Henan Knife Attack and US School Shooting, Chinese Reactions

United States President Obama, giving speech after Connecticut Sandy Hook shooting.

On Sina Weibo:

郑渊洁: 2012 December 14th was a sad day for all children in the world. On the very same day, extremely tragic attacks targeting children occurred in the world’s first and second ranked economies, the United States and China: The cutting down of 22 students in China’s Henang province Guangshan country Wenshu town Chen Peng Complete Primary School by 36-year-old male Min Yingjun and the shooting of 28 people in United States’ Connecticut Newtown County Sandy Hook Elementary School, violating the lives and dignity of children, are unforgivable heinous crimes.

Chen Peng Primary School in Henan, the scene of the knife attacks on 22 children.

Chen Peng Primary School in Henan, the scene of the knife attacks on 22 children.

Comments on Sina Weibo:


Horrible…what’s wrong with this world! May those innocent lives rest in peace.


There is nothing we can do, only pray that humanity can be more normal! If you’re going to cut people down, then go to the Great Hall of the People and cut down those evil government officials!


If China legalized gun ownership… I bet the current population would be less 1 billion. What more, I bet there would be less than half the number of various “party branch secretaries”.


The United States have lowered their flags to half-mast, I want to know what China has done.


Democracy is a very complicated thing, so complicated that it is the only thing Chinese people have not been successful in shanzhai‘ing.


We’re unable to treat the elderly well and we’re also unable to keep our children safe. We have no past and we’ve lost the future as well…


School campus safety truly is a huge problem!!!


Yesterday, I watched an entire day’s worth of CCTV4 news. I watched how America is in chaos and an abyss of suffering, with guns spreading unchecked, and had no idea whatsoever about the extremely tragic crime in Henan! May the children rest in peace.


This is because gun ownership is prohibited. If gun ownership wasn’t prohibited, with the character of Chinese people, shooting down 200 people wouldn’t even be considered a lot.


For these poor children, perhaps the 2012 apocalypse has come early! Hope you guys will have it better in heaven.


Their Obama cried and lowered the flag to half-mast. What about us? The gap, this is the difference between first and second.


One attacker suffered from mental illness, one attacker suffered from autism. They were so small!!!


The lives of children, in any country, and the most important and of the highest priority for protection.


There is no such thing as perfection. This is the price of choosing human rights, and the sacrifice of these children is just the tip of the iceberg. Examples of paying a price in the struggle for human rights in the history of the United States are too numerous to count.


They should issue a bulletproof vest to every American elementary school student as their school uniform…

Two children standing outside Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Two children standing outside Sandy Hook Elementary School.

American flags at half-mast following the Sandy Hook school shootings in Connecticut.

On Sina Weibo:

@头条新闻: Obama Sheds Tears While Talking About Shooting: Our Hearts Are Broken – This morning while talking about the elementary school shootings, Obama was choked with sobs multiple times, filled with tears. He said: “The majority of those who died today were children, they had their entire lives ahead of them. Among the fallen wre also teachers, men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams. So our hearts are broken today.”

President Obama wiping away a tear while addressing the nation following the Sandy Hook school shootings in Connecticut.

Comments on Sina Weibo:

READ  NYT: China Hindering MH370 Search, Chinese Netizen Reactions


Them given heartbroken speeches lowering the flag half-mast, we cover it with major reports and special reports. Our own news we don’t report at all~ Truly something to think about.


I admire a leader with blood and meat… [a leader with emotions, who is human]


In the face of Henan children suffering harm, did our country’s leaders shed a tear!? Why is it that when this kind of incident happens, they always pretend to be deaf and mute!? I’m not saying that our leaders have to be like Obama shedding tears, but can we at least be like others in facing [addressing, acknowledging] the incident? Instead of the mainstream media not even covering it, hiding it, attempting to avoid it every time the country has a “special incident”. I’m not a fenqing, I’m just sad and pained for the children!!


America’s only shortcoming is too much private gun ownership.


China’s was “mental disorder”, America’s was “deviant”.


Several months ago, our school buses had accidents, and our government immediately issued laws and regulations regarding school buses, as well as vigorously provided schools with proper school buses. Whereas in the United States where school shootings happen every year, with innumerable deaths and wounded, we don’t see Americans doing anything, their false tears and half-masts completely unable to change the problem from its root.


May I ask, good or bad, Obama still shed tears… but what about our children who were attacked? Which of our high officials have come out to say anything? Do you guys really don’t know or are just pretending?


[Obama will] attach importance [to gun control] my ass, what has he been doing since the theater shootings in the first half of the year? Are there still too few school shootings in America? If you guys had attached importance [to the issue of guns], would it still keep happening? Some of our countrymen don’t even think before they kneel down to lick their American masters.


Aren’t they a free democracy? Since they war, what is a few dozen lives to be afraid of? Why don’t they think about that when attacking others?


I just want to know what new measures will be enacted. What bullshit use is saying a few words and lowering the flag?


Those who are saying he is just acting must not yet be parents. Please watch your extremely irresponsible remarks. Politicians of course have their dark sides. After all, without ruthlessness and tricks, how could you govern a nation and become president? With a pure and kind heart? However, on the basis of having the most basic humanity, please don’t go questioning [Obama’s tears].


Do China’s leaders know about the knife attack on children in Henan? Have they expressed anything? Have they put on a “show” yet? Those people saying Obama is just putting on a show truly are suited for living in this cold and apathetic country.


You guys say he’s just putting on a show, but China’s leaders are too lazy to even put on a show. At least the lives of American citizens get some respect, while the lives of Chinese citizens no doubt seem cheap and even ignored.


I don’t care if Obama is sincere or insincere, at the very least he did what he should do…


27 children and teachers are shot dead in an elementary school in the United States, and President Obama sheds tears grieving several times while speaking; 22 students are cut down and wounded in a primary school in Henan province, and a county official even says: “What’s the point in discussing this?” What a night and day difference! Can we let everyone know the name of this official please?

A parent holds up blood-stained clothing at a hospital where children who survived a knife attack at a Henan primary school are recovering.

A parent holds up blood-stained piece of clothing at a hospital where children who survived a knife attack at a Henan primary school are recovering.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • dave

    Yesterday, I watched an entire day’s worth of CCTV4 news. I watched how America is in chaos and an abyss of suffering, with guns spreading unchecked, and had no idea whatsoever about the extremely tragic crime in Henan! May the children rest in peace.

    I noticed this, too. Shameless.

    How can this government claim to be strong when they silence anything that makes them look bad?

    The Chinese government lives in fear.

    • ASDF

      Chinese leaders fear their people because they take credit for their decisions and are held accountable for their actions. When they make mistakes they are subjected to widespread discontent and criticism. American leaders hide behind clueless puppet politicians aka the president (who can sometimes be Hollywood actors ridiculously enough) and get away with everything they do. They can screw around all they want and american citizens won’t even know who to blame. Of course they have nothing to fear.

    • It’s in the news. It may be not as sensationalized, and maybe not as much on TV as the internet, but it’s there.

      On Sohu they used to have a chart of epic tragicomic proportions that compared school shootings in the US with knife attacks in China. Take that any way that you will, but it was a long list of dead and injured children. The Henan attack on Friday was there.

  • dave

    [Obama will] attach importance [to gun control] my ass, what has he been doing since the theater shootings in the first half of the year? Are there still too few school shootings in America? If you guys had attached importance [to the issue of guns], would it still keep happening? Some of our countrymen don’t even think before they kneel down to lick their American masters.

    Oh, lawl.

    America is stronger than China because it’s leaders can’t just do whatever they want. That’s the point!

    For better or worse, gun ownership is considered a right of the people in the US, and so restriction is tricky. The only way for these guys to spin this is that the US should be more authoritarian, and the people should have fewer rights!

    • ASDF

      China is controlled by its government, America is controlled by its banks and corporations. Obama is just a figurehead, not a leader.The true leaders of america can also do whatever they want. The only difference is that nobody knows who the fuck they are.

      • dave

        Not really sure what that has to do with the constitutional rights of the people being respected, but OK.

    • rollin wit 9’s

      I agree and disagree here. Argued the subject with my very own mum. My side being that if you beat around the bush enacting more gun laws, more mass killing/murder will happen cuz there will still be guns. The only way to cut the problem is to cut gun ownership. That’s right, cut that little misprinted part of the constitution that reads ‘the right to bear arms’. If not US citizens will continuously look for answers why their brothers and sisters are constantly being murdered. I am smart enough to know that’s damn near impossible to accomplish in the US though.

      Looking at it from the point of someone on their way to the US, I can see why they might be afraid. I too was somewhat ‘on the lookout’ when i traveled to Korea, thinking there were too many knives going around. But on the real I think the movie 친구 had something to do with it lol.

      • DavidisDawei

        Drugs are already illegal; is that doing anything to stop people from selling/using drugs.

        Many argue the “War on Drugs” is a farce and that event he CIA is dealing drugs to fund their private wars. Now we are hearing stories of US drones protecting the Poppy fields.


        • Ruaraidh

          You’re partly right, but you haven’t considered how much harder it is to manufacture even a fairly simple modern firearm, compared to street drugs.

        • linette lee

          narcotic that are not prescribed by doctor is illegal. Narcotic that’s prescribed by doctor for medical purpose is legal. By having stricter control you can minimize drug possession. If you don’t restrict and allow narcotic to be legal that means any adult can just walk into the pharmacy and buy narcotic without a doctor prescription just like any over the counter drugs. Then in no time, you will have many more drug addicts.

          Just like guns. If you make it illegal for gun possession, you will have less gun owners. Less crime like this shoot out.

          • Germandude

            That’s wrong. Look at the Netherlands, where soft drugs are legal. The amount of first time users are higher than anywhere else in Europe. However, the number of drug addicts are lower than most of Europe.

            Tell you what: I am a smoker and partly the reason that I started smoking is that my parents were always against smoking. I just did it to show independance from my parents. Revolting, you know?

          • linette lee

            If there is no control and it’s legal to purchase, how would you know the actual number of drug addict? They are not being arrested so you won’t know the actual number. You have drugs that are highly addictive also but it’s non narcotic. So you can’t really call those people narcotic abusive or drug abuser, but they are just as messed up as narcotic users. Non narcotics like carisoproldol or flexeril or tramadol are addictive too,people get addicted to it. They are like walking zombies abusing those non narcotic drugs.

            I say all drugs that have the potential for addiction should be controlled by gov’t in any country.

          • Germandude

            See, the purchase is legal. The sale is legal as long as it’s inside so-called “coffee shops”. Street selling is still illegal.
            How would you know the actual number of drug addicts? Impossible to determine exactly. It’s based on questionnaires.
            But here comes the thing: Because drugs are illegal in the US, how do you determine ANYTHING regarding drugs at all?
            It’s fact that by pushing drugs into a corner that falls under the radar, you have no clue what the real numbers of addicts are.

            The number of drug addicts can also be determined by medical reports based on treatments abusers receive.

          • Gaius Baltar

            The money you could save on smoking those marlboros and panda cigs in China could be nicely spent on a couple of decent table tennis rackets and some ping pong balls, with those not only would you get yourself as fit as a butchers dog while playing with some friendly chinese in the parks, but you’d also attract a lot of chinese women, although you did mention you had a wife? At the very least, besides being as lean as a leg of beef, you won’t smell of smoke.

          • Gaius Baltar

            I do believe you can get certain stimulants over the counter in the USA? Just because prescription drugs are legal, they can still be abused, they are drugs after all.

          • Gaius Baltar

            There will always be a way to get a gun, believe me, if you got the cash and know the right people.

    • “For better or worse”

      It’s for worse.

  • nolly flechter

    when american drones kill innocent kids and civilians in the middle east its the fight for peace and democracy but when a self righteous home bred mass murderer goes on a killing spree its tragic and makes national news day in day out .muslims murder =act of terrorism,Black murder= thug life and must be sentenced to death.whiteboy mass murders innocent unarm children and adults =mental issues lets have sympathy on him because his nuts .oh boy!some lives are just so better and more important than others in this our supposely democratic world .

    • Gay Azn Boi

      Your analysis is flawed on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin.

      Black people commit the most homicides on a per capita basis. They are 13% of the US population but make up over 50% of the prison population. Some cities don’t even report on the murders anymore because they’re so common. Meanwhile in the Middle East, the killing of innocent civilians by Muslims has been a way of life for decades. You never know when a car bomb is going to explode near your house.

      The above examples are JUST as horrific (if not more) as the tragedy in Newtown. But you don’t hear about them/no body cares because, once again, they’re too common, and generally very few people die on a per incident basis. The reason why a mass shooting catch our attention is because many people die in ONE such incident. That’s why it’s newsworthy – it makes for great sensationalist headlines. The press would usually have a field day.

      What pisses me off is anytime something like this happens there are the uneducated like you who waste no time on blaming “crazy White people.” The fact is, you have NO idea what the killers have been through. Many come from dysfunctional homes where they are abused, and/or have serious mental illness which by the way can be very hard to diagnose and should not be easily dismissed.

      • nollyfletcher

        no need to feeds us that insanity crap.5% of america is nuts and white ppl make up 4.5% of that .just knowing that most of’em feel they are better than any other race speaks volumes about their mental state .

        • Gay Azn Boi

          Wow…you’re really anti-White.

        • A guy

          I hate you, but you are being a little racists.

      • nollyfletcher

        white folks arent used to hardship so when they get to the level of an average minority they just mass shoot the f/u/ck outta people.

        • Kate

          I bet you’re great at dinner parties!

        • Gay Azn Boi

          Are you Al Sharpton?

          • nollyfletcher

            With such bogus stats and way of viewing people out of your race, i bet you are one of those dropouts with a chip on their shoulders who cant even compete in the american job market thus living off of the accomplishments of some intellectuals in their race. Niler just schooled you . Arrogant misinformed american media brainwashed little shitstain.you just cant even hide that inner hatred for minorities ….. let me take a wild guess . foreign expert in china hahaha very laughable. .

          • A guy

            You are obviously trolling.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            1. I’m university educated
            2. I have a job
            3. I don’t live in the States

            Making ad hominem attacks against me will only make you look like a fool, not me.

          • nollyfletcher

            Slow down homeboy you are not that smart .I don’t know who you think you are , but I am assuming that it is something on the lower evolutionary ladder.

          • You’re also assuming that we have any regard for your intelligence, holmes. Here’s a nickel, go fetch me a gumball.

          • Gaius Baltar

            There is no fried chicken and watermelon in my core on a daily basis! Go get your shine box…

          • mr.wiener

            Little wolf has left the building.

          • A guy


            I like you, but you are being a little racist.

          • Little?….Try COMPLETE RACIST ASSHOLE!!!

          • A guy

            Trying to be tactful.

          • Do go on. I love this bit by Chris Rock.

        • A guy

          First I would like to say. Fuck you, you racist pig.

          Secondly I would like to point out that the violence we saw here was at a school, a guy came and shot school children, and when this happens in other countries not filled with “white people” the American media notices and plays it on a similar loop for sensationalism purposes.

          Thirdly the case about the psychological pressures on minorities as the cause of high crime in those communities is a pretty cliched theme in much of America’s media, it is discussed at length and often sighted as the cause, and aside from fox news every other news agency will ask themselves why did they do this? (DC snipers anyone? that question was asked quite a bit.)

          Fourthly what the FUCK do you think you know about jack shit. 70% of America is “white” there are white people in housing projects attending “black” schools where they are the object of intense (often believed to be justified) racism at the hands of their peers and how many of them shoot up those schools? Not many. The true difference here is wealth and class, people who live in nicer “middle class” neighborhoods have different stresses that trigger different psychosis and ways of playing out those psychosis. I think that the violence on the street and the violence in the school you just saw have similar root causes they just play out in different environments. As minorities become more and more middle classed in a country the more you will find that they have the same issues.

          Fifthly the drones in the middle east are not there to kill kids they are there to kill terrorists. (the type of people that kill kids) Do kids get killed? Yes. Is the choice to use force a difficult one? Yes. Do people take note when that happens? Yes they do. Do American’s ask themselves if that use of force is appropriate in the media? Absolutely. Americans obviously care about Afghanistan and Pakistan and this is proven by the fact that they put their boys and girls in harms way to try and bring back stability to an area that could explode into a nuclear holocaust if they didn’t.

          I do think that all heinous acts and tragedies need to be looked at closely and the causes need to be examined, I.E. terrorism, or gangs, or School shootings and it’s ties to disenfranchised youth. I think they are examined in American media in equal measure and you only show you ignorance by claiming otherwise.

          • nollyfletcher

            See this is why i like commenting, it shows how retarded people really are! you have no idea what you are talking about! You are better off not writing anything because you just keep looking stupid! I really do mean this, save everyone some trouble and don’t breed! Your genes need to end with you for sure .

          • A guy

            Ohh didn’t see this till now.

            My reply is “too late I fucked your mother”.

          • the other guy

            First of all FUCK you!!! The United States warmonger policies are just that, don’t try to force a positive light when there is none. All your country cares about is fighting wars to balance the budget, specially in times of economic recessions. Excepting the five years of the Great Depression (1935 – 1940) the USA has always been in war, in some way or another, they have always been sending troops over the earth, looking for a new “Boogieman” to justify their lust for power.

            214 Yeas of history and about 209 years of war. So please stop pretending, Your government does not care about Libyan people, Afghan people or Pakistani people, or even its own people. The US military wont hesitate to blow up a school a hospital or a village, not as long as they can label the casualties as “Insurgents” and get away with only a slap on the wrist…

            So please stop the hypocrisy and admit things as they are. You are not heroes nor the worlds police. You are there just pursuing your own interest for your own benefit.

            Enough is enough!

          • A guy

            Keep on biting the hand that ensures your peace and stability. Answer me this.

            What power does the US gain from it’s war in Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq 1 or 2? It’s sure as fuck not oil or natural resources. Look it up. Who got all those energy contracts? Russians, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, ETC… Does the US pay the same as everyone else for a barrel of oil? You bet motherfucker. Saddam offered Bush senior a dollar rate for a barrel of oil if he turned a blind eye to his Kuwait invasion and the US defended Kuwait with no promise of cheap oil or oil exploration contracts.

            The lengths to which Americans put themselves in harms way on the battlefield that are unnecessary if they indeed don’t care about killing innocents is unprecedentedly high. No other fighting force in history has taken as much care to not kill innocent civilians as America and it’s allies in the wars going on right now. Sadly the complexities of these wars and the intentional blurring of the lines between civilian and combatant by it’s adversaries to inspire the exact political repercussion you espouse now makes the task of limiting casualties to combatants harder than it’s ever been in history.

            America does what it does to maintain a delicate world economy and peace that enables further progress and development and a lessening of global famine, disease, injustice, ETC… over time.

            You are the real hypocrite. You let America fight your battles for you while simultaneously whining about the inevitable horrors of war. You probably protest globalization on your computer that was built by the very system you rail against and is protected by the very government that you use the computer to criticize.

            Quit being a bitch and pick up a gun to fight the real tyrants of the world and get over you childish X-files conspiracy bullshit.
            Grow up and grow some real nuts BITCH!!!!

          • nollyfletcher

            any country where civilians are dying to own guns shouldnt be role model to the world and who the hell made america a world police and judge over humans ?

          • A guy

            On gun control I have no strong opinions. I favor control in general.

            on your other statement.

            Having the power to help is a mandate to use it.
            The gravest sin is that of a man who can help but does nothing.
            Until everyone is free we are all slaves.
            Without security there can be no freedom.

            America polices the world because they are the only ones with the ability to do so.

            Americans police the world because there is injustice and not everyone can defend themselves.

            The spread of democracy cannot be forced but the destruction of tyrants and madmen is essential to the advancement of humanity.

            In a global economy the collapse of one country or war between nations effects the whole worlds security.

            You may not like it, but that is why.

          • TSDown

            Security. Freedom. Democracy. Injustice. Few would deny the fundamental ideals presented by those words. Combining them into a single argument is akin to throwing an ultimatum because those who object are perceived to be against humanity itself.

            The feeling of security implies that there is an absence of fear or anxiety. Let us assume that at this moment America is the most secure country in the world. Would you not agree that the people of America live in fear? Fear of cartels. Fear of drugs. Fear of terrorists. Fear of god. Fear of beauty. Fear of wealth. Fear of health. Fear of crime. Fear of immigrants. Fear of homosexuals. Fear of outsourcing. Fear of foreclosures. Fear of obesity. Fear of popularity.

            And yet you would lead us to believe they are free? Or that freedom – whatever that even means in America – is something to be bargained for? Or that they are not slaves to debt, consumption and corporations?

            The greatest arrogance is that of a man who refuses to accept they could not be of any help because they have power.

            America polices the world because it does not trust any other country to do so. They police the world to ensure that injustice only befalls certain people and to arm defenseless commercial interests against indigenous savages.

            Indeed, the spread of democracy cannot be forced as evidenced by the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the war in Iraq. But that bout in Libya sure turned out fine. What whispers do we hear in the American media about Libya these days? It must be quiet because there is not sliver of injustice or insecurity there.

            Tyrants and madmen must be born from eggs in the deepest spheres of hell! Those demons cannot possibly have family, friends or relatives, no – that would be silly. Don’t forget the evil whistle-blowers; they are traitors and hinder the progress of our great nation. One with the power to help (almost) everybody.

          • A guy

            While I disagree with the content of your post and the framing especially. I thank you for your politeness and intelligent wording.

            On your first point I would like to say that you are right, partly. There is a danger in painting broad strokes of right and wrong in the world, and the extreme I went to in my last few posts was in reaction to the extremely offensive words of another poster (a troll, and I guess I fell for it). I understand that the world isn’t black and white, and that America has made mistakes and that there are times when impure forces effect American policy. (The perceived level of threat caused by injustice being effected by the economic significance of a country I.E why African countries atrocities seem to get less attention)

            Your second statement I think misses the point but in general I agree with. While what you said sounds clever or wise it really isn’t when you talk about reality. Do I agree that the conservatives of America (not the majority and there are similar factions in every nation in the world) have a world view that is fearful? Yes. Do I think that that has anything to do with how secure the world is? No. I am talking about the security and sustained improvement of the global economic system that we have in place that has spurred and enabled the scientific innovation that has led to the drastic improvements in quality of life AROUND THE GLOBE in the last 70 years. That is what I mean by security. If the lion no longer nips at your heels you can finally start to worry about your shadow.

            On your third point. While I agree that most people do very little with their freedom, their self enslavement does not supersede the fact that they have the freedom to not do those things. An American has incredible freedom and the fact that people do not seize it to it’s fullest is not a good argument for damning the freedom to choose. The saddest thing about Democracy is that it shows you the true potential of man, and it’s a disappointment.

