This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?
But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it? This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum. Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.
The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.
Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred. We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.
What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are. That's obvious, right? A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.
If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun. Right?
