Re: OT -- Teenager Kills Man

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 14 Oct 2006 19:37 GMT

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:...

> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message

>> Gosh, it only took me one reading to get it.

> One of Johns' most common trick-foots is to insinuate vagueries of
> spelling, syntax or grammer when he's fleeing in terror from a point.
>
> He's dodged about 5 of them now, like a complete coward, while pointing
> insistantly at non-existing "holes" in our argument with the rapid arm
> movements and sloppy hand work of an over-the-hill dimestore magician.
>
> As far as being confused, well, that's a given when he reads the label on
> an aspirin bottle.

=====================

John, you tap-danced out on all these, were you ever going to get back to
them?

> I know some 14 year old boys that could probably hang a beating on most
> of the grown men who post here. Look around at the size of some of
> these kids today. When my boys were 14 they could both drive a golf
> ball 300 yds and the eldest could hit home runs easily and against
> pretty good pitching. Imagine what they could do to a man's head with a
> golf club or baseball bat, either of which have always been readily
> available in our house, and probably in a lot of homes.

What if the attacker had gun or a knife?

Did he fill out your questionnaire and consent to a search before he
started ripping the door out of the jamb?

Did his tox screen come back?

Was he high on PCP, with the strength of 10 men?

Very kind of you to sacrifice your 14 year old and a 9 iron to your
stupidity.

As I have in the past, and you've forgotten, this is where I refer to you
as depending on the benevolence of your attacker.
==================================

>> > You're right. I made an unfounded assumption that Lee was trying to
>> > blow smoke up my a.s. 8)
>>
>> You just flatly stated that the most practical defense against an
>> attacker
>> armed with a gun was a baseball bat.
>
> Does your sheer unmitigated bullshit ever embarrass you?

I wouldn't know.

It doesn't seem to embarras you, however.

Possibly you could explain why the "umnitigated bullshit" below doesn't
state exactly what I claim, that you say the victims are better off with a
baseball bat than with a firearm to protect themselves against an attacker?

How kids (specifically yours, of course) could beat a man with a gun to
submission?

"As we've agreed" (I must have been out that day).

"I know some 14 year old boys that could probably hang a beating on most
of the grown men who post here. Look around at the size of some of
these kids today. When my boys were 14 they could both drive a golf
ball 300 yds and the eldest could hit home runs easily and against
pretty good pitching. Imagine what they could do to a man's head with a
golf club or baseball bat, either of which have always been readily
available in our house, and probably in a lot of homes."

"And what if the perp did in fact have a gun and came busting through
the bedroom door looking the wrong way for a split second. The kid
nails him in the face with a baseball bat. Good luck to the perp
trusting his gun to save him. ---->As we've agreed<---- guns don't work
without
an operator who's functioning better than that guy would be after
taking an Easton in the nose in the hands of even an average 14 year
old boy swinging for the fence."

"Even without the makeshift weapons I wouldn't bet against some of
today's kids going up against an average adult. They spend a lot of
time working at staying in shape for their sports and those kids are
often in better shape than most adults could ever dream of."

"Your assumption is that nothing happens without a gun. You're the
victim of a gun nut's paradigm."
================================

>> "As we've agreed" (I must have been out that day).
>
> Oh, that's just a reference to the trusty "guns don't kill people,
> people kill people" mantra. You guys haven't dragged that one out for
> quite a while though.

WHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT?

For god sake, a week ago you wrote:

"Touted who? Quit clipping the stuff that's damaging to your argument.
Makes it look like it has weaknesses. Mayhap it does?"

Put the context back in, and explain your insane remark.

Reply to this Message

JOF - 14 Oct 2006 20:40 GMT

> John, you tap-danced out on all these, were you ever going to get back to
> them?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> What if the attacker had gun or a knife?

I doubt he'd be using either one if he'd taken a well-placed shot in
the head or a well swung bat in the face. What's yer point?

> Did he fill out your questionnaire and consent to a search before he
> started ripping the door out of the jamb?

Not according to the news reports. But more importantly, did you assume
he had?

> Did his tox screen come back?

That's gun freak humour, right?

> Was he high on PCP, with the strength of 10 men?

We don't know that from the news report, but I'm sure you'll make some
assumption.

> Very kind of you to sacrifice your 14 year old and a 9 iron to your
> stupidity.

No need to get pissy. Act like a girl and you'll probably start
insulting yourself.

> As I have in the past, and you've forgotten, this is where I refer to you
> as depending on the benevolence of your attacker.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >> attacker
> >> armed with a gun was a baseball bat.

Bullshit. Only a blithering idiot would get that my comment.

> > Does your sheer unmitigated bullshit ever embarrass you?

I think you just answered my question.

> I wouldn't know.

And does that ever worry you?

> Possibly you could explain why the "umnitigated bullshit" below doesn't
> state exactly what I claim, that you say the victims are better off with a
> baseball bat than with a firearm to protect themselves against an attacker?
>
> How kids (specifically yours, of course) could beat a man with a gun to
> submission?

Another stupid assumption on your part.

> ---->As we've agreed<---- guns don't work
> without an operator who's functioning better than that guy would be after
> taking an Easton in the nose in the hands of even an average 14 year
> old boy swinging for the fence."

