24 victims In School STABBING.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

On 14 December 2012 between 7 and 8 a.m. local time, a 36-year-old villager identified as Min Yongjun[2] stabbed 24 people, including 23 children and an elderly woman,[3] in a knife attack at Chenpeng Village Primary School (simplified Chinese: 陈棚村完全小学; traditional Chinese: 陳棚村完全小學; pinyin: Chénpéng-cūn Wánquán Xiǎoxué), Wenshu Township, Guangshan County, Henan province, China.[1][4][5][6] The children targeted by the knifeman are thought likely to be between six and eleven years of age. The attack occurred as the children were arriving for classes

Can mentally disturbed people hurt without guns? Yes.
Is it still rarer that one man with a knife manages to stab so many before prevention, as compared to a man with a gun? Yes.

Still, it's good to remember that no matter what you think of guns, deranged people are the ones who employ them in this fashion. And same goes for knives. Fortunately, there were no deaths.

.....how the fuck does he get past stabbing 4 people before someone tackles him? Were there no adults around?

BAN KNIVES WE"LL HAVE TO CUT OUR MEAT WITH SPOONS FROM NOW ON...

.. Wait... What?

... Spoons can be used for murder too?

BAN SPOONS WE'LL HAVE TO CUT OUR MEAT WITH OUR HANDS FROM NOW ON...

-... Wait.

To be completely fair this likely has to do with how much authorities just don't give a fuck in China moreso than how dangerous knives are, but it does show that real solutions do not come from just banning weapons.

LetalisK:
.....how the fuck does he get past stabbing 4 people before someone tackles him? Were there no adults around?

Generally speaking, getting within arm's length of someone wielding a bladed weapon tends not to be one of those ideas that will get you into MENSA.

I like how they call the guy a 'knifeman' though. If you blow something up, does that make you a Bomberman?

LetalisK:
.....how the fuck does he get past stabbing 4 people before someone tackles him? Were there no adults around?

You'd be amazed at how many people just freeze up and don't do a thing when violence happens, even more so if there's the potential to get hurt if intervening.

Your point really, really fails when it comes to the fact not a single person died.

Seriously, no one is arguing that without guns the murderer would be unable to hurt anyone, it would just make killing all those children difficult... And that school stabbing sort of proves it. They had nearly the same number of victims, except not a single innocent person died in the stabbings.

EDIT: Nevermind, I was under the assumption you were trying to say "Look, even with gun control this slaughter would happen!" My Apologies.

Realitycrash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

On 14 December 2012 between 7 and 8 a.m. local time, a 36-year-old villager identified as Min Yongjun[2] stabbed 24 people, including 23 children and an elderly woman,[3] in a knife attack at Chenpeng Village Primary School (simplified Chinese: 陈棚村完全小学; traditional Chinese: 陳棚村完全小學; pinyin: Chénpéng-cūn Wánquán Xiǎoxué), Wenshu Township, Guangshan County, Henan province, China.[1][4][5][6] The children targeted by the knifeman are thought likely to be between six and eleven years of age. The attack occurred as the children were arriving for classes

Can mentally disturbed people hurt without guns? Yes.
Is it still rarer that one man with a knife manages to stab so many before prevention, as compared to a man with a gun? Yes.

Still, it's good to remember that no matter what you think of guns, deranged people are the ones who employ them in this fashion. And same goes for knives. Fortunately, there were no deaths.

There were only injuries, and that's actually key. Now compare that to the latest gun shooting and you see exactly why people want to get rid of guns.

generals3:

Realitycrash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

On 14 December 2012 between 7 and 8 a.m. local time, a 36-year-old villager identified as Min Yongjun[2] stabbed 24 people, including 23 children and an elderly woman,[3] in a knife attack at Chenpeng Village Primary School (simplified Chinese: 陈棚村完全小学; traditional Chinese: 陳棚村完全小學; pinyin: Chénpéng-cūn Wánquán Xiǎoxué), Wenshu Township, Guangshan County, Henan province, China.[1][4][5][6] The children targeted by the knifeman are thought likely to be between six and eleven years of age. The attack occurred as the children were arriving for classes

Can mentally disturbed people hurt without guns? Yes.
Is it still rarer that one man with a knife manages to stab so many before prevention, as compared to a man with a gun? Yes.

Still, it's good to remember that no matter what you think of guns, deranged people are the ones who employ them in this fashion. And same goes for knives. Fortunately, there were no deaths.

What you failed to mention is that NO ONE died. Only injuries. Now compare that to the latest gun shooting and you see exactly why people want to get rid of guns.

What you failed to notice is that wasn't his point. His point was it takes more than banning weapons. We can't just ban all the guns and call it a day. We also need to confront the problem more dirrectly by improving things like law inforcement, penitentiaries, educations systems, and mental health institutions. And he did mention it. Right at the end of his post.

generals3:

What you failed to mention is that NO ONE died. Only injuries. Now compare that to the latest gun shooting and you see exactly why people want to get rid of guns.

He didn't fail to mention that at all.

Go back and read the post again.

I do agree with the point though, although I don't think the OP was quite going for the "Knives are actually DEADLIER than guns!" approach that I have geniuinely seen some pro-gun morons* spout.

*they're not morons for being pro-gun, there are plenty of intelligent, well reasoned arguments for a lack of gun-control - the people I'm refering to are morons specifically because they genuinely believe that knives are actually more dangerous than guns, they also tend to be the same people that believe that without a gun, the king of England is gonna come and start pushing them around again, which begs the question - why not just get a knife? they're way deadlier!

Revnak:

What you failed to notice is that wasn't his point. His point was it takes more than banning weapons. We can't just ban all the guns and call it a day. We also need to confront the problem more dirrectly by improving things like law inforcement, penitentiaries, educations systems, and mental health institutions. And he did mention it. Right at the end of his post.

Damn, i seem to have missed that part (edited my post accordingly). I guess it is because the point he tried to make seems rather irrelevant if we taken into account the fact there are no casualties.

And here is why: no one ever said criminals would never use any other tools than guns. What the vast majority claim is that guns are simply much more dangerous and make lunatics even more dangerous than they would be with knives, golf sticks or whatever.

What i sometimes find rather tiring is that some pro gun folks fight against nonexistent arguments.

generals3:

Revnak:

What you failed to notice is that wasn't his point. His point was it takes more than banning weapons. We can't just ban all the guns and call it a day. We also need to confront the problem more dirrectly by improving things like law inforcement, penitentiaries, educations systems, and mental health institutions. And he did mention it. Right at the end of his post.

Damn, i seem to have missed that part (edited my post accordingly). I guess it is because the point he tried to make seems rather irrelevant if we taken into account the fact there are no casualties.

It wasn't irrelevant because the point was there are still crazy people and we still need to deal with them.

And here is why: no one ever said criminals would never use any other tools than guns. What the vast majority claim is that guns are simply much more dangerous and make lunatics even more dangerous than they would be with knives, golf sticks or whatever.

Firstly, nobody said that because his was the OP. Secondly, people may not say that, but they certainly can act like that when they refuse to consider any other solution even in tandem with gun control, or at least don't actually work to enact such solutions. Thirdly, I'm pretty certain Reality and anyone with half a brain agrees with the second half of this, so I find it odd that you jumped to the conclusion that he didn't when he almost explicitly did.

What i sometimes find rather tiring is that some pro gun folks fight against nonexistent arguments.

Well I just find it tiring when people do that in general, which is exactly why I called you out here.

Revnak:
Snip

But let's be honest here. Who wouldn't like there to be less lunatics? The question is, how do you deal with them? You can't force anyone with a somewhat shady mental health to be put in an institution. Neither can you guess who's gonna snap. I may have missed it but i can't recall anyone saying that improving (i'm no specialist so i'm not sure how) the way we deal with lunatics is a bad thing.

But i digress, maybe i've spent too much time on the EVE forum with it's infamous "Stealth... threads" where people want to make a point while avoiding getting there directly. Kinda makes me assume "hidden agendas" sometimes... (being pro "less lunatics/better way to deal with them" or just stating the obvious that there are lunatics out there just seemed too obvious to be the sole point of the topic) I have forever been tainted.

But if that was the main and only point i apologize for the assumptions.

generals3:
You can't force anyone with a somewhat shady mental health to be put in an institution.

You sorta can, actually. I don't know how it works in all states, but if a family member of the person in question can stand before a judge and convince him/her that the individual is a credible threat to themselves or others, then the person could potentially be institutionalized against their will. From my understanding it's not an easy process, and the institutionalization is pretty brief... but yeah. I'll admit I'm pretty hazy on the particulars, as I've never looked into it with much detail.

Tuesday Night Fever:

generals3:
You can't force anyone with a somewhat shady mental health to be put in an institution.

