[Content Warning: Mass killing]
These two news articles came up simultaneously on the front page of my news grazer:
[CBS]
[SBD]
The hard thing about guns is that you can’t outrun a bullet.
Spot the Differences
Stderr
All the unbuffered error messages
Also? When I’m on a sidewalk and a murderous thug is in his car, I don’t worry too much about drive-by knifings.
Also, also? It took TWO blade/skewer armed attackers to do that damage in Paris, vs. 1 gun armed attacker to cause 5x the deaths and 2.5 to 3 times the number of total victims, including both dead and wounded.
One person then, is about 1/5th to 1/6th as effective in killing and injuring others when armed with a sharp hand-held weapon … judging only by this data. (But it’s not like I want to collect more data either. Please, let there never be more data on this topic. Like, ever. :sigh: It’s already too late, isn’t it.)
As I follow European news, I occasionally see these mass stabbing stories. Sometimes there’s at least suspected terrorist motivation, like in an incident that happened in Finland couple years ago (two dead, eight injured). I think if we had US style gun access, Islamist terrorism would be more of a problem than it currently is in either US or Europe. White supremacist terrorism would be a problem as well.
One time, there was a story of some teen boy in Germany who managed to injure a dozen or so people with an axe, without killing anyone. That was when I thought you could write an Onion-style parody news story along the lines of “Tragedy in German train as knife-wielding terrorist fails to kill dozens of people”
Another difference: in France were used common household objects that do not have killing as their only, or even their primary purpose.
And knife injuries that are not fatal tend to be less harmful, easier to fix and faster healing than non-lethal gunshot wounds.
@Charly: true. If the attackers had been equipped with swords, the injuries and casualty-rate would have been a bit worse.
As soon as the victims start to scatter, a knife-wielder is done. A gunman controls an area of space out to at least 100yd.
Also, when police show up, they shoot the knife-wielder at very little danger to themselves. That contains the attack.
In the US, there have been numerous cases of cops shooting and murdering Black people or mentally ill people who were threatening others with knives and other weapons. Why couldn’t two or three cops surround the person with nightsticks, one or more distracting them while one hits the wielder’s arm or leg?
Unless the person has a very rare condition like a blood clotting disease, a broken arm or nightstick to the back of the leg won’t result in a fatal injury. The person can be taken into custody and helped. Are the cops cowardly, lazy or looking for excuses to kill with impunity?
Also, while it’s not completely impossible, it’s really rare that somebody is accidentally killed with a knife. Especially not in a “5 years old kills 3 years old in a knife accident” scenario.
Lumipuna
That’s the thjing: we still can remember all those, like I can still remember the German school shootings, even though one is back 20 years. In the US you may remember Columbine as the “first”, but all those in between?
Intransitive@#5:
Are the cops cowardly, lazy or looking for excuses to kill with impunity?
That may not be an ‘or’ question, as Dogbert says. It could be that the cops are cowardly and lazy and looking for excuses to kill with impunity.
Cops are trained not to do crisis management; not to attempt to negotiate or talk down someone who is disturbed. They are trained to exert dominance and achieve compliance. It’s nothing about helping people – they’re ready to kill you if you disobey their authority.
Gilliell@#6:
Also, while it’s not completely impossible, it’s really rare that somebody is accidentally killed with a knife. Especially not in a “5 years old kills 3 years old in a knife accident” scenario.
To be deadly with a knife or sword takes a few years’ practice and some athleticism. And, as you say, knife accidents are seldom lethal – our bodies have evolved with protective stuff around most of the important bits that would be easily accessed in a knife accident. Someone who wants to kill with a knife has to have at least some rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, for starters.
I am very curious, I admit, what made the French BBQ-implement wielders go off. Their choice of weapons speaks of suddenness but not spur of the moment. Any planning would have resulted in a trip to a lawn and garden store. It’s as if they were maybe having some weiners and one said, “hey let’s go fuck some people up!” and they did.
I remember one some years (I just googled, 12 years!) ago where a mother accidentally stabbed her son to death. She was emptying the dishwasher, called for the son, the son didn’t react, so holding the knife she went into the hall to yell again when the son came running and ran into the knife.
Most potentially lethal “weapon” I own is a machete. Nothing cuts brambles like it.
Giliell – I concur that mass shootings/stabbings/whatever seem to be fewer and therefore more memorable here in Europe compared to US, although that impression is based on possibly biased media reporting, my own biased media habits and my faulty memory.
There are probably more laws governing knives in the US than guns.
