Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
The Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said the attacker was a 17-year-old Afghan refugee who had been living in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt.
Hermann told public broadcaster ARD that the teenager appeared to have travelled to Germany as an unaccompanied minor
The refugee is said to have shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack. He was “shot†by officers as he tried to flee the scene.
This is called "biting the hand that feeds you"
I'm glad he is dead. Hope his death was slow and painful.
I wonder how many people would have been slashed if one of those riders on the train were carry concealed and didn't have to wait for the police to show up and kill him?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a axe or knife (or a big truck) is a GOOD guy with a gun.
If you weren't such a dumbfuck, you'd be wondering instead how many he would have killed if he had a semi-auto assault rifle and multiple 50 or 100 round clips. You know, like just happened.
"WTF is this world coming to?"
Religion
Politics
Economic theologies
ADD to this list?
Closer to home:
What are Democratic & Republican voters doing to America?
Hey, Mr. Intelligent...
They're not called "clips", they're called "magazines"..
What an ass..
per usual, you miss the point, and instead say something irrelevant. You really are this stupid?
Europe needs to draw a line in the sand, no religion. The past 3000 years has proven that religion is inherently bad. As long as irrationality is revered, irrational acts will continue.
That you're going off into never-never land with you comment about assault rifles and "clips", when the OP was about an attack with a axe and a knive...
Talk about irrelevant (and fucked in the head).
YOUR point was that armed passengers would have stopped him
MY point, was better fire power available, and he'd be more dangerous.
there is far more evidence for my point than your point; but expecting a demonstrated dumb as a pile of shit thinker like you to follow that logic, was expecting far too much!
This proves that guns don't kill people. After all, if someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife.
He admits it's the PERSON and not the inanimate object that does the killing.
That is why I support the right to keep and bear small tactical nuclear weapons. How can America be truly free, when I can't build a briefcase thermonuclear device in my garage without government overreach stopping me?
Plus, it will be a hell of a lot more effective, then pistols and assault weapons when we have to take on a tyrannical US government.
This proves that guns don't kill people. After all, if someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife.
Wow, a libbie waking up.... He admits it's the PERSON and not the inanimate object that does the killing.
Is it April 1st?
If this maniac had an AK-47 the casualty count would be in the hundreds, not 14. Idiots who think that the type of weapon used does not matter are hypocrites easily exposed by asking the question, "Why not let these terrorists have nuclear weapons if the weapons they use do not matter?".
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says
Plus, it will be a hell of a lot more effective, then pistols and assault weapons
Being more effective doesn't matter. If someone really wants to kill people, they can do it with knives or their bare hands. Just look at this quote:
Three people were "seriously injured," 14 people were left in shock, and one other person suffered minor injuries. Among those injured were four member of a Hong Kong family.
3 people were seriously injured and 14 people were left in shock. That's tantamount to killing. Surely you can see that.
This proves that guns don't kill people. After all, if someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife.
People certainly killed people before gunpowder.
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says
If you weren't such a dumbfuck, you'd be wondering instead how many he would have killed if he had a semi-auto assault rifle and multiple 50 or 100 round clips. You know, like just happened.
If they froze in fear like they did in that gay club - many. If they attacked him immediately like US soldiers attacked that AK-wielding fuck on French train - one or two. If somebody with a gun shot him in the head - probably even less than that. It's all relative.
Since German mass murder is one of their specialties, they can't decide if this lad was a foreign terrorist or just a quick learner.
If they froze in fear like they did in that gay club - many. If they attacked him immediately like US soldiers attacked that AK-wielding fuck on French train - one or two.
It isn't about freezing in fear, it's rather about figuring out what's happening and then having an opportunity to react. Consider how many have died in night club fires, for example 96 in one example in Rhode Island and 233 in one fire in Brazil. Look at the body count in NIce, France (84 killed, 200 injured), or at Fort Hood (43 shot at an army base in broad daylight), and compare to Dallas Texas (12 shot). The element of surprise carries a huge effect, and the fog of war counts for a lot too. Being stuck in a crowd, with too few exits and too little room to maneuver: the venue counts for a lot, and the element of surprise counts the most.
