Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

19 dead, 20 injured in knife attack at Kanaga


bubblykiss

Recommended Posts

Could be.

I don't make this argument as a gun owner, since I'm not one, but I do try to take a balanced look at the issue of gun control, especially these days when both sides are so hysterical.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
18 hours ago, Purifier said:

Usually the insane don't. Never heard of anyone doing that before. But they do resort to more cunning and diabolical methods, like load a truck up with TNT and detonate it in front of buildings. We had one do that over here in front of a federal building in Oklahoma. But he wasn't the first to think of that idea - back in the early 1920's another did a similar thing on Wall Street, with the only difference being this individual used a carriage full of dynamite.

Timothy McVey. I have heard of him even all the way down here. 

So, you are saying that those two incidents are suggesting people are more likely to die from a rampaging truck than terrorism? You know, that just doesn't seem to make sense.....


So you are sort of saying nothing like you initially suggested?? ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Harte said:

I don't know. But I do know of several that had to reload.

Harte

To keep going. No massacre has even ended because the shooter ran out of bullets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

To keep going. No massacre has even ended because the shooter ran out of bullets. 

Maybe not bullets, but failure to properly reload. Gun jam, clip jam, psych issues, etc...

In the Aurora theater massacre there was a gun/clip failure of his long rifle. He then pulled a gun.

In the Columbine massacre the assailants had plenty of extra bullets but decided to commit suicide when they could easily have killed many more.

In the Orlando (Pulse) massacre, the assailant stopped shooting patrons, for unknown reasons. Engagement with LEO, of course, was lethal to the assailant.

Edited by pallidin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Harte said:

From what I've found, only 5 instances of mass murder (in the US - with guns) had higher death totals. link

Apparently, only 8 gun massacres with higher death tolls worldwide. link

This is modern history, though. Also, some of the info I found could be out of date.

One should consider that some of these massacres were perpetrated by two or more people, like in San Bernardino.

What would have been the death toll in this case if two murderers were involved?

So, yes, it is not only "near the numbers achieved by those with guns," this death toll actually surpasses most mass murder shooting death tolls.

Harte

 

That list seems to be missing an awful lot, like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and the info it does have seems to incorrect, for instance, the Texas incident listed ended up with 23 dead, 24 including the perpetrator, not 22 as quoted at that link. 

Mte, with all due respect, it is preposterous to say that a knife equals a gun. I understand about hysterics, I just really frown on Gun Culture, coming from a place where the citizens opted for it, and benefit from it greatly. I feel many take tremendous advantage of such loose laws, and it only serves the people in the top echelons of the NRA, which makes a ridiculous amount of money every year. Gun culture is not only industry driven, that industry is tremendously greedy.

This is the angle I think you will find most Aussies concern stems from. Yeah, it's Cracked, bloody good clip though. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Maybe not bullets, but failure to properly reload. Gun jam, clip jam, psych issues, etc...

In the Aurora theater massacre there was a gun/clip failure of his long rifle. He then pulled a gun.

In the Columbine massacre the assailants had plenty of extra bullets but decided to commit suicide when they could easily have killed many more.

 

Mate, you are not filling me with confidence here.

 

I stand on our record, Martin Bryant was where Aussies said "enough is enough". There were those who opposed control, they have been interviewed in recent times, and are now very glad it was introduced, have stated their fears were unfounded and that it definitely was the best way forward. If we can do it others can too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No confidence is given, because murder, by any means, is horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

That list seems to be missing an awful lot, like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and the info it does have seems to incorrect, for instance, the Texas incident listed ended up with 23 dead, 24 including the perpetrator, not 22 as quoted at that link. 

Mte, with all due respect, it is preposterous to say that a knife equals a gun. I understand about hysterics, I just really frown on Gun Culture, coming from a place where the citizens opted for it, and benefit from it greatly.

I stated the numbers could be wrong.

I didn't state a gun is equal to a knife.

My point was that mass murders will happen with or without guns, and when it comes to death toll there's not a lot of difference.

However, it should be noted that mass killings are not the way most people are murdered, and in the "scary" U.S. you are a thousand times more likely to die in an auto accident than by a shooting, unless you're a gang member.

Harte

ETA: Okay, maybe 500 times more likely.

Edited by Harte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Timothy McVey. I have heard of him even all the way down here.

So, you are saying that those two incidents are suggesting people are more likely to die from a rampaging truck than terrorism? You know, that just doesn't seem to make sense.....


So you are sort of saying nothing like you initially suggested?? ;)

Naw, I was talking about how insane individuals with trucks, using them in such diabolical ways to kill more people, compared to knives or guns. I don't think we're on the same page here, Psyche.
 



