Is mass murder without a gun possible?

[ecofarm]

Both committed by government so how does that help your argument?

Neither of those were mass murder, unless one gets ones history from Alex Jones.

 

[blaxshep]

Neither of those were mass murder, unless one gets ones history from Alex Jones.

Ok then killing people in mass does not constitute mass murder ok gotcha :wink:

 

[Jerry]

Agreed.
The sick and evil will always find a way to kill.

I just watched the video Jerry provided. Horrifying!
Everyone on the planet should see this video - lest we forget.

Note the cold calculation in how the bomb was used to cause as many casualties as possible.

 

[ecofarm]

Ok then killing people in mass does not constitute mass murder ok gotcha :wink:

Killing people in mass does not always constitute mass murder. I would think even children understand this.

 

[blaxshep]

Killing people in mass does not always constitute mass murder. I would think even children understand this.

Ok then acts of war are not murder then Hitler didn't murder Jews.

 

[ecofarm]

Ok then acts of war are not murder then Hitler didn't murder Jews.

First, not all wars, or all war acts, are equally just. What kind of sick crap is equating all war acts.

Second, Hitler was at war with Israel?

 

[blaxshep]

First, not all wars, or all war acts, are equally just. What kind of sick crap is equating all war acts.

Second, Hitler was at war with Israel?

Just? Killing people is killing people, its all murder now justify otherwise. I condone the torture and execution of Islamic terrorists' but I don't try to say it isn't murder.

 

[ecofarm]

Just? Killing people is killing people, its all murder now justify otherwise.

:screwy

 

[blaxshep]

:screwy

Yep the justification for killing people is an emoticon. Thanks for playing.

 

[ecofarm]

Yep the justification for killing people is an emoticon. Thanks for playing.

I don't need to prove any justification for killing people. Your claim that all mass killings are murder is patently stupid. Good day.

 

[blaxshep]

I don't need to prove any justification for killing people. Your claim that all mass killings are murder is patently stupid. Good day.

Yep no justification for killing people is necessary and mass killings are not murder Good day Hitler.

 

[Monte]

Note the cold calculation in how the bomb was used to cause as many casualties as possible.

Hi Jerry!
I did note that. Military precision.
I still believe, regardless of the horror, that this was a necessary evil. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight.
The Allies would have lost 10s of thousands of soldiers had they been forced to take Japan island by island.

Hindsight is 20/20.
Was there another way?! Maybe the destructive capabilities of the atom bomb could have been demonstrated to the Japanese without inflicting such horror!? Was the propoganda that was fed to the Japanese people so strong as to deny the power to the end!?

The scary thing is that the modern nukes are way stronger than "Fat Man" and "Little Boy". The destruction would be worldwide. Radiation blowing in the wind?

 

[Dayton3]

Hi Jerry!
I did note that. Military precision.
I still believe, regardless of the horror, that this was a necessary evil. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight.
The Allies would have lost 10s of thousands of soldiers had they been forced to take Japan island by island.

Hindsight is 20/20.
Was there another way?! Maybe the destructive capabilities of the atom bomb could have been demonstrated to the Japanese without inflicting such horror!? Was the propoganda that was fed to the Japanese people so strong as to deny the power to the end!?

The scary thing is that the modern nukes are way stronger than "Fat Man" and "Little Boy". The destruction would be worldwide. Radiation blowing in the wind?

Smaller too. There are nuclear weapons much, much smaller than Fan Man and Little Boy

 

[Jerry]

Hi Jerry!
I did note that. Military precision.
I still believe, regardless of the horror, that this was a necessary evil. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight.
The Allies would have lost 10s of thousands of soldiers had they been forced to take Japan island by island.

Hindsight is 20/20.
Was there another way?! Maybe the destructive capabilities of the atom bomb could have been demonstrated to the Japanese without inflicting such horror!? Was the propoganda that was fed to the Japanese people so strong as to deny the power to the end!?

The scary thing is that the modern nukes are way stronger than "Fat Man" and "Little Boy". The destruction would be worldwide. Radiation blowing in the wind?

Back then, no, there probably was no other way.

In fact the emperor wouldn't surender after the first nuke, and nearly didn't even after the second.

 

[Crimefree]

I don't need to prove any justification for killing people. Your claim that all mass killings are murder is patently stupid. Good day.

Yep most are simply cleaning out the genetic pool. Given that lovely term, "ethnic cleansing". What do you call it? The Hutu managed some 800,000 without guns except to round up people and in Hutu hands. Machetes work just as well and cost far less. Same as gas makes it so easy. Lets ban gas it is evil.

 

[Crimefree]

Hi Jerry!
I
Hindsight is 20/20.
Was there another way?! Maybe the destructive capabilities of the atom bomb could have been demonstrated to the Japanese without inflicting such horror!? Was the propoganda that was fed to the Japanese people so strong as to deny the power to the end!?
?

You ask a question like that when you know they has suicide squadrons and many people willing to die for the country. That the battles in the Pacific each one was incredibly costly of lives and down do the last few remaining Japanese. The nukes were a measure of desperation against an ideologically driven opponent.

