WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   'American Sniper' author Chris Kyle fatally shot (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796834)

grant_west 02-03-2013 10:49 AM

'American Sniper' author Chris Kyle fatally shot
 
The Libs ought to love this:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...gun-range?lite

blake_hughes 02-03-2013 1:40 PM

Hard to believe, and sad to hear.

durty_curt 02-03-2013 4:19 PM

That is really sad to hear :'(

ralph 02-03-2013 9:50 PM

While it's callus and i know i should feel differently, i struggle to morn a man who boasts about his kill count during duty. Live by the sword.....

skull 02-04-2013 6:59 AM

RIP.. good guy taken way too young.

jonblarc7 02-04-2013 7:15 AM

Its because of men like him you have a right to post what you want on this website. Its not how many he killed its how many US soldier lives he saved by taking out people that where trying to kill young US men and women soldiers.

quik876 02-04-2013 7:17 AM

Well Darren, at LEAST he was doin' somethin' good for returning veterans with PTSD so he's not ALL bad (his kill boasting was a put off to me as well) and yeah the Libs are LOVIN' it on Twitter, SICKENS ME that the kind of stuff they're sayin' is the kind of thanks he gets for serving his country and then serves returning veterans and THIS is the kind of thanks he gets.

quik876 02-04-2013 7:18 AM

whoops double spoke there, didn't mean to do that.

stephan 02-04-2013 7:48 AM

Read that yesterday and was saddened. Guy did what his country asked and did it well. To hear about his work in helping his fellow vets and how it turned into his death is pretty terrible.

ralph 02-04-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonblarc7 (Post 1804720)
Its because of men like him you have a right to post what you want on this website.

Let's not get carried away, he wasnt killing nazi's marching across Europe, i don't think insurgents in the middle east were endangering the internet. Regardless, i am not celebrating his passing, just not celebrating his life either.

mattgettel 02-04-2013 10:32 AM

Yeah you are right they weren't looking to unplug our internet but they are looking to kill Americans. I can't say that I am "celebrating" the fact that he took so many lives but I will celebrate one hell of a guy doing more than most to protect our country.

stanfield 02-04-2013 1:51 PM

In all fairness and certainly no disrespect towards Darren, but IIRC, he lives in NZ. It's not a nation known for having to be heavily involved in the forefront of global conflict, and that's a good thing! But to not be able to recognize the tragedy of someone being murdered by the very person they were trying to help (while both now being civilians), regardless of his actions while under direct orders of the government that he served, is like not being able to see the forest for the trees IMO.

magic 02-04-2013 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanfield (Post 1804798)
In all fairness and certainly no disrespect towards Darren, but IIRC, he lives in NZ. It's not a nation known for having to be heavily involved in the forefront of global conflict, and that's a good thing! But to not be able to recognize the tragedy of someone being murdered by the very person they were trying to help (while both now being civilians), regardless of his actions while under direct orders of the government that he served, is like not being able to see the forest for the trees IMO.

We're Kiwi's living in America. Both my wife and I have NZ citizenship and US too. I started reading No Easy Day a few weeks ago, and picked it back up last night. Kinda surreal to read it now. Have not formed any opinions yet, but figure I'll be thru the book by the end of the week and have opinions then.

ralph 02-04-2013 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanfield (Post 1804798)
In all fairness and certainly no disrespect towards Darren, but IIRC, he lives in NZ. It's not a nation known for having to be heavily involved in the forefront of global conflict, and that's a good thing! But to not be able to recognize the tragedy of someone being murdered by the very person they were trying to help (while both now being civilians), regardless of his actions while under direct orders of the government that he served, is like not being able to see the forest for the trees IMO.

