zlacker

Sure, the analogy is silly. The point really is that [Noun] Control is impossible. What about crossbows, knives and rocks?

Things aren't the problem. People are the problem.

>>vyrote+(OP)
Lets not muddy the waters here. You mean the gunman could've used a number of crossbows, knives and rocks to take down so many people in such a short span of time?

>>vyrote+(OP)
It is very easy to kill someone with a gun.. It is also very easy to imagine how impersonal an experience it can be doing so.

If you have to use a knife to kill someone, you are going to have to get very close to them to do it. You're going to have to be very aware of what you're doing. With a gun.. not so much.

>>vyrote+(OP)
Reductio ad absurdum: I would like to own my own [nuclear weapon], please.

>>zenta+K2
I'd settle for a [drone].

>>chill1+81
Why hypothesize?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910.

_At least _ two seriously wounded.

"Guns don't kill people..."

>>chill1+81
It's also much easier to defend oneself against a knife attack in many cases. E.g. pick up chair, hold in between you and knifey guy; not exactly a great situation, but he's going to have to spend significant time and effort on each and every victim he goes after, and slowing things down greatly will dramatically reduce the body count.

Knives are simply much slower and less efficient for the task, especially against forewarned opponents (e.g. most of the potential victims in many mass-killing situations, and potential defenders), and it's vastly more likely the attacker will be stopped quickly even if he manages to kill a few people.