Maybe it has been mentioned in the several daily threads started per day by those obsessed with possible restrictions of assault weapons or other guns. He was killed at the range by a crazy acquaintance. Neither he with all his guns and a near one in a million experience with guns or all the many folks around with guns were able to prevent this. ************ Sniper Glorified for 150 Plus Kills in Iraq Shot Down at Shooting Range: Presence of Guns Galore Didn't Save Him font size Print MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT Sniper rifles can be bought by civilians When it comes to a timely reminder of how flawed the NRA and gun advocates argument that a gun offers a magical shield of self-defense is, the recent killing of a military sniper at a Texas gun range – glorified for his book detailing his alleged 150 "insurgent" kill total – offers it. Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL sniper and gun enthusiast hero, was unable to protect himself or his friend from an armed assailant, even though they were at a shooting range loaded with guns. Although the circumstances of this incident may represent a tragically ironic mega-example of the gun lobby's flawed fantasy about the alleged omnipotent self-protection power of guns, it is only because of its mega-symbolic resonance to the drumbeat of gun worshippers that sets it apart. After all, what the gun lobby doesn't tell you is that guns are relatively rarely used in self-defense by citizens – and it is not uncommon (as in the Trayvon Martin case) that they are used to kill innocent people out of pure gun owner paranoia. http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm...range-presence-of-guns-galore-didn-t-save-him
I only heard about this because Ron Paul tweeted something about it and conservatives everywhere are foaming with rage and calling for his head. Thank god he's not in the Congress anymore. His tweet: “Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that ‘he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.’ Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense.” Quote the Bible, piss of conservatives. LOL. And mentioning PTSD is also a big no-no to them apparently. Good write up on the conservative outrage over this: Spoiler Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front? Every neocon pundit and middle-American red-blooded conservative took a few minutes out from running around shrieking "boo-yah" and polishing his dually F-250 to be outraged that someone dared suggest that a government employee wasn't a holy relic. The Daily Caller was the first to the show, posting Paul's twitter post without comment and allowing the comment box to quickly fill with outraged Republicans who were dismayed that anyone would not endorse every action of every single taxpayer-funded soldier who ever drew a bead on some dirt-poor 12-year-old child-soldier 10,000 miles away. Others soon piled on. The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does. One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic." That seems to be the general reaction one gets from conservatives about the Golden Rule also. This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation which goes right out the window if someone ever criticizes the US Government in a truly trenchant or penetrating manner. Most of these sunshine patriots who now whine that Ron Paul has lost their support, wouldn't ever have supported Ron Paul in the first place if Obama weren't in office. Had Ron Paul run against a GOP incumbent, most of these timid and prevaricating "opponents" of big government would have condemned Paul for questioning the glorious deeds of "our" Commander-in-Chief. Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals. As I've noted before, the Tea Party movement, and most conservatives who pretend to be for small government, only act when there's a Democrat in office. During eight years of Bush shredding the constitution, spending money like there was no tomorrow, and inflating the money supply with his pals at the central bank, no conservative would walk ten feet to protest the federal government. But about five minutes after Obama was sworn in, the Tea Party protests swelled into a huge disingenuous show that will evaporate five minutes after any Republican is sworn into office, assuming the GOP can actually win a national election with one of the out-of-touch never-had-a-real-job rich boys they insist on nominating. In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.
Exactly, but of course statistics don't matter to gun manufacturers, their lobby the NRA, or individual gun nuts.
There are statistics that go both ways. I don't think that either side is going to win a statistical argument.
I'd like a source for the claim that gun-rights supporters believe possession of a gun provides a magical shield of self-defense. There is never a 100% guarantee of safety. The pro-gun argument is that if the other guy has a gun, you are better off having a gun too, not that possession of a gun provides immunity from other guns. Two rolleyes for the lame article from truth-out:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If that isn't a fantastical way of thinking about guns and the magical role they play in self-defense, I don't know what is.
Nope, that would be the mundane (if oversimplified) way of thinking about guns. Anyone that knows anything about guns (and that is far more common in gun rights supporters than opponents) knows that they are no panacea, but they can be a useful tool in self defense. There is a reason that the Secret Service carries guns after all.
Secret service are well trained, well organized professionals. Comparing them to an average citizen is preposterous first of all. Second of all, secret service aren't using guns for self defense but rather protection of a potential target. That is their job 24/7. They're not taking the groceries in the house and then take their 9 out of their waistband to shoot an armed suspect who comes out of the bushes with a gun to commit murder.
What if this so-called honorable Navy Seal Sniper gunned down a bunch of innocent civilians abroad. Laughed and joked about it and in the processed traumatized a colleague or had a colleague tell the stories to somebody that thought the only way to punish such a douche? Think about it that way.
The idea that a firearm has no practical self defense application just because someone's spider sense didn't warn them of a back shooting assassin is r****ded.
Troll account? Anyone who would call a Navy Seal a demon probably isn't worthy of cleaning their boots.
