{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${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.
-
7 RespuestasHaving avoided the gun debate so far it's time to put in my view of things. The first statement could be logical or illogical depending on the firearm it is compared to. If the firearm in question was a rifle or pistol then the knife/cleaver/etc. could be equally dangerous. You start stabbing at random in a crowd you could probably take out half a dozen people before anyone really knew what was going on, and another half dozen before anyone thought to try stopping you. Assuming the members of the crowd are unarmed you could probably kill more whilst they're running or trying to fight. Compared to a handguns clip of, what? 15 rounds? They work out about even. If, however, you where comparing an assault rifle then things would be different. The knife/whatever couldn't possibly keep up with several rounds per second. The second statement is completely logical. You start shooting at a crowd, you've still got reaction time before the armed members of the crowd go to draw their weapons, then they have to figure out who the shooter is, wait for a clear shot... The killed/injured count would be the same regardless of whether the crowd were armed or what type of weapon the attacker was using.
