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

Its really simple. Would a gun have saved the people in Aurora or the kids in Newtown? Nobody can say for sure. But it CANNOT be disputed that the ONLY thing that could have given someone a chance to end the shooting sooner is, thats right, a gun.

Does a gun guarantee your safety? Not in any way.

Does it give you a fighting chance, if in a situation where you are being fired upon? Absolutely.

Originally posted by jtma508
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.

No one is claiming that "gun free zones" will stop every shooting...just like pro-gun folks can't say that having a gun will stop every shooting.

The point is that arming more people, allowing more people to carry in more places, is NOT the answer...if it were, Chris Kyle would be alive today.

This thread is to just point out that the pro-gun people's favorite solution to our gun problem is NOT the correct solution. More guns isn't going to help us.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
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.

Did I say there is no use for guns? Did I advocate that we ban all guns?

It's not that I have strawman arguments...it's that you have reading comprehension issues.

The argument that introducing more guns into our society is NOT the solution...and it is also to show the internet Rambos on here that even a highly trained man with a gun can easily be killed.

It is also to show that we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill...even if they are veterans. This guy had already threatened to kill people and police were notified...why should he still have his guns?

reply to post by Juggernog

Do you people even read the stories before commenting? He was a FRIEND of theirs

Do you read them?

He wasn't a friend of theirs...

Routh’s mother Jodi reached out to Kyle for help. There was a link between the famous sniper and her troubled son beyond their military service. They had attended the same high school, 14 years apart, in the Dallas suburb of Midlothian. Kyle, friends say, could never say no to a plea for assistance, especially from the worried mom of a troubled veteran.

So Kyle telephoned Routh and invited him to go shooting with him and Littlefield

Originally posted by swimmer15
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?

In Aurora...very little chance he would have done anything except add to more chaos if he started shooting as well.

In Sandy Hook...depends on where he was in the school and if the shooter got the drop on him first.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
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.

edit on 8-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

It's not BS, and you know it...that is why you are so pissed off about it.

Sorry to expose the pro-gun peoples delusions...guns will not protect you if someone wants to kill you. You can have 100 guns in your house, if someone really wants to kill you, you are dead.

I'm not sure why you are trying to use a driving analogy...the point is that the pro-gun solution of "let's have MORE guns" isn't a valid solution...I'm not surprised he got killed...I'm just showing all the interent Rambos that even America's deadliest sniper stood zero chance because someone wanted to kill him. Him having a gun didn't matter one bit.

More guns are not the solution....gun control and banning certain people from owning guns is a good start though.

reply to post by jibeho

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

Do you not understand what "per capita" means? This is the most ridiculous argument I have seen so far....since America has a lot of land area as compared to Euro nations...that means we should have more murders??? Maybe the gun license test should include basic logic as well.

More guns...more gun deaths....wow...who would have thought???

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Do you people even read the stories before commenting? He was a FRIEND of theirs

Do you read them?

He wasn't a friend of theirs...

Routh’s mother Jodi reached out to Kyle for help. There was a link between the famous sniper and her troubled son beyond their military service. They had attended the same high school, 14 years apart, in the Dallas suburb of Midlothian. Kyle, friends say, could never say no to a plea for assistance, especially from the worried mom of a troubled veteran.

So Kyle telephoned Routh and invited him to go shooting with him and Littlefield

Ohh excuse me, acquaintance then, when the story first broke they said "friend" but whatever. The point is that he was with them and they apparently trusted him and he shot them in the back, which again makes your argument baseless and you know it.

reply to post by Juggernog

Ohh excuse me, acquaintance then, when the story first broke they said "friend" but whatever. The point is that he was with them and they apparently trusted him and he shot them in the back, which again makes your argument baseless and you know it.

I'm curious...what exactly do you think my argument is?

I honestly don't think you even know.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Well for one, they trusted the guy enough to turn their back on him, then he shot them in the back. How does one protect against that?
Your argument is invalid, try again.

By confiscating ALL firearms silly.
That will stop even the criminals from shooting people.

Then I will ride off into the sunset on my flying unicorn while barfing rainbows and pooping ice-cream.

reply to post by xedocodex

I'm curious...what exactly do you think my argument is?

