Stabbing attack at TX college at same time Congress is pushing Gun Control

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


At the same time Congress is pushing gun control that won't stop any new attacks. This case in Texas is tragic but happens at an interesting time.



Perhaps people will realize that bad guys will use whatever means necessary to commit crimes. Why don't I see politicians now pushing for 'Stab Free Zones', waiting periods, and background checks on knife purchases.




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/09/at-least-5-reportedly-stabbed-on-lone-star-college-campus/

.
1 suspect arrested after stabbing attack Lone Star College campus injures 14, some critical

Published April 09, 2013

DEVELOPING: Sheriff's official says a suspect has been arrested after a stabbing attack at a Houston-area community college campus left 14 people injured, including 12 that required hospitalization. At least a few victims are listed in critical condition.

Lone Star community college's campus in Cypress posted an alert on its website just before 12 p.m. warning students of two armed suspects and saying one person remains at large. The alert warned people to seek shelter in a secure location.

.

.

 

[LeonCarr]

Criminals will always pick a Gun-Free Zone to commit crime, even with Knives.

One CHL holder in close proximity could have ended this much sooner.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[JustinJ]

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control but i think trying to spin this story to oppose it is a bit of stretch and will not resonate with hardly anybody. The obvious counter argument, which is valid, is that had the attackers been using a firearm instead of knife there is an extremely high chance that there would be numerous fatalities rather than injuries.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Or if a single person there with a CHL was legally armed the attacker could have been stopped much more quickly with much less injury to innocents.

Sent from my HTC One X

 

[Bob K.]

Pro-gun control advocates will say, "Well, at least they just got cut and they're not dead" as a reason to justify why this does not compare to gun bans. Be prepared to argue against that logic.

 

[holdencm9]

I agree JustinJ,

Obviously from our view, we see it as proof that you can't legislate morality, bad people will always find a way to do bad things, et cetera.

The opposition will say "if he had used a gun there would be 14 DEAD instead of 14 injured!" Which was a common refrain when pro-gun people would bring up the China school stabbings in the wake up Sandy Hook. If I recall, something like 20 kids were stabbed but none died, which stands in contrast to the outcome of Newtown.

 

[highorder]

Pro-gun control advocates will say, "Well, at least they just got cut and they're not dead" as a reason to justify why this does not compare to gun bans. Be prepared to argue against that logic.

Knife wounds are every bit as serious, many times more-so, than GSW.

 

[labhound]

A local TV station interviewed on of the students who was locked down in his classroom. He said everyone was praying.....he said we had God, we wished we could have had a gun!

 

[hso]

Bob K is exactly right. We need to be very careful about what and how we jump on a bandwagon.

Antis will point out 14 people were not killed and that all will recover.

RKBA advocates will point out that the attack might have been stopped is someone with a carry permit was there.

Instead of focusing on armed vs. armed we should draw attention to identifying dangerously unstable people who need help and who the public needs protection from. That's an approach that is difficult to argue with and gets to the root of the violence issue when attacks like this occur.

 

[mcdonl]

Antis will point out 14 people were not killed and that all will recover.

Rape is not murder either. Those people who were attacked may not have stopped breathing as a result of the attack but part of them, their soul and their ability to function as they did before the attack is dead.

Sometimes death is easier to recover from.

 

[c4v3man]

The latest FBI stats for my country indicated 2 murders by rifle (of any kind), and 20 by knife, yet one of our local congressmen is trying to ban "assault weapons".

It's not about guns, it's about control.

 

[SigSour]

The latest FBI stats for my country indicated 2 murders by rifle (of any kind), and 20 by knife, yet one of our local congressmen is trying to ban "assault weapons".

It's not about guns, it's about control.

Obviously that knife was an "assault weapon" - indeed, it is not about guns, it's about control. If Liberals, anti-gun people do not pull this into the conversation it will be obvious, the new laws they are proposing are not about protecting people, but attacking the 2A.

 

[JRH6856]

Pro-gun control advocates will say, "Well, at least they just got cut and they're not dead" as a reason to justify why this does not compare to gun bans. Be prepared to argue against that logic.

It's the summum malum of Thomas Hobbes : The greatest evil faced by man is the fear of violent death. According to Hobbes, relieving man of this fear is the primary purpose of government.

 

[sota]

government can never relieve man of the fear of violent death. not so long as man exists. man is a sometimes violent, inhuman creature capable of unspeakable acts of terror and destruction. man can only hope to defend and defeat the acts of other men in these cases with the will to survive. it is the natural order.

 

[JRH6856]

government can never relieve man of the fear of violent death. not so long as man exists. man is a sometimes violent, inhuman creature capable of unspeakable acts of terror and destruction. man can only hope to defend and defeat the acts of other men in these cases with the will to survive. it is the natural order.

That is certainly more in accord with Locke's view of natural law than with Hobbes'.

According to Hobbes, the nature of man is violent and destructive and man must be be restrained by government to protect him from himself.

According to Locke, man, while capable of violence and destruction, is by nature reasonable and tolerant and acts of violence and destruction violate the law of nature. It is the role of government to protect him from these violations without restricting his liberty.

 

[kwguy]

Knife wounds are every bit as serious, many times more-so, than GSW.

They don't care about that.

It's not about guns, it's about control.

That's what they care about. Facts and stats don't matter to them.

