Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Former Navy Seal, Chris Kyle, and a friend was murdered at a gun range in Texas over the weekend. As you might expect, people generally expressed shock at the killings and sympathy for their families. Not to be left out, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul took to Twitter to express his feelings on the matter.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/ron-paul-tweets-about-seal-snipers-death-he-who-lives-by-the-sword-dies-by-the-sword/

Um... yea. And people actually wonder why he was on during the last Presidential campaign?

Forgoing the inane first part of the tweet, the last part about treating PTSD at a firing range did strike me as a bit odd when I read about Kyle's death as well, but didn't think the thread about his death was really the place to say it at the time.

That is the initial reaction of course, and I have to imagine they also did some good there, and they must have been some consideration behind the choice of locations and accoutrements. I will admit that while I know a bit about PTSD, I am no expert and am open to alternatives. I imagine most of the people there in therapy never came close to shooting anyone. In the end it seems it might be an oversight in protocol that was the issue; I don't believe the mere presence of firearms was the trigger. PTSD doesn't immediately mean homicidal, and we shouldn't pretend as much as it is harmful for those suffering from it to be further stigmatized.

In the end I don't think we (the public, and that in includes R. Paul) have enough information to make any declarations at this point, other than it is an unfortunate time for the families of all involved.

I never really had a problem with Ron Paul before, but that's really, really not cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Forgoing the inane first part of the tweet, the last part about treating PTSD at a firing range did strike me as a bit odd when I read about Kyle's death as well, but didn't think the thread about his death was really the place to say it at the time.

That is the initial reaction of course, and I have to imagine they also did some good there, and they must have been some consideration behind the choice of locations and accoutrements. I will admit that while I know a bit about PTSD, I am no expert and am open to alternatives. I imagine most of the people there in therapy never came close to shooting anyone. In the end it seems it might be an oversight in protocol that was the issue; I don't believe the mere presence of firearms was the trigger. PTSD doesn't immediately mean homicidal, and we shouldn't pretend as much as it is harmful for those suffering from it to be further stigmatized.

In the end I don't think we (the public, and that in includes R. Paul) have enough information to make any declarations at this point, other than it is an unfortunate time for the families of all involved.

It's not that uncommon for veterans suffering from PTSD to still enjoy shooting and to want to keep or carry weapons. In some cases it can be a good way to reduce stress. This whole situation is incredibly unfortunate, but I think we should all try to discourage some kind of "dangerous psycho war veteran" stereotype. Like you said, PTSD doesn't mean homicidal in the majority of cases.

My brother-in-law just met Chris Kyle a couple weeks ago at a Las Vegas convention. He said he was a very nice guy (despite his many killings). Shame, really.

These politicians should have their twitter accounts revoked, I say.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
My brother-in-law just met Chris Kyle a couple weeks ago at a Las Vegas convention. He said he was a very nice guy (despite his many killings). Shame, really.

These politicians should have their twitter accounts revoked, I say.

2nd amendment is sacrosanct but that damn 1st amendment, feth that gak.



In all honesty, I have sympathy for his family, as for mourning mr. kyle, I really have a hard time with that. Ron Paul’s statement may as well have been “karma”. I'm sure to some he's a big sexy sheepdog, to me he just seems like a talented hired killer.

You don't understand the difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary/assassin?

You also seem to not know what 'karma' is, as this isn't it.

 Ahtman wrote:
You don't understand the difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary/assassin?

You also seem to not know what 'karma' is, as this isn't it.

Shooting hundreds of people and eventually becoming a victim of gunfire yourself has no relation to karma?

as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me. They all kill people for money.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Shooting hundreds of people and eventually becoming a victim of gunfire yourself has no relation to karma?

Actually, no, it doesn't. Karma has to do with what you did in your previous incarnations, and how it effects your current one and your ability to attain nirvana. It isn't some odd revenge fantasy, or reversal of fortune.

 Crablezworth wrote:
as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me.

If it is easier for you to dumb it down and simplify it, then that, of course is your purview to do so. It doesn't make it right or well considered, but it is certainly your option.

Actually karma comprises current and previous, I too have the internet...

