> Your first points is obscured by snark. What is obscured about the observation that your comment doesn't recognize the differences between self-defense and m

> Your first points is obscured by snark. What is obscured about the observation that your comment doesn't recognize the differences between self-defense and mass shootings, and how the qualities of the weapon affect the benefits for the user? > The second seems to be based on a misreading. You'll have to explain why questioning an intellectually defunct implication is a "misreading". "that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one." Considering your claim is that desiring the right to own one is some kind of evidence that guns are "more dangerous and effective", it is thoroughly debunked if the person also desires the right to own knives. > The third is merely the observation that empirical reasoning is non-demonstrative. It should be noted that making a gigantic logical leap from "guns are more dangerous and effective than knives" to "It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools" is to ignore the social, cultural, economic factors that affect crime. That's not a good basis for understanding of criminal behavior.