Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CaféAuLait;8910780 said:How did someone armed with a knife stab 20 people without anyone noticing after the 3rd or 4th person?
The crazy part about that is, one scene I heard replayed by a student said he tackled one kid and stabbed him in the back over and over ,then continued on his rampage. How did he wound over 20? Did the students freeze or did they stop to watch and not run?
CaféAuLait;8910780 said:How did someone armed with a knife stab 20 people without anyone noticing after the 3rd or 4th person?
The crazy part about that is, one scene I heard replayed by a student said he tackled one kid and stabbed him in the back over and over ,then continued on his rampage. How did he wound over 20? Did the students freeze or did they stop to watch and not run?
They did what most people do. Run away or get their Youtube on.
You know...............this attack would have been a lot worse if the attacker had an AK-47 or some other type of assault weapon.
Instead of attacking the number he did (around 20) and only wounding them (none died), if he'd had some kind of gun he would have killed a lot more.
Sorry, but I'm all in favor of selling knives, they're useful, and help me process my cooking a lot better.
Never got that same kind of help from a gun.
Am I glad that this person committed so many acts of violence? No. Am I glad that they had a knife rather than a gun? You bet.
He only wounded around 20 people, all of which (even though they may have serious injuries), but all of them are projected to live.
He also figured out that stabbing someone on the right hand side, just under the ribcage (i.e. in the liver) would make them bleed out quickly.
The news said that he stabbed people purposefully in the same spot, (i.e. the liver).
CaféAuLait;8910841 said:You know...............this attack would have been a lot worse if the attacker had an AK-47 or some other type of assault weapon.
Instead of attacking the number he did (around 20) and only wounding them (none died), if he'd had some kind of gun he would have killed a lot more.
Sorry, but I'm all in favor of selling knives, they're useful, and help me process my cooking a lot better.
Never got that same kind of help from a gun.
Am I glad that this person committed so many acts of violence? No. Am I glad that they had a knife rather than a gun? You bet.
He only wounded around 20 people, all of which (even though they may have serious injuries), but all of them are projected to live.
He also figured out that stabbing someone on the right hand side, just under the ribcage (i.e. in the liver) would make them bleed out quickly.
The news said that he stabbed people purposefully in the same spot, (i.e. the liver).
Unfortunately, those who want to kill will do it with or without the gun. Look at the China school stabbings in 2010(?) which resulted in 25 kids dead and over 100 wounded or the latest stabbing rampage in a China train station which resulted in 33 dead and over 100 wounded...
CaféAuLait;8910841 said:You know...............this attack would have been a lot worse if the attacker had an AK-47 or some other type of assault weapon.
Instead of attacking the number he did (around 20) and only wounding them (none died), if he'd had some kind of gun he would have killed a lot more.
Sorry, but I'm all in favor of selling knives, they're useful, and help me process my cooking a lot better.
Never got that same kind of help from a gun.
Am I glad that this person committed so many acts of violence? No. Am I glad that they had a knife rather than a gun? You bet.
He only wounded around 20 people, all of which (even though they may have serious injuries), but all of them are projected to live.
He also figured out that stabbing someone on the right hand side, just under the ribcage (i.e. in the liver) would make them bleed out quickly.
The news said that he stabbed people purposefully in the same spot, (i.e. the liver).
Unfortunately, those who want to kill will do it with or without the gun. Look at the China school stabbings in 2010(?) which resulted in 25 kids dead and over 100 wounded or the latest stabbing rampage in a China train station which resulted in 33 dead and over 100 wounded...
Hate to tell ya, but if those attacks had been done with a gun, the body count would have been much higher.
Like I said................I don't like the fact that someone thought that it was appropriate to attack others with a knife, but I'm glad it wasn't done with a gun.
If it was done with a gun, the body count would be much higher (at least 3), and the wounded would have been much more severe.
Do I like the fact that someone went snappy and screwed up a bunch of lives? No.
