What is the solution for all the knife voilence Sup Forums?
Chinese knife attackers going all out killing 30, 40, 50 people at once!
Links, since last thread died before the people that didnt believe "more than 17 died at once to knives"
theguardian.com
cnn.com
Other urls found in this thread:
fromthetrenchesworldreport.com
crimeresearch.org
thefederalist.com
en.wikipedia.org
ons.gov.uk
crimestats.aic.gov.au
pewsocialtrends.org
aic.gov.au
who.int
who.int
who.int
who.int
who.int
youtube.com
twitter.com
knife control
russian bot detected.
knives are also used for non violent means.
control knives, an extensive background check should be done and numerous mental health evaluations aswell. same applys with cars and bombs.
Ive never been to russia, but my mom took a russian language class in college and taught me 1 word. probably spelling is terrible but stratzvochet? Something like that. Does that make me a bot or do you just call everything you dont agree with fake news and then accuse everyone else of doing the same? Or are you a democrat/globalist bot?
nobody needs a knife for hunting, and the police are here for self defense.
Who the fuck hunts with a knife?
Guns
/thread
Also mandatory training. Using a knife is a privilege, and you should have to pass a test to show you're familiar with knife safety and knife laws.
it was satire...
Are the people trying to draw this parallel actually this ignorant, or is it just trolling?
I think the logical solution is to limit the cutting capacity on a knife. You could make them like a clicky pen. You get one cut, then the blade retracts into the handle. Time to buy a new knife.
And after your mandatory training you should have to renew your knife license every year or 2 or lose it, at which point you lose the privilege of using knives.
I'd never use a knife myself, but why can't knifetards see we just want some common sense restrictions?
Define "this ignorant". You mean recognizing that there are many means to kill people, even lots of people, and that taking away those means just forces people to invent other ways of killing people? Also that the problem isnt with the implement used to kill, but the intent of the person wielding the implement?
If you mean that ignorant, then yes, I am.
Gun control doesn't even lower gun crime, and even if it did, other crime inevitably goes up, as we've seen countless times when countries try it.
What factors lead to an increased rate of violent crime in developed countries?
Absolutely. How many tragedies will it take until they let us limit whta they can do?
Based on what happens when you take people's guns, a major factor would be a disarmed populace.
BAN KNIVES NOW!
I have only ever wanted to kill people who hurt me
recommendation would be to stop beating strangling and or raping people
Are you sure? Has that ever happened in a country that wasn't currently a doctatorship?
Yes, all of them that Ive ever seen stats on.
Really? Provide a few examples for me. I would like to offer the UK and Australia as mine.
Fact is, we are all bags of bone, flesh and blood. Love is just a bunch of chemical reactions taking place in your brain. There are enough physical barriers in the world that limit you, so why limit yourself further by imposing mental barriers on yourself as well? Realise that none of this shit matters and you'll die in the end. Emotions are not real. There is no right or wrong.
stabbing someone to death or doing some harm is not love
if it is I feel sorry for anyone you are around
>this could have happened in a school.
r/iamintelligent
Lol I remember turning 15
Actually my brother hunts boars with a knife, it's quite effective.
Because I am nice I will post links:
crimeresearch.org
Heres australia specific:
thefederalist.com
sorry replied wrong post
Heres "yours"
Clearly give everyone knives. Ban knife free zones. Ignore the massive knife fights that break out all over the place that's just freedom
no it was a retarded attempt at being funny.
It has happened at a school. Several times, with multiple body counts, JUST in china. I could link individual articles, but the wiki is easier
en.wikipedia.org
Also just saying "im offering x" without even a mention of the actual stats or what you are suggesting they did, when in fact the data doesnt support that position, is disingenuous.
Not that i expect anything less with internet arguments.
Actual Russian here. I guess, it was "zdrastwuite", polite russian greeting.
I believe, the solution is guns, or there is none. Knife control is shit and it will make future massacres even more bloody. Psychos will get their weapons anyway, despite it being illegal. It'll be like Britain - dindu cuts cop, pedestrians are filming - what else could they do, throw rocks?
You really shouldn't believe/try to support your argument with sources that very clearly exist to push an agenda. It pretty much screams 'here is a compendium of all the data that supports my argument, but whoops, I left out all of the data that goes against it'. But we can ignore that fault, because lthe average person is ignorant like you, so I'll let it slide.
Here is what a more profrssional source looks like:
And heres a nice .gov for Australia:
crimestats.aic.gov.au
Look over this data a bit and tell me what you think.