No disrespect taken. I know I "should" recognise the tragedy and do to a degree but holding these type of people up as heros and something to aspire to gives me concerns.

ttrigo 02-04-2013 4:04 PM

He is an American soldier who enlisted to protect his nation, and his fellow Americans. I don't see how he can't be viewed as anything other than a hero. Plus, he was doing more for veterans than the govt he worked for does.

grant_west 02-04-2013 4:33 PM

Chris was killing by a mentally disturbed person that chose a gun to carry out his crime. As as was Ronald Regan, Gabby Gifford, The Sandy Hook Killer, The Colorado Movie Shooter and Now Chris, Out of all New gun laws and talk of restricting guns from how much talk have we seen or heard of that addresses the "REAL PROBLEM" AKA gun’s in the hands of mentally unstable people?

psudy 02-05-2013 8:28 AM

Its no wonder the Americans are always saving the Europeans.

norcalrider 02-05-2013 12:27 PM

Except Mr. Kyle took that mentally disturbed guy shooting as a therapy for PTSD. This mentally disturbed person was placed under protective custody after holding his family hostage after his father told him he was selling his gun. While tragic this was an avoidable situation.

wake77 02-05-2013 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1804628)

I think people in the gun industry love it more. Look at gun and ammo sales since Sandy Hook.

ralph 02-05-2013 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psudy (Post 1804915)
Its no wonder the Americans are always saving the Europeans.

If you are referring to my deference to killing in combat and relating it to my countries war efforts then be aware nz has one of the highest per capita casualty rates in ww1 and ww2 dispite being furthest home nation from the front lines and arguably the least fight for. It is pretty disrespectful to suggest otherwise. And we are not European. Get an atlas.

psudy 02-06-2013 8:49 AM

Its pretty disrespectful to suggest he wasn't a war hero. He did his job and did it well.

grant_west 02-06-2013 9:34 AM

Quote:

I think people in the gun industry love it more. Look at gun and ammo sales since Sandy Hook.
The rush on guns started the Min OBAMA took office. Better question is Why are people rushing out to buy all the gun's and Ammo they can get?
Answer: For fear that our current Administration will take them away or try to outlaw them. The Administration could crush alot of the speculation and panic by simply announcing " Hey no one is going to take your guns away" Your 2nd amendment rights are protected! simple as that.
Yes the Gun industry is bennifitting from the rush and panic but who is perpetuation the panic , The answer Our current administration.

jason_ssr 02-06-2013 10:33 AM

The thing is, most Americans are disinterested in excercising their rights. Heck only a rediculous percentage of us even vote. Most people in the US had no intention of owning a gun.

See, rights are a funny thing, the fact that guns are a right and presumably always available, people do not feel the need to possess one. You threaten to take that right, and suddenly everyone looks to preserve it for themselves. In reality, the best "gun control" is to leave it alone as a perminant right. Bad guys will still get em, good guys will still get em, and the indifferent majority still wont have em! With the current rhetoric, everyone will have one, and the market from which a bad guy could acquire one just grew exponentially.

Did we have a machinegun problem prior to 1934? No, we had a handful of gangsters in NY\CHI outgunning police, as well as Bonnie and Clyde. The NFA was put in place to force civilians to register their machineguns. Have we had a machine gun problem since? No, people still own em just like before, and bad guys still get em without registering them. So, its nothing more than a tax on the good people as well.

Legislation only affects those who follow laws.

magicr 02-06-2013 10:35 AM

Quote:

The Administration could crush alot of the speculation and panic by simply announcing " Hey no one is going to take your guns away" Your 2nd amendment rights are protected!
He's said it numerous times, almost like trying to convince "certain people" that he's not a Muslim, Kenyan, Socialist, baby eater, and the anti Christ.

I'm sure Fox news won't report it.

wake77 02-06-2013 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1805166)
The rush on guns started the Min OBAMA took office. Better question is Why are people rushing out to buy all the gun's and Ammo they can get?
Answer: For fear that our current Administration will take them away or try to outlaw them. The Administration could crush alot of the speculation and panic by simply announcing " Hey no one is going to take your guns away" Your 2nd amendment rights are protected! simple as that.
Yes the Gun industry is bennifitting from the rush and panic but who is perpetuation the panic , The answer Our current administration.

And look at his first term. Was any legislation ever brought up with respect to gun control? Is it any harder to buy a gun today (ignoring the fact that there is a shortage of guns right now) than it was in 2007?

Thank you G for giving us a clear example of "chicken little" politics.

grant_west 02-06-2013 12:32 PM

Jason SSR summed it up pretty good. As far as chicken little politics. Did you read Diane Fienstiens potential legislation? A ban on all military style weapons! Jackie Spier saying you only need. Hunting rifles and if you can't kill it with 3 shots your not a good hunter and you need to find another sport! These are the people making laws for the rest of us!

wake77 02-06-2013 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1805215)
Jason SSR summed it up pretty good. As far as chicken little politics. Did you read Diane Fienstiens potential legislation? A ban on all military style weapons! Jackie Spier saying you only need. Hunting rifles and if you can't kill it with 3 shots your not a good hunter and you need to find another sport! These are the people making laws for the rest of us!