Do I like the fact that it was done with a knife rather than an assault rifle? Yes.
Less people died.
As a matter of fact, under a knife assault, it was zero people died.
If it had been a rifle, or an assault weapon? Many more would have died.
It's time to place a limit on the amount of ammo you can carry. Wanna compare the Ft. Hood shootings with those that were the stabbings that happened in PA this morning?
Killing is not always the point, it is hatred, blood red hatred and revenge. Something to cause damage, to get his feeling out, to SCARE his enemy or even perhaps his tormentors. But I don't think they were his tormentors, one of the people he stabbed was his best friend.
CaféAuLait;8910841 said:You know...............this attack would have been a lot worse if the attacker had an AK-47 or some other type of assault weapon.
Instead of attacking the number he did (around 20) and only wounding them (none died), if he'd had some kind of gun he would have killed a lot more.
Sorry, but I'm all in favor of selling knives, they're useful, and help me process my cooking a lot better.
Never got that same kind of help from a gun.
Am I glad that this person committed so many acts of violence? No. Am I glad that they had a knife rather than a gun? You bet.
He only wounded around 20 people, all of which (even though they may have serious injuries), but all of them are projected to live.
He also figured out that stabbing someone on the right hand side, just under the ribcage (i.e. in the liver) would make them bleed out quickly.
The news said that he stabbed people purposefully in the same spot, (i.e. the liver).
Unfortunately, those who want to kill will do it with or without the gun. Look at the China school stabbings in 2010(?) which resulted in 25 kids dead and over 100 wounded or the latest stabbing rampage in a China train station which resulted in 33 dead and over 100 wounded...
Hate to tell ya, but if those attacks had been done with a gun, the body count would have been much higher.
Like I said................I don't like the fact that someone thought that it was appropriate to attack others with a knife, but I'm glad it wasn't done with a gun.
If it was done with a gun, the body count would be much higher (at least 3), and the wounded would have been much more severe.
Do I like the fact that someone went snappy and screwed up a bunch of lives? No.
Do I like the fact that it was done with a knife rather than an assault rifle? Yes.
Less people died.
As a matter of fact, under a knife assault, it was zero people died.
If it had been a rifle, or an assault weapon? Many more would have died.
It's time to place a limit on the amount of ammo you can carry. Wanna compare the Ft. Hood shootings with those that were the stabbings that happened in PA this morning?
You know...............this attack would have been a lot worse if the attacker had an AK-47 or some other type of assault weapon.
via cafeaulait:
Killing is not always the point, it is hatred, blood red hatred and revenge. Something to cause damage, to get his feeling out, to SCARE his enemy or even perhaps his tormentors. But I don't think they were his tormentors, one of the people he stabbed was his best friend.
It doesn't have to be that, either. It could be paranoid schizophrenia, a host of other mental disorders, a simple (but drastic) chemical imbalance in the brain that caused him to completely lose control...a mold spore, an allergic reaction to a drug, anything.
CaféAuLait;8910841 said:Unfortunately, those who want to kill will do it with or without the gun. Look at the China school stabbings in 2010(?) which resulted in 25 kids dead and over 100 wounded or the latest stabbing rampage in a China train station which resulted in 33 dead and over 100 wounded...
Hate to tell ya, but if those attacks had been done with a gun, the body count would have been much higher.
Like I said................I don't like the fact that someone thought that it was appropriate to attack others with a knife, but I'm glad it wasn't done with a gun.
If it was done with a gun, the body count would be much higher (at least 3), and the wounded would have been much more severe.
Do I like the fact that someone went snappy and screwed up a bunch of lives? No.
Do I like the fact that it was done with a knife rather than an assault rifle? Yes.
Less people died.
As a matter of fact, under a knife assault, it was zero people died.
If it had been a rifle, or an assault weapon? Many more would have died.
It's time to place a limit on the amount of ammo you can carry. Wanna compare the Ft. Hood shootings with those that were the stabbings that happened in PA this morning?