This proves that guns don't kill people. After all, if someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife.
People certainly killed people before gunpowder.
Yes, people certainly killed people before gunpowder. So does that mean people should be allowed to possess guns? Let's run through the logic.
If someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to have guns.
If someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
People certainly killed people before gunpowder. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to have firearms.
People certainly killed people before the atom was split. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Unless you accept both conclusions, you are not accepting the line of reason for the first conclusion. If you reject that people should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, or any other kind of arm, then you are rejecting absolute freedom to bear arms and are drawing some line between what weapons people can and cannot possess. The only questions are where exactly do you draw that line and why.
So you think that no one should be allowed to build, buy, or possess a fission bomb because it can easily kill 10,000 people. Why 10,000 and not 100? Isn't it also reasonable to say no one should be allowed to build, buy, or possess an automated rifle or submachine gun because it can easily kill 100 people? At least with an axe, you're limited to about 20 people.
Sure, some arbitrary line has to be drawn between which weapons are too powerful to allow the common citizen to posses, but why is it that guns are somehow imbued with a sacred, mystical status that makes them the one and only class of weapons that are not subject to justifying why people should be allowed to posses them independent of how many people can be killed by them?
Guns are not special. Any logic you apply to them must also apply to knives, axes, grenades, land mines, tanks, and nukes. The criteria of what is and is not allowed should not be culturally influenced. It should be determined by the destructiveness of the weapon and the ability of people to avoid being killed by it. I stand a good chance of running away from a guy wielding a heavy axe. I stand no chance against the guy with the AK-47. In that respect a gun is more like a nuke than an axe.
Bringing in immigrants who will not assimilate creates an undeserved burden on the rest of society. Couple that with a killer organization that gives any disaffected immigrant or even native born non-assimilator a reason to engage in mass murder, and this is what you get. The people have every right to reject such insanity, and to vote out the imbeciles who choose to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians at the altar of misguided PC and party platforms.
Sure, some arbitrary line has to be drawn between which weapons are too powerful to allow the common citizen to posses, but why is it that guns are somehow imbued with a sacred, mystical status that makes them the one and only class of weapons that are not subject to justifying why people should be allowed to posses them independent of how many people can be killed by them?
75% of the firearms homicides in the US were done with pistols. Pistols have limited military/militia use. There's your ban target. Restrict Pistols to over 25, with registration, fingerprints, mandatory safety locks and safety courses - even proof you need them (ie a business owner who makes large cash deposits regularly). Leave the longarms alone.
People certainly killed people before gunpowder.
It's also true that a gun was never convicted of murder. I think you are on to something.
It's also true that a gun was never convicted of murder. I think you are on to something.
If you want to save lives, ban Privately Owned Vehicles. Nothing but negatives: Obesity Rates, Huge Numbers of Accidents, and the #1 unsolvable environmental technology. Electric we can generate in countless renewable ways; Fossil Fuels we can't. Electric Cars are a dream and even if they existed to a practical, they would then make getting majority of renewable energy for electric almost impossible. Replacing Trucks with electric vehicles is so far out it's hardly worth discussing.
It isn't about freezing in fear, it's rather about figuring out what's happening and then having an opportunity to react.
They were sitting on top of each other in bathroom stalls for hours, begging the guy not to kill them and being picked off one by one. They had plenty of time to understand what's going on. If they rushed him in big group, they would end it very fast. And have a pleasure of tearing him apart limb by limb to boot.
75% of the firearms homicides in the US were done with pistols. Pistols have limited military/militia use. There's your ban target. Restrict Pistols to over 25, with registration, fingerprints, mandatory safety locks and safety courses - even proof you need them (ie a business owner who makes large cash deposits regularly).
