On 10/8/2011 7:40 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 06:07:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:50 am, wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:13:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:59 am, wrote:

The more guns that are in people's hands, the higher the potential for
their use. Period.

... and maybe more innocent people could be spared.

Good thing the kid had a shotgun...

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=242322

It's a bad idea, Tim. More guns will mean more people ending up dead
or maimed. Our society simply doesn't mix well with guns.

Canada has just as many guns per capita but 1/10th of the incidents.

Simply put, we're not a good match for guns.

Obviously most murders are because of guns because, let's be honest,
before guns no one was murdered, no one was hurt, and there were no
wars. Yeah, that's it. Let's close our eyes, say "Ommm" over and over
again and beleive crap like what Maher is spewing here. The
intelligence oozes from him like puss from a zit.

People who want to kill, will simply do that, and all you are doing
by making stricter gun control laws is either forcing them to go on
the black market (because who ever said…"gee i better not rob this
7-11 cause my gun ain't legal"), or use an alternate method to commit
their crime (a knife, perhaps?) Or should we just legislate away
anything that could possibly be used as an instrument of harm? Cars?
butter knives? chalupas? Let's look at some of the great massacre's in
human history. 9-11? No guns. Pearl Harbor? No Guns. Jonestown? 907 of
the 909 dead via poison.

If you don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you, but it sure
seems like there are a lot of ways to kill or hurt someone not
involving guns.

Tired, specious argument. The guy in Cupertino could not have
dispatched and harmed as many people... if he didn't have a gun.

If he had a knife, someone could have stopped him with a broomstick.

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

Like most fleabaggers, you only see the side that supports your
prejudice...

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:58 -0700, jps wrote:


Gray said Shareef Allman, 47, whom officials identified as the
suspected gunman, used to come into his boxing club almost every day
about four years ago. Sometimes, he would bring his daughter and the
two would train. He said Allman was a respectable man who would try to
get children off the streets and into Gray’s boxing gym, which serves
at-risk youth.

"He was a supportive type of person in the community," he said of
Allman, who he said could always be spotted at San Jose’s annual jazz
festival. Allman stopped coming around when Gray switched gym
locations, and he said he hasn’t seen him for about a year.

When Gray heard about the shooting suspect, he said he was shocked. "I
was like come on, no, not Shareef," he said, adding that Allman was
not a "monster."

Lavella Benton, 52, said Allman, who for a time wanted to be a
comedian, "was a voice for young black men in the community."

"He spoke against violence," she said. "His show was against violence.
I'm in shock."

Benton said she has known Allman since she moved to San Jose 30 years
ago. He was studying cosmetology and doing hair with one of Benton's
girlfriends and the three of them clicked.

"He didn't drink, he didn't do drugs. He was a mentor to my boys, who
are now 29 and 32," said Benton, who left her phone number with Santa
Clara County sheriff's officials in the hope she could help urge
Allman to surrender.

Benton said she knew that Allman "was having problems on his job but I
didn't know how severe. This is not him. He snapped."

The suspected gunman is still at large.


Yup, he was a great guy who would never do this, until he did.

We need more guns everywhere, because there's the slightest chance
that events like this could be stopped. You betcha.

The more guns that are in people's hands, the higher the potential for
their use. Period.

What actions did your president and the liberal congress take to help your cause?

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 06:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:50*am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:59*am, jps wrote:

The more guns that are in people's hands, the higher the potential for
their use. *Period.

... and maybe more innocent people could be spared.

Good thing the kid had a shotgun...

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=242322

It's a bad idea, Tim. *More guns will mean more people ending up dead
or maimed. *Our society simply doesn't mix well with guns.

Canada has just as many guns per capita but 1/10th of the incidents.

Simply put, we're not a good match for guns.

Obviously most murders are because of guns because, let's be honest,
before guns no one was murdered, no one was hurt, and there were no
wars. Yeah, that's it. Let's close our eyes, say "Ommm" over and over
again and beleive crap like what Maher is spewing here. The
intelligence oozes from him like puss from a zit.

People who want to kill, will simply do that, and all you are doing
by making stricter gun control laws is either forcing them to go on
the black market (because who ever said…"gee i better not rob this
7-11 cause my gun ain't legal"), or use an alternate method to commit
their crime (a knife, perhaps?) Or should we just legislate away
anything that could possibly be used as an instrument of harm? Cars?
butter knives? chalupas? Let's look at some of the great massacre's in
human history. 9-11? No guns. Pearl Harbor? No Guns. Jonestown? 907 of
the 909 dead via poison.

If you don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you, but it sure
seems like there are a lot of ways to kill or hurt someone not
involving guns.


Very well said.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:40:44 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 06:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:50*am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:59*am, jps wrote:

The more guns that are in people's hands, the higher the potential for
their use. *Period.

... and maybe more innocent people could be spared.

Good thing the kid had a shotgun...

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=242322

It's a bad idea, Tim. *More guns will mean more people ending up dead
or maimed. *Our society simply doesn't mix well with guns.

Canada has just as many guns per capita but 1/10th of the incidents.

Simply put, we're not a good match for guns.

Obviously most murders are because of guns because, let's be honest,
before guns no one was murdered, no one was hurt, and there were no
wars. Yeah, that's it. Let's close our eyes, say "Ommm" over and over
again and beleive crap like what Maher is spewing here. The
intelligence oozes from him like puss from a zit.

