Reply to post: Re: @Paul Crawford re: guns.

UCLA shooter: I killed my prof over code theft

tiggity Silver badge

Re: @Paul Crawford re: guns.

An attacker *could* kill someone with shoelaces - but it's not the main use of shoelaces & it's an awful lot more difficult to kill lots of people with shoelaces without one of the intended victims defeating the attacker due to close proximity needed.

Whereas the gun allows at a distance killing, far less risk of attacker being hurt

The sole purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile very fast, said projectile able to cause lots of damage to what it hits.

For me, shoelaces being banned would be a pain, as would render all my footwear impossible to wear, no guns would not be an issue (I'm in UK, where the huge majority of the population manage quite happily without guns, yes we still have murders as if someone is of that mindset then they will try & find a way, but a lot lower murder rate then the US with it's large gun ownership as "easy, at a distance" murder harder in the UK)

.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019