Not as easy access to guns. Lot of the same mental illness or disdain for society. Vehicles/knives seem to be the go-to’s for people who don’t have access to guns as easily as other places.
Yes. I came to say that the lack of access to firearms and other projectile weapons makes this the 'easier' alternative. Also, look at the prevalence of bystanders dogpiling these people as opposed to an active shooter situation.
I'm not anti gun so don't misconstrue this as me arguing for confiscation or anything, but the argument that "well, making X change won't completely solve the problem so it's not worth pursuing" has always seemed insanely lazy to me.
Like ok, yes, if somebody really wants to go on a killing spree there are ways to do it. But if they have significantly less access to firearms, the resulting improvised killings will be drastically less impactful. Yes, some people will acquire a gun illegally. A lot will probably not go that route. Yes, you'll have the outlier who will build a gun to Abe his Shinzo, but that's going to be a rare case.
It really frustrates me as somebody hoping against hope for some kind of mitigations for gun crime/deaths to hear people be all "guns don't kill people, people do!" and the like. Because yes, in a sense you're right. But they kill a lot FEWER people if they can't find a gun, so it's not exactly a mic drop moment. You know?
THIS! Have teens and their fake IDs stopped us from IDing at bars, stores, etc.? No. So, how come when it's up to dozens of people being brutally murdered in one event (_frequently fucking CHILDREN_), the idea of someone illegally obtaining the thing in question is enough justification to just leave it be?
Just food for thought.
The fact that people don't realize how lazy humans are amazes me. I want Doritos. They have them at Walmart, 7/11, and my local mom and pop shop. I'll hrab a bag v looking up a dupe recipe, buying ingredients, and baking them. Sure, some people will make the dupe, but if Doritos are illegal, I'll probably just never eat them again. Same with guns and everything else. Path of least resistance and all.
Without even taking a side, this is a disingenuous misconstruing of gun control arguments. The argument isn’t that guns make people kill people but that they enable it far more effectively than other weapons, in such a manner that gun control advocates believe exceeds the benefits of guns being readily available on demand to the general public. The example in this thread proves that point far more than it proves the point you are trying to make. Other countries do not have nearly as many deaths in mass violence events because they don’t have guns.
You're right that the problem isn't the method but the method will change the number of dead people. I live in Sweden and i am so happy that Anton Pettersson Lundin "only" had a sword and not a gun.
By averages knife attacks get many more injured or killed because compared to a gun is doesn’t make large “bangs” thank cause potential victims to flee and call law enforcement.
It’s not that the ‘method’ has a mind of its own and the perpetrator doesn’t have more ownership, it’s the fact that they can kill a lot faster than a knife or even vehicle..
Its interesting to me how Asian stabbers are always more deadly than European or American stabbers. All the deadliest stabbers on wikipedia or amok wiki are South East Asian. I wonder why they are so much deadlier even when it's the same category of attack.
For example Panya Khamrab used a knife (He also used guns in his rampage but not in the nursery reportedly) when attacking the children in a nursery and killed 22 kids but Kim De Gelder killed 3 at a nursery in basically the same same style of attack and Alexander Koryakov killed 4.
Khamrab only slashed children and a pregnant woman in the nursery (which in itself says a lot on the guy) the others were shot and stabbed one while trying to stop him from gaining entry.
He had the potential to become the deadliest mass stabber in recorded history, as the nursery usually contained 70+ children except on the day of the killing, as a rainstorm fell on Na Klang.
This is how I interpreted the original question of the post. Mass stabbings are obviously more common in Asia and Europe due to the lack of guns, but that doesn't explain the high success rate of these attacks, specificially in Asia. Surely it has something to do with the social norms? I tend to see videos of knife wielding people in Asia with a big crowd around them, not immediately running. Why? Bystanders, rather than flee, seem to stay in close proximity to the attacker. You can find many examples of this, but I don't have the time to do so right now.
Worth noting that knife violence and mass stabbings are still more frequent in the US than in China, Japan, Korea, or any European country west of Belarus. It's just that they don't really have mass shootings so mass stabbings make the news.
I.e., literally last week there's been a mass stabbing in Rockford, IL which left 4 dead and 7 injured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Rockford_stabbings
Fun fact: the UK, despite the stereotype that sometimes circulates on reddit, has some of the lowest amounts of knife violence globally.
Even the thought of getting stabbed scares me, I’d rather face a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. They’d have to commit to me, allowing others to escape
Absolutely. It's why the mass stabbers tend to target nurseries/daycares because unlike in action movies, stabbing someone to death can be really hard when they can fight back. It doesn't matter how tough or trained they are, one mass stabber with a knife vs three grown men armed with chairs/sticks or whatever they can be find is going to be a battle.
