• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Train station knife attack kills 27, injures 109 in China

MACS-24

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,329
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So, other countries with stricter gun control are safer as many have suggested?
BEIJING — China’s official Xinhua News Agency says at least 27 people are dead and 109 injured after a group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China.
Xinhua did not provide more details about the Saturday evening attack at the Kunming Railway Station in Yunnan province, and the attackers were not identified. Kunming city police did not have immediate information to release.
Local television station K6 says that several of the attackers were shot by police and that victims were being transported to local hospitals.
Photos circulating online showed scattered luggage and bodies lying on the floor in blood.
The motive behind the attack was not immediately clear, but China has seen a number of mass stabbings and other attacks carried out by people bearing grudges against society. washingtontimes.com
Click to expand...

Take away one weapon and criminals will use another. Stop focusing on the tool.

Speedy recovery to all victims.
 
MACS-24 said:
So, other countries with stricter gun control are safer as many have suggested?


Take away one weapon and criminals will use another. Stop focusing on the tool.

Speedy recovery to all victims.
Click to expand...

Just imagine if each of the men had a stick of dynamite. I guess that is why I can't buy a canon at Walmart.
 
1750Texan said:
Just imagine if each of the men had a stick of dynamite. I guess that is why I can't buy a canon at Walmart.
Click to expand...

What, your Walmart doesn't carry cannons? I thought you were from Texas!
 
Oh no, let's ban knives! As I keep saying, banning guns won't work, the crazies will just use another weapon and cause just as much damage.
 
1750Texan said:
believe it or not...even Red State Texas has gun restrictions. Just like the one on a 18-21 CC law that NRA challenged.
Click to expand...

What an outrageous concept that women 18 to 20 should be able to protect themselves from rape and assault.
 
1750Texan said:
Just imagine if each of the men had a stick of dynamite. I guess that is why I can't buy a canon at Walmart.
Click to expand...

How does that relate to self-defense?
 
1750Texan said:
Just imagine if each of the men had a stick of dynamite. I guess that is why I can't buy a canon at Walmart.
Click to expand...

A stick of dynamite probably wouldn't have caused as many casualties. A hand-grenade wouldn't have cause as many casualites.

If you want a cannon, try here. They do beautiful work...

SBR Gunbarrels - South Bend Replicas, Inc. Antique Civil War artillery reproductions. Replicas including cannons, muzzleloading artillery, antique cannon reproductions, antique cannon replicas, muzzleloading ordnance, muzzleloading supplies, Civil Wa
 
Holy **** man, what's with China and knife attacks?

Anyway, hope for a safe recovery for the survivors.
 
1750Texan said:
believe it or not...even Red State Texas has gun restrictions. Just like the one on a 18-21 CC law that NRA challenged.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have those restrictions.
 
Cephus said:
Oh no, let's ban knives! As I keep saying, banning guns won't work, the crazies will just use another weapon and cause just as much damage.
Click to expand...

And sometimes more damage when they resort to using weapons like home-made bombs. That was the goal at the Boston Marathon, and look at the Oklahoma bombing in the 90s. Look at the damage suicide bombers create in the ME. They kill and wound 100s of people at a time.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Holy **** man, what's with China and knife attacks?

Anyway, hope for a safe recovery for the survivors.
Click to expand...

My guess, years of oppressive government.
 
ChrisL said:
And sometimes more damage when they resort to using weapons like home-made bombs. That was the goal at the Boston Marathon, and look at the Oklahoma bombing in the 90s. Look at the damage suicide bombers create in the ME. They kill and wound 100s of people at a time.
Click to expand...

That would be hard to defend but at least with guns, knives, clubs, etc. give the people the ability and right to defend themselves. Not sure on accuracy but apparently in England it would be a crime to defend oneself. Never heard anything on that in China. Except, guns are very restrictive.
 
MACS-24 said:
That would be hard to defend but at least with guns, knives, clubs, etc. give the people the ability and right to defend themselves. Not sure on accuracy but apparently in England it would be a crime to defend oneself. Never heard anything on that in China. Except, guns are very restrictive.
Click to expand...

To be clear, what I mean to say is that when you take away guns from the population, the criminals will just find more destructive ways to kill. They aren't going to stop killing just because one tool is taken away. They will just start using something else. It's silly of some to even suggest that creating more strict gun laws are going to do anything at all to cut down on criminal activity. We can see that it is certainly NOT the case just by looking at the crime level in Chicago when guns were banned.

