U.s. high school stabbing leaves at least 20 injured
A student armed with a knife went on a stabbing and slashing rampage at a high school near Pittsburgh on Wednesday morning, leaving as many as 20 people injured, including four students who suffered serious wounds, authorities said.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/04/09/us_high_school_stabbing_leaves_dozens_injured.html
o.o
April 9, 2014
47 Comments • Newest first
[quote=Skyenets] I literally stated that it's hard to do that because it's part of American culture. Banning it all in one go would be impossible. I don't even really understand why people are assuming that I want to see guns banned, while I've been saying that strengthening the law and implementing limitations is much more productive.[/quote]
I must have missed that, I was mostly skimming the comments.
[quote=Skyenets]I've been saying that strengthening the law and implementing limitations is much more productive.[/quote]
A lot of people would like this, but there are many problems with this idea, and here is why:
I live in California, one of the top 5 states when it comes to firearm restrictions, here are some of the laws.
-No removable or internal magazines over 10 rounds
-Weapons with a certain number of "assault features" are illegal
-Suppressors are illegal
-All long guns and handguns (any firearm whatsoever) require registration
-Some firearms are banned by name
[b]"No removable or internal magazines over 10 rounds"[/b]
This law is pretty simple. If your firearm can hold over 10 rounds of ammunition (this excludes 1 in the chamber, 10 in the magazine), then it is illegal. Now I own an [url=http://i.imgur.com/zsFtfEm.jpg]AR-15[/url], which is a firearm that many CA politicians would rather I not have. It may look as if this rifle has a "high capacity" magazines, but if you look closely you can see a small silver metal object on the front of the magazine. The 30 round magazine which would be illegal in CA is now legal because it is "permanently pinned at a 10 round capacity". Now I had these magazines shipped to my doorstep, and could have more sent if I wanted. I could also take a dremel or drill to the rivet and it would no longer be limited in capacity. [b]Using things that were shipped to my doorstep, I could produce illegal 30 round magazines without any detailed knowledge.[/b] It is also important to note that magazines are nothing more than boxes with springs, they can be made from sheet metal.
[b]"Weapons with a certain number of "assault features" are illegal"[/b]
This one is pretty silly. In California, semi-automatic (1 shot per trigger pull) firearms with readily removed magazines, adjustable stocks, and pistol grips are banned. There are a few exceptions (namely .22lr rifles with these features), but for the most part it's a pretty damning law. That AR-15 I showed you? It has all of those features... except it has been modified. Here is a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseNzVcIjtc]video[/url] of the modification. With this modification, the so-called 'bullet button', my rifle's magazines are no longer "readily removed" as defined by CA law. The rifle still shoots in semi-auto, it still shoots .223 and 5.56, it is just inconvenient to reload it.
Now that probably sounds like a good idea. Lots of mass shooters used rifles similar to mine after all. [b]Except I had a standard magazine release button shipped to my doorstep, legally.[/b] That's right, you can buy and own standard mag releases... just not use them. Also of note is that rifles in [url=http://i.imgur.com/EqTMnft.jpg]this[/url] configuration can have normal magazine releases because they do not have as many "assault features", no adjustable stock or pistol grip. Same rifle. Same caliber. Still semi-automatic.
[b]"Suppressors are illegal"[/b]
This law actually makes things less safe. Suppressors are nothing like how they are portrayed in movies. They do not make firearms into silent killing machines. At best they take off ~30 dB from a firearm, which is fantastic at indoor ranges where even doubling up (ear plugs+over-ear protection) isn't always enough. The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) also 'registers' suppressors and requires a $200 tax stamp per suppressor.
[b]"All long guns and handguns (any firearm whatsoever) require registration"[/b]
I [i]could [/i] go to my cousin in Nevada, hand him a couple bucks, have him buy me what I want, and bring it back to CA. So long as the firearm was made pre-1/1/2014, I can say it was bought pre-registration and there is no way to tell otherwise. There is no way to enforce this law.
[b]"Some firearms are banned by name"[/b]
This law... I wanted to purchase an AK-74 a few months ago. I was looking at them online, and I liked a particular model, an 'Arsenal SGL-31 AK-74'. Now of course, the rifle would be modified to be CA-compliment, and I could have it shipped to the local FFL-holder (gun store) and fill out the paperwork there, so it wouldn't be too hard to get this rifle.