And in other news, water is wet.
So, are you here telling us a gun is a more efficient in killing than a knife?
Is there someone here that does not know that? I mean really. What is your point, other than stating the obvious and having a dunce like Barb like you for stating...what everyone else knows?
Oh, let me take a STAB shall I? You, are still trying to tell all of us that we should ban all guns. Well, tell us your plans on getting the 300 million guns in circulation. How many more prisons will need to be built to cage all of the criminals that own a gun...illegally.
Do any of you left wingers ever consider for one second logistics, or do you just state bullshit in order to get likes from moronic girls and slaps on your back from your liberal pot peace buddies?
CaféAuLait;8910877 said:via cafeaulait:
Killing is not always the point, it is hatred, blood red hatred and revenge. Something to cause damage, to get his feeling out, to SCARE his enemy or even perhaps his tormentors. But I don't think they were his tormentors, one of the people he stabbed was his best friend.
It doesn't have to be that, either. It could be paranoid schizophrenia, a host of other mental disorders, a simple (but drastic) chemical imbalance in the brain that caused him to completely lose control...a mold spore, an allergic reaction to a drug, anything.
True, I agree with that, maybe he was in some sort of alternate reality created by schizophrenia. I guess I was just trying to say basically what you were saying, we don't really know his intent or why at this juncture or what he could have done.
Hate to tell ya, but if those attacks had been done with a gun, the body count would have been much higher.
Like I said................I don't like the fact that someone thought that it was appropriate to attack others with a knife, but I'm glad it wasn't done with a gun.
If it was done with a gun, the body count would be much higher (at least 3), and the wounded would have been much more severe.
Do I like the fact that someone went snappy and screwed up a bunch of lives? No.
Do I like the fact that it was done with a knife rather than an assault rifle? Yes.
Less people died.
As a matter of fact, under a knife assault, it was zero people died.
If it had been a rifle, or an assault weapon? Many more would have died.
It's time to place a limit on the amount of ammo you can carry. Wanna compare the Ft. Hood shootings with those that were the stabbings that happened in PA this morning?
Hate to tell ya, but if those attacks had been done with a gun, the body count would have been much higher.
Like I said................I don't like the fact that someone thought that it was appropriate to attack others with a knife, but I'm glad it wasn't done with a gun.
If it was done with a gun, the body count would be much higher (at least 3), and the wounded would have been much more severe.
Do I like the fact that someone went snappy and screwed up a bunch of lives? No.
Do I like the fact that it was done with a knife rather than an assault rifle? Yes.
Less people died.
As a matter of fact, under a knife assault, it was zero people died.
If it had been a rifle, or an assault weapon? Many more would have died.
It's time to place a limit on the amount of ammo you can carry. Wanna compare the Ft. Hood shootings with those that were the stabbings that happened in PA this morning?
And in other news, water is wet.
So, are you here telling us a gun is a more efficient in killing than a knife?
Is there someone here that does not know that? I mean really. What is your point, other than stating the obvious and having a dunce like Barb like you for stating...what everyone else knows?
Oh, let me take a STAB shall I? You, are still trying to tell all of us that we should ban all guns. Well, tell us your plans on getting the 300 million guns in circulation. How many more prisons will need to be built to cage all of the criminals that own a gun...illegally.
Do any of you left wingers ever consider for one second logistics, or do you just state bullshit in order to get likes from moronic girls and slaps on your back from your liberal pot peace buddies?
Read the thread before you splatter your ignorance so indiscriminately. There are plenty here that have suggested they're equally efficient.
Don't quit your day job, you're no Madame Cleo
You're even worse at comedy
The rest is just a juvenile right wing talking-points straw man hurled against the wall.
You're dismissed.
If that is true then you agree as long as someone is mentally and legally able to own a gun it shouldn't matter how many bullets it can fire.
If that is true then you agree as long as someone is mentally and legally able to own a gun it shouldn't matter how many bullets it can fire.
