That's the title of a Washington Post article.
While I don't know if anyone in the magazine wanted a weapon, if one of them had had a gun, things might have ended a somewhat different way, with at least less bloodshed.
One has only to look at the attack on Canada's apartment building where an individual citizen, the Sergeant at Arms, Kevin Vlickers, a private citizen albeit a retired ex-cop, to see how the presence of an unexpected gun can bring an attack to an end and prevent additional bloodshed if not the initial bloodshed.
If someone is attacked by a dog, we don't say "Don't fight the dog. Wait till the Animal Control people arrive." Yet that is basically the position gun control advocates would put us in when it comes to terroristic attacks.
I wonder if the sale of samurai swords go up after samurai sword massacres.
We've already done your slippery slope argument.
Guns are banned...why not knives...knives are banned...why not hammers etc.
Works just as well in reverse:
Knives are legal...why not guns...guns are legal...why not grenades...grenades are legal...why not missile launchers?
The argument is absurd in both directions.
Each weapon has to be dealt with on its own terms, through debate, and democratic consensus and hopefully a little empirical knowledge along the way.
Kirs has also already addressed the utility of knives (and hammers etc.) as tools.
I was not making a slippery slope argument (but thanks for leaping to conclusions anyway).
It's not that guns are without utility. You simply to don't recognize their utility or "Why not use a knife of baseball bat instead, so we can get rid of guns?"
No...it's very slippery slope unseen.
Guns are out of the way...wouldn't we have to move on to knives? Now that knives are out of the way...wouldn't we have to move on to hammers? Now that hammers are out of the way (and so on) until we pull everyone's finger nails out as these could be used in fatal injuries.
This is slippery slope because you've given no explanation as to why you would be obliged to move on to controlling knives (as if they aren't already controlled lol). Your argument can be reduced to "higher threat mostly eliminated...now next higher threat must be eliminated". That argument doesn't follow unless you are ready for a slippery slope. You have to explain why a lower threat must also be eliminated. Each potentially lethal weapon has to be evaluated on it's own.
As for utility: Guns have great utility. Police and the armed forces being able to defend themselves and stop highly dangerous criminals or threats, people in the country side enjoying 'da hunting trips, killing a bear that's about to rip your face off, committing suicide etc. All of these utilities are taken into consideration when guns are controlled (and this is no different with knives and hammers). No country completely bans guns as no police force is completely unarmed and I know very few countries that place extreme limits on hunting riffles or means to protect yourself in the deep countryside.
Utility has to be weighed against potential danger in each range (weapon type, possible activities, urban/rural utility) and a long myriad of complex problems and it all has to be decided by debate and democratic consensus. No campaign against "total threat elimination or eliminating the greatest danger" could apply to control of all weapons. I would prefer that highly dangerous knives were limited to the country side for outdoors-men and for people to use in their specializsed work or well trained hobbyists...but this would be a rather different conversation as the Islamic warriors in Paris invaded with semi-automatic arms with bullets that pierce through vital body organs faster than the speed of sound shot from a distance one round after another and not the skilled limited use of sharp metal blades.
It's illegal to own all those weapons? Really? Or just to possess them? I ask because if I were to be a New York resident and I were to purchase a throwing star, for example, and have it delivered out of state and keep it there, I'd be in technical violation of New York law?
That is a pretty strict law, I must say.
Totally illegal in a lot of countries and several states (sale, purchase, transport). I'm not sure a total ban is completely necessary but I'm not sure some control is "harsh".
Butter...Butter...Butter...what a cry-baby.
Murder is a very personal thing. Doesn't get any more personal than when you're plunging a knife into someones chess who is a mere foot away from you. Most don't have the balls for it. Gun? I can stand far enough away that it's no longer as intimate. A lot easier for me to make up my mind, shoot, and flee. Also, the loud noise pre disposes would be hero's to not get involved.
Tell Jack Kennedy the simplicity of a bullet wound. Buddy of mine got shot at a Disco in the 70's. Little .22. Bullet bounced around his insides. They removed half his large intestine because it was riddled with holes.
What's with the fear? This stuff does happen. My uncle died as a result of 17 stab wounds. Took two guys to kill him, chasing him up a hill in Fort Apache, the Bronx. He made it to our door, on the second floor of a five story walkup, and died on the ceramic mosaic floor of the hallway. When I put my hand on the back of his head to comfort him his skull was crushed in. Looks like they also took a lead pipe to him too. I was 13. Doesn't get anymore personal than that right?
I'm sure most gun murders are not sniper attacks but are more likely to be in the "whites of the eyes" range. Maybe not quite as close as with a knife, but close enough. Murder by shotgun, I would think, is almost always personal. People use shotguns to murder someone in their life who they feel betrayed them somehow, and if you want to blow a hole in someone you could throw a bowling ball through, you want to shoot them at pretty close range because of the way shot spreads of distance.
And like I said, whether you live or die from a gunshot is a lot more predetermined by the shot itself rather than the efforts of an ER doctor. A lot of gunshot wounds are due to just one shot, but knife attacks are generally a number of slashes or stabbings. In a sense, the stabbings are much worse than the slashes, which often can be just cleaned and sewn back up, but a deep knife wound can puncture several organs, and if the person has sustained a number such wounds, causing massive internal bleeding, the chance of repairing it all before the patient dies are not good.
Sorry to hear about your uncle. Does it have you thinking about knife control or how ineffective the existing knife control happens to be?
Knife control? Yeah that's exactly what it's got me thinking about...
Cause we hear more stories of dozens of little kids being knifed to death as opposed to systematically being shot to death with an AR-15 and a handgun. Or someone running into a movie theater, tossing a smoke grenade, and systematically stabbing people in their seats and as they are heading for the exits. Or walking into a Mickey D's and taking out dozens of people with a knife. Yep, you got that right got me thinking long and hard of knife control cause it's a really big problem in America. All those crazed lunatics running around with licensed knives stabbing people...
So much easier to do all those things with a gun. You said so yourself Unseen. And nothing related to murder is more intimate or in your face as stabbing someone. That's why most people who have a choice, and have both a gun and a knife, will opt for the gun every single time. Insures you get no bodily fluids on that nice starched shirt and it doesn't take the gonads that stabbing someone up close and personal does. Cause there are people in your little group who grow a nice big testicle when they have their warm little mitts wrapped around the grip of a nice big gun. Funny, that phenomena repeats itself when they're behind a keyboard too...
Cause we hear more stories of dozens of little kids being knifed to death as opposed to systematically being shot to death with an AR-15 and a handgun.
You're like the people who oppose nuclear power and base their views on headlines. Yes, there have been such attacks every now and then, but knife attacks happen all the time and so are not "man bites dog" stories.
Are you aware that far more kids are subjected to knife attacks than by attacks using assault rifles? Or that assault rifle mass murders are a rarity, which is why they only make the news 2 or 3 times a year.
Guns may be the most common way people kill people, but someone who wants to kill people en masse impersonally has other choices. Poison. Bombs.
Anyway, since little can be done about guns, you might show some concern for some of the other means.