 

[Grassman]

Let's not forget this happened in one of the most gun friendly states, Texas. Maybe he couldn't pass a background check? Which proves if they would just enforce the laws we have, we don't need any new laws.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

To put it in perspective, I read that the attacker used an X-Acto knife.

This does make me wonder though, if knife wounds are as serious as gun wounds, then why does it seem like there are far fewer deaths in stabbing sprees? Though granted, this incident involved a very small knife.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Lone Star College? Interesting, no?

They already had a triple shooting on that campus earlier this year...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/lone-star-college-shooting

I see from the OP's article that the knifeman was stopped by an unarmed student that tackled him.

This does make me wonder though, if knife wounds are as serious as gun wounds, then why does it seem like there are far fewer deaths in stabbing sprees? Though granted, this incident involved a very small knife.

A small knife limits stab penetration, but I think the real key is that a knife attack can be mitigated by parrying with the arms or lightweight materials such as a notebook. Knife wounds to the body certainly can be every bit as dangerous. Knife wounds to the extremities may not be if they are stab wounds. Keep in mind that the same stab wound by a bullet might very well go through the arm and into the body.

Where knives can be extremely dangerous to the body or extremities really comes with slicing and opening up large, bleeding wounds. Slices can be down with short-bladed knives such as box cutters. It can be easier to stop the flow of blood from a puncture than from a slice.

Criminals will always pick a Gun-Free Zone to commit crime, even with Knives.

During the vast majority of such attacks, the attacks occur where the problems (real or perceived) were for the attacker. In this case, the attacker was a student on campus (according to reports). So he belonged on campus. Chances are as with the shooting noted above, he had an issue with individuals on campus or maybe the school itself. He likely didn't pick the campus because it was a gun-free zone. It just happened that where he had troubles was gun-free. People don't tend to get upset with their friends, coworkers, school, or business and then out of being upset and try to kill people elsewhere. Mass shootings occur quite off in non gun-free zones.

 

[tomrkba]

Instead of focusing on armed vs. armed we should draw attention to identifying dangerously unstable people who need help and who the public needs protection from. That's an approach that is difficult to argue with and gets to the root of the violence issue when attacks like this occur.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT NEED PROTECTION FROM THE MENTALLY ILL ANY MORE THAN IT NEEDS PROTECTION FROM ALIENS.

This idea is so dangerous because it is a subtle form of tyranny and you are promoting it! Look at the results of the "War on (some) Terror". The Patriot Act reduces the Fourth Amendment to nearly nothing and as been used in many NARCOTICS cases and very few "terrorism" (the definition is so spongy) cases. Suddenly, everyone will "potentially mentally ill" and then laws will be made to reflect that suspicion. I have lived in a country where a psychological exam was required to own a gun (and get a job!!). DO NOT think that they will not institute it here; they will if they can get away with it.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

--Thomas Jefferson

 

[Rob G]

They already had a triple shooting on that campus earlier this year...

Different campus and completely different scenario.

Let's not forget this happened in one of the most gun friendly states, Texas.

Unfortunately we aren't allowed campus carry here, yet. However as an interesting point Lone Star College has its own police force and an armed officer was probably within 100 yards of the attack. Unfortunately as we're all aware that's still too far to stop a determined attacker. My understanding is that it was actually two students who stopped the attack. Had some of them been armed it might have been stopped even quicker.

Slices can be down with short-bladed knives such as box cutters. It can be easier to stop the flow of blood from a puncture than from a slice.

Also an interesting point. I can name a couple points on the body where a slash wound, even one as shallow as a small bladed knife can deliver, could result in death by exsanguination in just a couple minutes.

 

[RTR_RTR]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT NEED PROTECTION FROM THE MENTALLY ILL ANY MORE THAN IT NEEDS PROTECTION FROM ALIENS.

This idea is so dangerous because it is a subtle form of tyranny and you are promoting it! Look at the results of the "War on (some) Terror". The Patriot Act reduces the Fourth Amendment to nearly nothing and as been used in many NARCOTICS cases and very few "terrorism" (the definition is so spongy) cases. Suddenly, everyone will "potentially mentally ill" and then laws will be made to reflect that suspicion. I have lived in a country where a psychological exam was required to own a gun (and get a job!!). DO NOT think that they will not institute it here; they will if they can get away with it.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

--Thomas Jefferson

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think you're arguing at the point he was making. Improving our ability to identify dangerous individuals would be a great goal, but it isn't a matter of simple implementation. We're just not currently very good at predicting violence among previously nonviolent individuals

 

[LeonCarr]

Double Naught,

I cannot think of a recent "spree shooting" that did not occur in a gun-free zone. The vast majority of them have been at schools to my knowledge.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[gearhead]

Pro-gun control advocates will say, "Well, at least they just got cut and they're not dead" as a reason to justify why this does not compare to gun bans. Be prepared to argue against that logic.

Large numbers of gunshot victims survive also. Does anyone know the statistics for that? I don't have them available at the moment.

At any rate, an attack with a knife (even small, easily concealed, inexpensive ones like an X-Acto) or with a baseball bat has the potential to be lethal. Who would think as they are fighting off a knife or club wielding assailant, "At least I have a higher probability of survival than if they had a gun!"

 

[tomrkba]

Maybe that is the case, but it is impossible to implement. Look at how ineffective background checks are; they are a feel-good measure that prevent only blithering idiots from acquiring new firearms.