Originally Posted by Donutz
Cheeze, you can claim this until you're blue in the face, and no-one is going to swallow it. YES, you could become good enough with a sword if you took the time and had the discipline and could find a good instructor. YES, you could kill people with a kitchen knife. YES, you could kill people with a bow as in that link I posted a while back in this thread. But you ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THESE ARE LIKELY TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS A GUN! Don't insult my intelligence. Don't insult the intelligence of the other people on this forum. With a gun you can stand at the doorway and shoot people like fish in a barrel. Even with a trained swordsman, all everyone has to do is stand at the other end of the room and look at you. Anyway, explain to me how a couple of kids managed Columbine if it requires so much training. Mark Lepine, with virtually NO training, kept an entire room hostage and started killing women one at a time by the simple tactic of staying far enough back that he couldn't be rushed.
Sorry, no sale.
That's because no one resisted. A bunch of kids at Sandy Hook managed to run past the gunman while he was standing in the door trying to clear a malfunction and reload. If you honestly think shooting people who are actively trying to run away and avoid being shot is easy, you're incredibly uninformed. Trying to paint a picture of "standing in a doorway while shooting fish in a barrel" makes this quite evident. Yes, you can shoot AT people. Connecting while they run around and hoping someone doesn't come up behind you, charge you or otherwise engage you while you are reloading, have a malfunction, run out of ammunition etc. is an entirely different matter.
Many of the students killed by Klebold and Harris @ Columbine were shot point blank while they sat there and didn't resist. Go read the accounts of how the event actually unfolded. A knife or bludgeon is easily lethal against non-resisting victims, as well. So if you want an explanation, there it is. Would you mind explaining how in many of these mass murders, the gunman only manages to kill a fraction of the people in the area despite possessing a weapon of "mass killing potential"?
What you're completely dismissing is lack of ease it takes to kill a resisting victim
. You're also inventing a scenario which essentially amounts to a no true scottsman fallacy. Saying "all someone has to do is X" to avoid dying at the hands of a man with a melee weapon is ludicrous. The very idea of mass murderers is that they plan their attack based on the weapons available to them. Am I saying their tactics are going to change based upon the weapons they have? No, of course not. But it's been proven that any device lethally employed with equal effectiveness commensurate with the skills, preparation and determination of the murderer.