Navy SEAL Chris Kyle "American Sniper." Shot and killed.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

I think that you are wrong about that.

GLEN ROSE, Texas (AP) — A Texas sheriff has told local newspapers that author and former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle has been fatally shot along with another man on a gun range.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Stephenville Empire-Tribune report that Erath County Sheriff Tommy Bryant says the 38-year-old Kyle and a second man were found dead Saturday afternoon at Rough Creek Lodge's shooting range west of Glen Rose.
The Star-Telegram reports that witnesses told sheriff's investigators a gunman opened fire on the men, then fled in a pickup truck belonging to one of the victims. Glen Rose is about an hour southwest of Fort Worth.
The newspapers say a 25-year-old man was later taken into custody in Lancaster, southeast of Dallas. The motive is unclear.
Kyle wrote the best-selling book, "American Sniper."

This is from the media bulletin.

How many people were there? How many were out at the range? How far away from each other were they? People may have just thought that others were still shooting at the range.

I'm not saying that these are facts, I'm just asking questions.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by eric/

Maybe they were the only 3 there, and bodies were found?

sounds like there were witnesses:

Witnesses told sheriff's investigators that the gunman opened fire on the two men around 3:30 p.m., then fled in a pickup truck belonging to one of the victims. The sheriff's department didn't get a call until around 6 p.m.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02...#storylink=cpy

thats a 2.5 hour delay...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by glocke12

sounds like there were witnesses:

Witnesses told sheriff's investigators that the gunman opened fire on the two men around 3:30 p.m., then fled in a pickup truck belonging to one of the victims. The sheriff's department didn't get a call until around 6 p.m.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02...#storylink=cpy

thats a 2.5 hour delay...

WFAA/Channel 8 quoted unnamed sources as saying that Kyle of Midlothian and a neighbor had taken Routh on an outing to help him deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. Routh turned on the men and shot them in the back, the report added.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by JohnLT13

story reports witnesses at scene. In my experience people at ranges have guns, these people did not stop a bad guy with a gun. Even if they did fire and and kill the suspect two innocents would still be dead. Kinda defeats the theory of good guys with guns can stop bad guys.

You question the government in failing to recognize a threat, but then proclaim you don't think the government is right in their other decisions.
Your posts are nothing short of hypocritical.

There are not enough details to make any kind of conclusion about anything, and I'll bet that as with most big news events the story will change over time. Has it occurred to you that maybe they were shooting at a remote part of the range and were isolated from others?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

thats a 2.5 hour delay...

They needed that time to hide their cache of illegal weapons.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

They needed that time to hide their cache of illegal weapons.

Doubt it.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally Posted by eric/

Oh, Jesus...

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by yg17

So, Mr. LaPierre, I'm sure at the gun range, there were plenty of good guys with a gun. Why didn't they stop a bad guy with a gun?

Originally Posted by Happybunny

NRA would say armed guards on every firing range, like the schools.

Originally Posted by niuniu

And armed guards at parks too. Shopping centres (mall?) and I guess everywhere else by the NRA's logic

For all of those who are using this incident to jump on the NRA and show the failings of the idea of armed guards everywhere will prevent tragedies...

Are you also willing to use this incident to show the failings of the idea that not allowing responsible gun owners to keep firearms in their homes or on their person, and restricting all guns to only being kept at a range (an idea brought up by numerous people in the various gun threads recently), will prevent tragedies?

[zioxide]

Well, this guy was probably one of most highly trained people in the world in regards to firearms, and he was at a shooting range so he no doubt was carrying, and look how much that helped "protect" him. Protected him enough that him and another guy are dead because yet another wackjob was allowed to use a gun.

The guy who shot him was also ex-military so he no doubt had plenty of firearms training too.

Now, two more people dead, but hey, at least they had "freedom", right?

Originally Posted by yg17

So, Mr. LaPierre, I'm sure at the gun range, there were plenty of good guys with a gun. Why didn't they stop a bad guy with a gun?

Probably because the good guy with the gun (and years of experience as a special forces sniper) was dead before he could react. If a former Navy SEAL can't "protect" himself with his gun, how is some random joe schmo going to?

Those armed guards that the NRA keep talking about? They would be guys like him. Look how effective that was.

