2 men injured in Colorado Springs sword attack

[admin]

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.—Two men were injured when a man attacked the boyfriend of a Colorado Springs woman with a sword. Authorities say Sean Knapp went to Kenneth Sipes' apartment with a samurai sword on Tuesday. Police say Knapp swung the sword at Sipes' face when Sipes opened his door. Sipes caught the blade in both hands and was able wrestle the sword away. Police say both ...

Post your comments on the Denver Post article, 2 men injured in Colorado Springs sword attack (click that link to go back and read the article).

[notsosweet35]

A man attacked a boyfriend of a Colorado Springs woman. Probably at least 50% of the men there are a boyfriend. That statement is so weird.

[Hoosier Guy]

There can be only one.

[virtualjohn]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

[OrangeSunset]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

[Sid]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm

http://www.itwillpass.com/law_stupid_la ... nned.shtml

We're following the same path, they're just a few steps ahead of us on it.

[Chimborazo]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

People like them have 2nd amendment tunnelvision and are able to tune out any rational thought on gun control. You can keep trying to get through but they are all a brainwashed lost cause.

[speedysst]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

People like them have 2nd amendment tunnelvision and are able to tune out any rational thought on gun control. You can keep trying to get through but they are all a brainwashed lost cause.

Ha! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Seems to me that this was a pretty directed attack and not a random swording. In MOST cases, such attacks are directed at one person and not EVERYONE is in danger. You anti gun rights advocates always assume the worst case scenario because "ifs" seem to dictate policy instead of actual facts.

[zug-zug]

sounds like a scene out of "vikings" these guys were obviously under the influence of something.

[OrangeSunset]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

i asked a question that if the suspect had a gun, would the victim had died? remember, the suspect swung a sword at the guy's HEAD at point-blank range. if the suspect had a gun, i never assumed he would have died, although i think we both agree the percentage of him being killed would have gone up dramatically if it was a gun instead of a knife.

"stupid liberal remark that i know nothing about"?

first of all, i'm an independent who has voted for george w bush and many other republicans. (most of my friends think i lean towards republicans) second, i come from a family of gun owners. my uncle has about 12 guns including an AR-15 (not converted to full auto, but you can still pump out more than a round a minute). i have family that was in the military and have shot many guns over many, many, many years ever since i was a young child. so, yeah, i think i know what i'm talking about.

also, my reply is very apt as you and several other posters try to turn every story about into a gun-control story (you can't read an article about someone dying in a car crash without someone posting "maybe we should ban cars")

for the record i am both PRO GUN and PRO GUN CONTROL. so don't label me as someone who is trying to ban all guns. i believe in gun ownership and the right to bear arms, but it is not an absolute right. (sorry, but i don't think violent criminals and legitimately mentally unstable people should have the right to bear arms). there has to be laws in place to protect EVERYONE'S right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (that's part of the constitution also), as well as our right to bear arms. (WOW, there's two legitimate sides to this argument???)

[OrangeSunset]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

If you're going to attack someone with ANY deadly weapon, you SHOULD be killed. And if someone came to MY door swinging a sword at my face, I WILL kill him (with my gun). I'd much rather send a bad guy away in a body bag than get my hands all sliced up, possibly to the point of not being able to use them anymore. And whether or not anyone died in this instance, deadly force was used and could have easily resulted in the death of the victim. And gunshot wounds are frequently NOT fatal, btw. So educate yourself so you don't seem like as much of a fool.

why do you have to twist what i said to make your point? (no need to answer; we all know why)

i never said we shouldn't have the right to bear arms. i support the right to bear arms. but that wasn't the point of my post.

i simply asked if the suspect had a gun instead of a knife, do you think the victim would have been killed instead of just injured. please, we all want to know your answer and reasoning.

in your statement: And gunshot wounds are frequently NOT fatal, btw" please define "frequently"?

so are you saying there was a good (or "frequent") chance that if the suspect would have had a gun, he probably would NOT have died? and remember, the victim opened the door and the suspect was standing right in front of him and went right for his head. do you think if the suspect had a gun, he wouldn't have died? (maybe he wouldn't have if the suspect had your markmanship, but i digress...)

please answer these questions "so you don't seem like as much of a fool"! (it's ok, you don't really have to.we all know you have no answers for these questions...)

[QuickDraw_53]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

sorry to ruin your stupid remark. how do you know that someone would have died if it was a gun. you don't know which proves that your remark is a typical liberal stupid remark about something you know nothing about. what it does show is no matter who it is, if they want to attack someone, they will do it even if you ban every gun out there. so why ban guns when they could save lives. so what was the point you was trying to make?

dave,

i asked a question that if the suspect had a gun, would the victim had died? remember, the suspect swung a sword at the guy's HEAD at point-blank range. if the suspect had a gun, i never assumed he would have died, although i think we both agree the percentage of him being killed would have gone up dramatically if it was a gun instead of a knife.

"stupid liberal remark that i know nothing about"?

first of all, i'm an independent who has voted for george w bush and many other republicans. (most of my friends think i lean towards republicans) second, i come from a family of gun owners. my uncle has about 12 guns including an AR-15 (not converted to full auto, but you can still pump out more than a round a minute). i have family that was in the military and have shot many guns over many, many, many years ever since i was a young child. so, yeah, i think i know what i'm talking about.

also, my reply is very apt as you and several other posters try to turn every story about into a gun-control story (you can't read an article about someone dying in a car crash without someone posting "maybe we should ban cars")

for the record i am both PRO GUN and PRO GUN CONTROL. so don't label me as someone who is trying to ban all guns. i believe in gun ownership and the right to bear arms, but it is not an absolute right. (sorry, but i don't think violent criminals and legitimately mentally unstable people should have the right to bear arms). there has to be laws in place to protect EVERYONE'S right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (that's part of the constitution also), as well as our right to bear arms. (WOW, there's two legitimate sides to this argument???)

since you think you know what you are talking about, your statement was even dumber then i first thought. you still have no idea what you are talking about and it doesn't matter if you claim to be an independent. your statements were not what a republican would make and if you want something to stop the violence then go after the mentally sick people that do this or criminals that do violent crimes. these gun control laws will do nothing to stop the killing. i never said you would try and ban guns. so before you argue with me make sure you know what you are talking about. they will not stop this violence till they take a good look at who is doing all these things. your first statement was that of a liberal view and still is a stupid remark to the statement that the other person said

[OrangeSunset]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

sorry to ruin your stupid remark. how do you know that someone would have died if it was a gun. you don't know which proves that your remark is a typical liberal stupid remark about something you know nothing about. what it does show is no matter who it is, if they want to attack someone, they will do it even if you ban every gun out there. so why ban guns when they could save lives. so what was the point you was trying to make?

dave,

i asked a question that if the suspect had a gun, would the victim had died? remember, the suspect swung a sword at the guy's HEAD at point-blank range. if the suspect had a gun, i never assumed he would have died, although i think we both agree the percentage of him being killed would have gone up dramatically if it was a gun instead of a knife.

"stupid liberal remark that i know nothing about"?

first of all, i'm an independent who has voted for george w bush and many other republicans. (most of my friends think i lean towards republicans) second, i come from a family of gun owners. my uncle has about 12 guns including an AR-15 (not converted to full auto, but you can still pump out more than a round a minute). i have family that was in the military and have shot many guns over many, many, many years ever since i was a young child. so, yeah, i think i know what i'm talking about.

also, my reply is very apt as you and several other posters try to turn every story about into a gun-control story (you can't read an article about someone dying in a car crash without someone posting "maybe we should ban cars")

for the record i am both PRO GUN and PRO GUN CONTROL. so don't label me as someone who is trying to ban all guns. i believe in gun ownership and the right to bear arms, but it is not an absolute right. (sorry, but i don't think violent criminals and legitimately mentally unstable people should have the right to bear arms). there has to be laws in place to protect EVERYONE'S right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (that's part of the constitution also), as well as our right to bear arms. (WOW, there's two legitimate sides to this argument???)

since you think you know what you are talking about, your statement was even dumber then i first thought. you still have no idea what you are talking about and it doesn't matter if you claim to be an independent. your statements were not what a republican would make and if you want something to stop the violence then go after the mentally sick people that do this or criminals that do violent crimes. these gun control laws will do nothing to stop the killing. i never said you would try and ban guns. so before you argue with me make sure you know what you are talking about. they will not stop this violence till they take a good look at who is doing all these things. your first statement was that of a liberal view and still is a stupid remark to the statement that the other person said

what was dumb about my posts? YOU brought up banning guns, not me. find one reference to banning guns in my first post. in your reply, you wrote: "they will do it even if you ban every gun out there. so why ban guns when they could save lives."

see? you brought it up, not me.

you wrote: " your statements were not what a republican would make"

who cares what a republican or democrat **should** think or say??? i would never want to be labeled either a republican OR a democrat. i can think for myself, thank you. do you do everything they tell you to do? is everything black and white to you (ie liberal/conservative, republican/democrat)? do you ever think for yourself or do you just wait to hear what rush limbaugh or bill o'reilly think?? (btw, that's a rhetorical question. look it up if you don't know what 'rhetorical' means.)

so in closing, dave, enjoy your summer's eve tonight! it's supposed to be quite warm...

[Nimdap Duf]

How long are we going to allow all this "blade violence" to continue before we do something? "High-capacity assault swords" like these "samurai swords" have no place in the hands of civilians. They are designed only for cutting up as many people as possible in a short time. You don't need a "Samurai sword" for hunting. How many have to be sliced up before we stop the madness? We all know people that have been cut. We must get all the "assault swords and knives" off the streets. Only police should be allowed to carry knives.

sorry to ruin your sarcasm fun, but...

did you notice NO ONE DIED from the sword attack? if the suspect came with a gun instead of a sword, could you say the same thing?

also, notice that no one else (like neighbors, bystanders, first responders, etc) were killed? could you say the same if the suspect had a gun?

so what was the point you were trying to make?

If you're going to attack someone with ANY deadly weapon, you SHOULD be killed. And if someone came to MY door swinging a sword at my face, I WILL kill him (with my gun). I'd much rather send a bad guy away in a body bag than get my hands all sliced up, possibly to the point of not being able to use them anymore. And whether or not anyone died in this instance, deadly force was used and could have easily resulted in the death of the victim. And gunshot wounds are frequently NOT fatal, btw. So educate yourself so you don't seem like as much of a fool.

why do you have to twist what i said to make your point? (no need to answer; we all know why)

i never said we shouldn't have the right to bear arms. i support the right to bear arms. but that wasn't the point of my post.

i simply asked if the suspect had a gun instead of a knife, do you think the victim would have been killed instead of just injured. please, we all want to know your answer and reasoning.

in your statement: And gunshot wounds are frequently NOT fatal, btw" please define "frequently"?

so are you saying there was a good (or "frequent") chance that if the suspect would have had a gun, he probably would NOT have died? and remember, the victim opened the door and the suspect was standing right in front of him and went right for his head. do you think if the suspect had a gun, he wouldn't have died? (maybe he wouldn't have if the suspect had your markmanship, but i digress...)

please answer these questions "so you don't seem like as much of a fool"! (it's ok, you don't really have to.we all know you have no answers for these questions...)

By "frequently" I mean approximately 70,000 out of the roughly 105,000 gun assaults each year. And I didn't twist anything. If I didn't get your meaning right, then you need better communication skills.