It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

Why does everyone suddenly want to hear me talk lately?

Is that a thing now?

Dude. Dude. I don't want to hear you talk. I was just saying that hearing your voice instead of reading it would make it a lot easier to tell when you are joking.

Stop getting your panties all bunched up.

It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

It was a joke you fuck.

Listen up here nigga. I can't tell if you're joking or not because you're almost always serious. I'd need to hear your voice tone to tell if you're joking or not, and tone doesn't come through so well with text.

Why does everyone suddenly want to hear me talk lately?

Is that a thing now?

Dude. Dude. I don't want to hear you talk. I was just saying that hearing your voice instead of reading it would make it a lot easier to tell when you are joking.

Stop getting your panties all bunched up.

It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

Of course it is, мой друг, we bombed it twice for a reason.

Actually, I don't think Japan was ever communist. It was a monarchy of sorts, and once that ended it went to a democracy.

It was a joke you fuck.

Listen up here nigga. I can't tell if you're joking or not because you're almost always serious. I'd need to hear your voice tone to tell if you're joking or not, and tone doesn't come through so well with text.

Why does everyone suddenly want to hear me talk lately?

Is that a thing now?

Dude. Dude. I don't want to hear you talk. I was just saying that hearing your voice instead of reading it would make it a lot easier to tell when you are joking.

Stop getting your panties all bunched up.

It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

I can't read Communist.

I didn't realize that Japan was a communist nation, товарищ

Of course it is, мой друг, we bombed it twice for a reason.

Actually, I don't think Japan was ever communist. It was a monarchy of sorts, and once that ended it went to a democracy.

It was a joke you fuck.

Listen up here nigga. I can't tell if you're joking or not because you're almost always serious. I'd need to hear your voice tone to tell if you're joking or not, and tone doesn't come through so well with text.

Why does everyone suddenly want to hear me talk lately?

Is that a thing now?

Dude. Dude. I don't want to hear you talk. I was just saying that hearing your voice instead of reading it would make it a lot easier to tell when you are joking.

Stop getting your panties all bunched up.

It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

Yes.

Indeed. "Yes" is very up.

I can't read Communist.

I didn't realize that Japan was a communist nation, товарищ

Of course it is, мой друг, we bombed it twice for a reason.

Actually, I don't think Japan was ever communist. It was a monarchy of sorts, and once that ended it went to a democracy.

It was a joke you fuck.

Listen up here nigga. I can't tell if you're joking or not because you're almost always serious. I'd need to hear your voice tone to tell if you're joking or not, and tone doesn't come through so well with text.

Why does everyone suddenly want to hear me talk lately?

Is that a thing now?

Dude. Dude. I don't want to hear you talk. I was just saying that hearing your voice instead of reading it would make it a lot easier to tell when you are joking.

Stop getting your panties all bunched up.

It's not about what you want.

I'm just saying - there's just been a large influx in interest concerning my voice. And it concerns me.

Yes, I can see how things concerning other things could be concerning.

Then you can see why I am concerned.

Actually, if I could see why you were concerned then I'd be close enough to hear you too. I think that would be far more concerning to you...

Were that the case, it would be you who should be concerned.

Bitch please. There's only three ways that scenario would have ended, and I've listed them here in order of most likely to least likely:

1.) You wouldn't even know I was there. I can be very stealthy.
2.) Even if you noticed me, you wouldn't recognize me, and I could just say I was passing by.
3.) Even if you somehow recognized me, you wouldn't be able to do anything, and if you did try to do something you'd have to kill me first which would defeat the purpose (unless the purpose was to kill me, in which case you are a boring person).

You left out the part where you get molested.

It would be necrophilia. If I'm dead, I don't really give a shit.

I never said anything about you being dead.

The decision itself may be spontaneous but the feelings that cause it usually build up gradually. You don't just wake up one day and decide not to wake up again. If those feelings are there, it's pretty inevitable. The stats don't lie: 12.0 per 100k for the US, 11.8 for the UK.
As for yourself, you decided that life was more important and it wasn't worth trying to find a way. Very depressed people aren't like that; they do find ways.

Oh I wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I did want to. I was 9 at the time though so I couldn't think of very many ways to kill myself, and the only ways I could think of were slow and agonizing. That's why I chose not to do it.