[Ugg]

If you live by the sword, then you need to expect you're probably going to die by the sword. No surprise there.

Violence begets violence. The more guns around the more gun deaths there will be. As long as Americans are obsessed with guns we will continue to have gun deaths by the thousands. You can't have it both ways.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Well, this guy was probably one of most highly trained people in the world in regards to firearms, and he was at a shooting range so he no doubt was carrying, and look how much that helped "protect" him. Protected him enough that him and another guy are dead because yet another wackjob was allowed to use a gun.

The guy who shot him was also ex-military so he no doubt had plenty of firearms training too.

Now, two more people dead, but hey, at least they had "freedom", right?



Probably because the good guy with the gun (and years of experience as a special forces sniper) was dead before he could react. If a former Navy SEAL can't "protect" himself with his gun, how is some random joe schmo going to?

Those armed guards that the NRA keep talking about? They would be guys like him. Look how effective that was.

Than surely the police can't protect you or themselves, when they are undoubtably less trained than a Navy SEAL with over 150 confirmed kills.


or perhaps he was shot in the back by somebody whom he thought was his friend...

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

Than surely the police can't protect you or themselves, when they are undoubtably less trained than a Navy SEAL with over 150 confirmed kills.


or perhaps he was shot in the back by somebody whom he thought was his friend...

If we eliminated these stupid killing machines we wouldn't need this ******** "protection" to begin with. It seems to work fine in Europe. Way less murders per capita there.

Some "free" country we have.

Free to get shot and killed at any time because the country is full of paranoid nut jobs who think "freedom" means possessing a device that can instantly end others lives. This just proves that no matter how much firearms training you have, or if there are "good guys with guns" there, it doesn't matter.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

Are you also willing to use this incident to show the failings of the idea that not allowing responsible gun owners to keep firearms in their homes or on their person, and restricting all guns to only being kept at a range (an idea brought up by numerous people in the various gun threads recently), will prevent tragedies?

I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.

Restricting guns to gun ranges would hopefully have the effect of restricting these types of tragedies to gun ranges.

That would be the idea behind that kind of plan.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by eric/

Than surely the police can't protect you or themselves, when they are undoubtably less trained than a Navy SEAL with over 150 confirmed kills.


or perhaps he was shot in the back by somebody whom he thought was his friend...

He took the man known to ptsd to a firing range, arrogance or stupidity we might never know.
I would say that it is a message, be very aware of who is standing behind you with a loaded weapon.



As to being shot in the back, it's not unlike his work as a sniper, also shooting people who are unaware of you being there.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

He took the man known to ptsd to a firing range, arrogance or stupidity we might never know.
I would say that it is a message, be very aware of who is standing behind you with a loaded weapon.

Yeah, he shouldn't have been taking such a situation into his own hands in the first place.

Originally Posted by Happybunny

As to being shot in the back, it's not unlike his work as a sniper, also shooting people who are unaware of you being there.

Yeah, but it's not like he walked up to some Taliban guys as a friend and then shot them in the back. And he was aware of that guy there.

Originally Posted by zioxide

If we eliminated these stupid killing machines we wouldn't need this ******** "protection" to begin with. It seems to work fine in Europe. Way less murders per capita there.

Some "free" country we have.

Free to get shot and killed at any time because the country is full of paranoid nut jobs who think "freedom" means possessing a device that can instantly end others lives. This just proves that no matter how much firearms training you have, or if there are "good guys with guns" there, it doesn't matter.

It may not matter. There are plenty of cases where people have successfully defended themselves or others with a firearm. You can't take this one instance of somebody getting shot in the back as "proof" that nobody can ever use a firearm defensively.

And the problem with eliminating firearms, is you punish the entire population for what a few criminals do. I disagree with that mentality. I don't like mass punishment.

[JohnLT13]

[QUOTE]=eric/;16776718]Well I don't think one incident proves all cases, do you?[QUOTE]

maybe not all, but its a good start.

Where did I say that anywhere in this thread?

not this thread, countless others. IMO you cant have it both ways.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by eric/

Yeah, but it's not like he walked up to some Taliban guys as a friend and then shot them in the back. And he was aware of that guy there.

