In memory of our
American Hero, the American Sniper, Chris Kyle, we will post these articles
from his widow, Taya Kyle on gun rights.
 |
|
Taya Kyle,
wife of slain Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, following the signing of Senate Bill 162 at
the Texas State Capitol, in Austin, Texas, Aug. 28, 2013. Senate Bill 162 has
been called the "Chris Kyle Bill" because it recognizes the achievements
of service members with special operations training, by allowing them credit
toward state law enforcement licenses.
|
INTERNET
SOURCE: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/opinions/taya-kyle-gun-control/
'American Sniper' widow: Gun control
won't protect us
Updated
1801 GMT (0201 HKT) January 8, 2016
Story highlights
- Taya Kyle's husband Chris, the subject of "American Sniper," was killed by a drug user, she says
- Taya Kyle: Restricting our freedoms to protect against the very few who want to do evil would be a mistake
Taya Kyle is
the author of "American Wife: A Memoir of Love, War, Faith, and
Renewal." Her late husband, Chris Kyle, was the subject of the movie,
"American Sniper." Taya Kyle was an invited guest for the CNN Town
Hall "Guns in America."
Follow her on Twitter: @TayaKyle.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.
(CNN)Many of us taking part in the CNN town
hall on guns have been touched by someone who chose to do evil.
I am sharing my thoughts with you because
I feel I can relate to people on both sides of the issue of gun control. I have
been afraid of guns, I have sworn I would never use a gun on another person and
so did not need one, and I have wanted to deny the existence of evil.
I have also become a gun owner, am
prepared to defend myself with a firearm, and understand the fear of my
freedoms being taken away.
I have been touched by extreme
violence and I have been robbed of the life I always wanted by someone who
chose to do evil. Because I have felt, and lived, all of these things, I have
spent much time thinking about evil, freedom and not only the world we live in,
but the country too.
There are many facts and statistics
people will use to argue both sides of the gun control issue. We can use other
countries as examples and we can use crime rates of cities, states and
countries. And no matter how thoroughly researched the statistics are, people
have an emotional reaction to this issue that almost always overrides the
statistics presented, other than this one: The violent crime rate in the United
States has gone down substantially in the last 20 years.
Our fears, though, have gone up,
because of the high-profile incidents of mass killings of people caught
unaware. Killers have taken lives in churches, schools, hospitals, government
buildings, the site of a marathon, the Twin Towers and even a part of a
military base where soldiers were known to be unarmed.
Our
vulnerability
These killings highlight the fact that
any of us, and any of our loved ones, are vulnerable when caught with our guard
down against another person who desires to do harm.
Does it matter what weapon they used?
If it was a rifle, a pipe bomb, a truck of fertilizer, a pressure cooker or a
plane -- the end result is the same. Yet millions of other people have the
freedom to have those very same things and will never use them to kill.
These horrific mass killings were
committed by a very
small number of people who wish to harm and kill others. When they do it, we
flock to the scene and ask "Why?" Who are these people who choose to
do harm? What is their story? What went wrong? What are they trying to tell us?
Ultimately, in our horror, we give
them a voice they would never have had otherwise. Is our insatiable need to
know and find out how their lives might have gone wrong part of the result they
are looking for? Is that part of the reason there is an incentive to do such
harm to innocent people? We know it isn't the availability of the weapon,
because they used different methods, different weapons.
We can't legislate human nature. If we
add up the number of these mass killers over the last decade, how many people are we talking about? Fewer than 40 over
the last decade? Do we want to make laws for millions based on
the choices of fewer than 40 evildoers?
Can we fix these people? Can we
legislate out of them the desire to kill? Those in the business of fighting
crime and analyzing mental illness can look into the lives of each of these
killers and tell you the red flags that popped up before the massacre.
Why don't we deal with that instead of
banning the tools very few use? By the very nature of these crimes, we know
that evildoers don't care about the laws. After all, murder is against the law,
and they are choosing to ignore the law from the moment they plan to harm
people.
Beyond that, who among us has the
right to tell me I will murder someone because I have a gun?
And who can tell
me that I can only defend and protect myself in a way they feel comfortable
with?
Just having access to a deadly weapon
doesn't turn someone into a killer. Have you ever felt road rage? Many of us
who have cars have felt some form of extreme anger at other drivers because we
feel they have put us in harm's way. We might even envision ramming their cars
or cutting them off in return, but do we actually do it? No, because the
overwhelming majority of us never want to take another human life.
Even special ops guys, military and
police who are trained to kill for legitimate purposes, who are familiar with
multiple weapons and have access to the weapons and ammunition -- even these
people, who are experienced, will tell you they never know if they can pull the
trigger until placed in a position to use deadly force to protect another
person.
My government has proven that it's not
able to protect me against people who want to kill. And I don't blame the
government, because there is only one person to blame here: The man or woman
who decided to kill.
Killers will use any means
If you put an assault rifle in my
hands or yours, I am not going to murder anyone, and I am guessing you won't
either. But what makes gun control advocates think that someone who decides to
kill will not use any means necessary to do so?
The person who killed my husband, Chris, worked in an
armory with daily access to every caliber of high powered weapon for years. He
chose to kill when he got out of an environment of accountability and drug
testing.
Simply having a weapon did not make
him a murderer. His life choices did. What red flags did he display? Well, the
prominence he got after he took the lives of Chris and Chad Littlefield
resulted in many people hearing his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder.
And yet, psychiatrists on both the prosecution and defense testified he did not have PTSD. He was however a known
drug user. Based on testimony at his trial, people around him not only
tolerated but sometimes participated in the drug use and enabled him by seeing
him as the "victim." He repeatedly got out of trouble by claiming
PTSD.
The officers would take him at his
word, deliver him to a mental health facility where the facility would write a
diagnosis which is known in that community as a label for likely drug use, and
they would release him. Because of the HIPAA law and our desire to protect
everyone's privacy, we allow bad behavior to slip through the cracks.
Imagine how different things would be
if a mental health facility could tell police, "This is a drug user,"
and the police could go track him for drugs and put him in jail for breaking
those laws instead of waiting for worse crimes in the future.
In the state of Texas, there is a
fairly new certification process for our police where officers are trained to
notice and recognize mental health issues and have knowledge of the drugs
people take and the effects of them. So how they intervene is different based
on whether they believe there is a mental health issue vs. a drug issue.
Wouldn't it be a better use of our time to work through this issue? It gives
police a different crisis intervention method.
Some advocates want to restrict
certain kinds of guns -- perhaps allowing a pistol but not an assault rifle.
To those who don't know guns well, the
term "assault rifle" brings to mind either a sniper's gun or a fully
automatic weapon we have seen in the movies, meant to mow down large numbers of
people. In actuality, fully automatic weapons are already highly restricted and
require an additional license most gun owners will never have.
The lack of understanding makes it
easy to develop rhetoric and legislation that will calm the fears of people who
don't understand a given subject, but that doesn't really change any end result
because we cannot legislate the evil side of humanity.
Freedom and responsibility
Cars are tools that is involved in about as many
deaths as guns. If you are a driver prone to drinking and driving, should
we only allow you to drive an ultracompact car? Not an SUV which could kill
more people? No, we take away the drunk driver's access to legally drive any
car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of
showing good moral judgment.
In this country, we give freedom and
take it away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom we have given you.
Nobody suggests taking away cars or going through a battery of tests to
determine whether or not you might be a drunk driver one day.
Does every man commit rape? There is a
human element here that is real and we cannot legislate. Would we take away the
freedom of all men by castration because some cannot handle what they have? No,
we allow freedom until an individual chooses to take something that others use
for good and use it to do harm to another.
Are our current laws being enforced?