And suicide is usually a spur-of-the-moment thing. If someone decides to kill themselves but finds it inconvenient they will usually stop. There aren't many people who spend more than a few minutes actually trying to attempt suicide, after a short period of time they just kind of give up and decide to keep living, at least for a little while anyways.

Yes a gun is designed to do that but the crime is not the fault of the gun but of the shooter. Guns are actually pretty safe if don't do anything stupid. People use them to kill home invaders; people use them to scare off muggers. The simple knowledge that they might die in the back of a criminal's mind is a very powerful deterrent to crime. People buy them because the can kill people quite efficiently if the shooter decides to actually pull the trigger.

If the argument is whether or not people should have that power, that ship has sailed hundreds of years ago. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America so criminals have access to guns. Any laws that try to control guns at this point would be counterproductive and extremely foolish because it would disarm law-abiding citizens and remove that deterrent to crime. This can clearly be seen when a mass shooter chooses a gun-free zone over a police station as their target.

Umm... I think you're missing my point here. I'm not saying I'm in favor of banning guns entirely. I just think there should be more control, like better tracking of guns so that we know that each gun leaving a factory is being sold properly, with background checks and such before the sale is processed.

I'm actually in favor of gun ownership, as long as it's done properly. I just don't like to see people try to justify gun ownership with stupid bullshit like the whole "guns don't kill people" argument.

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are basically the same. The only difference is the method. People in the US use a quick and painless gun whereas people in the UK use slow and agonizing hanging.

TBH troubled people will kill themselves either way so why not let them use a gun out of mercy?

Actually, if you make it inconvenient enough, most people will choose to not kill themselves. Suicides are usually spur-of-the-moment decisions, so if someone decides to kill themselves but finds that there's no easy way to do it they will usually just not kill themselves since living is more convenient at the time.

I can attest to that myself. I wanted to kill myself several times but could never find a quick, painless way to do so. That is literally the only reason I'm still here.

The decision itself may be spontaneous but the feelings that cause it usually build up gradually. You don't just wake up one day and decide not to wake up again. If those feelings are there, it's pretty inevitable. The stats don't lie: 12.0 per 100k for the US, 11.8 for the UK.
As for yourself, you decided that life was more important and it wasn't worth trying to find a way. Very depressed people aren't like that; they do find ways.

Oh I wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I did want to. I was 9 at the time though so I couldn't think of very many ways to kill myself, and the only ways I could think of were slow and agonizing. That's why I chose not to do it.

And suicide is usually a spur-of-the-moment thing. If someone decides to kill themselves but finds it inconvenient they will usually stop. There aren't many people who spend more than a few minutes actually trying to attempt suicide, after a short period of time they just kind of give up and decide to keep living, at least for a little while anyways.

The "people kill people" deals with the intent of the shooter. Explosives have a much greater potential to kill a bystander, regardless of the intent of the shooter because the explosion is beyond their control. This is not the case with semi-automatic guns.

Either way, the argument that guns are not dangerous because you need a person to pull the trigger is a dumb argument. By that logic anything that requires a person to operate it is safe, and this is just not the case. Guns kill people. That's what they are designed to do. If you fire a gun and you don't kill anything, you aren't doing it right.

Yes a gun is designed to do that but the crime is not the fault of the gun but of the shooter. Guns are actually pretty safe if don't do anything stupid. People use them to kill home invaders; people use them to scare off muggers. The simple knowledge that they might die in the back of a criminal's mind is a very powerful deterrent to crime. People buy them because the can kill people quite efficiently if the shooter decides to actually pull the trigger.

If the argument is whether or not people should have that power, that ship has sailed hundreds of years ago. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America so criminals have access to guns. Any laws that try to control guns at this point would be counterproductive and extremely foolish because it would disarm law-abiding citizens and remove that deterrent to crime. This can clearly be seen when a mass shooter chooses a gun-free zone over a police station as their target.

Umm... I think you're missing my point here. I'm not saying I'm in favor of banning guns entirely. I just think there should be more control, like better tracking of guns so that we know that each gun leaving a factory is being sold properly, with background checks and such before the sale is processed.