You need a knife to clean it
Its cool lol, I understand that making unsupported claims on the internet doesn't really get you far, but to post a source for everything you say is annoying. If someone asks to see a source then thats when you provide one imo. If you want to see mine I just posted some statistics here: Spoiler Alert: The data supports my position
It's like massacres are tied to the general level of psychological health of the population.
Do you have anything whatsoever to back that up, or do you just assume thats the trend because many of these shooters have mental illness?
Russian bot here. Probably, I know it was a type of greeting. I can see how that would be pronounced similarly, despite my mangling of it. Salute comrade from the US! And yes psychos will always find something they can kill with.
It's just an assumption, based on the commonality between China and USA being not weapon laws but fucked up society.
In Europe shit like this (done by actual Europeans) is pretty rare.
Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the US and China have lower levels of psychological health?
It's already normal to ban certain types of knives in public and sometimes altogether. In a lot of places you can't walk around spinning your butterfly knife.
But really there's been 600+ mass shooting in the US since these two (that is attacks with multiple people hit, not attacks on interesting places that cause a media frenzy). Also China has about 4 times as many people. The US kills around 15,696 a year, China kills 10,000.
I don't care about US gun control, I just like objective stuff.
is there something in their water that makes americans profoundly retarded?
No nigger, I've already said it's an assumption (based on personal experience).
I wasn't aware this was a thesis dissertation.
Lol its all good. Your first post was so adamant that it felt like you actually knew what you were talking about, so I felt obligated to show you that you don't :)
Believe what makes you feel good.
In general the statistics show that the US is on the worse side (along with some South American countries, no idea why). They have a very high percentage of people suffering and a very low percentage of those are actually getting care. But China is doing fairly decently.
Hell no mate. A sad truth > a happy lie
I actually share the sentiment.
You still didn't show me I didn't know what I was talking about.
Niggers. Not even trolling. The US has a nigger plague. America’s gonna be a 3rd world country soon. We just let every gang banging immigrant in bc of feels.
Watch out guys, this guy just started psychology 101 at his local community college.
Mick Dundee.
Any source is pushing an agenda, its just which you choose to listen to.
You post .gov sources. You don't think a government has an incentive to say "look were watching out for our people and what were doing works"? I use other sources because they look at the whole picture instead of cherrypicking a few data points and drawing conclusions from it.
Decreasing homicide rates isnt really what were specifically talking about, but even here if you compare these rates to those of the US, our rate has decreased too, dramatically (more as a % even), even though we have more guns than ever. So if were looking at just that, we can say that more guns = less deaths.
See: pewsocialtrends.org
My links were to show that after a gun ban violent crime goes up... generally murder rates dont change (except in the overall scheme of things as part of a very very long term trend that is seen in every country - even those that have amendments protecting the right to carry). Furthermore we can see that for some reason other crimes increased after they took guns away in australia. This table stops at 2006 but its the first govt source i found.
see: aic.gov.au
So at best we can say that taking guns had absolutely no effect on anything outside of already established long term trends, and at worst it increased other crimes...
I feel the same way as you so this comment confuses me. I don’t own a gun and don’t really care what happens with the second amendment. If you look at the stats though, guns are like number 6000 on the list of things that kill people. It’s just odd to me that guns are a such big deal when there’s so many other things we could focus on to save lives
United States:
who.int
China:
who.int
Some sample European Countries
Norway:
who.int
Germany:
who.int
Sweden:
who.int
Like I told the last guy, pour over this data yourself and tell me what you think.
arm your citizens with better knifes so they can defend themselves.
If you think you can equate government provided statistics to an article from Fox or CNN then I don't think I want to even try arguing with you. Those sources you provided absolutely did not draw from the whole picture and very very clearly cherrypicked data. Again, if you are unable to see this then I don't want to argue with you as you lack basic reasoning ability. Homicide rates are what I was focusing on, but I would agree that a better indicator would be the total rates of violent crime. Yes the US homicide rate has been decreasing for over a decade despite our amount of guns, how does that support your claim?
I was primarily concerned with homicide rates but I'll check up on violent crime rates. And your final 'conclusion' there was not proven or really supported by anything you've provided so far.
This information is outdated
The source you provided is already indicating to me that violent crime rates are actually not a very good measure due to how often they go unreported.
you're delusional if you don't think it's not already a 3rd world country unless you're in the countryside or an affluent area.
Not really. In reality banning knives doesnt stop knife attacks.