            The whole “The greatest arrogance is that of a man who refuses to accept they could not be of any help because they have power.” is another one of those statements that sounds great, but in the end says nothing. You can criticize the US for attempting to intervene in things when they shouldn’t have, (Iraq 2), but to do as that statement implies and do nothing because you don’t want to rock the boat is silly. America tries it’s best to be cautious and does make mistakes, but in the end the cause and in my opinion the outcome (Iraq 2, Vietnam exception) is a more secure and prosperous world.

            The next paragraph is a gem. The Idea that America is trying to keep down certain populations is ludicrous. Aside from during the cold war under the threat of the Soviets when has the US armed the wealthy against the impoverished population of a country. Never. It rings true in the Hollywood movies but in real life the abuses of corporations are not supported by the US. Do I think that these abuses exist? Yes. Do I think that we should all do our best to bring them to light? Yes. Do I think that it is the norm? Despite the cliched narrative No.

            Yep I agree that Vietnam was rough, and the second Iraq war was a mistake (I was against going in but supported a slow withdrawal), but Korean war, Cold war? Look at the other alternatives there, in those two it was imperative to fight against such a horror, and your inability to see that makes me question your sanity. Also who won the cold war? USA. What you should have said about the cold war is that it left quite a mess and an image problem for the US because of all the desperate and often hypocritical steps the US was forced to take to keep the world from falling under the darkness of communism. (Elsalvador, Iran, ETC…). The closer about Libya is not entirely false. It is true that the American media fails to report on foreign policy well ( that’s why I get most of that news from the BBC and Aljazeera) , but that doesn’t mean that America has stopped caring and that it is not a foreign policy agenda.

            The last paragraph is just blah. Your sarcasm is showing. If you will paint me with such broad strokes I will do the same for you. Your words remind me of what a pretty good guy said once.

            “First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women — mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides — from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

            If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

            I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .

            However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

            For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .”

            I wonder how the doves did bemoan the thought of war till the lion was at their doorsteps and millions laid murdered in the garden.

            There you go you little Hitler appeaser. It is never easy to know when to act and when to not, but the cries of those who stand by are surely always wasted.

          • TSDown

            Your attempt to elaborate the meaning of security does not change the fact that it is an absence of fear and anxiety. You then go and reinforce it by bringing up the lion metaphor. To reiterate, despite America’s efforts to feel secure its people are just as fearful and therefore, by your own argument, they are not free.

            You throw the word freedom around like candy and now you state that Americans are enslaved by their own choosing. Sounds like a convenient excuse to me. It is like saying the children in Connecticut could have avoided death because they had the choice not to go to school.

            By the way, does sustained improvement of the global economic system include printing money out of thin air? It is happening at this moment and does not feel sustainable at all. Fear and anxiety were also present in the past seventy years; you go around in circles trying to define security and speak as though there would have been no scientific innovation otherwise.

            Do you believe that America is the only country who tries its best to be cautious? Do you believe that a leader of another country, regardless of their doctrine or beliefs, do not seek the growth and prosperity of their people? You already know the world is not black and white, do you also believe that a country acts strictly out of sheer altruism – this ‘responsibility to protect’?

            The cold war lasted for a long time and you can bet many lessons were learned – like how proxy wars can serve domestic interests. You do realize that the United States and Russia are the two largest exporters of arms, yes? I do wonder where all those weapons go. A few billion for Israel, let’s say, against the threat of the might Palestinian empire. This is no Hollywood movie.

            You are not qualified to question my sanity since you speak as though the Soviets and North Koreans drink the blood of babies. It is called propaganda. America is not the first country to use it.

            What I’m trying to point out to you is that words like security, freedom, justice, etc. mean different things to different people. Stop trying to shine America’s boots; it is just another country seeking to protect its borders and secure its hegemony. How can you say for certain that other countries do not care?

            You bring up Hitler and accuse me of trying to appease to a dead man. Does Hitler frighten you, still? Let me guess. In your mind, the embodiment of evil is Hitler, isn’t it? For anyone associated with or who speaks of him condone of what was done and it guilty. Is that how you think? All German ancestors were cold-blooded beasts? Did you stop to consider that perhaps we should be more concerned about the atrocities and consequences of war? And we both know one country who has a lot of experience.

          • A guy

            I again thank you for not being rude.

            I mean physical security.

            On the topic of fear, all countries have the same problem you only know about America’s fears because you can view American media anywhere in the world.

            My point was that American’s have the choice to not be consumers, to not accrue debt, go to other media sources for information whenever they want to. They by and large have the option to live however they want. (exceptions are polygamy, and homosexual marriage in most states and I believe that the latter will be open to all pretty soon hallelujah) Show me another form of freedom or security that is viable and then maybe I will listen to you. Really what is your definition of those things? All you can do is try to poke holes in America’s world view, but you don’t offer an alternative that jives with complexities of reality. It’s easy to stand against something, but to stand for something is a herculean endeavor.

            I agree that the cold-war caused many problems and some of those proxy wars are the missteps that I spoke of. I think that the weapon production problem you speak of is a hold over from the cold-war and a thing that I want to change as well. The US does need to support other countries that are under threat like Israel, Japan, South Korea, ETC… or else these regions will fall apart. America tries to aid countries that are democratic even when they are economic adversaries I.E Japan in the early 80’s, so you cannot say that the motivations are all about money. The problem comes when a country that buys weapons from the US uses them wrongly, that is why Israel’s misbehavior is such a problem, and why I wish that the US would put more pressure on Israel to stop settlements and try to practice more symmetry in it’s defense strategy. (things that Obama has asked for repeatedly.

            No I don’t think that all other countries are wildly irresponsible, but I do think that a few who are is enough to cause the whole global system to fall apart. I think that America is the only country that has the power to defend “global” peace and stability. Other counties do assist, but most often with American help. (If China would reform a little they could help and may in the future become a partner with the US in this endeavor.)

            I do not think that the US acts out of pure altruism. They fight for the common good, Common good means beneficial to all. As I said before in a globalized world assuring peace and stability is beneficial to all including the US.

            On the topic of the Soviets and the North Koreans. I think that the soviet government was evil and oppressive and to argue that it was not something to be battled is something that cannot be argued and I will not argue because it’s like asking if the sky is blue. If you think that the North Korean government was not worth fighting then I ask you to kindly move to NK and tell me how kind a government it is.

            I bring up Hitler because you tried to equate me with 1950’s McCarthy style dualistic fear mongerer, so I equated you to a 1930’s Nazi appeaser to show you how broad of a brush you had painted me with. Guess that went over your head, or I didn’t convey it well enough. I never said anything about Germans being beasts, the point is that the Nazi’s were worth fighting, and the appeasement allowed for the deaths of millions of innocents. Reminds me of European inaction in Kosovo. (I wonder who cleaned up that mess after allowing Europe to handle it’s own issues. )

            Has the US has taken the brunt of the burden of peacekeeping and as a result is very “experienced in war”? Yes. Do I think that war is awful? Yes. Do I think that the world should focus on the atrocities of war as a reminder of what it’s true cost is? Absolutely. (I wish that American news outlets focused on it more) Do I think that diplomacy should be exhausted before it comes to that? Yes. Do I think that war is sometimes the only option? Yes. Fences and locks keep honest men honest. The US for much of that world is that fence, you ask the US to pack up and go home see the horrors that have been kept at bay, and come tell me it wasn’t worth it to maintain it.

            Thank you for the chat.

          • TSDown

            This discussion is making progress. We agree then that in general Americans are no less fearful than others. We agree that there is a form of slavery in America despite being told there is freedom. We agree that people should be able to decide on how to live and make informed decisions unhindered by propaganda, religion or sensational media. We agree that Americans, as individuals or as groups, have made great efforts to improve the living conditions of the less fortunate; however as a nation we can also agree that America has promoted peace and also conflict among populations when it was advantageous, although they are not the only country to do so. We agree that there is a hostile train of thought spread about and attached to the Soviet and North Korean governments.

            It is not that I am trying to poke holes in America’s agenda but that the rest of the world is growing wary of what that country has become. It is not that we learn of America’s fears through for-profit media outlets; the information comes from the voices of those whose countries are steeped in or permeated by American culture, prominent thinkers and independent news sources.

            Speaking of other media sources, it is ironic that the proponents of one such source is vilified, sanctioned against and detained without trial by a country that proclaims to be the most democratic.

            Let’s be clear: standing for or against a cause depends on your point of view, or where you stand for that matter. Neither is easy. Your sentence attempts to shine America in a positive light while pinning critics like myself with negative connotations.

            For the sake of being practical we agree that some countries – namely those who follow a similar or an exact copy of the prevalent economic model – can keep afloat with the financial and military support of America. The strange part is, for all the countries that America has involved itself in and attempted to turn into democracies, few if any have turned out to be an actual democracy. As with consumption and debt, I suspect you lean towards blaming the country’s leadership or their people.

            We agree that countries who have flourished – at others’ expense perhaps – have been fertile soil for innovation and discoveries that could be utilized for the betterment of humankind. Nobody of sound mind would object to that but there is an unspoken caveat: on an escalating scale, only the ones who have money to spend can be guaranteed access to such things. Where is the common good in that?

            I respect your staunch statement that America is the only country at this time with the power to maintain global peace and stability. That is the one point where we do not agree. The word global does not belong in that sentence; there are countless conflicts of humanitarian significance taking place at this very moment and it would be silly to think that any one country can keep everything in check. There is peace and stability only where natural resources are concerned. There is peace and stability only where trade routes are concerned. As for North Korea, if they were really worth fighting, if it was that important, if it meant that much to America, why is the peninsula still divided? Are you sure it was appeasement that allowed for the deaths of millions of innocents, or the Treaty of Versailles that opened the door?

            We differ in that I do not want to define what freedom or security should be; however I do understand that both are open to interpretation and vulnerable to abuse. There is no ‘alternative’ world view; it should never have been America’s world view to begin with. Just for emphasis, the purpose of a fence depends on where you are standing.

            After all that has been said, our principle viewpoints are not compatible, it seems. There are two final points I would like to make:

            1) a country, just like people, can change. America, for better or worse, is not the same it was seventy years ago; and

            2) if America were to cease their activities and move to another planet, the world would keep on turning. There will not be an apocalypse and time will not revert to the dark ages. People will continue to live and some may even find more peace in their lives.

            Thank you as well for the discussion.

          • Gaius Baltar


            I hope some people remember this, or do they?

          • moody

            It really is funny how Europeans and Chinese conveniently forget that the US sent thier children -a bunch of brave hearted kids, barely 20yo- to die on France’s and Japanese Islands beaches just to save our asses.
            Probably because we were too cowardly to fight on our own in the first place.

          • ScottLoar

            No, the Europeans were not too cowardly; that is a lie and an unneeded cruelty to say so.

            The majority of Americans were very disinclined to enter the European theater to assist the class-ridden British Empire; they popularly held Europe to be contrary to American values of representative government. Pearl Harbor changed that, because the US military and government understood that the war against combined Axis could only be won by first defeating Germany and Italy on the European continent, then Japan. Still, 90% of the US Navy was deployed against the Japanese, and American popular support of a Free China and Song Mei Ling was feverish. Some few Americans died by a Japanese explosive suspended from balloon to the mainland, but it is extraordinary that Americans popularly understood both the Nazis and the Japanese needed to be defeated, and their sons were given over to that end.

          • A guy

            There was appeasement in Europe before the war broke out that was a mistake, but to say that the Europeans were cowardly is wrong,.The efforts of the English and the french resistance in particular come to mind as displaying some of the greatest bravery the world has ever known on the battlefield. The Chinese were brave enough just not organized or wealthy enough to put up a better fight.

            I agree with you Scottloar, and this kind of comment is uncalled for.

          • mr.wiener

            What was that one about the Japanese balloon explosive again? could you give me a link please?

          • ScottLoar

            Understanding the prevailing air currents the Japanese lofted balloons suspending timed explosives in the hopes of creating massive forest fires in the coastal northwest. Several balloons landed and exploded, and in a single instance some kids and, I believe, adults discovered one of these devices and were killed by the explosion for their curiosity, in Oregon if I remember correctly.

            You can look this all up, thank you.

          • moody

            “The Americans were very disinclined to enter the European Theater”

            Hitler was Europe’s Problem, he grew so bold following Britain and France’s NO REACTION to Poland and the Sudette (sorry not sure about the Spelling but you get my drift i am sure).

            If something was said , maybe thing would have panned out differently.

            Yet , America sent logistic support and Supplies to Allies troops way before Pearl Harbor.

            I think they also sent volunteer pilots to UK .

            How convenient that some expect US involvment in some wars yet criticize it when they get their hands into some others

          • Germandude

            Let’s not forget that there were many American companies, politicians and businessmen that supported the Nazi party. The most famous one being Henry Ford.





          • moody

            I beleive i never said the US were asshole free.
            And I don t really how what you say relate to anything i said

          • Germandude

            You wrote:”Hitler was Europe’s Problem”

            And that’s why many dislike the US. As long as it’s other boys dying, it’s “the other’s problem”, while making profits on it is just fine. If sth doesn’t happen the way the US likes it, be that bad for business or US-boys dying, then suddenly the right way is the US way. No questions to be asked.

            See, I have no beef with the US or Americans. I respect the US for what it is/they are. I just hate it when hearing “this is non of our business” while a lot that happens is everyone’s business. Especially since America turns a lot of it into money.

            You wrote: “How convenient that some expect US involvment in some wars yet criticize it when they get their hands into some others”

            Do you believe that any war is fought for freedom and democracy? In my eyes, that’s just for the flag it’s running under to gain support from the public. It’s about $ my friend. Always has, always will.

            When the rich rage war it’s the poor who die.

          • ScottLoar

            Tell me what profited the Americans preventing the Serbs from obliterating Kosovo and Croatia? What benefit did the US get from helping Kosovo (Albanians) and Croatia (Muslims)? And, why didn’t the nations of Europe in any way get involved in the Balkans, their neighbor?

            Also, to question your platitude, when the “poor” wage war who dies? The “poor” have moral right? “When the rich wage war…”; this is a sickening remark. Tell me, what number of US dead is necessary for you to declare a moral equilibrium?

          • Germandude

            First of all, I am fully aware that Germany also profited through the war in Kosovo, so I am not trying to hide that part.

            Kosovo was used by many militaries, including Germany, France and the US, to test new weapons.

            Ask Halliburton about the deals they made in Kosovo and Albania after the war. $2.2 bln in contracts.

            Kosovo has 15+ bln tons of coal reserves. Guess which companies got very good deals for the right to exploit those resources?

            Why do you ask me why the European nations did not get involved in the Balkans? Did they not get involved?

            Did the poor ever have the power to decide about war or not?

            The American people are not profitting from these wars. Certainly not the poor. But it’s companies like Halliburton, BAE Systems Inc., Boeing, the Carlyle Group, Foster Wheeler Ltd., Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and many others that are calling the shots.

            Do you think that the Iraq war is/was justified? And are the soldiers of the US army really fighting for democracy and freedom?


          • ScottLoar

            The US involvement in Kosovo was a field test of new weapons? The President of the US, and he alone has the power of decision, committed US forces to against the Serbs to field test new weapons? Is that right?

            I don’t talk to Halliburton, a company that benefits by supplying security, but perhaps I’m just slow to understand your point. That Halliburton – and God knows how any others directly or indirectly and to what extent – was awarded 2.2 billlion US$ in contracts after the conflict proves what? That they profit from conflicts? Of course, that is their reason for being. There are other companies as well – the one I know is British – that provide security and do similar jobs for hire, like extracting 20,000+ Chinese civilians from Libya.

            No, please tell me who got the contracts to extract Kosovo’s coal. But by extension, you imply those companies effected the US decision to deploy force in defense of Kosovo? That the heads of those companies talked to – well, tell me, how did it go down? Tell me the heads of the companies that “call the shots” and decide if the US goes to war or not; who they are, where they meet, how they decide and which of them and by what means tells the US President, his cabinet, the departments of US government and the Congress what to do. Just describe the tail of the dog, please.

            Were European armed forces involved in Kosovo or Croatia? Tell me which countries.

            You ask if the poor ever decide on war or not. Tell me, who wore garlands of flowers as they marched through the town squares to the applause of old men, women and girls, swore their manliness would be proved against the enemy, and filled the ranks of the armies? Have you never seen even the earliest recordings from WWI? Have you never read the accounts and memoirs of common soldiers from any war? Do you think the recruits from mountainous northern Honshu who filled the ranks of the Kwantung Army in north China were unwilling participants?

            As the terms of surrender from the first US-Iraqi War and 17 (18?) UN resolutions were ignored by Sadaam Hussein the US asked the UN, NATO and allies from the previous coalition for agreement to military action. The US has no popular majority in the UN, NATO was understandably reluctant to act as a body, and some allies from the previous coalition dithered; notably France who well understood that denying co-operation would place itself in a good situation of being neither antagonist nor ally, and demanding the US forces wait was untenable as the summer approached which season would deny the US tactical advantage. Still, you think the causus belli was oil? Do you have any idea what percent of US oil is imported and from where? And consequent to the invasion who then and now controls Iraqi oil, its disposition and sale price?

          • Germandude

            “The President of the US, and he alone has the power of decision”

            He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Do you think ANY president in the world is independant in his decision making?

            If that was so, I would be scared because then the next Hitler is very close. However, especially today, it’s companies, which is scary enough.

            And don’t you think that those companies who provide the presidential candidate with money for his election campaigns do influence about every decision that’s made?

            And again: Do you think that Afghans or Iraqis are, are/were happy about US involvement?
            Do you think Bin Laden arranged the 9/11 attacks because he wanted to be popular on TV?

            There is a reason why the US popularity is shrinking extremely. And no, it’s not jealoussy about “America, land of the free, home of the brave”.

            You can find all info that you requested online.

          • ScottLoar

            My reply to you was ignored and so wasted, but I’ll reply to your nonetheless.

            Ultimately the President of the US bears sole responsibility for his decisions, especially military action as only he has the power to do so. Now, what about that do you not understand?

            Campaign contributions by individuals and companies are severely limited by law and investigation, but not so Super Pacs. Still, I ask again:

            Tell me the heads of the companies that “call the shots” and decide if the US goes to war or not; who they are, where they meet, how they decide and which of them and by what means tells the US President, his cabinet, the departments of US government and the Congress what to do. Just describe the tail of the dog, please.

            You made the claim and supposedly you can answer so stop telling me to go on-line.

            Were the Northern Alliance and most in Afghanistan glad to see the end of the government of the Taliban and its agents? Yes. Were most in Iraq glad to see an end to Hussein, the excesses of his family and the Ba’ath Party? Yes. Are any pleased to see a foreign force continuing in their country? No. Rumsfeld was a fool, completely ignorant of the situation and lacking any empathy, to disband the military and para-military forces including police in Iraq, thus depriving the country of any practicable authority and allowing religious organizations to dominate in an Iraq which heretofore had been secular. And to deny Ba’ath Party members their civil and military positions – everyone of account was a party member under continuing employment

          • Gaius Baltar

            Bin Laden, practicing that religious offshoot Wahabism, became
            anti-American only because the American infidels were in Saudi Arabia,
            the fount of Islam, and his purpose was to rid that land of the defiling

            True, BUT Bin Laden was CIA trained, SOMETHING had to fill the void left by soviet communism, and what better than beady eyed beardy keffiyeh wearing people who speak a language, read a script, and follow a religion that we know nothing about. Fact is, if America knew more about Islam and muslims and everything outside it’s borders that is not as american as apple pie and milkshake, then maybe sikhs would not have been targeted post 9/11. Fact is Islam was not to blame for 9/11, but a misguided foreign policy of the US which aided and funded a man who wanted to drag everyone in the middle eastern region back into caves and class dancing as a crime. Just my two mao mind, I don’t hate americans as people, I believe most of them are able to smell the bullcrap….

          • Germandude

            Thank you for this comment.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Germandude, are you dutch or german? If you are dutch, do you live in Changsha? Knew a dutch guy who was living there with a chinese wife, and he was not a foreign teacher.

          • Germandude

            I am German, studied in the Netherlands and no, I don’t live in Changsha. Must be another guy.

          • Gaius Baltar

            No worries. Oddly, German was the only thing I was any bloody good at, at school. Hamburg ist ein schone stadt! (maybe too rusty now lol!)

          • Germandude

            Oh and Scott. I am not saying that I know how it’s done the right way, like “my way or the highway”. It’s just that a good proportion of America feels that the American way is the medicine that the world is thirsty for.
            US media and companies have created a status of fear that is used to manipulate public opinion on issues that are not theirs.

            How on earth can Americans justify to fight in Iraq to spread their values into a society that has found it’s own path? Be it right or wrong is not to be judged by you, me, or anybody else than the Iraqis.

            -What kind of bullshit is it that on the one hand, people are complaining that shitty jobs get outsourced to countries like China, when in the first place, they didn’t want to do those jobs anyway?
            -How would you explain that America is able to fight multiple wars outside of its borders while not protecting its borders from illegal immigrants that are later blamed on doing shitty jobs?
            -Why do Americans wonder about shootings such as last week when every idiot can get a gun and on average 80 people are shot each day?
            -Why is it that John Doe doesn’t feel right about granting EVERY american citizen access to decent public healthcare?
            -How do you explain that the costs of war are to be paid by the tax payers, but the profit resulting through it are gained by multi-billion-dollar companies that don’t even pay taxes on their incomes?

            I could go on with this, but I think you get the picture. Luckily, I have met a lot of Americans that are not blindly swallowing the shit thrown at them.

          • ScottLoar

            I can’t go on to read it all, I can’t answer your latest questions. I’m just butting into your assertions. Assertions is what you present, supported by your beliefs common to some others. If you truly want a dialogue then, please, advance to me one or two of your assertions masking as complaints and I’ll give you the courtesy of direct and polite answers to the very best of my competency, experience and knowledge.But, I will not stand by to be the wall on which you chalk ever more complaints.

          • Germandude

            There is only one question I have for you: Have you ever talked to a person from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq in person?

          • ScottLoar

            I will answer your question honestly. Yes.

            I traveled throughout northern Afghanistan – Kabul, Kunduz, Mazar-i-sharif – a year before the Russian invasion; during university knew Afghan students at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii whom I visited in Afghanistan before the Russian invasion; and in Chicago knew people from Iraq (among whom was my barber, another my next door neighbor), and East Rogers Park has the largest concentration of Pakistani’s (the Islamabad Center is not more than four blocks from where I lived for 20 years) in the city.

            I am the regional manager for a US company and so responsible these last 24 years for 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific Region which includes India (but not Pakistan). I was educated in part at university in Taiwan in Chinese; I live in Shanghai and Penang, Malalysia; my wife is Chinese from Taiwan and my daughter who is 27 reflects our family custom by being fluent in Mandarin. I served in Vietnam at the age of 19, and count among those who call me “friend” one who was twice decorated by Queen of the UK.

            Now, the arrogance that some on-line shit like you thinks himself superior and so questions my experience of life and love is an insult. Do you understand?!

          • Germandude

            Thank you. I have never been to Afghanistan, nor Iraq. But I had plenty of contact with people from those countries during my studies in NL and San Francisco. One of my best friends is from Pakistan who I visited once.
            Unfortunately, all of them were very critical about US involvement in their countries.

          • ScottLoar

            “Unfortunately, all of them were very critical about US involvement in their countries.”

            Is this the enlightenment you offer me? This is the news you deliver? These are the new words strange to my ears?

            But I do have a question for you. Have you ever exchanged differing opinions with anyone without prejudice to that person?

          • Gaius Baltar

            Have americans ever took the time find out the differences in what muslims and sikhs believe? Hmmmm.

          • A guy

            Many have, but has the average schmuck anywhere done so.

          • Gaius Baltar

            I have. And not just from the internet either.

          • Gaius Baltar

            You are coming across with a lot of hubris, and that is not helping you make your point. We can all claim we know “friends”, and are a regional manager and so on. I presume you are fluent in mandarin, or at least I expect and hope you are?!

          • ScottLoar

            My arguments were delivered and then ignored. Instead, I’m asked if I ever met an Afghan, a Pakistani, an Iraqi. Now you come along, implying any one can make claims on-line and then go on to ask if I’m fluent in Mandarin. Have you no sense of how stupid that is?

          • Gaius Baltar

            It is a question to ask. If one is married to a chinese woman, one is not impolite to ask if you speak mandarin…or are they?

            I have met some afghans, nice people, pakistanis also, and my boss was an iraqi once. And you?

          • ScottLoar

            What is wrong with you? No, it is not a discourtesy to ask if someone speaks Mandarin, but after you’ve just claimed that same person could write anything to impress it is stupidity in the extreme to then prod him to answer. Still, look at my posts in this forum under ScottLoar and previously Scott. You’ll find enough evidence for answer.

            No, my boss once was not Iraqi.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Learning mandarin will aid communication with your wife and her family, it will also keep your mind sharp and young, as will getting your blood boiling debating with us younger fellows on this bbs.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Is it unreasonable to expect you to be fluent in mandarin then?

          • Germandude

            And I appreciate your answer (have read the original one before) and am not questioning your background. And just to make it clear: I have no problem with you and I am not reducing to a simple caricature of an American. In fact, I hate it when people are stereotyping while discussing a serious topic.

            The simple reason why I asked you was that no matter with what kind of person from the Middle East/African I spoke, they all agreed that US soldiers in their home countries are a problem. This is giving America a bad reputation.

          • ScottLoar

            You asking me if I had ever met or talked with an Afghan, Iraqi or Pakistani clearly shows how low you hold my opinions, and how foolish your assumptions about me as an American. Yet you cannot seem to understand that.

            Nobody wants foreign infantry in their country but some countries’ governments tolerate so, like Korea and some countries of NATO, for security; some tolerate so, like Japan, because recent wars willed troops into their territory and their leave is long-overdue; some tolerate so, like the various -stans of Central Asia, for economic gain; some tolerate for a number of those reasons, like the Philippines. I repeat, “The Americans can’t govern Iraq (or Afghanistan) and so are rightly excoriated” and US troops there now breed nothing but contempt on their side and self-destructive cynicism on our side.

            Again you arrogate common knowledge as if talking to a child. Anyone, anyone – yes! even an American, German Dude – cannot attend a forum like this without knowing “America has a bad reputation” in the world but nothing, nothing, can dissuade such firmly held belief. You are a prime example of firmly held belief, German Dude, and my explanations, references, illustrations have only prompted you to defend yourself as a nice guy. Your beliefs remain unchangeable.

          • Germandude

            Jesus Scott, what’s the matter with you now? I simply asked you if you have ever talked with an Afghan, Iraqi or Pakistani, because I was wondering. Wondering, because I have had quite some contact with people from those countries. Mostly while they were out of their home countries, but in the Pakistani case, also in Karachi where I was since a good friend invited me for his wedding. I was very shocked how radical they were when it came to the topic “America”. And these people were what you would consider “middle class” in the western world.

            In fact, in all instances I tried to defend America’s actions and at least try to explain to them that the average American and US soldier is just a tool in the bigger picture that is used by powers that benefit from these conflicts. And don’t worry, I also got enough backfire regarding the German involvement in all this.

            I have been to the US many times as well and despite what the media like to show (the picture of the ignorant American), I am trying not to judge based on that. I have met many people there and outside the US that are contradicting that picture. I am not putting you into any frame.

            And last but not least: did I ever insult you or say sth like “you are e.g. John Doe”? I guess not.

          • ScottLoar

            If you were “shocked” by middle-class Pakistanis’ hatred of America, the very America to which many of them emigrate, prosper and go on to remit Pakistan’s primary source of foreign exchange, then you still do not understand invidious resentment, especially towards the America that again and again and again warned the Pakistan authorities of the Taliban harboring within their borders that would turn on Pakistan itself. And you tell me Pakistanis hate the US? Who are you to presume I or any other American who reads the news or watches the 6 o’clock evening news doesn’t know this? No, you presume all Americans are deluded simpletons, tools of powers beyond their comprehension, because that presumption conveniences your prejudiced beliefs. And you still, still cannot understand that!

            Corresponding with you has yielded nothing but your need to prove you’re a nice guy.

          • Germandude

            Lol. “invidious resentment”. I am pretty positive that I exactly know what that term means. It translates into German as “invidious Ressentiments”, which is not a big surprise because ressentiment is a french word.

            invidious = unfair/not fitting
            resentment = anger/reservation

            “No, you presume all Americans are deluded simpletons, tools of powers beyond their comprehension, because that presumption conveniences your prejudiced beliefs.”

            No, no and no. I do however believe that 90% of the world’s population is full of shit.
            And I do believe that everybody is a tool of a power in a different way. Nothing happens out of the blue, except natural disasters.

          • ScottLoar

            Invidious: Tending to rouse ill will, animosity, or resentment.

            By simply existing as a great power America arouses invidious resentment.

          • TSDown

            On the one hand you are incredulous at the accusations against the United States and on the other you are confident in your knowledge of the events. Selling security for profit is just a small part of Halliburton’s portfolio; their primary focus is in oilfield services. Yes, it proves that there are corporations in the world that seek to profit from conflicts. That alone is disturbing enough but you seem to have no qualms about it.

            Many of your questions boil down to one thing: evidence. Yes, it is important to know the facts in a debate but your method of questioning appears not to be a quest for truth but a disingenuous challenge for others to present information from sources that you can then discredit.

            Yes, corporations and other interest groups can and do put pressure on and influence the decision of the United States government at all levels. It is called a lobby but you already know that. And how would an ordinary citizen know where they meet or how they come to their decisions? I’m sure if you tried asking they will be happy to invite you to their next meeting.

            There were in fact benefits to be had for involvement in Kosovo, Croatia and the Balkans. Activity in the Balkans led the fall of the Ottoman Empire while Kosovo and Croatia were suitable locations to counter post Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. As for European reluctance to participate – well, they are no strangers to conflict and the two World Wars took its toll. Moral considerations aside their political and economic concerns, coupled with an inability to reach a consensus, made intervention difficult. By no means did America get involved simply because they were feeling altruistic.

            Your example still does not show that the poor decide on war. It shows that people – including the poor – have conviction and courage to protect what is important to them, more so than the politicians who made the decision to send them to war. So the statement that the rich or privileged play the game of war and the poor die on their behalf holds true, regardless of whether the latter were eager to fight for a cause.

            Why would America go to war in Iraq just because Saddam Hussein ignored UN resolutions? You said yourself that the US has no popular majority in the UN, although the bitter feeling is mutual. I do not belief the American government gave a damn about UN resolutions but it needed international recognition to justify its actions to the people, which corporations learned could be a potent force following the Vietnam War.

            Oil was just one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. The United States imports over half of its consumption, with a quarter coming from nations outside the Western hemisphere. More important was the establishment of contracts to collect and refine crude oil since the resource is , leading to the operations in Libya and now Syria. Oil is the driving force of Iraq’s economy and the largest percentage – almost a quarter – is exported to the United States. Granted the contracts went to a number of international companies including the United States.

          • ScottLoar

            I just saw this, noting you’ve quickly moved to occupy the moral high ground and from there castigate my arguments as silly and unproven or evilly disingenuous.

            Lobbies exist to represent their members and influence public policies and decisions to their members’ benefit, no matter an oil
            lobby, a homebuyer’s lobby, a pro-life lobby, a gun lobby, a lobby of mothers against drunken drivers, lobbies representing school teachers, railroads, dairy products, the safety of childrens’ toys, specific tax deductions and exclusions… but perhaps you can see from these examples that 1) a lobby is the work of an interest group, 2) exercises varying degrees of influence on public opinion, policy and government officials elected and appointed, and 3) of itself can be moral (conforms to accepted moral standards and represents the public interest like – well, like slavery in America in the early 1800’s which was advocated and defended by popular
            public lobby), immoral (inimical to the public interest, although that definition can float according to the fashion of the time, like bikinis on public beaches in the 50’s) or amoral (seemingly rare, but I grant there may be current examples even if future history decides otherwise). So, you cannot cavil at my challenge which still stands despite your notion that lobbies dictate policy: Show me how the tail wags the dog. “That the heads of those companies talked to –
            well, tell me, how did it go down? Tell me the heads of the companies that “call the shots” and decide if the US goes to war or not; who they are, where they meet, how they decide and which of them and by what means tells the US President, his cabinet, the departments of US government and the Congress what to do. Just describe the tail of the dog, please.”

            But wait! Here’s your instruction to me, “And how would an
            ordinary citizen know where they (lobbies) meet or how they come to their decisions? I’m sure if you tried asking they will be happy to invite you to their next meeting.” I’m here (in Shanghai) and they’re there (I assume D.C.), so let’s look to citizens having extraordinary means and interests like journalists, reporters, congressional and investigative bodies, members of both parties eager to find dirt, or perhaps motivated persons like yourself just looking to confirm conspiracy. So where’s the evidence? In all the multitude of
            media reporting, earnest investigation, income tax returns of high officials like the President and members of the cabinet or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, memoirs, biographies and autobiographies, do we find incontrovertible or even circumstantial evidence that – and here comes the familiar mantra – the multi-national banks, big corporations and… please, go ahead, fill in the blank with whatever power you think controls national decisions of war and peace.

            Do you honestly believe that the foreign policy of the
            United States is dictated by any other than those at the highest levels of government specifically charged with that responsibility? Do you honestly believe that US Presidents initiate military actions to satisfy a lust for lucre? Believe if you will but now prove
            so. I think this should be enough to occupy you for some while, and when this is resolved we can move on to the other points, because I’m really not convinced you’re any other than one who
            just likes to argue.

        • LMAO I’m gonna report you for telling the truth!!!

      • Nilerafter24

        You missed his point. What he’s trying to say is that anytime a white person does something like this, everyone just jumps to the conclusion that he;s mentally unstable. It is apparently ‘unthinkable’ that a sane white person, who’s played too many video games, hates too many people, and who wants worldwide attention could just get up one day and go to an elementary school and execute 26 people.

        “The fact is, you have NO idea what the killers have been through.Many come from dysfunctional homes where they are abused, and/or have
        serious mental illness which by the way can be very hard to diagnose and
        should not be easily dismissed.”
        The same argument can be made for black crime or basically any crime in US. Do you see the hypocrisy?

        • Gay Azn Boi

          No, I don’t believe a person who is sane – regardless of race – is capable of committing this atrocity. A person would have to be in a diminished mental capacity to do something like this.

          All I’m saying is that there are far fewer incidents of gun-related crime involving White people, which I believe is the result of White people in general exercising more self-restraint. In other words, they don’t feel the urge to pop a cap in someone’s ass the minute they’re agitated (unlike some minority groups).

          • DavidisDawei

            HaHa – That’s what I love about the Chinese. Not afraid to voice what’s on their mind even if it hurts someone’s feelings. In America, I was told I should be saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, so now I say Merry Christmas and Happy Holydays

          • A guy

            White people do that too.

          • Nilerafter24

            Seriously, you watch too much TV. Your highly stereotypical view on races is risible.
            “Pop a cap in someone’s ass the minute they’re agitated”. Haha. You’re absolutely hilarious.
            In fact, why don’t you honestly tell us how many times you’ve seen a black person, with your own eyes, pop a cap in someone’s ass because they’re agitated? Speak from your own experience and not the TV

            Oh, btw: Why would a person have to be in a diminished mental capacity to do this? Does that mean those guys who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 were in a state of diminished mental capacity to do what they did?
            Mental incapacity is being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, real and unreal.
            In this case, this guy probably knew what he was doing. The plan was made to perfection.That’s probably why he killed himself afterwards. So that he wouldn’t need to drown in guilt or regret afterwards.
            Sometimes, people are just pure evil. Sane, but evil.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            “In fact, why don’t you honestly tell us how many times you’ve seen a black person, with your own eyes, pop a cap in someone’s ass because they’re agitated? Speak from your own experience and not the TV”

            Uhmm……why do I need to see it with my own eyes to make my point valid? If I were blind and told you that there is no such thing as the Sun, would you believe me?

          • Nilerafter24

            Your analogy is ridiculous. The existence of the sun is a fact. But your view on the behavior of black people is assumptive, prejudiced and terribly generalized.
            You watch TV and youtube etc and expect to have a true view of the real world ??
            Wow. For a gay person, you seem to be very narrow-minded.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            Okay…then tell me why there are BLACK ghettos in the States, not WHITE ghettos? Why is it that in neighbourhoods with a predominant black population, the crime rate is higher, the poverty rate is higher, and real estate prices are lower?

            Should I go on?

          • Germandude

            No, please stop here. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about in this case and it would be better if you don’t continue with your “this is life, this is how it is, that’s how it’s gonna be”.

          • Nilerafter24

            Seriously, that comment right there sums up your ignorance.
            I’m not going to pursue this any further.

          • Kai

            Don’t we call the white ghettos “trailer parks”?

            GAB, both of you guys have valid points but but they are limited. For example, it may be understandable that many people think black people commit more crimes given available statistics but its a mistake to not then ask why black people might commit more crimes, or worse, assuming they do just because they’re black. Do you know what I mean?

            Put another way, why might white people exercise more self-restraint than black people? Just because they’re white? That’s the crux of the matter.

            Edit: Sorry, I just read that terroir brought up the same point further down this thread. So I think your argument with nilerafter is more about implications. You see yourself as stating facts while he thinks your statements are suggesting things he reasonably finds offensive. His initial comment argued that you missed his point and brings up a point about hypocrisy. Maybe it’d help if you could acknowledge or discuss those things and it’d clear up any confusion that is the basis for the argument.

          • I have my moments. Sometimes.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            Trailer parks are not ghettos. Most people do not fear trailer parks, but would not dare to walk into a black ghetto at night.

          • Kate

            I once had two black women start screaming at me as I was walking into a grocerystore because I galanced at them and made eye contact and they reacted incredibly aggressive . I don’t have any caps in my ass though last time I checked….

          • Billy

            I have lived in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and I never saw mass murder or anyone get murdered – in a school or anywhere else – not that common then.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            Well, obviously they don’t occur in every part of every Middle Eastern country. But the vast majority of suicide bombings still occur in that part of the world.

          • moody

            Says the white expat kid who went to studied in an all expat school ….
            How representative of life there really is ….

            That’s also probably coz they export their crazies

            crazies who strap themselves with explosives vests and go blow themselves in Israel’s markets, bar and clubs

          • Gaius Baltar

            One mans “crazie” is another mans freedom fighter. If your neighbour built a giant fence across your land, stopped you crossing it, and flew fighter jets over it, you might lob a few rocks or bombs across in frustration?!

          • moody

            Wait a minute, doesn’t the conflict pre date that wall.
            Re think your argumentation and get back to me please.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Problem is it is tit for tat. Israel flies an F16 over and kills some palestinian kids,wouldn’t you lob rocks at a tank if your brother was killed or fire a missile if your daughter was killed or strap c4 to your chest? Both sides need to resolve the conflict, but it won’t as long as the tit for tat killing continues. And yes, the conflict does in part predate the wall, the crusades anyone?

          • Anonymous192

            No No No, this is NOT about blacks commiting more crime than any other race, this is all about YOU and your prejudice towards black. This is just one way for you to convince yourself, and others, that it is OK to see black as lesser, because you, find them repulsive. In all of your post, you turn it to be about you. This one, is no different.

          • carmouflagger

            Racist, Gay, Ignorant & full of hilariously inaccurate info, what a fucked up person. Don’t give me that “i’m just stating the fact” type crap, I’ve read many of you comments on other articles.

            “White people.. they don’t feel the urge to pop a cap in someone’s ass the minute they’re agitated”

            Sounds like someone has never been to southeastern USA.

      • Beijinger in Beijing

        “Black people commit the most homicides on a per capita basis.”

        For a gay guy that preaches tolerance and liberal values, you seem kinda racist bro

        • donscarletti

          Why does being gay determine the threshold between racist and not racist, heard of Pim Fortuyn or Ernst Rohm? (My apologies to the late Mr Fortuyn for the Rohm comparison). And I thought we were all meant to just ignore the Asian-Black anamosity and just focus on whites being racist.

          • mr.wiener

            An odious comparison, but apt.

        • Gay Azn Boi

          “Black people commit the most homicides on a per capita basis.”

          That is a FACT. And as I mentioned in another post, please do not abuse the term “racist.” It is overused and greatly misunderstood.

          “OMG I hate n*****s!” = racist

          Cold hard truth = Cold hard truth

          • hun

            thanks for owning the shit out of him, made my day.

          • Just to move this along, let’s bring up that black men are by far the largest demographic to be incarcerated in US jails.

            Yes, the reason has to do with them being black, but not necessarily at the fault due to their own blackness/blackity/blackability (sp?).

            Blacks don’t have the same opportunities as whites; they don’t live in the same neighborhoods or go the same schools (sometimes). As such, they don’t get treated by law enforcement the same way. As for an example, the “three strikes” law in Cali basically just locks up black people, again and again.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            You’re right, blacks (and almost every other minority) DON’T have the same opportunities as Whites, BUT that’s not an excuse to commit crimes. There are many poor people living in abject poverty with no opportunities whatsoever who never commit crimes.

          • Nilerafter24

            You have a point but your generalization is too broad.
            You want to make it seem like every black American person is inherently criminal in nature and that all other races are somewhat devoid of bad apples. Your comments are biased and out-of-touch.

            Yes, crime rate is higher among African-Amercians but there more African Americans in school than in jail. There’ re more good African Americans than there are criminal ones.
            You only seem to want to sensationalize the problem and lay blame instead of looking at the underlying causes and possible solutions.
            It’s called DECONSTRUCTIVE criticism. You may be stating facts but your aim is to spread your own bigotry and prejudice.

            Crime rate is directly proportional to poverty rate. This is true anywhere in the world. Just go take a look at Eastern Europe if you think I’m joking, or some poor parts of Russia, Italy etc. These places have White people yet the crime rate is high.

            racist (n)- a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
            superior (adj) 4-displaying a conscious sense of being above or better than others.

            To quote you:
            “”NO! I never implied that. All I was trying to say is that White people
            have more SELF-RESTRAINT. The kid that killed 27 people in that school
            probably wanted to kill people years ago, but he waited and waited until
            he couldn’t take it anymore (that’s why he killed many people in one
            incident), whereas a black criminal would never wait for that long to
            kill someone if he wanted to.””
            1. This is an assumption. A stupid one at that.
            2. You somehow believe a black criminal is lower than a White one i.e inferior, because a white criminal has more self restraint ?? Seriously, where is your research on this BS?
            3. Your comments are full of generalizations,ignorance and prejudice.

            Being racist is not saying: OMG I hate nig**s !
            Being racist is embarking on a personal crusade to obfuscate and list sourceless facts, slander and crassly generalize a given race in order to lower the given race’s status.

          • Germandude

            Thank you for posting this, I couldn’t have written it any better!

          • If we are talking about the US here, no other demographic has the history of being oppressed in the US as blacks do. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, civil rights only coming into existence at the same time as “Mad Men” – there’s a systematic thumb pressing down on the black guy in the US.

            This is why we have hip-hop and jazz today, but let’s stay away from breakfast cereal flavors for now.

          • Gay Azn Boi

            You seem like you have white guilt :p

          • It’s not guilt, but you have something white on your chin.

        • Gay Azn Boi

          And btw, just because I may lean toward liberal doesn’t mean I agree with all liberal values. Many times people think that just because I’m gay I’m a die hard liberal. It pisses me the fuck off.

          From Chris Rock:

          “Everybody’s so busy wanting to be down with the gang. “I’m conservative”, “I’m liberal”, “I’m conservative”. Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I’ve got some shit I’m conservative about, I’ve got some shit I’m liberal about. Crime, I’m conservative. Prostitution, I’m liberal!”

      • Ami

        >implying black criminals can’t have mental illnesses, be abused or come from broken homes.

        Also, you’re really ignorant about the middle east. Syria might be a war-torn hellhole right now but that doesn’t mean Qatar or Lebanon is. You never know if a car bomb is going to explode near your house even if you’re in New york, Allepo or Stockholm.

        People like you are a hinderance and a scourge. You seem to think only white kids can be crazy. There are tons of lower-income children* who become criminals not because they’re absolutely predestined to violence like you’re implying but rather because of being stuck in generational cycles of poverty and some certainly having undiagnosed mental illnesses.

        ( and yes, lower income children NOT just black or “inner city youth” ; if you’ve been to a rural appalachian town or isolated native american reserve you’ll also see desperation and violence)

        • Gay Azn Boi

          “>implying black criminals can’t have mental illnesses, be abused or come from broken homes.”

          NO! I never implied that. All I was trying to say is that White people have more SELF-RESTRAINT. The kid that killed 27 people in that school probably wanted to kill people years ago, but he waited and waited until he couldn’t take it anymore (that’s why he killed many people in one incident), whereas a black criminal would never wait for that long to kill someone if he wanted to.

          • Your presumptions are incredibly ridiculous.

          • lostalien


          • Kai

            I have a feeling that if you’re not racist, you’re just doing a really poor job putting your thoughts in a way that doesn’t sound really offensive to a lot of people.

      • Definitely part of it…. same reason airplane crashes are more newsworthy than car accidents, even though car accidents kill far more people.

