[JustSomeNobody]

> ... you can perform deadly assault with pencil, bow or a brick.

I'm not saying we shouldn't ban certain guns, but I don't think people realize that if someone is hellbent on killing, they'll use a hatchet or a machete if they can't get a gun. We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones.

[oblio]

> We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones.

How do you quantify "nastier"? I couldn't really say.

Meanwhile, I can quantify "fewer deaths". And I'd try to achieve that first.

[JustSomeNobody]

I don't think getting hacked to death would be as clean a kill, generally, as being shot. I've never witnessed either happen, so I could be wrong.

[InitialLastName]

Dead is dead. I'll take a few nasty deaths in place of lots of "clean" ones.

[JustSomeNobody]

Dead is dead, you're correct.

Dying, however, is an altogether different thing.

[hnal943]

We don't have to use our imagination about what other weapons people might use to commit terror - Bombs and vehicles are already popular, and no less deadly.

[r00fus]

I completely disagree. A stab wound or deep cut is much less grisly/nasty than a bullet in the head, or large exit wound.

Stochastically speaking, a hatchet/machete is simply less efficient (which is good in this case).

The "nastiness" of the effort may also prevent some from going forward with their assault in the first place...