And if there were more restrictions, he'd have less of a chance to get his hands on a gun in the first place.
Seriously, what's with all the "slippery slope" arguments?
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sure, a weapon is only as deadly as the person wielding it. But the damage that can be caused by a single gunshot far outweighs a single stab wound from a blade or single impact with a blunt object.
Smack to the chest with a bat - Bruised, possibly broken ribs, and maybe getting the wind knocked out of you.
Stab to the chest - Laceration of the skin, possibly punctured lung, stomach, or heart if it passes the ribs.
Shot to the chest - Piercing of skin, broken ribs, punctured lung, stomach, or heart, exit wound.
If there are any doctors in the house that can correct me on these (I have no medical training, these are just predictions), please do.
It also does the damage more easily. Anyone can shoot and kill. You can
drop a gun and set it off and it could kill someone. A blade? Not unless you drop a really heavy one on top of somebody (like a claymore) or drop one from the top of a building and have it actually land point down.
Bottom line, guns have much more damage potential than blades or bats, which is why I believe there should be more safety training, use training, background checks, and personality screenings in order for someone to use one.
EDIT: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SEEM TO THINK I'M ARGUING TO BAN GUNS: I'M NOT!
People should be able to defend themselves with guns, I agree. But we should choose who can use a gun more carefully.