Originally Posted by analogZero
but the easiest weapon is guns. you can't lump blame and responsibility into one big pile, it's distributed amongst all things involved. That's why there's statistics for how many people are killed by guns, how many are killed by knives, how many are killed by cars, how many are killed by explosives, etc. Taking guns out of the equation of 'somebody used a gun to kill someone' is quite ignorant. Death rates are not equivalent to people's desire to kill. That's why suicide bombers use bombs, to maximize damage. you can't say that the same results would come if they'd used a knife. Effective killing power is what piles on the numbers, not people's decision to kill. If it were the case you described, you could go into battle unarmed and achieve the same result as being fully equipped.
I know why different causes of death are kept separated, but just because a gun was used to kill someone doesn't mean it's the guns fault. If someone does not desire to use the bomb or the gun to end peoples lives then they are not killing people adding to the statistic. Actually to be honest this is so far the only worth while argument I have seen in this thread.