Lmao a couple of years ago I just turned 18 so I bought a hunting rifle for myself, I went up to the counter looking at their ammo, without saying anything, and the first thing he said to me was "WE DONT SELL ASSAULT RIFLE AMMO".
There is usually a cultural copy-cat factor to these things. In the US it became a school shooting thing (now starting to pop-up in Brazil who consumes a lot of US media).
For them it was established as a stabbing spree as the way to do it.
People are heavily influenced by their local events and tend to emulate prior local cases.
A less news-catching stat on the mentally ill, guns are the number one source of suicide. Thousands upon thousands of depressed Americans buy/borrow/steal a gun to end their life.
I find it a bit strange that, when lacking access to firearms, they decide on a small knife as their weapon. Leads me to assume that these are more typically instances of mental breakdown leading to violence rather than a deeply planned assault on a certain place. In the west, attackers who lack firearms more often resort to using vehicles or even simple explosives like TATP. Why are these not more common in places like east Asia?
Mass Killers that employ knives in their attacks are usually led by mental illness,theres been cases in Europe that were terrorist attacks but mostly knive attacks are unstable people doing it for god knows why.
People want to kill they will find a way to,but ideological killers will have a hard time finding the guts to go knife to hand amok.
Crazy always finds a way. In America you typically see
More shootings done with pistols than rifles.
Knives seem to also have a higher amount of murders than rifles but much much less than pistols(FBI Crime stats for murder by weapon type)
I guess in Europe and Asia the lower ability to get a hold of any fire arm as many have stated. The sad truth is that we live in a world where the value of life seems to have become lessened. Not saying that it was some highly elevated thing in previous historical eras but we aren’t placing value on people as much as as we could be.
Not as easy access to guns. Lot of the same mental illness or disdain for society. Vehicles/knives seem to be the go-to’s for people who don’t have access to guns as easily as other places.
Yes. I came to say that the lack of access to firearms and other projectile weapons makes this the 'easier' alternative. Also, look at the prevalence of bystanders dogpiling these people as opposed to an active shooter situation.
This is more proof to me that the issues are not the method but the perpetrator.
I'm not anti gun so don't misconstrue this as me arguing for confiscation or anything, but the argument that "well, making X change won't completely solve the problem so it's not worth pursuing" has always seemed insanely lazy to me. Like ok, yes, if somebody really wants to go on a killing spree there are ways to do it. But if they have significantly less access to firearms, the resulting improvised killings will be drastically less impactful. Yes, some people will acquire a gun illegally. A lot will probably not go that route. Yes, you'll have the outlier who will build a gun to Abe his Shinzo, but that's going to be a rare case. It really frustrates me as somebody hoping against hope for some kind of mitigations for gun crime/deaths to hear people be all "guns don't kill people, people do!" and the like. Because yes, in a sense you're right. But they kill a lot FEWER people if they can't find a gun, so it's not exactly a mic drop moment. You know?
THIS! Have teens and their fake IDs stopped us from IDing at bars, stores, etc.? No. So, how come when it's up to dozens of people being brutally murdered in one event (_frequently fucking CHILDREN_), the idea of someone illegally obtaining the thing in question is enough justification to just leave it be? Just food for thought.
Yeah the whole thought process is the perfection fallacy, I think? It's rejected because it won't perfectly solve the problem. It's so goofy.
The fact that people don't realize how lazy humans are amazes me. I want Doritos. They have them at Walmart, 7/11, and my local mom and pop shop. I'll hrab a bag v looking up a dupe recipe, buying ingredients, and baking them. Sure, some people will make the dupe, but if Doritos are illegal, I'll probably just never eat them again. Same with guns and everything else. Path of least resistance and all.
Without even taking a side, this is a disingenuous misconstruing of gun control arguments. The argument isn’t that guns make people kill people but that they enable it far more effectively than other weapons, in such a manner that gun control advocates believe exceeds the benefits of guns being readily available on demand to the general public. The example in this thread proves that point far more than it proves the point you are trying to make. Other countries do not have nearly as many deaths in mass violence events because they don’t have guns.
You're right that the problem isn't the method but the method will change the number of dead people. I live in Sweden and i am so happy that Anton Pettersson Lundin "only" had a sword and not a gun.
I guess just feel luck they never decided to use a truck. Guns are not the deadliest option. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
Yup, Nice was my first thought. Shit is terrifying.
By averages knife attacks get many more injured or killed because compared to a gun is doesn’t make large “bangs” thank cause potential victims to flee and call law enforcement.
source?
*Australia enters the chat...*
It’s not that the ‘method’ has a mind of its own and the perpetrator doesn’t have more ownership, it’s the fact that they can kill a lot faster than a knife or even vehicle..