But. The SGL series of rifles by Arsenal is banned by name. Do you know what wasn't banned by name? A Saiga IZ 240, also an AK-74. Same base rifle. Same caliber. Both are semi-automatic. One is banned because politicians didn't like it. Oh, and Arsenal released a new line of rifles, the SAM series. [b]It is the exact same as the SGL series, but the name is different. Legal in California.[/b]
I hope this write-up gives people a better understanding of gun law (in CA at least), and how easy it would be for me or other people to disobey most of these laws if I was criminally-inclined. Also, the picture of my rifle had a non bullet-button magazine release on it. I was in Nevada with my cousin when I took that picture, so I was not breaking any laws. It took 30 seconds to replace the mag release with the normal one.
@Zoneflare4: Maybe a law like "If you live with multiple people in a house, all of them need to be checked on mental health." That would take care of families with depressed children. Or a law stating that if you have a child from x till x age you can't own a gun.
@Skyenets all the laws in the world would mean crap since the majority of guns used in school shootings were legally owned by a moron parent who didnt lock it up.
@AsianPeople: I literally stated that it's hard to do that because it's part of American culture. Banning it all in one go would be impossible. I don't even really understand why people are assuming that I want to see guns banned, while I've been saying that strengthening the law and implementing limitations is much more productive.
[quote=Skyenets]And what do other people have to do with us two discussing something? Other than that they are discussing the same topic.[/quote]
"you're acting as if leaving the country is a walk in the park." -you
"you and everyone in this thread is acting as if creating legislation for a protected right is a walk in the park." -me
I can't simplify what I am trying to say any further than this.
@AsianPeople: And what do other people have to do with us two discussing something? Other than that they are discussing the same topic.
[quote=Skyenets]@AsianPeople: I discredit everything you say because you're acting as if leaving the country is a walk in the park.[/quote]
Same way people in this thread are treating gun legislation in a country where firearm ownership is a protected right of the people.
And one thing being wrong != everything being wrong.
@AsianPeople: I discredit everything you say because you're acting as if leaving the country is a walk in the park.
[quote=Fusionpressure]So, natural-born americans, who want a change because of how dangerous the gun situation has become in their country ... are to you just free to leave if they dislike it?
What the hell kind of logic is that?
With that logic, if you dislike them protesting the asinine gun laws, YOUR free to leave.[/quote]
Why would I leave? Anti-gun people are the [b]minority[/b]. Firearms are still around for this very reason. And the idea of any gun laws is silly; criminals are not going to obey them, those laws only affect law-abiding owners. And the wording of your post shows just how biased and uninformed you are. Dangerous? Gun situation? Buddy, I have 7 rifles within 10' of me right now, and they are no more dangerous than, say, a car. Guns are tools, in the wrong hands or to someone who is untrained, they can be dangerous, but by themselves they are perfectly safe.
And about that 'gun situation' as you call it: If so many people are dying from something, surely it should be banned? Well take a look at these: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year]Vehicle deaths[/url] [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm]Alcohol deaths[/url] [url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/17/gun-crime-statistics-by-us-state]Firearm deaths[/url], note that rifles make up an incredibly low percentage of these, yet seem to be the most heavily regulated firearms in anti-gun states.
[quote=Fusionpressure]natural-born americans.[/quote]
Lol. Natural born? Please, anyone can become a US citizen, and these people are just as important as those 'natural-born' Americans.
[quote=AsianPeople]They are free to leave if they don't like the country. Rather than trying to discredit everything someone who actually lives in the country has said based on a single sentence, how about you explain why it is 'ridiculous'.[/quote]
So, natural-born americans, who want a change because of how dangerous the gun situation has become in their country ... are to you just free to leave if they dislike it?
What the hell kind of logic is that?
With that logic, if you dislike them protesting the asinine gun laws, YOUR free to leave.
[quote=Skyenets]@AsianPeople:
"No one is forcing these people to live here."
Now please tell me why I should take any of your previously thought valid points seriously anymore? As that is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far.[/quote]
They are free to leave if they don't like the country. Rather than trying to discredit everything someone who actually lives in the country has said based on a single sentence, how about you explain why it is 'ridiculous'.
@AsianPeople:
"No one is forcing these people to live here."
Now please tell me why I should take any of your previously thought valid points seriously anymore? As that is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far.
Lol@people who are talking about banning things in this thread.
You know what they should ban? [i]Killing people[/i].
Oh. Wait.
Firearms are a fundamental right for all Americans according to the second amendment. People can nitpick all they want, but "[b]SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED[/b]" does not leave room for argument.
[quote=Skyenets]How many times have you had someone break into your house as of yet?
Also, I'm not saying ban all guns, don't get me wrong. My question is, do you really need anything bigger than a handgun to get rid of someone breaking into your house?[/quote]
Two break-ins when I lived in San Jose, both of which happened before I owned any guns or means of defending myself. I'm not a big person, at 5'4" and ~125 pounds, It would be easy for someone to overpower me. I feel much safer knowing that next time someone breaks in, I can put 9 .30" holes in them if they decline my offer to leave.