      • @ Gay Azn Boy…..and yet gays such as yourself piggyback off of the struggles of bigotry discrimination and racism that BLACK people endured during the civil rights era and continues today….when in reality it doesn’t even come CLOSE to any comparison…..yet you have the nerve to turn around and project your own prejudiced bigotries twoards the very same ethnicity that your kind tries to identify with for equal rights!!! I’m the most tolerant person around but even I have my limits….I don’t give a damn that you’re gay asian and prefer white cock….since Black dudes turn your sorry ass down you take your frustrations out on Black folks here….yet secretly continue to crave the BBC as they all do….. yet try to mask it by proclaiming love for everything white….please stay Gay….that way you can’t procreate, have kids and contaminate the gene pool any further than it already is….go fuck yourself

        • Gay Azn Boi

          I’m sorry I can’t do that to myself; I leave that to my bf :)

          So just because black people struggled with discrimination and racism they can’t be criticised? Really? Also, did you know that gay is the new black? It has been a very long time now that discrimination based on race is illegal, but gay people are still struggling to get marriage equality, adopt kids, donate blood, etc.

          And btw, BBCs are overrated. Yes, they’re huge, but I would never want one in me.

          • Sure you can do that by yourself….your bf’s name is DILDO afterall….and don’t lie about the BBC….your mouth says one thing but your body tells you another LMAO!!! You’re in denial
            “So just because black people struggled with discrimination and racism they can’t be criticised”
            Not when it’s UNCONSTRUCTIVE criticism with only the aim to belittle…you spout off only the problems….no solutions….attack the symptoms….not the root of the problems….black issues are never cut and dry as you seem to suggest….it’s a whole world of grey….you’re a ranting racist
            “Gay is the new black”
            ……Far from it gay boi….when I see reports of crosses burning in your front yard….getting sprayed down by firehose….and sicked on by dogs….then you can “be the new black” only thing that happend to your kind are the ass beatings that groups of guys inflict on your type….
            I don’t agree with it…and any crimes against gays are prosecuted as a hate crime…you can also thank blacks for that…..but if such a thing happend to you…. it wouldn’t be for your orientation alone…you just got people issues
            Blacks weren’t denied marriage to one another back in the day….to Black women at least….we weren’t having the adam4adam fight like you are…interracially though…thats a different story….But even with that…..I don’t recall reports of ethnic gays being hung by trees for even looking at let alone talking to a white dude…Blacks that even bat an eyelid at a white woman found themselves with a noose around thier necks…
            Adopt kids? Thats fine…but not if it’s by bigots such as yourself…striaght or gay….keep it all to yourself….no need to contaminate young impressionalble minds with your screwed up views
            You make sure to bring up black peoples issues up into this conversation when this tragedy…..Just as most MASS MURDERS……was carried out by a WHITE DUDE….
            “Yeah this guy SHOT UP SCHOOL CHILDREN….but he’s insane so thats okay but at least black people are always getting locked up for lesser crimes” …WTF!??
            And it’s not just this issue alone…..I read these boards alot and just about all of your post glorify white and spite all else….when those same whites themselves see you as inferior…it’s FAR BEYOND “personal prefference”…you just have some “PERSONAL ISSUES”
            Nevertheless that won’t keep me and other posters from calling you out on your racist bullshit….get bent

          • nollyfletcher

            you mudered it homeboy . you just cleaned the floor with his gay ass.

          • Shiiiiaaat….says you. Looks more like GAB is kicking your crybaby ass….homeslice

          • mr.wiener

            I don’t agree with GAB’s argument, but I’d have to give to award the fight to the poof on points.

          • moody

            rosemon calvin pilot / nollyfletcher, two retards praising each other.
            it’s hillarious yet so sad how those two stroke their own ego.
            you guys should stop 69ing each other , you are in public

          • Thanks Nolly,,,It is what it is….

      • Germandude

        Are you fucking nuts? Instead of comparing “how many black people live in the US and how many of them are in prison”, please use common sense and instead of using race as a determination of crime rates/imprisonment, use social status. Poor societies = less values = less morale. It ain’t rocket science my friend.

    • The idea that not all lives are equal is as old as time, and the only significant variations of who is more valuable than whom are determined on a cultural level. In the U.S., the value of a person is not so much a product of their race as it is their human capital (for a young male or old female), financial capital (for an old male), or erotic capital (for a young female). The latter trumps all other competing claims to media attention.
      Your complaint that all black murder cases are branded thug life and all Muslim murder cases are branded terrorism is not grounded in fact; it’s a trite game of political correctness that you are playing. Most Americans go out of their way to avoid labeling murders according to racial stereotypes, to the extent that they often can’t call a spade a spade. And in this same movement to political overcorrection, many Americans double down on condemning white violence, often before all the facts are out. In effect, these amount to the exact opposite of what you’re complaining about. The fact that you’re writing this complaint off the seat of your pants, and you are indeed not uncommon for doing so, is evidence of this.


      What we see in violent crime committed by young black men in America does not reflect mental illness.

      It has nothing to do with race. Stop watching so much MSNBC.

      • But my TV only receives MSNBC, Fox News and the CCTV camera feed that looks over the laundromat – what other choice do I have?

      • Gay Azn Boi

        Thank you! That’s what I’ve trying to tell the retards on here but they all fucking gang up on me.

        • But I thought you like it when everyone gangs up on you to “bang” out their salty grievances.

    • mr.wiener

      I didn’t hear of much sympathy for the killer. You think they would have let him live if he hadn’t capped himself afterwards? [does that state in the US have the death penalty?]
      Go peddle your papers sir. You are just using this dark event as a chance to kick American foreign policy. I don’t see the link.

      • Christina

        I grew up in connecticut. we used to have the death penalty but it was abolished just 8 months ago.

        • Gaius Baltar

          Perhaps there is a relation between countries that have the death penalty and those that do not. I mean Switzerland, with no death penalty, but adults owning guns is hardly a violent crazy place is it?!


      I don’t think anyone is giving the killer in Newtown a free pass and treating him any differently than if the school shooter had been of a different race (ex. Cho Seung Hui was also mentioned as having mental issues). No one is sympathizing with him. I do however 100% agree with you about the killings in the middle east on behalf of America. I also mentioned in another post that Obama cries for the kids killed in Newtown but smiles (or at least indifferent) when kids are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total hypocrite. I don’t have any more sadness for the kids killed in Newtown than the kids killed in Afghanistan.

  • Guest

    this article is seriously misleading- nobody died in the henan attack.

    • Indeed, although both are horrific acts posting 22 injuries in the same context with 26 deaths seems like a bit much. Lot’s of news sources and comments confused my about the Henan attack though.

      • Christina

        That was me posting from a different computer. I think that this juxtaposition can be used to show how much more damage guns can wreak. Two madmen- both at elementary schools, one with a knife, the other with 4 guns. 22 injuries in the first case, 28 fatalities in the second. It’s just impossible to ignore. Advocates of gun “rights” always say it’s not guns who kill people, people kill people. Without guns though, it’s slightly harder for people to kill people.

        • It’s not a “juxtaposition.” Totally wrong use of the word.

          Guns increase efficiency of killing, but they’re not the source of the problem.

          • And how do you define juxtaposition? She used it completely correctly.

          • Dave

            Lol, Americans just don’t get it, who cares what the root of the problem is, you take away guns, less people die. The root of the problem is human nature and nothing is going to change that.

          • yesway

            Well said, Daniel.

            The easy availability of guns also pushes many of the cowards over the edge. Do people really think that Virginia Tech shooter (for instance) would have dared anything with just a knife?

            The gun gave him overwhelming power, at least for a few minutes, and that was what he craved.

          • yesway

            Sorry, not Daniel, Dave.

          • Of course we get that, but your solution only makes sense if there is no benefit of private firearm ownership. The rest of the world doesn’t get THAT.

          • BiffyClanger

            what you don’t seem to get is the benefits of firearm ownership is moot if your kids are dead…

          • BiffyClanger

            Source of the problem is moot if people are dead.

        • OR PICK A NAME

          OMG Christina is back!

          • Anon

            tina no kinshi!

        • I don’t think many people would argue with you that a gun is a more formidable killing machine when compared with a knife.

          Is taking away guns going to stop someone who is really intent on killing from killing?

          Probably not. In the same way people who want to use illegal drugs can still find them and ironically enough they can also lead to aggression and murder. Drugs would be a reasonable explanation for why someone did something. A gun however isn’t.

          • what more evidence do u need against guns when the same attack was committed at the same time and the results were completely fucking different?

          • I don’t need more evidence? I know they kill and I know they are better at doing it. I don’t understand what your point against me is.

          • BiffyClanger


          • Alphy

            To discuss gun control as a issue of freedom instead of issue of health and safety is insane. US will most certainly never be without guns completely, but do you really believe it is in the nation’s best interest to keep the status quo? Is it truly freedom we bestow ourselves when places like school become more and more like prisons?

            The ‘right to bear arms’ is in the US constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. It far past time to reassess whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost.

          • x1sfg

            The problem is you’re just making way too much sense for the people on Chinasmack.

            Unfortunately, most people live in a bubble and don’t think personal liberty and personal security isn’t their own responsibility.

            People cry for gun control every time something like this happens, until something happens to them. By that point, it may be too late.

            All the politicians calling for gun control are hypocrites. I’ve worked with a lot of them in DC and most carry. Those that don’t have an armed entourage anyway, while letting the sheep (the unarmed and usually uninformed US public) out for the wolves.

          • Alphy

            x1sfg Well no one is going to argue with you about US gun control law being ineffective. It’s a fact, and no matter what you do at the city or state level it’s quite simply useless when your next door neighbors have completely different law. You stated you worked with politician in gun control, I bet you are frustrated to no ends.

            You are also correct to state that it is culture that proliferate violence. However I do not agree, and there are much evidence to back this up, that gun control are ineffective in general. In countries that have overall gun control like UK, and like this article China, have much lower homicide rate after the introduction of gun control. In UK, gun ownership is not illegal but makes it hard to own one unless you have a valid reason (i.e. you can only buy hunting rifle for hunting not handguns or semi-auto).

            People also feel much safer,as any American expat living in China or gun control country can tell you. From a social prospective that feeling of safety do wonders on lowering violent behaviors in society.

          • x1sfg

            I’m interested, do you have any independent studies to back it up that at least attempted to isolate the different social variables? As in, the gun laws were enacted in a time of economic boom. At least in the US, how well the economy is doing has a much greater statistical effect on crime than any gun control laws or gun control relaxation. There have been many independent studies that have statistically shown that stricter gun controls coincide no change at best, an increase at worst while isolating variables and so on in a CBA and a sociology analysis format. I think it was the authors of Freakonomics or their colleagues who wrote it. Of course, we can’t statistically prove causation, merely correlation, but it was a relatively strong correlation.

            This was only for the US though so I would be interested to read something on similar studies for other countries. If your assumption is correct however in regards to the UK, it wouldn’t surprise me because it goes to my original argument on culture. I do know UK firearm related crime decreased in the last few years subsequent of enacting laws but I have to read the study and get a gist of their methodology first to see if they at least attempted to do some real, statistical analysis. The UK doesn’t deal with the Mexican and LATAM cartels near the border, 1% MCs, and street gang sets everywhere like the US does. The US is much more brutal and disarming our LEOs after a federal ban on firearms will only make them target practice. So yes, I agree with you the perception of safety lowers violent behaviors in society. But I don’t believe it’s because gun ownership is much stricter, just like how I don’t believe gun-lax states like Utah, Arizona, and Texas have lower crime rates entirely (key word, entirely) due to lax regulation. There is a saying: An armed society is a polite society. I say only if the society was polite to begin with.

          • I was just commenting on the motive and that being the root of the problem. I don’t think I’ve ever said that reassessing guns and more tightly regulating them is a waste of time. I’m also aware that it would likely deter this kind of violence in the event we managed to effectively regulate them.

            Regulating guns is just one of the ways to help curb the problem. All I’ve been saying is to more comprehensively prevent this more needs to be done.

            There is no one solution.

          • Tony

            I think that in this case and several other similar mass shootings in the US, the gun gives the shooter the courage and confidence to kill. Without the guns, the shooter in Connecticut, this kid isn’t killing anyone. He’s too socially awkward and to slight in stature to attack someone with a knife as the man in Henan did.

        • x1sfg

          Except in the US, or North America, gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only keeps law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm while criminals will continue to break the law. States with the strictest gun control have the highest homicide rate. The question is, is it a result of strict gun control or are gun control laws a response to high levels of violence? It’s a bit of both, but the end result is that in the US, gun control at best, has no effect, and many times, make crime levels worse as they do not allow people to protect themselves. A shooting at a church in Colorado, only 1 dead. Why? Someone at the church shot the shooter. When the police respond to an attack, more people die due to the response time. When a citizen tries to stop a shooting, that number halves.

          Everyone knows the mantra, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I agree access to guns makes it “easier” for someone to kill, but gun control just doesn’t work in the US. It’s like every other time the US has declared a war on some “Insert noun.” “War on Drugs.” “War on Terror.” “War on Transgender Bisexuals who like to play Scrabble.” You can’t win a war against a common noun.

          Illegal firearms are notoriously easy to access in the US and Mexico. The US is not Japan or many places in Europe, where people can enjoy high levels of security without guns. The difference is the people. It’s a culture difference, not a result of firearms. Just take a look at the guys in our prisons, versus prisoners elsewhere. Our prisoners would eat international prisoners for lunch. There is a culture difference between Texas and California. Texas allows easy access to firearms, California doesn’t, yet California has way more violence. It’s people and culture, not firearms.

          The UK may let their LEOs walk without carrying. Try doing that in Chicago, Detroit, Salinas, or in the LAPD or LASD.

          • Elijah

            You can’t draw a comparison when talking about landmasses that are seperated by an invisible line drawn on a map. It’s completely meaningless for one or 2 or even most states to have strict gun laws if the rest don’t. This is not a state issue, it’s a national issue that needs addressing at the national level.

            Also, cultural education is sorely lacking… As a Canadian, I have easy access to guns of all sizes, yet the number of mass shooting here and gun-connected homicides in Canada is a tiny fraction of the states, even on a per capita basis.

            PS. Canadians are constantly blamed for their high-quality weed being smuggled into the States, yet illegal guns are constantly smuggled into Canada. Wonder which one kills people and which one makes you silly for a few hours?

          • x1sfg

            Agreed on all counts. We can give the Canadians or the Japanese millions of guns and their murder rate won’t anywhere be near many places in the US.

            The whole drug war on marijuana is stupid and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Reason it won’t be federally allowed (it should be a state issue and Washington State and Colorado have already allowed it) is too many government bureaucrats have their meaningless jobs “justified” with the drug war and the firearms associated with it: DEA, ATF, FBI narcotics task forces, local and state LE agencies, DoJ, and so on. Funny though if they legalized it and taxed it, most of the criminals would have to legitimize their business and/or be ousted by pharmaceutical corporations.

            The US had Prohibition and it didn’t stop anyone from drinking. It just jacked up the price of alcohol and made the business more lucrative, as well as making it go underground, where crime bosses controlled trade. Same thing will happen to drugs and firearms.

          • Gaius Baltar

            You are dead wrong, DEAD wrong, if you think weed or dope or call it what you will can’t kill people. What you call makes you silly for a few hours, could to one person equate voices inside the head…

          • Elijah

            No. Sorry, but nothing you said in this comment is correct.

            There have been numerous studies on marijuana use and none of them have indicated anything deadly or harmful about it. It has been speculated that it could do long lasting harm to the developing brains of teenagers, but even that hasn’t been proven conclusively (although I’m inclined to believe it). There has never been a single instance of anyone overdosing on marijuana. Compare that with alcohol, which is not only legal and easily accessible, but socially encouraged as something cool, sexy and fun. Compare that with tobacco.

            Marijuana does impair thinking while the subject is under the influence, but so does alcohol or a wide variety of medication. It’s effects vary from person to person. I know people who can smoke a couple of bowls and still reasonably function, whereas I smoke a joint and I’m giggling for the next 24 hours.

            There has been no conclusive link proven between marijuana usage and mental conditions. If a person is “hearing voices” then that’s a pre-existing condition and could have been triggered by any number of things including medication, alcohol or even a specific sight, sound, smell or idea.

            I believe that marijuana is safer than alcohol in every regard, but should still be regulated. It however does not kill people.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Oh my god, I can’t believe it, another one of these it is safer than alcohol believers. OK, I will give you this, you don’t read about mr hippy going home and beating mrs hippy to death while stoned, there is far more chance of a drunk being violent, but different substances affect different people differently. I’ve seen people freak out and get ugly on weed, believe me. If you haven’t fair enough, but I have seen people go nuts on it. I guess a lot of this is down to personal experience. One thing I do agree with you on is that Canada does not have anywhere near the gun violence problems the USA has, I reckon a lot of that is perhaps to do with better attention to the young with mental problems in the healthcare system.

          • Elijah

            There are three problems with your argument now.

            1. You disagree that weed is safer than alcohol, then in the next sentence say how you’ve never heard of someone becoming violent from weed (as clearly opposed to alcohol). Double-thinking or self-contradicting?

            2. You then try to prove your argument by giving a highly subjective personal anecdote about people freaking out over it (despite me clearly saying earlier that people who freak out, do so because of pre-existing conditions), yet ignore widely credited scientific studies across broad demographics. Willful ignorance or selective attention?

            3. Healthcare differences aside, it’s an issue of gun control as well. I cannot go out and buy an AK47 or Uzi or whatever I want here in Canada. Some of those weapons are banned outright and others are heavily controlled and monitored. Hunting rifles and shotguns are the most widely owned and used guns in Canada (for obvious reasons). It’s a lot harder to reload a couple of dozen times with one of those than it is to switch clips in an automatic assault rifle with 30 bullets in each clip. IE: shotting 27 people would take a lot longer, meaning the shooter can be stopped much sooner with less loss of life when crazy people do snap.

            PS. I wrote this reply while high on marijuana. Seems my cognizant reasoning is still enough to prove an argument.

            PPS. Next time you disagree with someone, try NOT saying “oh it’s one of those dumb ‘the sky is blue’ believers” in the hopes of discrediting their obviously logical rationale.

            Puff puff pass?

          • JRushnik

            Half the problem with marijuana is that it is illegal and so people get anxious when using it. Take that away and there are no anxiety problems. Go and look at the actual figures of how many people have died from alcohol either directly or indirectly, and compare that to weed. Do the same for tobacco. Do the same for coffee. The only reason it is illegal is the timber lobby.

          • aerinmeister

            I absolutely agree that America suffers from a violent culture. It’s funny, that so many Americans poke fun at Canadians or refer to your country as “America’s hat” when actually Canada is much more civilized and progressive. And wait, who’s blaming you for the weed?

          • Kai

            I’m hesitant to fully embrace your culture/people are different argument. Would you agree that culture and people can be changed by laws? If the US adopted stricter gun control or abolished private gun ownership as countries in Europe or Asia have, would it not be possible that in time the people and culture of the United States would be similar to Europe and Asia in this regard? There might be “growing pains” or a “learning curve” but wouldn’t it be worth it compared to the status quo continuing indefinitely?

          • x1sfg

            I do not believe Americans would become more like the European or Asian countries through law. It’s too ingrained into our culture. What makes the US the US is our sense of personal liberty, or at least historically until the last 20 years. We do not, or at least the Founding Fathers, did not like government getting into citizens’ business. They viewed the Europeans as subjects, or sheep. The government promising us security or social welfare or money should be met with skepticism by the people, as it means trampling on our rights. The Patriot Act, and the direction SCOTUS, our lower courts, both houses, the last three administrations, the DoJ, the DIA, NSA, and other agencies have been downright illegal and go against what the country has stood for. But anyway, there are too many social variables that laws won’t do much to change something already so prevalent and so monetarily lucrative.

            Chicago outright banned handguns until recently. Look how well that turned out. Criminals still used handguns, just like people in the US still drank alcohol during the Prohibition. We federally made marijuana illegal. People still do it, as it’s been a part of US culture whether we like to admit it or not. Trying to adopt laws to make the US like another country is unrealistic, as they have two different standards on what is socially acceptable by the general public. I can adopt anti-alcohol laws in the Islamic Middle East with great success. Try that in Ireland and you’ll get shot. On the other side, I can make religious persecution in the ME illegal and it won’t stick while it works for the large part in the US. Point is, the same laws work to varying degrees depending on the people and the culture, as laws should ideally be made by the people they should be enacted for, and represent the current social/ethical/moral standards of the time.

            Firearms have been a part of the US’s history whereas they haven’t been in Europe or Asia; everyone in the US had a firearm, they had to. Firearms were their livelihood and used for protection, during exploration, hunting for food or fur, and the Revolutionary War that started our Republic.

            Take a look at Afghanistan. I’ve been there in its early stages and I’ll tell you straight up, a Western-style republic will never work. Tribalism and religious fundamentalism are too influential, and has been in their culture for thousands of years. They are a landlocked country with little resources in some of the harshest terrain in the world, making economic development and setting social infrastructure and communication difficult. You can’t change that, despite what our politicians tell you. Same elsewhere in the ME. They have elections, and who do they elect? The most radical zealot or the most strong armed warlord. Ask the Afghans on who they respect and it’s usually the most ruthless person. Genghis Khan is still feared in Afghanistan and that style of leadership is what they respect. Our style of government may look foolish to other nations and will never be adopted.

            Look at the US-modeled governments in Korea and Japan. Yes, they have elections, but anyone can tell you the difference in the political culture there than in the US. In Korea, criticize LMB on any of the big three TV stations and you are immediately ostracized, whereas in the US, it’s quite common and almost encouraged. There’s a slight political culture difference and there should be. Those two countries have thousands of years of history as does China, with their own political systems and their own standards on what is right and wrong. They have different economic strengths. The political climate is also different with a very unfriendly neighbor (DPRK), and a very powerful neighbor who may be friendly in some arenas, not so friendly in others (PRC). The US would be a completely different country had we shared our northern border with a powerful, unfriendly country.

          • Anon992

            Under this argument, how do you explain the shift in smoking?

            In UK someone could easily have said you’d ‘get shot’ for suggesting in such a heavily entrenched pub culture that people could not smoke indoors… but hey, it happened.

          • Kai

            Pretty much everything you said is very understandable to me. Where I feel like expressing reservation and potential disagreement with you is how mutable or immutable you see certain things as being.

            I think it is entirely possible and evidenced through history that law can shape society. I’m not saying the US should be made more “European” or “Asian” in identity, but that US society can be shaped to have more areas in common WITH European or Asian countries. In this case, having less gun violence. The notion that US self-identity is tied with personal liberty resonates with me but I have to ask if private gun ownership is that inextricably tied with personal liberty. I’m not sure it is. I know everything is shades of gray,

            I agree that how easily received any law is depends on the attitudes and norms of the people. But I don’t think how easily it will be received is necessarily a deal-breaker for whether or not it should be pursued. The secularization of government itself throughout history was itself difficult. As was the abolition of slavery and the promotion of civil rights. All of these things had large segments of the population who disagreed with them, yet they have still been realized over time through laws.

