|
joether -> RE: 29 killed in Chinese Kife attack (3/3/2014 2:14:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
Hmm, and during the Boxer Rebellion wasn't the most common weapon used was a meat cleaver.
Knives are prevalent, easy to conceal, and can be logically explained away if someone notices you have it with you. Wrap it up like a recently purchased parcel and no one will bat an eye.
Edged weapons tend to incite more fear than do firearms. Think about it; what is more terrifying between the knife wielding screaming barbarian or the sniper picking off the crowd?
And, in close quarters a knife is more effective than a pistol.
http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html
If the perpetrators wanted to instill terror in a crowd and didn't care about extraction, they picked a good weapon.
LOL....the absurdity of your post is damn funny.
Knives are to the ancient world what the firearm is to the modern day. Easy to conceal, easy to use, easy to obtain, easy to dispose of, easy to learn how to use. However, a pistol has something a knife does not....range and damage multiplier. Why do you think NAVY SEALs use firearms verse knives as their primary weapon when assaulting a location?
The problem with your argument is that in order for a pistol to do even half as much damage in the same time frame, would require someone to be well verse in close combat HTH fighting techniques. That either means 'military background' or 'many years of mixed martial arts'. Yet, anyone can use a pistol to kill other people with not even a tenth of that knowledge. So how much damage could someone, trained to use the pistol, trained like the martial artist, actually do? An that's where the absurdity of your argument is shown fully.
If the perpetrators had firearms, the damage would have been much more in-depth and vile. If your not able to recognize that reality, that's your problem. They would have gotten away all the same as they had something most shooters in the USA never think on: the exit plan. That was a coordinated attack if your not aware of the concept. They thought how it would start, how the action would play there, the security/guards/police/militia/military response might play out, and the exit plan(s). They put some thought into the whole thing.
The chose of arms was due more to circumstances than choose. Firearms are not easily had in China, yet the exact opposite in America. In order for your argument to have a leg to stand on, you'd have to show some REALLY good evidence that firearms could not do nearly as much damage in the same time frame and circumstances. Good luck...
|
|
|
|