It's funny how you still have yet to mention any Obama legislation. Feinstein's bill has little to no chance of passing.

Again, is it harder to buy a gun today than it was in 2007?

jason_ssr 02-06-2013 12:46 PM

Quote:

And look at his first term. Was any legislation ever brought up with respect to gun control? Is it any harder to buy a gun today (ignoring the fact that there is a shortage of guns right now) than it was in 2007?
Not a real comparison there. Most knew there would be no legislation in the first term for a couple of reasons. 1st, its political suicide, 2nd there was no knee jerk events. As such, the firearms market did not see any significant movement. Now, you have a lame duck president, and tragedies to stand over all at the same time.

And, to keep things in perspective, the flux in the gun market isnt all fear of 2nd amendment trashing. its also incented by financial gain. Those who stockpiled guns prior to the original AWB made considerable money selling their $600 guns for $5000 a piece and $10 magazines for $250.

If you took $10k this past july and bought a dozen AR-15s, you would be very happy with your purchase if you sold them all today. Not a bad ROI for 6 months.

skiboarder 02-06-2013 12:58 PM

On Piers Morgan, he shot a fully-auto tripod machine gun. He asked why would anyone need one of these and the guy responded, it is an investment. Piers looked at him like he was going to say an investment to protect his rights as a gun owner or something and asked do you own one? He said no, I just sold it for 5 times what he paid for it just a few years ago. Something like $50K.

I paraphrased because I don't remember the exact quotes. I did think it was funny that he was at the same range that my dad goes to.

psudy 02-06-2013 1:24 PM

"Again, is it harder to buy a gun today than it was in 2007?"

Took a friend of mine to buy an AR a month ago. He has a CCL, with those, you are supposed to be able to skip the phone call background check. His was issued in 2009. They changed the rule that if it was before 2010 you still have to call in. The dealer called, and they put him on a 3 day wait list. So to answer your question, yes, it appears things have changed since 2007.

wake77 02-06-2013 4:48 PM

^That is not the case in TN.

cwb4me 02-06-2013 6:51 PM

In Virginia we have mandatory background checks.For me and my wife it's a couple of minutes to get it done.For others with last names like Smith or Williams it can take up to 3 days.The only thing that has changed is the number of people who want to own a gun now.Obama is the gun salesman of the century.Give it a few years and it will settle back down.All these gun laws are smoke and mirrors.Everyone with a ounce of sense knows criminals and mentally unstable people don't consider laws or right from wrong in their decisions.

ralph 02-06-2013 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psudy (Post 1805152)
Its pretty disrespectful to suggest he wasn't a war hero. He did his job and did it well.

That wasn't my intention, I apologise for creating that impression. I meant hero in the general sense rather than war hero (which he undoubtedly is).

sidekicknicholas 02-07-2013 8:54 AM

The only thing (besides it is tragic) that I can think of in regards to this story is the following argument I heard about a million times after Sandy Hook -
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun."

....given that arguably the greatest marksman the Navy has seen in the last 50 years, who was out doing good, meant you had a GOOD GUY who was a GREAT SHOT that was taken out in the blink of an eye by a bad guy, I think that argument from before is sort of null-n-void now.

grant_west 02-07-2013 9:10 AM

A gun is a Tool. It can only be effective if its in your hand. And your in a position to use it. Your argument that guns can't stop gun violence just because Chris was shot proves nothing.
IMO the Mall shooter killed him self because he saw another person draw down on him. This story was not given national attention because IMO it did not fit the the Medias agenda. I don't know about you but Ill take my chances with other Armed citizens to try and take out a bad guy rather then pray the cops are going to show up after every one is shot

sidekicknicholas 02-07-2013 9:20 AM

Quote:

. It can only be effective if its in your hand. And your in a position to use it. Your argument that guns can't stop gun violence just because Chris was shot proves nothing.
What would stop gun violence? .... having exactly ZERO guns in the country, which is never going to happen.