            There is definitely such a thing as enacting too great of a change too quickly so that the population revolts before it adopts it. I understand that and I believe there are tons of changes desired in this world that will require time and careful progress before they can be achieved (such as liberal democracy in China remotely similar to what we have in the West). What I’m pushing back on you is the notion that something is so ingrained in a culture or people that it can’t be changed at all. After all, how commonly do we hear that Chinese people lost their culture after just 60 years of Communist rule? If a Middle-Eastern immigrant can Westernize in a generation, of course a society will take more time, but they CAN change.

            On one hand, you say laws should be made for the social/ethical/moral standards of the time. On the other hand, you justify the US law on bearing arms for historical reasons that may no longer be as applicable for the “social/ethical/moral standards” of our present time. If the democratic majority wills it, would you be able to accept the loss of private gun ownership because the majority no longer sees it being relevant to our current norms?

            Tribalism and religious fundamentalism has been pervasive throughout the world’s societies, including the US. But it has changed, right? Through laws? In popular culture, the US was in part founded by people fleeing religious persecution seeking religious freedom. It is not without some irony that the Old World where these people fled from now often sees itself as being more secular and non-religious than the United States. Still, the US today probably has more religious tolerance than merry old England back in the day, and what changed that other than fleeing to a different continent? Laws.

            So I agree with you that there are differences between cultures and those differences will affect how easily norms can change, but everything I see shows that change can happen with enough will and how smoothly that change happens can be influenced through our decisions in implementation. So I don’t think I can accept the argument that the US cannot change because it is too ingrained in its culture and people.

          • Rick in China

            More incorrect facts,”Firearms have been a part of the US’s history whereas they haven’t been in Europe or Asia;”, do some research. Look up Switzerland. Many more misnomers in your post, it’s not worth my time to repeat the same argument to you as I have with many others who state the exact same rhetoric repeatedly. All I have to say is do some independent research rather than look at pro-gun talking points and repeat.

          • Gaius Baltar

            You are right about Switzerland, but I hardly think Switzerland counts for all of Europe.

          • Rick in China

            You’re wrong. Look up the gun control laws state by state, those with stricter gun ownership permit and type of weapon laws almost coincide directly with lower gun crime/homicide side by side, with very few exceptions. You’re just re-quoting pro gun nut talking points. Do some actual research yourself. I did.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Research from the internet or published papers? Thing is everyone on Chinasmack proclaims themself an expert on this or that subject. Until we can hear from someone who is actually an expert in the gun control field, all this arguing is pointless

        • ZlsetrdX

          I live in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, Colombia. There is a brutal armed conflict in the countryside and violent crimes are epidemic in urban areas. Gun control is nevertheless pretty strict. There’s no right to keep firearms in your house for protection, let alone carry them, unless you prove certain very special conditions in order to get a permit. Meanwhile, violent crime is rife and criminals can be armed with anything up to automatic assault rifles in a country were “legally” only 8 firearm models are available, all of them domestically produced short-range pistols, and law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed more than 4 units. I won’t have anybody telling me gun control leads to more safety, that is BULLSHIT. Down here, mugging is extremely common, and since most petty muggers can’t afford guns they resort to all sorts of sharp stuff. Blades are, in fact, the most common weapon. Shall we ban kitchen knives, razors and scissors?

          Besides, most people apply crime-fighting logic on these random shootings, like “guns are bad and if we ban them there will be less/no shootings”. That can work to some degree with crime, which is primarily a gamble: criminals weigh the potential reward against the calculated risks and decide whether to engage or not based on the probable outcome. They most likely expect to survive and are concerned with the
          consequences of failure, so they will often avoid harming or killing unless strictly necessary. If their “firepower” is seriously hindered it could limit the hits they can afford or may even make them refuse violent crime at all, leading (in theory) to less violent crimes. Sociopathic nutcases, on the oher hand, are ready to die, want to take as many lives with them as possible, and will find a way to do it amongst the thousands available. No law or measure will “reduce” any number of massacres which are to happen in a year.

        • Daniel Tynan

          Couldn’t agree more. If Obama does not push hard for gun control now I will lose any respect for him. He has nothing to lose at this point.

    • mr.wiener

      ..because the guy didn’t have a gun or access to one. I would have thought that was pretty clear…maybe not.

    • Rainer

      Funny Americans always try hard to persuade Chinese even a regular shooting spree is a result of freedom and democracy and any crime in China is outcome of dictatorship.
      But happy to see only small towners Chinese take it, while majority just know US as greatest gangland with 0.7% population locked behind the bars. Man, 0.7% means over 2 millions, still the self-claimed model of human right, lol!

      • diverdude7

        well Rainer, I could be wrong, but I think the high rate of incarceration in the USA is because the laws/prosecution are enforced. I am an American citizen who has lived many places. I do not consider the US as a perfectly functioning model of Human Rights, but I do believe most of us here do Dream, Idealize, Hope and Work for that to be the way things come to be…

      • DavidisDawei

        I have only felt unsafe in China twice (and one of those was in Hong Kong). I suspect China is safer than the USA in many ways.

        A lot of Chinese have told me they fear coming to America – they have formed this picture of the USA to be like the Wild West with regular gun battles in the streets and them running for their lives. It is not like that in 99.9% of the places.

        I don’t think the increased rates of incarceration are due to violent crimes, but attributed to the “War on Drugs” and “Three Strike” Laws.
        You are correct – it is a large number of people – maybe they could be put to work to help society instead of simply being a cash drain.

        • A lot of Chinese have told me they’re scared of the U.S., too, but I really think there is a better chance of getting killed on any given day in China than the U.S. Much of that has to do with me being a bicyclist, admittedly.

          • BiffyClanger

            Oh really? I happen to be all weather cyclist and worked both in China and London. Got hit by a car under ridiculous circumstances twice in the UK both on a bike lane!!!! In China, so far not a scratch mainly due to the fact you no body respects traffic rules therefore you have to take extra care.

        • I’ve never felt unsafe in the USA except in cases where I knew what I was getting into. Yet hardly a day goes by in China that I am not subject to what can only be called “attempted murder” by shitty-ass drivers and almost any argument against guns can be applied to cars, etc.

          Personally, I’ve never owned a gun except for a 4-10 shotgun that I got for my ex-wife to keep around the house since I was gone alot for for work. But I will always support the right to bear arms. Besides the “War on Drugs” and “3 Strikes” the major cause of the high prison rate is it is just good business. For example, near Colorado Springs is a valley with more than 20 prisons of all levels. Just like Indians discovered casinos can bring in huge cash, impovershed areas with little industry have discovered that warehousing humans is a fucking goldmine. And business is booming.

        • mei jou

          never heard of Federal Prison Industries?

    • starsky

      I do think the government should report on it more until i realized Chinese journalism is evolving to be tabloid and sensationalist too, the net result is the american massacre is more sansationalist than the stabbings at henan

    • Kai

      How is it misleading? The article didn’t say anyone died in the Henan attack. The original weibo post simply pointed to two attacks on children on the same day saying it was a tragedy.

      An article on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html) also mentioned both attacks but towards the end of commenting on the difference in gun control laws.

      • Germandude

        Interesting talk with one of my colleagues during lunch break just now:

        He: “Did you hear about the crazy gun shooting in the US last week?”
        Me: “Yes”
        He: “Americans are so sick”
        Me: “Heard of the Henan knife attack on the same day?”
        He: “………no, but I will check”

        • Kai

          That’s one reason I was personally relieved to see so many Chinese netizens mentioning the Henan attack and questioning the different responses in the mainstream media and government (although I think there are some legitimate confounding factors and differences).

      • Christina

        Because Fauna made a rare mistake in her translation. To be “cut down” means to be killed, and the original chinese article says the children where “砍伤” which means to be hacked/injured, but not killed. Anyone who can’t read Chinese would assume based on this article that 22 people were killed in Henan and 28 in Connecticut, which was not the case.

        • Kai

          Can’t “cut down” also mean to be injured by a knife?

          Hong Kong (CNN) — On Friday morning, a man walked
          through the entrance of an elementary school and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit.

          I can see how “down” might suggest “dead” but aren’t there a lot of phrases where “down” doesn’t mean that like “down and out” or “down for the count”? Shrug. I came into the translation knowing the kids were just injured and not dead so I can’t really judge on whether or not “cut down” is that misleading. I just don’t think it technically and necessarily means “dead”.

          • christina

            hmm.. I can see how you interpreted it that way, especially since you went into it already knowing what you did (so did I) but I think of “cut down” in the context of, “he was cut down in battle” or, “he was cut down by the madman,” both of which imply death. The merriam-webster dictionary defines “cut down” as “to strike down and kill or incapacitate” which is how I think the majority of people perceived the article. I think it’s more of a cultural thing though- translating between languages is a tough job. Fauna thought cut down meant to injure but I just asked a bunch of my friends and they all think to be cut down is like to be mowed down- it implies death.

          • Kai

            Heh, even the MW definition you cited defends this use (its used as “to strike down and incapacitate”) but yeah, I do get what you mean about popular connotations and how people might interpret it colloquially. I can see people assuming it meant dead.

          • christina

            kai, you conveniently left two words out of my MW quote: “to strike down AND KILL or incapacitate”

          • Kai

            No, I left our “kill or” and only because I’m saying the usage here is with the second use indicated by MW with “or”. I’m not saying “kill” isn’t part of the definition, just that it isn’t part of this usage. Why do you think I’m “conveniently” leaving it out after I’ve repeatedly acknowledged your point? Did I come across as confrontational to you?

          • christina


          • Kai

            I apologize but could you explain what you felt was confrontational?

          • christina

            your extreme pushiness and refusal to acknowledge that “cut down” is usually used to imply death. Honestly, I didn’t want to start a fight on chinasmack and so tried to humor you/very nicely to explain the meaning of cut down, but frankly, you were wrong. It’s fine, really not a big deal, we’re all human and we all make mistakes, but you were confrontational and unbecomingly stubborn on top of that.

            also- before you bring up cnn again, the difference between that and this chinasmack article is that they immediately go on to say nobody was killed in the henan attack, therefore clearing up any confusion, because I can guarantee “cut down” as a synonym for injure is almost obsolete, in the way nobody uses “gay” to mean happy anymore

          • Kai

            Holy cow, extreme pushiness? That’s an unfair and extreme characterization. How could I have refused to acknowledge that “cut down” is often seen as implying death when I’ve repeatedly acknowledged it in every comment except the initial reply to you before I knew you were referring to “cut down” as what you feel was “seriously misleading”. Christ, I was sincerely interested in what you felt was objectionable and was acting in good faith throughout all of this. I don’t think I’m wrong because I never argued that you were wrong and instead repeatedly said you have a valid point. How is it fair to accuse me of being stubborn for defending myself against an unfair accusation?

            Unlike Fauna or Peter, I bothered to acknowledge your observation and objection, never thinking there would be anything wrong or offensive with discussing it. I can’t believe this resulted in so much bad will. I had no intent to be confrontational and I still find it difficult to see how what I said could be interpreted the way you did, but I recognize that it can happen. I apologize that you felt that way but really, I think I deserve some benefit of the doubt.

          • Guest

            I think you’re overreacting. Neither of you are wrong but you’re the one being pushy now.

          • “Cut down” usually means dead….like “cut down in his prime”. Is it so hard for you to admit you can be mistaken? Fuck. Christina even said “Fauna made a rare mistake”. Goddam….what a pompous ass.

          • Kai

            The fact is that it wasn’t a “mistake” and I wasn’t “mistaken”. Christina even acknowledged this, and its use was supported in a CNN article I quoted and the Merriam-Webster dictionary she quoted.

            Did I say anything clearly offensive or accusatory in my initial reply or subsequent reply to Christina? My second reply says I can see how it could be assumed to be “dead” and my third reply again openly acknowledges Christina’s point. the name-calling is unnecessary.

          • Yeah…..always your little magic disclaimer….well, in paragraph 3 sentence 2, I distinctly said blah blah blah followed by a patronizing remark about why you are so much fucking smarter than the rest of us. Anybody that’s read this blog more than a week knows your MO. You’re never accusatory Kai. Just smug. If this was anywhere even near the first time, I’d never even have mentioned it. Instead of your typical blowhard explanations, try this sometime……

            “Whoops! I stand corrected as it does appear that to most native English speakers “cut down” means “killed”.

            Ultimately, nobody gives a shit what “cut off” means but just wonder why you are so snippy about it.

            Insert your long-winded and condescending response here_________

          • linette lee

            I will say “砍傷” literally means “cut injured” which does not mean dead. 砍死 means “cut dead” which means dead.

            I will say in English “cut down” would mean dead.

          • Kai

            That’s fine, I recognize that. Christina said the article was “seriously misleading” and I simply asked why and she explained. I responded by recognizing her point. All I did was point out that CNN also used the same phrase. Fauna’s translation wasn’t wrong and there was no intent to mislead anyone. Christina recognizes it as a translation and culture thing. That’s completely true. Not sure why this became so heated. I thought it started off with everyone being sincere and civil.

          • mr.wiener

            It would imply it. No worries mate, everyone makes typos.

          • disqus_k60zCnIk8j

            “cut down” as in “cut down to size”, I forget the play/quote, but it was said as the king/leader orders an execution. Anyway, i came in with no proir knowledge of the Chinese story and I thought they were killed. I agree it was a rare translation issue, and “cut down” dosn’t clearly mean dead, but I think more people would think it does.

          • ScottLoar

            “Cut down” means to sever from its stalk or trunk. When men are cut down in combat, as example which is most common besides the felling of trees, the meaning is invariably “killed” or less often rendered prone and wholly incapable. “Cut down to size” has an entirely different meaning, as to “pare” or “prune”; the two should not be confused.

            The compound 砍伤 means “hacked”, “chopped” and similar but definitely not “cut down” or by extension “killed”. These children were hacked and sliced, not killed.

          • Kai

            Yeah, I understand what you guys are saying and I think I’ve repeatedly made that clear. I’m not accusing anyone of being wrong for their interpretation of “cut down”. The only accusations were “seriously misleading” and “rare mistake”. I simply explained why Fauna’s translation is not necessarily wrong or a mistake WHILE acknowledging the actual issue. I don’t think me doing this should be interpreted as me disbelieving or disagreeing with you guys.

            With that said, and this is not to say “cut down” doesn’t imply “death” for most English speakers or to pointlessly antagonize you or anyone but just for the sake of genuine discussion, doesn’t the idiom “cut down to size” just mean humbling someone or putting someone in their place rather than “death”? Even if I’m being roasted here, I at least hope our translators will benefit from discussions like these.

    • Concerned

      If you do your research, you will find that the reason China has increased school security is because knife attacks in schools have occurred more often in recent years causing the death of nearly 20 children. And to minimize the injury of 22 children is outrageous and cruel. The point is that in spite of strict gun control in China and the enhanced security around their schools the tragedy happened anyway. So what should China do now — Ban knives? It just proves that gun control does not work! Read some of the comments below where States with the strictest gun control also have the highest crime rates using guns. The reason – Criminals (who will always get guns) know that the citizens have no way to defend themselves against violent crime.

  • White Guy in USA

    I was at the local gun store today and IT WAS PACKED WITH PEOPLE!!!!!

    A lot of people had their children with them shopping for guns. Most of the children in the gun store were the same age as the children that were killed and also the age of the shooter. I heard most people asking for the Bushmaster AR15 in .223 caliber that was used in the shooting.

    I like most people own Bushmaster AR15 rifles in .223 caliber but, I prefer my AK47. I was there to pick up some extra High Capacity mags like the new Surefire 60round mags that just came out for sale not to long ago. I was talking with people at the gun store about the shooting and they blame the shooter, not the gun.

    Also the gun store was full of women and some black people so don’t go thinking it was full of stereotypical old white guys.


      Most gun worshipers buy guns under the pretext of self protection but they ironically arm MASS MURDERES because they are always from within. should be karma or some kind of curse i bet .

      • White Guy in USA

        Well you could also say people go to a doctor to get prescription drugs for pain relief and end up selling pills to addicts who not only ruin their own lives but many others. Sorry but your argument above is not good enough to warrant restrictions or a ban on guns.

        • nollyfletcher

          Private ownership of handguns is not a guarantor of a free and peaceful society. I can rattle off a long list of countries more free, democratic and peaceful than our own where private handgun ownership is prohibited by law. Just like evolution deniers, the arguments of the gun nutters are manifestly the opposite of the truth.

          • White Guy in USA

            You are right about countries with no guns being wonderful like, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, USSR and Russian Federation, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, ETC. I am sure the peasants are content with being slaves under a state monopoly of force with guns only being available to your masters.

            I know everyone having a gun seems crazy but that only seems that way to you because you are brainwashed. We may have a lot of guns but that did not stop us from becoming great nor does it stop us from continuing to be great.

            Being a peasant in the countries listed above worked out so great with so many freedoms and prosperity having no guns.

            Remember Tienanmen Square and the great leap forward and the millions and I mean the million that died. If Chinese peasants had guns then no White Devils or Japs or Crazy Commies would have messed up China. The people of China with guns would have been in control, which by the way they are still not, they are peasants to a ruling elite in a communist system that’s suppose to be equal.

            In America we are more equal to each other than are the Chinese to each other, regardless of money.

            O yea, and you know we are still more Peaceful, Just, Educated, Advanced, Opportunities, ETC then any other country of equal size or greater.

            That`s why you keep coming.

          • nollyfletcher

            Among all countries US is the only country which has the quickest first response time and still people need guns for protection? Protection from whom? Are we so inhumane or untrust worthy of each other? Are we running away from the responsibility in this country? It is true that it is time for the country to stop and take a look at the Constitution and may be bring it to align with current world realities instead of being 200 years old view .Guns in a country with mickey mouse brains and wild west attitudes is certain recipe for disaster. l genuinly feel for ALL american children going to school this morning: who do the gun nutters feel for?As long as Republicans and the NRA exists, our children will continue to die.All you gun worshiping nutjobs have blood of babies on your hands.

          • XuGe

            “Quickest response time”? Nothing has a quick response time when they have to travel to a location to help you. If you are in immediate danger, even a 1 minute response time would not be enough if a threat of ending your life exists.

            There are places in America where the police are no longer relied upon, response times can be as high as 30 minutes. Budgets are being cut, and even some police departments are advising residents to take measures to protect themselves with firearms.

          • nollyfletcher

            The United States has gone back in time to become the wild wild west and has become flooded with guns. You can thank the republican party mostly for that. They’ve created a monster and have no idea how to get it under control.

          • David

            Just a quick point, I cannot speak for others, I admit that I for one would buy not only buy a pistol but an assault rifle if possible (I guess that makes me a NRA nut job in your book). For this one reason only…safety, living in south Texas especially outside the cities, we are being forced more frequently to protect ourselves/homes from the Drug cartels, coyotes (human traffickers), and even in some cases heavily armed Mexican military working for the cartels who would rather kill you then have you undermine their lucrative drug operations. I agree with gun control, and would even be willing to surrendering my guns, but the reality is we are living in a broken system, where the government cannot always protect us (as has been clearly demonstrated almost everyday in the news), many of us are being forced to defend property and loved ones from a very real and violent threat. Also, just to let you know, in rural south Texas, 911 is virtually useless in these cases, and even if a lone sheriff came, do you think he would be a match with his 9mm and shotgun? These are just some thoughts, and I am willing to bet that if this kind of situation presented itself, then most of us would do the same. Also, for those who would move, remember, that it is not always an option for lower income families, and many of them have lived in the same place for generations, so instead of abandoning ones home, way of life, and culture, they feel compelled to defend what is theirs, because they believe if they don’t then they/ we will never be free or feel safe…even America has “nail homes”

  • nolly flechter

    …gifts under trees that wont be collected ,little smiles that will never be seen again,angelic voices that wont be heard for ever,eyes wide opened in fears and horror .frozen, pale and lifeless petit bodies lay in pools of blood from bullet wounds .So small and so helpless.All quiet, too peaceful.Sleeping but not moving.Too much to bear, to much to share.What plans the future had for you.l can only hold back my tears and just smile because its safer and more peaceful where your souls rest.
    To the deceased little ones with love .


    Sorry Obama but you’re a hypocrite of the worst kind. You cry for 27 people killed on US soil but smile when you kill innocent men, women and children halfway around the world. To me those people killed yesterday are just a drop in the bucket compared to all the killing going on in your name since you took office. You can go to hell Obama.

    • dave

      War is murder?



        They haven’t declared war, that’s why they refuse to acknowledge prisoners of war as such. They have no business in Afghanistan or Iraq. I’d rather 10,000 American military personnel be killed than one Afghan or Iraqi.

        • mr.wiener

          ..Unless you were one of the 10000 American military personel I’m sure.


            Last time I checked America had a volunteer military. You have a choice. I chose not to join, therefore there’s no way I’d be one of them.

          • mr.wiener

            Silly me, that makes it ok to wish for the deaths of all those doopy volunteers. As you were.


            I never said I wished for the death of those soldiers, I said I’d rather 10,000 of them die than one Afghan or Iraqi die at their hands. There’s a difference. If they don’t kill or oppress Afghans and Iraqis, I don’t wish death upon them. But yeah, they are doopy (whatever that means).

          • mr.wiener

            I’m certain that your country’s servicemen and women are thrilled that your thoughts and prayers are with them.


            I don’t like/dislike someone because they are the same nationality, race, culture, profession, etc. as me. I like/dislike people because of the actions they take. In this case I think the US is wrong in waging these wars.

          • mr.wiener

            So I take it also disapprove of the Taliban shooting schoolgirls , imposing sharia law and recruiting [buying] not so smart bombs [suicide bombers] to do their dirty work whist they hide out in the tribal lands of Pakistan?
            Whilst I think the drone killings have been far from surgical and the war in this area far from ethical if you have a better way to take down these dicks I’m all ears.


            Of course I disapprove of those kind of things. But to me the US foreign policy towards Muslims/Arabs is an even bigger evil than 9/11. I don’t like the Taliban but what the US is doing is the greater of two evils. US foreign policy over several decades caused all of this hatred. Solution: address the root of the problem. Stop supporting Israel, the dictatorship of S. Arabia, invading countries not posing an imminent threat to the US, influencing other countries politics for their own interests. Simply put, stop sticking your nose in everyone’s business. You know there’s a reason the US is hated in some parts of the world, and it isn’t because they hate our “freedoms”.

          • mr.wiener

            One word, as evil cynical and soul deadening as it is:


    • ASDF

      Don’t be too hard on Obama, he’s not actually responsible for any of this. His job is merely to distract and entertain the american people.

