And I raise it largely because I've seen it used as a defense of broadly available guns in the US. _"See, there was an attack in China, too, and the guy there was able to use a knife! So, what you gonna do, ban knives, too?"_
If you're going to compare the crimes, you need to compare the outcomes, too. And looking at the outcomes doesn't help the pro-gun case.
You can't control the crazies (though you can certainly do better at trying to find them, and help them — that has its own slippery slopes and issues, but …). But you can try and control what the crazies have access to.
(Note: this isn't a call to any particular solution, just pointing out a really poor defense argument I've seen used this debate.)
Reshared post from +Koushik Dutta
In the last few days, gun enthusiasts have pointed out and asked "If gun control works, what happened in China?".
Well, they survived.
Google+: View post on Google+
According to the FBI the number one instrument used in murders is a baseball bat. Lets ban baseball.
Oh and lets ban cars because cars are so easy to get and they kill more innocent people than guns do. Especially when driven by retards that drink and drive.
Oh, and lets ban pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA puts more dangerous drugs that kill people by far than guns do any day of the week. Lets ban medicine.
Oh +Stephen Ross that would make a logical argument if those items weren't meant for other things as their main purpose. A gun is meant to kill that's it's only purpose. When it starts getting used as a stapler or fax machine as it's primary purpose then maybe you can start this argument up again.
+Stephen Ross, I'd like to see a citation for the baseball bat number, because according to this rendition of FBI homicide numbers, firearms outweigh all other weapons combined.
As far as cars go, beyond the utility argument that +Shar Banning raises, we also take proactive steps to stop people who are dangerous in cars — we require testing, we require regular licensing, we remove licenses from those who have shown they can't behave responsibly with cars, we require extensive liability insurance for all drivers, we have police watching for erratic drivers, we have checkpoints for possible drunk drivers …
And, yes, people still get killed by others behind the wheel, but if you're suggesting we try to act as vigorously on guns as we do on cars, I'd be willing to give that a try.
And in general, because of safety features on cars, we have seen the numbers of fatalities on a downward track for quite some time.
@Mary – True (as well as better road design). Unfortunately, all technological and engineering advances have given us with guns are … more deadly guns.
Difficult to see how that is an argument at all. Knives and baseball bats have other primary uses, neither one works at a distance, and there are effective defenses against both.
I'm baffled by this business of comparing methods of carrying out attempted massacres. Are you trying to optimise them, or something? Building up to a perfect one?
It's a tactic used by gun enthusiasts. "See, you could run over grade school kids with a Zamboni, so it doesn't make any sense to regulate guns!"
The difference between the two tragedies embody the argument against dismantling the health-care-based treatment of mental illness (relegating it to prisons and pharmaceuticals), as well as against public ownership of weapons of mass destruction (assault weapons and high-volume semiautomatic handguns are only that).
I think this argument sidesteps an important point. It’s easier to kill somebody from a distance with a gun and than up close with a knife or a baseball bat. Most of the people who kill with guns are, I think, not as likely to kill if they have to get up close to victims and stab or strangle them.
It’s similar to road rage. When you are in your car, you are disconnected from the other people. It’s easier to react with anger and become aggressive than it is when face to face with others. It’s why we don’t see nearly as much “sidewalk rage.”
@Avo – I think you are correct — and not just because it’s more “up close and personal” but because someone being attacked with a knife or baseball bat can defend or counter-attack.
Hmmmm. Maybe we should encourage open carry of bladed weapons once again.
The US approach will be what it always is. Since any solution that is discussed is either imperfect or threatens votes: do nothing until something shiny distracts the unwashed masses.