Thank you for writing this.... exactly this. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER EVERY GUN THREAD. Own all the guns you want, when a shooter unloads you won't be ready or have it on you due to businesses restricting them. People aren't walking around with their 9mm in their hand ready to rumble.... except the crazy shooter, he is the only one prepared at the moment of the first shot. Your house maybe safe and secure, but lets face it.... if Chris and his other highly trained friend couldn't stop a gunman, most people cannot. Less guns won't help, I agree.... More guns will not help either.

Quote:

IMO the Mall shooter killed him self because he saw another person draw down on him.
Your opinion is worth about as much as the day old Taco Bell in the garbage next to me.... no offense but unless you were at that mall, saw it go down, you have no clue what happen.
IMO the shooter ran was down to one bullet and knew that death was better than prison so he used his last one on himself. (this opinion is also equal to taco bell since I was not there).

Quote:

don't know about you but Ill take my chances with other Armed citizens to try and take out a bad guy rather then pray the cops are going to show up after every one is shot
You do realize every shooting that you might need protection from starts because of other armed citizens right? I honestly think the population in general is too emotional and stupid to be carrying such dangerous tools. If you're a good shot with a good head on your shoulders you make up .0000000001% of the population.... just walk around one day and observer the stupid, it is everywhere.... now arm all these people.... good lord we're in trouble.

The more gun sales go up, the more amazon stock will go up.... the less I have to leave the house for goods the better.

grant_west 02-07-2013 10:00 AM

Day old Taco Bell, that's a good one. your 100% right about people carrying that have little to zero training. People don't realize how fast a trained or prepared person can draw their weapon and rock and roll. Someone with just a bit of tactical training can do a lot of damage in 30 seconds. How long does it take for the cops to show up on seen with a gun to combat another armed person. I would way rather have the ability or option to take cover with a weapon then to pray that I'm not the next target. I don't think most people looking to get a CCW permit object to the hoops one has to jump threw to get one.

psudy 02-07-2013 10:04 AM

Having a person execute two people by shooting them in the back is a little different than being in a public place when someone opens fire. Obviously the crazed person is going to elimate their first target. There would be no chance of defense. Its the second, third and forth that you work to stop.

sidekicknicholas 02-07-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Having a person execute two people by shooting them in the back is a little different than being in a public place when someone opens fire. Obviously the crazed person is going to elimate their first target. There would be no chance of defense. Its the second, third and forth that you work to stop.
Not that different for the first few hit in public.... intent is irrelevant in this, if a shooter is going in for a target or just chaos sake and I am one of the first few in that area, I could care less his reasons, all I know is 99.9% of the time I'm not expecting Joe Doe next to me to pull out a gun and start shooting.... gun or not at my side, I'm in trouble.

My biggest fear is if (lets say 25%) of the population starts carrying guns at all times, everywhere. How many of them do you think should be carrying a gun (proper training and skillset) .... maybe 50%?! So at the mall food court of 200 people 50 have guns. A shooter 201st person walks in and opens fire. Now you have 50 other people who could potentially take action.... lets say two of them do. Two guys start shooting at the "Bad" shooter.... now what are the odds these two and/or the other 48 "good" gun owners don't mistake these "good" guys for being 2nd/3rd gunmen? Next thing you know you've got 15 people all firing at each other being nobody knows who is who, good or bad.... its just an adrenaline filled firefight. If it was me with a gun in that situation, I would have a hard time not suspecting multiple shooters and having a hard time know who to shoot and who is on "my side".



Again, I don't think taking guns away is going to help any... people who want to do harm will continue to do it. I also don't think adding guns to a population of spastic pilled up suburban Rambos is a good idea either.

wakeboardern1 02-09-2013 9:12 AM

Nick...

The mall shooter's weapon jammed, the armed citizen saw it as a chance to step up and stop the guy, saw someone behind the guy and decided not to shoot, after having made eye contact with the shooter.

The next shot was the suicide shot.

As for your food court situation, typically these concealed carry people do not open fire on the suspect, but having it gives them the courage to face the person. And once the guy is down, I highly doubt that the people will continue on a shooting rampage amongst themselves. It strikes me as a common sense thing to drop your gun in a situation where you have been drawn upon.

I mean your hypothetical situation sounds just as ridiculous and implausible to many people as you view them saying that people carrying reduces crime.

