http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story
Conclusion, my friends?
It says “injured” though.
I think there have been an increasing number of those in China.
That you didn’t read your own link or have poor comprehension.
Either way it seems you were disturbed by the events in Connecticut because they challenge an opinion that you have. So you scrambled for counter evidence to make yourself feel better. Leading to you prematurely posting a thread on the message boards before actually getting all the details from the case you cited.
He asked for conclusions. I gave him one. Speculative, of course, but that’s what he wanted right?
By the by, what do you think the purpose of their thread and its connection to the events in Connecticut (if any) was?
“By the by, what do you think the purpose of their thread and its connection to the events in Connecticut (if any) was?”
What do you mean by the bolded section? I’m afraid that I don’t know what you’re talking about.
And I wasn’t criticizing your post, just poking fun.
this thread*
The conclusion to be reached was certainly intended to be that it doesn’t matter if you ban guns because people will still be violent and find a way to kill others. This was certainly caused by recent interest in the shootings. While there is of course some truth here, the fact is that guns are more efficient killing machines than knives. With this said I don’t understand why these sick f***s don’t emulate the deadliest school attack in American history.
“On the morning of May 18, Kehoe murdered his wife by beating her to death, then set his farm buildings afire”
Seriously, what a f***ing way to start the day…
Yeah, I’m sorry - I meant to write injured. The killing was on my mind, and that might have played into some biases I have.
I really wish you guys would help me out on the RLM forums…
The fact that nobody died in the Chinese attack while 26 died in the school shooting is precisely the point anti-gun advocates are making.
Perhaps we should ban cars because you can kill a lot of pedestrians with them with a single forward movement of the foot.
Somebody should make a comedy show called “Liberal Logic.”
Cars have a lot more uses than guns do.
Yes. Next should be beds. No- floors! We should ban floors! There oughta be a law!
Are you fake-debating me now, Paleodoxy?
No. I’m trying to stop you from making silly arguments.
Making silly arguments? How is that making a silly argument? It’s countering the liberal argument that says “anything that can kill large amounts of people with a single pull of a trigger should be banned.” It has nothing to do with all of it’s other uses - most liberals even say that you should be able to hunt because “guns do…some…good.”
This is why I can’t stand Bill Maher, you know, that phony libertarian. Calls himself a libertarian, yet he’s the first “libertarian” I’ve seen who advocates gun control and higher taxes. Yeah. Stick to religion, phony Maher. But what I stated with the car was just the liberal instinct to ban anything so that they could feel a little more secure, and bring us one step further to the Brave New World.
That doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be beneficial to ban guns in order to bring down violence and death. If we banned cars then there would be massive economic problems. This would not occur with guns.
…You’re fake-debating me, aren’t you? Pulling a Wheylous, eh?