XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.bush   
   From: D-E-M-I-G-O-D@SHAW.CA   
      
   "Rex Tincher"  wrote in message   
   news:j5hnqv89b7l5865f0ct4i93qeg70h998d0@4ax.com...   
   >   
   >   
   > A shooting that was known not to   
   > be a robbery, in a drug-infested   
   > area, is probably drug related.   
      
   Pure assumption.   
      
   > >If the killer didn't have the gun, then   
   > >the shooting wouldn't have occurred,   
   > >which leaves a good possibility that   
   > >a person wouldn't have died, and his   
   > >attacker would have been identified.   
   >   
   > Plenty of other ways to kill people.  For example, Rabbi Fred   
      
   Every other way allows to trace the murderer, while gun murder won't   
   allow you to know not only the motives, but the shooter him/herself.   
      
   In this case you are quoting a name of presumed killer, although it   
   could be also an assumptions, because the real killers were holding the   
   actual weapons.   
   But nevertheless, you know those people, which is exactly my point.   
      
   "Ballistic printing" is not able to identify the shooter, therefore,   
   why bother wasting money on it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)