Chinese teenager kills eight wounds five in spree of violence

[True Federalist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19091840

A teenager has killed eight people and wounded five others in a knife attack in China's Liaoning province, state media says.

[...]

State media said the 17-year-old killed two of his girlfriend's relatives "after having conflicts" with his girlfriend.

He killed the other six people "while fleeing the scene", it said.

[Tender Branson]

You probably should point out that if he had access to a handgun/rifle, he would probably have killed 20, not 8 ...

[True Federalist]

You probably should point out that if he had access to a handgun/rifle, he would probably have killed 20, not 8 ...

In this case he probably would have killed fewer.  It sounds as if others tried to grapple him as he fled and he used his knife on them so he could get away.  If he'd had a gun those samaritans would have been less likely to get in his way.  Also, it sounds as if this was an impulse crime. Once his handgun was out of ammo, he couldn't have hurt others too easily, since he would have been unlikely to have carried more than a single normal-sized clip.

[dead0man]

I refuse to see human life sacrificed on an altar to appease the pantheon of the knife gods that rule China.

and before the you-know-whos get in here, screw you, I'll politicize something that is inherently tied to politics. Why shouldn't 8 people dying needlessly lead to change? Because too many Chinese have a knife fetish to actually pass laws that might prevent these frickin massacres every few months!?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

You probably should point out that if he had access to a handgun/rifle, he would probably have killed 20, not 8 ...

In this case he probably would have killed fewer.  It sounds as if others tried to grapple him as he fled and he used his knife on them so he could get away.  If he'd had a gun those samaritans would have been less likely to get in his way.  Also, it sounds as if this was an impulse crime. Once his handgun was out of ammo, he couldn't have hurt others too easily, since he would have been unlikely to have carried more than a single normal-sized clip.

     The way that guns are treated as weapons of exceptional killing power, it's easy to see how poor decision-making on the part of bystanders could lead to an inflated body count in a knife rampage. Media regularly overstates the effectiveness of firearms for dramatic effect. Knives get little respect by comparison.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Serious question: is non-firearm related violent crime higher in nations that have strict gun control laws?


On another note: you guys aren't clever.

[bgwah]

Are the gun nuts trying to convince me of something? They're just making themselves look pretty silly right now.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Are the gun nuts trying to convince me of something? They're just making themselves look pretty silly right now.

     The truth can look silly. That is why silliness is altogether irrelevant.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Based off my initial findings, it appears that non-firearm related homicides are somewhat higher in countries that have blanket bans on guns. Example: there are as many stabbings per capita in Finland as there are in America. That's pretty counter-intuitive based on Finland's far lower crime rate and standard of living. Congratulations to all of the really, really funny people who contributed to this thread. You have managed to indirectly convince me that gun control is possibly less effective than advertised.

Does gun control reduce gun-related violence? Yes. It's undeniable. I hope that at the very least those who are in favor of our lax policy at least admit to that.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

NOTA, knifes are mostly used for nonviolent actions.  Guns, however....

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Based off my initial findings, it appears that non-firearm related homicides are somewhat higher in countries that have blanket bans on guns. Example: there are as many stabbings per capita in Finland as there are in America. That's pretty counter-intuitive based on Finland's far lower crime rate and standard of living. Congratulations to all of the really, really funny people who contributed to this thread. You have managed to indirectly convince me that gun control is possibly less effective than advertised.

Does gun control reduce gun-related violence? Yes. It's undeniable. I hope that at the very least those who are in favor of our lax policy at least admit to that.

     On a more serious note, gun laws are a reflection of the social norms of their community. Blanket gun bans succeeded in England due to a lack of any substantial gun culture there. They could make it legal to buy an AK-47 at your local pharmacy and I suspect few people would. On the other hand, gun control laws are lax in the United States due to resistance from a deeply ingrained gun culture. If all guns were banned here, many people would just buy them illegally.

     My point is, there are plenty of reasons to think that gun control doesn't work that well. I am sure that it is not completely ineffectual, but its proponents are best characterized as hyperbolic. Well, that's true for any side of any issue. This is politics, after all.

[dead0man]

NOTA, knifes are mostly used for nonviolent actions.  Guns, however....

Are also used mostly for nonviolent actions.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  Your typical round will end it's life buried in a tree, hay bale, ground, backstop at the shotting range, occasionally in a deer or bunny and very very VERY rarely in a human.

[Senator Sbane]

Putting a bullet in a bunny or a deer might be considered a violent action by some people.

[Joe Republic]

NOTA, knifes are mostly used for nonviolent actions.  Guns, however....

Are also used mostly for nonviolent actions.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  Your typical round will end it's life buried in a tree, hay bale, ground, backstop at the shotting range, occasionally in a deer or bunny and very very VERY rarely in a human.

All of those are examples of either violent actions, or practicing how to perform violent actions.

[dead0man]

Putting a bullet in a bunny or a deer might be considered a violent action by some people.

I consider it a violent action.  But my point was guns/rounds are much more likely to be used against a non-living target instead of an animal.  By a LONG...ahem...shot.

...and to keep the pointless shenanigans going......putting a knife through a chicken corpse might be considered a violent action by some people.

NOTA, knifes are mostly used for nonviolent actions.  Guns, however....

Are also used mostly for nonviolent actions.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  Your typical round will end it's life buried in a tree, hay bale, ground, backstop at the shotting range, occasionally in a deer or bunny and very very VERY rarely in a human.

All of those are examples of either violent actions, or practicing how to perform violent actions.

Only if you stupidly ignorantly think all guns are designed to kill people and have no other purpose.  Shooting at a target to get better at shooting at a target is a violent action (or practicing to perform a violent action)?  But ignoring the obvious exceptions to your point, what is your point?

[Joe Republic]

Other than shooting humans and animals, what other purpose do guns serve?

Somehow I don't think shooting inanimate objects for 'fun' or whatever was really what Samuel Colt had in mind...

[dead0man]

Some people get off on the mechanical complexity.  Some people get off on being able to put a small hole in a piece of paper 200 yards away in the same place over and over.

But none of this matters.  Fuzzy insinuated that guns are mostly used for violence, and that's obviously not true.  You trying to move his goal posts for him is a nice thing to do, but doesn't really change much from my perspective.

[Joe Republic]

Well true, we're not going to convince each other of anything new.  Much like with smoking, I will never be able to get into the hick mindset of finding 'fun' in something inherently dangerous to others (and oneself).

[dead0man]

Well at least you didn't use stereotyping to get there

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Well at least you didn't use stereotyping to get there

Because you've never stooped to that level before, eh?

[dead0man]

Of course, everybody does/has.  And when they (or I) do, they (or I) should be called on it...no?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Ah, so now you take the high road.  What a coincidence!

[Communists For McCain]

Good god this is ridiculous.

Though, a point has been made.  Practicing at the gun range can be seen as preparing to do a dangerous act.  As in perfecting your aim can and will make you more proficient at killing people when the time calls for it.

Hmmm, kind of like knife throwing.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

It's probably a sign that China has finally joined the league of civilized nations that they now have their own arbitrary spree killers. The onward march continues...

[bore]

Obviously because nukes aren't the only weapon in the world, we should give up any attempt to stop criminals getting them, because if they don't have nukes they'll just use a gun. Or a knife. Or an axe. Or a car. Or a baseball bat. Or a trombone.