111

China kindergarten stabbing: Six dead in Lianjiang (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by reclipse@lemdro.id to c/world@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] rustyfish@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

They believe the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced Chinese cities to endure some of the longest and toughest lockdowns anywhere in the world, could be one reason. The after-effects are not well understood yet, but could include feelings of anger and resentment, and involve a loss of jobs, investments and relationships.

Other possible factors that are cited are the high stress and high expectations put on young men in Chinese society. These are exacerbated by high levels of youth unemployment and a widening rich-poor divide. One expert told the BBC a strong sense of "social deprivation" can lead some to use violence to vent their frustration against society.

Alright, this COULD explain why they go on a stabbing spree. But why children? Why the kindergardens? Because they can't defend themselves or is there more to it?

[-] Amongog@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

If it's despair because of the state the society is in, I could see someone targeting children to 'spare' them from what awaits them.
It's the same reason some parents kill themselves and their children when commiting suicide.
It's fucked up.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Lol, what?

Isn't it more likely he just hates the world and wants to cause as much damage as possible?

[-] Amongog@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

That could be another perspective a person like this could have.
Either way, it's clear they're deranged and fucked up.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Lol, idiots will blame COVID for anything.

Isn't it enough that some people just want to watch the world burn?

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What’s the cause for all these kindergarten stabbings in China?

Like I can kinda understand American school shooters being students and stuff, but this just seems so detached? Is it a copy-cat thing?

[-] Oswald_Buzzbald@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

This is purely speculation, but I think the reason children are frequently targeted is because they are innocent and the most beloved thing in their parents lives. I think most parents would rather be killed than their children, so to the murderer, it is a way to hurt someone that's worse than killing them. It is the most heinous act they can think of, and the most aggressive protest to society. I wish mainstream media didn't give them the infamy they get, because I feel like it feeds into their fantasy, but I also like information to be freely accessible, and don't think censoring these things is a great solution either. They should probably just emphasis the fact that these awful people are weak, impotent, cowards, who will be forgotten, and they will be nothing more than a statistic with no name attached. Total identity erasure.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This makes way more sense than "covid".

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is honestly the first I've been hearing about all this, too. I had no idea this was a pattern. I thought the US was the only country with these sorts of problems.

Makes me wonder if there's some more definable common link than dissilusionment with society.

[-] TheGod@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Sad for the kids.

If they had guns it would be over 40 deaths. This is important for all european and east asian nations to remember. Your gun policy works. Don't allow mass school shootings and street shootings

[-] ferne@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Something happens. Let's make it about America!

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Probably not.

[+] Hardeehar@lemmy.world -10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Devil's advocate here, maybe he would've been stopped by a teacher with a gun before he got to even 1.

EDIT - or someone. If you were personally there with the ability to stop a madman with a knife and defend a child, are you saying you wouldn't use that power to stop him? I'm not talking anybody else here, I'm talking you, the reader.

EDIT2 - so what's the answer to this situation? I want to hear the ideas of those downvoting. Discourse is the opportunity, not a wall.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Reality check here: We see time and time again in the US that this “good guy with a gun” nonsense narrative happens 1 out of 100 times if that, but the mass victims happen 100 out of 100 times.

More lives would be saved by less larger murders than the off chance a hero is there with perfect aim and a clear shot.

[-] Hardeehar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Still getting used to Lemmy! I'm not getting notifications about when I'm being responded to. I dunno.

The "good guy with a gun" thing is absolutely hard to swallow, I can agree with that. But you must concede that if it wasn't true, why would the President and most politicians making gun laws have a security detail with guys that are armed with guns? Why would the police carry guns? Why do banks have security guards that carry guns?

It's also a weird argument to say that I have a 1/100 chance of being rescued by a guy with gun Vs being killed.

So the answer to defending yourself or others from the guy with the knife is what? Wait for someone else, like Uvalde? Be a meat shield? Even if it's 1 out of 100, I would rather not wait to be hurt.

[-] Letranger@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

What a cruel way of birth control!

[+] HelixDab@kbin.social -18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Obviously the problem is that there are too many knives in China, and it's too easy for civilians to get knives! No one needs a knife; the only purpose of a knife is to cut and stab. The only solution is to completely ban all knives in China.

...Or they could seriously address the social issues that lead to certain segments of their population committing this kind of atrocity.

Hmmm. I wonder where else that could be applied...?

[-] Anomandaris@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah man, let me just get my kitchen gun or my box shooter or my letter pistol.

Oh wait, sorry, it's not guns I'm thinking of that has many completely harmless uses, it's knives!

[-] Lols@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

grabbing my full automatic tactical assault bread knife to fire indiscriminately into the crowd, killing a dozen at long range

wait no, thats not how knives work

[-] HelixDab@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Love that people just ignore that violence doesn't happen in a vacuum, and since violence must happen in a vacuum without any causes at all the only solution is to remove the tools.

Guns are tools. A knife is a tool. A car is a tool. Even high explosives are tools.

BTW, I do have a kitchen gun, because that's where I need it when there's a problem bear outside. (Yes, bear - one of those 300+ pound animals with teeth and claws that are sometimes extremely aggressive.)

I assume that you want safe communities; would you be open to solutions that increase safety if they didn't involve removing firearms, or is that the only solution that you'd accept?

[-] sensibilidades@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

A gun is a tool with only one use.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hunting and self-defense? Lots of people are marksmen just as a hobby.

We get it. You're afraid to own a gun so you think everyone else should be, too.

Let me guess, you also don't like the police? You probably can't fight? Why would you want to live in a society where everyone stronger than you can do what they want with you?

[-] sensibilidades@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I love how you go from 'guns are just tools' to 'I think about fighting all the time' in like three sentences. I've had guns, I used to be a member of the NRA, I'm also not a dipshit who thinks a gun is just as much a tool as a hammer is. They're designed to kill things, it's not weak to admit that's what they're for.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Stop playing leapfrog with yourself.

Just be direct with what you want to say.

[-] HelixDab@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I used to be a member of the NRA too, but I'm not willing to pay for some dude's $15,000 suits while he's kissing the asses of people that want to overturn every part of the constitution that isn't 2A rights. I'm slightly more okay with SAF and GOA, but they still often shill for Republicans.

The fact that a gun has a 'purpose' of killing is reductive and not useful. Killing is, by itself, neither good nor bad. Killing can be justified and moral, or it can be deeply immoral.

So, as I asked originally, if you could reduce the number of illegal and immoral uses of firearms without reducing the ability of people to exercise their civil rights, would you be open to that?

Fewer guns doesn't, by itself, mean less violence. We can see that in Australia and in England, where the combined rates of all violent crimes (battery, robbery, forcible rape, murder) are comparable to the US, and possibly higher, but the lethality is reduced. On the other hand, reducing the amount of violence in society, through programs that attack root causes in the most affected communities (which, notably, is not harsher policing and sentencing, but more like community improvement and poverty reduction), reduces both rates of violence and the homicide rates. Chicago actually had a pretty good violence intervention program going for a number of years before it was senselessly defunded.

[-] Anomandaris@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Calling a gun a tool is intentionally misleading. A gun's sole purpose is as a weapon, using it any other way is a misuse of that "tool". Whereas knives have various practical purposes. Which was obviously the purpose of my initial reply.

In some cases, yes, having a gun is entirely legitimate (assuming used safely) such as protection from dangerous wildlife. But the number of legitimate cases does not even come close to justifying the number of guns, or the gun culture, in America. Violence doesn't happen in a vacuum, the presence of guns, the acceptance of gun culture, and the normalization of gun violence are things that contribute to the frequency of gun crime.

The removal of guns, and restricting of them to legitimate use cases IS dealing with the underlying social issues. But it's definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

[-] HelixDab@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You've avoiding the question.

Would you be open to solutions that do not involve removing guns, or is that the only solution you would accept?

[-] Anomandaris@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But it's definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

No I didn't, I think I was pretty clear. We need to reduce the number of guns available, nothing else will be effective until we do. I do believe any solution that does not involve removing guns at some point is incomplete. But removing guns on its own is not enough.

[-] HelixDab@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

No, you were quite clear; you aren't actually interested in real solutions, you're interested in gun control for the sake of gun control.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Lol, ok.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 1 year ago

Lol, American.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Anyone with a brain can realize weapons are tools.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 1 year ago

What's the purpose of that tool?

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's not the point.

You were trying to argue that weapons are not tools, which is wrong.

[-] Anomandaris@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, technically weapons are tools, that's because the definition of a tool is so broad, just a device used to carry out a particular task.

That's why I never said he was wrong to call a gun a tool, I said it was misleading, which it is. When a reasonable person thinks of a tool they do not think of a gun, you think of a wrench or a screwdriver or a swiss army knife, or something like that.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No. A reasonable person thinks of nothing specific when the word 'tool' is said because it's such a broad term.

Trying to argue a gun isn't a tool is wrong. It's more misleading than calling it a tool because, again, it's wrong. You're only doing it to push an agenda.

[-] Anomandaris@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, technically weapons are tools

Again, I'm not arguing a gun isn't a tool. In fact, in the very comment you're replying to I said they are.

But all of this is besides the actual point, you derailed the point of gun culture and availability driving gun violence with an ultimately meaningless conversation about semantics.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

🥱

sorry, I'm done. Good luck.

[-] nxfsi@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I'll do you one better: simply stop reporting incidents like these and the problem just goes away like magic!

/s in case of idiots

[-] platysalty@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

There is no war in Ba Sing Se

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023

111 points (94.4% liked)

World News

38531 readers

2637 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.