What type of gun law would have made this situation not occu

Post Reply New Topic

What you do is pounce on the guy while he's attacking someone else. It would be far easier to take down a guy attacking with a knife than someone firing a handgun. If he threw the knife, that would be it. Easy tackle. If he doesn't throw it, then he's very limited in what he can do. All it takes is a couple of dudes to tackle him.

If someone has a gun he's standing at a bit of a distance, more or less, aiming and shooting at people. It's easier to pull a trigger than it is to plunge a knife into someone, especially if you have the right type of handgun. And plus there's distance on the side of the one with a gun since he doesn't have to be really close to fatally shoot.

Not sure what's happening in Australia but over here I am sure if someone was attacking with a knife, he would be pounced on by more than one big guy fairly quickly and that would be that. They would knock the knife plum out of his hand. People don't seem as intimidated by knives as they are by guns. They would see a knife and think, I can take that guy, and they would take him down fast. It's more about being psyched up than anything else. You have to have the courage to jump on someone but once you do, usually, you can stop him.

It's actually easier to overwhelm someone by rushing if they have a pistol compared to a knife; he only has a set number of shots per mag, and they're only instantly fatal/disabling with a head/spine shot (plus it's easier to control, as there's something you can grab; you can't grab the blade). Whereas with a knife, you have an unlimited number of strikes on hand, and if you rush him, you're now in range.

You can't tackle someone with a knife and expect to live, even with a couple of people. He can stab your flanks several times once you've grappled him, even on the ground, and you have a fatal injury; the next person is in line for the same. You need several people in proper attire to subdue a knife wielder with some semblance of safety. It's why police shoot people coming at them with a knife; they've learnt it through years of experience in law enforcement. In the UK, they use many officers with appropriate riot gear to subdue a knife wielder.

In good conscience, I couldn't say that I could massacre more people with a pistol compared to a knife. It depends on many variables.

(This is also assuming people fight back. Most people don't fight back in massacres, for good reason; no one expects it.)

Yeah but if the guy with the knife is stabbing one person he can't stab another because he's busy with one and he needs pretty close contact so two or more big guys could jump him from behind and it would be enough to stop him in his tracks. With a shooter, if he's good, he can take out several people on the first round and he might not always have just one gun. He could have two that are loaded so he uses one, then quickly retrieves the other so he doesn't need to reload them. People tend to be really afraid of bullets as well because it happens so quickly and shots are often fatal so they just freeze in place. Some might not even be aware he is shooting. If someone starts stabbing, it's fairly easy for the mind to figure it out and run and since the man is only knifing and can only stab one at a time, so many can run and get away. Time is on their side. It's much more difficult to outrun a bullet than a guy with a knife. A man, or woman, even though let's be real, it's usually a man, can run and shoot multiple people who are running away while someone with a knife can only stab one at a time and he has to be within arm's length, unless he throws his knife into someone and happens to hit in a location that is fatal and once he does that, he loses his knife and then he becomes just another unarmed man, very easy for just one dude to tackle him then.

Shooters are more like when a terrorist attacks with a bomb. That is the kind of violence I compare to gun violence.

There have been self defense classes I've seen for police going up against a man with a knife. The gun is useless unless you're far enough away. The man with the knife was able to take out four cops as the fourth one managed to get a poorly aimed shot off, leaving the knife wielder free.

Violent mob attacks with knives, 27 dead

Attackers with knives kill 33, injure 143

School attacks in China 2010-2012

That's 85 deaths in 4 years just in China, with bladed weapons (these are just the ones I quickly pulled up, there might be more, and it doesn't count any murders where less than 4 were killed).

There are some countries where they have very strict gun control, as in completely banned, yet they have extraordinarily high rates of shootings, while other countries who have lax gun control have hardly any shootings. There's a matter that I feel people aren't taking into consideration often enough and that's the people. They're too focused on the gun, that they don't think about the populace. Why do people commit crimes? More poor people do, that's for sure. Gang violence is one that's really high as well, one reason Chicago has such a high rate of violence despite their gun control laws.

