@Merry Andrew,
David wrote:The reason "in the world" is that u ridiculed the police' wearing guns
as having been ineffective in defending them from death.
U implied that this disproved my advocacy of wearing defensive guns.
In effect, u made fun of the police -- the victims -- for their folly
(shoud I say "idiocy"?) in wearing guns because,
as u pointed out: in this case,
those guns did not protect them from death.
Merry Andrew wrote:I did nothing of the sort whatever,
you feeble-brained senile dullard!
Obviously,
u DID,
its just that u are
too stupid to understand your own words.
Merry Andrew wrote: Never, by explicit statement nor by any inference that a normally sane person
(which, of course, excludes you) could make have I ridiculed the police
wearing guns nor suggested anywhere, anytime, in any fashion
that it might be preferable for police to go around unarmed.
The way that
u DID IT, dimwit, is by implying that the victims were on a fool 's errand
by taking the trouble to
wear guns, as David inanely prattles about and supports.
U scoffed at their wearing guns, that the guns had no value, because thay had not saved the victims from death.
U did this in an effort to denigrate
ME,
but your example was a
post-mortem slap in the face to them. If one of the widows saw your post,
she 'd have good reason to be
extremely offended at u, Andy.
Merry Andrew wrote:That statement exists only in your fevered, intelectually abreviated imagination, David.
GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE, YOUNG MAN, and do it
this very instant!
Merry Andrew wrote:
What I did say in the introduction to this thread was that the fact that four well-trained
and well-armed police officers were gunned down in seconds
kind of defeats your argument that going around heeled,
packing serious heat, is the universal antidote to becoming a vic tim.
THAT's THE POINT!!!
U made fun of people who try to protect themselves
from future emergencies by proper preparation, on the grounds that
it does
not ` always work and therefore all efforts shoud be abandoned.
According to u, a man who does not agree with that is an idiot.
Those police obviously did not agree with that, since thay were wearing guns.
NOTE, incidentally, that
I never said nor have I ever believed that
wearing a gun "is the universal antidote to becoming a vic tim" as Andy
falsely alleges of me.
Sometimes preparations for emergencies are helpful; not always.
Merry Andrew wrote:Inasmuch as these officers obviously became victims I don't see how you can counter that
Here's how I can counterargue that:
I have said this so many times already that I 'm getting tired of it:
I am a man the use of whose stainless steel mirror .44 revolver
in low light conditions was sufficient to scare away criminals
who shot at me; the
MERE SIGHT of my silver colored gun was enuf
that thay
screamed and fled within a fraction of a second
of my pulling out the weapon. I suspect that thay felt in personal danger.
I have a hunch that thay prefer helpless, unarmed victims.
I don 't claim to be a mindreader, but think thay felt
disappointed
that their victim of the evening had defensive firepower.
I am very
CONFIDENT that those criminals favor your philosophy, Andy.
Thay 'd want to take u by the hand and embrace u lovingly for trying to protect them.
Thay 'd hug u and kiss u. So woud their mothers, but not their victims' mothers.
Now, upon my reading of Andy 's scorn and ridicule,
I am expected to throw my guns in the garbage
and to adopt
HELPLESSNESS in the face of any future violence,
because if the 4 armed police can 't defend themselves,
then OBVIOUSLY I am
not able to do so either, regardless of the fact that
I already DID.
Did I get that right, Andy ???
Merry Andrew wrote:Hang it up, Dave. Take a nap.
NO. It will not happen that way, Andy:
U LOSE, because u made a fool of yourself.
U are welcome to put your tail between your legs and slink away into the night,
or u can (extremely unlikely) be enuf of
a MAN to admit
that u were rong and offer proper apologies.
That woud be expecting too much of u.
David