I'm actually in favor of gun ownership, as long as it's done properly. I just don't like to see people try to justify gun ownership with stupid bullshit like the whole "guns don't kill people" argument.

not even 2%...
rifles in general make up about 2%

I disagree, a reasonable person has control over where a bullet goes however they cannot easily control the explosion or fragmentation of a grenade. So regardless of the intentions of the wielder, a grenade would have more bystander victims.

Doesn't matter. Using most pro-gun-ers' logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then the grenade should be just as safe as any firearm, since the grenade cannot detonate itself (unless, you know, it's an extremely faulty grenade).

The "people kill people" deals with the intent of the shooter. Explosives have a much greater potential to kill a bystander, regardless of the intent of the shooter because the explosion is beyond their control. This is not the case with semi-automatic guns.

Either way, the argument that guns are not dangerous because you need a person to pull the trigger is a dumb argument. By that logic anything that requires a person to operate it is safe, and this is just not the case. Guns kill people. That's what they are designed to do. If you fire a gun and you don't kill anything, you aren't doing it right.

Yes a gun is designed to do that but the crime is not the fault of the gun but of the shooter. Guns are actually pretty safe if don't do anything stupid. People use them to kill home invaders; people use them to scare off muggers. The simple knowledge that they might die in the back of a criminal's mind is a very powerful deterrent to crime. People buy them because the can kill people quite efficiently if the shooter decides to actually pull the trigger.

If the argument is whether or not people should have that power, that ship has sailed hundreds of years ago. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America so criminals have access to guns. Any laws that try to control guns at this point would be counterproductive and extremely foolish because it would disarm law-abiding citizens and remove that deterrent to crime. This can clearly be seen when a mass shooter chooses a gun-free zone over a police station as their target.

Umm... I think you're missing my point here. I'm not saying I'm in favor of banning guns entirely. I just think there should be more control, like better tracking of guns so that we know that each gun leaving a factory is being sold properly, with background checks and such before the sale is processed.

I'm actually in favor of gun ownership, as long as it's done properly. I just don't like to see people try to justify gun ownership with stupid bullshit like the whole "guns don't kill people" argument.

75% of gun crime is gang related
the .22lr is the most common bullet in gun crime
most of them are palm-sized 6 shot pistols.... hardly powerful guns

Yeah, 75% of gun crime might be gang related, but 2/3 of all gun-related deaths are suicides. Suicide is not listed as a crime, to my knowledge.

So basically, you've got 2/3 of gun deaths to suicide and 75% of the remaining 1/3 due to gang related violence.

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are basically the same. The only difference is the method. People in the US use a quick and painless gun whereas people in the UK use slow and agonizing hanging.

TBH troubled people will kill themselves either way so why not let them use a gun out of mercy?

Actually, if you make it inconvenient enough, most people will choose to not kill themselves. Suicides are usually spur-of-the-moment decisions, so if someone decides to kill themselves but finds that there's no easy way to do it they will usually just not kill themselves since living is more convenient at the time.

I can attest to that myself. I wanted to kill myself several times but could never find a quick, painless way to do so. That is literally the only reason I'm still here.

The decision itself may be spontaneous but the feelings that cause it usually build up gradually. You don't just wake up one day and decide not to wake up again. If those feelings are there, it's pretty inevitable. The stats don't lie: 12.0 per 100k for the US, 11.8 for the UK.
As for yourself, you decided that life was more important and it wasn't worth trying to find a way. Very depressed people aren't like that; they do find ways.

Oh I wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I did want to. I was 9 at the time though so I couldn't think of very many ways to kill myself, and the only ways I could think of were slow and agonizing. That's why I chose not to do it.

And suicide is usually a spur-of-the-moment thing. If someone decides to kill themselves but finds it inconvenient they will usually stop. There aren't many people who spend more than a few minutes actually trying to attempt suicide, after a short period of time they just kind of give up and decide to keep living, at least for a little while anyways.

Great my life time joy of hunting was taken away because of a crime I never commited. Land of the free right?

it's already there..... machine guns are so restricted they're pretty much considered banned.

Machine guns only account for, like, 2% of firearm-related crimes. Most crime involving guns is handguns.

not even 2%...
rifles in general make up about 2%

And who is going to regulate those regulating gun control? Our government can't even regulate the IRS from using a political position to audit freely and with out discretion.

In a perfect government this might be an excellent position, but unfortunately like people it tends to mimic our mistakes.

