It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

22 injured in stabbing rampage at Pa. high school

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.

Either way, plenty of mass stabbings have happened around the world with many more casualties than most of the US mass shootings.

Both are deadly weapons and both have to be wielded by a killer/person. I have always asked....what's the common denominator with any killing? It takes a person to kill, not a weapon.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.
I'd rather face a gun. It's easier to tackle a man with a gun without getting hurt if he is distracted because people have poor reaction times. A man with a knife might miss his mark, but he'll still cut the fire out of you. And a knife is just as deadly. If the kid really wanted to kill people, then there'd be many fatalities. Either that or he was too dumb to know where to stab or slice. I'm just saying.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Where is the anti-knife lobby to cry out for knife control ?

Is there one ?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

"Twenty-two people were INJURED.

That's the difference. Had there have been a gun involved the headline would have read

"Twenty-two people were KILLED". Or more. Twice that many could have been killed with a gun - it's very quick I'm told.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: onequestion

You got this from a news site? How can you say it isn't news?
Simple Google search showed me fox, time, and cnn all have articles on it. What do you want?


Oh and once again let's just use this event to push an agenda...

Exactly what we say we don't want whe shootings happen.


You really see no difference in the coverage?? Is Obama out speaking out on knife violence? Is every network leading with it?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.


Yes because a knife has as much range as a firearm.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: onequestion

You got this from a news site? How can you say it isn't news?
Simple Google search showed me fox, time, and cnn all have articles on it. What do you want?


Oh and once again let's just use this event to push an agenda...

Exactly what we say we don't want whe shootings happen.


You really see no difference in the coverage?? Is Obama out speaking out on knife violence? Is every network leading with it?


God help me...THE STORY IS OVER A YEAR OLD AND YES...It WAS COVERED EXTENSIVELY IN THE NEWS...

CNN Ran with it for days..

www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...

THIS OP IS MISLEADING...IMPLYING IT IS RECENT NEWS THAT ISN"T BEING COVERED.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
We get it, it's a story from 2014. Is it okay to discuss it anyway, or should we have the OP penalized?




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.


Yes because a knife has as much range as a firearm.


Plenty of references of anywhere from 1 to 29 people dying from mass knife attacks....mostly in heavily regulated gun control countries....I guess the perpetrators in those attacks are not really bad people though since they didn't use guns.

Also plenty of studies that show homicide prior to guns was much higher, by 10 times the amount, but yeah....guns MUST be the problem.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
We get it, it's a story from 2014. Is it okay to discuss it anyway, or should we have the OP penalized?



It's just so much BS...It was covered...CNN and every other network extensively! ..and YES even the President ..

Obama calls principal of Pa. high school devastated by stabbings
www.washingtontimes.com...

It is the very fact that is was over a year ago that makes people say...wow, I haven't seen this on the news!


originally posted by: onequestion

Apparently this isn't news


Not "isn't"...."wasn't"...and when you change it to "wasn't" as in over a year ago...the OP still fails cuz it WAS big news on every network.

So what is this OP actually claiming that is credible?

edit on 9-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.


Yes because a knife has as much range as a firearm.


Plenty of references of anywhere from 1 to 29 people dying from mass knife attacks....mostly in heavily regulated gun control countries....I guess the perpetrators in those attacks are not really bad people though since they didn't use guns.


You're equating the States with 3rd world countries? Not much of an endorsement.


Also plenty of studies that show homicide prior to guns was much higher, by 10 times the amount, but yeah....guns MUST be the problem.


Show me stats on that. Secondly you just pointed out that people will use the best tool for the job. What would that be in todays society?
And you're arguing FOR guns? Again.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
We get it, it's a story from 2014. Is it okay to discuss it anyway, or should we have the OP penalized?


get the wet noodle

edit on 9-10-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.


Yes because a knife has as much range as a firearm.


Plenty of references of anywhere from 1 to 29 people dying from mass knife attacks....mostly in heavily regulated gun control countries.....


hmmm...had to look that one up..



Twenty-nine people were killed and 130 were injured Saturday night when 10 men armed with long knives stormed the station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, the state news agency Xinhua reported.