      • DavidisDawei

        ASDF – I heard on the radio he is being nominated for an Oscar (Leading Man, Best Comedy), which can be placed on the mantle next to his Nobel Peace Prize. (just kidding)

    • mr.wiener

      A little early to be boiling down these kids bones for soup isn’t it? You remind me of the half-educated mullahs who say god is punishing the west every time there is an earthquake there [ignoring their own earthquakes]. Or those dicks from that baptist church who show up as servicemens funerals top say it was because of gay marriege.
      The dead in this case as well as the kids killed in Pakistan are innocents and deserve better than to be used as ammunition in your arguments.


        Trust me I’m more than half educated. I’m not religious at all, don’t believe in god or heaven or hell. I do however believe in treating everyone equally. I’m only bringing this up now because this situation has the world’s attention. If I brought it up at another time, people would probably just brush it off. I’m not disrespecting the dead in any way. I’m using this situation to bring light to what’s happening half a world away in much greater numbers. A situation that seems to be ignored as if those people don’t count as human beings.

  • Duke

    A Japanese general when asked about invading America before WW2 said in America “there is a gun behind every blade of grass”. The men who started America knew that a population without the freedom to buy guns would not have one of the most basic freedoms anyone should have. The freedom to defend whom and what you love without having to rely on the police or the army. In this crazy world where the bad guys usually have a gun(regardless of the law), in my opinion its best to have a gun of your own. Criminals and crazy people DON’T FOLLOW GUN LAWS. Which makes gun regulation on whole populations counter productive. It makes it harder for the average gun owner, who only wants a gun to either hunt, target practice or protect his or her family. Things like this make me sad however guns are not the problem. Guns are freedom.

    • Gay Azn Boi


    • ASDF

      I’m sure Criminals and crazy people in China don’t want to follow gun laws either. They still don’t have any guns.

      • Duke

        There are guns in China. Except here ONLY the criminals, police and army have them. In America everyone has the right to own a gun. In my opinion its better when everyone has the right to own a gun. Keeps everyone in check. In states where “castle” laws are in effect, there are almost no home robberies. Very few criminals have the balls to break into someones house when they know that person can shoot them without having to worry about the consequences. What if all women carried guns, would there still be women getting raped? Guns are a good thing in the hands of the right people. Most of the gun violence that happens in schools is because there are not enough guns in the school to counter the threat when it arises. Guns are kept off school property in America, which is why they are such tempting targets for psycho’s. Notice no one goes crazy at a gun shows right? Why not? because it’s filled with decent American gun owners who would gun them down in a flash. They may be crazy but they’re not stupid, these things always happen in “gun free zones” where even Americans that can carry weapons can’t bring them in. Malls, schools, theaters etc. Something like this may happen outside of a “gun free zone” however the damage and body count wouldn’t be as high, because the decent Americans with guns wouldn’t allow it to get that far.

        • Dave

          Typical American delusions, I live in canada, our firearm homicide rate is only half of of the USA, people can own firearms rather easily but harder than usa. Yet the USA has one of the highest rates of firearm related crime. It is simple math, if you have many guns per capita as the USA and have easy access to them, and with lethality of them, you are going to end up with lots of dead people. The constitution is outdated and needs to be changed but that will never happen.

          • The problem with that is that there are countries with higher gun restrictions than the US and yet simultaneously higher homicide rates. Even within the US, these types of shootings occur in regions where gun ownership is low. How many of these mass shootings have occurred in the Deep South? Go ahead and look at “List of school-related attacks” on Wikipedia. The pattern of the types of states these shootings occur in becomes quite clear, and they’re not the gun-toting redneck “YEEEHAW!!!” states.

          • Btw, I actually favor strong gun restriction, but I just wanted out to point out that the your “simple math” doesn’t quite add up.

      • David

        Umm…yes they do. Just look at Yunan. Don’t over generalize There are guns and gun related crimes in China too, but we also have a media here that won’t report it either.

    • Mantouvia

      I think you’re right, kids in class need to be armed!!!! First lesson of class will be on gun use. Let’s hope someones little darling doesn’t get upset when fingerpainting gets cut short, or Bobby won’t share the spade, and starts shooting…

    • 898j77

      In many countries around the world people can still own guns but the death rate from guns is much lower than America. Take Britain for example, where people can still legally own certain kinds of gun eg for shooting animals; if its gun death rate were applied to America the number would be 200 per year, but actually in America it’s 9000 per year. You don’t need to ban all guns, just the kinds used in these kinds of killing.

    • See you and your comment at the next school massacre; I don’t think either trend will change in the interim.

  • Lacompa Cida

    US constitution gives the people the right to bear arms to ensure that the people will have power to overthrow the government when necessary. PRC government won’t let the people know about the knife attack for fear that the government may look weak to the people and may dare to object to what they do.

    • dave

      “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao

      • Gaius Baltar

        And the party has all the guns?!

    • wahnwhaaa

      When was the last time it was legal to overthrow the US government? Let’s be more specific. When has it ever been legal to physically resist (much less pull a gun on) an agent of the government in any way? Owning a gun does not change that. You can cry about defending your freedom all you like, but the entire rest of the law says you are wrong.

  • Kate

    I dunno but what exactly is obama suppose to do about guns? Its a constitutional right to bear arms and anyone who has taken any government class can tell you that to change the constitution is damn near impossible. And let’s say In some world that he does ban guns, well what is he going to do about all the people who own guns? They aren’t going to willingly hand them over and to send cops to houses to collect would be so dangerous because gun owners feel verrrrrry strong about their gun rights. Maybe at best he may be able to ban semi automatic but he will get a lot of flack for it. Don’t forget those lovely drug cartels smuggling in weapons ether. I really don’t know what the answer is.

    • vincent

      Perhaps it has to reach a tipping point, unfortunately in such situations things only get much worse before they get any better, a situation may arise where proponents and opponents of gun control will reach a consensus.

    • Maybe it’s about time Obama lived up to his ’08 blue and red “HOPE” campaign poster.

      Yeah, the Repub’s gave him trouble and interference in the first term, but then he just let them organize and steamroll over him. If Obama doesn’t worry about his short-term legacy and puts his balls on the line, maybe he can push through a gun law better than the Obamacare fluff that made it through.

    • x1sfg

      There isn’t much he can do. SCOTUS has already ruled on it multiple times although nothing surprises me anymore with the direction the US has been going.

      Guns rights has too much support. A circuit court recently ruled on gun laws in Chicago as unconstitutional, which was a major victory for them. Sending cops to do seizures? Too unconstitutional and it’ll be like “1984.” Ban semi-automatic? That’s just crazy, what are we supposed to go back to? Ball and powder? Anyway, I can cause as much damage with a S&W 686 as with many autoloaders. Politicians have tried making magazine limits (round count), caliber restrictions… None of it works.

      You are right, nobody really has a solid solution other than cultural education, but that sounds Gulag-ish.

      Anyway, the country was founded on the government being afraid of its people, and it should be. Gov’t should work for the people, not the other way around but the tables have turned: the populace fears the gov’t and we work for them

    • Germandude

      The answer would be that the government is doing what they are payed for: make the life better for the people. Forbid guns. Take them away and anybody that is running around with one gets the gun confiscated, in addition to a high penalty.

      And regarding cartels illegally importing and selling guns in the US: Well, it’s time for the government and the police to do their job.

      • Hey Germandude,

        Why don;t you mind your own fucking business and worry about the shithole place that you call a counrty. Socialist Fuck. Go bail out Greece and get some Hartz IV.

        Your government is just a slave to America anyways.


        • Germandude


          Yes sir, thanks for enlightening me. Now put down your beer, take the remoter and switch from FOX News to HBO. Both are entertaining. Just that the first one is causing damages to the brain, as proven to be correct by your comment.
          Have a good one, troll.

          • mr.wiener

            That was weird, you just got trolled by a redneck with a turkish/Indian[?] name.
            “Vee are not liking peoples like you krauty fellows around these parts sir. My goodness gracious no.You should be getting your liberal ass out of here wery quickly I am thinking” :D

          • Germandude

            I liked “Socialist Fuck” as an insult most. You know, some people call it socialism and hate it from deep down. On the other hand, the same people can often be found in churches praying to the holy lord.

            Not sure if this fella is a redneck, but his use of an Indian/Arabic name (not Turkish btw) leads me to believe that he is suffering from a multiple personalities disorder. Maybe when he graduates from university, he will see that the world is not black’n’white. You know, hope dies last.

    • Jahar

      I love how many of you Americans seem to think you have a right to bear arms. Read your constitution. Stop quoting half a line. Add the other half.

      As for a ban on selling guns not getting rid of the ones people already have, stop selling bullets. Also, this argument was had. 10 years ago. 20 years ago. I’m sure that was before these last couple people bought their guns, so a change would have stopped them from shooting.

      People say gun control laws only affect people who obey the laws. This is also nonsensical. Check your stats on how many guns used to kill people were legally acquired. It’s not just black market guns killing people.

      But you do bring up a good point. The “gun culture” is a problem. Other countries don’t have that. Even where you can buy guns, you don’t have people stockpiling weapons( at least not like the US). It’s easy enough to buy a gun in Canada, but very few people I know have a handgun in their house. Or any gun at all. Americans seem to think they need them, for some reason.

      • Kate

        I wasn’t aware I brought “gun culture” up in my OP, I just said that I don’t know a solution…….

        • Jahar

          when you talk about the strong feelings people have for guns. that is what I consider to be the gun culture, or at least a part ofit

      • Yeah, yeah, ….we’ve all seen that episode of “Boston Legal”. It’s still subject to interpretation.

        • Jahar

          I haven’t.

      • David

        You ask why, and though I cannot speak for others, I admit that I for one would buy not only buy a pistol but an assault rifle if possible. For this one reason only…safety, living in south Texas especially outside the cities, we are being forced more frequently to protect ourselves/homes from the Drug cartels, coyotes (human traffickers), and even in some cases heavily armed Mexican military working for the cartels who would rather kill you then have you undermine their lucrative operations. I agree with gun control, and would even be willing to consider surrendering my guns, but the reality is we are living in a broken system, where the government cannot always protect us (as has been clearly demonstrated almost everyday in the news), many of us are being forced to defend property and loved ones from a very real threat. Also, just to let you know, in rural south Texas, 911 is virtually useless in these cases, and even if a lone sheriff came, do you think he would be a match with his 9mm and shotgun? These are just some thoughts, and I bet that if this kind of situation presented itself to you all, then most of you would do the same, and for those of you who would move, remember, that it is not always an option for lower income families, and many of them have lived in the same place for generations, so instead of abandoning ones home, way of life, and culture, we should defend what is ours, because if we don’t then we will never be free or feel safe…even America has “nail homes” Also, you are right about the constitution, we should add the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We should not only have guns, but form militias to protect ourselves…good thing our neighbors have guns too.

        • Yesway

          This is the first time I’ve seen someone is pro-gun who actually makes sense. The way you describe your situation, it does become understandable why you feel that way.

          In most other cases, I see:
          “guns don’t kill people, people do” or people will kill people anyway. While this case makes it very clear how much more deadlier guns are than knives.

          • David

            I freely admit that guns are extremely dangerous, and should be handled with the utmost care and safety, and anyone who says: “guns don’t kill people, people do” is just espousing some circular nonsense. Though, I believe, and this is my culture speaking, there is a place for guns e.g. hunting, target practice, and as a last resort protection. I just feel if I am ever forced into a confrontation I would want the highest probability of coming out of it in one piece. I mean, when the border patrol goes out looking for these people they go heavily armed, and in teams, I am just taking my cue from them.

        • BiffyClanger

          so just out of curiosity, when was the last time you defended your own property from those roving drug cartel or did you read about that in the local news..

          • David

            You are correct in assuming I have never been in a firefight, and I am most grateful for this. Though, my father has had a run in with the coyotes, which fortunately did not escalate. It is not my intention to sensationalize this issue, but to point out that it is a growing concern, and ultimately not beyond reason to own or want to own a gun.

          • BiffyClanger

            I am glad that is the case. I just re-read what I wrote. Apologies if I sounded like a jerk.

          • David

            No worries, I did not think that, but thanks for the apology.

        • Jahar

          Drug cartels are really killing so many people you feel you need an assault rifle? Sounds a little extreme.

          • David

            I kinda look at it this way, most Americans have fire insurance, but proportionally most of us do not loose our homes to fires. In the same way, I would want have one hoping that I would never need to use it, but at the same time be prepared just in case. As for the cartels killing people, how many would need to die before it becomes justifiable to have one, I guess that is up to the individual…I am just glad for the option. Though, I reiterate that I do not have one.

          • Thor

            These days you are indeed more likely to lose your home due to a foreclosure and repossession by the bank. Just sayin’.

          • David

            True, so pay your mortgage before you start a gun collection, just so you are not tempted to show up at the bank with one.

        • mr.wiener

          Don’t mess with Texas.

      • G$

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

        Here you are, now explain yourself.

        • Jahar

          How many of you are in a well regulated militia?

      • G$

        One more thing: I’m from the South and I have yet to meet, IN MY LIFE, these Americans that you speak of that stockpile weapons.

        • Jahar

          So it’s not true? People don’t do this?

    • Thor

      And don’t forget the NRA. There’s no way on Earth they’d give up the U.S. market, quite a huge one for light firearms. So they push over and over to make sure people buy new ones everytime a school shooting happens. They are that shameless.

  • Guns… Knives… Fists… tools of sick “men” looking to hurt kids – no matter how “secure” the country.

  • linette lee

    I was watching the news the whole night yesterday. I just don’t understand why so many state still allowed people to walk into store and purchase guns. You have some states where you can just walk into walmart and buy guns, have it registered and keep it in your house. It’s just so crazy. They keep talking about increase security in public school and even get metal detector at door entrance. How about start by making all gun possession illegal if you are not a law enforcement personnel. Even with that, guns must be kept at work for these law enforcement people, not to be brought back home.

    It was very bitter and heartbreaking watching parents on TV screen broke down after being told their kid had died. 26 kids from age 5 to 10 and few adults. One young beautiful female teacher age 27 heard the gun shots and hid her 16 kids in the closet. She confronted the gun man lying to him her kids were at gym. She was shot dead. She didn’t hide when the gun man came into her classroom, she was protecting her kids. Heartbreaking.

    We cried with obama. Rest in peace to all the kids and adults. Rest in peace Vicki Soto.



    • linette lee

      it’s 20 kids from age 5 to 10, and 7 adults dead.

    • DavidisDawei

      Why is it crazy to own a gun?

      • linette lee

        Why civilians need to own guns? What is the purpose of a civilian to have a gun? A gun is used for self defense against intruder in your own home? Maybe if there is a law against civilian gun possession there won’t be as many gunman intruder entering your home. This man who shot the 20 kids at school he was using his mom’s registered gun. So easy for anyone to get guns in some state. If they make it illegal for the whole usa,then it will be harder for this kind of crime.

        • Hunting. I’m an avid hunter, and I own a different caliber weapon, as per law and regulation, for the different game that I hunt. I also use to compete in marksmanship competitions (7th place in the state of Texas, thank you very much). It’s not crazy to own guns. It’s crazy to attack people with guns (or anything else for that matter),

          • Germandude

            “It’s crazy to attack people with guns (or anything else for that matter),”

            Sure, tell that to the next rabbit you shoot.

          • mr.wiener

            Hey, the bunny had it coming ok?

          • Germandude

            I wonder why she didn’t show up yet.

          • linette lee

            . I also use to compete in marksmanship competitions (7th place in the state of Texas, thank you very much)………………

            woooo…you are a first class marksman. I want to see your picture holding your gun. kekeke.

          • I also used to compete in marksmanship competitions as a youth. We had Rifle Club in my school that taught us all about responsible gun ownership. I was nowhere near whiskers level, though. But I’m an ace with a spear gun and have gotten 2-3 fish with 1 shot several times. The police seized my spear gun in the Bahamas (a friggin rubber-band powered, not air-powered since no trigger related weapons are allowed) thus reducing the chance of spear gun-related crime significantly.

          • linette lee

            You are badass..hahaha. You need to work in jacky chan’s stuntman company and be the stunt coordinator for fighting and shooting scenes.

        • DavidisDawei

          Do you know anyone who smokes weed or does other drugs? That is illegal – how are they able to get those drugs so easily?

          Unfortunately, when the government goes to restrict access to anything, the law abiding people are the only ones who pay attention.

          Could outlawing firearms prevent spur of the moment crimes?
          Yes – I suppose so in some cases. We don’t know about the CT shooting yet, but it would not have stopped the Columbine or VA Tech shootings.

          More than 30 people are killed EVERY DAY because of drunk drivers (Which is Already Against the law and heavily enforced these days)
          Does that mean we should make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle?

          Where do we draw the lines?

          • The intention of the tool is the key here. The intention of cars is not to have accidents or run down people. The intention of cars is to provide transportation. The intention of guns, especially assault weapons and other military weapons, is to kill. The very first invention of a gun was designed as a weapon of combat. This is an important distinction when comparing to other tools civilians use. When comparing to knives, also, you have to remember the utilitarian aspect of a knife. Sure you can stab people, but there’s so many other applications. Do you ever see anyone cutting up a steak with a Glock? Opening boxes with an Uzi? As fun as that sounds, it’s far less practical than using a knife.

            Now yes, we can say that criminals will still get guns if they are banned…but these aren’t your common criminals. Guns are banned in China, and what is the ration to Chinese criminals with guns to Chinese criminals without guns? And imagine the difference in cost if you have to risk your freedom and/or life while trying to acquire or sale a firearm. The costs of an average pistol would go from $400 or so to thousands and thousands of dollars, not to mention how expensive and difficult the ammunition would be (especially large quantities).

            It doesn’t stop attempts at crime (maybe a few) but it strips easy and relatively cheap access to guns, a much more effective tool than a knife or a baseball bat, from the criminals. This is the idea behind banning guns. Think 22 wounded in the Chinese knife attack instead of 28 dead in the US gun attack.

            Again, I’m not for banning guns, I’m just explaining the reasoning behind it, and how it would actually have an effect.

          • vincent

            That’s a great analysis whiskers

          • ScottLoar

            Good explanation but further, a gun in one’s hands can kill at a great distance; kids in cars can spray bullets towards a target like a hose, one can shoot a man down at hundreds of paces distance without risk, you can shoot a man in the back or back of the head and walk away without ever having seen his face or needed to grapple with a hundred weight and more of his muscle and bone, or smell his breath or hear him die. Just pop-pop-pop and it’s over. Had the cutter in Henan had a gun I’m sure those hacked up kids would have died. Had that kid in Connecticut had a knife I’m sure most of the children would have survived and he would have been put down fast.

            Ban the sale, transport and use of repeating guns and hand guns. Now. Sportsmen may have their rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport, but repeating weapons expressly made to kill men are in a different class that must be recognized and their purpose admitted by all people and banned for the good of society.

          • linette lee

            ………..Ban the sale, transport and use of repeating guns and hand guns. Now. Sportsmen may have their rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport,……………….

            I agreed, I say now is a good time for obama to do something. I say ban all gun possession by civilians. Make it illegal and will be punished harshly if a civilian is caught possessing guns. For people who goes hunting or do rifles as sport they need to have guidelines and regulation. Maybe don’t let them possess guns or take the guns home. Let them store their guns at the hunting ground controlled by licensed store. They can’t leave with their guns to take it home. They have to sign in and sign out daily. Something like that.

          • ScottLoar

            America is a democracy. The President has not the power to make legislation banning guns. He may advocate doing so, he may suggest so, he may sponsor a bill demanding so, but the President alone cannot ban. Only the Congress has such power. If such weapons were declared illegal in the US the ban must not only represent the majority of the Congress (and those persons are responsible to the voters) but also would be reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine if the ban is conforms to the US Constitution.

            It is not so simple as Obama “doing something” but, I agree, the work to ban such weapons must begin now and with the majority of American people to support the ban.

          • linette lee

            The people made the constitution and the people can unmake it. Right now obama needs to use his position as commander in chief to urge congress to ban guns. This is the time to do it. The people of USA needs to support obama on this decision. They need to voice their support really loud and let their desire to ban guns be heard by the congress. Obama and the people of USA should not go to congress and ask congress what they want to do. Tell congress what needs to be done.

          • ScottLoar

            Yes, the Constitution rules, but an amendment to the Constitution does not come about overnight. Yes, people through their elected representatives tell Congress what they want, the President expresses what domestic policies he wants, but the US is not a dictatorial government. All procedures must be followed, all parties heard; this matter of gun control has supporters and opponents, and what seems so urgent and simple to you needs a change of heart and attitude from a clear majority of Americans before a change is effected. Slavery, then segregation were common in the US and socially accepted, but as people’s attitudes evolved and their hearts changed so did the laws. One day automatic weapons, handguns and armor-piercing ammunitions made but for the purpose of killing men will be admitted by a majority as being the killing weapons they are and not as an expression of freedom or personal right, and in time those weapons will be banned.

          • linette lee

            It will definitely take time and much effort to get guns banned. It has to start somewhere. Hopefully majority of the usa people understand this and support this.

          • Anonymal

            what about the US citizen that lives near the wild like in Alaska or Florida swamp? They need guns for protection from bears and other animal. Their livelihood also depends on gun such as hunting alligator. These people will never agree. Rather than banning ownership of guns, perhaps it should be made available for people who lives in certain area. Perhaps some sort of protocol need to be made in order to purchase a gun such as getting license from the town they are from and thorough checking by the town authority if they met certain requirements (eg aligator hunter, or live near area where bear also exist). Self-protection requirements.

          • linette lee

            ……..protection from bears and other animal………….

            Call animal control department. The town or city police or animal control department needs to control that. If people constantly have big bears and alligators attacking them or in threat of being attacked, don’t you think they should move? By the time they run back inside the house to get the gun maybe it’s too late anyway. If they want, maybe get a tranquilizer gun, but it don’t work as quickly as guns.

            I don’t want to see wild animals being shot neither. Move away from their territories.

            I will say they need to come up with regulation for hunting and rifles sport. The hunters or sportsmen shouldn’t be allowed to store their guns in their property. They need to store them in locations that’s controlled and licensed by gov’t. Sign in and sign out or something like that..

          • Gaius Baltar

            The problem is criminals will still have illegal guns. You can cower behind your furniture and wait for the police to come holding the poker for the fireplace, or you can let off a warning shot, and then if that is not sufficient, aim to shoot to incapacitate, and also kill in defence if necessary. I personally think the homeowner needs to be protected in his right to use guns to defend himself and his property. I feel like this because I solely dislike and distrust the police to rely on as a protector, I feel that is the sole domain of the homeowner. My reasons for this are:


            Merry Christmas,


        • Leighton

          leave this redneck alone, he is probably going to be killed by a gun in the US anyway.

        • Gaius Baltar

          Actually, crime went up in the UK and Australia after banning/imposing restrictions on gun ownership. There are already guns out there, making them illegal now won’t stop it, like putting your finger in the dam wall after it has already burst.