Add to that cameras that record everything when the gun is loaded or the safety is on.
Leave the longarms alone.
Why not apply the same rules to longarms?
If you want to save lives, ban Privately Owned Vehicles
Replace cars with privately owned maglift vehicles -- call them smartcars to market them -- that run on a smart highway and let the IT infrastructure drive them. No fossil fuel use. No dependency on the Middle East for oil or economic stability. No accidents. No drunk driving. No deaths. No traffic jams, not even with construction. No parking problems. No need for insurance. Cheaper in the long run. People don't lose the ability to travel freely due to age, tickets, financial insolvency, or conviction of drunk driving.
As for obesity, ban high fructose corn syrup. If we are to socialize health care costs, and we should, then we should also discourage obesity and at least stop the most egregious culprits.
Restrict Pistols to over 25, with registration, fingerprints, mandatory safety locks and safety courses - even proof you need them (ie a business owner who makes large cash deposits regularly). Leave the longarms alone.
Do it in Russia if you please. Leave our pistols the fuck alone.
If you want to save lives, ban Privately Owned Vehicles
Private vehicles have a use other than killing people. In fact, transportation is one of the most fundamental needs along with shelter and food. Balancing utility with danger is something that we do all the time. Many types of guns OTOH are really only justified based on the idea of self defense, and these guns kill their owners and innocent people vastly more frequently than they are successfully used in self defense. Even in light of these differences, we require driving tests, eyesight and other health tests, repeat licensing, and insurance to allow people to drive. Relatively little is needed to buy a gun.
Remember, no one is asking to ban guns. That's just a lie perpetrated by the likes of Trump.
All that said, I'd love it if bike lanes were expanded and gasoline was taxed more.
If they rushed him in big group, they would end it very fast.
Once trapped in a stall, they could not. At worst, you could say it turned out to be a mistake for them to run into there, but they might not have had access to an exit, or opportunity to coordinate a plan. Most of the fatalities occurred outside the bathroom before the music even stopped; most of the bathroom hideouts survivied. The TGV terrorist had a delay because his rifle jammed, giving the unarmed Americans an opportunity.
Private vehicles have a use other than killing people.
Same for firearms: they have a use other than killing people - stopping an assault. The killing is an unfortunate side effect. But hey, this happens with vehicles too.
This proves that guns don't kill people. After all, if someone wants to kill people, all they have to do is use a knife.
Wow, a libbie waking up.... He admits it's the PERSON and not the inanimate object that does the killing.
Is it April 1st?
If this maniac had an AK-47 the casualty count would be in the hundreds, not 14.
Any consideration about weapons is an obfuscation of the core issue here: the increasing brazenness with which brainwashed theocrats [one particular brand of them] are attacking civilization.
They proved again and again they will use whatever weapon they have. What more do we need to know.
If they rushed him in big group, they would end it very fast.
Once trapped in a stall, they could not.
Y not? Person with a firearm cannot effectively respond to an attacker starting closer than 21 foot (see "Tueller Drill"). I doubt the bathroom was so huge there was more than 21 feet b/w the fucker and his victims at all times. Simultaneous attack from even single stall would do the fucker in. Attack from several stalls - even more so. They also had porcelain toilet tank lids at their disposal to use as blunt weapons.
"Tueller Drill"
Thanks for mentioning that, which I had not read about before. Based only on Wikipedia, which I would not usually rely on but will for an Internet forum, it lists three scenarios. All three involve a holstered gun vs a knife-wielding assailant, and in at least two of them the knife is attacking from behind. Omar was facing the stalls with two guns drawn.
They also had porcelain toilet tank lids at their disposal to use as blunt weapons.
Probably not. Club bathroom toilets might have a plastic seat which would take time to remove, but I have never seen a porcelain lid.
