4 stabbed, attacker killed at California university

Good thing he didn't have a gun. Otherwise, it would have been 5 dead -- at least 5.

The Second Amendment is a lethal anachronism. It must be put down.

Moreover, the Republican party must be destroyed.

But it was a gun that stopped this idiot.

Reply again.....totalitarianism is desired? Are you kidding me!!!

Good thing he didn't have a gun. Otherwise, it would have been 5 dead -- at least 5. The Second Amendment is a lethal anachronism. It must be put down.

Completely agree... yet the pro firearms advocates will tell you if somebody had a gun he wouldn't have got close. They've got an answer for everything.

No, not all the answers but lunatics are lunatics. They'll us whatever it takes to promote their twisted desires. Do we have a solution for that?

Before the pro-gun nuts say "See, guns aren't the problem, people are. People kill people, not guns. This guy didn't have a gun", you've got to see that the only person being shot and killed here was the attacker, done by the police. The victims survived. Should we ban knives or sharped objects (strawman)? Well, I wouldn't mind if no one brought any of those at school to be honest, but less guns definitely means less ways of committing mass murders.

Agree with Mark G. And, by the way- thread would blowing up off the chain if it read, "4 Shot Dead" . . . . but since it was a knife, I guess it's okay. Just goes to show what 1 motivated "killer" and his "knife" are able to accomplish.

Are we going to ban knives now? It's ridiculous, it really is.

lunatics are lunatics. They'll us whatever it takes to promote their twisted desires. Do we have a solution for that? - comments

Yeah, keep the firearms out of their hands. There's a solution.

@MarkG Reply again.....totalitarianism is desired?

Unbeknownst to the binary-worlders, there is a spectrum of political possibilities, but I know the 'my way good, any other way bad' makes life much simpler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH79iloJycQ

But it was a gun that stopped this idiot.

By the police aka the proper authorities. Not some armed vigilante student or teacher that could accidentally cause more harm than good.

No, not all the answers but lunatics are lunatics. They'll us whatever it takes to promote their twisted desires. Do we have a solution for that?

It's called mental care institutions, therapies, guidance councilors, or even proper background checks. Guns are part of the problem, not the solution. This incident here can't be, and shouldn't be, used by the pro-gun people to defend guns because it literally is an example where an attacker doesn't have a gun and therefore couldn't commit murder.

Gotta love America.

Great Smart Gun episode on last week's 60 minutes. Check it out if you can.

But it was a gun that stopped this idiot.

In the hands of the police.

In the hands of the police

Exactly. . . .who were 'most likely' prior military. Vote (R) and come from a culture of law abiding citizens who purchase and own guns freely.

By the police aka the proper authorities.

Police are oppressing and killing innocent black men every day in AmeriKKKA!

Only police should be allowed to own firearms!

@Illyas if people stopped polishing their guns and use them as intended to overthrow the corrupt government that support these out of control police institutions.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. Otherwise, it would have been 5 dead -- at least 5.

And that's an acceptable number for you libs? The center focus is not on the lives that were lost, but on the guy anOT having a gun, typical.

The Second Amendment is a lethal anachronism. It must be put down.

If you libs want another civil war to happen, try it, just try it!

Moreover, the Republican party must be destroyed.

But now, if you look at how both parties have done poorly to represent the people, a good thing would be to restructure both parties.

In the hands of the police.

But it was still a gun, all the more reason to own one....or more.

thread would blowing up off the chain if it read, "4 Shot Dead" . . . . but since it was a knife, I guess it's okay

well the subtle difference for slow learners is that they're

expected to recover

Getting stabbed is no picnic, but to the shrill, "ban all knives, then too, huh?" brigade, the difference is that this young man would have easily ended those same lives, had he had a gun.

difference is that this young man would have easily ended those same lives, had he had a gun.

Yup. But in the end, they still push up daffodils. So maybe we ought to ban knives as well. The left is ridiculous.

I don't think he would have necessarily ended more lives were it a gun instead of a knife. The guy was clearly an amateur especially compared to other rampages of similar nature (attacks on schools/public places). If he had a gun and didn't know how to fire it, not even one person might have been hit. Had he known what he was doing with that knife, there would be several more casualties than just himself.

