zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.

Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.

edit: be

>>iugtmk+0e
> And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would.

Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.

>>silver+lk
They still get through and do damage. Salman Rushdie and Jair Bolsonaro come to mind on recent-ish high profile knife stabbings.

>>joecoo+Io
Obviously attacks happen even without guns. But it is harder to kill someone without a gun, and harder to kill multiple people or from a distance without one.

Guns aren't as generally useful as knives. So it makes little sense to have 1.2 guns per person, or really any private gun possession. The price of mass murders, shooter drills, and firearm accidents aren't worth what marginal benefits guns may bring.