View Single Post
Old January 9, 2009, 05:48 PM   #33
David Armstrong
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
If that is true, could you please explain what you are trying to say here:
Seems pretty straightforward. If you kill the terrorist after he has shot 20 people, was the terrorist attack stopped? No. The killing stopped, but the attack has already occurred. You may have kept it from being worse, but the attack was not stopped.
What's your interpretation on that? The OP is littered with CCW references.
No it is not. There is not a single reference to CCW in the thread. There is reference to people being armed, but that is not contingent on CCW.
He is talking about running through a scenario where he is confronted by a terrorist attack.
Fine. My point is that if your goal is to stop terrorist attacks, shooting a terrorist is not a very good way to do that.
No, maybe you need to clarify. Based on others' posts, I am not the only one that is confused.
Sure seems like it, and only reinforces my point. If you don't understand what is being discussed, you should avoid making "witty, sarcastic reference to it."
I (and others) are having difficulty interpreting your seemingly conflicting posts. All I'm asking for is explanation.
AFAIK, most "others" don't seem to have any trouble, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks. If it did there would not be as many terrorist attacks as we see going on around the world. Arresting rapists does not stop sexual assaults. Shooting murderers does not stop murderous attacks. Killing pirates did not stop pirate attacks.
David Armstrong is offline  
Page generated in 0.03112 seconds with 7 queries