|
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
On 10/6/2011 10:59 AM, 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.* Lip service aint gonna get him cought. Strap on your six shooter and go after him, why don't you. |
He's a great guy...
On 10/6/2011 10:59 AM, jps wrote:
"He spoke against violence," she said. "His show was against violence. I'm in shock." Quick, get the gunns away from JPS. He's against violence too. |
He's a great guy...
On 06/10/2011 8:59 AM, 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. I am surprised we don't see more of this. Looks like authorities caught up to him and ensuing shoot out he was relieved of his agony and taxpayers spared his keep. I would be willing to bet suicide rates are up in Canada and the USA. Loose your job, then your home, then your family...screw it, what do you have to loose? -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
He's a great guy...
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 |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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 |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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... |
He's a great guy...
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? |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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? |
He's a great guy...
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! |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
"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. |
He's a great guy...
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 |
He's a great guy...
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? |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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. |
He's a great guy...
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's a great guy...
"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. |
He's a great guy...
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 |
He's a great guy...
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? |
He's a great guy...
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? |
He's a great guy...
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!!! |
He's a great guy...
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... |
He's a great guy...
On 10/10/2011 5:35 PM, jps wrote:
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), 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. But you don't know do you? Right, so if the guns weren't there are you going to outlaw poison next or what? What a dope... |
He's a great guy...
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... |
He's a great guy...
On 10/10/2011 3:33 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. Does it mater if Obama packed it himself, gave the orders or has so little control of the administration that it was negligence and poor leadership on hs part? OMG - Omama Must Go....people wanted an O but got a Zero with Obama. Just like Pearl Harbor, but in economic terms, USA ambushed by a Marxist corrupt idiot. -- 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 |
He's a great guy...
On Oct 10, 4:31*pm, jps wrote:
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...=3598647ebfe79.... 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...hot-dead-with-... 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. No I didn't make your point. I did make a point that you dont' need a gun to prove someones mortality. and if one isn't available, you run what you brung. But then again, cross bows aren't illegal to own nor do they need special licensing. And have proven to be quite stealth. Maybe a weapon of choice by ganstahs and assassins, depending on circumstances. But anyhow, i do see that you still wish me harm. But Groundhogs are herbivores. |
He's a great guy...
On 10/10/2011 5:29 PM, BAR wrote:
In , 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), 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? Good point. But only 7 officially died in the Tylenol incident and no one ever convicted either. But could have been a lot worse. But it likely wasn't about killing for killings sake, as it was using fear as revenge on the company. But your point highlights where we are as a society, most vulnerable in food/water. Never did convict anyone on the Tylenol incident either. If indiscriminate killing and mayhem is all you want to do, guns would be far down the list of effective alternatives. -- 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 |
He's a great guy...
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 |
He's a great guy...
"jps" wrote in message ...
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? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yup. Just google number of murders in Detroit and the number of soldiers killed in the middle east. |
He's a great guy...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:11:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Oct 10, 4:31*pm, jps wrote: 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...=3598647ebfe79... 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...hot-dead-with-... 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. No I didn't make your point. I did make a point that you dont' need a gun to prove someones mortality. and if one isn't available, you run what you brung. But then again, cross bows aren't illegal to own nor do they need special licensing. And have proven to be quite stealth. Maybe a weapon of choice by ganstahs and assassins, depending on circumstances. But anyhow, i do see that you still wish me harm. But Groundhogs are herbivores. That doesn't mean they don't get ****ed off when you blow away their family members or close friends. Yeah, haven't heard about gangstahs using crossbows a whole lot but I do hear about a crazy bunch of handguns being out there and available cheap. Probably pick up several handguns and a bunch of ammo for the price of a decent crossbow. |
He's a great guy...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:44:22 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... 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? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yup. Just google number of murders in Detroit and the number of soldiers killed in the middle east. We don't have soldiers in the middle east. Nice try. |
He's a great guy...
"jps" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:44:22 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... 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? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yup. Just google number of murders in Detroit and the number of soldiers killed in the middle east. We don't have soldiers in the middle east. Nice try. ------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, Google Iraq and since when did Obama pull out the soldiers? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com