On 10/10/2011 5:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/10/2011 6:28 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
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.

Well, we need to outlaw planes then...

Yep, auto, bicycles, bats, knives, forks, pens, axe, hatchet, screw
drivers, ice picks, (sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate), chemicals
for Nitroglycerin and C4 as well as others. Even Drano has nefarious
uses. Rope, pipe, electricity, oil, gas, NG, propane, rope, wood, and
millions of other things even door jams.

Easier just to ban mankind.
--
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