Mass killing "dozens" dead, with KNIVES.

[silicosys4]

My apologies if this is not on topic or already being discussed

In China, tragic proof that firearms are not the difference in mass killing death tolls, but rather the resolve and motivations of the killers.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


"(CNN) -- A day after men armed with long knives stormed a railway station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, killing dozens of people and wounding more than 100, authorities described what happened as a premeditated terrorist attack."

 

[Solo]

Technically, the terrorists were using swords rather than knives. (The Chinese word for certain swords is the same as that for knives.)

 

[ATLDave]

In fairness, having 10 conspirators makes truly mass killings more feasible with edged weapons.

But there's no doubt that there are substitute products for guns if the intended use is indiscriminate killing.

 

[Slamfire]

There is a least one country with an active “ban knives” program: The United Kingdom. They have programs and slogans saying “Bin a knife, save a life”.

http://www.hertford.net/police/article.asp?id=357

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5010700.stm

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/n...e_start_of_knife_amnesty_1_1078133?usurv=skip


Eventually, in that country, canine incisor teeth will have to be ground down to prevent Britons from leaving bite wounds.

 

[hso]

ragic proof that firearms are not the difference in mass killing death tolls

You're off target with this one since a group of people carried out this attack as a coordinated effort.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Yeah.... Pretty sure that the difference here is that there were ten or more terrorists making a coordinated attack on a crowd.

I feel pretty safe in saying that if those 10+ attackers had been armed with guns, you would have a higher death toll.

 

[hso]

I feel pretty safe in saying

Perhaps, but there are examples in other countries where the numbers are comparable and you have to think that the first couple of shots cause a crowd to disperse a lot quicker than the attacks from knives/machetes.

The important points are, terrorist attacks are NOT just guys with guns or bombs AND when trouble strikes you must act immediately to save yourself. Get to safety and then try to work out what just happened. It may not always work since planned attacks these days have contingencies for people fleeing and rescuers coming to help, but it beats rubber-necking or standing around in disbelief.

 

[Tcruse]

Yeah.... Pretty sure that the difference here is that there were ten or more terrorists making a coordinated attack on a crowd.

I feel pretty safe in saying that if those 10+ attackers had been armed with guns, you would have a higher death toll.

If the victims were armed, I suspect a lot fewer deaths.

 

[Onward Allusion]

(The Chinese word for certain swords is the same as that for knives.)

Yes, I know I'm being off-topic and being nitpicky but I'm home sick and off work today.

Knife: http://translate.google.com/#en/zh-TW/knife
Sword: http://translate.google.com/#en/zh-TW/sword

 

[Onward Allusion]

Like HSO said, a gun will disperse crowds due to the noise. I would dare say that a person somewhat trained with edge weapons can inflict a lot more damage than someone with a gun in certain scenarios. An long edged weapon has the advantage of stealth.

We need to ban edged weapons longer than 12 inches. <yes. i am being sarcastic>

Weapon bans do not work, but I'm preaching to the choir.

 

[Tirod]

Humans can and will use the weapons available as they come to hand.

Look down the list of weapons used in killings - past guns and knives - from FBI statisitics. http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons

Read the conclusions at the bottom.

The actual weapon used in most incidents isn't what the anti's like to popularize in the press. It's very much different than what they contend.

WE - you and me - humans - are the #1 killer, and often we use nothing at all but what we are. It's pollyanna thinking divorced from any aspect of reality that says otherwise.

Some radical environmentalists think the earth would be better off if the rest of us didn't live on it. The anti weapons crowd is going to have to face the fact that to outlaw weapons completely would then leave the human body as the actual #1 cause of lethal blows. And that means outlawing US.

Humans can and will use the weapons available as they come to hand. See the irony now?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I would dare say that a person somewhat trained with edge weapons can inflict a lot more damage than someone with a gun in certain scenarios. .

He he... Your list of "certain situations" is going to be very short.

Yes, in a broom closet, a knife is better than a 52 inch shotgun. Other than that, the gun pretty much always comes out on top.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Look down the list of weapons used in killings - past guns and knives - from FBI statisitics. http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons

Read the conclusions at the bottom.

Well... Not really going to comment on the laughably biased article you linked, but i am familiar with the stats.

Humans can and will use the weapons available as they come to hand.

You are correct, ppl bent on causing harm will use what is at hand. Some things that can be at hand are a LOT more effective for the task of causing harm than others. Guns, if at hand, are at the very top of the list of things that can be used to cause harm.

 

[Onward Allusion]

<sigh> not talking about a knife/sword -vs- gun situation. Rather, I'm referring to a knife/sword -vs- unarmed persons scenario. I know that if I were sitting in my office and I heard a gunshot, the first thing that would come to my mind would be a shooter on the loose. If I all I heard was a commotion, I would not think twice. Maybe some staffers getting unruly.