Some interesting facts. :)

Chicago’s murder rate is far worse now than it was during the city’s most notorious crime era, Al Capone’s “gangland,” when gun-control laws hardly existed, ABC reports. Leading up to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, there were 26 killings in January 1929. Yet, 42 people were killed in Chicago last month, catching the attention of Chicagoans, the White House and politicians nationwide. If the current murder rate continues, February 2013 will far exceed February 1929, when there were 26 killings, including the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The first national firearms act, which wasn’t signed until 1934, required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and a $200 tax, ABC reports. However, gun control ceased to exist during Mr. Capone’s heyday in the Roaring ‘20s. Chicago has the strictest gun-control laws in the country. “Assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines are completely banned, and up until a 2010 Supreme Court decision, handguns were banned, too. Residents now can get a permit to own a gun, but the process requires training, background checks and a firearm owner’s identification card.


Read more: Chicago murder rate far worse since strict gun control - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
To be clear, what I mean to say is that when you take away guns from the population, the criminals will just find more destructive ways to kill. They aren't going to stop killing just because one tool is taken away. They will just start using something else. It's silly of some to even suggest that creating more strict gun laws are going to do anything at all to cut down on criminal activity. We can see that it is certainly NOT the case just by looking at the crime level in Chicago when guns were banned.

Some interesting facts. :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree and that's what I thought you meant. I was actually starting to type something else then as soon as I typed first couple of words your post made me start to think how, to me, the lines of terrorism and multiple gun/knife victims (school shootings & this China story) begin to blur. They both create terror (look at media reports after school shootings) so NOW how do you address it? So, my above response as thought more about it.
 
ChrisL said:
And sometimes more damage when they resort to using weapons like home-made bombs. That was the goal at the Boston Marathon, and look at the Oklahoma bombing in the 90s. Look at the damage suicide bombers create in the ME. They kill and wound 100s of people at a time.
Click to expand...

Compare that to school shootings and these other attacks cause a lot more damage, yet nobody is arguing to ban knives. It's just an emotional reaction against guns, not a rational one.
 
MACS-24 said:
Totally agree and that's what I thought you meant. I was actually starting to type something else then as soon as I typed first couple of words your post made me start to think how, to me, the lines of terrorism and multiple gun/knife victims (school shootings & this China story) begin to blur. They both create terror (look at media reports after school shootings) so NOW how do you address it? So, my above response as thought more about it.
Click to expand...

I would have no idea on how to go about addressing such problems, but I don't think banning one tool of many other possible options is going to stop a person who is on a murderous rampage. The lack of a gun being present is certainly not going to make a person change his mind about killing a bunch of people IMO, as your story demonstrates.
 
Cephus said:
Compare that to school shootings and these other attacks cause a lot more damage, yet nobody is arguing to ban knives. It's just an emotional reaction against guns, not a rational one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, these kind of people aren't concerned with the loss of life, just guns. They only make a stink about death if it is caused by a firearm.
 
1) Guns are more convenient and more deadly than knives
2) Knives have multiple uses. Gun's only use is to either kill, injure, or threaten
3) If the argument for owning guns is that guns deter violence, you can also argue that even more deadly weapons (RPG's, chemical weapons, etc) could do an even better job at deterring violence, but an overwhelming majority of people, including pro-gun supporters, would agree that these weapons should not be made available to the public.
 
theaterofdreams said:
1) Guns are more convenient and more deadly than knives
2) Knives have multiple uses. Gun's only use is to either kill, injure, or threaten
3) If the argument for owning guns is that guns deter violence, you can also argue that even more deadly weapons (RPG's, chemical weapons, etc) could do an even better job at deterring violence, but an overwhelming majority of people, including pro-gun supporters, would agree that these weapons should not be made available to the public.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not my argument for owning guns as a deterrent. Mine is if some one wants to attempt use of gun on me I want the right to also have a gun, or knife. Basically the means to self protect as I see fit.
 
Making sense is only going to cause our enlightened progressives(leftists) to demand government subsidies for pot.
MACS-24 said:
So, other countries with stricter gun control are safer as many have suggested?


Take away one weapon and criminals will use another. Stop focusing on the tool.

Speedy recovery to all victims.
Click to expand...
 
I think the argument that gun control is a worthless idea because violence still happens without guns is as weak or weaker than the argument that gun control would have any immediate effect on violence and crime which is itself quite weak.
 
Cephus said:
Oh no, let's ban knives! As I keep saying, banning guns won't work, the crazies will just use another weapon and cause just as much damage.
Click to expand...

What's Chinas intentional homicide rate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom