>>>>The other thing that they constantly repeat is that if not a gun would be killers would use a knife with the same result, but everyone is silent about the Texas knife spree, where the guy tried to kill "en mass" but he was only able to injure 14, 2 critical. Yep, exactly the same if they guy had tried with guns, eh?
>>>
>>>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/12/suspect-in-texas-college-stabbing-told-investigators-he-fantasized-about-cannibalism-necrophilia/
>>>
>>>That may be a case where the suspect would not have used firearms as it would not fit his fantasy.
>>
>>In this case yes - but what Hugo was pointing out is that people claim that these mass-shooter guys would just use a knife instead - so why worry about them getting a gun if they'll just get a knife instead? I think we can all agree that a wacko with a gun is far more dangerous that an wacko with knife. As matter of fact ANYONE with a gun is more dangerous that anyone with a knife. Hey - if that 4 year old couldn't of got a gun to shoot his aunt by mistake - he just would of grabbed a knife and stabbed her by mistake instead.
>
>I think most people would agree firearms are more dangerous than knives. Anyone arguing the opposite would be, well, bringing a knife to a gunfight :-{

Correct - which is why, as Hugo pointed out, that it's so astonishing that some gun 'experts' seem to think this.