Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

[Hermit]

A few people were shot by police as well. If more people had guns, more of the murderers would have been shot, and a lot fewer of the innocent victims.

You missed the point of my earlier post. If that was the case, the terrorists would have been armed as well, and, by starting the gunfight, would have killed many more they managed with knives before they too were gunned down.

Between the two of us we made that point in four separate posts now. Considering that there this thread consisted of only 14 posts by that stage, I can only conclude that libertarianism is no different to any other ideology: It is apt to cause blindness.

[FBM]

Thing is, there is some strength to both arguments, but both sides are weakened by the fact that we are left to speculate about what would have happened in this particular case.

[Hermit]

Thing is, there is some strength to both arguments, but both sides are weakened by the fact that we are left to speculate about what would have happened in this particular case.

Yes, of course it's all speculation, but if you weigh up one against the other, it's not so difficult to conclude that a gang of a dozen or so determined murderers bearing Uzis or something like that would have mown down a lot more than 29 innocent victims among the unsuspecting crowd before they themselves were wiped out. This is on the reasonable assumption that if firearms were easy to come by and own the murderers would have no problems obtaining them themselves.

[Warren Dew]

A few people were shot by police as well. If more people had guns, more of the murderers would have been shot, and a lot fewer of the innocent victims.

You missed the point of my earlier post. If that was the case, the terrorists would have been armed as well, and, by starting the gunfight, would have killed many more they managed with knives before they too were gunned down.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was just mistaken. If both sides had guns, the result would have been approximately equal, and only about as many innocent civilians would have been killed as there were murderers, which is much less than actually happened. Simple logic.

[Hermit]

A few people were shot by police as well. If more people had guns, more of the murderers would have been shot, and a lot fewer of the innocent victims.

You missed the point of my earlier post. If that was the case, the terrorists would have been armed as well, and, by starting the gunfight, would have killed many more they managed with knives before they too were gunned down.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was just mistaken. If both sides had guns, the result would have been approximately equal, and only about as many innocent civilians would have been killed as there were murderers, which is much less than actually happened. Simple logic.

Yes, your logic is simple. Too simple. Do you really think a determined gang of murderers won't take out a hundred or so unsuspecting commuters with automatic or semiautomatic firearms before the crowd even realises what what is going on and has the presence of mind to pull out firearms, switch the safety, identify the target, aim at it and actually hit it, while the murderers are already spraying bullets into that crowd?

[JimC]

A few people were shot by police as well. If more people had guns, more of the murderers would have been shot, and a lot fewer of the innocent victims.

You missed the point of my earlier post. If that was the case, the terrorists would have been armed as well, and, by starting the gunfight, would have killed many more they managed with knives before they too were gunned down.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was just mistaken. If both sides had guns, the result would have been approximately equal, and only about as many innocent civilians would have been killed as there were murderers, which is much less than actually happened. Simple logic.

Yes, your logic is simple. Too simple. Do you really think a determined gang of murderers won't take out a hundred or so unsuspecting commuters with automatic or semiautomatic firearms before the crowd even realises what what is going on and has the presence of mind to pull out firearms, switch the safety, identify the target, aim at it and actually hit it, while the murderers are already spraying bullets into that crowd?

But the really important thing about this attack is not some silly libertarian notion of China allowing its population to have their beloved "concealed carry"... Might as well wish for the moon...

It is whether China is in the process of creating its own home-grown Taliban...

And what is their best path to deal with it...

[FBM]

Thing is, there is some strength to both arguments, but both sides are weakened by the fact that we are left to speculate about what would have happened in this particular case.

Yes, of course it's all speculation, but if you weigh up one against the other, it's not so difficult to conclude that a gang of a dozen or so determined murderers bearing Uzis or something like that would have mown down a lot more than 29 innocent victims among the unsuspecting crowd before they themselves were wiped out. This is on the reasonable assumption that if firearms were easy to come by and own the murderers would have no problems obtaining them themselves.

No, it's not difficult to conclude that if your thinking is already biased in that direction. It is harder to prove, however. The contrary argument (not that I agree with it) is, of course, that if the people around those terrorists had been armed they may well have succeeded in either killing them or making them take cover until cops arrived, instead of acting freely. I see equipollence in the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Rather than hold to a bias and make unsupportable claims based on it, I'd rather suspend jugdment until more definitive data is available.