Why is Chicago worse than somewhere like Los Angeles? LA has more people (3.8 mil vs 2.7 mil), and certainly has gang violence, yet its annual rate of 251 murders while Chicago is at 415 murders annually. And then New York has 648 murders annually with 8.4 million people, making the percentage much lower than Chicago.
What makes them so different? Why are people twice as safe in New York than Chicago?

It depends entirely on the situation, Ana,

Whilst you can speculate that someone is an expert shot and proficient in tactical and speed reloads due to years of IDPA shooting, you can also speculate that someone is an expert at hunting wild boars with a bowie knife. You can speculate on billions of variables.

Both have the potential to massacre 8 people, no matter their skill level (and it's happened). That's the point.

"Knife crime/violence" refers to day to day murders, the same as day to day murders with "gun crime/violence".

To touch on some glaring errors:

Not really. IIRC, even a direct hit to the heart with a pistol round is only fatal 40% of the time with modern medicine. A head or upper spine hit is pretty much the only 99% fatal type of shot, and they're hard to do unless you're proficient. He used several mags to kill 9 people; that's around 50 shots.



No. You can't mistake the deafening boom of a centerfire pistol. A knife is completely silent in comparison. If you hear and see it, you can run, whether it's someone shooting or you can see the stabbing/hear the screams.



No easier in the mind than if someone starts shooting. This is a personal opinion, and everyone responds differently.



Depends. It's fairly hard to shoot someone moving fast; enough so that you must focus on that one person, which means everyone else has time to flee. Past 25 yards, hits with a pistol on a moving person would be very low. Most people shot in massacres were cowering or stunned.



A man can run and stab many people too. Most people in massacres freeze and provide easy targets anyway. He can also quietly kill people in seclusion before moving on to his next victim. Range always goes to a pistol, but a man can still chase down women, children and the ill and kill them; victims are rarely all healthy and fit men with combat training/experience. Not to mention if you actually plan the attack so people can't flee, such as blocking a door.

No one throws a knife. It's not effective.



So, someone shooting 9 people to death is somehow more terrorizing than someone stabbing the same amount to death? It's comparable here as both are legal to own in the US. Most explosives are restricted, so you have to break the law to make/acquire them.

sure if you have $15,000 and up. wait 6 months to a year for approval from the ATF, register the gun, pay 200 tag stamp, oh and then if you move you have to tell them, oh want to take it out of state? well wait another 3 months to a year to get permission to move it. yep just about anyone can buy a assault rifle oh and wait. prices keep going up, why. because well the last assault rfile able to be transferred was made in 1968. so yeah only those registered before then are able to be bought. know what that means? there's a limited supply and it gets fewer and fewer each year as guns break and can't be repaired.

please please do some research before you try to state reasons to take others rights away. if you don't know jack about guns besides they look scary you have no right in trying to ban them.

semi auto guns aren't military grade assault rifles. 1. military grade stuff is well cheaply made. you must hate technology advancements no? well thats fine, semi auto guns have been around for hundreds of years. get with the times. bolt action guns are nice but they are super outdated. really semi auto tech is outdated. electric fired guns may be the future. gun tech hasn't changed much. its been just tweeks here and there. different piston systems, different designs of the same tech. every company making its own semi auto gun. they all basically function the same just look differently . been more advancements in hollow point design then the mechanics of semi auto. there really isnt' much to go to besides electric shot bullets or lasers. semi auto and cased bullets have been around for a long time and likely will . not really much reason to change them, not much better to go to til lasers become a reality.

yep the us doens't have thousands and thousands of gun laws, nope, not any at all. as far as I'm and others are concerned we've already compromised way too much.

also noticed how you ignored the question. what point is more laws when people will still pass the check to buy the guns. unless you are saying 30 people killed with a bolt action rifle is better then 15 killed by a semi auto gun?

also why is someone who wants to have a gun buying one such a bad thing. what have my guns ever done to anyone? nothing. I'm not guilty for someone else's crime because I own guns and so did they. just as all blacks aren't responsible for some black guy shooting a person in chicago. so tired of the antis trying to loop all gun owners in on some collective guilt bulls***T

people are only guilty of the actions they take, not those actions of others. this is a system based on freedom and innocence until found guilty. freedom comes at a cost but its way better then having no freedom.

o.O what
so you aren't afraid of knives and you're personly you, not some man that you don't know or care about, but you are willing to jump an attacking knowing that you likely will be cut and or killed?

most people aren't. the guy in ohio was allowed free movement as people hid, it was a guy with a gun that stopped him. there was another where a guy stood outside a store stabbing people he got like 10 people before people took him down.
I've said this before most people are selfish, they won't' go and die to save others. theres a reason why cops/military isn't' for everyone. it takes a certain person to be willing to die for others. most people aren't they will hide and hope he misses them or try to run away and get out. they wont' jump him to save your butt. not when it means they going get hurt or probably die. also if people aren't afraid of knives then how come people can be so easlly robbed with one. heck lots of people are afraid of just peoples fists.

I seriously doubt you would try to disarm a guy with a knife. if you do, you better be ready to be slashed and stabbed a few times before he goes down and how are you going to keep him down? oh by the way you're now bleeding out.

so what you come up behind him? welp there goes your argument, you could just as easily sneak up behind a guy with a gun.

Dillogic

don't forget swords , machetes and others, now the range is extended. sandy hook is a poor example, bunch of 5 year olds in a room with only one exit, any weapon would have had the same result.
heck i doubt most people in a starbucks would fight back.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if I really wanted to kill a whole bunch of people indiscriminately and get away with it, I'd skip the guns and go straight to the Molotov cocktails in a confined space, like, say, a church basement. I think the reason we don't see that more often is a combination of lack of imagination by mass murderers, and the "cool factor" of using a gun, odd as that sounds. I remember that the Columbine kids set a bunch of bombs and booby traps, but thankfully they weren't very good bomb makers, or the body count could have been much higher. I've seen a couple of nasty firebomb attacks in Asia, IIRC one guy killed like 50-ish people on a bus he set on fire from both ends.

Also, the knife violence thing is totally real, I've seen British proposals to legally require chefs to round off their knives (as a chef myself, I cringe at the thought), as well as forcing bars to only use plastic glasses, lest patrons break them to use as weapons. People call me paranoid or worse for carrying a gun, what do you call a nation that is so afraid that it wants to regulate proper cooking utensils and serving ware out of existence due to fear?

Of course.

I put a sword and similar on the same level as a rifle/shotgun in regards to effectiveness. The only common defense against such is a firearm.

I recall some dude in Africa killed 20 or so people with an axe (plus another 30 or so with a stolen rifle and axe at a later date with another massacre).

Fire is probably the best thing to weaponize overall, due to its availability and ability to inflict the most death and financial/property destruction with little expenditure and a high chance of escape.

There needs to be a better way to handle mental illness in this country. I'm not sure if they've determined if this person had some kind of mental issues, but many of these shootings have been the result of mental issues, some in which the parent or family member knew about the issue and was trying to get them help. The laws in the US just don't support this. My mom had a friend who had an adult daughter with mental issues. She couldn't maintain a job and lived with her parents. She was clinically diagnosed with mental conditions (I don't remember what they were) and threatened to kill her parents and herself multiple times. Her parents tried to get her committed to a mental institution where she would be cared for and treated but were unable to do so. They were told that until she does do something drastic, there was nothing the legal/mental institution could do unless the person commits themselves voluntarily. The problem with that is they're crazy so of course they're not going to commit themselves.

Obviously safeguards need to be in place, but people with severe mental disorders need to be kept away from the public where they can be treated.

Apologies to Dillogic, but "That's not a knife.… THAT's a knife" ( http://www.knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-a-knife ).

I just had to say it.

A gun is easier to use than any kind of bomb or similar device so it's for the sake of convenience and it probably has a cultural bias as well. You can easily hide them in your clothing and they aren't that heavy. You just get it out, aim, pull the trigger. There's no fumbling with fuses or lighters. Might be a bit tougher to implement with other devices but certainly not impossible. but if guns were out of the equation, the same type of individual could easily switch to bombs or ieds and just use those instead. Violence is a cultural phenomena. If they just switched to knives, they might as well not even waste the effort because that's just ridiculous. They might actually be better off using a crossbow.