And as for soldier vs merc, it's about as useful as freedom fighter vs terrorist. My guess is you're probably not from a middle eastern country or a muslim, I can extrapolate the rest of your perspective on the matter IE it's only ok when westerners kill things.

 Breotan wrote:
Former Navy Seal, Chris Kyle, and a friend was murdered at a gun range in Texas over the weekend. As you might expect, people generally expressed shock at the killings and sympathy for their families. Not to be left out, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul took to Twitter to express his feelings on the matter.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/ron-paul-tweets-about-seal-snipers-death-he-who-lives-by-the-sword-dies-by-the-sword/

Um... yea. And people actually wonder why he was on during the last Presidential campaign?

If you ever needed more evidence that Ron Paul is a fething scum bag...

Lt. Coldfire wrote:These politicians should have their twitter accounts revoked, I say.

Then how would we know how utterly demented they really are?

Ron Paul is a nut. Always has been. At various times, when the Republican Party has been desperate enough to pretend he's a plausible presidential candidate, he's scrubbed himself up and tried to hide away his craziest positions and align himself more as a more palatable small government Republican. But once he's out of election contention the crazy comes out on show again.

 Crablezworth wrote:
as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me. They all kill people for money.

Think about that word 'for', in the statement 'they all kill people for money'. That implies the reason the guy is doing it is for the money. Think about the kind of money you can earn as a mercenary, even just as a guard on a Blackwater contract. Understand that guys like Kyle, who train hard to become the absolute elite in their jobs, don't get paid anything like that, despite having much more dangerous, much more difficult jobs. At which point it should become pretty clear the guy and others like him aren't doing it 'for' the money. They happen to get paid, but that isn't why they're doing it.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Actually karma comprises current and previous, I too have the internet...

And as for soldier vs merc, it's about as useful as freedom fighter vs terrorist. My guess is you're probably not from a middle eastern country or a muslim, I can extrapolate the rest of your perspective on the matter IE it's only ok when westerners kill things.

Some things are a matter of perspective, but it's not that hard to make a useful distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist, and it's even easier to make a useful distinction between a soldier and a mercenary. Also, guessing where someone is from or what that person's religious identity is (even if you're correct) doesn't allow you to be anywhere close to accurate while trying to extrapolate their views on killing. And killing someone who is trying to kill you, your companions, and/or innocent civilians is a lot different than just "killing people."

 Crablezworth wrote:
I too have the internet...

Ah there's the problem. For you see, Ahtman has an education in addition to the internet. Specifically, he has an education in Asian culture, religion, and philosophy -- among other things, one suspects. Not to say that you need to know how to use a shovel to dig a hole but it does help after all.

Mr. Paul raises an interesting point in a repugnant way. I don't think the two sentences can be read separately. His assumption is that guns, rather than using them explicitly to kill people in whatever circumstances, are the cause of PTSD. Maybe he and Mrs. Feinstein could have a productive conversation, if they both really tried.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
You don't understand the difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary/assassin?

You also seem to not know what 'karma' is, as this isn't it.

Shooting hundreds of people and eventually becoming a victim of gunfire yourself has no relation to karma?

as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me. They all kill people for money.

Like Ahtman said, it's your opinion, but just about anyone I've ever known that's been in the military, from anywhere in the country, did it for the pride of being something bigger than themselves, love of country, or to make themselves a better person. I don't ever remember somebody thinking they were making bank in a profession where they could be killed or maimed in the blink of an eye.
It's also been correctly mentioned that there is more money to be made elsewhere than the military without any substantial raise in the level of danger if it was just a kill for profit scenario.

 sebster wrote:
Ron Paul is a nut. Always has been. At various times, when the Republican Party has been desperate enough to pretend he's a plausible presidential candidate, he's scrubbed himself up and tried to hide away his craziest positions and align himself more as a more palatable small government Republican. But once he's out of election contention the crazy comes out on show again.

 Crablezworth wrote:
as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me. They all kill people for money.

Think about that word 'for', in the statement 'they all kill people for money'. That implies the reason the guy is doing it is for the money. Think about the kind of money you can earn as a mercenary, even just as a guard on a Blackwater contract. Understand that guys like Kyle, who train hard to become the absolute elite in their jobs, don't get paid anything like that, despite having much more dangerous, much more difficult jobs. At which point it should become pretty clear the guy and others like him aren't doing it 'for' the money. They happen to get paid, but that isn't why they're doing it.

It implies a reason he does it is for money, whether that's the primary reason I'm not sure, he could have also only been able to get an erection after murdering someone, who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Actually karma comprises current and previous, I too have the internet...

And as for soldier vs merc, it's about as useful as freedom fighter vs terrorist. My guess is you're probably not from a middle eastern country or a muslim, I can extrapolate the rest of your perspective on the matter IE it's only ok when westerners kill things.

Some things are a matter of perspective, but it's not that hard to make a useful distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist, and it's even easier to make a useful distinction between a soldier and a mercenary. Also, guessing where someone is from or what that person's religious identity is (even if you're correct) doesn't allow you to be anywhere close to accurate while trying to extrapolate their views on killing. And killing someone who is trying to kill you, your companions, and/or innocent civilians is a lot different than just "killing people."

Yeah and when we invent technology to verify all the people he shot and killed were bad dudes I'll give a gak about that. Sadly, he shot a lot of poor brown people who hated the idea of foreigners invading their country, some may have been bad dudes, who knows. The invasion was illegal and it's kinda hard to see the US as benevolent force for good.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Ron Paul is a nut. Always has been. At various times, when the Republican Party has been desperate enough to pretend he's a plausible presidential candidate, he's scrubbed himself up and tried to hide away his craziest positions and align himself more as a more palatable small government Republican. But once he's out of election contention the crazy comes out on show again.

 Crablezworth wrote:
as for professional soldier vs mercenary/assassin, that just seems like semantics to me. They all kill people for money.

Think about that word 'for', in the statement 'they all kill people for money'. That implies the reason the guy is doing it is for the money. Think about the kind of money you can earn as a mercenary, even just as a guard on a Blackwater contract. Understand that guys like Kyle, who train hard to become the absolute elite in their jobs, don't get paid anything like that, despite having much more dangerous, much more difficult jobs. At which point it should become pretty clear the guy and others like him aren't doing it 'for' the money. They happen to get paid, but that isn't why they're doing it.

It implies a reason he does it is for money, whether that's the primary reason I'm not sure, he could have also only been able to get an erection after murdering someone, who knows.

This is a wasted conversation.

Crablezworth and Ron Paul are both trolling Kyle's death for attention.

I hold their opinions in equal regard: pants on head ridiculous.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It implies a reason he does it is for money, whether that's the primary reason I'm not sure, he could have also only been able to get an erection after murdering someone, who knows.

No, it doesn't imply that is a reason. You can't just observe that a benefit is received, and conclude that benefit must be the reason the act was undertaken. Otherwise you'd have to declare that getting a Father's Day card is a reason that a person has a child.

And of course, you're free to speculate that a soldier might serve and fight for the sexual response, but fairly obviously given there is no evidence that was a motive for Kyle, the rest of us have to classify that as 'crazy bs that Crablezworth made up in his head'.

So instead, in the community of people that like to think about things sensibly, we just default to figuring Kyle likely served and fought for the same reasons as most other soldiers - duty to one's country, prove one's self, wanted college paid for but ended up loving the job/feeling loyalty to one's fellow soldiers etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
This is a wasted conversation.

What's strange is that even though he's obviously trolling given the state of the OT forum lately it doesn't really stand out as that much crazier than what we get elsewhere, and is about as much fun to deal with.

Right, sorry, only positive opinions of mass murderers allowed my bad. I guess I didn’t catch on that the topic was how big a doo doo head Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is probably a bit racist and homophobic, I don't think he's ever killed anyone.

Maybe we can talk about how awesome Mr. Kyle was at fighting other people while drunk in various bars or how firing ranges are fantastically therapeutic for veterans suffering from PTSD.

The description of him being a hired killer is accurate, I also said he was talented at murder. No question there. At least call me a pragmatic troll..

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right, sorry, only positive opinions of mass murderers allowed my bad. I guess I didn’t catch on that the topic was how big a doo doo head Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is probably a bit racist and homophobic, I don't think he's ever killed anyone.

Maybe we can talk about how awesome Mr. Kyle was at fighting other people while drunk in various bars or how firing ranges are fantastically therapeutic for veterans suffering from PTSD.

While not particularly tasteful, that would be a lot more reasonable discussion than the digital diarrhea that is currently erupting from the inflamed anuses of your fingertips and splashing onto the seat of the gas station toilet that is the internet.

 Crablezworth wrote:

The description of him being a hired killer is accurate, I also said he was talented at murder. No question there.

So you're saying soldiers who kill enemy combatants who are also trying to kill them, their companions, or civilians are murderers. Cool story bro.

Having worked with a lot of vets who suffer from PTSD I also have to say that I find the idea of treatment at a gun range weird. Gun fire can be a trigger for sudden episodes of gunfire is related to the event that caused the PTSD and these episodes can get violent and out of hand pretty quickly.

Now maybe he is approaching PTSD in a similar manner than some phobias and thinks that incremental exposure therapy to an object or behavior that is causing the PTSD could assist with overcoming it. I don't know if that was his approach or if there is more to his "therapy".

But if you treat PTSD by handing somebody a loaded weapon, then if that person snaps you have an unpredictable person that is in possession of a loaded weapon. Other than not giving that person a loaded weapon your other option might be to have an armed range officer ready to drop the client at any time. But having somebody aim a weapon at you "just in case" probably wouldn't help PTSD very much either.

There is a place in the discussion about his approach. Just not in a stupid way like Ron Paul's.

Yeah treating PTSD as a phobia is just asking for trouble. I say give'm a puppy and some MDMA therapy. Animal therapy has apparently shown to have some decent levels of success, even able to replace certain drug treatments entirely.


Oh and hordini, to you last point, I'm saying anyone who kills anyone is a murderer.

don't get paid anything like that,

Is that before or after you factor in all the things soldiers don't have to pay for, or secondary costs brought on by the family (Hi medical!) or benefits that extend after the tour/enlistment?

I don't ever remember somebody thinking they were making bank in a profession where they could be killed or maimed in the blink of an eye.

There are lots of people in the world who do exactly this, doing jobs (and most of them non-military) where carelessness WILL kill or maim you. Heck, anyone who does metal or HV electrical work fits the above pretty well most days, and most of them don't even make very much!

....But seriously. I've met more than one soldier who joined primarily because it was a steady paycheck, or for a college ticket, or the medical benefits. I've met people who enlisted because they just wanted to shoot at things. This is not to say they all do by any means, but I've seen too much to continue assigning divinity to military personnel simply due to their chosen place of employment. Some of them really are just mercenaries wearing the stars and stripes.

Now as to Mr. Paul`s comments....<CENSORED> <CENSORED> <ALSO CENSORED>. Talk about "Living by the sword" all you please, but it's quite likely that rifle of his would never have shot anything but paper had USGov (You know, that thing you are part of leading) not decided to invade two countries. Very poor taste.

Having worked with a lot of vets who suffer from PTSD I also have to say that I find the idea of treatment at a gun range weird.

This part, however, does have me scratching my head a little. I do agree here.

d-usa wrote:Having worked with a lot of vets who suffer from PTSD I also have to say that I find the idea of treatment at a gun range weird. Gun fire can be a trigger for sudden episodes of gunfire is related to the event that caused the PTSD and these episodes can get violent and out of hand pretty quickly.

Now maybe he is approaching PTSD in a similar manner than some phobias and thinks that incremental exposure therapy to an object or behavior that is causing the PTSD could assist with overcoming it. I don't know if that was his approach or if there is more to his "therapy".

But if you treat PTSD by handing somebody a loaded weapon, then if that person snaps you have an unpredictable person that is in possession of a loaded weapon. Other than not giving that person a loaded weapon your other option might be to have an armed range officer ready to drop the client at any time. But having somebody aim a weapon at you "just in case" probably wouldn't help PTSD very much either.

There is a place in the discussion about his approach. Just not in a stupid way like Ron Paul's.

I definitely think it is a case by case basis and depends on the severity and nature of the PTSD. All I'm saying is, I know some veterans who suffer from PTSD and shooting is still one of their primary hobbies, and in some cases carrying helps them feel more secure. Taking that away from them probably wouldn't improve the situation in those cases, and there would most likely be significant backlash if someone tried. I'm not ready to just say that people with PTSD should never be at a firing range.