Well, we need to find as perfect of a solution as we can. Banning guns is not a good solution. Deregulating guns is also not a good solution. We need a middle ground.

Anyways, I'm more in favor of banning guns than not. If a middle ground can't be achieved and we need to choose one extreme or the other, I'd say banning all guns would be better.

Also, little known fact that nobody likes to talk about: 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.

75% of gun crime is gang related
the .22lr is the most common bullet in gun crime
most of them are palm-sized 6 shot pistols.... hardly powerful guns

Yeah, 75% of gun crime might be gang related, but 2/3 of all gun-related deaths are suicides. Suicide is not listed as a crime, to my knowledge.

So basically, you've got 2/3 of gun deaths to suicide and 75% of the remaining 1/3 due to gang related violence.

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are basically the same. The only difference is the method. People in the US use a quick and painless gun whereas people in the UK use slow and agonizing hanging.

TBH troubled people will kill themselves either way so why not let them use a gun out of mercy?

Actually, if you make it inconvenient enough, most people will choose to not kill themselves. Suicides are usually spur-of-the-moment decisions, so if someone decides to kill themselves but finds that there's no easy way to do it they will usually just not kill themselves since living is more convenient at the time.

I can attest to that myself. I wanted to kill myself several times but could never find a quick, painless way to do so. That is literally the only reason I'm still here.

The decision itself may be spontaneous but the feelings that cause it usually build up gradually. You don't just wake up one day and decide not to wake up again. If those feelings are there, it's pretty inevitable. The stats don't lie: 12.0 per 100k for the US, 11.8 for the UK.
As for yourself, you decided that life was more important and it wasn't worth trying to find a way. Very depressed people aren't like that; they do find ways.

Oh I wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I did want to. I was 9 at the time though so I couldn't think of very many ways to kill myself, and the only ways I could think of were slow and agonizing. That's why I chose not to do it.

And suicide is usually a spur-of-the-moment thing. If someone decides to kill themselves but finds it inconvenient they will usually stop. There aren't many people who spend more than a few minutes actually trying to attempt suicide, after a short period of time they just kind of give up and decide to keep living, at least for a little while anyways.

Great my life time joy of hunting was taken away because of a crime I never commited. Land of the free right?

It's not exactly uncommon to see a privately owned tank...
But the shells (grenades too) are heavily regulated by the ATF and require a $200 and paperwork for each 1; with the paperwork taking around a year to pass through. Also, individual states have their own laws on explosive weapons so you'll have to check with that.

Ah, but like the gun, the grenade will not kill anyone if I don't 'fire' it. Therefore, by most pro-gun logic, the grenade is just as safe.

I disagree, a reasonable person has control over where a bullet goes however they cannot easily control the explosion or fragmentation of a grenade. So regardless of the intentions of the wielder, a grenade would have more bystander victims.

Doesn't matter. Using most pro-gun-ers' logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then the grenade should be just as safe as any firearm, since the grenade cannot detonate itself (unless, you know, it's an extremely faulty grenade).

The "people kill people" deals with the intent of the shooter. Explosives have a much greater potential to kill a bystander, regardless of the intent of the shooter because the explosion is beyond their control. This is not the case with semi-automatic guns.

Either way, the argument that guns are not dangerous because you need a person to pull the trigger is a dumb argument. By that logic anything that requires a person to operate it is safe, and this is just not the case. Guns kill people. That's what they are designed to do. If you fire a gun and you don't kill anything, you aren't doing it right.

Yes a gun is designed to do that but the crime is not the fault of the gun but of the shooter. Guns are actually pretty safe if don't do anything stupid. People use them to kill home invaders; people use them to scare off muggers. The simple knowledge that they might die in the back of a criminal's mind is a very powerful deterrent to crime. People buy them because the can kill people quite efficiently if the shooter decides to actually pull the trigger.

If the argument is whether or not people should have that power, that ship has sailed hundreds of years ago. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America so criminals have access to guns. Any laws that try to control guns at this point would be counterproductive and extremely foolish because it would disarm law-abiding citizens and remove that deterrent to crime. This can clearly be seen when a mass shooter chooses a gun-free zone over a police station as their target.

Umm... I think you're missing my point here. I'm not saying I'm in favor of banning guns entirely. I just think there should be more control, like better tracking of guns so that we know that each gun leaving a factory is being sold properly, with background checks and such before the sale is processed.