But as far as one person with a knife and just two or three others, especially if they aren't rugged and hearty, or if they are high strung and panic easily, a knife could definitely do the job, just not in a mass shooting type situation. Or, if the people are separated and whomever has a knife can sneak up on them individually. So knives are quite capable of wrecking havoc, just not in every situation. And, of course, the first person to experience the knife attack will most likely be the unluckiest in a mass knifing event.

Since I am female and not full of upper body strength, I would either try to trip the guy if he was running past me by sticking my foot or leg out in front of him or, if I saw others running to tackle him I would definitely join them. I've had car wrecks happen in front of my eyes and immediately rushed over to see if everyone was okay so I am not squirmish in those situations but I would need the right situation. If I thought I could jump on him from behind and hold him in a neck lock I'd do that. I would hope others would assist me though because if it's just me and some husky person they have more physical prowess than I. With a gun, I would be more freaked out because I know the guy can turn and shoot very very easily. I would be like, woah, gotta figure out something else. Might be able to tackle while his back is to me by jumping and locking on the neck. In a mass shooting situation, what people forget is, if they all become a giant blob and run toward the whomever is shooting, that's they all they need to do. He's gone. It's just mustering the courage to do it and the teamwork too but it's really easy to overpower one person. It's just everyone panics and freezes. When you do that you are like one of those games at the fair where the target never moves and all you have to do is aim and hit, a sitting duck basically. What people need to realize is this. If you freeze he will shoot you, so you got nothing to lose by rushing him and it's basic math, if ten or twelve people jump on one guy at the same time, he is going to crumble. Rushing is ALWAYS the best option. I would encourage people, teamwork, rush, take down, sit on him with your knees in his back, like cops do. That's it. If you run at him you knock him off balance and he's gotta be really determined to keep his weapon in his hand if you knock him really swiftly because odds are his reflexes will get the better of him and that weapon will go flying out of his hand. Gotta be quick and strong though. The more people tackling him the better. And yes, I would participate in that scenario because I am not that skittish in an emergency. With all these tornadoes, I have adapted well to emergencies. I would do my part. Keeping your head together and not allowing yourself to feel fear your best ally in survival.



People are much more powerful in these situations than they realize. Look at animals who school or herd together then run very quickly and agilely when they sense danger. Take a cue from them. They do it for a reason, to protect themselves, to appear intimidating and larger than life. You have to present the same profile in a situation with one shooter. It's a matter of many people rushing one person. You don't do it by yourself because yes, you are correct, chances are you would get stabbed. The worst thing anyone can do is freeze and think they have more a chance surviving that way than if they either ran or rushed. Rushing would be the best thing though because when you run away, when someone has a gun, it's easier for them to keep shooting as you are running. But if many people are running toward the guy with the gun, he will have a much harder time shooting them all at once, he would get tackled and lives would be saved. You might think, but he will just shoot the ones coming toward him...my answer is the guy is going to shoot no matter what you do so what is your best option? If you cannot get away from him easily, as in locking a door and be sure he cannot enter through that door otherwise, you are toast, then a group of people all need to run at him from different directions all at the same time and knock him on his ass.



It's tougher with a gun because he can shoot faster than a guy can stab but it's well worth it even with a gun because what do you have to lose?

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 22 Jun 2015, 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Keep in mind these shooters could be covered head to toe in tactical gear like the dude over in Colorado. It's not always so easy just to shoot someone these days but all that gear cannot stop him from going down if a swarm tackles him.

And that's another thing, if someone is trying to stab others and someone comes along with a gun, it's super easy just to shoot the guy with the knife and that was done where I live, at this food processing plant. A guy stabbed two women and was taken out by the owner of the plant who was trained since he was a sheriff's deputy. He easily stopped the man with the knife. The only reason he didn't stop him sooner is awareness of what was unfolding.

Did no one read the articles where there were at least 85 deaths in a period of four years in China from people wielding a bladed weapon? There were over 200 wounded in the attacks, as well.

If you look up the mass murders in America (those where 4 or more people were killed) there are quite a few where the perpetrator used a knife or fire.
This website is a little fear based, but they have a good chart that shows the mass murders by year/month and what was used to commit them. A lot of them seem to be revenge killings (angry boyfriend/girlfriend) or gang related. Mass Killings in America