And this isn't a "NEED" thing. Again, firearms are a RIGHT. If I want to spend $13,000 on a Barrett M107A1 semi-automatic .50 BMG anti-material rifle (designed to take out armored targets and light tanks), and use that to defend my home, well, I can do that. It doesn't matter if it's stupid. It doesn't matter if it is impractical. I live in a country where I have the right to own and use such things, so long as I am a law-abiding citizen.
[quote=Skyenets]I'm European actually. I'm able to voice my opinion because I don't have to be afraid of someone maniac shooting me while I'm minding my own business.[/quote]
This does not happen. The thing is... people who legally obtain firearms also obey other laws, such as laws prohibiting murder. The main cause of so-called 'gun violence' is gangs and and other criminals. The vast majority of crime involving firearms is being done by people who did not legally obtain them. This includes mass-murderers and spree shooters. The real problems are that we have a horrible mental health system, and a heavily biased media.
You live in a country where guns are a non-issue to you. Just leave it at that. If an American does not want firearms in their state, they are more than welcome to vote for any anti-gun politicians/etc, or move out. No one is forcing these people to live here.
One student vs 22 and no one bothered to do anything after the third kid gets shanked
lol
Ideally, it would be best if everyone had a gun, and everyone was combat trained. This would create a warrior country where people would have more respect for eachother because they would know that the other person would be able to retaliate. Its like why criminals don't go and attack military bases or police stations.
But such a culture would have had to have been implanted long ago, for it is futile to try something like this where we are at now.
[quote=TrueAtheist]If he had a gun it would have been 20 deaths, not 20 injured. Thank God he didn't have a gun.[/quote]
But he still injured 20 people, so it proves guns aren't as dangerous as knives are guys!
See, society is WRONG, YOU WRONG DOE. /endsarcasm.
@SleekandFast: Could you imagine how different Anders Breivik's camp massacre would have been had it been a knife and not a gun? Lots of people would have survived.
[quote=metaghost4]You should visit here, it's like one huge riot all the time.
OT: And yet people say guns are the problem...[/quote]
If he had a gun it would have been 20 deaths, not 20 injured. Thank God he didn't have a gun.
[quote=SomeJello]@Plenair:
I'd still much rather take a shot from a 9mm pistol than get stabbed[/quote]
The discussion here isn't about your personal preferences. But of course, most would opt for a quicker and less painful way to die. However, you can say that guns are more dangerous to the masses for the same reason - they kill faster. Banning guns won't end school massacres, but it'll sure as hell make them a lot less common.
p.s. Stabbings don't usually equate to massacres
@Redadin: Maybe it's because I just woke up, or maybe it's because I really don't feel like this discussion anymore. Probably the latter. Pretty much anything you have said I have seen someone else say. The fact that you act like I said that just because it never happened to me it won't happens to others makes me even less interested in responding in full.
I'm not that daft and I seriously hope you're not that daft to think that I would say something like that.
Basically my whole opinion on the matter is:
Don't ban guns. Americans can't deal with that. Europeans don't need them because they have never been introduced into the culture (and made "addicted". But limit what you can get and make it harder to get guns.
That's all I'm gonna say about the matter anymore.
[quote=Skyenets]@GreatBolshy: I lived in the middle class area of my town for 20 years. We've never been robbed. Our neighbours did get robbed once. The burglar didn't show his face to anyone and only a computer was taken. [/quote]
Just because you've never been robbed means it doesn't happen often. Haha... oh boy... the logic in this is astounding.
In the US just because you live in a middle class area of influence doesn't mean you're safe. The majority of crimes are committed by whites, even violent crimes, and in the US you could say that (due to us being the majority) there are many more of us who are middle class as well. To put it another way... more crime should take place in white middle class areas of influence. So it's clearly foolish to think you have nothing to worry over just because you live in a nicer neighborhood. Now this isn't in every country, but since we're talking about the US here I find it important to note to you.
[quote=Skyenets]Maybe the guns have two sides? Making it easier to rob a house while at the same time making it easier to protect yourself?[/quote]
Yes, but then what happens when you are caught without a gun when the burglar has one? What happens if there's a ban against guns? You see it's far easier to smuggle guns into and out of the US than you clearly (or should I say DON'T) think. Take a look on it... do some research. You know that Mexico has anti-gun laws yet is seriously loaded with guns for many reasons and one being they are smuggled in from the US? You think that doesn't go both ways now?
