JC,
I have gone round and round with Pat before regarding some of his "claims" and would like to believe we have made our peace. As the ever so eloquent Mr. Irwin has assessed, that one has to sometimes accept that gratuitous assertions do indeed come with little in the way of substantive reasoning. I thank you for your kind comments and observations.
Pat,
I apologize for my attempt at insulting you. I should know better. Know that I take your commentary as your informed opinion and attempt to engage you in leveled discussion and see many of your responses are either wanting for address of my points (and other peoples) or quite restricted to your present occupation. I find this frustrating and a bit insulting in and of itself. I believe a little consideration on your part would open a lot of doors for you. Ones that I hear slamming continually for you as time goes by. I am positively a bigger ass than you and don't really feel the need to prove it. But, you are free to try to exceed my self-awarded title. A little didactic thought on your part would be highly appreciated, in any case.
Again, we disagree. within the confines of your job, and perhaps even your personal considerations outside of it, your opinion/decisions may have merit. Problem is, you are attempting to make those same considerations those of every other person that is in attendance.
You are a thinking man. How do you feel about police departments that levy a one-size-fits-all policy over issue sidearms? Can you see how some of your comments here are being construed to be of the same mentality? You have expressed your preference for carry. If I had any say-so, its what you would be carrying. If you made the department policy, would you bar me from my choice of sidearm? If it was a revolver? How many really bad-guys ARE there in Bethel, Alaska that couldn't be sufficiently stifled by someone proficient with a .357 Magnum?
All of us are not police officers. Consider that for a moment.
I took exception to this comment:
As I have illustrated, there ARE exceptions. I could illustrate a half-dozen more in a minute. In truth, I shouldn't have to, at least not to someone in your position. Failing to acknowledge those mitigating factors demonstrates a propensity to fail to realize the terrain you are presently deployed in.
I must insert that this thread has positively gone way off topic.
Pat, if you express a willingness to participate in something along the order of a "Revolvers versus Semi-Autos for self-defense" thread, I would be willing to have you proffer your thoughts and opinions there. Otherwise, I hope you understand that I think my further participation in this discussion to be pointless and without reward.
I have gone round and round with Pat before regarding some of his "claims" and would like to believe we have made our peace. As the ever so eloquent Mr. Irwin has assessed, that one has to sometimes accept that gratuitous assertions do indeed come with little in the way of substantive reasoning. I thank you for your kind comments and observations.
Pat,
I apologize for my attempt at insulting you. I should know better. Know that I take your commentary as your informed opinion and attempt to engage you in leveled discussion and see many of your responses are either wanting for address of my points (and other peoples) or quite restricted to your present occupation. I find this frustrating and a bit insulting in and of itself. I believe a little consideration on your part would open a lot of doors for you. Ones that I hear slamming continually for you as time goes by. I am positively a bigger ass than you and don't really feel the need to prove it. But, you are free to try to exceed my self-awarded title. A little didactic thought on your part would be highly appreciated, in any case.
Again, we disagree. within the confines of your job, and perhaps even your personal considerations outside of it, your opinion/decisions may have merit. Problem is, you are attempting to make those same considerations those of every other person that is in attendance.
You are a thinking man. How do you feel about police departments that levy a one-size-fits-all policy over issue sidearms? Can you see how some of your comments here are being construed to be of the same mentality? You have expressed your preference for carry. If I had any say-so, its what you would be carrying. If you made the department policy, would you bar me from my choice of sidearm? If it was a revolver? How many really bad-guys ARE there in Bethel, Alaska that couldn't be sufficiently stifled by someone proficient with a .357 Magnum?
All of us are not police officers. Consider that for a moment.
I took exception to this comment:
As I have illustrated, there ARE exceptions. I could illustrate a half-dozen more in a minute. In truth, I shouldn't have to, at least not to someone in your position. Failing to acknowledge those mitigating factors demonstrates a propensity to fail to realize the terrain you are presently deployed in.
I must insert that this thread has positively gone way off topic.
Pat, if you express a willingness to participate in something along the order of a "Revolvers versus Semi-Autos for self-defense" thread, I would be willing to have you proffer your thoughts and opinions there. Otherwise, I hope you understand that I think my further participation in this discussion to be pointless and without reward.