People who want to kill, will simply do that, and all you are doing
by making stricter gun control laws is either forcing them to go on
the black market (because who ever said…"gee i better not rob this
7-11 cause my gun ain't legal"), or use an alternate method to commit
their crime (a knife, perhaps?) Or should we just legislate away
anything that could possibly be used as an instrument of harm? Cars?
butter knives? chalupas? Let's look at some of the great massacre's in
human history. 9-11? No guns. Pearl Harbor? No Guns. Jonestown? 907 of
the 909 dead via poison.

If you don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you, but it sure
seems like there are a lot of ways to kill or hurt someone not
involving guns.

Tired, specious argument. The guy in Cupertino could not have
dispatched and harmed as many people... if he didn't have a gun.

If he had a knife, someone could have stopped him with a broomstick.

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

A 'tired, specious argument' for which you had no counter.

I think you lost that one - big time.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:40*pm, jps wrote:

Let's get real, Tim. *Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.


I know, I use them around the farm for varmint control. They're very
efficient.

I'm assuming you wouldn't go out there to kill varmints with a sword,
a knife or a bludgeon as long as you have an efficient weapon like a
gun.

I think most people agree with you, including those who are targeting
other humans.

What I don't understand is why folks like you don't recognize that
human beings are mutable, territorial, protective of their lot and
family and can be convinced or convince themselves that justice,
vigilantism or retribution are perfectly good solutions, answered with
the use of a very efficient killing tool.

And that Americans are especially vulnerable to requiring immediate
gratificaiton.

It's how bin Laden sucked us into spending trillions and thousands of
lives in a dubious adventure. Poke the idiot and watch him go insane.
That's the USA.

You think wider distribution and availability of weapons is a good
development?

On Oct 9, 3:56*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:40 pm, jps wrote:

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

I know, I use them around the farm for varmint control. They're very
efficient.

I'm assuming you wouldn't go out there to kill varmints with a sword,
a knife or a bludgeon as long as you have an efficient weapon like a
gun.

If it would be more to your satisfaction, I'll bag the next groundhog
with a compound bow. They work pretty good too!

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:56*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:40 pm, jps wrote:

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

I know, I use them around the farm for varmint control. They're very
efficient.

I'm assuming you wouldn't go out there to kill varmints with a sword,
a knife or a bludgeon as long as you have an efficient weapon like a
gun.

If it would be more to your satisfaction, I'll bag the next groundhog
with a compound bow. They work pretty good too!

That'd be cool, it'd give the varmint a fighting chance and several of
his brethren may have time to tackle you while you're reloading.

Too bad the guy in Cupertino didn't bring his bow and arrow instead.

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 06:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:50 am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:59 am, jps wrote:

The more guns that are in people's hands, the higher the potential for
their use. Period.

... and maybe more innocent people could be spared.

Good thing the kid had a shotgun...

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=242322

It's a bad idea, Tim. More guns will mean more people ending up dead
or maimed. Our society simply doesn't mix well with guns.

Canada has just as many guns per capita but 1/10th of the incidents.

Simply put, we're not a good match for guns.

Obviously most murders are because of guns because, let's be honest,
before guns no one was murdered, no one was hurt, and there were no
wars. Yeah, that's it. Let's close our eyes, say "Ommm" over and over
again and beleive crap like what Maher is spewing here. The
intelligence oozes from him like puss from a zit.

People who want to kill, will simply do that, and all you are doing
by making stricter gun control laws is either forcing them to go on
the black market (because who ever said…"gee i better not rob this
7-11 cause my gun ain't legal"), or use an alternate method to commit
their crime (a knife, perhaps?) Or should we just legislate away
anything that could possibly be used as an instrument of harm? Cars?
butter knives? chalupas? Let's look at some of the great massacre's in
human history. 9-11? No guns. Pearl Harbor? No Guns. Jonestown? 907 of
the 909 dead via poison.

If you don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you, but it sure
seems like there are a lot of ways to kill or hurt someone not
involving guns.

Tired, specious argument. The guy in Cupertino could not have
dispatched and harmed as many people... if he didn't have a gun.

If he had a knife, someone could have stopped him with a broomstick.

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dumped poison in the coffee pot. Would most likely killed all or most all.
Yours in the specious argument.

On Oct 9, 9:35*pm, jps wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:





http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...c2a922ba53c%3F



On Oct 9, 3:56 pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:40 pm, jps wrote:

Let's get real, Tim. Guns are very good at what they're designed to
do, kill things.

I know, I use them around the farm for varmint control. They're very
efficient.

I'm assuming you wouldn't go out there to kill varmints with a sword,
a knife or a bludgeon as long as you have an efficient weapon like a
gun.

If it would be more to your satisfaction, I'll bag the next groundhog
with a compound bow. They work pretty good too!

That'd be cool, it'd give the varmint a fighting chance and several of
his brethren may have time to tackle you while you're reloading.

Ok, so now I'm getting the picture. You're wishing harm on me because
I don't fit your views.

Interesting.....

Too bad the guy in Cupertino didn't bring his bow and arrow instead.

This Canadian did.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/ar...ain-st-library

On 10/9/2011 4:56 PM, jps wrote:
You think wider distribution and availability of weapons is a good
development?

Not to criminals.

Why did the Obama administration send weapons to Mexican criminals?