Masked man ‘with sword’ injures several people in Swedish school - reports

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

There probably trying to ban knives over there. or something like that.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

a reply to: Vasa Croe

All they had to do was call his cell phone. Show him a few Instagrams of himself. It seems most are powerless against the power of the web.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

You can kill someone, if you were hell bent on it, even with a Nerf sword. People have died from inhaling almost everything under the sun.

The item used, is not the problem, and our continually focus on the item that caused the death continues to overshadow the who and the why.

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
Welcome to the new Sweden.
Asylumseekers who gets denied goes crazy and destroys my country.
Thanks EU. Thanks America. Thanks Sweden.

This is beyond upsetting.

here is a picture of the new Sweden with new "Swedes" from the location.

I dont see ONE swede here.

I don't know what you see, but I see a bunch of people peacefully going about their lives.

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

Love it, since it wasn't a muslim then it was a false flag. Talk about denying ignorance.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

Maybe you should start from the beginning on page 5 where phoenix brought the guns to the thread....

But I guess I am the distasteful on for pointing it out right?

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You can kill someone, if you were hell bent on it, even with a Nerf sword. People have died from inhaling almost everything under the sun.

The item used, is not the problem, and our continually focus on the item that caused the death continues to overshadow the who and the why.

Not relevant. No matter what, stuff will still happen. We live in the safest world that's ever existed. Statistically. Trying to eliminate absolutely every threat is really just an excuse for authoritarianism and turning the whole world into a padded cell.

In the meantime, I'll bet you anything at least 5 people somewhere in the world just slipped and fell in the shower and died. When are we going to get it through our heads that taking a shower just isn't safe?

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError Swedish police have confirmed that this was a hate crime

I would guess that someone would have to hate a person to murder them with a sword. Isn't it kind of obvious that it's a "hate crime"?

You dont have anything else to add to this thread other than your childish comment ? Move along

I didn't think it was a childish comment at all. Hasn't murder always been primarily a "hate crime"?

I'm just saying. I would assume someone who comes at me with a sword dislikes me more than just a little. But I would also assume that anyone who tried to murder me kind of hates me.

So congrats to the brilliant Swedish Police. They found the motive for murder. Finally. After however many millions of years humans have been murdering one another it turns out that there's a really simple explanation for it. Murderers generally don't like the people they murder. I hope they didn't spend a lot of money on figuring this one out. The Swedish taxes will no doubt have to be doubled to pay the geniuses who figured that one out.

a reply to: Sremmos80

As stated before. never even mentioned the world muslim.

But it's nice tho, to see no swedish ppl in SWEDEN.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You live here in sweden? you are aware of the political climate as it is today?
you know what they're pushing for?

No, See, you are just trying to be PC on ATS.



Good on you man.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You can kill someone, if you were hell bent on it, even with a Nerf sword. People have died from inhaling almost everything under the sun.

The item used, is not the problem, and our continually focus on the item that caused the death continues to overshadow the who and the why.

Not relevant. No matter what, stuff will still happen. We live in the safest world that's ever existed. Statistically. Trying to eliminate absolutely every threat is really just an excuse for authoritarianism and turning the whole world into a padded cell.

In the meantime, I'll bet you anything at least 5 people somewhere in the world just slipped and fell in the shower and died. When are we going to get it through our heads that taking a shower just isn't safe?

What are you saying that is different from what I said?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

Maybe you should start from the beginning on page 5 where phoenix brought the guns to the thread....

But I guess I am the distasteful on for pointing it out right?

They made a fair comment though, a gun is far quicker and is deadly from a far greater distance so it's obvious the death toll would have been much higher had they been carrying one, which is the usual weapon of choice for mass school killers.

To derail the thread and try to enforce what people are and aren't allowed to discuss is pretty tasteless in my opinion.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

Maybe you should start from the beginning on page 5 where phoenix brought the guns to the thread....

But I guess I am the distasteful on for pointing it out right?

They made a fair comment though, a gun is far quicker and is deadly from a far greater distance so it's obvious the death toll would have been much higher had they been carrying one, which is the usual weapon of choice for mass school killers.

To derail the thread and try to enforce what people are and aren't allowed to discuss is pretty tasteless in my opinion.

Ah...I get it now, so I can bring it up as long as it is my opinion that a gun would kill more people.

Well at least it wasn't a car bomb I guess.....