One interesting claim I’ve heard is that before the development of antibiotics knife wounds were much more dangerous.
robertbaden @11> I don’t really buy that, a bullet leaves a more destructive would, and while the bullet may be effectively sterilized when fired (I’m not certain about that), it would still carry in debris from the impact into the would, bits of cloth, skin, etc., that would be capable of starting an infection.
Also, I believe a lot of the anti-knife laws were racially motivated, as a lot of the associations with knives, switchblades, etc., were often stereotypically associated with gang violence, ethnic groups, etc.
But, I think it’s absurd we have regulations on melee and thrown weapons, when assault rifles are fully legal.
I guess another reason is that there isn’t really much of a knife, nunchaku, knuckleduster, or shuriken lobby, let alone anything at all comparable to the NRA and associated groups…
@lochaber: if it was Texas they’d be passing laws protecting the right to concealed carry BBQ skewers.
lochaber:
I meant knife wounds back then were much more dangerous than they are now because infections can be treated with antibiotics. Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
robertbaden @14>
ah, that makes sense, my bad, I misunderstood that to be claiming knife wounds were more dangerous than gun wounds, due to lack of antibiotics. Thanks for the clarification.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/02/texas-police-investigate-third-us-mass-shooting-in-a-month
“Barr drafts new death penaty law…”
Not enhanced background checks, not limiting the availability of the most dangerous weapons. No. The Trump administration’s response to all the death is… more death. Let’s make it easier for the state to murder people. That will definitely absolutely help.
State murder is not a deterrent. It never has been. It never will be. All it does is make every judge, Governor or President who’s ever signed a death warrant into a murderer themselves.
Obviously, this is the Trump administration needing to be seen to be doing something without actually doing anything effective, but…
Jesus fuck.
@Intransitive, 5:
You’ve watched too many movies. Go do some *realistic* self defence classes (not the bullshit you get taught in black-belt factories) about defending against a knife. You learn fast that if you approach someone who has a knife, you ARE going to get stabbed or cut.
@Marcus, 9:
With respect: bollocks. Absolute, provable, obvious bollocks.
To be deadly with a knife or sword against a trained, armed and resistant opponent takes years. To be deadly with a knife or sword against unarmed, unsuspecting and/or panicking opponents is EASY. Six people died from stabbing in the London Bridge attack, and the scum who carried that out were neither practiced nor athletic. They were just motivated, and tooled up.
Police are humans, they have a right to go home uninjured from every shift. US Police faults are legion – look elsewhere at my comments and I’m clear that I regard the US Police as an armed gang and avoid the country on that basis among others. But I have no problem with people who are brandishing a knife in public with clear intent to use it being shot dead.
@stderr RE: right to concealed carry BBQ skewers.
Texas did repeal the law against carrying blades longer than 18 inches on your person, e.g.: in a sheath or scabbard. IOW, it is now legal to go about town with a sword strapped to your hip. That happened in the legislature session two years ago. Previously, you had to carry your murder blade in your hand or inside a case.
To clarify, the law stated you could not carry a long blade attached to your body, such as in a scabbard. It was a post-civil war law enacted to disarm rebel soldiers.
@sonofrojblake #17
When you talk about one individual, that is true. However properly equipped and trained police should be able to subdue someone armed with a knife without anyone getting killed, or even injured. It can be done. It is done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY
Even assailants armed with guns are occasionaly subdued without fatal injury.
In light of that:
You are needlessly bloodthirsty. Retribution, revenge and/or extrajudicial executions are not justice and they do not reduce crime. When police shoot someone, it is always a problem, shooting should be the last resort that gets used only after all other options were tried and failed.
Otherwise cops get out of hand, shooting not only people who have knives, but also people who hold wallets, phones or even show empty hands. Just as it happens in USA.
I’m somewhere in the middle on this, I do think knives can be deadly with fairly minimal training.
But then, there are ways to handle someone wielding a knife, and I really think we should use methods other than just shooting them dead.
Almost all police officers, as far as I know, wear body armor whilst on duty. It may not completely stop a really powerful stab, but it will still offer a lot of protection. I’m perfectly fine with someone who is wielding a knife aggressively to get pepper sprayed, tazed, or have their hand/wrist arm smacked a few times with a baton.
A knife, like any other weapon, is only really a threat to those with in range. What’s the reach of a typical person? maybe a yard? plus another foot for the blade? still, that’s only 4 feet or so. Cops are far too eager to escalate a situation to the point of lethal force. I really don’t think that’s acceptable in most situations. If someone is wielding a knife, but isn’t actively stabbing someone else, right this second, then I think they could most likely be talked down. The cops have superior numbers, superior equipment, and they really should have training for these situations.
