Teenager kills 8 , wounds 5 in China knife attack

I was planning on starting an organization I would call NSS (National Sword Society).
Dumb people ruining it for everybody else.

Rock throwing was causing rotator cuff injuries.

Is it unreasonable to want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable?

had proper 2nd Amendment Rights like in a decent civilized country, he could have killed at least 17 people without reloading.

More than 17, I'll bet.

one can (maybe) outrun an attacker wielding a knife ... a bullet, not so much.

one can (probably) be safe behind a closed door from an attacker wielding a knife ... a bullet, not so much.

one can survive a "drive by knifing" from an attacker wielding a knife ... a bullet, not so much.

get the picture yet? it's clear to most civilized people.

Yes, I get the picture.

you can prey on your fellow human beings regardless of your skill or physical ability.

YAY!!!

That's why we need to focus on the killers instead of punishing the innocent.

... mass poisonings don't occur nearly as often as mass shootings.

Clearly there's something potential mass murderers like about fire arms.

However, explosives seem to be the weapons most commonly used in the biggest mass murders.

in regards to the jone town poisoning, if you can get hundreds of people to believe you are going to send them to heaven and IF you can get them to cooperate with their own murder, then sure, poison can work.

As for explosives, they can cause great mayhem. But guns are still the overwhelming choice.

Also explosives sometimes go off on their own, killing the bomber. Guns can go off on thier own but since they aren't an area of effect, they aren't as deadly due ot screw ups in that regard.

When it comes to killing, if given a choice mass murders generally always prefer guns.

This was mostly a coerced mass suicide except for these children. They were murdered with cyanide.

Contrary to you claim, mass murderers do not "generally always prefer guns."

and the strong will ALWAYS be able to more easily prey on the weak, guns or no guns.

guns make it so much easier for the average asshole, in addition to criminals, thugs, murderers, to prey on anyone, weak or not. you can be as "strong" as you like, but you can't keep the average asshole from shooting you from across the street ...

also, funny thing, when these creeps, jerks, assholes and criminals have access to a gun, that's their weapon of choice. they aren't generally using knives or poison unless they DON'T have access to a gun. funny how that works, eh?

who did it just for fun after taking his wallet.

using knives.

Qiu Xinghua killed 11 and injured 2 using axes and knives.

Anything that can be used as a weapon will be.

A knife
An axe
A gun
A chainsaw

Etc...

We need to concentrate on the person DOING the crime.

Not give the perps excuses like they didn't get a puppy when they were little and not blaming a lump of metal and plastic for what is done WITH that lump of metal and plastic.

Remember I mentioned my cousin's son, who was shot and wounded in the Crandon, WI massacre?
The shooter was a deputy sheriff, and his gun of choice was the M-16 knockoff that deputy sheriffs are issued, since the meth makers up in Crandon are armed with AK-47's, Glocks, etc.

That sheriff's office should have been able to see something was wrong with the deputy who went off.
But they ignored the problem until he did shoot and kill his girlfriend, 5 other kids and then himself.

The delight of gun militants in tragic incidents such as this can be depended upon. The posts in this thread confirm this.

in the murder of people by a knife. It's still a tragedy regardless of the means and you should speak for yourself instead of trying to score cheap political points pretending to know how I judge these events.

If you don't think that my comment is adequately substantiated by posts on this thread, I refer you to the thread in Gun Control/RKBA on the same subject---107 posts the last time I looked, and plenty of predictably happy Gun Enthusiasts in plain view......

not mitigated by the weapon used and the families affected are in no way comforted by those making snide comments.

Stereotyping is just one of the faces of prejudice.

I suspect the death and injury toll would be much higher if he had guns.

They could've put a quick end to this...

s

Was the handle ergonomically designed? Did it have black finish.

My god, it didn't have a bayonet lug did it?

These kinds of military style assault knives were never meant to fall in to the hands of the public. They're easily 10,000 times more deadly than regular civilian style knives according to a study I just made up (disagreeing with me proves you want people to die, especially children. So don't).

You know assault knives have to have a two-edge setting.