Also there were way more than just 2... I posted a wiki link with like 15 that were just school knife attacks in just china. Still a minor point.
The main point that people dont (or wont intentionally) understand, is that the numbers are horribly inflated to push an agenda. When people say gun deaths, they really mean lots of suicides and accidental shootings (well over half, iirc 66% suicide alone?) then you have most of the rest (40-90%) that is black on black gang/drug related. If you remove the inflated numbers and take into account that most of the US is armed, were actually doing pretty well for ourselves. Then they want to ban guns that have the smallest kill count on them for some reason. Its like the fake "18 school shooting" bullshit that includes accidental firearm discharge by an officer near a school.
common sense knife control laws, think of the children.
I can assure that where I live in the United States is extremely far from third world, despite our abundance of nogs
How the FUCK do americans fail to realize that GUNS are alot more fucking deadly then a knife or whatever else they wanna draw parallels to you cant be this stupid.
Unfortunately your links don't tell us anything about the quality and effectiveness of the care the patients received, nor anything about untreated or undiagnosed illnesses.
It's interesting material though, so thank you.
You sure?
>How the FUCK do americans fail to realize that GUNS are alot more fucking deadly then a knife
If you're close enough they literally aren't you dumb motherfucker. Not much you can do against a crazed knife-wielding attacker either without a gun, besides hope you're a faster runner
shitty rebar kills
I didn't say that, the sources I cited used the same base information, they just compared that data to other pieces of information. If you start at australias gun ban in 1996 and say "see the homocide rate went down after ban" that means nothing. So did the US. Youre trying to equate causation when other data sources clearly show that wasnt the cause.
I posted a government source showing voilent crime going up for the 10 years after the ban, why is this source not good/support my claim? Are you just mad the data doesnt say what you want it to? Original claim was... Ill quote here for clarity since youre confused:
You:
>What factors lead to an increased rate of violent crime in developed countries?
Me:
Based on what happens when you take people's guns, a major factor would be a disarmed populace.
Then you said it was dictatorships, and presented aus/brit for evidence, I took your two examples and showed they did increase after gun bans.
Then I posted links, you nitpicked my sources and posted homicide rates like that was what we were tlaking about, then I post government sources and you say "doesnt support your claim", even though the aic.gov link i provided clearly shows increases in violent crime immediately following and up to 10 years after a gun ban.
I dont know what else to do here, you keep moving the goalposts and I keep providing more sources, now youre going to "i dont want to argue with you" when youre the one that started all this shit to begin with. Its amazing the mental gymnastics youre willing to go through to not be wrong.
So you ask for government sources and then claim that they aren't reliable? LMAO Ok bub.
Sure it does not indicate the number of undiagnosed as that is a statistic that is inherently impossible to quantify due to it's very nature. It only pertains to the numbers/quality of the facilities provided and how much people they treat. As can be seen across all countries relatively similiar rates of people access the facilities provided. Now there certainly could be a factor that would make US citizens with mental disorders disproportionately higher then that of other countries, but there is no reason to assume that and no data to back up the claim so I would not give it much value. As for the quality/effectiveness of these facilities I would imagine the results would all be very similiar, due to them being related to the human psyche which is universal. However I would assume that the amount of money invested into these facilities will be very relatable to how effective they are. I'll see if I can find some data regarding that.
>2014
>600+ mass shooting
Cite your sources, please.
You're an idiot who clearly hasn't been following the argument, or isn't smart enough to comprehend what he is reading. I'll let you reread and try to figure it out for yourself. If you give up and can't then just tell me and I'll explain.
you probably live in an affluent area then?
imagine being so autistic about your political building that you need to bomb a huge building because
>I'M AN EX SOLDIER AND I'M RIGHT, SO DIEEEEEE
jesus christ. it's not even like that norweigan guy that did it by hand and had a politcal target, this guy just bombs a fucking government office. what a fag. the feds should have just shot him on sight
If you're in a group of people who get stabbed in a crowd of 50 people who got stabbed, either you deserved to be stabbed or you're old and infirm and the younger people around you are to blame for not helping you get to safety.
>political building
i meant beliefs
>The sources I used cited the same information
The same information pulled out of context and used to support the claim, while ignoring the rest of the information. AKA Cherrypicking.
>If you start at australias gun ban in 1996 and say "see the homocide rate went down after ban" that means nothing. So did the US. Youre trying to equate causation when other data sources clearly show that wasnt the cause.