You are welcome to open youtube and type in the search box “Krav Maga knife defense.” Here’s one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTYdvIaE-Og
Sure, if you are empty handed and the other guy has a knife, it sucks. Not getting cut/stabbed is largely a matter of luck. So, yes, my Krav Maga sensei did teach me that when facing somebody armed with a knife, the safest solution is to run away. That being said, there does exist techniques for defending yourself against an attacker who’s armed with a knife. With a bit of luck, it’s possible to disarm and subdue an attacker with a knife.
You are the one bullshitting here. Nobody ever suggested that a cop should face a criminal with a knife empty handed. Put on some body armor and get a riot shield. Armed like this, multiple cops can surround the attacker. At this point the attacker will likely surrender anyway.
There are more alternatives. Knife is a short-ranged weapon. As long as you have anything with a longer range, your chances of getting out of the fight uninjured are pretty good. Get a bō staff, or pepper spray, or pretty much anything with a longer range. Hell, even a fucking taser is less deadly than a gun. There are countless alternatives how a cop could subdue a criminal armed with a knife without shooting said person.
In relation to the Finnish stabbing incident mentioned above, I learned that Finnish cops are apparently trained to shoot non-lethally in the legs. That time it even succeeded, though I’ve heard it’s risky.
IIRC, the perpetrator was a young man who ran along crowded streets stabbing random people. Some bystanders ran after him and subdued him just before the police arrived. The police initially ordered everyone to stop brawling, and when that happened, the young man resumed stabbing the nearest person. The police ordered him to stop, and when he didn’t, they shot him in the leg.
lumipuna @#23
That sounds odd. When trying to subdue a weapon-wielding criminal, the first thing you do is take away his weapon.
Cops don’t always reach for the “hose the guy down with bullets” solution. They don’t even do it for knife-wielding people most of the time. They use all kinds of non-lethal approaches, most of the time. It would probably be reasonable to say “almost all the time.”
The point about policing in the USA isn’t that they shoot everyone all the time. The point is that they shoot people not-very-often, but still much-too-often.
Andreas – I don’t know/remember all the details that were reported… but perhaps most people wouldn’t instantly know/figure out the “correct” way to act in a situation like that. I sure wouldn’t. Maybe the cops didn’t make all the best choices in that situation either, as it was quite unusual and rapidly unfolding.
I just meant I’ve heard some internet experts say it’s not a good idea to try shooting someone non-lethally (and I haven’t heard accounts of US cops doing it) but it seems more or less doable.
soofrojblake
Actually they killed 8 people, three of them in the initial attack with a van. That means three people killed 5 people with knives.
lumipuna @# 26
I just realized that my thinking about this was biased. When facing an armed attacker, taking away their weapon seems obvious for me. As long as the attacker still has a knife in their hands, I’m not safe in their vicinity. That seemed obvious for me. Subduing a hostile attacker means ensuring that they are no longer in a position where they are capable of hurting me any further. Take away their weapon, physically restrain them, beat them up if necessary.
But I’m not exactly the average person. I have spent hours of my life in Krav Maga lessons where I practiced disarming hostile attackers with weapons. Probably I didn’t figure out something so “obvious” on my own, I must have learned it from my martial arts trainer.
A lot of Krav Maga techniques involve incapacitating the attacker so as to make sure that he cannot follow me, and at that point just turn around and run away. Kick him in a groin, hit him, make sure that he’s on the ground and just RUN. Even if the attacker gets up, he probably won’t catch me anyway due to me having gained some seconds lead. Of course, if I had to protect some bystanders, then running away wouldn’t be an option any longer, then instead the objective is to disarm, incapacitate, and restrain while waiting for help to arrive.
lumipuna@#26:
I’ve heard some internet experts say it’s not a good idea to try shooting someone non-lethally
There are a lot of bloodthirsty rambo wannabes on the internet.
OK, so you’ve got a guy with a knife who won’t put it down. You’ve got a couple cops around.
One cop gets in his car, “ok fellow, if you don’t put the knife down I’m going to knock you down with this car. You’ll almost certainly survive but it’s going to suck for you and you won’t hardly scratch my bumper.”
That’s one important generally nonlethal weapon cops never seem to think about. Because cops don’t do a lot of thinking.
Multiple injured in stabbing in Tallahassee, Florida