It's a pity that both sides of the gun-control 'debate" tend to be so irrational with regards to their rhetoric. Saying that one should be able to own guns because of the Second Amendment is like saying that Louis XIV was the rightful king of France because of divine mandate. It's all just words put on paper by people. Their is nothing inherently right or wrong about it but everything should be interrogated and questioned.

The second amendment made sense at the time and it was a perfectly acceptable thing to have implemented in a fledgling frontier nation that needed the potential to raise militias at short notice. In modern society it is completely anachronistic and borders on irrational to carry firearms simply because a piece of paper is interpreted to say that you can do so. And it is most definitely an interpretation.

My personal reading of the second amendment, as a non-American, is that people were given the right to take up arms in defense of the nation. To bear arms against an aggressor. That aggressor may be the federal government or an invading army. To think it means that people can carry assault rifles on combat harnesses when they go to Walmart is borderline madness.

Guns are not inherently bad. They have a place in society. They should be regulated and it should not be simple to gain access to them. People should not be allowed to own firearms without passing gun safety courses. And carrying firearms should become a thing of the past. The current escalation of force between the police and unarmed civilians springs from the issue that in America a civilian is considered (rightfully) armed until proven otherwise.

When a system allows people to carry firearms and it is culturally acceptable to do so then every interaction becomes a potentially life or death situation.

On topic. This attack at this school has nothing to do with gun control and has everything to do with the fact that violence is a language that is used to express ourselves when we feel we have no voice. The same happens in every country that has severe inequality and gives more respect and attention to people who commit violent crime. You can be ignored your whole life but when you pull out a weapon and start attacking people suddenly everybody knows your name. The only other way to gain that kind of publicity as a pleb in America is to be gunned down by the police.

*Moreover, the Republican party must be destroyed.

Reply again.....totalitarianism is desired? *Are you kidding me!!! This was in response to the above rediculas statement.

Regarding the gun paranoia most gun owners are just regular people. Most anti gun people never handled a gun and know little about them. Anti hunters are a bit short on understanding we humans have displaced the natural predators of the deer and with farming and home gardens have increased the deer population. I much rather a deer is hunted, shot, butchered and consumed over a deer hit by automobile to run off and die or worse injure the car occupents. The numbers need culling, humanely.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. Otherwise, it would have been 5 dead -- at least 5.

Well no....most people who are shot by firearms survive their injuries. You have the mother's day parade shooting in New Orleans where over 10 people were shot and no one died and then you had the Chicago basketball court shooting in September of 2013 in which over 10 people were shot and no one died. Odds are you will survive being shot.

The victims survived.

Only because of the law enforcement officer being their to physically stop the attack.

example where an attacker doesn't have a gun and therefore couldn't commit murder.

No the attacker could have committed murder just that the attacker was physically stopped before he could and immediate medical attention was provided to those who had been stabbed preventing them from succumbing to their injuries.

the difference is that this young man would have easily ended those same lives, had he had a gun.

So in other words a stop-gap for the problem that is not going to go away regardless of gun laws.

But in the end, they still push up daffodils. So maybe we ought to ban knives as well. The left is ridiculous.

No more questions, thank you.

This attack at this school has nothing to do with gun control and has everything to do with the fact that violence is a language that is used to express ourselves

You're right. But it is fair to exploit the gun control topic this thread. Why? Cause there'd be (about 100 by now) posts after posts of gun bashing and US bashing. Yet, they're pretty quiet when a slasher on campus gets a few kills.

'The Second Amendment is a lethal anachronism. It must be put down.'

'If you libs want another civil war to happen, try it, just try it!'

Scratch the surface of many gun-lovers who'll argue with the veneer of common sense, rationality and logic and you'll find something as hysterical and visceral as this.

They LOVE these things.

But it was a gun that stopped this idiot.

Notice it was by the police. I guess the ordinary gun-lovers did nothing to protect these people.

Great, I was in the middle of researching universities for my daughter and this one was on the list. O_o

Schools are gun free zones (thank you libs). Nobody legally had a gun other than police. And as we saw last month in Oregon nobody legally had a gun at campus other than the shooter....a gun stopped his rampage also. When the police arrived he ended his rampage and left one more casualty, himself. Guns do end gun violence.

Notice it was by the police. I guess the ordinary gun-lovers did nothing to protect these people.

Yeah so? Still a firearm that was used to stop someone from hurting/killing more people.

Why are you expecting an ordinary gun lover to protect these people when the gun laws in California prevent gun owners from carrying firearms on school campuses or even being within 1,000 feet of the school without the schools administration permission?

