I've heard
ridiculous arguments that because
guns and
knives and whatever else you may want to mention can kill that they should all be
treated the same.
(Interesting that cars also can kill, but nobody uses them as an example because they're licensed and registered.)
They're not. There's a huge difference. I've never heard of a drive-by knifing. Or someone killing thirteen people in a school with knives. (I'm not going into some sort of "save the children" routine here - just trying to point out that the gun is a better enabler than a knife) If someone walks into a bank armed with two bowie knives, sure, it's not a nice situation, but not nearly the same as someone walking in with two AK-47s. The physical proximity requirement makes quite a difference.
I've never heard of a knife, or a baseball bat, or a rock accidentally going off and killing someone. Sure, accidents happen with anything that can kill, whether it be a gun, knife, rock, electricity, or even a stepladder. It's a lot harder to accidentally kill someone with a knife or a rock.
Probably the closest thing to a gun that's not a gun would be a crossbow. It has the ability to hit from a distance. But it's not nearly as concealable.
Next time someone wants to compare the fact that both knives and guns kill, ask them if they'd rather defend themself with a knive than a gun. Somehow, I doubt they'd agree.
DMan - I'm not trying to draw children and school violence here. I know the violence levels have declined in reality. I know there's a big overreaction by countless people. And I agree that Courtney Love's argument is wholly flawed. They are all irrelevant to what I'm talking about here, and to be honest, I think your whole writeup is also irrelevant.