Quote:
Originally posted by Ramrod
I'm glad you decided to continue.
|
I haven't because there's frankly little else to say that hasn't been said or is just arguing about semantics but there's a couple of comments I want to make about your response before I drop this entirely.
Quote:
|
(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)
|
Obviously an impartial source...!
Quote:
|
Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons
|
Forensics is evidence in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the reliability or not of statements.
Quote:
|
I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.
|
Because you argue that "not everybody" needs to do this, but of course they don't, only those with intruders! QED.
Quote:
|
I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason:
|
You seem to be arguing to put guns in the hands of people who may have poor eyesight, impaired hearing or reduced mental faculties!
"Hello Granny, just popped round to..." [BANG]
Quote:
|
Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?
|
I am not going to come up with other scenarios because that's just going to get into more quibbling.