smokers die of lung cancer?

Why does stupidity persevere in the information age?

reply to post by SwissMarked

A gun gives you a fighting chance... I'll take that all day every day over no chance at all... if you don't feel the same that says more about you and how much you value life than anything else there chief

Did a gun give Chris Kyle a fighting chance?

You have a false sense of security with your pacifier of a gun...it gives you comfort...makes you feel like a man. Plain and simple.

I don't live my life in fear and paranoia like you seem to do. Common sense and basic logic will keep someone safer than having a false sense of security with a gun (or living in constant fear and paranoia).

I don't think it is a coincidence that a large number of extremely outspoken gun owners are from rural or small town areas...they don't have the street smarts to be able to feel safe without thinking they have to shoot everything.

Originally posted by Screwed
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.

I'm very serious.

Something tells me you don't have a response.

reply to post by xedocodex



so to you gun rights advocates are all macho insecure cowards living in self denial? You live your life in extremes and classify people into stereotypes often?

Are you a closet rabid liberal fascist who takes on the mob mentality because you see your fellow clique doing so or because your talking heads on the left told you to and so because you are desperately seeking acceptance, even if it is at the cost of personal integrity and criteria, you then judge others and create discord so breaking the cohesion and solidarity between your people?

all just to belong to the "in" crowd?

reply to post by ZeroReady


Your point being? Your except has not invalidated the point i made.

The police are not obligated to protect YOU. You cannot sue them if they fail to protect you from a shooter in a theater (for example). I have no issue with that. It's impossible for them to do so.

What i do have issue with is that it is up to each person to provide their own protection & the government is trying to diminish that ability with absurd gun control legislation.

The collectivists want to get guns out of the hands of the people, but then not be held accountable for their safety.

Our government can't even keep prisoners safe from other prisoners when they are locked up in a 6x8 23 hours a day & yet they expect me to give up my arms? Ha!

Try again, son.

reply to post by xedocodex


Kyle was assasinated, this was a hit; because he was on the side of "I will never fire on American citizens" regarding the militarily trained US citizenry. He is too talented a killer to be allowed to side with the American people, once martial law begins at the collapse of the USD. He was killed because he sided with the constitution and not what is about to come; and would have been capible of killing military personnel from over 1.5 miles out. He was way too high a threat to allow the American people to ralley behind in any sort of resistance.

This is a terrible example of an anti-gun point. Being assasinated from behind by someone you trust is not he same thing what happened in Sandy Hook or Aurora, it was murder; for a purpose.

God Bless,