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 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.

"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 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 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 10/12/2011 8:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:58 -0700, 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.

Sounds about as pointless and dangerous as things some other fathers
encourage their daughters to do.

Nice Troll Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America...

On 10/12/11 10:40 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/12/2011 8:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:58 -0700, 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.

Sounds about as pointless and dangerous as things some other fathers
encourage their daughters to do.

Nice Troll...

Sorry, Mr. Paranoid, but "YouDont" isn't me. But you're too stupid to
realize it, eh?

On 10/12/2011 10:40 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/12/2011 8:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:58 -0700, 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.

Sounds about as pointless and dangerous as things some other fathers
encourage their daughters to do.

Nice Troll Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America...

Pointless and dangerous is gathering up your drunken buddies and
traveling great distances to shoot at what? Why a tree stump of course.

Or leaving loaded guns scattered around the house until a planned visit
from children prompts you to gather them up and put them in a "safe"
place. I guess Krause's kids are smart enough not to show up at his
house on the spur of the moment with children in tow, lest the kids pick
up some guns and start a game of cowboys and indians.

In article m,
says...

On 10/12/2011 10:40 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/12/2011 8:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:59:58 -0700, 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.

Sounds about as pointless and dangerous as things some other fathers
encourage their daughters to do.

Nice Troll Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America...

Pointless and dangerous is gathering up your drunken buddies and
traveling great distances to shoot at what? Why a tree stump of course.

Or leaving loaded guns scattered around the house until a planned visit
from children prompts you to gather them up and put them in a "safe"
place. I guess Krause's kids are smart enough not to show up at his
house on the spur of the moment with children in tow, lest the kids pick
up some guns and start a game of cowboys and indians.

He's got those guns because he's a ****ing coward! He runs his mouth and
when it gets him in trouble he hides in his house with his guns!

In article ,
says...

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.

Sounds about as pointless and dangerous as things some other fathers
encourage their daughters to do.

Yeah, like playing lacrosse and baseball.