And as we saw last month in Oregon nobody legally had a gun at campus other than the shooter

My understanding was there was one person who was legally carrying a firearm on that school's campus that day but choose not to seek out the shooter because by the time he was aware of what was going on a SWAT team was already on the scene.

Peter, my daughter, born and raised in Japan, is in her first year at Cal State Monterey Bay and loves it! They have provided excellent, tailored support to a dual national, and I recommend it highly. Contact me if you want some advice. (No violence there so far.)

Notice it was by the police. I guess the ordinary gun-lovers did nothing to protect these people

If the liberal loons would step out of our way and get rid of these gun free zones, then maybe more people can be protected.

Notice it was by the police. I guess the ordinary gun-lovers did nothing to protect these people.

Notice that it was in California.

Killed by police fire, doesn't sound painful enough, but I hope it was ..... burn in hell. Am so thankful that others survived.

But it was a gun that stopped this idiot.

A gun wielded by a trained professional whose job it is to protect the public stopped this idiot.

Not some civilian who just happened to be packing when this nut showed up and started slashing people.

And that's a key point gun control proponents have been making for years. Screening, training, registration, follow-up: All common sensical approaches to tools whose sole function is to kill.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this attack would have been much more deadly had the attacker been using a gun. Anyone claiming otherwise is living in an unfathomably bizarre fantasy world.

Steel phallus cult out in force, failing to understand the news (n o f a t a l i t i e s), and knee jerking away like pubescent primates.

So I read the heading, “4 stabbed, attacker killed at California university”, then I read the article and sure enough there it was. An unidentified student at a California University campus stabbed four of his fellow students and was subsequently shot to death by campus security. No name was given and no possible motive was suggested.

With such a shortage of information there’s really not enough to base an opinion on. But what is clear is that something bad happened at that school, that day, and it happened for a specific reason. You gotta wonder what that reason was. Attacks like this are really not that uncommon, not only in the US but around the world as well. It appears to be a fairly commonly occurring behavior that is exhibited across the spectrum of human society. Understanding the underlying influences that can promote such deviant behavior would be a totally bitchin’ thing to shoot for. Even a partial grasp on the drive behind these kinds of actions could go a long way towards developing a mitigating strategy. This is the kind of discussion that would benefit from all kinds of input from all kinds of different perspectives and is a conversation that is really worth having.

But alas, there seems to be little interest in looking at it for what it really is. Instead the usual suspects drag out their respective dead horse and get to beating away on it. The very first post on this thread went straight to ragging on guns and it went downhill fast. Twenty six posts and counting and everything from the second amendment to gun free zones to the intent of the founding fathers has been hashed and rehashed to the same inevitable end, which is nothing.

There is something slightly ghoulish about the eagerness with which some posters here dive on any possible opportunity to chant their cherished mantras. And that goes for both sides of the issue. This is a human story, a story about deviant human behavior; this is not a story about guns. Unless people start looking at stuff like this as a behavioral, and not a hardware, issue we will have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting a handle on it.

There is something slightly ghoulish about the eagerness with which some posters here dive on any possible opportunity to chant their cherished mantras. And that goes for both sides of the issue. This is a human story, a story about deviant human behavior; this is not a story about guns. Unless people start looking at stuff like this as a behavioral, and not a hardware, issue we will have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting a handle on it

There will always be deviant behaviour, but one can limit the hardware. There is something slightly ghoulish about failing to see this. What is going on?

Steel phallus cult

Seriously plausible.

Remember: no ideology is an ideology in and of itself.

No it's not. Those who are criticized for their ideology like to spout this sound byte, but there isn't any actual basis behind it.

By the police aka the proper authorities. Not some armed vigilante student or teacher that could accidentally cause more harm than good.

But there are many cases where armed civilians have stopped a shooting without creating further mayhem (and plenty of instances that police engage in excessive force). Just because no one apparently had a gun that arrived at the scene before the authorities proves absolutely nothing except I'm sure the students who were injured wish there had been.

Just because no one apparently had a gun that arrived at the scene before the authorities proves absolutely nothing except I'm sure the students who were injured wish there had been.

Some yahoo with a gun may have shot an innocent bystander as well as, or instead of, the offender.

If the liberal loons would step out of our way and get rid of these gun free zones, then maybe more people can be protected.

