View Single Post
Old January 11, 2009, 09:10 PM   #44
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
So we still have an attack, and we still have an accident. Hard to say that they were stopped. I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."
Did you even read what you are referring to here? If so, I defy you to find where it disagrees with what you have posted. Let's please stop arguing about this. In both the attack and accident scenarios, its hard to say that the attack hasn't stopped, otherwise it would still be in progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
And carrying in India was mentioned, and carry in general, and lots of other things. CCW was NOT mentioned.
Open to interpretation. Whatever. It is ultimately irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
I agree we should not say that, and I have never said that. The implication is of your own making and is not reflective of my position. In fact I believe I explicitly rejected that concept back in post #28.
Yeah, you said that wasn't what you meant, but you have yet to say what you do mean. All I've asked is for you to elaborate in most, if not all of my posts since then about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
but instead, you take several parts of my posts out of context and avoid my request for you to elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Then why do you continue to argue about it unless, as hondo put it, you are just "sharpshooting"?
Read my post, I was not arguing about that. Not everyone is out to get you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I do not say that. I say the attack could have happened just as it did even with an armed populous.
Which was in reference to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
He's saying that there's no way that attack could have happened if the populous was armed. You say that it would have happened, but possibly not via guns and grenades.
If you noticed, I said possibly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
...but for me the main statment or thought is "There's no way the mass murder that took place in Mumbai a few weeks ago could have happened if the average Indian citizen carried a weapon." This leads to concepts like "Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter" or "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack.", etc. that show there is a way.
You seem to imply that a similar attack could happen with means other than guns and grenades. Just saying that maybe you think that there are other possibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?
You missed my question. Next time you post, please answer yes or no. Along with the elaboration I have been asking for for quite some time. You seem to have olympic level of ability when it comes to dodging questions. You should consider running for office. Unless you hold one, in that case, congratulations, you found your calling.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04954 seconds with 7 queries