China mass stabbing: Deadly knife attack in Kunming

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Weird, should have just stabbed them. Same thing.

 

I wonder if China is at some sort of tipping point with the crowds, the suicidally brain numbing factory work and lack of voice in the say of their own lives? I know two data points make for extremely sloppy extrapolation.

 

I kind of understand the idiotic point, but I've repeatedly said range is the difference. Why relinquish range unnecessarily?

 

Range doesn't make killing far more effective?

 

effective? how in the hell is it more effective?

 

Depends on the person pulling the trigger. I know a few guys I hunt with, the safest place for a duck in the country is in front of their barrels.

 

The other person not being able to do anything certainly helps.

 

I think they might do ok with an object 50 times larger

 

effectiveness as a killing machine is a different debate. If it was about range and firepower, the main gun on a M1 Tank would be even better, but it just wouldn't be.

 

This is an entertaining thread.

 

I had all of these thoughts.

 

The M1 Tank's main gun is not an effective killing tool? Seems like I could be taking out buildings with it.

 

you can't take out buildings with it. All of these things have context, which you keep ignoring. Unwieldy crap is useless in many settings. Knives are better than guns in many settings. Guns are better than knives in many settings.

You keep using this term effective and I'm not sure you have applied it appropriately yet.

 

Right. And in the case of "individual wanting to inflict as much lethal force to as many people as possible," I would rank the M-1 over a gun, and a gun over a knife.

Hysterically retarded of me, I know. Just try to catch your breath. Applying combat context to "insane guy" is what is bewilderingly nonsenical.

 

your tank would be simply retarded, unless you're squaring off on a battlefield. In that context, your silliness about banning handguns and assault rifles is even stupider.

You can keep the lefty thing running, but your distrust of LE doesn't at all square with wiping out assault rifles.

Where is the threshold for ability to kill needing a public conversation and ensuing vote? Should be outlaw people who could take a knife, kill you with it and shove the gun your using against them up your anus.

 

Please find a post where I have ever said handguns or assault rifles should be banned. If you can't find it or won't bother to look, I'd appreciate if you would refrain from making shit up.

The reason why my "thing" doesn't square is because it is a figment of your imagination. Yes, if you invent my views or broadly paint my views I can see why they wouldn't square.

1) Using a knife to take out multiple people with guns would require a level of skill your random crazy doesn't possess, or a very specific and bizarre context.
2) If they kill me first I won't care what they do to my anus. I'll be dead.

 

I know where you are on guns. You talk about your own and lament that people don't want to join your "conversation" about guns, which is code for we need new rules and they should look like what IP believes.

Who talked about multiple people with guns? You keep telling me about effectiveness. I want to know what that means? Your thing is this "conversation," which is crap as I said above. We remove potential firepower from private citizens, we move closer to police autonomy. LCD can become a cop and I don't want LCD roaming the streets without some concern for reprisals.

The threshold for getting to avoid the IP "conversation"? Forget the anus and let me know your arbitrary threshold for inclusion. I think I know why you avoided the question.

 

Do you even read my posts?

If we were having a rash of incidents of citizens stabbing themselves accidentally while running with scissors, I would want a conversation about not running with scissors. You would then apparently say I wanted to take scissors away from Americans or only allow safety scissors, despite me simply wanting to have a conversation about not running with them and putting them in the drawer when finished. So that is the threshold: there being a problem. If there is a problem, I would want to have an "IP discussion." Like I do about vaccines, pollution, climate change, wasteful gov. spending, and foreign affairs. The threshold is quite low, but then a discussion is quite innocuous.

What is so terrible about wanting everyone to secure their firearms in a safe? Why is that taking away guns from citizens? How is that taking away guns from citizens? That is all I have said on the matter.

 

A rash? You think there are more mass shooting deaths than stabbing? GTHO.