Crablezworth wrote:I'm saying anyone who kills anyone is a murderer.

I don't think you know what murder is. Killing and murder are not synonyms.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right, sorry, only positive opinions of mass murderers allowed my bad.

The problem isn't with the positivity or lack thereof, but with the nonsense you've made up about a guy.

It is okay to negative. It is not okay to be crazypants.

I guess I didn’t catch on that the topic was how big a doo doo head Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is probably a bit racist and homophobic, I don't think he's ever killed anyone.

He fought against funding for emergency relief, so he certainly tried.

Right and had he murdered (killed) say something other than human beings in Iraq that might matter. Hard to see any killing in Iraq being lawful, seeing as the whole damn invasion wasn't legal.

He may have swatted a few flies over there so what he heck, he's both a killer and a murderer. Happy?



Ok well Sebster, feel free to share your thoughts on the man.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right and had he murdered (killed) say something other than human beings in Iraq that might matter. Hard to see any killing in Iraq being lawful, seeing as the whole damn invasion wasn't legal.

He may have swatted a few flies over there so what he heck, he's both a killer and a murderer. Happy?

No. The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with whether or not his killing of enemy combatants was justified. If he was firing on unarmed civilians it would be different, but that's not the case.

 Hordini wrote:

d-usa wrote:Having worked with a lot of vets who suffer from PTSD I also have to say that I find the idea of treatment at a gun range weird. Gun fire can be a trigger for sudden episodes of gunfire is related to the event that caused the PTSD and these episodes can get violent and out of hand pretty quickly.

Now maybe he is approaching PTSD in a similar manner than some phobias and thinks that incremental exposure therapy to an object or behavior that is causing the PTSD could assist with overcoming it. I don't know if that was his approach or if there is more to his "therapy".

But if you treat PTSD by handing somebody a loaded weapon, then if that person snaps you have an unpredictable person that is in possession of a loaded weapon. Other than not giving that person a loaded weapon your other option might be to have an armed range officer ready to drop the client at any time. But having somebody aim a weapon at you "just in case" probably wouldn't help PTSD very much either.

There is a place in the discussion about his approach. Just not in a stupid way like Ron Paul's.

I definitely think it is a case by case basis and depends on the severity and nature of the PTSD. All I'm saying is, I know some veterans who suffer from PTSD and shooting is still one of their primary hobbies, and in some cases carrying helps them feel more secure. Taking that away from them probably wouldn't improve the situation in those cases, and there would most likely be significant backlash if someone tried. I'm not ready to just say that people with PTSD should never be at a firing range.

Definetly, and while I think it is weird I also don't participate in psychological treatment so I wouldn't know everything about every treatment. So just because I may have questions about it doesn't mean that it couldn't be a legitimate treatment.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right and had he murdered (killed) say something other than human beings in Iraq that might matter. Hard to see any killing in Iraq being lawful, seeing as the whole damn invasion wasn't legal.

Soldiers fight the wars they're sent to fight. This is because we don't, and can't, tolerate soldiers getting to decide whether they personally happen to support a particular war. Letting the army pick and choose whether it wants to fight leads very quickly to a banana republic.

And then, once we've decided that soldiers don't get to choose if they want to fight, it becomes clear that it'd be really obnoxious to condemn soldiers for fighting a war we didn't give them any choice in fighting.



If they conduct themselves well then it doesn't matter in judging the soldier whether their leaders sent them on a legal or illegal war, on a moral or immoral war. If a war is immoral, then we judge the politicians who sent them for that.

Ok so sure he's a murderer but it's not his fault, the politicians made him do it. Great.

What's your impression of Chris Kyle?

“I never really believed the Iraqis would turn the country into a truly functioning democracy, but I thought at one point that there was a chance. I don’t know that I believe that now. It’s a pretty corrupt place. But I didn’t risk my life to bring democracy to Iraq. I risked my life for my buddies, to protect my friends and fellow countrymen. I went to war for my country, not Iraq. My country sent me out there so that bs wouldn’t make its way back to our shores. I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying [fu**] about them.” - Chris Kyle