WWTBAM Bored

An ex-Navy Seal sniper who had over 150 insurgent kills in Iraq and Afghanistan, was shot to death along with another man at a Texas shooting range. Kyle's book, American Sniper, spent several months on the best seller list in 2010. The alleged killerwas able to flee the scene and was arrested at his home several hours later. Motives are unclear. Kyle was 38.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... d/1887327/

If a highly trained, sharphooting combat veteran can't protect himself at a gun range in broad daylight and the killer is able to get away, why does anyone think that putting thousands of more guns in the hands of less well trained individuals is going to make the public safer?

silverscreenselect wrote:If a highly trained, sharphooting combat veteran can't protect himself at a gun range in broad daylight and the killer is able to get away, why does anyone think that putting thousands of more guns in the hands of less well trained individuals is going to make the public safer?

Given how messed up you have to be to shoot someone in the first place, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the motive, to prove a point....

lb13

I recognized the name from watching Chris Kyle partner with Dean Cain on NBC's Stars Earn Stripes. So tragic.

silverscreenselect wrote:An ex-Navy Seal sniper who had over 150 insurgent kills in Iraq and Afghanistan, was shot to death along with another man at a Texas shooting range. Kyle's book, American Sniper, spent several months on the best seller list in 2010. The alleged killerwas able to flee the scene and was arrested at his home several hours later. Motives are unclear. Kyle was 38.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... d/1887327/

If a highly trained, sharphooting combat veteran can't protect himself at a gun range in broad daylight and the killer is able to get away, why does anyone think that putting thousands of more guns in the hands of less well trained individuals is going to make the public safer?

Why do you think keeping them from unqualified people would have made a difference in this case?

silverscreenselect wrote:If a highly trained, sharphooting combat veteran can't protect himself at a gun range in broad daylight and the killer is able to get away, why does anyone think that putting thousands of more guns in the hands of less well trained individuals is going to make the public safer?

The killer got away probably because the highly trained, sharphooting [sic] combat veteran was likely taken down on the first shot and did not get a chance to defend himself (and likely did not know he needed to).

Perhaps the range was full of less well trained individuals (and who isn't compared to the highly trained, sharphooting [sic] combat veteran) the killer wouldn't have felt as if he could get away with a sneak assasination and would not have attempted it. Or, if he had anyway, he would not have gotten away.

But is it really about making the public safer? That is the argument on both sides.

Do you know what the life expectancy of an African lion is in the wild? One that faces dangers as a cub from other adults and prey? One that might not know what is best to eat or what is not healthy to eat? One that sometimes must fight and defend its turf and pride or fights to take over someone else's pride?

What about the life expectancy of an African Lion living in a zoo? One protected from harm by other lions? One fed a healthy diet? One who is much safer than the ones in the wild?

Answer: in the wild African lions are expected to live 15-18 years. In a zoo, 25-30 years. Almost twice as long.

Question: Which one would you rather be? The one living free, though maybe not as long, or the one less free, protected by its "government" form itself and others?

que the Andy Williams....

Now that more information is coming out about the tragic circumstances of this event, I wonder if SSS would want to reconsider his comments. I consider myself somewhere in the middle on the debate about gun control issues in the US, and I know I'm not the only one who is very tired of people on one side or the other of the issue posting stories and saying, in effect, "See? I was right all along!"

The shooting of Chris Kyle (and I apologize to the man and his family, because I can't find a story that tells me his rank, so I can't refer to him by his proper military designation) is a tragedy, and while I'm sure it has meaning for the gun debate in this country, doing so now is certainly not going to convince me of anything. If anything, it's going to prejudice me against whatever side the person doing the posting is on.

mrkelley23 wrote:Now that more information is coming out about the tragic circumstances of this event, I wonder if SSS would want to reconsider his comments. I consider myself somewhere in the middle on the debate about gun control issues in the US, and I know I'm not the only one who is very tired of people on one side or the other of the issue posting stories and saying, in effect, "See? I was right all along!"

It appears that the place where the killings took place was a hunting lodge that had a shooting range somewhere on the rather extensive premises and that the three men, the killer and the victims, were together with no one else around at the time of the shooting. So it isn't quite the scenario I imagined when I first read the story, in which the killer got away from a range full of weekend warriors.

Still, the fact remains that two armed men, one at least of whom was as highly trained as you get, couldn't defend themselves against a killer. Yet all I read is that if somehow someone with a gun had been at Sandy Hook or at VPI or at Columbine (and there was an armed guard at Columbine, which didn't do the victims any good), that things would have been different. The real world is a lot different from the testosterone fueled fantasies of the NRA weekend warriors and I can speak from experience on this.

I would rather the authorities do something about the flood of guns out there than engage macho fantasies about giving myself a fighting chance. If I'd given myself a "fighting chance" 15 years ago, I would probably be dead today.

Kyle was a genuine American hero who went on trying to help other veterans cope with PTSD. It's a tragic loss.

silverscreenselect wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Now that more information is coming out about the tragic circumstances of this event, I wonder if SSS would want to reconsider his comments. I consider myself somewhere in the middle on the debate about gun control issues in the US, and I know I'm not the only one who is very tired of people on one side or the other of the issue posting stories and saying, in effect, "See? I was right all along!"

It appears that the place where the killings took place was a hunting lodge that had a shooting range somewhere on the rather extensive premises and that the three men, the killer and the victims, were together with no one else around at the time of the shooting. So it isn't quite the scenario I imagined when I first read the story, in which the killer got away from a range full of weekend warriors.

Still, the fact remains that two armed men, one at least of whom was as highly trained as you get, couldn't defend themselves against a killer. Yet all I read is that if somehow someone with a gun had been at Sandy Hook or at VPI or at Columbine (and there was an armed guard at Columbine, which didn't do the victims any good), that things would have been different. The real world is a lot different from the testosterone fueled fantasies of the NRA weekend warriors and I can speak from experience on this.

I would rather the authorities do something about the flood of guns out there than engage macho fantasies about giving myself a fighting chance. If I'd given myself a "fighting chance" 15 years ago, I would probably be dead today.

Kyle was a genuine American hero who went on trying to help other veterans cope with PTSD. It's a tragic loss.

I don't necessarily disagree with your positions on guns. However, if you know the protocol of a shooting range, it is likely that, ironically, the killer was the only one with a gun handy at the time.

My overall point is that posting something like this, especially before all the facts are known, is more likely to alienate those who might agree with you than convince anyone who already disagrees with you.

People, this is a terrible tragedy and an awful loss of life of a real hero.

And you want to politicize it?

Seriously?

The 8th Circuit has reversed the largest portion of the verdict won by Jesse Ventura against the estate of Kris Kyle and sent the rest back for a new trial. The Appeals Court said that the unjust enrichment claim was not proper and the injection of liability coverage issues into the trial tainted the defamation claim.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The 8th Circuit has reversed the largest portion of the verdict won by Jesse Ventura against the estate of Kris Kyle and sent the rest back for a new trial. The Appeals Court said that the unjust enrichment claim was not proper and the injection of liability coverage issues into the trial tainted the defamation claim.

Don't know much about the 8th circuit, but even I was taken aback at that verdict. So it wouldn't surprise me if it was worthy of overturning.