Are felons and known drug users really put in jail when arrested for a lesser
crime and known to have a gun? In most situations, no, because police have more
pressing issues than to incarcerate a felon for having a gun that he or she
hasn't used in a crime. We have plenty of laws on the books that we cannot or
do not enforce. Let's start enforcing what we have before creating new laws.
Understandably, we want a solution to
ensure that we and our loved ones will never be in the situation of being
caught unaware by someone who chose to do evil. Mass killers have targeted
churches, businesses, movie theaters, schools and hospitals, but they could as
easily take their violence to a place where people are armed. Yet they do not.
Even at Fort Hood,
the killer chose a place on the base where he knew soldiers would be unarmed.
What does that tell us? That evil targets those who are unprepared for the evil
to strike.
When Chris and I were looking into our
personal security after the book "American Sniper" came out, we took
measures and thought of different scenarios, and Chris told me that still,
based on his experience, "Babe, if someone wants to kill me, they
will."
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald
Reagan were arguably some of the best-protected men in our country. Did it stop
someone from shooting them?
As Reagan once said, "You won't
get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There is only one way to get
real gun control: Disarm the thugs and criminals, lock them up and if you don't
actually throw away the key, lose it for a long time."
The evil few; the responsible majority
And what we need to do is find the
courage to accept that from the dawn of time until the day man no longer walks
the earth, evil will find a way. Murder is nothing new, it is not going away
and it is not dependent on one method of killing or another.
We can forge ahead knowing that while
evil is among us, it involves the few. The good, responsible people are the
vast majority. We can trust each other with basic freedoms until one of us
proves to be untrustworthy by maliciously, intentionally harming another of us.
If you have never owned a weapon, or
have never known the masses of peaceful gun owners who love their families and
are in nurturing professions such as counseling, nursing, social work and
pastoral jobs, may I suggest you talk to them about why they cherish their
freedom to have these weapons?
We have slipped into a land of
government that has promised the moon, seldom delivered and driven us into a
world of more laws, more government, and less freedom -- and none of that has
stopped murder, pain and suffering.
No government can provide the utopia
many seek. My hope for this country is that we remain a people who value
freedom, who have the courage to face the realities with faithful hearts
instead of anxious ones. I hope our people hold tight to the notion that we do
not have to be a fear-ridden country focused on restrictions, but rather that
we remain the land of the free and home of the brave.
God bless you and thank you for giving
me some of your time.
 |
|
The Crusader AR-15
|
INTERNET
SOURCE: http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/01/07/american-sniper-widow-stands-obama-during-cnns-town-hall
'American Sniper' Widow Stands Up to
Obama -- During CNN's Town Hall
Published January 8, 2016
Fox Nation:
Taya Kyle, the widow of "American
Sniper" Chris Kyle, asked President Barack Obama his first question on
live national television Thursday night during the President's "Gun's in
America" town hall on CNN.
Chris Kyle's wife told President Obama
that gun control won't make us safer - as she penned earlier Thursday in an op-ed.
Mrs. Kyle focused on Obama's theme of
hope.
"I think that your
message of hope is something I agree with. I think it's great. And I think that
by creating new laws you do give people hope," Kyle told Obama.
"The thing is that the
laws we create don't stop these horrific things from happening, right? And
that's a very tough pill to swallow," Kyle added.
"I want the hope that I
have the right to protect myself," Kyle said in response to the rise in
gun sales under Obama.
Mrs. Kyle further cast doubt on
Obama's notion that background checks would prevent mass murders.
"I know background
checks wouldn't stop me from getting a gun, but I also know that it wouldn't stop
any of the people in this room from killing...it's a false sense of hope," she said.
"Why not celebrate that
we're good people and that 99.9% of us are not going to kill anyone?" Kyle concluded.
Fox 5 reporter and gun rights
activist, Emily Miller, tweeted, "Chris Kyle's
widow is amazing to stand up to Pres. Obama on live national TV and make
powerful argument. She's so impressive."
 |
|
Chris Kyle on using violence to solve
problems.
[PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=458754.0]
|
No comments:
Post a Comment