Dare we infer their races?
Why would someone be carrying around a rock in a sick other than to beat someone or something with?
Sadly, carrying a sick in a sock was banned by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction in 1975 . . . fucking hippies!
CMC fnord!
What about a rock in a sick , carried in a sock?
Dear Nimrods,
As to be expected you guys are completely missing the point, which is that outlawing weapons doesn’t stop people from killing each other. They just turn to different weapons with which to do it.
And secondarily, the inference from that should be that since people are going to be killing each other anyway - especially in post-liberal America - gun possession is the best and most effective way of countering this phenomenon. Therefore guns are good, mmkay?
Thanks ever so much.
Your friend in common sense and reality,
Starving Artist
Both white, though I do have an unrelated racial profiling story: back in the day I had a colleague who worked down the hall from me. We lived in the same general neighborhood, drove basically the same route to work at about the same time of day, drove similar cars, wore similar clothes (I once attended a meeting where 5 of 6 people were wearing the exact same Brooks Brothers blue shirt and charcoal slacks), etc. etc. He was black. On average over the time I worked there he got pulled over by the police probably every other month, while I never got pulled over at all, and no one I asked had ever been pulled over either. He never got a ticket, so he must not have actually been doing anything wrong, other than being black in a (lily white) neighborhood.
It’s still a false conclusion from a false premise. Kind of like your worldview.
ETA: Sorry, this was in reply to SA. EE jumped in there while I was posting.
Number of people killed by knivesin the United Kingdom in the year ended March 2016: 213
Number of people killed by guns (homicides only) in the United States in 2013: 11,208
Does anything particularly jump out at you about those numbers, genius?
Since people are going to be killing each other anyway, gun possession is the best and most effective way of exacerbating this phenomenon too!
(On the side of every criminal’s gun is something like Glock, or Smith & Wesson, or Colt, etc. Sadly there is no Illegal gun company we can put out of business.)
CMC fnord!
This post contradicts itself. If guns aren’t more deadly than knives, then you don’t need guns to protect yourself – knives will do just fine. If guns are more deadly than knives, then reducing the accessibility of guns could make it harder to kill people.
Which doesn’t mean banning guns is a good idea – I don’t think it is. But some regulation might be reasonable. The argument above is just nonsensical. If guns aren’t deadlier than melee weapons, then a modern marine battalion could be overcome by a Roman legion.
And the more cumbersome and inefficient those new weapons are, the less killing they manage to do. Sounds good to me.
Of course, I don’t think we could or should crack down on ownership of all possible weaponizable objects until the average citizen isn’t trusted with anything sharper than a Nerf ball. But if more criminals (not to mention drunken and/or angry not-formerly-criminals currently making some bad choices) were turning to knives because it had become more difficult for them to get guns, that would definitely be a good thing. It’s demonstrably less easy to kill lots of people with knives than with guns.
How are you quantifying scant here?
We have the death penalty. We have employed it against minors. We have the highest incarceration rate in the freaking world. We have prison sentences that are nothing less than draconian. We have ridiculous asset forfeiture laws. We have a police force that is more than happy to kill citizens and juries that are more than happy to let them get away with it.
Other than preemptive death sentences, I don’t see how much harsher punishment could be.
Not only is SA laughing about people being murdered, he’s doing it in support of his goal of promoting the kind of gun-infested society that has resulted in the highest rates of gun violence in the civilized world. But remember, according to SA we’re the assholes and douchebags. I don’t know what he considers himself; I presume some kind of font of wisdom who is being unfairly maligned by the rest of us.
“And say you come home and find a guy in bed with your wife. What are you supposed to do, poison him? And how about suicide? Ever try beating yourself to death with a stick?”-Pat Paulsen
I voted for him.
yeah, lots of things occur to me, genius. Like what’s our relative population size, how many murders overall in each, how many would have been prevented by guns or have been prevented by guns, relative social issues feeding into murders committed, how many American deaths have been prevented by guns, etc., etc., etc. there are many things that need to be considered in deciding things like this but liberals typically just react reflexively to surface appearances and want to throw the baby out with the he bath water to fix what they superficially see as a problem.
You know where to find that, if you really want to know.
Sure looks like a lot of deaths in the UK were prevented by *lack *of guns, don’t it?
Britain has lots of colored people too. Maybe you just didn’t know.
As compared to you? 
If lots of people getting killed is just a surface-appearance problem, what do you see as the true, deeper one?
“Five days? But I’m angry NOW!” - Homer Simpson
Yeah, maybe it’s just my liberal bias coming out but I would definitely put a high murder rate pretty far up there on the list of Honest-to-Gosh Genuine Problems.
Boy, that sure seems like the kind of thing a non-stupid person could look up, huh? Let’s hope the US has roughly 52 times the population of the United Kingdom, otherwise you’re going to look like a real prat.
*Narrator: it doesn’t *