Previous Post
Next Post

On the same day as the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, a “disturbed 36-year-old Chinese man, armed with a kitchen knife, walked into an elementary school in central Henan province and allegedly began attacking students. Although police say he was able to injure 23 children and an elderly villager, none of the injuries were severe and he was subdued a short time later by police and teachers.” That’s the account from Voice of America, which goes on to say “See? Gun control works! If we banned guns in the U.S. then mass murderers couldn’t murder so efficiently. Lives would be saved!” A Google search of “china knife massacre” shows that hundreds of pro gun control commentators have take-up this misleading meme and run with it. If only they’d searched wikipedia . . .

Click here for the page “school attacks in China 2010 – 2011.” That’s where the “knives are better than guns” crowd could have learned that “an attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in HanzhongShaanxi on May 12, 2010.”

OK it was a cleaver not a knife attack and “only” seven children were killed, and the total death count was 17 shy of Adam Lanza’s carnage. Let’s add in another Chinese school spree killing from earlier in the year.

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang (方建堂) slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in ZiboShandong province.

That’s 13. Do we count this? “In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi, Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.”

That’s three Chinese school-related killings involving an edged weapons that killed 17 people in one year, just three shy of the total victims of Adam Lanza’s murderous rampage. (Not including victims disfigured in the attacks.)

Last year. If we go back to 2004, Yan Yanming “entered a dormitory at the Number Two High School in Ruzhou, China on November 26, 2004 with a knife and attacked twelve boys, killing nine of them.”

Point taken? Eliminating guns doesn’t eliminate the threat—or even the severity of the threat—of school slaughter. Lest we forget, the worst ever massacre school killer used dynamite.

And here’s another interesting fact, via The New York Times (no less): China’s ban on guns hasn’t eliminated guns. Yes, even in a country where progressives (or whatever you want to call them) have complete power, there are guns!

In recent weeks, Chinese police officials in Jiangsu Province seized more than 6,000 illegal guns from two underground workshops and warehouses; a retired prison guard in Hong Kong was jailed for 18 months for keeping an arsenal of guns, silencers, grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition in his public-housing apartment; and 17 suspected gun smugglers went on trial in Shanghai as part of a joint investigation with U.S. law enforcement officials.

So, China experienced 17 edged weapon-related school spree killings in one year, they’ve banned guns from civilian ownership, criminals still have guns and Human Rights Watch says . . .

China continues to be an authoritarian one-party state that imposes sharp curbs on freedom of expression, association, and religion; openly rejects judicial independence and press freedom; and arbitrarily restricts and suppresses human rights defenders and organizations, often through extra-judicial measures.

The government also censors the internet; maintains highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia; systematically condones—with rare exceptions—abuses of power in the name of “social stability” ; and rejects domestic and international scrutiny of its human rights record as attempts to destabilize and impose “Western values” on the country. The security apparatus—hostile to liberalization and legal reform—seems to have steadily increased its power since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China’s “social stability maintenance” expenses are now larger than its defense budget.

Hey, gun control guys. Connect those dots.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yes, even in a country where progressives (or whatever you want to call them) have complete power

    They’re totalitarian socialists who have grudgingly allowed a limited form of free-market economy into their system while maintaining an iron grasp on political power.

  2. So…. what you’re saying is that those who are hell-bent on ending the lives of others will find a way to do so regardless of their access to firearms?

    Time and again, I have had to make the point to gun control advocates that a firearm is an inanimate object, incapable of doing harm unless acted upon by an external force. Who’d a thunk it?

  3. One of the largest mass murders in the US happened in the middle of gun control central, NYC, on 25 May, 1990. 87 people died in the most horrible way possible, when an irate boyfriend torched the only exit to the Happy Land Social Club. He used two matches and about a dollar’s worth of gasoline dispensed into an illegal plastic container.

    Those who want to kill large number of people will. They’ll find a way. Do guns make it easy? Easier probably. Will denying people constitutional rights make us any safer? Nope. Ben Franklin said it best. Those who will give up freedom for safety deserve neither.

