Wait... The name of the town was TROLLhatten?

Saw this on BBC the other day. Have they ascertained a motive yet?

So 4 people injured/killed in the attack, 2 happened to be immigrants, therefore the motive is clearly he's a right-wing facist that hated immigrants. Bravo Sweden.

So 4 people injured/killed in the attack, 2 happened to be immigrants, therefore the motive is clearly he's a right-wing facist that hated immigrants. Bravo Sweden.

If you're going to comment on an incident at least read up on it properly.

A police spokeswoman said the conclusion was reached because of "the way (the suspect) dressed and behaved but also how he picked his victims, who had a specific ethnic background." Items found in the man's home contributed to the determination of motive, she said.

Is it wrong that while opening this thread I was tjinking to myself. "Please let this not be a muslim, please let this not be a muslim." And when it was not I sighed with relief. Still it is a sad day.

Is it wrong that while opening this thread I was tjinking to myself. "Please let this not be a muslim, please let this not be a muslim." And when it was not I sighed with relief. Still it is a sad day.

That's quite a standard reaction for western (Americanized) Muslims, as I understand.

The only way to stop such a travesty is if there was a good guy with a sword.

Oh look at that, you don't need guns to hurt and kill many people. Gun problem? No, it's a PEOPLE problem

2 dead here by sword, 27 dead in Sandy Hook by firearm.

Yeah, it's a gun problem. Accept it.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 25, 2015, 05:46:13 PM

Do you really want to know how many kids and some teachers a man with a sword would be able to get through before police responded?

The different locations the attacks occurred at do matter significantly.

Not gonna argue with the fact that these were two very different situations, but you have to admit that it's considerably easier to run away from or fight a guy with a sword than it would be with a gunman. Multiple people surrounding him and keeping him busy with chairs or any makeshift weapon/shield would probably be pretty effective, and if you attack a crowd with a sword you might be able to get some while the vast majority will run away by the time you can get to them. It's a lot harder to run from a rain of bullets, and it's a lot easier to use a gun to injure and kill a group of people than it is with a sword.

Two very different scenarios that should hardly be compared, but you can't honestly argue that it would be harder for the guy to kill and injure more kids if he had access to a bunch of guns rather than a sword.

Trying to hypothetically play out how things would happen in a fight like this generally doesn't work very accurately. Saying that "Oh, the victims could crowd the man with the sword, or pick up broomsticks and fight him off" doesn't sound like a very strong argument to me. If a man with a sword walks into a room full of Grade School kids, that's not ending well unless the teacher has a weapon and gets in front of the attacker first, even then it's a gamble. The only definitive thing that would stop the assailant is someone with a firearm. Anything else stopping them is subject to luck.

It doesn't need to be harder to kill kids with a gun than a sword, the end result is likely to be similar. Unfortunately in the case of a sword attack, you will have more gore and any survivors are probably more likely to be traumatized.

Quote from: aDUMBgenius on October 24, 2015, 12:57:02 PM

Oh look at that, you don't need guns to hurt and kill many people. Gun problem? No, it's a PEOPLE problem

2 dead here by sword, 27 dead in Sandy Hook by firearm.

Yeah, it's a gun problem. Accept it.

Nobody died at Sandy Hook.