> Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is ea

> Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them At point blank it’s easy. Once it’s at range and for pistols it’s a matter of practice. It’s why rifles tend be used by soldiers; it’s easier to aim with, train, and be accurate with. It’s a matter of geometry. It’s also highly conspicuous (unlike handguns). Okay. Say you’re injured and not dead: If size isn’t a deterrent, then wouldn’t an armed good samaritan be able to do more to help than an unarmed? What if the individual goes after more victims? But whether a person is being stabbed and bleeding to death, knocked out, or shot incapacitated: They’re unable to run, nevermind help. At that point they’re at the mercy of the attacker and the people around them. What I’ll concede is that a gun also enables a lot of individuals to be an attacker: Equalizing goes both ways. I’ll also concede that in the ideal world we’d have phasers to stun; but as far as I know even beanbag guns and similar are not meant for civilian use. I wish it weren’t this way, but even stun guns and tasers are illegal in places like NYC.