[Shinrei]

Leaving automatic weapons out of this (I agree they shouldn't be in civilian hands), we cannot speculate that a gun would have made this worse.

A guy running around stabbing people would have the advantage of people taking longer to realize just what was happening and then try to get away. A stirring of the crowd might pique interest, but gunshots would send people scurrying for safety immediately. If he was firing a gun, I guarantee people would be panicking and running away quicker just from the sound of the shots. Not only that, but surely police would be quicker to respond to the sound of a gun shot, arrive more quickly on the scene, and might have taken him down sooner. So you can't accurately say "with a gun it would have been worse". Anyway you speculate the situation, the fact remains that he killed 7 people with a knife. Sure, it could have been worse with a gun, it could have been worse with a katana. Personally, I shudder to think what could have happened if he had 3 feet of silent steel in the middle of a crowd, rather than 6 inches.

[Optimus Prime]

Come on Shin, common sense leads us to the conclusion you can and would do more damage with a knife in almost all situations.

Unless this guy is a ninja....which is unlikely. People are so desperate to protect their "right" to have guns. You'd think as a society we could progress away from this.....sigh...

[Thelomen Toblerone]

He could have used a silencer too. Although Im not sure if you can buy them.

[amphibian]

Thelomen Toblerone;326762 said:

He could have used a silencer too. Although Im not sure if you can buy them.

For the mechanically inclined, it's not that difficult to make a crappy one.

It's really not the weapons - it's the people. The Japanese guy could have turned his car into a giant Molotov cocktail and killed like 40 people if he just wanted to put up the numbers. It looks like getting his revenge up close was a higher priority.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

That's a good point actually, one that never really occurred to me. Generally when I think of these cases (and I assume many other people do too), it doesnt occur to me the person usually doesnt intend to survive. Using a knife or gun makes me think they want to do kill loads before getting stopped, but the fact they usually turn the weapon on themselves would surely mean that int he absence of guns, they may as you say try something else - like loading up a car with petrol and ramming a building, as you say, which could potentially kill more.

[Shinrei]

Xander;326675 said:

Come on Shin, common sense leads us to the conclusion you can and would do more damage with a knife in almost all situations.

Unless this guy is a ninja....which is unlikely. People are so desperate to protect their "right" to have guns. You'd think as a society we could progress away from this.....sigh...

Progress would be where we recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. Banning guns is just strong-arming perfectly worthy people. You would take away the rights of millions.

What you fail to see is that this is no different than declaring all muslims potential terrorists and dangerous to the public. All law abiding gun owners must have their rights taken away due to some bad incidents involving guns. All law-abiding muslims must also have their rights/dignity taken away due to some bad incidents involving muslims.

If your knee-jerk reaction to this is "that's different because guns aren't people", then you're missing the point. You're not talking about banning guns, you're talking about banning gun-ownership. Whether it is gun bans or racial profiling, it is stripping the rights of law-abiding people.

[paladin]

we have a winner!

[Shinrei]

BTW, and I think I said this before, I neither own a gun, nor do I intend to own a gun. I'm just arguing on principle, not necessarily to protect something I own or plan on owning.

[Lost Marine]

@Xander-- not to be a pedantic bear but the right to bear arms was penned during a time of peace, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[Shinrei]

Well, in a 5 to 4 decision the supreme court struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns. People are saying this decision makes it clearer that the constitution is being interpreted as the right for individuals to bear arms. Opponents to gun ownership bring up the argument of the wording of the constitution, saying that the spirit of the Amendment is only in the context of a militia are guns to be allowed to be held by private citizens.

Here is the wording of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Pro-gun interprets this as individuals have the right to bear arms. Anti-gun interprets this as not protecting individual rights to ownership, stating that this interpretation ignores the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment.

I disagree with the anti-gun interpretation. What this means, as I read it, is that in order to be able to FORM a well regulated militia for the protection of freedom/rights, individuals should be able to possess firearms. If people are not allowed to have guns, and suddenly find themselves in a situation where they need to form a militia, it's probably going to be too late for them to get their hands on firearms. It doesn't mean you have to be constantly active in a militia to own a firearm.

If you think about it logically, if no one possesses firearms and the population finds itself, through some horrible circumstance, oppressed/invaded, how in the world are they going to suddenly possess firearms and form a militia if they have already lost their freedom to possess firearms?

Back in the 18th century, if the British had for whatever reason outlawed firearms amongst the colonists, and then a few years later the colonists decided to revolt, they'd have been up **** creek with no paddle. It's the fact that the colonists possessed their own firearms already that they were able to form their militias and throw off tyranny.