On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:35:45 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

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.....

Hey, if those varmints can mount an attack on the guy who's trying to
kill 'em, I give 'em a lot of credit. I bet it'd supply the media
with a fantastic story to cover for however much time it'd take to
pick your bones clean.

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

You're making my point for me, thanks.

1 person dead, not 2, not 3 and 7 are not wounded.

Reloading a crossbow is not equal to pulling a trigger however many
times a second your auto or semi-auto weapon can fire.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:30:25 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

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?

Right, it was Biden, Jay Carney and Hilary that packed those guns up
for sale to Mexico. Not a bunch of yahoos at the ATF who are probably
selling drugs for the cartels, like Oliver North did.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

================================
He was nuts. He was going to kill the coworkers somehow. Maybe a propane
bomb like the Columbine shooters had. Guns were just a tool. Best would
have been poison and got all of them. Sort of like Jim Jones. Killing to a
real excess. Guns are not the problem, upbringing and attitude are the
problem. You are more likely to die by shooting in Detroit and you are to
die by violence in Afghanistan or Iraq. And a whole lot more guns per
capita there than in Detroit.

On 10/10/2011 3:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

================================
He was nuts. He was going to kill the coworkers somehow. Maybe a propane
bomb like the Columbine shooters had. Guns were just a tool. Best would
have been poison and got all of them. Sort of like Jim Jones. Killing to
a real excess. Guns are not the problem, upbringing and attitude are the
problem. You are more likely to die by shooting in Detroit and you are
to die by violence in Afghanistan or Iraq. And a whole lot more guns per
capita there than in Detroit.

In fact, if you are just mindlessly out to kill, a gun is not optimal.
Bombs are much more effective. Even 9/11 terrorists new that, 3000
people and not a shot fired.

--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:54:43 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

================================
He was nuts. He was going to kill the coworkers somehow. Maybe a propane
bomb like the Columbine shooters had. Guns were just a tool. Best would
have been poison and got all of them. Sort of like Jim Jones. Killing to a
real excess. Guns are not the problem, upbringing and attitude are the
problem. You are more likely to die by shooting in Detroit and you are to
die by violence in Afghanistan or Iraq. And a whole lot more guns per
capita there than in Detroit.

I suppose you can back that up with data, eh?

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

================================
He was nuts. He was going to kill the coworkers somehow. Maybe a propane
bomb like the Columbine shooters had. Guns were just a tool. Best would
have been poison and got all of them. Sort of like Jim Jones. Killing to a
real excess. Guns are not the problem, upbringing and attitude are the
problem. You are more likely to die by shooting in Detroit and you are to
die by violence in Afghanistan or Iraq. And a whole lot more guns per
capita there than in Detroit.

I think JPS wants to test babies at birth and if they have the potential
to be criminals then they should be immediately transported to the south
pole to fend for themselves.

In article ,
says...

On 10/10/2011 3:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:16:11 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"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.

Yeah, that's what folks do when they get real ****ed off, they poison
people. I've been hearing a lot of examples of that recently, not.

I don't think Jim Jones or the Hale Bopp guys had the stomach to kill
themselves with guns.

================================
He was nuts. He was going to kill the coworkers somehow. Maybe a propane
bomb like the Columbine shooters had. Guns were just a tool. Best would
have been poison and got all of them. Sort of like Jim Jones. Killing to
a real excess. Guns are not the problem, upbringing and attitude are the
problem. You are more likely to die by shooting in Detroit and you are
to die by violence in Afghanistan or Iraq. And a whole lot more guns per
capita there than in Detroit.

In fact, if you are just mindlessly out to kill, a gun is not optimal.
Bombs are much more effective. Even 9/11 terrorists new that, 3000
people and not a shot fired.

Remember back to the Tylenol scare of a number of years ago. How many
people actually died? How many people stopped taking Tylenol?

On 10/10/2011 5:31 PM, jps wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:35:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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





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



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

On Oct 8, 6:40 pm, 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.....

Hey, if those varmints can mount an attack on the guy who's trying to
kill 'em, I give 'em a lot of credit. I bet it'd supply the media
with a fantastic story to cover for however much time it'd take to
pick your bones clean.

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

You're making my point for me, thanks.

1 person dead, not 2, not 3 and 7 are not wounded.

Reloading a crossbow is not equal to pulling a trigger however many
times a second your auto or semi-auto weapon can fire.

So, where do you draw the line as a progressive. How many deaths *are*
acceptable for a crazy mother ****er, one, two??? And how are we gonna'
enforce it.. "Hey, you are a better shot so you can't have a crossbow,
you are capable of killing three people a minute, that is no good, you
have to stick to baseball bats and sticks, and you are a really bad
shot, so you can have a crossbow". LOL!!!

On 10/10/2011 5:33 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:30:25 -0400, wrote:

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?

Right, it was Biden, Jay Carney and Hilary that packed those guns up
for sale to Mexico. Not a bunch of yahoos at the ATF who are probably
selling drugs for the cartels, like Oliver North did.

Try to twist it any way you want... It was Holder and Obama...