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

This isn't really a thread about Chris Kyle, it is a thread about the circumstances of how and where he was murdered and by who.

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 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. So what happened with Kyle? Not only was he armed, his friend was armed...and they were both highly trained in using firearms...and yet neither of them could stop Routh from gunning them down.

But let's look at who murdered Kyle...Eddie Routh. Here is a man who should clearly not be owning a firearm...I know I know...he is a veteran, how dare I try to disarm a veteran. Him being a veteran has nothing to do with it, him having mental issues and previously threatening to kill people has everything to do with it.

nation.time.com...

In September, police in his hometown of Lancaster, Texas, apprehended him when he allegedly threatened to kill his parents and himself after his father Raymond threatened to sell his gun. The cops found Routh shoeless, shirtless and drunk.

This man should not have been allowed to own or carry a gun. But because people are so sensative about sensible gun control, you now have a decorated American veteran dead. But hey, at least crazy people can still own guns...I guess that is a win for the 2nd amendment.


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. I would think that a trained Marine sniper can handle a gun better than the internet Rambos that claim they would have stopped any of the recent shootings if only they were there with their gun. And this incident also proves that not everyone should have the right to bear arms, and yes this includes a lot of veterans who are trying to get their heads right after coming home.

A more important question is why would anyone take a crazy person to a shooting range and give them a loaded gun?

reply to post by xedocodex


Have you ever been sucker punched?

And as far as him being crazy. You do realize the guy did a sucesfull military tour, it is claimed he never seen combat and he was in the ready reserves. I think the only people who really understood how mucked up he was were the people closest to him.

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.

Originally posted by swimmer15
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Have you ever been sucker punched?

And as far as him being crazy. You do realize the guy did a sucesfull military tour, it is claimed he never seen combat and he was in the ready reserves. I think the only people who really understood how mucked up he was were the people closest to him.

edit on 8-2-2013 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)

Yes, I have been sucker punched...I've also been involved in very chaotic situations (not involving guns)...and so I know how ridiculous it is for pro-gun people to claim that if there were just ONE person at a place where a shooting takes place...that they would prevent it.

I don't care if he did 10 successfull military tours...if he is mentally not right when he comes home, he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun until he gets treatment and cures his mental illness.

When someone is standing next to you and you don't have even the slightest suspicion that person is going to turn on you, it's hard to defend against. This has no bearing on carrying a weapon, it's just another attempt by the anti gun crowd to demonize gun owners. We don't claim to be able to stop every situation, every time and using the death of this soldier is a pretty crappy way of making your point.

Just my 2.

i don't know, its almost like it doesn't matter whether you have gun or not, first person pull the trigger wins.

So, i'll just say something "snarky" like "Guns don't protect people, people protect people"

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.

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.

Time to put the focus on the people who perpetrate these crimes. Something Feinstein's legislation completely ignores.

Because nothing is perfect.

Why didn't you think before asking a ridiculous question?

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?

How does one protect from a guy walking into a theater and starts shooting? Then everyone gets out of their seats and starts panicing and scrambling...are you still going to live in the fantasy that one guy with a gun will end it?

What if there are 5 people with a gun in the audience, the shooter comes in and starts shooting, gun owner #1 pulls his gun to shoot him, gun owner #2 sees gun owner #1 with a gun and targets him....so on and so on...now you have 6 people shooting in a crowded, dark, smokey (Aurora shooter had gas cannisters), and chaotic scene.

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.

I really can't believe it took this long for someone to say "see shootings do happen at gun ranges your arguments are now invalid"...

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...

reply to post by xedocodex


You sure seem to be speculating a lot on what happened at the shooting range.Do you have any sources that state for a fact.That there was more than one gun there?The police have been very tight lipped please enlighten us with proof of your claims.

Oh man, a crazy person did something crazy! Stop the presses..

Knives aren't the problem when people get stabbed.
Hands and fingers aren't the problem when people get strangled.
Rope isn't to blame for the suicide.
Booze isn't to blame for the drunk driver who kills someone.
Pills aren't to blame when someone OD's.

Yet is it the gun to blame for someone getting shot instead of the PERSON WHO MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION. If anyone is delusional it's folks like you that only see the tool used to murder, much like the doctors who only treat the effects of an ailment rather than curing the cause. You want violence to stop? Good luck. People will continue to be violent regardless of what they have available.

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?

Yeah, it's only the gun owners that are delusional. Right.

Originally posted by DAVID64
When someone is standing next to you and you don't have even the slightest suspicion that person is going to turn on you, it's hard to defend against. This has no bearing on carrying a weapon, it's just another attempt by the anti gun crowd to demonize gun owners. We don't claim to be able to stop every situation, every time and using the death of this soldier is a pretty crappy way of making your point.

And do you think someone who is out to kill you is going to advertise that they are coming to kill you? Do you think they are going to pull their gun 50 feet from you, show you it, monolouge, and give you the opportunity to respond?

So what good does having a gun do for you? It didn't do Chris Kyle or his friend any good at all.

Originally posted by Tardacus
A more important question is why would anyone take a crazy person to a shooting range and give them a loaded gun?

I have asked the same question about giving these same crazy people a license to operate a motor vehicle on our nations highways and city streets. Sounds kind of strange...

Kyle had been working with this guy and I don't know how many times he may have taken him to this facility or similar facility before. It is certainly strange. Anyone ever around this killer in the presence of sharp kitchen cutlery or a baseball bat at the batting cages?

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.

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.

Originally posted by DAVID64
When someone is standing next to you and you don't have even the slightest suspicion that person is going to turn on you, it's hard to defend against. This has no bearing on carrying a weapon, it's just another attempt by the anti gun crowd to demonize gun owners. We don't claim to be able to stop every situation, every time and using the death of this soldier is a pretty crappy way of making your point.

Just my 2.

I disagree. I bet many people are shot and killed without ever seeing it coming, whether the victim was also carrying or not.

Originally posted by xedocodex

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?

How does one protect from a guy walking into a theater and starts shooting? Then everyone gets out of their seats and starts panicing and scrambling...are you still going to live in the fantasy that one guy with a gun will end it?

What if there are 5 people with a gun in the audience, the shooter comes in and starts shooting, gun owner #1 pulls his gun to shoot him, gun owner #2 sees gun owner #1 with a gun and targets him....so on and so on...now you have 6 people shooting in a crowded, dark, smokey (Aurora shooter had gas cannisters), and chaotic scene.

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.

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...

I will reiterate that I think (its obvious not alot of info has come out) that I think the closest people to him are the only ones who understood this mans mental state. I made those points to show how somone who was not immedietly close to him, may not necessarily think he was crazy.

As for your other point I dont like to argue for the sake of argument. IMO its not as much about if somone was armed they would save the day...im realistic...but if your defensless you have next to zero chance.

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by DAVID64
When someone is standing next to you and you don't have even the slightest suspicion that person is going to turn on you, it's hard to defend against. This has no bearing on carrying a weapon, it's just another attempt by the anti gun crowd to demonize gun owners. We don't claim to be able to stop every situation, every time and using the death of this soldier is a pretty crappy way of making your point.

And do you think someone who is out to kill you is going to advertise that they are coming to kill you? Do you think they are going to pull their gun 50 feet from you, show you it, monolouge, and give you the opportunity to respond?

So what good does having a gun do for you? It didn't do Chris Kyle or his friend any good at all.

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...