Anyway you are choosing to focus on the bathroom, where very few died. At least some of the people in the bathroom were female, probably a lot smaller than the attacker. None of them had knives, though conceivably if there had been a bottle or glass nearby somebody might have had an opportunity to smash that into a stabbing weapon. The argument about the bathroom is a digression though: like those people trapped in a small space, you're talking about less than 10% of the people who were shot.
The problem with expecting people to respond with a joint attack is that it is very hard to get people to cooperate in these situations. One of the 9/11 planes was an exception to this rule. People were apparently allowed enough time without fear of being shot to rush the hijackers. They pretty much knew they were going to die at this point anyway.
The globalist agenda dictates it is immoral not to bring millions more such people into Germany.
The idea that there is such a thing as a German nation is divisive, racist and Islamophobic.
All three involve a holstered gun vs a knife-wielding assailant, and in at least two of them the knife is attacking from behind.
You need to read it more closely: the "from behind" thing is used to make sure the attacked doesn't know when the attack starts. The way we did Tueller was like this: you stand facing the potential attacker with your gun in a holster and instructor is standing behind you with a dollar bill in his hand. The "attacker" sees the hand holding the bill, you don't. The moment the bill is released, the attacker starts running towards you attempting to stab/punch or grab the gun. That 21 ft shit was eye-opening the first time we did it.
At least some of the people in the bathroom were female, probably a lot smaller than the attacker. None of them had knives, though conceivably if there had been a bottle or glass nearby somebody might have had an opportunity to smash that into a stabbing weapon. The argument about the bathroom is a digression though: like those people trapped in a small space, you're talking about less than 10% of the people who were shot.
See, what a difference ONE concealed gun might have make. Even a little pea-shooter like one George Zimmerman had... The argument "it would've been worse with concealed guns present" does not hold fucking water.
gun in a holster...eye-opening the first time we did it.
Again, the assailant had two guns already drawn. He was also a trained security guard with years of experience, so this would not have been his first time. Also, once people had tried to hide in the stall, the first thing that would have happened is a stall door opening, which would have given him plenty of warning; he could see them moving before they could even get out of the stall, and might simply shoot all of them instead of the few he actually shot. The first one hit would obstruct the others, and each bullet could go right through to hit multiple people. You seem to overlook the fact that most of the people hiding in the bathroom messaging for help survived, and very few were shot there. Your strategy would almost certainly have increased the risk of them all getting killed.
The argument "it would've been worse with...."
Your screen name seems apt, because I have never made that argument, so I don't know why you are arguing with me. But, it's been interesting learning about the Tueller Drill.
If you insist on arguing about concealed carry, the issue is that events of this type are very rare. It is possible to imagine it helping in this rare event, but it would make more common events much more dangerous. I've seen a few fights among drunken people, and really, adding guns to that mix would make it much worse. In general, the clubs where gang bangers might bring guns are definitely places to avoid by a wide distance. Concealed carry doesn't mix well with these venues. So now, congratulations, by blaming the victims in Orlando you've now got me to reject your argument for CCW, based on experience and observation that guns would make most club incidents more dangerous.
At best, if you want to argue that a heroic gun inside would have saved people, you should consider the classic "bartender's special," which I've already said I wish had been there.
Any consideration about weapons is an obfuscation of the core issue here: the increasing brazenness with which brainwashed theocrats [one particular brand of them] are attacking civilization.
Islam is hardly the only threat. The Batman shooter wasn't a Muslim. The school shootings aren't done by Muslims. So the issue of weapon control, of which gun control is part, is not mute.
Islam is hardly the only threat. The Batman shooter wasn't a Muslim. The school shootings aren't done by Muslims. So the issue of weapon control, of which gun control is part, is not mute.
The difference here is these are not the actions of a few isolated crazy people. These are deliberate actions of people with a strategy and a long term game.
When entire towns in Europe are progressively invaded and progressively falling into the hands of theocrats, a few attacks like this are not even the heart of the problem. But they should at least serve to focus the minds on the real problem.
The difference here is these are not the actions of a few isolated crazy people.