The end result is still the same, target is dead, and never saw it coming.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

The end result is still the same, target is dead, and never saw it coming.

I guess. I'm confused about what message you're trying to get across though.

[JohnLT13]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well I don't think one incident proves all cases, do you?



Where did I say that anywhere in this thread?

Not all cases, but its a start.

You have in other threads. JMO

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by eric/

I guess. I'm confused about what message you're trying to get across though.

It's simple, if you have spent your adult life shooting people by using surprise and cunning. Think there maybe a chance that the someone could do the same to you.

[eric/]

Listening to CNN:

"They appeared to be all alone at the range

they had 30 weapons between the 3, handguns, AK47s"

I don't think the last part is relevant, any of those weapons could have killed the SEAL.

They also said that the SEAL is a well known guy for helping returning veterans deal with PTSD.

----------

Originally Posted by Happybunny

It's simple, if you have spent your adult life shooting people by using surprise and cunning. Think there maybe a chance that the someone could do the same to you.

Ok?

I guess he got what he had coming or something? I just don't get the point.

I think it sucks that somebody who has helped end the lives of insurgents and evil doers in the service of his country.

[JohnLT13]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

It's simple, if you have spent your adult life shooting people by using surprise and cunning. Think there maybe a chance that the someone could do the same to you.

Im gonna go out on a limb here, but in my opinion most people don't see it coming. IMO if you have to use a gun in self defense, you probably all ready have one pointed at you.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

It may not matter. There are plenty of cases where people have successfully defended themselves or others with a firearm. You can't take this one instance of somebody getting shot in the back as "proof" that nobody can ever use a firearm defensively.

Well, obviously I know nothing in life is absolute, but it seemed in that press conference that Wayne Lapierre was pretty convinced that the good guy with the gun would stop the bad guy with the gun. Well, its bad guy: 2 and good guys: dead in this incident.

And the problem with eliminating firearms, is you punish the entire population for what a few criminals do. I disagree with that mentality. I don't like mass punishment.

This "punishment" mentality is what makes this argument bad to begin with. I don't want to "punish" legal gun owners. I want to make the country safer for everyone. Reducing the amount of guns on the street, as evidenced by most developed European countries, will do this.

Why do so many gun people value their right to own a killing machine over the lives and safety of their fellow citizens? Seems pretty selfish to me. There are plenty of other things we give up for the greater good.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by eric/

I guess he got what he had coming or something? I just don't get the point.

I think it sucks that somebody who has helped end the lives of insurgents and evil doers in the service of his country.

I never said that, you are trying to put words into my mouth.
All I was saying you would think that a man who had written the book on tactical shooting, would be far more careful.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Well, obviously I know nothing in life is absolute, but it seemed in that press conference that Wayne Lapierre was pretty convinced that the good guy with the gun would stop the bad guy with the gun. Well, its bad guy: 2 and good guys: dead in this incident.

Yeah, the bad guy was a good guy right up until the other two turned their backs and he freaked out and just shot them. What that person is referring to (because idk who Wayne Lapierre is) is robberies, school shootings, etc.

Originally Posted by zioxide

This "punishment" mentality is what makes this argument bad to begin with. I don't want to "punish" legal gun owners. I want to make the country safer for everyone. Reducing the amount of guns on the street, as evidenced by most developed European countries, will do this.

But you are punishing people who have never done anything wrong. There is no getting around that. People die and are murdered for all sorts of reasons, but we don't consistently ban everything that kills people.

Originally Posted by zioxide

Why do so many gun people value their right to own a killing machine over the lives and safety of their fellow citizens?

Because just because somebody does something bad with something doesn't mean everybody does.

Originally Posted by zioxide

Seems pretty selfish to me. There are plenty of other things we give up for the greater good.

Being selfish is good, and the greater good matters not.

----------

Originally Posted by Happybunny

I never said that, you are trying to put words into my mouth.
All I was saying you would think that a man who had written the book on tactical shooting, would be far more careful.

Oh ok. I wasn't trying to, I was just really confused about what point you were making, I thought you were trying to say it was karma or something.

I can see that, but nobody really thinks that somebody you're helping is just going to go off the deep end and shoot you in the back.

sorry!