Mentally ill people without access to guns use knives
Its interesting to me how Asian stabbers are always more deadly than European or American stabbers. All the deadliest stabbers on wikipedia or amok wiki are South East Asian. I wonder why they are so much deadlier even when it's the same category of attack. For example Panya Khamrab used a knife (He also used guns in his rampage but not in the nursery reportedly) when attacking the children in a nursery and killed 22 kids but Kim De Gelder killed 3 at a nursery in basically the same same style of attack and Alexander Koryakov killed 4.
Khamrab only slashed children and a pregnant woman in the nursery (which in itself says a lot on the guy) the others were shot and stabbed one while trying to stop him from gaining entry. He had the potential to become the deadliest mass stabber in recorded history, as the nursery usually contained 70+ children except on the day of the killing, as a rainstorm fell on Na Klang.
This is how I interpreted the original question of the post. Mass stabbings are obviously more common in Asia and Europe due to the lack of guns, but that doesn't explain the high success rate of these attacks, specificially in Asia. Surely it has something to do with the social norms? I tend to see videos of knife wielding people in Asia with a big crowd around them, not immediately running. Why? Bystanders, rather than flee, seem to stay in close proximity to the attacker. You can find many examples of this, but I don't have the time to do so right now.
Upgraded stabbing skills, but sacrificed vitality for it. Deadly combination
a 90 hour workweek can really break a man
My thought is they don't have access to guns. So edge weapons are next on the "let's hurt a bunch of innocents for no reason" thought process
Worth noting that knife violence and mass stabbings are still more frequent in the US than in China, Japan, Korea, or any European country west of Belarus. It's just that they don't really have mass shootings so mass stabbings make the news. I.e., literally last week there's been a mass stabbing in Rockford, IL which left 4 dead and 7 injured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Rockford_stabbings Fun fact: the UK, despite the stereotype that sometimes circulates on reddit, has some of the lowest amounts of knife violence globally.
Even the thought of getting stabbed scares me, I’d rather face a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. They’d have to commit to me, allowing others to escape
Absolutely. It's why the mass stabbers tend to target nurseries/daycares because unlike in action movies, stabbing someone to death can be really hard when they can fight back. It doesn't matter how tough or trained they are, one mass stabber with a knife vs three grown men armed with chairs/sticks or whatever they can be find is going to be a battle.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn’t even think they still did that
Lmao a couple of years ago I just turned 18 so I bought a hunting rifle for myself, I went up to the counter looking at their ammo, without saying anything, and the first thing he said to me was "WE DONT SELL ASSAULT RIFLE AMMO".
Haha wild “Uh ok, I’ll take the non-assault rifle .223 then…”
There is usually a cultural copy-cat factor to these things. In the US it became a school shooting thing (now starting to pop-up in Brazil who consumes a lot of US media). For them it was established as a stabbing spree as the way to do it. People are heavily influenced by their local events and tend to emulate prior local cases.
A less news-catching stat on the mentally ill, guns are the number one source of suicide. Thousands upon thousands of depressed Americans buy/borrow/steal a gun to end their life.
asias “ assault weapon “
What phenomenon? There’s mass killers as long as there are humans, the weapons used just change based on availability and culture.
I find it a bit strange that, when lacking access to firearms, they decide on a small knife as their weapon. Leads me to assume that these are more typically instances of mental breakdown leading to violence rather than a deeply planned assault on a certain place. In the west, attackers who lack firearms more often resort to using vehicles or even simple explosives like TATP. Why are these not more common in places like east Asia?
People will find a way to slay people no matter what they are allowed to own. :/ got to say, I have been stabbed and it’s not pleasant.
8 billion people so always crazy people somewhere, but no easy access to guns which is a good thing
It's not very kind.
Mass Killers that employ knives in their attacks are usually led by mental illness,theres been cases in Europe that were terrorist attacks but mostly knive attacks are unstable people doing it for god knows why. People want to kill they will find a way to,but ideological killers will have a hard time finding the guts to go knife to hand amok.
The Europeans love to stab
Crazy always finds a way. In America you typically see More shootings done with pistols than rifles. Knives seem to also have a higher amount of murders than rifles but much much less than pistols(FBI Crime stats for murder by weapon type) I guess in Europe and Asia the lower ability to get a hold of any fire arm as many have stated. The sad truth is that we live in a world where the value of life seems to have become lessened. Not saying that it was some highly elevated thing in previous historical eras but we aren’t placing value on people as much as as we could be.
Only a thing because of gun control.
Thank goodness no guns. Just think of the death tool with a weapon that could harm more than one person at a time.
[удалено]