And you are trying to paint a picture where a guy with a gun is less dangerous than a guy with a knife. Oh, you're not actually coming out and SAYING it, because it would sound moronic and rightfully so. But you'll happily point out that killing running people with a gun isn't easy, while ignoring the fact that killing running people with a knife is even harder. You'll talk about the chance to run while a guy is dealing with a jammed gun while ignoring the fact that the moment a guy sticks a knife in a person he has a very good chance of having his arm grabbed.
No one is trying to say either is more dangerous than the other because objects by themselves have no inherent danger. It is completely situational. You're inventing a scenario in your mind where you are comparing a situation where an individual used a firearm and then comparing that exact same scenario with an individual using a knife. That's as ludicrous as comparing someone riding a steep AK pow line with a Jones Flagship to him riding it with an Arbor Draft and saying that proves the Flagship is a more effective snowboard. All weapons have advantages and disadvantages. A knife is cheaper and easier to learn to use. It is quieter and more concealable. It's more easy to obtain. It's easier to carry multiple knives. So of course a person who commits mass murder by having a shootout in the food court of a mall wouldn't be able to do the same thing with a knife. But it doesn't mean he couldn't kill as many people. If I had to kill a bunch of people with a knife, I'd do so in an area where it's easy to isolate people, with hallways and narrow passageways. I wouldn't pick a food court.
You point out that Lepine killed more people because they didn't resist while ignoring the gaping fact that the reason they didn't resist was because he had a gun. If he'd had a knife they would have just scattered.
That's because the media and society has in general has bred a mentality that the best way to try to survive when presented with a madman (not a mugger) is to just cower.
And you happily ignore the greatest single flaw in your dance -- the fact that every nutcase who wants to go out and kill a bunch of people for whatever reason these lunatics do so, does it with guns. Why? Is he saying "I'll do this with a harder weapon to give my victims a sporting chance" ? Of course not. He's grabbing guns because he knows, just as well as you know and I know and anyone with an ounce of sense knows, that he will be able to kill more people more thoroughly more easily with guns. Period. Apparently the lunatics agree with me, not with you.
Tell you what. You amass a set of statistics showing that on average more people get killed per knifing incident than per shooting incident, and we'll talk some more. Untill then, I really am tired of belabouring the obvious.
The onus is on gun-control proponents to demonstrate why passing laws to making guns more difficult to obtain by law-abiding citizens will make society safer. Like I said prior, if you destroyed large amounts of guns (as logistically silly an undertaking that would be) you would expect less murders with guns. But simply creating less murders with guns isn't the goal. What places like AUS and UK have shown is that there isn't an appreciable difference in the number of homicides overall.
Gun control, quite simply, is a solution looking for a problem. It has not been shown that gun control, in The United States, would make it appreciably harder for criminals to obtain guns nor make society safer in an aggregate measure.