Knives do not cause mass murders

[woodchip]

Only guns do:

"BEIJING (AP) -- More than 10 knife-wielding attackers slashed people at a train station in southwestern China late Saturday in what authorities called a terrorist attack, and police fatally shot five of the assailants, leaving 28 people dead and 113 injured, state media said."

[CDN_Merlin]

Sad thing.

[Duper]

great... I can see the legislation now......

[callmeslick]

so, a mob of 10 people with knives can, if they desire, accomplish what one loon with a gun can. The take home message then is what, again?

[Will Robinson]

so, a mob of 10 people with knives can, if they desire, accomplish what one loon with a gun can. The take home message then is what, again?

Hmmm, let me try.

Obviously humans are the key component, the common factor.
Without a single gun the murders were accomplished.

So the fact that guns are more efficient doesn't factor into stopping murder.
Except if you consider arming a few of the potential victims the efficiency of a gun becomes paramount in stopping murder since one person on that train car with a Glock 17 could have saved most of those killed and traded those innocent lives for those of the killers.

So carry hi capacity magazines when riding trains in Beijing?





Now I'm guessing the conclusion I drew from your question wasn't the one you were trying to create but it is probably better supported by the reality of the situation. After all guns are already illegal in Beijing for citizens aren't they?

The simple reality is, even in a country where a national government has 'disarmed' the civilians to the best of its ability horrendous mass murder is very easy to accomplish. In this case they were looking to raise the scary level more than rack up body counts. So don't let the ratio of attackers to dead fool you.

They wanted the specter of a swarm of attackers stabbing their way through the sea of helpless people. Maximize the fear. They could have killed at a much higher ratio with nothing but gasoline and matches!

Humans don't need guns to kill with and they will use whatever they can. They invented guns for crying out loud! You don't think they will find a new or old tool for the job if you take one type away?

[Spidey]

Yea, if the kill ratio was the important thing, they could have used bombs.

[woodchip]

so, a mob of 10 people with knives can, if they desire, accomplish what one loon with a gun can. The take home message then is what, again?

The take home message is this...10 people killed or maimed 140 people, or 1 of them killed or maimed 14 of them. I'd say that 1 knife welding loon can kill or maim as many as your gun toting loon. In short a man armed with either a knife or a gun are equally dangerous.

[Top Gun]

So if you're unarmed, and a crazy guy's running at you, you don't care if he has a knife or a gun, because you're equally screwed either way?

But in any case it's nice to know how certain people continue to use tragedies to keep thumping their chests.

[woodchip]

But in any case it's nice to know how certain people continue to use tragedies to keep thumping their chests.

Or to counter a point others seem fixated on.

[callmeslick]

But in any case it's nice to know how certain people continue to use tragedies to keep thumping their chests.

Or to counter a point others seem fixated on.

ineffectively, I might add. In fact, your 'counter' merely demonstrates the weakness of your position. You simply don't realize it.

[woodchip]

But in any case it's nice to know how certain people continue to use tragedies to keep thumping their chests.

Or to counter a point others seem fixated on.

ineffectively, I might add. In fact, your 'counter' merely demonstrates the weakness of your position. You simply don't realize it.

And what weakness would that be?

[callmeslick]

And what weakness would that be?

it would be summed up by the phrase you start the thread with:"....only guns do". It's a strawman argument you're attempting to have, because no one here or most anywhere suggests that guns are the only sources of killings one's fellow travelers. Or, even that guns are the only means of mass killing. That is an argument you try to make with no regard to the relative ease and efficiency of firearms, thus the need for FAR stricter regulation than we currently have. Will that keep folks from using knives, clubs, rocks, bombs, lawn and garden implements or women's footwear to kill other people? No. But, no one is looking for, or at least expecting, some complete solution, just common sense around access, purchase and personal responsibility to society.
Anyhoo, thanks for asking.

[woodchip]

it would be summed up by the phrase you start the thread with:"....only guns do".

Do you understand the word facetious?
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious

1.
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

There now you are a little more educated

It's a strawman argument you're attempting to have, because no one here or most anywhere suggests that guns are the only sources of killings one's fellow travelers. Or, even that guns are the only means of mass killing. That is an argument you try to make with no regard to the relative ease and efficiency of firearms, thus the need for FAR stricter regulation than we currently have.

Sorry but the example I showed exemplifies just how dangerous knives can be yet there are no laws I know of that prevent you from buying as lethal a arsenal of weapons as you want. Go to Atlanta Cutlery or Museum Replicas and take a look at all the knives, swords,dirks and daggers you can buy. None of those items have any restrictions on buying. Some have restrictions on being carried but those will not stop some loon from carrying it. And yet the purchase of firearms are now so regulated you have to be squeaky clean to buy one. People like you are looking for the complete ban on owing such things as pistols and dangerous looking assault rifles under the guise of "common sense" laws.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, since you have claimed you don't want to ban all guns from civilians you must have decided you accept a mass murderer efficiency somewhere below what we have now but more than the kill ratio that happened in the Beijing train station where they face a total ban.

So what would you regulate exactly to achieve your acceptable kill ratio and what is that ratio?

[callmeslick]

Slick, since you have claimed you don't want to ban all guns from civilians you must have decided you accept a mass murderer efficiency somewhere below what we have now but more than the kill ratio that happened in the Beijing train station where they face a total ban.

sounds sort of coldhearted, but yes, that is a fair description of my expectations. Finding a balance between normal expectation and making the process TOO easy.

So what would you regulate exactly to achieve your acceptable kill ratio and what is that ratio?

I've stated before that my core focus is around personal responsibility thresholds(and criminal penalties) for gun owners, coupled with far more stringent pre-purchase certification and registration. I'd have to ponder the final level of occurance that would be acceptable, but I'd say a 50% drop in both accidental deaths and violent acts(mass and single) would be a reasonable target to aim for(pun intended).

[woodchip]

First off slick, in 2012 you would think that sates with the most stringent gun control laws, would have the least amount of murders. Then again you would think wrong as CA leads all states in gun murders and NY comes in 5th. So your premise about more laws will reduce gun murders is flawed and seriously so:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... s_2012.xls

[callmeslick]

First off slick, in 2012 you would think that sates with the most stringent gun control laws, would have the least amount of murders. Then again you would think wrong as CA leads all states in gun murders and NY comes in 5th. So your premise about more laws will reduce gun murders is flawed and seriously so:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... s_2012.xls

note that their laws don't really relate to my real-world proposals, so no real relationship. It's easy to call state laws 'stringent' or not, but the matter is around effective, and those types of laws have to be nationwide, and enforced uniformly.

[Top Gun]

First off slick, in 2012 you would think that sates with the most stringent gun control laws, would have the least amount of murders. Then again you would think wrong as CA leads all states in gun murders and NY comes in 5th. So your premise about more laws will reduce gun murders is flawed and seriously so:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... s_2012.xls

You realize that those also happen to be the most populous states, so one would assume by default that they'd have the most gun murders? I mean Texas is #2 on that list.