Take a look at Switzerland and the US. Both are heavily toted in weapons. But one is a society brought up with responsibility and self reliance while the other is diseased. You can not take the guns away from those people and expect things to turn around. Not in 100 years, not in 1,000. Because the culture has to change and it won't just because guns go away.
[quote=Skyenets]@MetalFaceDooM: I'm European actually. I'm able to voice my opinion because I don't have to be afraid of someone maniac shooting me while I'm minding my own business.[/quote]
Yes, you do. Lol. Criminals have guns to intimidate you, shoot you, or hold you at gun-point and have their way with you. And no one is going to stop them from hurting you but yourself. They don't follow laws and anti-gun laws won't stop it from happening. The more tighter the restriction the more booming the black business. Just look at America's attempts at abolishing alcohol for example. You should know the story on that... organized crime became a big romanticized thing because of it.
[quote=ehnogi]Wow people are starting to argue about guns now? We could "what if" this all day, but the fact is that guns weren't involved (were they?) to stop this unskilled individual nor did he use a gun to kill students. Guns are irrelevant.[/quote]
It still is related to the gun argument since people will try to use this as evidence against banning/regulating guns more.
Wow people are starting to argue about guns now? We could "what if" this all day, but the fact is that guns weren't involved (were they?) to stop this unskilled individual nor did he use a gun to kill students. Guns are irrelevant.
@SomeJello you can definitely say that again.
How did this guy get 20 people though that seems pretty hard...
@MetalFaceDooM: Ok, let's just disregard the rest of my post no harm done. Who says I base my opinion on what the media says? I base it on statistics.
@GreatBolshy: I lived in the middle class area of my town for 20 years. We've never been robbed. Our neighbours did get robbed once. The burglar didn't show his face to anyone and only a computer was taken.
Maybe the guns have two sides? Making it easier to rob a house while at the same time making it easier to protect yourself?
@MetalFaceDooM: I'm European actually. I'm able to voice my opinion because I don't have to be afraid of someone maniac shooting me while I'm minding my own business.
@Skyenets: middle class, complete opposite side of town from the ghetto. bunch of old people around here and i highly doubt they're robbing houses. same for the business
[quote=SomeJello]@Skyenets: To be honest I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Stabbing someone can do a hell of a lot more damage internally than a bullet, depending on where the impact is. And yeah there have been a lot of school massacres in the states recently, but all this shows is that someone still wanted to harm 20 people. He didn't even need a gun. What about all of the people who use guns for protection and safety? America is a huge country physically compared to the Netherlands
Edit: Nvm I forgot Basil was anti-guns so this will go nowhere[/quote]
That's just an excuse because you're afraid of losing.
And besides, you'd rather be shot than stabbed, so don't ban guns? What type of logic is that?
Stabbing can potentially do more damage, but it's more work to do so. But a bullet to the the head or neck is certainly a lot easier. In the name of safety, we try to hinder the use of [b]efficient[/b] weapons.
@Skyenets
With all due respect, at this point, I just think he's making up information or exaggerating to back up his case.
@GreatBolshy: What kind of neighbourhood do you live in? Same question for the business.
[quote=Skyenets]How many times have you had someone break into your house as of yet?
Also, I'm not saying ban all guns, don't get me wrong. My question is, do you really need anything bigger than a handgun to get rid of someone breaking into your house?[/quote]
No you dont need anything bigger than a handgun. If youre a good shot then it would only take one bullet to get them running or killed. I personally prefer a handgun cause I take it almost everywhere with me so people dont mess with me.
Well at least it's not guns
@Skyenets: my house has been broken into once and my family business several times
[quote=GreatBolshy]taking guns away would only hurt innocent people. if someone breaks into my house, i'd rather have my shotgun with me than have to call 911 and wait 3-5 mins for cops to show up. in that amount of time the burglars could easily have scouted out the entire house and it'd be too late. they'd be much more tempted to fight if you had a little knife compared to staring down a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun in their face. also as i'm sure you know mexico is known for smuggling things such as guns into the usa. so not only will we not have guns, the only people that WILL have guns are cops and bad guys, but i might aswell just categorize them both into the same group.
ot:
i'm really surprised that the guy got as far as he did with just a knife. you'd think that someone would've tackled him much sooner than after there were 20 injured people.[/quote]
How many times have you had someone break into your house as of yet?
Also, I'm not saying ban all guns, don't get me wrong. My question is, do you really need anything bigger than a handgun to get rid of someone breaking into your house?
[quote=Skyenets]There's stabbings in the UK, therefore banning guns won't stop school massacres? That makes no sense. Stabbing one person is still quite far off from a massacre.