You're just describing an assault edge, a completely different kind of thing.

.. because you think you have fresh ammunition for the old canard that if we reduced guns then we would still have as high a murder rate as we do.

A few problems I see:

First, even with these killings, China still has less homicide then the US. China has a homicide rate around 1.2 per 100,000 people. The US is around 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Secondly, no one ever said knives weren't lethal. They are incredibly lethal, in some ways more then a gun.. at close range. But the whole point of a gun is the ability to kill someone from a distance before they can run away or fight back. There are few drive by knifings and I'm pretty sure snipers gave up on the bow and arrow long ago.

So great! You've proved knives are lethal in the right circumstances. Too bad no one was saying otherwise.

And lastly the basis for the argument behind this is fallacious.

Yes in China they have strict gun control laws and yet here was this horrible tragedy. And even in countries with gun laws stricter then ours, there are massecres using guns. The UK had Cumbria and Hungerford.

So , the argument goes, we shouldn't do gun control laws because criminals won't obey the law (since that is what makes them, by definition, criminals)

But wait.. if we take to it's logical conclusion then why stop at gun control laws? Why have laws against murder or rape or stealing? Why have laws at all.

Last I heard, people were still committing murder and rape and stealing. So why single out gun law when clearly criminals are willing to commit all manner of crimes? Is it possible that the demanding 100% effectiveness for any law is unreasonable? (especially when there are lots of variables for crime, gun availability being just one)

This is what bugs the hell out of me about these debates. Arguing we shouldn't concern ourselves with gun control laws because it's unlikely to stop all violence acts as a distraction to the real relevant question..

Are there gun control laws that would reduce gun fatalities and if so, which ones?

We can't even bring that question up as part of a debate on public policy without being attacked. Even researching this is seen as some back handed attempt at banning guns. Publicly funded research on gun deaths is now seen as political suicide. And that's a problem because as bad as the attack in China cited above and the massacres in the UK and elsewhere in the world...

When it comes to gun deaths, these other countries at their worst is nothing compared to our average day.

their official stats are what the officials want to tell us.

So I would take all that with a grain of salt.

/and I'm assuming it doesn't count the people casually shot by the police (or beaten to death) for various annoyances.

but even when we compare our gun crime to other non police states, ours is much higher.

And there's no evidence that China has more gun crime per population then we do.

Even in police states, people talk and the truth gets out.

I admit I am also kind of annoyed at how you completely ignored the point I was making.

I've read enough about them (and anecdotally from my travels there) to know that the official stats can usually be assumed to be lies.

So any argument based on them being accurate is off to a bad start.

wondering how many posts it would take for a gun freak to jump in and make his point. It didn't take long, did it? You posted about this poor crazy person and his victims so you could make your tired old fucking point that guns don't kill people. Jesus fucking Christ! I cannot believe the depths to which some people will stoop for their pet issue.

So sad. Knife attacks resulting in mass killing are very common... we see them on the news quite often, the result being that the National Knife Association and its adherents cry foul every time these stories show up on the national news and a dialog is attempted.

Although it is a bit bemusing to me that more often than not, when a dialog does begin, one or another party devolves the discussion by saying something along the lines of "really bad reporting, the author used the term 'knife', but the perp actually used a Finnish Pukko knife which do not have serrated edges, and so can't be considered real knives at all..." "knife attacks, overall are down-- and anyways, you're more likely to be stabbed by a family member than by a complete stranger", "when knives are outlawed, only outlaws will be Iron Chefs..."

If I may use a Facebook term

Looks like the gun laws in China saved a lot of people. Had this been the US the body count would have been far higher.

Look at the weapons used in murders according to the FBI, lots more people killed by knives than killed by rifles:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

He could have killed 28 with guns. don't be ridiculous.

OK to admit you made it up - nobody here will condemn you for it since you have a 1st amendment right to make stuff up.

How much proficiency do these mass shooters need? None. They aren't aiming. They are just randomly shooting. Can you not discuss this without snark that has no value?

Sad story. Seems massacres are on the up world wide. Better be careful.