So when I tell people that gun control is ideologically driven they laugh. They laugh when the 700 years of burning people alive at the stake is shown to have been IDEOLOGICALLY driven. Hitlers Jews..... never happen here.... take a long hard look at gun control, everything gun control wants is ideological.

 

[Monte]

[/I][/B]

You ask a question like that when you know they has suicide squadrons and many people willing to die for the country. That the battles in the Pacific each one was incredibly costly of lives and down do the last few remaining Japanese. The nukes were a measure of desperation against an ideologically driven opponent.

So when I tell people that gun control is ideologically driven they laugh. They laugh when the 700 years of burning people alive at the stake is shown to have been IDEOLOGICALLY driven. Hitlers Jews..... never happen here.... take a long hard look at gun control, everything gun control wants is ideological.

Hello Crimefree! :2wave:
So the answer to my question was "yes, the propoganda was that strong". I was not around back then and perhaps have underestimated the Japanese propoganda.
I believe that the "Final Solution" was also ideologically driven propoganda.
Again, hindsight is 20/20. I just wish there had been viable alternatives to nukes. I hope the human race has learned from these incredibly, horrific actions.
We should never forget the ramifications of dropping nukes on people and we should never forget Hitler's Final Solution.

 

[Dayton3]

People in the U.S. also grossly misinterpret why the Japanese were willing to surrender after the nuclear attacks.

It wasn't "it scared the Japanese so much they gave up".

It was more like "it gave an excuse for the Japanese to surrender". Look at Japanese announcements after the attacks and there are repeated references to the "Americans harnessing the 'power of the atom' or in some cases 'the power of the sun'"(inaccurate given that fusion weapons were not developed until years later).

Thus the Japanese were able to honorably surrender by telling themselves they were giving up because the Americans had developed super weapons they had no chance of resisting.

 

[beerftw]

People in the U.S. also grossly misinterpret why the Japanese were willing to surrender after the nuclear attacks.

It wasn't "it scared the Japanese so much they gave up".

It was more like "it gave an excuse for the Japanese to surrender". Look at Japanese announcements after the attacks and there are repeated references to the "Americans harnessing the 'power of the atom' or in some cases 'the power of the sun'"(inaccurate given that fusion weapons were not developed until years later).

Thus the Japanese were able to honorably surrender by telling themselves they were giving up because the Americans had developed super weapons they had no chance of resisting.

it was more than that,the japanese refused to surrender.part of the reason being that americas govt and american soldiers had constantly told them things like when america wins we will skin their babies and eat them type of propoganda,and the japanese being superstitious believed it.

there was also pride that the japanese couldnt surrender,as well as the japanese demands prior to the a-bomb for surrencder being that they would surrender,but demanded their emperor remain in power.

 

[Crimefree]

Hello Crimefree! :2wave:
So the answer to my question was "yes, the propoganda was that strong". I was not around back then and perhaps have underestimated the Japanese propoganda.
I believe that the "Final Solution" was also ideologically driven propoganda.
Again, hindsight is 20/20. I just wish there had been viable alternatives to nukes. I hope the human race has learned from these incredibly, horrific actions.
We should never forget the ramifications of dropping nukes on people and we should never forget Hitler's Final Solution.

There is no more fearful weapon than a horde of ideologically driven people. the formulae for arriving at that situation is well known. The two strongest human emotions, hate and fear are employed and all that us needed after that is to dehumanise the target. Other emotions can be used ie national pride, greed, hunger....

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Chinese man kills 67 people using common tools... hammer, axe, shovel.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_302087.htm

Thats just one example. There have been hundreds of mass murderers this century and very few use firearms.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

 

[Flamethrower]

Almost always a weapon such a knife or gun has a human being's hand wielding it, as the OP case shows.

I rare cases a gun can fired is the trigger catches on something, a snake slithers around the trigger, or if the gun is placed in an oven a turned on.

All of these are a fault of human error.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't need to prove any justification for killing people. Your claim that all mass killings are murder is patently stupid. Good day.

Prolly late in the game here but had to comment on this.

You're comment here is actually a very subjective comment. Whether someone considers something a "mass murder" or not is dependent on their views. For example, a pacifist would consider ALL killings by the government as "mass murder". Whether its because they are against government force in specific or due to them being an actual pacifist. There are even some people that think that even ONE killing, justified or not, is murder.

So your "patently stupid" is only due to your opinion, not because their argument is actually stupid.

 

[ecofarm]

Prolly late in the game here but had to comment on this.

You're comment here is actually a very subjective comment. Whether someone considers something a "mass murder" or not is dependent on their views. For example, a pacifist would consider ALL killings by the government as "mass murder". Whether its because they are against government force in specific or due to them being an actual pacifist. There are even some people that think that even ONE killing, justified or not, is murder.

So your "patently stupid" is only due to your opinion, not because their argument is actually stupid.

Everyone can give an example of a mass killing that does not constitute murder, by any standards.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Everyone can give an example of a mass killing that does not constitute murder, by any standards.

In your opinion.