CHINA-ACCIDENT-TRAVEL

Reader Don N. writes:

An angry suicidal man in China set a bus on fire killing 47 people including himself. He also injured about 34 more people in the process. This is an interesting juxtaposition with the shootings our angry suicidal men perpetrate here, and shows that there are far easier and more effective ways to commit mass murder than the usual “gunman” archetype perpetuated by the media and emulated by our domestic crazy people. In a way we are lucky it is the “gunman” archetype that is embraced by our domestic crazies rather than the “arsonist” or the “bomber”.

Recommended For You

37 Responses to Are Our Mass Murderers Better Than Theirs?

  1. A firearm requires a basic skill set. How much skill is required to combine a gallon of gas and a bic in a confined space full of victims?

    • Good point. One thing you’ll notice about mass shootings in the U.S. is that they’re very rarely perpetrated by someone with a long history of legal firearm ownership, and it shows. Their marksmanship is generally poor, and they fumble on stoppages. All this means lower body counts.

        • You mean he hasn’t? That’s him on a normal day? If that’s the case he needs to be incased in concrete and lead and launched into space. For the sake of humanity.

  2. Back in the 40s some nut set a circus tent on fire and killed 160+. Timothy McVeigh mixed up some fertilizer and diesel fuel and killed 160+. The worst mass shooting in US history took the lives of 32 and it was perpetrated with 10 round magazines. Imagine what the joker in Aurora could have done with a few molotov cocktails.

    • The guy had an apartment wired up with explosives and somehow access to the theaters emergency exit. As bad as Aurora was, Boston proved guns are not the most efficient way to kill a bunch of people. Makes you wonder why he even bothered with the guns unless he had a specific political end goal in mind.

  3. Well, some of our domestic crazies have been bombers or arsonists. Holmes had booby-trapped his apartment. Klebold and Harris tried to blow up their school. And the two douchbags at the Boston Marathon were bombers first and foremost.

    Frankly, the only difference between “their” maniacs and “ours” is a difference in name only.

  4. If the news media in the US glorify burning up buses like that of mass killings with guns, we will have buses up in flames everywhere. Will the progressives restrict us to 10 gallon fuel tanks?

    • More like none. Fossil fuels are for the political elite’s jets and Bentley’s. Electric vehicle with double digit ranges are good enough for us prols. Why would they want their serfs to be able to leave their kingdoms?

  5. If anything it’s just proof positive that crazy people will get the job done. If you somehow take away their guns, you’re just taking away one of a myriad of choices.

  6. Add this one to the likes of other mass murders without a gun being used. The Happy Land fire, The Osaka School Massacre, The Bath School Disaster, The Upstairs Lounge Fire, The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire or the Cologne School Massacre or the Glendale Train Crash etc. Guns are not necessary when one wants to commit mass murder.

  7. I have said this on other posts as well: it might seem counter-intuitive but a spree killer who chooses to use a gun is potentially the least effective spree killer. Why? Because a spree killer who uses arson cannot be stopped once he/she lights the match. A spree killer who uses a bomb cannot be stopped once he/she presses the button on the detonator. A spree killer who uses poison cannot be stopped once they pour the vile of poison into the food, water, etc. A spree killer who uses a vehicle cannot be stopped once they enter a crowd at 60 mph.

    The only spree killer that can be stopped after a few casualties but well short of the huge number of casualties that they could inflict is an active shooter … because it takes time — on the order of minutes — to shoot and execute dozens of people. However, an armed good guy on site can intervene in a few seconds and effectively stop the spree killer. (The armed good guy incapacitates the spree killer either physically with wounds or effectively when the spree killer focuses attention on the armed good guy.)

    The problem is that we don’t have enough armed good guys.

    • I suspect that spree killers with guns are more interested in the publicity and in being remembered for what they did since, terrible, wrong, and futile as it was, it was probaly the only thing of note in their lives. People who kill with arson or poison, or even knives and swords, tend to be ignored in the media after a short flurry of bleeds/leads coverage. These nut-jobs know that if you want to go down in hisotry you need to go down in a blaze of glory, not a blaze.

