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

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


This is the rub.

You cannot stop someone with intent. I think anyone knows this. Even the law is designed primarily to capture and convict wrong doers. After the fact, that is. Crime means we need the law, as disturbing a reality that is to understand.

It, nor any unaware people armed to the teeth, will stop a person who has resigned to commit such an act.

Only they can change their mind at the last moment, and I wonder how often we luck out when someone doesn't follow through at the last moment, to slip away and remain anonymous.

Much the same with random breakdowns of people in public, who'll grab the nearest pet pooch to throw at you if they are in such a rage.

It comes down to how easy do you want it. So easy that you live in constant fear because everyone who isn't you and who may have completely opposing views to you on fundamental things, is carrying a legal gun? Or so you have to follow the process of the law?

You're not stopping random mcwhacko from picking up his aunts collection of weapons and deciding to play arnold schwarzenegger for a day.

Unless you look at the problem being that as faulty biological organisms we don't all work the same way, but how do you fix that?
edit on 9-2-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


The same reason vigilant driving doesn't always protect you from car wrecks. People can be unexpected and things ca happen fast. Had he had a second or two to act and had a gun though he would have stood a better chance than someone that had a second or two to act and had no gun. In the latter scenario the second or two wouldn't matter. This guy was caught off guard obviously, but it isn't a good argumet against people that have a warning and can protect themselves. It doesn't make guns less viable protection in other scenarios. Anyone with common sense could answer this themselves though it's just arguing for arguments sake.

The Aurora and Newtown arguments still stand because despite the first victim or maybe the first few had no chance to stop it it doesn't mean one of the many others couldn't have acted. It's a pretty spurious argument.
edit on 9-2-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


The report doesn't say anything about the shooter having a mental illness like you claimed. He was drunk once which is not the same.

Although he was a vet, he may have seen enough things to believe some of the servicemen like Kyle killed innocent people in cold blood. This happens all the time. They justify it by calling it following orders. Cris Kyle may have had this coming. He may have been guilty of murdering innocent civilians and the shooter may have known this. Knowing Seals, the people who give the orders and what Seals do, I'm quite sure Kyle was guilty of murder at least a few times.

Cris Kyle was one of the worst of these types of people. He hid behind a bullet from hundreds of yards away and never got close to his victim or knew anything about him other than some mafia hit by the US Government was ordered and Kyle was too happy to play the role of hired hit man. If Kyle was the best at this, I'm glad to see him gone.
edit on 9-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Its not proof at all that someone couldn't have shortened the attack at the theater. If you were armed and I was armed and you thought I was no danger and I caught you by surprise, you would be dead. If someone was shooting at people in a group I was in and I was armed and he was aiming somewhere else, I might save a number of lives. THAT'S the point of carrying, not claiming to be ready for alllll situations.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


We have heard over and over that "gun free zones" are the cause of shooters being able to kill people.


I remember people claiming that if there were just ONE person in the Aurora theater, the whole thing would have been prevented. If there was just ONE teacher armed at Newtown, then no kids would have died that day.


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.


your trying to quickly capitalize on this incident where a man was killed by someone who he put his trust in, causing him to let his guard down. Had Mr Kyle felt there was a threat before or during & had time to react, this would be a completely different story.. but in your haste your missing the point and not distinguishing the differences between incidences.

If the Colorado shooter was armed to the teeth & had full body armor, why did he give up the very second he had opposition and also reveal his booby trapped apartment immediately to authorities?

In the incident at the Clackamas Mall shooting. Just the glimpse of an armed man ready to fight back inside the mall before the swat team entered caused the shooter to end the attack & take his own life.

There was no resistance at Newtown until police arrived & the damage was done.

What is the deciding factors of locations for these obviously unstable people? surprise, a crowd, and more importantly, no resistance.

If it is common knowledge that people are possibly armed & could pose a defensive risk returning fire, these shooters would have no innocent targets to choose to slaughter in a copycat style killing or in some variation of these events.

Trying to remove the existing laws to bear arms or add more laws to the 20,000 current laws to restrict guns, which have been and are engrained in the very fabric of our system of government based in part on property rights (ie your body) for good reason, does nothing but help criminals & traitors to the USA while hurting citizens rights and disgracing the sacrifices of those Americans, past & present who have stood for these rights against tyrannical rule be it form within or abroad.

No one can dial 911 faster than a bullet.

Militias are by the People, of the People and for the People.
edit on 9-2-2013 by reeferman because: sticky wwww key



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
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.


Ah, the point of your post, finally.

An anti-gun troll trying to disprove a mountain of statistical data with one isolated event which he knows little to nothing about. It's really hard to argue against FACTS isn't it? I feel for ya.




edit on 9-2-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


why didn't guns protect more than 100000 us military personell in the pacific theater in world war2? or the 625,000 in the civil war? they got killed didn't they? the total numbers of democide? you whine about gun control when government is the biggest murderer.
edit on 9-2-2013 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by rockoperawriter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
How can you stop someone who basically ambushes you at a gun range. At a gun range logically there's going to be a lot of gunshots, so therefore I'm sure by the time they realized what was happening it was too late. You can't differentiate between the sounds of shots fired into a target vs. shots fired into a person.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Element of surprise will give you a huge advantage. Do you think i am just going to draw down on you when you are pointing a gun at me? No, ill be dead before i can even pull my weapon most likely.

Use your head.

-----

If the United States is to dangerous for you, please, by all means, we have borders that aren't even protected. I heard Mexico was nice this time of year.
edit on 9-2-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


north korea has some interesting architecture



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


I totally agree with your sentiment.But take a wee bit of exception to your use of the word crazy.The man Chris was killed by was a vetran with PTSD.Not trying to defend the guy,but,from all accounts he was not "crazy",just having trouble adjusting to life after the atrocities of war.But,like you,I wonder about the thought process behind Chris' actions.I am sure he thought he was helping the guy,but...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mardukiscoming
 


kinda makes me feel that the guy could have used a service dog for people with things like ptsd or similar mental trauma. my dad is a vietnam veteran and he always has dogs. granted they do keep the blood pressure on an even keel, they are also great listeners





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join