arma virumque cano (et alia)
JUNCTION CITY, Ore. - A man upset about his pending divorce shot and killed his daughters as they slept before taking his own life sometime Sunday night, the sheriff's office said.
So, you're saying he couldn't have done this with a knife, or a bucket of gasoline, or a car, or ...?
Of course it could have been done with any number of things. That's not the point. The point is when it comes to murder and suicide nothing works like a gun. The gun is more likely to succeed, it's more capable of helping the shooter rack up the numbers if that's what he wants.I realize if you take one of the worst examples of a knife attack and compare it to a .22 in the foot, the knife wins. But overall, on average, in the longrun, guns are preferred, and for good reason.Now, why would you even question something so fundamental and obvious?
And why do you question the obvious, that if guns are removed, people will (and have, in places like the UK as an example) find another method to commit crime.Is it better to be stabbed to death than shot to death?As long as we're having this discussion, let's examine the other side of it. You say the gun is better at helping the shooter "rack up the numbers." You say the gun is more likely to succeed.Doesn't that, then, make it all the more desirable for the average person to use to defend themselves?To put it yet another way, take for example the story of the pizza guy who shot and killed the two perps that were beating him. He had to jump through all the hoops you like, just to get permission to carry his gun under his shirt.The two criminals (who both have prior records and parole violations) did not jump through the hoops you like, and were armed with guns also.The hoops did nothing to stop them from getting the guns, or committing crimes with the guns. The only person inconvenienced in any way at all was the permit holder. What would the headline have been had he decided not to bother carrying a gun because of all the hoops you like?