I agree that there was a pre-existing trend in Australia's case prior to the gun ban, however there is a notable and significant further decrease after the gun ban. If the gun ban were to actually increase the amount of homicides being committed then you would at least see some indication in the data, which there is none.
>I posted a government source showing voilent crime going up for the 10 years after the ban, why is this source not good/support my claim? Are you just mad the data doesnt say what you want it to?
No you did not lol. Violent crimes indicated by the exact data and source you posted did not experience any change in their rate of increase or decrease after the ban, except for in the case of sexual assault, which I admit could be related to the ban, i'd have to see what other regulations changed around 1999 The rest of your data follows it's preexisting trends which is absolutely DELICIOUS irony considering what you just said in the previous paragraph.
>Then you said it was dictatorships, and presented aus/brit for evidence, I took your two examples and showed they did increase after gun bans.
No you did not at all. Please show me where you did that, I'd love to see it.
>Then I posted links, you nitpicked my sources
yeah those were absolutely garbage articles, why wouldn't I be critical of them?
>and posted homicide rates like that was what we were tlaking about
My bad for my misconception here, when I think of violent crime rates the rate of homicide is usually the first thing that pops into my head as the best indicator.
tell me seriously that you can kill as many people in a public place, like a school, with a real knife made for killing people as you can with a fully automatic rifle? get the fuck out of here
Read the links in the OP or just google "China knife attack" you ignorant cunt. Also, "fully automatic" rifles are highly regulated - virtually no one aside from a relative handful of well off collectors and hobbyists actually owns them.
Post too long, gotta continue here.
>then I post government sources and you say "doesnt support your claim", even though the aic.gov link i provided clearly shows increases in violent crime immediately following and up to 10 years after a gun ban.
Again, you do not know how to interpret the data you are reading. From the very source that you "claim" supports your argument, aka the aic.gov link you can clearly see that Homicide slightly decreases, following a pre-existing trend. Assault slightly increases, following the preexisitng trend. Sxual assault actually remains the same (what I said in my last post was inccrect). Not a single one of these "clearly shows increases in violent crime immediately following and up to 10 years after a gun ban." They literally don't. That is why I say they don't support your claim. I'm not discrediting them , the data itself does not support your claim.
>I dont know what else to do here, you keep moving the goalposts and I keep providing more sources
I haven't moved it once. You provided 2 initial terrible sources. From there you provided one more source, but it didn't support your argument. You posted the link and claimed that it did, but if you actually read it and look at it it does not (explained above^).
>now youre going to "i dont want to argue with you" when youre the one that started all this shit to begin with.
I do like to argue and debate things which is why i started it, I wanted to stop after realizing you were incompetent and unable to provide a good argument.
>Its amazing the mental gymnastics youre willing to go through to not be wrong.
Ohh the irony is so so so good here.
Its amazing the mental gymnastics youre willing to go through to not be wrong.
What does the year have to do with the lethality of a knife? WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDRENS
It's simple we just ban knives
Knifemaker here. My latest work in progress is capable of dispatching someone pretty quickly. With a 14 inch blade and 20 inches overall, it's damned near a short sword. I'll wear it in public when it's finished. I'll have a gazillion people ask to see it because people like my work.
No i get it. The australian government, who have banned guns and seen an increase in violent crime afterward, dont believe that violent crime is a good indicator of the effectiveness of their ban (circa 2006ish), when it was widely reported that their gun ban was followed by increasing violent crime.
Im getting hard now that youre calling me an idiot. Keep talking dirty to me you slut, Im about to come edging for your response.
>short sword
>as effective as a modern military issue assault rifle
are you retarded? people developed firearms for a reason
You very clearly don't get it lol AKA you're actually an idiot. I hope that getd you off
The Chinese have no souls
I'm not comparing it to a rifle. At close distances a blade is just as, if not more lethal than a handgun. I guess my point is it's silly to think knives can be banned when they're so easy to make. They're one of our oldest tools. The only tools older are rocks and sticks.
>people developed firearms for a reason
And that reason isn't maiming and killing unsuspecting civilians in surprise attacks. The kind of gun laws retards like you try to push sure help keep people defenseless when shit like that happens though.
A gun is the best way to stop knife violence
21 foot rule faggot
Nah lets just give everyone knives. To the point where every single person has a knife on them at all times. If someone starts stabbing someome then everyone else can just stab them. Thats how it works, right?
Where I live everyone does carry a knife. Men, anyway. Quite a few women carry knives here too