It's so sick a hitler fan, s....hole with steelhelmet and sword kills his own fellow swedes and another one calls it a falseflag because of pure xenophobia... What's wrong with you people?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

Maybe you should start from the beginning on page 5 where phoenix brought the guns to the thread....

But I guess I am the distasteful on for pointing it out right?

They made a fair comment though, a gun is far quicker and is deadly from a far greater distance so it's obvious the death toll would have been much higher had they been carrying one, which is the usual weapon of choice for mass school killers.

To derail the thread and try to enforce what people are and aren't allowed to discuss is pretty tasteless in my opinion.

Ah...I get it now, so I can bring it up as long as it is my opinion that a gun would kill more people.

Well at least it wasn't a car bomb I guess.....

No, now you're just putting words in my mouth to make it seem as if you have a point. It's a basic fact that guns are far more effective at killing, that's why they replaced bows and arrows as weapons of war. To deny basic facts like that doesn't make any sense.

Please re-read the post - car bombs outside schools are unheard of in the West, let alone the most common way mass killings like this are conducted so to make that comparison is pointless. When guns are by far the most common way these events are done, it makes perfect sense to feel relieved that the death count is lower as the person didn't use one.

It's called relevance and context. If a different, far more deadly weapon was the most commonly used one then the discussion would naturally focus on that instead. It's a pretty simple concept.

I guess it is about time they discussed "Blade Control" in that country now....

When and if they manage to take the guns away in the US, next will come blades with points, baseball bats....Anything anyone can use to hurt somebody else at all.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So yeah.....full circle back to you saying it would have been more deaths had there been a gun. That implies that the deaths from the sword don't really matter because there were not as many. And you don't even mention anything about caring that people died at all.

No you incorrectly inferred that conclusion yourself i did not imply it.

Right...because all you cared about was getting your "at least it wasn't a gun" comment in.....

I will stay away from this discussion, because it is distasteful and cruel to use tragedy to propagate your 'gun agenda', but your motif is just something that makes me wonder.... why? What is your deal to be big 'gun' supporter to this extreme???

Are you that scared someone will take your guns away??

Maybe you should start from the beginning on page 5 where phoenix brought the guns to the thread....

But I guess I am the distasteful on for pointing it out right?

They made a fair comment though, a gun is far quicker and is deadly from a far greater distance so it's obvious the death toll would have been much higher had they been carrying one, which is the usual weapon of choice for mass school killers.

To derail the thread and try to enforce what people are and aren't allowed to discuss is pretty tasteless in my opinion.

Ah...I get it now, so I can bring it up as long as it is my opinion that a gun would kill more people.

Well at least it wasn't a car bomb I guess.....

No, now you're just putting words in my mouth to make it seem as if you have a point. It's a basic fact that guns are far more effective at killing, that's why they replaced bows and arrows as weapons of war. To deny basic facts like that doesn't make any sense.

Please re-read the post - car bombs outside schools are unheard of in the West, let alone the most common way mass killings like this are conducted so to make that comparison is pointless. When guns are by far the most common way these events are done, it makes perfect sense to feel relieved that the death count is lower as the person didn't use one.

It's called relevance and context. If a different, far more deadly weapon was the most commonly used one then the discussion would naturally focus on that instead. It's a pretty simple concept.

Actually more people died and were killed from edged weapons and clubs prior to guns than guns have ever killed. Guns are the reason more have not died. Lets take a look at history for a second...

Source

New data presented at the conference by a Dutch scholar, Pieter Spierenburg, showed that the homicide rate in Amsterdam, for example, dropped from 47 per 100,000 people in the mid-15th century to 1 to 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.

Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year

So prior to guns, homicide was EXTREMELY high and out of control, yet guns are still the issue...just read through that article and let me know how guns have increased our homicide rates again? We would have to kill 10 times as many people to catch up...but yeah....guns.

So, how is a gun comment relevant to a thread with nothing about guns involved in the act? Yes, if a different weapon were used the discussion would focus on that...however a different weapon was not used....it was a sword.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Guns are the issue because those who would shoot, who do shoot and kill all the time, do not want anyone who is not one of "them" to be able to defend themselves from "them".

The "Old World Order" is alive and well.

There is no "safe", there is no security, nobody gets out of here alive.

It's all "theater", to lull the ignorant into complacency to take advantage of them.

To sell them stuff.