You make it pretty obvious.. Im done with you though since youre just being stubborn or youre arguing for the sake of arguing.

The bottom line is that the pro-gun people are delusional when they claim that someone carrying a gun could stop a shooting, this is 100% proof of that.

reply to post by xedocodex


no one said lets have more guns. Dont put words in any ones mouth.

You are using the tragic death of a serviceman for your own personal agenda. DONT YOU get so pissed that you resort to this sort of deplorable behavior.

you are one sided, close minded, and agenda driven. Even though you wish to portray that of your chosen opponent.

Also, have you not noticed that the majority in the country is FOR gun rights? what, you cant accept the democratic voice of your people that you have to push your ideals on others because you want a minority to tell the majority what to think and do?

How about you see if your opinion that you champion is going against the democratic voice that has spoken....

dont be so arrogant as to think you know better than everyone you already labeled as dumb using stereo types that only perpetuate ignorance NOT cohesion and discusion.

Originally posted by xedocodex
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

Way to compare apples to oranges... our Founders based this Constitution on A religion that isn't about oppressing anyone... correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King a reverend that espoused the very values you're condemning... racist much...

reply to post by xedocodex


guns don't protect anybody from being shot point-blank in the back. nothing does. as for why guns didn't protect Chris? well, they did. a few hundred times. and his gun protected a whole lot of other people when Chris was on the trigger. unless you've got a gun that has an internal 'bad-intentions detector' and are holding out on the rest of us, your argument doesn't really hold up. sorry.

reply to post by xedocodex


Oh come on there are plenty of stories of how a armed bystander saves the day , give me a break . They arent breaking news so you would have to do some research .

Originally posted by xedocodex

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.

Not one that wouldn't get me perminately banned.

...and there are just some things which don't warrant a response.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Well for one, they trusted the guy enough to turn their back on him, then he shot them in the back. How does one protect against that?
Your argument is invalid, try again.

Well why didn't anyone else at the range shoot the killer then? Why didn't anyone else successfully protect the two victims then?

His argument is not totally invalid.

reply to post by daaskapital


Any answer is just speculation because not a whole lot of info out but this was not your typical little gun range. Chances are this guy was in his truck and down the road before anyone knew anyone was shot.

From Dallas news:
"One witness told police that he went to the shooting range shortly before 5 pm. and found Kyle and Littlefield lying on the ground. They were covered in blood. The witness said he called for help and began to perform CPR on the men."

crimeblog.dallasnews.com...

This is a ridiculously stupid thread...I'm sorry its so incredibly lacking of intelligence it just has to be a baiting thread from trollville...

First off lets just all acknowledge something here...when "bad stuff happens"....What is the the first thing people call?? That's right... Lots and lots of people with lots and lots of...you guessed it....GUNS!!!

Now...if were going to sit here in fantasy land and pretend that this flimsy argument the OP has presented has any kind of standing...we might as well step further into fantasy land and disarm the police and military...

Because surely if Chris Kyle couldn't save himself and others with a gun...the officers and military around the world won't be able to either... so really in this world there is no reason for anyone to have a gun...because Chris Kyle couldn't defend himself...

But guess what...people KNOW and understand the need for the police, military, and CITIZENRY to be "armed" because those "guns" can save lives as much as they can take them.

But for the sake of being ridiculous we can just go ahead and pretend that isn't a reality and continue to try and present more nonsense in the hopes people eventually start to believe it...

reply to post by xedocodex


You are soo wrong. If a person wants to kill you, yes they will do all in their power to do so. That does not leave you powerless in that situation. Could he have stopped the attack? Maybe. Would he have, he was trying to get a fellow veteran to adjust to a life where killing is not the norm. The view of most anti-gun people is that if there were no guns there would have been no death. You have no clue what the military has taught these men. They can kill with or without a gun. Combat veterans live in a different world than most. A world you would never hope to see. There is no way a person that has never seen the conditions these men lived in can possibly understand what was happening at that range at that time. He knew the risk, he took it. Did you stop to think that maybe he could have fired and chose not to? Maybe he felt that there was still hope for this man? He was a soldier, Ready to give his life for the least among us. What happened was a tragedy, we lost a hero.