Paraphrasing the oft-repeated "Guns don't kill people, people kill
people." or have you recanted that?

> "Even without the makeshift weapons I wouldn't bet against some of
> today's kids going up against an average adult. They spend a lot of
> time working at staying in shape for their sports and those kids are
> often in better shape than most adults could ever dream of."

> >> "As we've agreed" (I must have been out that day).

Evidently you were out quite a few days.

> > Oh, that's just a reference to the trusty "guns don't kill people,
> > people kill people" mantra. You guys haven't dragged that one out for
> > quite a while though.
>
> WHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT?

Are you telling me that's never been said?

JF

Reply to this Message

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 15 Oct 2006 03:22 GMT

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> John, you tap-danced out on all these, were you ever going to get back
>> to them?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I doubt he'd be using either one if he'd taken a well-placed shot in
> the head or a well swung bat in the face. What's yer point?

What's amazing is that when I posted this:

"You just flatly stated that the most practical defense against an
attacker armed with a gun was a baseball bat."

You responded with this:

"Does your sheer unmitigated bullshit ever embarrass you?"

And now, you've just -restated- what you just -previously- stated, and
then lied about stating.

Simply amazing.

>> Did he fill out your questionnaire and consent to a search before he
>> started ripping the door out of the jamb?
>
> Not according to the news reports. But more importantly, did you assume he
> had?

You're the one that makes all the "best case scenario" assumptions, I just
wondered what you based them on.

>> Did his tox screen come back?
>
> That's gun freak humour, right?

Inquiring minds, and all that.

>> Was he high on PCP, with the strength of 10 men?
>
> We don't know that from the news report, but I'm sure you'll make some
> assumption.

Just as I'm sure you won't.

Statisticly, of course, he's more likely to be comitting his crime to
finance his drug habit, but I'm sure you had that fact at hand.

>> Very kind of you to sacrifice your 14 year old and a 9 iron to your
>> stupidity.
>
> No need to get pissy. Act like a girl and you'll probably start insulting
> yourself.

Once again, you brought your family up.

>> As I have in the past, and you've forgotten, this is where I refer to
>> you as depending on the benevolence of your attacker.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Bullshit. Only a blithering idiot would get that my comment.

"I doubt he'd be using either one (specificly: why worry about a gun or a
knife) if he'd taken a well-placed shot in the head or a well swung bat in
the face."

-Or-:

"I know some 14 year old boys that could probably hang a beating on most
of the grown men who post here. Look around at the size of some of
these kids today. When my boys were 14 they could both drive a golf
ball 300 yds and the eldest could hit home runs easily and against
pretty good pitching. Imagine what they could do to a man's head with a
golf club or baseball bat, either of which have always been readily
available in our house, and probably in a lot of homes."

"And what if the perp did in fact have a gun and came busting through
the bedroom door looking the wrong way for a split second. The kid
nails him in the face with a baseball bat. Good luck to the perp
trusting his gun to save him. ---->As we've agreed<---- guns don't work
without an operator who's functioning better than that guy would be after
taking an Easton in the nose in the hands of even an average 14 year
old boy swinging for the fence."

"Even without the makeshift weapons I wouldn't bet against some of
today's kids going up against an average adult. They spend a lot of
time working at staying in shape for their sports and those kids are
often in better shape than most adults could ever dream of."

>> > Does your sheer unmitigated bullshit ever embarrass you?
>
> I think you just answered my question.

You're talking to yourself.

>> I wouldn't know.
>
> And does that ever worry you?

No, it's always in black and white.

Right now, it's like the scene in "Airplane" where a line forms to slap
the whiner.

>> Possibly you could explain why the "umnitigated bullshit" below doesn't
>> state exactly what I claim, that you say the victims are better off with
>> a baseball bat than with a firearm to protect themselves against an
>> attacker?

>> How kids (specifically yours, of course) could beat a man with a gun to
>> submission?
>
> Another stupid assumption on your part.

See your above (repeatedly written and cited) written words.

>> ---->As we've agreed<---- guns don't work
>> without an operator who's functioning better than that guy would be after
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Paraphrasing the oft-repeated "Guns don't kill people, people kill
> people." or have you recanted that?

Well, I'm not making the parallel to "guns don't work better than that guy
would be after taking an Easton (bat?) in the nose in the hands of even an
average 14 year old boy swinging for the face".

Or when we all agreed on it.

Or what in the world it has to do with guns don't kill people, people kill
people.

I also find it odd (no moreso than usual) that you have -more- -faith- in
the one shot stop capability of a bat or golf club than gunmakers and law
enforcement officers have in a nine millimeter automatic loaded with high
velocity hollow points.

But you've demonstrated many, many times you don't know f.ck all about
weapons of any kind.

>> "Even without the makeshift weapons I wouldn't bet against some of
>> today's kids going up against an average adult. They spend a lot of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Are you telling me that's never been said?

Not in reference to sports implenents, to my knowledge.

> JF

Signature

Popeye
It was when Lucifer first congratulated
himself upon his angelic behavior that he
became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld
www.finalprotectivefire.com

Reply to this Message