"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...

snip

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the
burglars,

I have neither judged Walton nor second-guessed him. I have no problem with
him shooting those burglars.

but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the
absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a
*fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it
any
less a fact.

It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas. Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.

Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer, which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is, as if the two
are connected in some logical way.

I have no trouble with Walton or what he did. It certainly was a help to
*him*, assuming the law agrees, and it seems to agree. What gets my goat is
the silly, and demonstrably false, suggestion that such actions are what we
need to make the rest of us safe. They don't make us safe. Based on crime
reports, they have no measurable effect whatsoever.

I don't care if that's the last word or not. Feel free to have another word
if you want.

--
Ed Huntress