Lastly, let's face the facts that in the last 30 years, only two shootings have happened in non-gun free zones. These mass killers go to these areas for the purpose of killing as many unarmed persons as possible without interruption.

sidekicknicholas 02-11-2013 10:17 AM

Quote:

ypically these concealed carry people do not open fire on the suspect, but having it gives them the courage to face the person
That is why I suggested that only 2 of the 50 people carrying weapons would open fire at first. The rest would hunker down, weapon ready if the shooter turned the corner and faced them.

Quote:

It strikes me as a common sense thing to drop your gun in a situation where you have been drawn upon.
I think you and I feel the same way... unfortunately common sense isn't all too common these days.
I also say I feel the same way, but I am sitting at my office desk nice and cozy without bullets zinging by.... I don't think either of us can accurately say how we would react when faced with a gunman / gunmen opening fire around us.

Quote:

let's face the facts that in the last 30 years, only two shootings have happened in non-gun free zones. These mass killers go to these areas for the purpose of killing as many unarmed persons as possible without interruption.
You just mentioned that most people will not open fire on the suspect, so with that logic, wouldn't it not matter where the shooter is planning to hit?
.... I think these mass killers have a goal and are cowards. Sandy Hook's MO is a mystery to me, probably always will be.... but that guy to open fire on little kids, total pussy whack job.
.... Columbine on the other hand, I get, BY NO MEANS AGREE WITH, but I get it. Those kids were picked up for years and years, finally said "We've had enough" and they took revenge to a new level. I can understand why they did what they did.... they wanted to get even for all the years of abuse they received.... why shoot the people they may have never spoke to and not just the bullies... I'll never know.



Again, I don't think guns should be touched, taking firearms away won't stop a thing. Our family / myself own some guns (all various hunting rifles/shotguns and one handgun). In rural Wisconsin having guns was more normal than not having them; the guns always very well locked and secured.... I was taught to shoot and the power/danger of these items and respected them.... which to me is the most important thing, people need to be taught to respect them.

My fiance and her father went gun shopping when we found out we were moving to large city to "protect her" ..... within 30 seconds of handling a pistol she had the barrel pointed at herself, the shop owner, and me.... I made this point, and no guns were bought that day.... She is NOT capable of handling a gun at this point, and because of that, shouldn't own one. Her being a "good person" with a weapon but being vastly unfamiliar with it makes her far more of a danger than a help.... and I think this is more often than not the case.

wakeboardern1 02-11-2013 5:51 PM

That hunkering down is exactly the purpose of concealed carry. It is to defend oneself or their family. If everyone who has had proper training and experience with weapons is carrying, then the likelihood that they are in a position to defend themselves is greater.

As for the most people not shooting at the suspect, it does give them the courage to take down the target (it is what happened with the Giffords shooting). The shooters in those non gun free zones were stopped by people carrying, because having the firearm gave them the courage to confront the attacker while knowing in the back of their mind that they had a way to defend themselves if it got out of control.

Because these shooters know that people like that exist in areas where guns are, they aren't going to go areas where there is someone that can stop them.

As for the story about your fiance, I agree with that sentiment. You all made the right decision with that. The reality is that if you haven't put the time into proper gun training and time on the range, you should not be carrying. Most concealed carry permits require a large amount of training, but then there are those that don't, which I don't necessarily agree with.

I am a massive advocate for proper firearm use and training. I think that people need to learn to not fear guns, but to understand them as a tool, and not a toy. I am also a firm believer that if we taught personal responsibility both with firearms themselves and everyday life, shootings would decrease.

As the one who is experienced with firearms, I think that you would be perfect for teaching her the basics. Get an airsoft gun and educate her using that as a prop. Shooting stances, muzzle control, where to keep it and stuff like that. Then take her to a range where they rent guns and teach her to shoot with some single shot weapons, whether it be a handgun that is loaded one bullet at a time or a rifle.

I was at a gun show about a month ago and holy hell, the sheer number of people I saw picking up these guns and pointing them around or not automatically checking a closed slide for a bullet was staggering. I know it's a gun show and they check them all on the way in, but it's better to be in the habit of always checking the status of a firearm before you pick it up, always. And these were old guys who should know better...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:09 AM.