Sure, it won't "stop" massacres but it will hinder them definitely. It's much easier to pick up a gun and shoot multiple people than it is to stab multiple people. With a gun you shoot and walk away. Maybe you need to shoot again because you missed or didn't quite hit the victim in the right spot. With a knife, you have to get up close. You have to get so close that the victim can defend themselves. It gets messy. It takes more out of you mentally and physically. Someone might fight back, requiring you to stab him or her what, 10 times? That's tiring. By the time you're done with one victim, everyone else could have run away. And if in first place they can outrun the attacker, even better. Being attacked by someone with a knife allows for a lot more chances for the victims.
Besides that all, let me give you the Netherlands as an example. Massacres are practically unheard of, with the exception of our more recent Alphen massacre. Guns are banned there as well. I don't even remember if the Netherlands ever had a school massacre.[/quote]
taking guns away would only hurt innocent people. if someone breaks into my house, i'd rather have my shotgun with me than have to call 911 and wait 3-5 mins for cops to show up. in that amount of time the burglars could easily have scouted out the entire house and it'd be too late. they'd be much more tempted to fight if you had a little knife compared to staring down a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun in their face. also as i'm sure you know mexico is known for smuggling things such as guns into the usa. so not only will we not have guns, the only people that WILL have guns are cops and bad guys, but i might aswell just categorize them both into the same group.
ot:
i'm really surprised that the guy got as far as he did with just a knife. you'd think that someone would've tackled him much sooner than after there were 20 injured people.
@DrPebble: Stabbings [b]in the UK[/b].
Guns are banned in the UK.
Thus people get stabbed in the UK more than they get shot.
That's not a massacre.
A massacre is when loads of people get stabbed/shot/whatevered.
In the UK, most stabbings are cases of 1 or 2 people getting stabbed.
The thread is about massacres.
The UK doesn't have massacres (well not many), it has stabbings of 1 or 2 people.
Stabbing one person =/= a massacre.
Hence, it makes no sense.
[quote=SomeJello]There's a ton of stabbings in the UK, and they've banned guns.
All this shows is that banning guns won't stop school massacres[/quote]
Yeah, but you can only do so much damage with a knife before the police show up and plug you... with a non-lethal beanbag round. There's way less destructive potential.
Gratz to him, too many kids these days use guns and then end up killing themselves. Personally I would've used brass knuckles if i ever wanted to do something like that, but for the most part they're for self defense
@somejello no the knife is better cause it's easier to fight off the person. All someone has to do is stab them back with a pen or some other sharp object.
What a shame people turn out like this. This is why you don't bully the quiet kid.
[quote=SomeJello]There's a ton of stabbings in the UK, and they've banned guns.
All this shows is that banning guns won't stop school massacres[/quote]
There's stabbings in the UK, therefore banning guns won't stop school massacres? That makes no sense. Stabbing one person is still quite far off from a massacre.
Sure, it won't "stop" massacres but it will hinder them definitely. It's much easier to pick up a gun and shoot multiple people than it is to stab multiple people. With a gun you shoot and walk away. Maybe you need to shoot again because you missed or didn't quite hit the victim in the right spot. With a knife, you have to get up close. You have to get so close that the victim can defend themselves. It gets messy. It takes more out of you mentally and physically. Someone might fight back, requiring you to stab him or her what, 10 times? That's tiring. By the time you're done with one victim, everyone else could have run away. And if in first place they can outrun the attacker, even better. Being attacked by someone with a knife allows for a lot more chances for the victims.
Besides that all, let me give you the Netherlands as an example. Massacres are practically unheard of, with the exception of our more recent Alphen massacre. Guns are banned there as well. I don't even remember if the Netherlands ever had a school massacre.
[quote=SomeJello]There's a ton of stabbings in the UK, and they've banned guns.
All this shows is that banning guns won't stop school massacres[/quote]
Ugh, no. It shows that when a weapon becomes restricted and hard to get they'll go for the next best thing. Banning guns obviously won't stop school massacres, or even attacks but it does lower the chance of such things as drive-by shootings.
In the USA, guns are still the main problem of crime. In places like the UK and China, where guns are restricted, it's mainly knives.
Longer video http://abcnews.go.com/US/stabbings-reported-franklin-regional-high-school-pennsylvania/story?id=23253018
[quote=ErvTheMan]Well at least he didn't use a gun.[/quote]
Imagine if they tried to ban knives...
Least he wasn't aiming for their heads.
Sad tragedy. Its funny how they dont say the kid with the knife is "special needs" i mean, what else would explain him to do that?
smh, well i hope they all end up being okay
Well at least he didn't use a gun.
Americans are out of control.