wbond defended himself with:
"Look, I was only repeating the urban legend as I've heard it in many gun stores, including from store employees. I've heard it many times.
If the story-legend I heard is wrong, don't castigate me for it. I never said it happened. I never presented it as historical fact. I only presented it as the story I've heard many times, which it is. What I said was that's the story I've heard and I don't think the facts back up the story.
You've pointed out that the story was wrong at its root. That isn't my fault. I repeated it as I've heard it, and I said it was a "story". "
A rudimentary knowledge of either the .38 Spl or .45 ACP development would been evident that the story you used to base your premise had to be false. They weren't around when the battle with the Moros occurred. You used that "story" as your basis for your theory. Regardless if you've heard the same stories for eons and repeatedly, it doesn't make them correct, nor do they lend any credibility to your theory. Repeating wrong information doesn't make the info any more correct and only goes to prove a lack of knowledge by the writer.
My point is if you are going to quote historical "facts" then just make sure they are facts and not some gun shop commando yarn. Novices are filled with, and spread, enough internet BS about firearms without perpetuating the errors and quoting them as if they are factual. In other words, the facts are fairly easy to discern but it only takes a basic understanding of the topic.
"Look, I was only repeating the urban legend as I've heard it in many gun stores, including from store employees. I've heard it many times.
If the story-legend I heard is wrong, don't castigate me for it. I never said it happened. I never presented it as historical fact. I only presented it as the story I've heard many times, which it is. What I said was that's the story I've heard and I don't think the facts back up the story.
You've pointed out that the story was wrong at its root. That isn't my fault. I repeated it as I've heard it, and I said it was a "story". "
A rudimentary knowledge of either the .38 Spl or .45 ACP development would been evident that the story you used to base your premise had to be false. They weren't around when the battle with the Moros occurred. You used that "story" as your basis for your theory. Regardless if you've heard the same stories for eons and repeatedly, it doesn't make them correct, nor do they lend any credibility to your theory. Repeating wrong information doesn't make the info any more correct and only goes to prove a lack of knowledge by the writer.
My point is if you are going to quote historical "facts" then just make sure they are facts and not some gun shop commando yarn. Novices are filled with, and spread, enough internet BS about firearms without perpetuating the errors and quoting them as if they are factual. In other words, the facts are fairly easy to discern but it only takes a basic understanding of the topic.