Mass murder by assault knife

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wiscoaster

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
3,634
Location
Nowhere
Three persons were murdered today in Nice, France by an attacker wielding a knife. I'm posting this story so you can use it as an example of why taking citizens' firearms away won't stop incidents of mass homicide when you write your legislators about pending gun control legislation. Currently the FBI definition of mass murder is four or more deaths, but some bills introduced in this session redefine that to three deaths, which would make this incident in France genuinely mass murder by assault knife.

https://news.sky.com/story/two-dead-in-suspected-terror-attack-in-nice-12117574
 
The statists like guns because they are a concrete object to blame - kind of like they do Trump - and because they are serious weapons that might be used to depose or eliminate said statists. A few foreigners or lower class Americans stabbed are not a threat to their position. It will take a good while before they get around to blaming knives... like the English are doing now.
 
Mental excercise:

Take away guns, and knives, what are people going to use? Cars, axes, hammers.

Now take those away, what are people going to use? Baseball bats, pipe, chains.

Now try to imagine a world where only the government has guns, knives, cars, hammers, axes, pipes, chains, and HAS LEGALLY DEFINED THEM (in lawyer-ese) into categories. Society will quickly cease to exist. How do you cook without a knife to cut up food? How do you travel to work or the store? How do you actually work once you get to your job? Is this far-fetched? Yeah, but if you follow the logic that is being pushed now you very quickly get to this point. I don’t know how to convince sheep not to run towards the cliff when the wolf nips at their ankles though.
 
this hysteria is spreading like wildfire. common sense is apparently gone. sometimes I am glad to be 76 and not have to worry about having a pocket knife confiscated by the authorities. guess nobody believes people can act right and behave without government overreach into every aspect of our lives. I personally have been shooting, reloading, and enjoying sports involving firearms for 68 yrs. with no incidents of being aggressive or dangerous to anybody or anything except paper targets, game, and pests.
 
DJW said:
... common sense is apparently gone ...
Click to expand...
No, people are people, and common people have sense. The term "common sense" has been redefined by left-wing politicians and the mass media to mean something else, and the common people weren't paying attention when it happened. I'm quite sure they still have the sense that God gave them as human beings. Maybe we should come up with another term so we all know what it is we're talking about.
 
The French police shot the attacker!

That's it! I'm boycotting french fries and Perrier!

They should have just talked him out of the knife... or shot him in the leg. Did they offer him couseling? This police brutality has to stop! (I assume all the locals are already looting shoe stores to show the world how evil cops are.)

[/sarcasm]
 
DJW said:
common sense is apparently gone.
Click to expand...
As an industrial safety professional, I have to agree with this. People are babied into adulthood on multiple topics and are shielded from the unpleasant experiences that really teach people what the real world is all about. People no longer have the common sense to respect tools let alone the ability to use them. People don’t respect the power and danger associated with many different parts of life, and firearms safety is not immune to this by any stretch. “It’s unloaded” is far too often uttered immediately after a gun is pointed at a person who takes objection. I’m not even going to get into the senselessness about people being so reactive even to the sight of a firearm.
 
wiscoaster said:
Three persons were murdered today in Nice, France by an attacker wielding a knife. I'm posting this story so you can use it as an example of why taking citizens' firearms away won't stop incidents of mass homicide when you write your legislators about pending gun control legislation. Currently the FBI definition of mass murder is four or more deaths, but some bills introduced in this session redefine that to three deaths, which would make this incident in France genuinely mass murder by assault knife.

https://news.sky.com/story/two-dead-in-suspected-terror-attack-in-nice-12117574
Click to expand...
So, say you're in a conversation with an acquaintance about gun control and you use this argument. Suppose he/she then says, "well, it's way easier to kill far more people much more quickly with a gun than with a knife". What is your response? Clearly what they just stated is entirely true.
 
bearcreek said:
So, say you're in a conversation with an acquaintance about gun control and you use this argument. Suppose he/she then says, "well, it's way easier to kill far more people much more quickly with a gun than with a knife". What is your response? Clearly what they just stated is entirely true.
Click to expand...
Knives require no reloads. Ever. You run out of ammo with an AR after 30 shots.
 
bearcreek said:
So, say you're in a conversation with an acquaintance about gun control and you use this argument. Suppose he/she then says, "well, it's way easier to kill far more people much more quickly with a gun than with a knife". What is your response? Clearly what they just stated is entirely true.
Click to expand...
Yes, well inform them about the mass knife murder in China where one person killed more than 30 and injured more than a hundred others with a knife.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/
Over a dozen in Japan by ricin; almost 40 in a truck trailer in the UK; eight people by a vehicle on London Bridge; 160-some and hundreds injured by a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma City. Not to mention millions of Jews by various non-gun methods in concentration camps. "Clearly what they stated is entirely true" by logic, and also just as clearly entirely uninformed by facts. Sometime facts and logic don't correlate. You don't need a gun to do a mass murder. Taking the guns away will not reduce violence; violence means will just become more creative. Ease of method has nothing to do with it. It's motive. Method will find a way.
 
Last edited:
WestKentucky said:
Knives require no reloads. Ever. You run out of ammo with an AR after 30 shots.
Click to expand...
Ok. Again, playing the anti gun acquaintance, "if you were a bad guy and wanted to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, would you pick a knife, because it didn't require reloads?"
 
bearcreek said:
So, say you're in a conversation with an acquaintance about gun control and you use this argument. Suppose he/she then says, "well, it's way easier to kill far more people much more quickly with a gun than with a knife". What is your response? Clearly what they just stated is entirely true.
Click to expand...
" It's far more easy to kill lots of people with a vehicle also. Or a gallon of gas." Ease only has meaning to a person who premeditates the action and intends mass casualties as a result. An enraged, in the moment, violent actor will use the first object with lethal potential they lay their eyes on, whether the kitchen knife, or that heavy silver candlestick. (Col. Mustard in the parlor with a candlestick. There, got my "Clue' " reference in!)
As Wiscoaster states, a person bent on doing violence will find a way, the method is consequential only in the resulting devastation. And guns are actually a poor not the best vector for that. As I will answer here;

bearcreek said:
Ok. Again, playing the anti gun acquaintance, "if you were a bad guy and wanted to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, would you pick a knife, because it didn't require reloads?"
Click to expand...

No, a proper application of high explosives, preferrably aided by a gaseous accelerator, will, in a crowded area, produce the most fatalities. To add to fatalies, projectiles could be added to the explosive as a cover or casing. Planting a second bomb to be detonated as LE and Fire crews secure the scene would further up the count, as well as specifically target those assets should that further the objective.

If you want it slow and drawn out, a dirty bomb or, several EMP's burst over the 38th latuitude, one just in from each coast and one over the Kansas/Missouri border, would be the most effective method.

There. Aren't you glad I never went to work for DARPA or the CIA?
 
entropy said:
No, a proper application of high explosives, preferrably aided by a gaseous accelerator, will, in a crowded area, produce the most fatalities. To add to fatalies, projectiles could be added to the explosive as a cover or casing. Planting a second bomb to be detonated as LE and Fire crews secure the scene would further up the count, as well as specifically target those assets should that further the objective.

If you want it slow and drawn out, a dirty bomb or, several EMP's burst over the 38th latuitude, one just in from each coast and one over the Kansas/Missouri border, would be the most effective method.
Click to expand...
I think we'll see more of that sort of thing if certain politicians get their way with gun laws, but I think it's pretty obvious that the average criminal intent on killing people has a lot easier time getting hold of an AR than high explosives or materials (and more importantly, know how) for a dirty bomb.

My point in asking these these questions isn't to defend the anti gun agenda. My point is that the rate at which criminals use firearms or other weapons is irrelevant when discussing the right to keep and bear arms. Even if it could be proven beyond any doubt that bans on certain firearms lowered rates of violent crime and "mass" killings, that wouldn't change the core reason that the 2A and the principles behind it exist. So, my answer,
bearcreek said:
Suppose he/she then says, "well, it's way easier to kill far more people much more quickly with a gun than with a knife".
Click to expand...
"Exactly. Throughout history, again and again, governments prove to be, by far, the most dangerous organization in society. Governments kill so many more of their own people than civilians do that civilian crime is almost a complete non issue as it relates to this subject. The reason that civilians should own military pattern firearms is because they're the most convenient, affordable, safe way for the people to keep the government in a perpetual state of fear.
 
politicians hate guns because power is addicting, and inspires paranoia and no other reason. dumb people listen to them.
 
Sounds like to me somewhere something got lost in the shuffle. Just a little bit perhaps?...

Three ppl died a horrible death. I'd rather take my chances being shot with a pistol by the casual petty thief then attacked by someone with even the most minimal training on using a knife.

I mean, yes it's alllll politics and VERY quickly point / counter point being made. And I will add, VALID points can be made no matter what prism it's viewed through. Well, maybe one prism breaks it down better I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Carry everywhere legal and try to avoid where you can't.
Does that mean not go to France (or other country where you can't carry)? Yes, yup, affirmative.
"But then you won't see the sights, ect... I'm not living my life in fear, ect".... Gotcha; but, I won't be unarmed at the mercy of a psychopath either.
 
Jim Watson said:
I prefer to think of it as the most killed in an act of war.
Click to expand...
Piracy yes, war no. It was mass murder. We weren't at war with whoever was behind it. War implies combatants. This act was murderers v. victims. Not combatants v. combatants. Not even "collateral damage". But, whichever, I think it still stands as an example of mass murder method not involving firearms.
 
Last edited:
We weren't at war with Japan before Pearl Harbor, either.
The lack of a nation state aggressor is confusing to standards formed in earlier times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Mass shootings and RKBA
Replies
3
Views
519
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings
Replies
0
Views
339
Dean Weingarten
D
hso
  • Sticky
Important Sunday NYT analysis article to use.
Replies
6
Views
6K
Vern Humphrey
V
B
  • Locked
Murder rate up 20 per cent
Replies
0
Views
330
Bruce in West Oz
B
G
  • Locked
VT Review Panel pushes anti-gun agenda - tell them they got it WRONG!
Replies
1
Views
2K
Robert Hairless
R
Back
Top