{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/12/2015 3:44:14 PM
14
Are both of these statements equally illogical?
Statement 1:
[spoiler]A person firing a gun into a crowd of unarmed individuals will have the same effect as if said shooter was using a knife/axe/bat/other similar item.[/spoiler]
Statement 2:
[spoiler]A person firing a gun into an unarmed crowd will have the same effect as if the same person was firing a gun into a crowd of people who were also armed with guns. [/spoiler]
Inb4 Replies are exactly the same as those of every gun control debate ever.
-
They are both illogical. Statement 1's problem occurs when the attacker switches to a melee weapon, such as a knife or a bat. These weapons do not kill near-instantaneously at far range, and do not cause as much noise. A gunshot would sent people into more of a panic. Although, if someone were to use a chainsaw instead of a knife, the statement might be more true. Statement 2 is illogical because people who are armed, and know how to use those arms, are more likely to defend themselves than if they were unarmed.