          • mr.wiener

            Got to start some time mate. We never had another port Arthur. Hard to get double digit kills with a bolt action rifle.

          • Germandude

            What part of the crime rate went up? Like theft? Serious question.

          • Gaius Baltar


            As a brit I can tell you burglary, street violence, car theft, perhaps everything, that is just personal experience. Check the vid. Merry Xmas

      • Germandude

        Not sure if serious…

  • Rather than directly confronting the actual problem people seem hellbent on attacking guns. Sure they made it easier than lets say if a knife or bare-hands were used. They all have one thing in common though, the intent to kill.

    So if we took away all guns that would be cutting our losses and saying crazy people can still come in our schools and kill. They just can’t use guns to do it. Now if spent more time focusing on what brings these kinds of people to do it or a way to stop them before they could get into a school… that would be a real solution.

    • vincent

      Banning all guns is the wrong way to go about this, but they can restrict what sort of guns the public can have, like I mentioned before semi-auto and automatic rifles the public does not need to have.

      • You’re right. I’m not arguing against it, but it’s still not addressing the real problem.

        • DavidisDawei

          Good Luck Josh in figuring this out.

          What is the real problem you are referring to?

          Of course the first reaction is going to be to blame the guns – but I’ve heard people also blame video games, broken homes, and several other reasons why this happens today, but not “50 years” (pick some number) ago.

          If the school had been armed or the town had invested in an armed security guard, perhaps there would be a lot more people alive today in Newington, CT.

          Obviously the guy who killed those children snapped. Too bad he targeted little kids (instead of gang bangers or politicians)

          • I didn’t say it was easy, if even possible at all. There is certainly a long way to go either path we take. Controlling guns seems like an endless path and understanding a criminal mind is equally if not more daunting of a task.

            Video games and broken homes are at least psychological factors that could have affected the decision to act. You’re right, there are many real problems that could have influenced it. My meaning is more that I don’t think a gun was the reason for acting.

            I don’t know if it’s the solution or not, but I like your second to last paragraph. I feel it more properly addresses the problem. Protecting the school from any sort of attack and trying to prevent things before they happen. Which is no easy task either.

          • DavidisDawei

            Right – who knows what that guy was thinking.

            Sorry, I don’t watch these news stories (just know this happened), but someone told me the school was next door to his Mother’s house? If that is true, perhaps something happened at his Mother’s house, he snapped and then took his wrath out on anyone in the vicinity.

            Last month, an acquaintance of mine was fired from his family business. He showed up at work, killed his brother then drove 40 minutes to his parents house – he shot himself in the kitchen. Perhaps the cooling down period saved his parents?

      • yesway

        And restrict the kind of people who have guns by making them less easily available. Take the Virginia Tech shooter. Why the heck would a university student on a gun free campus need a gun?

        If there had been restrictions (like a psychological test and evaluation of where he lived), he could never have done what he did.

        He would probably would not have been interested in a knife attack, since that would have made him far less powerful.

      • White Guy in USA

        Restricting Semi-Autos is every gun, that means Glocks. Sorry but NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    • Nilerafter24

      A better solution would be ammunition control…. rubber bullets should become standard issue. I’m pretty sure a rubber bullet can do the right job of protecting a person without being extremely lethal.
      Weapons distributors should also be wary of people who purchase bullet proof vests and excessive amounts of live ammunition. I mean, if you’re buying a bullet proof vest, then you’re obviously looking for trouble in one way or another.

      • I’ll be honest, I don’t really know much about rubber bullets.

        I can see how large amount of ammo and a bullet proof vest together would be suspicious. I wouldn’t see a lone bullet proof vest purchase as suspicious though. I think some people just might find them cool, in the same way some people find camo pants cool.

      • DavidisDawei

        I heard Obama is trying to go that route (restrict access to ammo) – firearms without ammunition are not useful tools.

        Why not use water guns with red dye and they will think they’re wounded when you spray them?
        Rubber Bullet is not a good option – Being Properly trained means you take an armed aggressor out. If someone is trying to hurt me (or my charge), the last thing I am worried about is making sure I don’t kill them.

        • Nilerafter24

          These are injuries caused by rubber bullets. They have the ability of inducing an immense amount of pain. You can liken it to being shot without deep penetration of a live round. They can cause fractures, internal bleeding and can cause loss of consciousness or fatalities for head-shots.
          i.e. it is actually a viable non-lethal solution to stopping armed aggressors

          • DavidisDawei

            I have used rubber bullets; I have been hit by rubber bullets, I understand your good intentions.
            If forced to use a weapon, I’m not interested in a non-lethal solution. I want them dead ASAP so I can go home.

          • vincent

            Why do you want a lethal solution David? Is it that easy to take a human life? What would separate you from the perpetrators of these crimes?

          • DavidisDawei

            I was assuming I am the guy protecting myself, Not the school shooter targeting little children.

            Long story short Vincent, yes, it is quite easy to “take a human life” (when they are trying to kill you). If someone’s actions forces me to pick up a firearm, that means the shit has hit the fan.

            I used to be fairly decent in hand to hand combat, but there is always someone bigger and badder out there; some of the guys I trained with would rip me in two using one hand. Even “Jackie Chan” can’t stop a bullet.

            What makes me different from them? They started it, I finished it.

          • vincent

            I more or less meant to ask if the situation arose where say the perpetrator had say a knife and you had a gun would you prefer rubber bullets to subdue him or would you prefer to take him out using normal bullets.

          • Awwwe. look at the cute little whitey, scared of his own shadow and falls to sleep dreaming of an excuse to murder people.

          • Godsaveamerica

            you are a fool or a troll. when rubber bullets do have the same effect, in this case, making the aggressor stopping going against you, then they are the right choice. you don’t have the right to take a life away, and you frankly don;t know shit. save your life ammo for the zombie apocalypse, rambo.

          • DavidisDawei

            HaHa – You, sir, are the king of fools.

      • White Guy in USA

        The rubber bullets thing is done in Russia. Sorry but we don’t need to be like Russia. I like my Full Metal Jackets and Hollow Points just fine.

    • Kai

      I agree with you that some people are hellbent on blaming and targeting guns and gun ownership. However, I doubt any of them truly think that’s all that is necessary and there shouldn’t be any social attention on what might be leading these people to do such things. I’m sure they just think that controlling guns is something that can be done easier, on a larger scale, that would make a larger difference in the final result of people physically hurt or killed.

      I think it is safe to assume most people believe the ideal solution is to stop people from wanting to kill, but a practical interim solution (or “treatment”) is to restrict access to guns. It’s kinda like in medicine, where you may not be able to cure something but you can limit its symptoms or effects on your life.

      • You’re right. There is no single magical solution to the problem.

        I think the problem is people read “guns aren’t the root of the problem” and instantly think a person is defending guns. Likewise people read “guns should be more strictly regulated” and think a person thinks it’s the only solution.

  • vincent

    I don’t know much about guns so feel free to correct me but in my opinion the very least that can be done is ban the public from owning rifles as there is no good reason why anyone other than the army should be able to use them,handguns seem adequate for protection.
    Greater security checks should also be instituted, how do people just walk into these places and start shooting and hacking away at little children? It’s ridiculous. The difference between both these attacks is very luckily none of the children in the Henan attack died. RIP little ones.

    • Most have the opposite viewpoint. Handguns are easy to conceal and easy to hide in a crowd, but their effective and accurate rage is less than 50 meters. Rifles are much larger and therefore harder to walk around with without being noticed yet they can be accurately with an effective rage that spans hundreds of meters. Six one way, half a dozen another.

    • wahnwhaaa

      If you don’t know much about guns and you care about these issues, I’d say the first step would be to learn more about guns and learn more about violence.

      • vincent

        I’d say that’s a good idea, I can learn about guns, but how would I learn more about violence? Do you the idea I proposed is viable, limiting the public to owning only handguns as opposed to rifles and implementing stringent security checks ?

        • wahnwhaaa

          There is a bit of literature on the underlying conditions for violence, and what the difference is between posturing, intent, and real or perceived threats; and how people tend to react to these inputs. I think that education is pretty key. People need to KNOW what guns are, how they work, and how dangerous they can be. I’ll never own a gun, and I don’t like having them anywhere in the world (including the military), but it’s difficult to argue specifically either direction without problematic consequences.

          As for the efficacy of your suggestions, I would think that rifles are FAR more useful than handguns (e.g. hunting), and that hand guns are far easier to conceal and fire in a crowded setting. Ignoring any talk about protection from criminals or the government, or specific policy implementations; the only thing that would have any real consequences ever would be for all gun laws (whatever they are) to be federally mandated, not state-mandated. Whatever the policy, it needs to be consistent across the entire country.

        • mr.wiener

          After the Port Arthur massacre in Oz we pretty much banned hand guns and automatic and semi automatic rifles [bolt action only] plus a ban on any clips over a 5 round capacity.
          I don’t think we’ve had a mass shooting since then.

          • vincent

            It can be seen from Mr. Weiner’s comment that the outcome was positive, then why not give the gun control laws a chance?

          • wahnwhaaa

            I think it’s a reasonable suggestion, but gun control laws only pass if people agree to them. I feel that mandatory education about guns and violence is something that either side could get behind.

          • Germandude

            What fascinates me most in all this is that a lot of Americans are not shy to carry a gun right after they come back from church. They seem not to see the contradiction in this.

            Nobody needs to have a gun.

          • vincent

            I totally agree with that sentiment Germandude, if you have to live in a society where the only way to feel ‘safe’ from your fellow countrymen is to carry a firearm I think that would be extremely taxing on the mind and body, no wonder mental illness is an issue.

          • mr.wiener

            I’d not like to be the American president who tries to implement those changes however.

          • vincent

            Most definitely, I can only imagine the wrath he is going to incur from gun owners. Angry people + guns is never a good combination.

    • Hunting rifles are fine. It’s assault weapons that lack utility other than shooting people.

      • vincent

        Thanks for that bit of info, I’ve only ever lived in countries where the public is banned from using guns, so I’ve never actually even held one, can’t say I’m keen to either :P

    • david

      Just a quick response to your first paragraph, I cannot speak for others, I admit that I for one would buy not only buy a pistol but an assault rifle if possible. For this one reason only…safety, living in south Texas especially outside the cities, we are being forced more frequently to personally protect ourselves/homes from the Drug cartels, coyotes (human traffickers), and even in some cases heavily armed Mexican military working for the cartels who would rather kill you then have you undermine their lucrative drug operations. I agree with gun control, and would even be willing to surrendering my guns, but the reality is we are living in a broken system, where the government cannot always protect us (as has been clearly demonstrated almost everyday in the news), many of us are being forced to defend property and loved ones from a very real and violent threat. Also, just to let you know, in rural south Texas, 911 is virtually useless in these cases, and even if a lone sheriff makes it in time, do you think he would be a match with his 9mm and shotgun? These are just some thoughts, and I am willing to bet that if this kind of situation presented itself, then most of us would do the same. Also, for those who would say “move-out”, remember, that it is not always an option for lower income families, and many of them have lived in the same place for generations, so instead of abandoning ones home, way of life, and culture, they feel compelled to defend what is theirs, because they believe if they don’t then they/ we will never be free or feel safe…even America has “nail homes”

      • vincent

        You make a valid point and I would not wish that folks living in these treacherous areas go without protection, guns if necessary. I suppose it would be wishful thinking to have a system that allows gun ownership by taking into account the various factors such as crime rates and such.
        There are many bases to be covered before introducing gun control measures but I do wish they would take it seriously, I wouldn’t advocate an all out ban as it can be clearly seen that in some areas guns are an absolute necessity.

        • yesway

          People should get permits for being allowed to carry guns. A person like David (or people from his area) should be allowed to have guns.

          Being able to buy guns in Walmart is crazy though. The threshold is way too low. People who might have a crazy breakdown on a day, can then immediately run out and buy a gun. It’s partly the easy availability that starts these insane minds turning. Lots of them are socially impared and would not want to deal with any kind of questioning or other requierements that you can put up the make the threshold higher.

          • Gaius Baltar

            Chris rock said it best, we don’t need no gun control, what we need is some BULLET control!

          • Gaius Baltar
          • David

            Totally agree, it is ridiculous, I mean we have to take a test for our drivers licence, but not for a handgun. I say at the very least compulsory safety classes for gun ownership, a minimum 30 day waiting period as well as real background check for ALL gun ownership.

        • David

          I read your post below about the rubber bullets and I wanted to add that to my reply here. I think they are a great idea, and when confronted with a lower level threat, like the knife welding person, I believe that they are a viable first option. Taking a life is not something we should ever do, because all life is sacred, and it would break my heart if I was forced to do that. It must be only used as a last resort and in self-defense only. As for the regulation, I am in total agreement that there needs to be effective safeguards in place to prevent tragedies like school shootings or any senseless gun crime from happening again. But to see that idea really come to pass would require an inward change of heart at the personal level.

  • KrZ

    Disturbed young people wouldn’t go on shooting sprees if they knew no one would talk about it. The more attention you give it, the more some potential shooter knows they can become a famous anti-hero. Shut up about it and it won’t happen.

    • Nilerafter24

      These killers are sane. They do this because of the attention. That’s why it’s becoming more and more common.
      Now, someone somewhere in the US is thinking to himself: hmm, 26. I can top that! Then I’ll forever be in the record books! Time to load up!

      I mean think about it, this apparently “mentally-challenged” guy of all the possible shoot-out zones he could have selected, he chose to go to an elementary school and take out a whole class of 1st graders. He knew it was the one place, the best place to commit a most despicable crime: Take out the lives of innocent kids. He knew the attention this crime would garner.
      I hope he rots in hell.

  • Mr. Ed

    As sad as these shooting deaths are, I would much rather be in a nation that allows private gun ownership than live in a government that completely oppresses its people with no way for them to fight back. I can’t imagine how powerless Chinese people must feel when their government denies them even the fundamental right to free speech.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      When was the last time you had to use your gun to fight the American government? They raise your taxes, and you are just gonna show up at the WH with a loaded Glock? Go, go see how that would work out for you. I guess there are more lunatic out there than I originally thought!

    • Germandude

      Hahahahahaha, the common regular table argument for people that support guns, trying to bring ONE argument FOR guns.
      Let me ask you? Do you think that your right of holding a gun brings you freedom and safety?
      And how about European countries, where guns are much more restricted. Are Europeans more oppressed than Americans?

  • Peye

    Do not shed tears for the dead. Shed tears for the living.

  • Gay Azn Boi

    Okay….all these debates are meaningless. Nothing much will get done. This event will be forgotten soon, until another mass shooting occurs in a couple months (year if we’re lucky). When that happens we’ll have the same debate all over again.

    In the end, we just have to accept the fact that there will always be crazy people in this world. If you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, too bad for you.

    • DavidisDawei

      It is true, so much of life is right place right time or wrong place wrong time, but Your statement reminds me of the time I went to a hockey game and two women up front were busy chatting away, not paying attention to the game and then Crack, Thud, one of the women was hit by a slap shot and on the pavement, out cold, lots of blood. She was carted away, status unknown (not dead).

      A little observation and awareness of your surroundings can go a long way to saving your own arse.

      • I don’t get your point. Who won the game?

      • Gay Azn Boi

        Yeah that’s true.

      • mr.wiener

        If you get hit by an ice hockey slap shot does that mean you are pucked?

  • nollyfletcher

    These nuts kill innocent people and get famous for it. The media is more to blame than guns

    • Gay Azn Boi

      Isn’t it funny how anyone a White person kills someone, he’s on the front page of every newspaper, but when a black person kills someone, the media is reluctant to report it? And if they do, his race is oftentimes not mentioned due to political correctness.

      • Germandude

        Care to explain why race would matter? Don’t you think that the reason is more like: A (white) guy shooting 20+ people in a school is more uncommon and therefore more shocking than a guy (no matter if black or white) shooting his wife/neighbor/kid due to personal problems? The later one is more common and therefore not real news anymore…
        Bringing up the race card on this is simply stupid. Are you trying to tell us that if the murderer would have been a black guy, they wouldn’t have reported because, well, he is black? That’s so simple and stupid…

        • Gay Azn Boi

          Göring, I was not referring to this incident, but crime in general. You simply cannot deny the fact that the liberal media tend to play up crimes by White people and play down crimes by Blacks.

          Do you suffer from White Guilt?

          • Germandude

            First of all: We had this before. Stop calling me Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels or Goering. While I don’t give a crap what you are insulting me with personally, throwing the fucking Nazi shit around all the time could mislead others. Plus, insults don’t gain you or your pseudo argumentation any respect. In fact, it makes you look silly. And this time, don’t come up with the excuse of “just messing with you” again.

            Second of all: Suffer from white guilt? What guilt? You are a typical example of a simpleton that is crying for tolerance towards your sexual preferences. See, nobody on Chinasmack gave a shit so far. At least, I have not seen any serious insult towards that. And for you, a guy that is constantly shouting for tolerance, you AGAIN proof that you yourself are not tolerant at all. You are a simple mind my friend. Bringing up race with crime statistic is the simple argument to use to quickly explain, “that’s why, live with it.” Totally neglecting that it’s not race but social status, or to make it easy for you to understand: If your private situation and your life is stable, you are unlikely to commit a crime because you have sth to lose.

            Do you suffer from an insecure personality/inferior complex?

          • mr.wiener

            I agree with what the square head said. He’s never been one to fling insults at you based on ethnicity or sexual preference. It’s neither fair nor funny and it makes you look like a toolbag.

          • Germandude

            Have I ever made fun of his ethnicity or sexual preference?

          • mr.wiener


          • Germandude

            Ok, I see. But since you call me a “square head”, can you let me know what it means?

          • mr.wiener

            “Square head” is a mildly derogatory term used for a german, probably because at one stage you all had short back and sides haircats and it made your heads look square. Australians only insult people we like, but only in a general way and never about family or a really sensitive topic [don’t mention the war!!]. If you like you can insult me back, “bastard” is good, but don’t call me a “sheep shagger” as that would be a kiwi..

          • Germandude

            “Square head” is a mildly derogatory term used for a german, ”

            That’s such a mild term that I almost call it gay…(GAB, feel free to jump in here).

            Thank you for your allowance to insult you back, but I refuse as I don’t see a need for that. I rather share my virtual beer with you as I know XXXX gold is rather expensive in down under these days.

          • mr.wiener

            XXXX is cat piss that queenslanders drink because they are too stupid to spell beer. The only thing worse you could offer me is Fosters.Do yourself a favor and try some of the smaller breweries. James Squire. Small creatures or Coopers. Viva the microbrew revolution!!

          • Germandude

            Hahaha. You fell for it. I mentioned XXXX gold because me and my father were drinking it when travelling to AUS for the first time. While in the liquor store they recommended it to us, on the campground the Aussies said that as Germans we should know better. Problem was: we were in the country for only 24 hours that time and had no idea which beer to buy. Believe me, XXXX gold was never bought again.

            Ok, then the virtual beer I share with you is a Coopers.

          • Gaius Baltar

            In the uk “sheep shagger” means a welshman. The joke: What do you call a leisure centre in wales? 2 sheep tied to a lamppost. Could equally be about NZ?

          • mr.wiener

            I’ve heard the kiwis have come up with 2 new uses for sheep….
            Meat and wool.

      • Nilerafter24

        Man, every time I see your rainbow flag avatar I see trouble. Relax man. Did a black guy kill your family or what? Do you have some kind of vendetta or what? You’re like one of those ignorant nationalistic Chinese people who goes on and on and on about Japan.
        Are you trolling? I think most ChinaSMACK users are beyond that. Or do you just not know how to start constructive dialogue without having shit thrown at you.
        Let’s get back to talking about this incident and leave race out of this discussion. I can see you have a low opinion of black people and I don’t think that will change anytime soon. Move on.

      • Nilerafter24

        I deleted my previous comment because it probably came off too strongly and I felt it may rub off you the wrong way. So I’ll just leave things here.

  • Peye

    In an society dominated by capital, guns are an object of business. Perhaps a benefit-cost analysis is in order. The manufacturing of guns and amonitions creates jobs and profits for investors. Jobs in factories, transport, selling,shooting ranges and so on and in the case of shooting victims in the funaral industry. I do not know the numbers but assume the profits go into the millions and millions. Through the recless use of guns much fear is created, more guns are being sold hence more business. Lets assume 9000 people are losing their lives through guns in a year, which means a possible loss of 9000 future customers. Compared to number of people willing to aquire a gun or guns because of fear not a significant number. I know all this sounds sick but it comes, in my opinion, close to reality. As to the costs of treating the people injured by the use of guns, these costs seems to be willingly borne by society as a whole.

  • Opinions suck. In a tragedy like this, everyone has their own solution that they’re passionate about, and it nicely serves as the inspiration for someone else to disagree with. Yes: you do have an opinion about guns, and won’t someone think of the children.

    So let’s focus on something else: guns and the US American identity – because guns make the US strong. If it isn’t actually physical or military power, it the presence of mind in which the individual is elevated to a more empowered position. Maybe you don’t have a gun, maybe it’s in a safe back home or you could go out and buy one – but you are American, you have the power in your own hands.

    So: if the US doesn’t have guns anymore, it will become weak. Instead of debating whether guns are good or bad, and whom actually kills people, make the debate “Should the national identity of the USA change?” So here are both sides:

    Pro-gun: has the blood of children on its hands, blames the victims for not owning guns (in this case, children and teachers) and faults them for their own deaths, legally armed populace who can afford guns never involved in scary mass shootings that never occur in the actual place that they are trying to protect (ie their trailer home)

    Gun Control: wants to alter the fabric of American identity forever and lower US respect world-wide, taking away the pride and confidence of Americans and making the US a shadow of what it is now; is a insult to the military-complex that Americans are born to be proud of as well as delivering a huge blow to the humongous arms and gun industry, basically make the US into a bunch of nobodies like those polite Canadians.

    Gun shootings are rare. But they are so shocking to deal with, especially with the regularity they happen in the US; but the crazier thing is how this same debate of gun control gets brought up and yet nothing ever happens.

    Guns. Land of the free, home of the brave.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Gun shootings are rare? There were TWO mass shootings in the past week alone, probably hundred of other shootings more not nationally reported. I will wait to watch you change your tunes in a heartbeat when your kids, mom and dad, brother and sister get shot multiple times.

      • Comment edited and ribbed: for her pleasure.

        You want another shot at actually reading what I wrote, and then responding to it?

        • YourSupremeCommander

          no, no need to keep arguing with a rock.

          • “no, no need to keep arguing with a rock.”

            You hear that everybody! This guy says I “ROCK”!

    • YourSupremeCommander

      I just re-read your post, you are in dire need of help.

      • I always find it gratifying when fans take the time to respond. It’s you, the little people, that drive me around in my limousine.

        • YourSupremeCommander

          LMFAO, an ASYLUM is the only place retards like you gets driven to.