    • Holmes certainly proved he could use his intelligence to construct bombs and incendiary devices.
      Imagine if Holmes didn’t avoid his “armed campus” (CUD campus is one of the few where CCW holders may be armed), replacing that campus with a “gun free” theater. Suppose he adapted his strategy, instead of choosing the alternative of an accommodating “gun free” venue; and bombed a stadium, administrative building, or dormitory on the campus.

      Oklahoma City was a bombing, even though there were “lax gun laws” in Oklahoma. Why? I think it was because McVeigh chose the “hard target” of a Federal office building, and adjusted his weaponry to that target.
      Using guns would be too dangerous, and McVeigh did not seem suicidal. There were Federal law enforcement offices there, and a swift armed response from on-site LEOs would be a certainty. Better to use a bomb, remain at a safe distance, and kill a lot more people.

      It’s not simply a matter of psychos being driven to bombs (or ricin, or arson, or trucks, or knives) because they can’t get guns. It is also the choice of that psycho. I feel sure that Dr. Shipman would have killed his 600-800 victims with a hypodermic needle, whether he lived in modern, gun free Britain, or in the Edwardian era, when there were no “gun control” laws at all. He chose a weapon that suited his psychological needs, and which he found practical.

  8. Seems to me like a discussion of Mass Murder “Best Practices” is ill-advised, albeit uncomfortably interesting. No insult or derision intended to anyone who posted…Just sayin’…

    • I disagree. By openly talking about it, we can show how
      horribly naive and ignorant many of the laws designed
      to “protect” us really are. As a bonus it also illustrates
      the much of the legislation brought forth by the anti-
      rights crowd has nothing to do with safety but in control.

      • Or just get the NSA interested in why we would be discussing a subject that’s pretty much a “raw nerve” just now….when you don’t know where exactly the enemy is, or what he’s up to…better to consider carefully when to stick your head up out of the Foxhole….anyway you pick your time and I’ll pick mine. I do agree with you that discussing ineffective, naïve laws to expose them for the controlling sham they are is necessary and must be done.

  9. All the spree killers are scumbags and cowards. That’s all I have to say about them. Don’t care where they’re from, or what method they use. They’re scum.

  10. You can’t keep a good classic all-American killer down, although they always seem to manage good multi-cannibal show-stoppers.

  11. Regarding the Chinese bus arson/mass murder referenced in the article: there are a lot of mass murders and attempted mass murders in China. There are a lot of suicide bombings in China, whether from Islamic terrorism or just someone who is mad at the world.
    You don’t hear or read about them much because it doesn’t suit the MSM’s narratives about “America’s crazy gun laws enable nuts to murder a school full of kids, OMG”, etc.

      • Absolutely. There were 26 death in a separate school bus fire mass murder in 2009. Think that will ever achieve the amount of media attention as Sandy Hook? Not in a million years. Obama, Biden, Frankenstein, et all are and were anti-gun. Sandy Hook fits their narrative perfectly, so you will hear about it ad nauseum. Never mind that bombs and arson are more effective. We want to (gun) control the people, and by God, that’s what we’re going to do.

        Edit: NSA can kiss my a$$.

      • Precisely.
        If it isn’t “gun violence”, which they claim is “preventable” by more gun control laws, then it is “un-preventable” violence by arson or explosive, which they choose to ignore. They know they can’t legislate any control over gasoline or fertilizer so they turn a blind eye to that far greater danger.

  12. It’s sad how many know the names of mass murderers. Their names ought to be forgotten. I bet more people can name 5 mass murderers before they can name 10 U.S Presidents.

    • + 100

      Maybe if the 24 hour news machine did not post these whack jobs names and make them into Hero’s to other whack jobs, there would be less mass killings

  13. Dan, I don’t think comparing the social economic mania within Red China to the racial gangster-ism, oligarch political dynasties & craftily misused class welfare gladiatorial arena fixing within the U.S helps solve the dilemma regarding EQUALIZERS.

  14. Not to make lite of this terrible incident, but if only China took a lesson from us and made their busses “arson-free” zones….this tradegy could have been completely averted….likewise, if the Alfred P. Murrah building was a “bomb-free” zone, McVeigh would have had to go elsewhere and lives would have been saved……oh, wait….you mean….arson and bombings are already against the law???? It must be the lack of signage……

  15. When will people understand that madness always finds a way? You can ban literally every object that can cause lethal injury and tape pillows to peoples arms and legs, but people will try to beat each other with their pillow hands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *