If this quote from the initial post in this thread is true:



... then it sounds like the violence rate in the UK is about double that of the US. "But it's knives, not guns!" you might say. I don't really care how I go in this case. A knife, a gun. Doesn't really matter. I'm injured or dead either way.

The thing is, doing away with guns, and having all the criminals thus resort to knives, as in the UK, actually favors the criminals. Who are by in large, younger and stronger than their typical victims. Knives are up close and personal weapons. You still need physical agility to use them effectively. How about allowing the potential victims to have knives to defend themselves? (wait, scratch that, that's what the UK is trying to take away now) But even if allowed, that's still a losing proposition. A gun is a much better equalizer. An older out of shape person can still be an excellent marksman to defend themselves with a gun. And they can potentially do it at arms length, not requiring them to physically struggle with a younger and stronger assailant.

Actually, much of the "gun violence" in the US is one gang member/criminal killing another gang member/criminal. To that, I say "good riddance". I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a benefit to society. Now, if we could just figure out how to control it so it is 100% criminal killing criminal, with no innocents ever getting drug into it. We'd have the problem solved! We could stop building prisons. We could do away with the expensive and drawn out death penalty. We wouldn't have to go to the dreaded "jury duty" as often.