    • Germandude

      Hold on. Am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that gun control would lower US respect world-wide, take pride and confidence away from Americans? And you connect this to: “if the US does gun control, China will slide into top spot for world superpower.”????

      You can’t be serious. What has John Doe with an M16 at home have to do with the US status in the world?
      If anything, the rest of the world is laughing about the US being so foolish to allow any idiot to have a gun…

      Then you say: “Mass gun shootings are rare. But they are so shocking to deal with, especially with the regularity they happen in the US; but the crazier thing is how this same debate of gun control gets brought up and yet nothing ever happens.”

      It doesn’t really matter if they are rare or not. One is already one too much. Plus the sheer amount of guns in private hands in the US makes it very likely that right now there are thousands of mentally sick people in possession of a gun (or ten). They are ticking bombs.

      We don’t need to argue that the inhibition threshold of pulling a trigger is much much lower than using a knife. One is a click, the other most likely gets your hand dirty.

      Plus, “Mass gun shootings are rare.”. True, but how about shootings in general in the US? For a developed country, I’d say: FAR. TOO. HIGH. And the legalization of guns in the US has done what exactly to the crime rate? NOTHING, if anything, than an increase of gun shootings, robbings and murders.

      Take the guns away, no private person needs one.

      • Kai

        I think @terroir:disqus brought up an interesting notion actually. His entire comment rests on the assumption that the US self-identity is influenced by the possibility of legal private gun ownership. If you change legal private gun ownership, you affect that self-identity. If that self-identity is part of the reason for the US’s successes and dominance in the world, then affecting that self-identity could affect that success and dominance. It’s a little like butterfly effect.

        So the issue for debate is: how much does the possibility of gun ownership affect individual identity, then overall social identity, and thus individual and overall social behavior. Could changing gun ownership affect US competitiveness in the world? Or is that a stretch? That US identity and competitiveness is not nearly so influenced by something as small as gun ownership? That Americans can certainly be just as competitive and dominant in the world without enjoying legal private gun ownership?

        • ScottLoar

          This foolish notion, that owning guns defines the US character, owes more to popular overseas caricatures of Americans as cowboys than to any founding in reality or understanding of their national character. I suggest you can better understand most popular attitudes towards Americans by first understanding the word “invidious” as in “invidious resentment”.

          • Germandude

            “I suggest you can better understand most popular attitudes towards Americans by first understanding the word “invidious” as in “invidious resentment”.”

            Was that targeted towards me?

          • ScottLoar

            Please look at the arrow to the quote which clearly points towards “Kai”; it is to Kai that I commented, and by extension to one “terroir”. However, if you feel prompted to reply in turn then do so, but only at the substance of my remark, please, not my person.

            And don’t be upset that, no, the comment was not “targeted” to you.

      • Yours is a thoughtful and rational opinion towards gun ownership. I’ve got an opinion too. Yet, you don’t have it. While you and everyone is debating the do’s and don’t of guns, I’ve written this to try to make the discussion bigger.

        This is because the same opinions suck. The US gun lobby is crazy powerful, and are able each time this happens (yeah, I regret writing that sentence the way I did) to maintain the status quo. This is because the talk each time is the same talk, the same opinions, and so they just keep on winning.

        (I know how GAB feels with his “Black people commit the most murders” outburst. It feels like pudding.)

        So let’s not talk about the same things. When two opposed sides have an argument, they always use arguments that are right. Like in the abortion debate, there is pro-life and pro-choice. The way they show it, they’re both right. So in that debate, it’s worth it to go beyond the established tropes of either side to examine things like whether a woman’s right to a better standard of life for her and baby are better after having the birth just so that somebody else can sleep better at night. My eyebrow is raised, and you are my euchre partner. Sparkle magic?

        I don’t mean “mass gun shooting are rare” to put a value judgment on it; I mean they’re not in the news each and every day, that’s all. Celebrities flashing vaginas getting out of cars happens with more regularity, but it’s always shocking nonetheless.

        • Germandude

          I think you brought the right point:

          “The US gun lobby is crazy powerful, and are able each time this happens to maintain the status quo.”

          While the one party in this discussion will argue “Restrict all arms to prevent shootings”, the other party argues: “We want to have a gun to be able to defend yourself”.

          This whole discussion (any clear mind wonders why this shitty topic needs to be discussed anyway) is ridiculed by certain parties (NRA and that sort) and soon is forgotten about.

          After all, the cows are just feeding grass on the field, only raising their heads to the sound of gunshots, looking around in a status of shock, soon to be continuing on their binge.

          America, land of the free, home of the brave.

          • Well, let’s keep it rolling even though I still haven’t implicitly said my position: in what instance has a legally armed US citizen diffused a mass shooting incident? What about a regular shooting incident?

            A great opportunity for both sides to pipe in on.

          • mr.wiener

            Jack Ruby?…….No wait , I think that probably just made matters worse

          • For that comment:
            +1 Power UP: Contra Triple Spread

          • Germandude

            Mate, I have to be honest, I don’t know if any mass shooting incident was done with a registered gun or not.
            Still, the sheer amount of arms within private hands is insane. Are those guns stored safely? How many lives does it take until people will notice that even one gun within private hands is one too much? For the victims, the result remains the same. No such thing as “respawning” in real life.

          • No, I mean an instance in which the “guns protect us” people who have guns actually used their guns to actually protect themselves from a(nother) madman with a gun.

          • Germandude

            Ups, I am sorry. I misunderstood your comment because I mistakenly misread the word “diffused”. I actually thought you meant that none of the shootings were done through registered weapons. My bad.

    • MrT

      Correct, America would suck even more with out Guns to back up their big mouths.

      • I actually think there may be some improvement. As per an example, Tarantino would be forced to write some meaningful dialog for this characters for once.

  • Pingback: School Violence in China and U.S. Spur Reflection, Debate - China Digital Times (CDT)()

  • Cleo

    We’re going to need really good widespread surveillance because gun control won’t do any good without it but also because this is the perfect alibi for assassinations – just kill everyone in the same crowd as your target when they are at the supermarket and make it look like a loony by having him dead too.

    I don’t think Adam Lanza was not the killer but I am saying this is too perfect. While the rest of us are just worried at the lack of serenity in our daily lives because of these spree killers – I guarantee that this is an opportunity that will be exploited by anyone interested in getting away with murder.

    Just look at the guys who post fake craigslist ads inviting strangers to rape the intended victims. Nobody wants to go to Oz and share a cell with Adebisi but the killers still want to kill.

    • mr.wiener


  • Qianning

    This is a debate that will never end, there will be more school shootings in the future, people will show their sympathy after death of victims, the president will shed tears, then nothing will change, people should get used to that, but don’t try to convince the gun owners, because that will only force them to make all those ridiculous excuses:

    1. Owning guns can resist the government
    Just look at the weapons today’s governments have, don’t you see that excuse is ridiculous, this is not the 18th century, a mass armed with pistols and rifles don’t have a chance aginst any third-world army with several old tanks, not to mention the freaky monster US military, if gun ownership is based on this reasoning, people should be allowed to buy fighter jets, missles, tanks and nuclear weapon if they can afford them.
    2. I need to defend myself and my family with guns
    If there’s no gun pointing to you, then why you need a gun to protect yourself, if that’s the case, then every women going shopping and every child going school should have a gun with them, because they need most protection, and that’s only fair, how selfish putting his own safety above everyone else’s.
    3. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
    I guess everyone here has heard that before, then why people are not allowed to have U235, chemical weapon, explosives in their houses, what? they are too dangerous and easily cause accidents? how that’s different with guns, chemical weapon don’t kill people, people kill people!
    After all, it’s the American’s issue, good or bad, it’s their business, I just hate to see some idiots in China talk about legalizing guns!

    • XuGe

      1. They can. Research the subject of military COIN campaigns and their effect in the theatres of Afghanistan and Iraq. They did not have tanks, missiles, or fighter jets, and yet the U.S. military, with it’s “freaky monster”-ness and unprecedented spending cannot exert exacting control and stability unto the country. These are recent 21st century events.

      2. There are guns pointed at people everyday, you just don’t hear it much in the popular news outlet stations. There are many U.S. citizens that carry guns everyday. I have met with families in the U.S. where they have generations of gun owners without incident. I see nothing wrong with being responsible for your own self-protection, and I see it being utterly selfish not being responsible for the safety of your family. The recent shooting in Oregon state at a shopping mall was stopped short because of a man carrying a gun for self-protecting, prompting the shooter to take his own life.

      3. People do kill people, and has been that way since humans existed. We still kill each other, it hasn’t changed. Only the methodology has changed.

    • wahnwhaaa

      Just to add to #1, it is simply not legal to resist the government anyway. Owning a gun doesn’t change that. The right to bear arms is a collective strategy aimed at allowing militias, not a defense of selfish desire for weaponry.

      For #2, all I have to say is that “nobody is a victim until they are, and then everyone is”.

  • Guest
  • XuGe

    This would appear to be not a gun control issue, but a mental health issue.

    A determined mind can be a beautiful thing, or an extraordinarily horrifying thing. The mind is the ultimate weapon, surpassing the likes of any gun, knife or bomb, because those are merely just tools.

    It is a easy to attack an object and assign blame and the world moves on, but the root of the problem is not solved. The underlying mental issue and evaluating those not deemed stable is a considerably more difficult endeavor, and probably even more a sensitive issue.

    Let’s say we do assign blame to guns, and they are subsequently removed from U.S. society. What then? There will be peace for now and forever? I do not think that will be reality.

    I looked around for previous unfortunate events such as school shootings, and came across the Bath School Disaster during the 1920s, in which 38 children perished. The cause: a disgruntled school board member who set off three bombs. If we look today, explosives can be constructed with relatively obtainable ingredients.

    Bottom line is that responsibility must be taken in form of solving the main issue, and leadership must not be tempted to take an easy road or start aligning their priorities with their political objectives.

  • tigersfan61

    If guns were legal in China then maybe they would be free instead of in chains to the communist…

  • American Citizen

    华丽的钻石:”America’s only shortcoming is too much private gun ownership.” Oh this is not our only shortcoming. Our leaders for the last 200 yers have brought so much pain to this world. One differance is that we the people know of this, where as in some other countries the people are never told.

  • Perspective

    In Conneticut, 1 of 4 pregnant women find a butcher and kill their beautiful, innocent baby before even giving it the chance to see the world, let alone go to school. These poor children, murdered by a mad man, had long lives compared to the children murdered by their own mothers.

  • mimi

    I thought the same thing (about why there was nearly next to no coverage scrolling on my weibo about Henan). None was more worse than the other (except that Children did die in Connecticut) but in the end both cases dealt with children being harmed on a large scale and I couldn’t grasp why weibo and the people were only talking about what happened in the US and seemingly forgetting their own children.

  • Web_of_Lies

    You can’t stop murder, if someone wants to kill it will happen. I don’t
    get why numbskulls tend to either blame it all on the guns or people who
    commit them when in reality it takes the combination of the two. People
    can’t think for themselves, so need others to tell them how to think it
    seems. The only hope is to stop thinking one solution fits all, we need
    to understand who is committing these crimes and the type of weapons
    they are using. The people who usually commit mass murder are either
    mentally ill, drug cartels or politically/racially motivated.

    Kaczynski, Anders Behring Breivik, Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold,
    Timothy McVeigh, Wade Michael Page, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes,
    and Mexican cartels all fit the bill. They’ve all attempted to kill in
    mass for reasons people don’t want to understand.

    Some people say
    just ban automatic weapons – you’re an idiot if you think this,
    Sueng-Hui Cho proved a couple of handguns can kill 33 people. So should
    banning all weapons prove more effective? Possibly, only if the illegal
    underground gun trade can be stopped. Look at where all the guns come
    from in Mexico and Canada – the good ‘ol USA. Then everybody should arm
    themselves and wear bulletproof vest. This will only divide the nation
    into militias, if higher authorities can’t stop civilians from arming
    their will be lawlessness.

    Anyways, I’m going to stop here and go back to studying for my exam.

  • lostalien

    hu-mans suck

  • etqlouis

    I am calling this type of self destructive people the 1%, i am really hoping they only represent way less than 1% of the population. They hate the life they live in and want to end their own life which most of us dont really care. what really brother us is that, not only they want to take themselves out, they also want to take out others with them. They want the rest of us to remember the painful memory they left us behind with by killing as many as they can in their own self destruction path. this is absolutely sick, what has the world become??

    • Perspective

      Some people believe the world is over-populated. Some of those people decide to do something about it. Ending their own life is a solution. But there are not many of those kind of people. Most just want others to die. Or not be born.

  • willie miller

    I thought the news coverage on Saturday was disgusting. I watched the BBC news for 10 minutes but turned off as it was totally sensationalised, insensitive and crass. At one point they showed a map of the US with a league table showing the places where gunmen had killed the most people and where the Connecticut shootings ranked. I assume other networks were similarly bad or worse. The days when the BBC used to report things in a dignified manner are long gone (with the possible exception of BBC radio). Sorry if that rant is off-topic, just wanted to get that off my chest. Most importantly, I’m sure everyone just feels for the victims and hopes we don’t see anything like this happen again (wishful thinking?).

  • linette lee

    people neglect the fact that guns and automatic weapon all you need to do is pull the trigger and you can shot and kill 20 people within one minute. Even a nine year old can pull a trigger to kill a whole family. Knife and machete you will need to put in much more effort and much more time to cause the same number of death. Imagine this gunman went into the school using knife and machete instead of guns. You would not have 27 death within less than 15 minutes.

    • hess

      this is why i married you

      • linette lee

        Yes, we are internet spouse.

        • mr.wiener

          How come I didn’t get an invite to the wedding?

      • Germandude

        Pictures or it didn’t happen.

    • ScottLoar

      Agreed. See my comment above, posted before reading yours.

      It takes no great guts to stick a gun in the face of an unarmed man and call him “bitch”. Try that with only one knife between the two.

  • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

    This sadly is not an issue that can be solved with a simple solution.

    Gun control won’t work. Take the guns away, you’ll still have those lunatics using knives instead of guns. You take away knives, those lunatics will improvise.

    That fella in Florida is proof of that when he decided to use his teeth as a weapon.

    The problem isn’t the weapon of choice. It’s the increasing population. As it rises, the occurrence of events like this will also increase, simply because there are more people that this can occur to.

    The access to weaponry is not the source of this problem. It is a symptom. Focusing on this will only remove the symptom, but the problem will still be there glaring at you.

    • yesway

      And how many people did that guy in Florida kill?

      Not 28 in a couple of minutes.

      • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

        Granted, he didn’t kill any, but I think that is a rather unacceptable measurement of someone’s danger based on how many people are dead because of them. The fact that they are a danger period should be addressed, fatalities or none.

        • yesway

          It is actually.

          Pure and simple. They both decided to harm people and the one with guns harmed far more people than the other violent guy who only had his teeth.

          That makes the one with the gun far more dangerous than the one without one. Their attentions were the same, but the gun wielder was the biggest danger.

          I agree with you that you can’t measure who is the crazier or more violent guy, but the outcome can be measured.

  • Gerhana

    People are a product of their environment and a subject to genetic fate. And then, there are those unknown that resist their destiny and spit at its face. Everyone is a victim, only a few, rebel, the rest, succumb to their insanity.

  • Bugmac

    America’s problem is that the school principles and teachers should have the right to carry a gun. In this incident if the principle had a concealed carry it may have been a different story when this deranged devil went into that school. Guns are not the problem as knives are not the problem. Evil is the problem.

  • White Guy in USA

    This youtube video link shows the other side of young people using guns.

  • Fman

    Bad people will do bad things, they will find a way to get a weapon… Don’t blame the tool, blame the person. The Chinese comments were typically naive (retarded), it was a tragedy, I feel for the parents in both countries. The governments however are light years apart, the U.S is owning it. The Chinese (typically) are burying it and the government infiltrators posting their filth online while trying to censor the truth to their own people… If the Chinese government had shit for brains… they would be constipated.

  • dk2020

    Gun control, prescription drugs for kids, and having crazy parents are all factors to what happened ..


    The media is putting out the spin and it doesn’t include the word why. I firmly believe that both this shooting and the shooting in Aurora Colorado are connected. I believe both were induced by psychotropic drugs similar to the ones that were given to our military. The same ones that killed their wives or committed suicide when they came home.

    Now the why. When a criminal organization wants to shut someone up, to keep them from talking they often attack a family member. Both James Holmes (Aurora Shooter) and Adam Lanza are family members of two individuals scheduled to appear before the Senate for hearings into the Tibor scandal.

    The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, Peter Lanza, was the tax director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year. According to Fabian4Liberty, Peter Lanza was scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. In what could only be described an amazing coincidence, the father of Colorado Batman shooter James Holmes, Robert Holmes, was also a LIBOR witness in his position with FICO. According to the link at FICO, Robert Holmes was a ‘Fraud Scientist’.

    The common denominator is that both Adam Lanza’s father and James Holmes father were scheduled to appear before a U.S. Senate investigation into a huge financial fraud scandal. Peter Lanza works for GE Capitol which made 14 billion dollars last year and paid Z-E-R-O taxes. James Holmes father was a fraud scientist for FICO.

    This is not a coincidence. This is war, a silent war. A war in which our children are being targeted. They are killing our children, what are you going to do about it?

    • mr.wiener

      I’d take that story with a grain of salt….in fact a bucket of salt. Time will tell, but I’m more inclined to think the simplest explanation is usually the best. Lack of access to mental care+ ready access to guns= the current tragedy.

  • dk2020

    I don’t care that most the kids were white or Chinese or American or any of that bullshit. It breaks my heart that they were innocent children that didn’t deserve to die. All you gun nuts that first thought about president Obama and the liberals taking away your guns instead of the kids theres something wrong with you ..

  • Gay Azn Boi

    Obama’s crocodile tears won’t fool anyone.

    • willie miller

      More to the point, why did he name his crocodile ‘tears’ and why does it keep trying to fool people.

      • mr.wiener

        I’d be more likely to believe a crocodile called “Tears” than a poodle called “Serge” I guess.

  • Dutchman

    pffff a lot of Bull here, talking about the gun law in the US, its big industry so big money, lunatics you can find anywhere ,the fact that they don’t pay attention to this attack in China bothers me, i read more about China in my own newspaper in Holland then in any Chinese media, its strange they assume nobody will hear about all their strange happenings here if they just keep it out of the media in China,wake up…its 2012 and i make a pic with my phone and and sent it anywhere in the world …
    Ignore it and it will go away…..??? this i will never ever understand…also the complete non emotional reactions from chinese people sometimes….

  • Just reading Chinese comment reminded me how messed up their mentality are. Chinese people must think Obama is a saint or some shit like that. That Obama cared more about Chinese than the Chinese leaders.

    Chinese people need to wake up to the fact that if Obama and the American have their way, Chinese would be still stuck in a subservient position serving as American slave labor.

    Obama and Clinton laugh when American drones killed Gaddafi and children half way around the world because American view lives of Chinese to be only 1/10th of American, and it seemed that the Chinese have the same mentality – valuing white over their own brethren.

    What I learned from China smack is that Chinese people sucks balls.

    • icarusty

      It’s the same mentality that worships white skin despite everything else….the same mentality that hates their own based on the actions of a few…. I don’t know a single white who has they need to be “controlled”… yet one of the most famous Chinese (J Chan) said exactly that….

      the mentality is fucked up all right. And the scary thing is, I don’t think it’s a lack of democracy/restrictions of the CCP that’s doing it…. see Taiwan, similar mentalities but a BIT less toned down… still white worship….

  • You know why Chinese government banned guns because Chinese people would kill other Chinese if the West paid them a dime. China would be like Syria. With Chinese traitors killing Chinese at random causing massive chaos.

    China was not brought down by a foreigner, but by Chinese traitors themselves. The character of Chinese is that they would sell out their own country if it benefits them. The American knows this that is why they are pushing for Chinese to accept more “Western values”. When that happens religious fanatics can manipulate gullible Chinese to cause Chaos and the Chinese century will be over in a flash.

    Until Chinese take pride in their own systems and values, they will be slaves to the Western’s narrative.

  • dim mak

    Full of self-loathing dipshits in both countries pulling the old grass-is-greener nonsense

    Obama was more emotional! China doesn’t have guns! WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

    Fuckin’ scum.

    Where are the real nationalists?

  • bert

    Too many people here have no clue. They want to make more laws more laws more laws. Lidicurous! Banning a type of gun or all guns does nothing and you know it. Crime goes up when you disarm people-look it up and learn the truth. It is just your irrational fear and refusal to accept how much of a woman you men have become and it also shows how many women shouldn’t be able to vote due to their overwhelming lack of logic and feeling in issues that shouldn’t involve “muh feelings!” But of course you believe in flowers and sugar and spice and that mankind will one day hold hands and skip to my lou. The more ‘liberal’ you people become the more enslaved everyone becomes, laws-you can’t say this, laws-you can’t do that, law-you thought bad and it’s wrong! Murder is illegal anyway!

    • mr.wiener

      Your stunningly logical arguments have convinced me , I’m going to by a pickup truck and a full auto assault rifle immediately, afterwards my friends and I can hang around drinking weak American domestic beer [none of those faggy micro-brews!] and maybe beat up some non-whites.
      I’ll proceed forthwith to to have beat my wife and have sexual relations with my cousin. Sounds like a super way to ring in the new year.
      Y’all have a good new year now :)

    • Gaius Baltar

      Well said bert, let’s take a detailed look at what gun banning laws achieved, shall we?

      What happens when governments disarm their citizens?

      -In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
      1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
      rounded up and exterminated
      -In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      -Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
      of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
      rounded up and exterminated.
      -China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
      -Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      -Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
      Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
      -Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
      to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were
      rounded up and exterminated.
      -Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

      Now I’m not going to argue what is the exact figure, because there may well be discrepancies and some deaths from other causes, but to me, there is a clear link between banning guns and genocides/upheavals and so forth.

      • A guy

        Lets see all the countries that didn’t have genocides after gun control laws were signed.

        The whole of the EU



        Wow those seem to be all the really nice places to live. (barring India)

        There are also gaping holes in your logic and causality in the comment above, but I think my correctness is clear enough.

        PS: I don’t give a shit about gun control either way, but that was some dumb shit.

  • icarusty

    “Yesterday, I watched an entire day’s worth of CCTV4 news. I watched how America is in chaos and an abyss of suffering, with guns spreading unchecked, and had no idea whatsoever about the extremely tragic crime in Henan! May the children rest in peace.”


    Idiotic comment. From the US coverage, 99% of the news was on the school shooting… the Chinese knife attack barely got a mention – in fact, it didn’t. USA Today had it in their newspaper I think.

  • milly

    why different countries have totally different reaction? No one doesn’t know this news in US, however, this isn’t the first news in China.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»