>>C'mon John. Comparing the ease of dealing death by gun with the same by steak knife or ink pen is a bit of a stretch. If you stand out on the street or wander through a school and start dealing death by steak knife or ink pen, how far will you get. Now with a gun - how far will you get. The comparison is sophistry pure and simple.
>
>I was responding to the argument that the gun was the problem by pointing out that you can kill people in a multitude of ways. Once again you libs want to disregard that fact. After the Oklahoma City bombing there was a rush to control fertilizer because it had been used in the bombing. The next step would be to monitor gasoline, etc. These attempts don't work. It's the "justice system" that is causing the problems by reinforcing criminal behavior. Kill someone, get 8 years, which gets reduced to 8 months. The gangs and even common criminals know this and they don't care.

Hey, I'm not arguing about the dearth of reasonable sentencing in our so called 'justice' systems, but I'm having a real problem in trying to figure out why you feel that guns are no more dangerous than steak knives. It doesn't take digging in to obscure concepts to see how guns are so much more efficient in dealing out death. That you feel that makes no difference to the debate is what puzzles me. As Terry mentioned, when we start having a lot of drive by killings by thugs with pens, then maybe I'll start worrying about pens as weapons, but until then, guns are the weapon of choice for the garbage of society, and are so much more efficient than pens, that I'll keep my concerns right where they are.

Sure it's the person rather than the weapon, but without guns, and with thugs only armed with steak knives, I think we'd have a lot less of a problem. I take it you disagree; I mean, as a cop, you'd be just as concerned, and you feel you'e have just as many homocides to deal with if nobody had a gun, but everybody was still allowed to carry a pen?