[JimC]

Thing is, there is some strength to both arguments, but both sides are weakened by the fact that we are left to speculate about what would have happened in this particular case.

Yes, of course it's all speculation, but if you weigh up one against the other, it's not so difficult to conclude that a gang of a dozen or so determined murderers bearing Uzis or something like that would have mown down a lot more than 29 innocent victims among the unsuspecting crowd before they themselves were wiped out. This is on the reasonable assumption that if firearms were easy to come by and own the murderers would have no problems obtaining them themselves.

No, it's not difficult to conclude that if your thinking is already biased in that direction. It is harder to prove, however. The contrary argument (not that I agree with it) is, of course, that if the people around those terrorists had been armed they may well have succeeded in either killing them or making them take cover until cops arrived, instead of acting freely. I see equipollence in the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Rather than hold to a bias and make unsupportable claims based on it, I'd rather suspend jugdment until more definitive data is available.

However, is there any point in the "if"?

China is not exactly poised on the edge of a potential political argument as to whether to allow private citizens to have guns...

If the same thing had happened, say, in Canada, the UK or Oz, then the "if" might have more meaning. But that is unlikely - a lone, knife wielding crazy, sure, but not 10 Uighur fanatics...

[FBM]

However, is there any point in the "if"?

Not really, that's just the direction the discussion turned. I don't think there's any point in the whole discussion, tbh.

[JimC]

I will concede this to Seth et al: if 10 knife-wielding Uighur fanatics attempted the same thing at a railway station in Texas, then those varmints would most likely be plumb fill of lead...

[FBM]

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

[Warren Dew]

A few people were shot by police as well. If more people had guns, more of the murderers would have been shot, and a lot fewer of the innocent victims.

You missed the point of my earlier post. If that was the case, the terrorists would have been armed as well, and, by starting the gunfight, would have killed many more they managed with knives before they too were gunned down.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was just mistaken. If both sides had guns, the result would have been approximately equal, and only about as many innocent civilians would have been killed as there were murderers, which is much less than actually happened. Simple logic.

Yes, your logic is simple. Too simple. Do you really think a determined gang of murderers won't take out a hundred or so unsuspecting commuters with automatic or semiautomatic firearms before the crowd even realises what what is going on and has the presence of mind to pull out firearms, switch the safety, identify the target, aim at it and actually hit it, while the murderers are already spraying bullets into that crowd?

If the would be murderers are using "pray and spray" techniques, there's a good chance they won't become actual murderers at all.

Thing is, there is some strength to both arguments, but both sides are weakened by the fact that we are left to speculate about what would have happened in this particular case.

Yes, of course it's all speculation, but if you weigh up one against the other, it's not so difficult to conclude that a gang of a dozen or so determined murderers bearing Uzis or something like that would have mown down a lot more than 29 innocent victims among the unsuspecting crowd before they themselves were wiped out. This is on the reasonable assumption that if firearms were easy to come by and own the murderers would have no problems obtaining them themselves.

No, it's not difficult to conclude that if your thinking is already biased in that direction. It is harder to prove, however. The contrary argument (not that I agree with it) is, of course, that if the people around those terrorists had been armed they may well have succeeded in either killing them or making them take cover until cops arrived, instead of acting freely. I see equipollence in the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Rather than hold to a bias and make unsupportable claims based on it, I'd rather suspend jugdment until more definitive data is available.

However, is there any point in the "if"?

China is not exactly poised on the edge of a potential political argument as to whether to allow private citizens to have guns...

Indeed. But then I wasn't the one who first brought up guns, now was I?

[laklak]

Hang on, I thought it was easy to defend yourself against a knife. You just have to stay a few feet away, right?

[The_Metatron]

Here's what I've been wondering about...

I don't know how many men there were with knives, or the demographics of those killed. The attack was in a train station, yes? If so, a quite good place to stage an attack with knives. Lots of people, tight space, very little stuff around that isn't bolted down with which to use against the men with knives.

[cronus]

F*cking Mussies....again.