Ninja attack in China

[Lark]

There was a recent ninja attack in China, they say that they could have been violent seperatists from a muslim region, what do you think about this? Five of them got killed but in this low tech attack more people were killed and injured than in some bomb attacks, including suicide attacks, although it didnt appear to terrify Chinese into stating home and not going out in public.

 

[say what]

Wow!

Here's an article about it: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kunming-station-knife-attack-authorities-claim-mass-stabbing-was-organised-premeditated-warning-1438515



Good god...there's so much violence in the world. I can't imagine the fear and terror in all those innocent people. This saddens me so much.

 

[Lark]

Wow!

Here's an article about it: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kunming-st...ng-was-organised-premeditated-warning-1438515


Good god...there's so much violence in the world. I can't imagine the fear and terror in all those innocent people. This saddens me so much.

This makes me think about how some religions demand of their observant followers that they do not go about unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

 

[say what]

This makes me think about how some religions demand of their observant followers that they do not go about unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Does this mean you're for the right to be armed? Or against it?

 

[Lark]

Does this mean you're for the right to be armed? Or against it?

I am absolutely in favour of it. I'm practically in favour of it.

This sort of incident demonstrates that terrorists dont need guns or bombs to inflict harm, I'm in favour of the attempts to deprive them of those means through cutting the numbers of guns in circulation etc. although it doesnt mean that this alone can or will be successful in creating a safe society.

The only thing which will is a population which can defend itself and does so at a moments notice.

 

[say what]

I am absolutely in favour of it. I'm practically in favour of it.

This sort of incident demonstrates that terrorists dont need guns or bombs to inflict harm, I'm in favour of the attempts to deprive them of those means through cutting the numbers of guns in circulation etc. although it doesnt mean that this alone can or will be successful in creating a safe society.

The only thing which will is a population which can defend itself and does so at a moments notice.

I agree! If those people could defend themselves perhaps less would have died.

I thought you might have been insinuating that it allowed the terrorists to carry arms, that's why I was asking for clarity!

 

[Lark]

I agree! If those people could defend themselves perhaps less would have died.

I thought you might have been insinuating that it allowed the terrorists to carry arms, that's why I was asking for clarity!

Well when it comes to the whole weapons and self-defence debate I'm never either-or I'm and both. So government may try to prohibit violence and weapons, fine, it'll not be so successful that the good guys can give up on defending themselves, including possession or using weapons.

 

[say what]

I live in Canada, and we have serious gun control laws...but that doesn't stop illegal arms being everywhere here- and they're being used for gang violence and other crimes.

I use to be very 'pro gun laws', until I realized that having a law for or against legal arms has no relation to the number of illegal arms and the resulting violence that goes with it. It only results in good people not being able to defend themselves.

I do agree that there is a portion of the population that, with gun laws, wouldn't have a gun and therefore wouldn't use it to enact violence- but I think those people would enact their violence regardless of a weapon. I think the number of people that could be saved from rape, assault and murder would justify it.