Whether it's a gun or edge weapon is not the point. Us humans are not limited to these two tools to kill/maim. A determined individual with some intelligence can do a lot of harm without either. Hence, bans & controls on guns & knives are completely useless and only serves to undermine the safety of the masses through a false sense of security.

 

[itsa pain]

Yeah.... Pretty sure that the difference here is that there were ten or more terrorists making a coordinated attack on a crowd.

I feel pretty safe in saying that if those 10+ attackers had been armed with guns, you would have a higher death toll.

You might be right but think of a guy who practices with a double edged samauri sword what he could do to 20-30 people in an office subway car etc. I say more people would be killed and wounded with the sword then a pistol and faster, no reloading

 

[Pizzapinochle]

When attacking an unarmed person/people, with VERY few obscure exceptions, a gun will be more effective at causing harm than a knife or other edged weapon. I don't really think that should be a debate.

 

[george29]

When attacking an unarmed person/people, with VERY few obscure exceptions, a gun will be more effective at causing harm than a knife or other edged weapon. I don't really think that should be a debate.

Knife wounds and gun wounds differ and I think cannot be compared. A gun needs less training than a knife which is one reason guns are used more often in aggression or SD. A gun allows for attack/defense from a distance. In countries where guns are outlawed knives are just as useful for the determined as happened recently in Britain with the soldier slaughtered in daylight.

 

[JustinJ]

One can't seriously believe that the potential for casualties and deaths from a knife wielding mass killer and a mass shooter are equal. I'm sorry but that is just asinine. Yes, there are rare situations in which a person is able to inflict mass causalities with a knife (usually involving captive victims such as children) but they are extremely rare compared to attacks involving firearms. For one, one can not outrun bullets which plays a major factor. If a person had to choose between being present when a wannabe mass murder had a gun or a knife, no rational person would choose the latter. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, I know I'm being off-topic and being nitpicky but I'm home sick and off work today.

Knife: http://translate.google.com/#en/zh-TW/knife
Sword: http://translate.google.com/#en/zh-TW/sword

Well, I am not sick today, but dao (see link for correct spelling) means both sword and knife.
http://characters.cultural-china.com/60.html

Sometimes, Google Translate is a bit too literal and not fully expansive to cover the full range of potential synonyms.

However, this link says BOTH implements were used.

A group of militants armed with knives and swords attacked people randomly at the crowded Kunming railway station in China

http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...-station-attack-by-knife-wielding-terrorists/

 

[Onward Allusion]

Well, I am not sick today, but dao (see link for correct spelling) means both sword and knife.
http://characters.cultural-china.com/60.html

Dao = knife or generic cutting implement. It CAN mean sword but it would be preceded with a descriptor.

Gim (Jian) = sword

 

[Sol]

It doesn't matter the weapon, if somebody is put for blood and determined- there will be blood.

Obviously a gun is a more efficient tool for the job, but don't discount anything especially when the masses are unarmed.

By the way I like the real urbanized art with the knife ban in the U.K.

It speaks volumes to whom their targeted audience is.

 

[itsa pain]

One can't seriously believe that the potential for casualties and deaths from a knife wielding mass killer and a mass shooter are equal. I'm sorry but that is just asinine. Yes, there are rare situations in which a person is able to inflict mass causalities with a knife (usually involving captive victims such as children) but they are extremely rare compared to attacks involving firearms. For one, one can not outrun bullets which plays a major factor. If a person had to choose between being present when a wannabe mass murder had a gun or a knife, no rational person would choose the latter. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Police in California shot over 100 rds at those two women and each got hit once. I think people watch to many movies where the good guy never misses. Such as a shotgun hit picking a man up and putting him thru a wall. Fear and nerves play a big role in a lot of misses. 9 mm round is very marginal and it seems people get hit multiple times and live. A man with a long double edged sword swinging double handed from side to side in a crowded room I say does a big amount of damage

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I suspect there are gun incidents where the sound of gunfire makes potential targets disperse and gets attention of police in the vicinity.

Sci-fi author John Brunner had no problem imagining mass mayhem with guns (Jagged Orbbit) and without guns (Stand on Zanzibar, with "muckers" people who snap and run amok). The one element in common being ta-da the persons acting, and their motives, more important than the means.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

LOL...

http://www.kungfu-taichi.com/servlet/kungfoo/Action/Resource/ResourceKey/1739

In China there is a strict differentiation between the dao and the jian swords. Dao is best translated as broadsword or sabre (the literal translation meaning 'knife') and has a curved single edged blade. The jian on the other hand features a straight, narrow, double-edged design ending in a triangular tip. There is no generic word to cover both types of weapon in the way the word 'sword' is used in English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_(sword)
http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/dao.html

 

[improperlyaged]

But we also know that banning guns to stop crime isn't their agenda. Its to control the population.