The last thing I want is some loon gun-nutters trying to protect people.

Some yahoo with a gun may have shot an innocent bystander as well as, or instead of, the offender.

Maybe you should ask the victims if that was a chance they were willing to take.

Sure, just tell me who the victim of the accidental shooting would be, and I'll ask him/her.

This incident proves that a ban on guns, i.e., an infringement upon American's right to bear arms and defend themselves, is not a deterrent of violent crimes.

No one has ever said a ban on guns would be a deterrent of violent crimes. Only that it would prevent guns from being used in them.

Many of you say "thank Gawd he didn't have a gun or many more would've bitten the dust!" But how do you know that for sure?

We don't for this single incident, but if you look at averages for mass shootings vs. mass stabbings, more people die in a mass shooting.

4 people dead is just as tragic as 5.

Only one person dead in this incident - the attacker. The odds of no victims ending up dead if he would have had a gun are pretty minimal.

But you look at only the statistics that you want to look at.

Because they are pretty apt statistics.

What about the number of women who were able to thwart a rapist because they were packing a gun?

And what about 500 other irrelevant things? We aren't talking about incidents that didn't happen, only the ones that did.

This guy most likely wouldn't have attacked if he knew or suspected that his targets were armed.

In America you should always suspect your targets are armed. So that argument falls apart.

There is something slightly ghoulish about failing to see this. What is going on?

timtak,

I think what's going on is that we have different ideas about what ghoulish means. I go by the old standby; having the qualities of a ghoul. And for me a ghoul is any person who intentionally seeks to gain something from the death or misfortune of others. Taking a story like this and spinning it into an opportunity to promote your personal agenda is ghoulish to me.

There will always be deviant behaviour, but one can limit the hardware.

Just about anything can be the hardware of deviant behavior, the deviant mind can be amazingly creative. That's why I think it would be far more beneficial to focus on the behavior instead of fixating on the hardware. Granted there will always be deviant behavior but that is not a reason to dismiss it. This type of behavior is at the root of every incident like this and should be the real focus of attention.

The above sounds like a coveted diatribe in and of itself.

Mr Noidall,

It sounds like it because it is. It's a carry over from many years of working in human service related positions. When you work with people you never stop learning and one thing I have learned is that unless the fundamental issue behind deviant behavior is identified and addressed the behavior will continue in one form or another. Maybe it's my training or personal experiences but I strongly feel that human issues need to dealt with at a human level. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

The question is irrelevant.

@Lizz & @MrNotoall

Do you think the number of people saved or potentially saved by someone with a gun exceeds the number of people killed by a gun 'accidentally' discharging?

The more I read about gun crimes in the US and about how necessary some think it is to have guns in the US because of all the dangers there, the more I think the US is not a place anyone should send their kids for any schooling.

I hope the victims recover quickly.

If guns are bad, why are homicide rates in the US declining over the past 2 decades, despites MASSIVE firearms purchases?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-01/homicide-rates-cut-half-over-past-20-years-while-new-gun-ownership-soared

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-04/october-sixth-consecutive-month-record-gun-sales

And here's a great article comparing homicide rates and firearms ownership across a wide spectrum of countries (instead of the usually cherry-picked statistical outliers of "countries that banned guns and have low murder rates").

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

If guns are bad, why are homicide rates in the US declining over the past 2 decades, despites MASSIVE firearms purchases?

Correlation does not equal causation.

I don't have exact figures, but yes, I believe the number of crimes prevented by guns exceeds the number of gun related accidents or deaths.

You don't have the exact figures because it's impossible to know. It never happened, so you cannot count it.

And here's a great article comparing homicide rates and firearms ownership across a wide spectrum of countries (instead of the usually cherry-picked statistical outliers of "countries that banned guns and have low murder rates").

How aspirational: "Look, honey! We're not as bad as Murderstan, or the Republic of Butcherania!"

BTW, Second Amendment is a target-rich environment for anagrams:

Damnedest Conmen. Madmen Consented. Men Decant Demons.

4 people dead is just as tragic as 5.

Umm... Mr. Noidall, none of the victims died. And that's the entire point here. Had the attacker used a gun, you can be sure not only that the 4 victims would more likely have died, and that the number of victims would have been higher.

I believe the number of crimes prevented by guns exceeds the number of gun related accidents or deaths.

