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!!!