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.

On 08/10/2011 7:07 AM, Tim 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.

Could add Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. Or Islam, accompanied by
wholesale massacres of the civilian populations they all did. And not
one shot.

Get big governments or big religion, you have killing going on right
along with it. Maybe someday we will realize the governmetns and
religions need to be like the Internet, small, controllable and
distributed. Forget the big empire approach, as be it ball and chain or
debt-tax slavery, the people suffer too much for big government and big
religion.

--
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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.