Big assumption there. I'm interested in forcing you to think through your statements beyond "Well he should have done something!" Most folks are murdered by people they know. The majority of rapes and child molestations happen by close friends and relatives of the victims. I'm merely pointing out that "getting to know someone" probably wouldn't have prevented this, and asking what you think you would do differently and if you honestly think that would have changed things.
I didn't say "Well, he should have done SOMETHING." I also never said that "getting to know" the guy would have stopped his violence. It may have, however, made Kyle decide not to hand the guy a loaded weapon.
I said taking a mentally disturbed person with a history of threats to a shooting range to unwind is unwise.
I stand by that statement, and I have thought it through.
Your opinion seems to be that he didn't know the guy had made threats on his family.
I think he did. Even if he didn't, it's something that's tough to keep under wraps. If he had even a modicum of familiarity with the shooter, he would have found out about the incident. Stuff like that tends to not stay secret very long.
He then may have chosen a different activity to help his new friend.
What would I have done differently? Not assumed that just because someone was a vet that he was strong enough to avoid going on a rampage because of his mental issues.
Someone being a vet does not automatically make me trust them. I don't make it a habit of going on shooting outings with strangers.
"Most people are murdered by people they know"
How is that relevant at all to the discussion? Do most people take someone they know, who recently had an encounter with the cops after threatening to kill their entire family, and hand them a loaded weapon?
You're not seeming to understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. We can agree to disagree.
My central point is, and has been, that taking someone with a recent history of mental instability to a shooting range is a terrible idea. Honestly, I'm not even sure how that point can possibly be debated.
If kyle had instead met this guy, taken him somewhere, and given him a bottle of antidepressants at random, and the dude later committed suicide because it was the wrong treatment, would you still feel the same way about Kyle's actions? After all, kyle's (and others, such as the wounded warrior programs) shooting trips were meant as a form of therapy for these soldiers.
When you try to help someone with mental issues, it's important to try to gain an understanding of what that person's issues are. Either kyle was unaware of the violent threats, or he knew about them. Which either means he was trying to "help" a distressed vet without knowing what the problem was, or he knew and took the guy to a range. Either way, it was a bad call.
This is not blaming him for his own death, nor is it me saying Kyle was a bad guy. It's me saying he made a mistake.
Kyle was a stand up person, an excellent warrior. He made a bad decision. Those two facts are not related. One can admire another person and recognize when they do something unwise.
You have mentioned a few times on here that when people are remembering their service fondly, they're looking through rose-colored glasses. I submit that you're doing the same in this case.