Members of a separatist group from Xinjiang, in northwest China, are believed to have carried out the assault, authorities said. The report referred to them as "terrorists."


You seemed to have left out the fact that it was 10 men?

Jeez..by that logic the battle of Agincourt qualify as a mass stabbing...

Why did soldiers trade swords for guns anyways?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The kid went on a rampage with a knife, yes he stabbed 20 people, but none of them died. What do you suppose the tally would be if he had shot them instead? 20 wounded by knife versus 20 dead by gunshot.

If there is a maniac on the loose I'd rather him be armed with a knife than a gun.


Why would a gunshot have killed them? Typically the shooters in these scenario's gather everyone into one area and execute them with a well placed shot. Had the guy with the knife done the same, the same would have happened.


Yes because a knife has as much range as a firearm.


Plenty of references of anywhere from 1 to 29 people dying from mass knife attacks....mostly in heavily regulated gun control countries....I guess the perpetrators in those attacks are not really bad people though since they didn't use guns.


You're equating the States with 3rd world countries? Not much of an endorsement.


Also plenty of studies that show homicide prior to guns was much higher, by 10 times the amount, but yeah....guns MUST be the problem.


Show me stats on that. Secondly you just pointed out that people will use the best tool for the job. What would that be in todays society?
And you're arguing FOR guns? Again.


China is a 3rd world country? That is news to me!

As far as stats, here is a NYT article, which is typically very anti gun and left leaning, with references to killing prior to guns and stats from researchers in the article.

Source



New data presented at the conference by a Dutch scholar, Pieter Spierenburg, showed that the homicide rate in Amsterdam, for example, dropped from 47 per 100,000 people in the mid-15th century to 1 to 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.

Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.




The knife and the quarterstaff, the heavy wooden stick commonly carried for herding animals and walking on the muddy roads, were the weapons of choice.


So stabbed and beaten to death with 10 times the number of homicides we have today....sounds like a dandy time to have lived!

So are we talking ALL guns here or just the nasty rifle that everyone seems to be on about?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

1400's to the 1800's? How can the even REMOTELY be considered relevant? Don't grasp man. Ain't no straws there.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Vasa Croe

1400's to the 1800's? How can the even REMOTELY be considered relevant? Don't grasp man. Ain't no straws there.



How can it be relevant? Because 10 times the amount of people were being murdered without guns around. Historical fact that guns are not killing more people. Pretty relevant I would say. Everyone says guns are killing mass amounts of people and we have more people in the world than ever today, yet somehow, without guns 10 times the amount of people managed to get murdered.....but yeah....has to be the guns.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Vasa Croe

1400's to the 1800's? How can the even REMOTELY be considered relevant? Don't grasp man. Ain't no straws there.



How can it be relevant? Because 10 times the amount of people were being murdered without guns around. Historical fact that guns are not killing more people. Pretty relevant I would say. Everyone says guns are killing mass amounts of people and we have more people in the world than ever today, yet somehow, without guns 10 times the amount of people managed to get murdered.....but yeah....has to be the guns.


Spot on.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You are equating historical references to todays society. Are you cool with a monarch as well? If so I'm putting in my resume. I'd be a great king. There is no comparison. As I said to my slaves today, after having them beaten.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Good to see that people dont read, And just believe what people post has truth.

Also thanks for the agenda pushers lol, the story made the media rounds when it came out in 2014, but yea its obama the commie agenda lol.
edit on 9-10-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You are equating historical references to todays society. Are you cool with a monarch as well? If so I'm putting in my resume. I'd be a great king. There is no comparison. As I said to my slaves today, after having them beaten.




Did you even read the article? Apparently not as it clearly states the research points to nothing of the sort....in fact, quite the opposite:



After examining coroners' inquests, Barbara A. Hannawalt, a professor of medieval English history at the University of Minnesota, concluded that most slayings in medieval England started as quarrels among farmers in the field. "They were grubbing for existence," she said. Insults to honor were taken seriously, and violence was the accepted method of settling disputes, since the king's courts were slow, expensive and corrupt.


These were not monarchs putting people to death...it was everyday people killing with blades and clubs....the whole "grubbing for existence" really rings a bell with today's society....sounds eerily familiar to government handouts.




top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join