And the only way that difference matters is in banning religion. That difference is not material to implementing the regulation of weapons that can cause great harm. Even if religion did not exist, would you be for allowing anyone to build and possess a nuclear weapon? Of course not. No individual should have that kind of power. Laws infringing upon the right to bear arms must exist in any civilization.
And the only way that difference matters is in banning religion.
If it was up to me, I would absolutely ban religion, but this will not happen. Religion for better or for worse is embedded in tradition and culture.
I would even argue that some basic tribalism is even necessary to the well-being of humans. This is what Maslow identified as "belonging" in his hierarchy of human needs. I say that even as I realize that "tribalism", whether in its religious and nationalist forms, probably accounts for 99% of all wars. This psychological need is simply too great for human beings to ignore (as shown precisely by the recent backslide toward it).
Even if religion did not exist, would you be for allowing anyone to build and possess a nuclear weapon? Of course not.
I'm absolutely in favor of regulating weapons, but this is a separate debate. At least weapons should not be pointed at as a problem in order to mask to other, greater problem in the media attention span spent on this.
If it was up to me, I would absolutely ban religion, but this will not happen. Religion for better or for worse is embedded in tradition and culture.
So was slavery, cock fighting, segregation, being born into a class, and a hell of a lot of other things we banned.
I'm absolutely in favor of regulating weapons, but this is a separate debate.
All weapons form a continuum. There is nothing special about guns.
All weapons form a continuum. There is nothing special about guns.
As ApocalypseFuck would say: "If you can't Stand Your Ground! with a tactical nuke, personal property rights have no meaning."
In fact, transportation is one of the most fundamental needs along with shelter and food
In most countries this is done by density, which saves maximum space for food and nature rather than trafficked sprawl.
Balancing utility with danger is something that we do all the time.
The chemistry of Gunpowder discharges don't have the ability to end life on the entire planet. The massive emissions by POVs do - and will, if they are not banned - and soon!
Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/ax-wielding-man-injures-least-20-people-german-train
Summary:
14 people have been injured after an Afghan teenager armed with an axe and a knife attacked people on board a train traveling between Wurzburg-Heidingsfeld and Ochsenfurt,
German police confirmed that between 10 and 15 people were injured in the attack. Meanwhile local media reports suggested that up to 21 people could have been hurt.
The Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said the attacker was a 17-year-old Afghan refugee who had been living in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt.
Hermann told public broadcaster ARD that the teenager appeared to have travelled to Germany as an unaccompanied minor
The refugee is said to have shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack. He was “shot†by officers as he tried to flee the scene.
At least three of the victims suffered “serious†injuries, police spokesman told local news outlet Blaulicht Würzburg.
Another person suffered light injuries, while all 14 passengers who had been in the same car of the regional train were in a state of “shock†following the onslaught.
* * *
Update 3: Bloodstains could be seen on the floor of the train carriage
The attacker fled the train but was chased and shot dead by police
Update 2: As some have speculated, it turns out that the axe-assailant was not local, and was in fact a 17-year-old Afghan who shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack on the German train.
Update: BBC reports local police confirm the axe-man has been shot dead.
As we detailed earlier, more than 20 people in Germany have been injured after a man with an axe went on the rampage on a train, according to German media.
The Express reports, the man then went on the run, with a huge police force, including a helicopter, in pursuit, and has been shot.
As The BBC reports,
A police operation including a helicopter is under way in Heidingsfeld, a part of the city of Wurzburg in southern Germany.
Local media (in German) tweeted that 20 people had been injured and a suspect appeared to have been shot.
The train line between Wurzburg-Heidingsfeld and Ochsenfurt is closed.
4 victims are reportedly critical, 1 moderately, and 14 being treated for shock.
No details as yet on the ethicity of the attacker but we would imagine the opposition AfD party will benefit further from the chaos as Merkel appears to be losing control.
WTF is this world coming to?
#politics