 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Harte said:

I stated the numbers could be wrong.

That is more than fair enough, you certainly did. But it seems it is. Most Gun orientated literature, particularly from the states I find heavily biased. 

Quote

I didn't state a gun is equal to a knife.

My bad, I did get the impression you were implying such. 

Quote

My point was that mass murders will happen with or without guns, and when it comes to death toll there's not a lot of difference.

They do happen, with terrorism, and all sorts, thing is less guns means less deaths, and other countries prove that. I do not think that message gets the respect or dissemination that it deserves.

Quote

However, it should be noted that mass killings are not the way most people are murdered, and in the "scary" U.S. you are a thousand times more likely to die in an auto accident than by a shooting, unless you're a gang member.

But more due to volume. A lot of people drive every day at speed, that creates a risk just partaking, but a measured risk as we do have regulation of vehicles, which is being improved each year to reduce those deaths. Gun culture increases death counts. 

Quote

Harte

ETA: Okay, maybe 500 times more likely.

See how effective those measures are, we just halved that statistic in what - 18 minutes? ;):lol:

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Purifier said:

Naw, I was talking about how insane individuals with trucks, using them in such diabolical ways to kill more people, compared to knives or guns. I don't think we're on the same page here, Psyche.

 

 

Me too, I know you and Harte, and I know you are good guys, the "scary" ones are the crazies like that fellow Aztek. I realise there is a healthy side to Gun Culture, it is the ugly side that comes with that which I would love to see eliminated, or at least curbed as much as is humanly possible. People like Daniel making silly remarks tend to make my gun control meter go off, but it's all aimed at the more extreme people. I think they should be made more accountable at least. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, pallidin said:

No confidence is given, because murder, by any means, is horrible.

That dear fellow, we can agree on heartily. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm all for the second amendment, but it shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license. Some sort of psychological evaluation should be prerequisite, and a competency test.

Sadly, history and current events show us that when people choose to eschew the option of self-defense, they die like sheep whenever a wolf enters the fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/29/2016 at 5:36 PM, Hammerclaw said:

I'm all for the second amendment, but it shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license. Some sort of psychological evaluation should be prerequisite, and a competency test.

Sadly, history and current events show us that when people choose to eschew the option of self-defense, they die like sheep whenever a wolf enters the fold.

Nah

You have to watch the quiet ones mate.....................

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2016 at 3:36 AM, Hammerclaw said:

I'm all for the second amendment, but it shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a driver's license. Some sort of psychological evaluation should be prerequisite, and a competency test.

More people are killed with automobiles than with guns--in my opinion, it's way too easy for anyone to become eligible for automobile operation.

There are already checks and balances for owning a gun.  But I'll agree to that competency test if the test actually works, and we can repeal/remove the thousand of other laws that make it hard to exercise self defense and support the 2nd Amendment.  It's all about compromise, and one side has already compromised enough on this issue.

What I don't agree with is me being punished for someone else mis-using their weapon for evil purposes.  Nor blaming an inanimate object instead of that person's own instability.

As the subject of this thread shows, it's a lunatic armed with something used as a weapon that does the killing.  Gun, knives, cars, poison, explosives...they are all just tools, inanimate until used improperly by bad people.

Quote

Sadly, history and current events show us that when people choose to eschew the option of self-defense, they die like sheep whenever a wolf enters the fold.

That is always true.  In the entire history of forever your statement applies.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun debates are simple to me. 

As long as I am able to defend myself I am happy. Everyone should inherently be allowed to defend themselves and a gun is the great equalizer, it can defend you no matter your size sex or age.

Some gun control measures I accept, like the sale of full auto wepons being banned. But I know most all measures are useless and a waste of time unless you do a total ban. And if you did a total ban then the average Joe wwould no longer have their right to defend their own life.

Until cops learn how to teleport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Gun debates are simple to me. 

As long as I am able to defend myself I am happy. Everyone should inherently be allowed to defend themselves and a gun is the great equalizer, it can defend you no matter your size sex or age.

I agree with that.

24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Some gun control measures I accept, like the sale of full auto wepons being banned.

Automatic weapons aren't banned nation-wide.  In general, one just has to pay an extra tax on it, and in some areas, have to have the local sheriff or other law-enforcement chief to sign off on it.

It's difficult to get an automatic weapon legally--a bit too difficult.  But that doesn't stop a criminal from getting one illegally.  An outright ban would change nothing.

24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

But I know most all measures are useless and a waste of time unless you do a total ban. And if you did a total ban then the average Joe wwould no longer have their right to defend their own life.

Until cops learn how to teleport.

A total ban/confiscation is completely out of the question.  It never works anyway, and like you alluded to, people would be unable to defend themselves, which is completely unacceptable unless one lives in an area that doesn't respect the right of life and doesn't give one care about what happens to their fellow humans.  This country is not one of those places (with exceptions, of course. Chicago isn't a very nice place, after all, and no one there has the right to defend themselves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Gun debates are simple to me. 

This is not a gun debate though, funnily enough Pro Gun people keep bringing the subject up, this was knife attack in Japan. Seeing people so paranoid about Gun control though does speak volumes about it. 

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

As long as I am able to defend myself I am happy. Everyone should inherently be allowed to defend themselves and a gun is the great equalizer, it can defend you no matter your size sex or age.

That is such BS. Sorry mate, it is.

A Gun is an unfair advantage is what it is. Look at this case. A Crazy man wants to euthanise people. If he had a gun, there would without doubt be many, many many more people dead right now. 

It allows some weedy little Junky to become a robber and a murderer, it allows some thug to become an overlord. And that happens a hell of a lot more often than some Granny defending herself.

And the "inanimate object" argument just does not work. It is as bad as the 6,000 year old earth argument, and is almost the same twisted logic. These inanimate objects exist to kill, that is their primary purpose. It does not make any difference if someone is claiming defence, they would not likely need that defence if Guns were not so freely available to the perpetrators to begin with. The situation creates itself. The only real winners here are the top few Fat Cats at the NRA raking the dollars in. And they have very broad rakes.

A true "great equaliser" will never exist, because thugs will take advantage of any situation, a whole new approach is warranted. Few are willing to think outside the box here, but nothing will change until someone does. Terrorists will continue to shoot people for God, crazies will continue to break into schools and kill innocent little kids. 

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Some gun control measures I accept, like the sale of full auto wepons being banned. But I know most all measures are useless and a waste of time unless you do a total ban. And if you did a total ban then the average Joe wwould no longer have their right to defend their own life.

Australia does not have a total ban. Although that is a common misconception. Gun Control has been a massive and huge success story here. And the majority of citizens are very much behind it. It has given our country a better way, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. 

28 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Until cops learn how to teleport.

Do you not feel that making "society" safer would not attract a better quality cop? And make it a much more attractive profession? Because of some bad cops, good cops are being killed, nobody wants a job where you have a high risk of not coming home again. I think if you worked on society, and made it safer, more people would want to become cops, and they would feel better about their workplace and conditions and that always reflects in better performance. 

The part about countries not having armed citizens is utter nonsense, I am not sure how anyone would not agree. Do people forget this is the year 2016? If another country invades, or of one's own Government takes the one in a billion chance to turn on it's own people, in this day and age, a gun in the home is just laughable. Missiles and drone strikes could reduce cities to rubble in minutes. A gun is not going to help anyone in the modern world, hell, why not keep a potato gun handy, it is just as effective. And you can eat the bullets if you do get into a true dire situation. 

However as stated this is a thread about the Japan stabbing. The Pro Gunners keep raising this pointless issue of deadly weapons. All that will do is have the thread shut down. If you guys want to keep killing each other, we cannot stop you, we can only tell you how we did resolve our own situation and hope common sense will one day prevail for the sake of the innocent victims. But lets give the silly guns a rest for now, and try approaching the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This is not a gun debate though, funnily enough Pro Gun people keep bringing the subject up, this was knife attack in Japan. Seeing people so paranoid about Gun control though does speak volumes about it. 

That is such BS. Sorry mate, it is.

A Gun is an unfair advantage is what it is. Look at this case. A Crazy man wants to euthanise people. If he had a gun, there would without doubt be many, many many more people dead right now. 

It allows some weedy little Junky to become a robber and a murderer, it allows some thug to become an overlord. And that happens a hell of a lot more often than some Granny defending herself.

And the "inanimate object" argument just does not work. It is as bad as the 6,000 year old earth argument, and is almost the same twisted logic. These inanimate objects exist to kill, that is their primary purpose. It does not make any difference if someone is claiming defence, they would not likely need that defence if Guns were not so freely available to the perpetrators to begin with. The situation creates itself. The only real winners here are the top few Fat Cats at the NRA raking the dollars in. And they have very broad rakes.

A true "great equaliser" will never exist, because thugs will take advantage of any situation, a whole new approach is warranted. Few are willing to think outside the box here, but nothing will change until someone does. Terrorists will continue to shoot people for God, crazies will continue to break into schools and kill innocent little kids. 

Australia does not have a total ban. Although that is a common misconception. Gun Control has been a massive and huge success story here. And the majority of citizens are very much behind it. It has given our country a better way, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. 

Do you not feel that making "society" safer would not attract a better quality cop? And make it a much more attractive profession? Because of some bad cops, good cops are being killed, nobody wants a job where you have a high risk of not coming home again. I think if you worked on society, and made it safer, more people would want to become cops, and they would feel better about their workplace and conditions and that always reflects in better performance. 

The part about countries not having armed citizens is utter nonsense, I am not sure how anyone would not agree. Do people forget this is the year 2016? If another country invades, or of one's own Government takes the one in a billion chance to turn on it's own people, in this day and age, a gun in the home is just laughable. Missiles and drone strikes could reduce cities to rubble in minutes. A gun is not going to help anyone in the modern world, hell, why not keep a potato gun handy, it is just as effective. And you can eat the bullets if you do get into a true dire situation. 

However as stated this is a thread about the Japan stabbing. The Pro Gunners keep raising this pointless issue of deadly weapons. All that will do is have the thread shut down. If you guys want to keep killing each other, we cannot stop you, we can only tell you how we did resolve our own situation and hope common sense will one day prevail for the sake of the innocent victims. But lets give the silly guns a rest for now, and try approaching the subject.

 

I brought up gun control because that seemed to be what was being debated on page two when I looked. Look at my first post on page one I never brought up gun control.

Better cops are good but they still won't be able to instantly teleport to where a problem is. Hence this knife situation.

So I'll keep my gun, I'm sure I'll never even have to use it. Your country can do whatever it wants.

I never mentioned the goverment thing but if you want to talk about it I can. The world has changed and currently I dout a goverment would do anything horrible to its people. But in 100 years the world will change again and then again 100 years after that. The world is always changing you never know. The soviets, nazi and red Chinese , imperial japanese and north korean citizens all believed it was the new world changing for the better, progress. They came to regret that. You just never know how things will change. It's best to be prepared.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I brought up gun control because that seemed to be what was being debated on page two when I looked. Look at my first post on page one I never brought up gun control.

Fair enough, Danielost started it, and it has usurped the subject is all. 

Quote

Better cops are good but they still won't be able to instantly teleport to where a problem is. Hence this knife situation.

You would have more of them, and people would trust them more, if that does not result in better performance, I do not know what would. Better performance logically follows better practices. Add that to Gun Control and there is no way that does not equal a safer environment, the answer is there, people do not want to hear it. 

Quote

So I'll keep my gun, I'm sure I'll never even have to use it. Your country can do whatever it wants.

That is fine, but you should not be amazed at the many mass shootings and random killings, that comes hand in hand with Gun Culture, I sleep better at night knowing my false notion of self protection has not resulted in a person easily attaining a weapon and killing innocent children.

That is the big trade of, a safer community. Because paranoid people think they need a gun, too many people have them including crazies. Gun Control would only insist that any gun Holder has a darn good reason to own a Gun. That is not in conflict with your second at all. That is why so many Australians are so much behind the move. If you could throw away every gun that has never been used to save one of those kids lives who have been shot dead in a school massacre, would you do it? Because that is essentially what Australia did with Gun Control. If you feel that a false sense of security is worth those lives, than that of course is yours, or anyones personal choice - in the US. But other countries are not as reliant on Gun Manufacture as a way of stabilizing the economy. 

Quote

I never mentioned the goverment thing but if you want to talk about it I can. The world has changed and currently I dout a goverment would do anything horrible to its people. But in 100 years the world will change again and then again 100 years after that. The world is always changing you never know. The soviets, nazi and red Chinese , imperial japanese and north korean citizens all believed it was the new world changing for the better, progress. They came to regret that. You just never know how things will change. It's best to be prepared.

So does it not make sense to move with the times? Recognise those changes and adapt to them, like most other countries have that have initiated Gun Control to their benefit? There are far too many positive examples to say "Gun Control Does Not Work" Simply put, it does. The only people that would disagree are the NRA and Gun Mad minions who are so Pro Gun, I am sure they embarrass you, and any other proclaimed "responsible" Gun Owner. 
Why stick with ancient traditional values that have been transcended by many already, and to their benefit? I mean, if you had kept a Musket in your Family for several generations, what use would it be to you today with regards to any of the modern threats listed? Not like you could use it in self defence, or the agreed extremely unlikely claim that Pro Gunners use about the Government. The approach seems overly conservative and very illogical. 

 

BTW, I did like you post, I do not agree with the logic as one can see, but I do appreciate that you can express your reasoning and stand behind it. When "other posters" whose nicks begin with an "A" quote from the NRA, it is like quoting from a Creationist Website about Evolution. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.