I'm actually in favor of gun ownership, as long as it's done properly. I just don't like to see people try to justify gun ownership with stupid bullshit like the whole "guns don't kill people" argument.

INB4 "Anti-gun fag": I'm in favor of regulating firearms, not banning them outright. There needs to be some middle ground between no guns and ALL THE GUNS.

it's already there..... machine guns are so restricted they're pretty much considered banned.

Machine guns only account for, like, 2% of firearm-related crimes. Most crime involving guns is handguns.

not even 2%...
rifles in general make up about 2%

And who is going to regulate those regulating gun control? Our government can't even regulate the IRS from using a political position to audit freely and with out discretion.

In a perfect government this might be an excellent position, but unfortunately like people it tends to mimic our mistakes.

Well, we need to find as perfect of a solution as we can. Banning guns is not a good solution. Deregulating guns is also not a good solution. We need a middle ground.

Anyways, I'm more in favor of banning guns than not. If a middle ground can't be achieved and we need to choose one extreme or the other, I'd say banning all guns would be better.

Also, little known fact that nobody likes to talk about: 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.

75% of gun crime is gang related
the .22lr is the most common bullet in gun crime
most of them are palm-sized 6 shot pistols.... hardly powerful guns

Yeah, 75% of gun crime might be gang related, but 2/3 of all gun-related deaths are suicides. Suicide is not listed as a crime, to my knowledge.

So basically, you've got 2/3 of gun deaths to suicide and 75% of the remaining 1/3 due to gang related violence.

The suicide rates in the US and the UK are basically the same. The only difference is the method. People in the US use a quick and painless gun whereas people in the UK use slow and agonizing hanging.

TBH troubled people will kill themselves either way so why not let them use a gun out of mercy?

Actually, if you make it inconvenient enough, most people will choose to not kill themselves. Suicides are usually spur-of-the-moment decisions, so if someone decides to kill themselves but finds that there's no easy way to do it they will usually just not kill themselves since living is more convenient at the time.

I can attest to that myself. I wanted to kill myself several times but could never find a quick, painless way to do so. That is literally the only reason I'm still here.

The decision itself may be spontaneous but the feelings that cause it usually build up gradually. You don't just wake up one day and decide not to wake up again. If those feelings are there, it's pretty inevitable. The stats don't lie: 12.0 per 100k for the US, 11.8 for the UK.
As for yourself, you decided that life was more important and it wasn't worth trying to find a way. Very depressed people aren't like that; they do find ways.

Oh I wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I did want to. I was 9 at the time though so I couldn't think of very many ways to kill myself, and the only ways I could think of were slow and agonizing. That's why I chose not to do it.

And suicide is usually a spur-of-the-moment thing. If someone decides to kill themselves but finds it inconvenient they will usually stop. There aren't many people who spend more than a few minutes actually trying to attempt suicide, after a short period of time they just kind of give up and decide to keep living, at least for a little while anyways.

Great my life time joy of hunting was taken away because of a crime I never commited. Land of the free right?

It's not that it's useful, it's a display of capability.
Yeah, nobody is gonna cut through a penny, but if they are capable of it, then how easy is other shit gonna be to cut through?

Well anyways, like I said, good luck. I only know one person who has been able to make any sort of profit selling those knives, and they have to work their ass off to do it. Maybe you can do it though. So good luck.

Also, were you going door to door, or calling people you knew?

Calling people I knew, and people they knew. I wouldn't have gone door to door, because, really, nobody is gonna listen to that shit.

"Hi, do you have an hour to talk about how fucking awesome these knives are?"

Also, yes, I am aware of what the products are capable of. Cutting through a penny is all fine and good but how is that useful? The whole cutting through rope and leather shit makes sense, but a penny? Really?

It's not that it's useful, it's a display of capability.
Yeah, nobody is gonna cut through a penny, but if they are capable of it, then how easy is other shit gonna be to cut through?

Well anyways, like I said, good luck. I only know one person who has been able to make any sort of profit selling those knives, and they have to work their ass off to do it. Maybe you can do it though. So good luck.

>okay
>nigga those scissors can cut through a damn penny

what?!

I just wanted to say I love you :3

the same offer extends to you knave