You sorta can, actually. I don't know how it works in all states, but if a family member of the person in question can stand before a judge and convince him/her that the individual is a credible threat to themselves or others, then the person could potentially be institutionalized against their will. From my understanding it's not an easy process, and the institutionalization is pretty brief... but yeah. I'll admit I'm pretty hazy on the particulars, as I've never looked into it with much detail.

Well it's possible but usually you need clear evidence they're a threat to society or themselves. And this is very hard to prove unless they're already very far gone. (and often that's too late)

Did you seriously just post this for the sake of your argument? Seriously?

You know what? I'm out. This conversation is stupid as hell. As least Bentusi16 had the decency to appear respectful of the families. Let the Americans sort this out

On topic. This is still pretty terrible, but I'm happy no one died. Let someone else argue about that part, because I'm tired of gun debates.

I read about that the other day on the (Australian) ABC news site, terrible stuff.

But to address the point I think you are making (forgive me if I am in error), I don't think many people see removing guns as a cure-all to these events. Guns are however undeniably better at ending life than knives or other weapons one can legally own, and some guns are better at ending lives than others. So the idea behind removing guns (or better yet, certain types of guns) and otherwise controlling them is to make events like these harder to do, ideally while not unnecessary limiting those who have no intent to commit such acts too much.
Now a ban doesn't really fly with knives since most are not even designed to kill and are needed for many safe non-violent tasks, but as you note nobody died. Would we have been so lucky with a gun being used rather than a knife? I doubt it, and that's really the point I think.

It is interesting however that in both these events the weapons were stolen. I don't think there's anything to that, not trying to make a point. It is simply odd.

On 16 December, the suspect was arrested and charged with the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means

Wat?
So apparently sending over 20 kids to hospitals is an endangerment of public safety in China. I wonder if killing your wife could get you in problems for disturbance of the peace.

Frission:
You know what? I'm out. This conversation is stupid as hell. As least Bentusi16 had the decency to appear respectful of the families. Let the Americans sort this out

For whatever it may be worth to you, I do sincerely apologize if any of my posts offended. I did see Bentusi16's posts that you're referring to... and I must admit, I was moved by them. His words are what convinced me to wait a few days before attempting to jump into the issue.

These two events were both horrific, and I my thoughts have been with the families since I heard the news... but eventually we, as a society, will need to gather our composure and address what happened. Some take longer to heal than others, I get that... and the families of the victims will probably never fully heal... I get that too. But we're not going to be able to stop other families from feeling that pain if we refuse to ever talk about it.

I get the purpose of the original post here. Could it have been expressed with a little more respect? Sure. But Realitycrash still has a valid point, and if I'm correctly understanding it, for the most part I agree with him. Banning weapons isn't going to put an end to deranged individuals committing unspeakable acts of evil. It might act as a speed-bump, but it isn't going to stop them. It's putting a band-aid over a severed appendage. What we need to do is study what drives people to do these things, and we as a society need to stand together and work toward preventing it from happening. It won't be easy; it'll be really goddamn hard, and it'll likely take a long time... but sometimes it's a good thing to plan for the long-term rather than focusing entirely on the short-term.

Did you see the news story about U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller requesting a study be conducted on violent media, violent video games in particular, to determine whether or not it was part of the cause for the school shooting? I don't personally agree with him, but I respect the hell out of him for doing the right thing and requesting studies to be conducted first rather than making knee-jerk ban requests. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, I wish more people looked to answer the question of "why" after a tragic event like this.

Anyway, once again, I didn't mean to offend - and I hope if I did, people would tell me so. I don't regularly post in the R&P section here at the Escapist. The reason this particular issue got me to is because I am a firearm owner... and it does bother me that despite my best efforts to be safe and responsible, the minority of people out there who aren't end up making me look twisted and evil to everyone else. At the end of the day, I'd rather be part of the solution that part of the problem if I can help it.

I'm not really seeing a point being made here.

People would find ways to attack people without guns? No shit. We knew that before guns were invented.

Banning guns isn't a solution? Um, how? The man failed to kill a single person, and he was stabbing kids and an old woman. Which just goes back to the point made by all our British Escapists; removing guns hasn't stopped crimes from happening, but it certainly reduced the Body Count.

Crazy people are crazy? Again, nobody but crazy people would dispute that.

So really not seeing discussion value here, unless you're examing the responses.

