Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.
The only way to see if restricting guns will make us safer is by...restricting guns. And frankly, I'd rather take my chances WITH a gun, than without.
The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?
Really? Because it seems to me, the gun in the OP had a purpose...that purpose being, stopping the guy with the knife, without a single shot fired. If what you say is true, the dude with the knife should be dead right now. Is he? No. Then, what you say must not, in fact, be true.
Guns are lethal, yes, but lethality is not their sole purpose. No, one can say their purpose is more the THREAT of lethality. I could just as easily say that the purpose of martial arts is to harm others. It was designed with that specific purpose in mind. To allow one combatant to more easily and more effectively incapacitate another. Should be ban or restrict the teaching or martial arts? No. Heck, that stuff is fine to sign your kids up for. But wait. Despite the purpose of it's design, there have been other useful things it can do. Like keep otherwise inactive people in decent shape, instilling confidence in those that practice it, and, more than anything else, teaching focus and restraint. Guns do the same thing, dude. Someone with a gun is going to be a LOT more confident about getting back to their car, way out on the other end of the unlit parking lot at night, after work. Someone who has learned how to effectively USE a gun, has a lot more respect for the finality to a situation that it offers, and a greater since of responsibility about it's use. There are far, far, far more stories of responsible gun owners than there are of irresponsible gun owners...otherwise, with millions upon millions of gun owners IN the US, we'd all be getting shot at, all the time. And I, for one, have NEVER been shot at. Anyone else care to give a show of hands, if they have NOT been shot at, lol? I'll imagine we GREATLY outnumber those that have. Inexplicably, of course, lol.