    • It was an unlicensed, illegal club, that obviously had zero visits from any kind of fire marshal. The real killer there was a complete lack of fire safety, which enabled the killer to do so much damage. If he’d tried the same thing at a licensed, legal club that was up to code, the death toll would’ve been much lower, probably singe digit to zero.
      Please use some logic when making these points.

      • Yes. It was not having a license that resulted in 87 dead. That and the illegal gas container. It wasn’t the sick individual. Those 87 who went to the illegal club obviously got what they had coming. Liberal logic at its best.

        • Logic is logic, not liberal or conservative. Saying one guy killed 87 people without looking at other factors is simple minded BS.
          The owner blocked off the other exits to prevent people from getting into his club without paying. He’d been warned off of that, but kept doing it. A drunk asshole with gasoline shouldn’t be able to kill 87 people with barely any effort…
          If we are going to make the argument that gun-free zones lead to more deaths than necessary, than you should be able to maintain the same damn logic for fire-safety with respect to arson. Are you going to argue that the owners of the theater in Aurora who ensured the theatergoers were unarmed didn’t have any hand in the death toll being as high as it was? Same goes for fire safety. Better to have good exits, fire-extinguishers, etc than to throw up our hands and say “it was all on the bad guy, no one else is at fault”. BS. Crazy or bad people will always happen. If you prepare properly, you can minimize their damage. A high death toll is not because they were so awesome at killing, its cuz complacent morons allowed it to be so in fire, violence, anything.
          Prevention always beats the cure. How is that NOT conservative?

  4. My brother works in China for about 6 month of the year. It is far worse that what the state media reports. This was posted on the Daily Beast:

    “But schools are still coming under attack. Two months ago, three students were killed and 13 injured when a man with a machete rampaged through a private daycare center in Guangxi. Although they usually garner less media coverage, other incidents of violence appear to have similar roots: the attackers are usually Chinese men who are either mentally disturbed or distressed by personal disputes, economic pressures, or unhappy love affairs—or a combination of the three.

    Just Thursday, a day before the Guangxi stabbings, police announced they’d apprehended a 25-year-old suspect who’d confessed to slashing the faces of a number of victims—mostly young women—on Beijing’s heavily travelled #5 and #10 subway lines. (Several days earlier, the Chinese Twitter-like microblog called Weibo had circulated reports of a serial subway slasher.) The suspect had “taken revenge on society because of relationship frustrations,” the police report said.

    Chinese remain reluctant to institutionalize relatives with psychiatric disorders because of the heavy social stigma and costs involved; many are sequestered at home and treated privately (or not at all.) However as China’s economic downturn churns on—and rapid urbanization and dislocation continues—the psychological stress on its citizens can only get worse. Institutions that are many decades behind the West in handling mentally disturbed patients are now being pressured to dramatically boost their capabilities, because Chinese families can no longer cope.”

    According to my brother, these happen on a monthly basis. It is just the mass attacks that leak out, otherwise they happen all the time. If not in schools, it is on the subways or the parks or in apartments.

    We have exported our jobs and money to China but also our stress other problems.

    It is only a matter of time when the stress in the Euro-zone will trigger an attack there as well.

    As always, some reporters seem to be clueless idiots trying to press an agenda versus report the facts and do some research.

  5. No, I’m saying that grabbers will turn the “any weapon can kill” argument against us to instill gun bans. “The mortality rate was less in China because He didn’t have a gun” China has come out for US gun control (I read confiscation). All these incidents are too intertwined . It’s no tin foil fact that both of the fathers of the Batman shooter and this bastard in Connecticut were supposed to testify in the LIBOR rate fixing scandal. The LIBOR scandal is probably one of the biggest financial frauds in history affecting every borrowed dollar, yen, pound, euro, etc. on the planet. It’s unclear if they will be able to give testimony in the case now.

  6. You forgot Yang Jia.

    He is the the mos supportive case of gun rights ever.

    He stabbed 10 and killed 6. Nothing special right? They were all police and they were all in a police station.

  7. To be fair I don’t think it’s relevant to compare the total of all the school knife killings in one year to just one incident here. If anything that could support the anti argument, even if it is a poor and illogical argument to begin with.

    Regardless all the atrocities against the capability of self defense and oppressions on rights is a pretty terrible compromise.

  8. In addition to the above, I think the PTB MUST take our weapons before they let us find out our money is worthless and the day of our awaking to the fact we are all broke, via hyperinflation, is coming. How soon, I don’t know, but it’s coming. And so is the union of the Dems and Repubs. into a 1 party system.

  9. See, guns make killing more efficient. So if we ban guns, then a guy who might kill 20 children with a gun would only be able to kill 10 kids with a knife. So that’s good, right?

    Hey, I have a better idea. Put homicidal f^ckheads in custody, and then we won’t have to bury 20 or 10 kids. Crazy idea, huh?

    • But it gets even better. If a responsible armed citizen is in the vicinity, instead of having to bury 20 or 10 kids, we might only have to bury 0 or 1. I like my numbers much better than your numbers.

  10. are there any statistics on knife attacks in the U.S.?

    i think it’s been said here that the antis focus on firearm mortality, and ignore other causes of death. would be useful to know.

    same/same for EU.


  11. Given China’s restriction of freedoms, I’m wondering if the while idea of violent media and video games creating spree killers is disproven? Do they watch violent movies and TV shows, or are they not allowed? Same question in regards to video games?

  12. I hate how the severity of knife attacks are downplayed because there were no deaths. Did the kids go home after getting a few stitches? Knives can maim, dismember, and disable!

  13. “If we banned guns in the U.S. then mass murderers couldn’t murder so efficiently.”

    It is a weak mind that can only work in reverse and discuss the known past. A good mind can envision various future scenarios regarding different causes producing different results.

  14. why do you gun fanatics think that gun control means gun elimination? Why is it always all or nothing, black or white? Do you ever listen to yourselves? “China’s ban on guns hasn’t eliminated guns.” NO, S, MAN. Do you think when the government banned drugs, do you really think they expected all drugs to be eliminated?

    • “why do you gun fanatics think that gun control means gun elimination? ”

      Mmmm…maybe because the Brady Campaign has admitted that they end goal, attained by incremental means, is exactly that… that ban all civilian gun ownership and possession.

      Well, for the law abiding. They have no real plan for the criminal and his guns.

      And your little drug analogy.. falls flat on it’s face becauses like criminal drugs criminal guns are going to continue and it will be one more then the government and the rich cronies will be the gainers in vending out the “services,” to control the guns. Have you noticed the number of private prisons lately.

      We have had a push going on for years for privatizing everything from child protection to mental health to PRISONS and the profits go to fat cats that get chronied contracts. Wake wake up.

      Wake up, little suzy, wake up.

  15. “why do you gun fanatics think that gun control means gun elimination? Why is it always all or nothing, black or white? Do you ever listen to yourselves? “China’s ban on guns hasn’t eliminated guns.” NO, S, MAN. Do you think when the government banned drugs, do you really think they expected all drugs to be eliminated?”

    Um, maybe because the antis have said time and again that they want all guns gone? As for durgs – yes, the goverment absolutely expected to eliminate drugs as a problem when they instituted the “war on drugs”. And that thinking is just as wrong headed as thinking that regulating legal ownership of guns further will reduce crime.

  16. “You can’t hunt with an assault rifle because it destroys everything you point it at and you can’t defend yourself with it because it brings all the plaster down”

    WTF is she talking about?

  17. You bet, China dsupports a gun ban and confiscation of our firearms. They dont want resistance when they come to invade us for not paying back all the money we borrowed from them.

  18. So, all these killing sprees with knives somehow cancels out the ability for one man or “kid” with a high capacity assault weapon to inflict mass causalities at his or her own choosing? The knife attacks somehow smooth over the devastating attacks that assault weapons have over any other weapon that you can buy at Walmart or Gander Mountain? Hey glad you made me see the light cause now I want to hand out assault weapons to everybody I meet. I just threw out all common sense and reason and everything is settled for me now! Case closed! Disrespect for the victims and their families WINS!

  19. If anyone thinks they are going to fight China with guns in your closet at home…wow…just wow.

  20. Please think : china has 1 bilion + people so 17 a year it s a good number and they have far more stressfull factors then americans. So guns should be totally banned.

  21. mihai, and jdkarns: You guys are funny (in both the amusing and pathetic way). Is this site your Astroturf assignment for today?

Comments are closed.