The biggest thing I took away from this: No deaths. Knife wounds are typically less fatal, I`ve read news stories of people that were stabbed up to 30 times and lived.

Why even bring that up? 24 people were injured. Sure. Nobody disputes people can still be attacked and sometimes even killed without guns. We know that fact. We know that robberies happen with knives, for instance. But what is this supposed to counter? Nobody argued that wouldn't still happen if gun regulations were tighter. What was argued was the reduction in deaths.

The main point of the OP seems to be: Mentally deranged people do random mass attacks. Sure, okay. For whatever reasons, be they mental, social, emotional, financial etc., people can snap. But that point was never in contention, was it? The question was whether changing the access to the tools used for mass attacks like these would mitigate their effects.

Yeah, the mentally ill are mentally ill, and violence is a thing. Agree completely.

Quaxar:

On 16 December, the suspect was arrested and charged with the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means

Wat?
So apparently sending over 20 kids to hospitals is an endangerment of public safety in China. I wonder if killing your wife could get you in problems for disturbance of the peace.

Only if she screams loud enough to annoy the neighbours.

Quaxar:

On 16 December, the suspect was arrested and charged with the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means

Wat?
So apparently sending over 20 kids to hospitals is an endangerment of public safety in China. I wonder if killing your wife could get you in problems for disturbance of the peace.

Didn't they execute the guy who cut his milk with an artificial protean under the same charge? I remember someone important getting executed over something in the last few years in China (maybe a financial leader, someone at the top of what they did).

Yeah, it's usually safer to determine how bad the crime was based on how the government sentences him rather than by the name of the crime itself.

Deaths: Zero.
Injured: 23.

US Example.

Most people - DEAD.
Injured: The lucky.

Im still sticking to a ban on guns being the safest, this is another example to prove it, had it been guns the kids would not be alive.

Your point? You didnt make it.

generals3:

Revnak:
Snip

But let's be honest here. Who wouldn't like there to be less lunatics? The question is, how do you deal with them? You can't force anyone with a somewhat shady mental health to be put in an institution. Neither can you guess who's gonna snap. I may have missed it but i can't recall anyone saying that improving (i'm no specialist so i'm not sure how) the way we deal with lunatics is a bad thing.

But i digress, maybe i've spent too much time on the EVE forum with it's infamous "Stealth... threads" where people want to make a point while avoiding getting there directly. Kinda makes me assume "hidden agendas" sometimes... (being pro "less lunatics/better way to deal with them" or just stating the obvious that there are lunatics out there just seemed too obvious to be the sole point of the topic) I have forever been tainted.

But if that was the main and only point i apologize for the assumptions.

I posted this before I went to bed, so I haven't had time to reply.
You want to know my 'point', Generals? (Oh god, that sounded like a horribly offensive pun, didn't it? Ugh. Sorry).
My point is that you CAN use any tool as a weapon, but some tools are easier to inflict larger damage than others (like guns). That's why mass-stabbings are rare, but mass-shootings are common (in comparison).
However, this also shows (like the pro-gun people like to claim) that the people who do this are fucking deranged, and had they no guns, it might be likely that they do it with a car, or a knife (I said 'might', because this is not conclusive evidence, nor does it prove that X number of shootings would have been as deadly had they not involved guns but some other 'tool').
Still, it is dishonest to shy away from an argument (not saying you, or others are, but that I would feel that way if I did not bring it up), just because it does not support your particular conclusion. I dislike guns, guns for self-defense, and American gun-culture overall, but I saw this at Wikipedia, and I felt it needed to be posted.

If I were to make another point, it would be that society need to better protect themselves from crazies. By the end 2013, the article claims, China will have a security-guard in every school. Good work, I say.

The Gentleman:

Quaxar:

On 16 December, the suspect was arrested and charged with the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means

Wat?
So apparently sending over 20 kids to hospitals is an endangerment of public safety in China. I wonder if killing your wife could get you in problems for disturbance of the peace.

Didn't they execute the guy who cut his milk with an artificial protean under the same charge? I remember someone important getting executed over something in the last few years in China (maybe a financial leader, someone at the top of what they did).

Yeah, it's usually safer to determine how bad the crime was based on how the government sentences him rather than by the name of the crime itself.

I'll be damned, you're right.

The case of Dangerous Criminals crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law of China, the implementation of the act that constitutes a crime, causing serious injury, death or heavy losses of public or private property, the maximum can be sentenced to death.

It's still a ridiculous name for a law that can carry the death sentence.

Knives don't kill people, people kill people.

You know what would have helped here? If the schoolteachers all carried knives too, then they could have tackled the intruder.

Statistics show that countries with higher rates of knife ownership are safer, or no less safe, than similar countries with less knife ownership. If we only let the psychos have knives, that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage, isn't that obvious?

There's nothing to suggest that making more knives available to people increases the rate of things being cut. That's just warping the data to fit your twisted Liberal agenda.

I myself have a 12" bowie knife on me at all times, concealed-carry of course. A knife is just a tool, it doesn't magically leap out of your hands and stab somebody (except that one time I dropped my knife and impaled the family cat. Meh, more cats still get killed by cars per year, so my conscience is clear).

Batou667:

Statistics show that countries with higher rates of knife ownership are safer, or no less safe, than similar countries with less knife ownership. If we only let the psychos have knives, that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage, isn't that obvious?

Would you be some kind to provide these studies for us? I've only seen such done with guns.

Realitycrash:

Batou667:

Statistics show that countries with higher rates of knife ownership are safer, or no less safe, than similar countries with less knife ownership. If we only let the psychos have knives, that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage, isn't that obvious?

Would you be some kind to provide these studies for us? I've only seen such done with guns.

I think that post was a parody of the gun law discussion...

Quaxar:

Realitycrash:

Batou667:

Statistics show that countries with higher rates of knife ownership are safer, or no less safe, than similar countries with less knife ownership. If we only let the psychos have knives, that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage, isn't that obvious?

Would you be some kind to provide these studies for us? I've only seen such done with guns.

I think that post was a parody of the gun law discussion...

Yes, that was my second guess as well. Still, I had to make sure. Such studies would be interesting.

Batou667:
Knives don't kill people, people kill people.

You know what would have helped here? If the schoolteachers all carried knives too, then they could have tackled the intruder.

Statistics show that countries with higher rates of knife ownership are safer, or no less safe, than similar countries with less knife ownership. If we only let the psychos have knives, that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage, isn't that obvious?

There's nothing to suggest that making more knives available to people increases the rate of things being cut. That's just warping the data to fit your twisted Liberal agenda.

I myself have a 12" bowie knife on me at all times, concealed-carry of course. A knife is just a tool, it doesn't magically leap out of your hands and stab somebody (except that one time I dropped my knife and impaled the family cat. Meh, more cats still get killed by cars per year, so my conscience is clear).

Yeah... people kill people..with KNIVES.

I don't know when you knife fanatics are going to stop getting a sharp on for bladed steel but it's getting ridiculous. Clearly knife crime has gotten out of hand and you just refuse to put the necessary measures in place to ensure that people who do want to legally own knives can do so without putting massive risk on the community.

Seriously the NKA is just brainwashing you sheeple with bullshit and you keep lapping it up.

Also just because you can manage your 12" (seriously what are you trying to compensate for?) tool of murder doesn't mean the rest of the community who are untrained in knifery can.

Quaxar:
It's still a ridiculous name for a law that can carry the death sentence.

I'm sure it sounds much more emotionally heavy in Mandarin.

Alternatively, think of the lack of prison credibility that comes with that.

"What you in for?"

"Endangering the Public Safety"

"like that milk guy?"

I get the idea. Before we had guns, we had swords. Before we had swords, we had rocks. We built swords to protect us from rocks. We built guns to protect us from swords. People killed themselves with guns, with swords and with rocks.

We can never go back to swords. We can never go back to rocks.

Tragedy is the price we pay for our free will and progress. Banning the tools we use is not the solution to those who abuse them. There really isn't a solution to this problem; not one anyone wants to explore for that matter.

We can only learn from this and strive to educate our culture and to help those that truly need it. We must pick up the pieces when we've failed to do so and work to do better next time.

We are merely arguing about treating a symptom, not the disease itself. Guns, swords and rocks are merely symptoms. Any legislation surrounding them won't cure the disease.

Kopikatsu:

LetalisK:
.....how the fuck does he get past stabbing 4 people before someone tackles him? Were there no adults around?

Generally speaking, getting within arm's length of someone wielding a bladed weapon tends not to be one of those ideas that will get you into MENSA.

I like how they call the guy a 'knifeman' though. If you blow something up, does that make you a Bomberman?

I just ate something. So now I'm "Eatman".

I like the ring of that.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked