Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Post by **FBM** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:37 am

The Chinese could carry around a sharpened pair of those really extra-long chopsticks.

Post by **rainbow** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:07 am

Seth wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote: The only thing gun bans do is disarm the very people who might need them to save their lives.
You don't allow people to walk around with handgrenades, or napalm flame throwers.
...so you're disarming people too.
Actually, if you want a hand grenade or a flamethrower, all you have to do is file a Form 4 (or a Form 1 if you want to manufacture one yourself) and pay the $200 for the tax stamp.

Didn't know that, did you?

Actually, I didn't.
Still, filling in forms is an infringement of your constitutional right to freely carry lethal weapons.
I mean it restricts the rights of the terminally stupid illiterate citizens, not so?

Now if the people at the train station had handgrenades instead of knifes, do you think the death toll might have been a bit higher?

Post by **SnowLeopard** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:39 pm

Seth wrote:
SnowLeopard wrote:
Seth wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
Seth wrote:That criminals might get guns if law-abiding citizens carry them is not a rational argument for disarming innocent citizens. That's why it's utopian prohibitionist nonsense to even suggest such a thing. People get killed with all sorts of weapons other than guns and every single one of them has a right to be armed in order to protect themselves and others against deadly attacks, whether the attackers are using hand grenades, knives, guns, rocks, clubs or anything else.
No they don't. Under Chinese law - which is what's relevant to this story - they don't have any such right.
And therein lies the root of the problem...

They have the right, but their masters deny them the exercise of it.
No. They don't have the right, because it's not a right.
Ya think not? I betcha that if you go and try to harm one of them they will exercise that right to the best of their ability. That's what makes it a right, not some blather from some despotic fuckwits in Beijing.

Ya I think not. An individual has a "right" to defend themselves to the best of their abilities within reason, but people don't have a "right" to be armed to facilitate that, at all, in any sense. Just because you might think it doesn't make it reality.

Post by **MrJonno** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:21 pm

An individual has a "right" to defend themselves to the best of their abilities within reason,

Once you say within reason its not a right , correctly it is legal in some circumstances to defend yourself but that's not the same as a right.

If you defending yourself (or preparing to defend yourself) endangers others then its rightly illegal. And having firearms around does endanger others so tough shit if ninja assassin turns up. You life isn't worth a 1000's saved by keeping guns under control

Post by **FBM** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:26 pm

What if a group of highly skilled martial artists went to a crowded place and killed a bunch of people with their (the attackers') hands and feet? Would we outlaw hands and feet? Probably not. Would we outlaw martial arts? More likely. Would it be successful? Yeah, like teh wars on durgs and homosexuality have been successful.

Post by **MrJonno** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:36 pm

FBM wrote:What if a group of highly skilled martial artists went to a crowded place and killed a bunch of people with their (the attackers') hands and feet? Would we outlaw hands and feet? Probably not. Would we outlaw martial arts? More likely. Would it be successful? Yeah, like teh wars on durgs and homosexuality have been successful.

Certain promotion of martial arts is either illegal by law, or regulated by non-government code of practice of the martial arts groups themselves

Any martial arts taught as anything other than a sport/defence is seriously frowned upon in the UK. It's why we banned a martial arts nutter from America who basically taught breaking your attackers neck after you are able to get away from him. It wouldn't surprise me if some ninja academy started teaching one fingered death blows and a student used it the ninja academy would get sued by the relatives of the victim

If you remember the original Karate kid, you had the 'nice' self defence, personal improvement Mr Miyagi, and the very 'bad' no mercy martial arts which the police would certainly take a very close look at if practised here

Post by **pErvinalia** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:38 pm

"one fingered death blows"...

Post by **MrJonno** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:42 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:"one fingered death blows"...

You a ninja?, if you say yes you are lying as no ninja would admit to it

Post by **pErvinalia** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:42 pm

Post by **laklak** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:35 pm

SnowLeopard wrote:Ya I think not. An individual has a "right" to defend themselves to the best of their abilities within reason, but people don't have a "right" to be armed to facilitate that, at all, in any sense. Just because you might think it doesn't make it reality.

You may not, but I do. Well, as much of a "right" as can be said to exist. Let's say it's legal for me to arm myself for the purpose of self defense in 35 states and to carry my weapon concealed. I avail myself of that right occasionally, depending on where I'm going. On the highway, heading up to the mountain house, yeah, I'm armed. Going downtown on Friday night to have dinner and a few drinks, nope.

Post by **MrJonno** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:47 pm

Going downtown on Friday night to have dinner and a few drinks, nope.

Curious surely that's the time you are most likely to find trouble?, bumping into a lot of drunk party goers downtime is a lot more of a riskier than random stranger kicking your door down to get your weed?

Post by **laklak** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:54 pm

In the UK, sure, but not around here. Never seen a fight in any bar or restaurant downtown. Probably happens out in the sticks or in the ghetto, but I can afford more amenable establishments. Once saw the cops roust a homeless guy for pissing on the sidewalk, if that counts. You'd have to be pretty stupid to try to kick down my door to steal anything. On the road is a different matter, plenty of nutters out there.

Post by **MrJonno** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:17 pm

Well I got told not to go down to down-town St Louis after dark and surely any high concentration of drunk people increases the risks of violence.

Unless we are talking about weed bars?, they legal where you are yet?

Post by **laklak** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:44 pm

No legal weed here, but medical is on the ballot in November. I don't blame you, I wouldn't go to downtown St. Louis either, but Sarasota is a different kettle of fish. Small, fairly well off city (8th richest per capita in the U.S.), vibrant downtown, plenty of polite but visible police, lots of restaurants and art galleries. Nice place.

EDIT lots of upscale British expats too. Real ale pubs and lawn bowls, polo grounds, that sort of thing. I've met quite a few of them, funnily enough they're Tory to a man.

Post by **Beatsong** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:26 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:"one fingered death blows"...

I've been known to try those on Mrs. Beatsong in moments of passion.

rationalia.com

Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Re: Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

Who is online