And it is a rule that is transparently, obviously, stupidly wrong. 'Never point a gun at anyone where death is not an acceptable outcome' is one thing, but how about 'Don't move or I shoot!'? Seriously who the hell taught you that? Grab a dictionary, give it to them, and tell them to look up 'Bravado' and 'Escalation'. If I come home early and surprise a burglar, I'm totally justified in drawing and aiming on him and issuing a life or death ultimatum, that's pure common sense, that doesn't mean the best, let alone only, outcome is for me to squeeze the trigger.



That's not the claim, that what you want it to be because you're being willfully blind, the claim is that probability of innocent people dying decreases proportional to the proximity of a gun to the situation in the hands of a competent wielder. Obviously more competent shooters improve that, just as a more competent spree killer decreases that. But to argue a gun in the hands of relatively unskilled wielder (which an absence of a badge hardly proves) would also imply that the spree killer, unless an off duty cop or ex-military, is also a minimal threat. Why is a spree killer somehow more gun talented then a civilian with a gun? What the fuck kind of logic is that? Plus, you point to the off duty cop example even though several examples weren't cops. That doesn't even make sense. You may as well say that because a sprinter once made it to a payphone to call in help in record time any non-athletes shouldn't even be allowed to run for a phone.



China's apparently had 7 such stabbing incidents in and around that one province in a handful of months, some with fatalities. Statistical outliers make bad examples, yes knives are less dangerous generally then gun, but there are cases of people opening up on full auto, draining an entire clip, and not injuring anyone. Under your logic that case proves gun control is pointless. Regardless, I don't actually trust a damn thing China says about its own internal security.