Were this to be even remotely true then would that not be an utterly terrifying prospect? It suggests that for every one person shot with a firearm (some 108,000 incidents last year), there were one or more additional unsuccessful attempts.

This, by my estimation, would make the streets of America a truly terrifying place to live, with more than 200,000 Americans wandering the streets with gun-related murder/armed robbery/suicide/stupidity on their minds.

Yeah, gun control most definitely needs to happen in this sort of dysfunctional nightmare.

Meanwhile, in as perfect an example of "correlation does not imply causality," the often-bandied-about claim that communities with right-to-carry laws experience lower crime rates has never been proven, and is still incapable of reconciling the fact that crime is down in all communities across America, and not just those that have regular citizens toting guns.

Actually, it possible to know.

No, it's not.

If you are about to kill someone, and I stop you with a gun, we will never know if you would have killed zero people, one people, or dozens of people. There's this whole thing about not being able to visit alternate realities to find out what would have happened.

America needs stricter knife control laws.

@strangerland: you just don't get it. The point is is that there are plenty of statistics, records, reports, where a person saved their own life, or prevented a crime because a person was carrying a gun.

But this is what you said:

I don't have exact figures, but yes, I believe the number of crimes prevented by guns exceeds the number of gun related accidents or deaths.

We don't know how many crimes were prevented, because the fact that they were prevented means they didn't happen. You yourself even used this logic in the very same post:

how do you know some would've if he'd had a gun? Are you a psychic?

Exactly. Unless you're psychic, you can't know how many crimes were prevented. And that's if you even believe in psychics.

@Strangerland

Correlation does not equal causation.

Exactly my point. Hell, "strict gun laws" and "fewer homicides" aren't even correlated!

from: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-09/heres-what-happened-when-venezuela-imposed-gun-control-laws

But how could the same policy engineer completely different results in two cities? This disparity becomes even more >vexing when we look at other countries. Honduras and Brazil both have very high homicide rates. Yet Brazil has >highly restrictive gun laws, while Honduras has fairly lax gun laws. Pakistan has some of the loosest gun laws in the >world. Chile’s are fairly restrictive. Yet both have low homicide rates. Bosnia has a very liberal gun laws. Belgium >has very restrictive laws. Yet their homicide rates are similar. Luxembourg has few privately-owned guns per capita, >yet its murder rate is much higher than Germany’s, which has over twice as many. Hawaii and Vermont have polar >opposite gun laws yet nearly the same homicide rate. Maryland and Virginia have vastly different gun laws, yet >almost identical rates of gun-related deaths.

The numbers are all over the board.

@SenseNotSoCommon

How aspirational: "Look, honey! We're not as bad as Murderstan, or the Republic of Butcherania!"

It makes sense to compare the US to other countries with similar historical backgrounds, i.e. the rest of the Americas. Countries that are populated largely by European immigrants and slaves within the past few hundred years, of diverse ethnic origins. Like one of the articles states: "If we’re honestly trying to evaluate the nature of crime and violence in a comparative atmosphere, we cannot limit ourselves to a handful of countries that have very little in common with the US beyond a handful of economic indicators."

I have a problem with a government wanting to take the guns away from all citizens while at the same time handing them out fast and furiously to criminals!

This was a terrible tragedy perpetrated by a lunatic acting in an unpredictable manner. Luckily he did not have access to guns, unlike many of his fellow lunatics, and so the outcome was relatively less terrible than it could have been. How anyone could fail to see and understand that basic analysis is extraordinary. His victims were neither protected nor harmed by any gun control laws, but the case highlights beyond any counterargument why we are all better off with fewer guns flying around.

Sure, just tell me who the victim of the accidental shooting would be, and I'll ask him/her.

If you had friends that had been tied up and robbed in their own home without a gun and no chance to call the police you wouldn't need to ask anyone.

he might have been stopped by a gun, but was it necessary? that's what tazers are for!!!! then he would have been able to serve his time. but on the other side, a piece of trash was removed from the world so win win?

that's what tazers are for!!!

Wrong. Law Enforcement Officers are trained to fire on suspects wielding knives. Officers want to go home at the end of their shift. Not wind up slashed cause only one of the tasers dart's hit the suspect. So yes, it was necessary.

Both darts need to penetrate the suspect in order for a taser to be effective. Would you risk your life in that scenario?

Responsible firearm owners practice shooting, at lease monthly. Many that I know are expert-level marksmen - much better than the average "campus cop." It takes time to become a good shot, just like it takes time to become an expert with knives.

OTOH, any idiot with a knife, screwdriver, or any other slightly sharp object can kill another human. The fact that this attacker didn't just shows poor planning and execution of the plan.

Late night shopping TV where I live has "knife-sets" for sale. Some are 5 little pocket knives for $20 and other sets are 20 differently sized hunting knives, or 1 sword for $400. Recall seeing one kit for $200 that included over 50 knives from those meant to be placed in boots to combat knives - I recall thinking these shouldn't be sold without any tracking of the purchaser at all. Who needs a knife designed for boot storage?

BTW - I searched this article and didn't see anything to say a knife was used. Perhaps some other tool was used or some other article contains this important data?

It makes sense to compare the US to other countries with similar historical backgrounds, i.e. the rest of the Americas

So a country with one of the planet's highest GDPs per capita, world-famous universities, pioneering healthcare facilities and formidable commercial and cultural assets is, in essence, a failed state?

Perhaps you should call in the UN?

Many that I know are expert-level marksmen - much better than the average "campus cop."

@theFu. Does matter how expert one is with a firearm. The scary fact is that in an intense, "heat-of-the-moment" stand-off with an armed assailant (whether armed with firearm or knife), the shooter won't be as accurate.

This is cause under training conditions at the range, there really is no threat perceived. In a real situation, ur mind is doing 100mph & the adrenaline is pumping.

Reading the comments on this news story damages my brain ( I stopped after the first 2 dozen, but I think the damage has been done). There is certainly a lot of "truthiness" here - things that make no sense at all but appeal to people's preconceived ideas. What we can CLEARLY see is that this attack was carried out by someone who is clearly not mentally well. THIS is the key thing here and the thing we should be discussing. What we also see is that a knife was used and not a gun, and thankfully no one was killed except the attacker. FACT: Guns can do far more damage than knives (a simple fact of range and impact). I don't think we'd find anyone on in this discussion board that thinks it's right for mentally ill people to own weapons.

Just pause, people, and actually THINK. You want the right to own guns? That's fine. You want to stop mentally ill people owning guns? A wonderful idea. THEN WORK OUT HOW TO ACHIEVE BOTH. All I seem to see is "ban them" / "I need my gun" arguments. Neither actually SOLVE the problem. It all seems like a lot of hot air and insincerity.

The good news here is that none of the victims lost their lives, only the attacker.

Now to make a logical argument not related to weapons and violence.

People ought to be looking for warning signs in the mental health of their classmates and co-workers. We should be concerned about the fact that typical attacker is reported as a "loaner" or "socially maladjusted".

In other words, after a tragedy, people are quick to recall how "weird" an attacker was, but how often are we reaching out to them? It seems to be much easier to shun them and ignore their silent calls for attention and help.

We sit next to these people every day, but how often are we asking them things like "how are you doing today?" or just being nice in general. It doesn't matter what your personal politics are, you can still look out for a human being that is visibly struggling, and extend a hand to help point these individuals in the right direction.

CJ: People ought to be looking for warning signs in the mental health of their classmates and co-workers. We should be concerned about the fact that typical attacker is reported as a "loaner" or "socially maladjusted".

He was a college freshman who wouldn't talk to his suitemates. Ignored them when they tried to talk to him. Had an Islamic name but that doesn't mean Islam had anything to do with it. Newly thrust out into the world, likely.

To all the posters posting a good thing it was not a GUN!! DEATH IS DEATH gun or KNIFE!! Nothing changes!!! FIs

The Second Amendment is a lethal anachronism. It must be put down.

Personally, I would rather see the Second Amendment amended to reflect modern times but that discussion is irrelevant to this article. The assailant did not use a firearm and even if the Second Amendment WAS "put down", public safety officials would STILL be armed with firearms. In short, no matter what was done or not done to the Second Amendment, the result in this incident would have been the same.

If you are about to kill someone, and I stop you with a gun, we will never know if you would have killed zero people, one people, or dozens of people. There's this whole thing about not being able to visit alternate realities to find out what would have happened.

If I see a threat, I will give a warning, if the person persists, I will just unload, center mass, that's it. Threat is neutralized.

@SenseNotSoCommon

So a country with one of the planet's highest GDPs per capita, world-famous universities, pioneering healthcare >facilities and formidable commercial and cultural assets is, in essence, a failed state?

That you consider the western hemisphere a collection of failed states merely belies your ignorance of the world around you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index

Excepting Haiti and Colombia, Russia, India, and Israel are farther up the "failed states" list than any place in the Americas. Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, and Costa Rica are all reasonably close to the US's ranking.

@Wc626

This is cause under training conditions at the range, there really is no threat perceived.

That's why those "tactical shooter" courses have value: more realistic conditions that get your adrenaline pumping, which helps acclimate the shooter to firing under physically/mentally stressed conditions. I once read it's partly why special operations troops are so lethal: they spend SOOOOO much time doing realistic shooting scenarios, their bodies are acclimated to it. Their heartbeat is like a metronome in conditions that most normal people would sound like hummingbirds, which also means their muscles aren't twitching like crazy and consequently they accurately put rounds on target.

That you consider the western hemisphere a collection of failed states merely belies your ignorance of the world around you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index

This from Wikipedia:

A failed state is a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government... there is no general consensus on the definition...

The DC think tank's ranking (which you kindly linked to) of the US's position in the world is frankly irrelevant. Their definition of failed state and the interpretation of (their) determinants thereof, serves their agenda, whatever that may be.

The fact remains that despite the great economic, intellectual, political and cultural assets that the US so capably projects worldwide, it has patently failed in its duty of care to protect its citizens from a very real fear of lethal violence.

No small factor in this is the lack of political appetite to address social inequalities, resulting in 14% of adults being "unable to perform simple and everyday literacy activities," 20 million people living in trailers, and incarceration rates that put the world's dictatorships to shame.

America can't afford excuses, whataboutery and comparisons with developing nations. But it's well within the gift of US politicians to educate all their citizens, help them out of poverty, and start shutting prisons.

@Bass If I see a threat, I will give a warning, if the person persists, I will just unload, center mass, that's it. Threat is neutralized.

Have you actually been in a situation like this, or maybe reported on one while you worked for the Washington Post or NBC?

To all the posters posting a good thing it was not a GUN!! DEATH IS DEATH gun or KNIFE!! Nothing changes!!!

Sure death is death, but apparently you missed the fact that none of the victims of this knife attack died.

So yes, it's a good thing it wasn't a gun.

Have you actually been in a situation like this, or maybe reported on one while you worked for the Washington Post or NBC?

The short answer, Yes.

Turbosats:

" Ignored them when they tried to talk to him. Had an Islamic name but that doesn't mean Islam had anything to do with it. "

Police also found a manifesto on him, that included 'praise for Allah' and a plan for beheading.... but you are right, the media will tell us that islam had nothing to do with.

Sure death is death, but apparently you missed the fact that none of the victims of this knife attack died.

But to be fair there are plenty of mass knife homicides that occur all around the world each year, like in Australia where 8 people where murdered with a knife at the end of 2014. You had the five people who were stabbed to death this year in Hyogo Japan.

So it is really more luck than anything that it was only the attacker that was dead.

A handwritten manifesto carried by a California college student whose stabbing spree Wednesday left four wounded bore names of his targets, a vow “to cut someone’s head off” and as many as five reminders to “praise Allah,”

In the two-page document found in Faisal Mohammad’s pocket by the county coroner, the 18-year-old freshman wrote a numeric list outlining his plans of who he wanted to kill, and how, including beheading and shooting his victims, Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke told FoxNews.com

“No. 27 was to ‘make sure people are tied down,’ No. 28 was “sit down and praise Allah,'” Warnke said. “I remember seeing four or five times, scribbled on the side of the two-page manifesto, where he wrote something like ‘praise Allah.

Isn't it amazing that the above article completely fails to mention any of this...not even that fact that the guy's name was Mohammad! But of course, go on talking about "guns" in a situation where guns played no part in the attacker's plan....

At last something substantive and meaningful to the situation. Thank you, BNlightened.

I think a conversation about the radicalization of an American youth with a fundamentalist Islamic overtone would have been much more enlightening than a rerun of the same old back and forth.

Isn't it amazing that the above article completely fails to mention any of this...not even that fact that the guy's name was Mohammad!

Because article was written Thursday for an attack occurring on Wednesday, and:

AP: Campus officials said the assailant was a male student but had not confirmed his identity or provided a motive for the attack.