How do my fellow escapists feel about guns? (The real kind)

[Treblaine]

If the right to self defence is a basic human right then I see it as contradictory to deny civilians any right to firearms and/or the right to use them in self defence.

It's no good to say I can go fisticuffs with hardened thugs who mean me harm when as hardened criminals they'd always have the advantage after leading a life of violence. Not to mention regardless of weapon prohibition they can arm themselves with effective weapons from knives and clubs to black market firearms. Guns level the playing field, favour those on the defensive.

I got nothing to say but "hell yeah". United Kingdom, take note.

My answer to the question is that I like them. Not as much as a friend of mine (he has an AK, for god's sake) but I do intend to buy one one day.

You haven't heard the half of it, I'm British as well.

"and on that bombshell... goodnight!"

 

[Deepzound]

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

I'm sorry if I was not clear on the thought experiment, but I only said that the worlds were either with guns, or without.

Point of the matter is, that it becomes a lot easier to kill in a world with guns than in a world without guns. It is also easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

that is also because ranges of hand to hand combat styles have risen over the years. Before the rise of kung-fu and all that jazz - not many people had access to hand to hand training or weapon training for that matter.

Only reason why it's easier to kill someone with a range weapon like a gun. If we had no guns, we would simply see people being killed with swords and the like. Nothing would change. War is War. Desire is Desire. Also True but it's also easier to kill someone accidentally with a crossbow or bow than a knife as well. You could accidentally stab someone during a very dark night.

Plenty of casualty have happened throughout many wars due to accidentally bayoneting as well. Really, I see no difference between a sword and gun. Accidental deaths or not. A knife does not make it automatically a "win" weapon because as sure you idiot proof something - someone will make a better idiot.

I will in no way argue against that most weapons are prone to be used in accidental killings, but guns are just far more likely to be used to accidentally kill someone than any other weapon.

There's a number of reasons for this.

Take a sword or rapier for instance. These are not easy weapons to handle, and far from everybody can master their use. Guns are easy to master; you point, you pull the trigger (assuming the safety is off), you kill/maim. That's so simple that even children can figure it out. Most accidental killings are of the "in the moment" kind. Take for instance the children who find the guns and accidentally end up killing themselves or someone else. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a sword or knife, than with a gun, especially for a child.

Another reason is that guns are fast at what they do. It's almost impossible to react to a gunshot before it hits you. No one can rush someone with a sword as fast, and nobody jabs someone else with a knife at anywhere near supersonic speed. Coupling fast weapons with "in the moment" scenarios, you have a recipe for tragedy.

 

[Louis Hermann]

Besides self-defense, hunting, and war, I don't see the point of them. My family has 3 of them, including a magnum right next my parents' bed.


When I start living alone, I'll probably just get a Tazer. Guns aren't fun for me to shoot, plus a Tazer would do away with all the nasty killing business if I never needed to defend myself.

Don't ask me about my opinions on gun laws because I couldn't give less of a shit about those.

Let me know how tazing someone with a loaded gun aimed at you works? Since an electric current causes the muscles to seize up, which I imagine includes the trigger finger.

Myself, I think guns, carried by responsible individuals, are a fantastic thing. Stricter laws don't prevent criminals from having them, and as someone said: "I don't like them, and I definitely don't like the idea of people around me carrying them either." That's a good thing, it's a little humbling to know that anyone you fuck with could pull out a handcannon and blast you back to the stoneage.

 

[crudus]

They lower certain crime rates and raise others. Example, home invasion would be low if every house had a gun. On the other hand, robberies and muggings might increase. I support the ownership of weapons. Although I am weird and view each weapon as a way to meditate or otherwise center oneself.

It causes more trouble than it might help prevent crime.

Can you elaborate?

Simple question. I live in Australia, where our murder rate (per person) is about one 90th (around 0.11) of the US rate. Most of the first world also has a murder rate around the same as Australia. Americans (as in US - Canada has about the same rate as Australia) kill each other at a rate that the rest of world find unimaginable.

So why is that the case? The fact that we don't have guns, and it is nigh impossible for a criminal to get his hands on a gun here (obviously gun controls won't work if you can just drive to the next state and buy one there - they work in Australia because they apply federally)? Or is the US just culturally barbaric?

Personally, I'd go with 'the guns'. If you prefer 'the US is culturally inferior' as an explanation, then be my guest...

If someone wants you dead they aren't going to say "Man, I really wish I could kill you but guns aren't allowed in this country"; they are going to (try to) kill you with what they have on/around them. There are also different kinds of murder. There is vehicular manslaughter, various degrees of murder, other homicides, self-defense, etc which may be lumped into that. My money would be on vehicular manslaughter making up a huge portion of that statistic. Things like gang violence would still be just as high even without guns which would probably be one of the leading causes of murder in the US.

 

[TOGSolid]

I shall sum my feelings up with this picture I made (those guns are mine):

Guns are easy to master

Might want to edit that before someone more passionate than me tears your shit.

To anyone arguing that guns cause crime:
http://guncounter.bob-owens.com/2010/09/violent-crime-continues-to-plummet-as-gun-ownership-skyrockets/
Crime rates have dropped while firearm ownership is at an all time high. There's only a correlation not a causation here, but it's impossible to argue that more guns == more crime because the statistics prove you horribly wrong.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

On a societal scale, it would be nice if nobody had guns, unfortunately there is no way to achieve that.

On a personal scale, I don't want to get fucking shot, and there is nothing I personally can do to rid the entire country of guns, so I'm going to get one to defend myself.

I concur. If there's a possibility I could get shot - I want a gun so I can possibly shoot back. The worst possible thing in that situation is not being able to do anything. The moment you are in a situation where you could use a gun - and you don't have access to them is the moment you are wishing you had one.

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

I'm sorry if I was not clear on the thought experiment, but I only said that the worlds were either with guns, or without.

Point of the matter is, that it becomes a lot easier to kill in a world with guns than in a world without guns. It is also easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

that is also because ranges of hand to hand combat styles have risen over the years. Before the rise of kung-fu and all that jazz - not many people had access to hand to hand training or weapon training for that matter.

Only reason why it's easier to kill someone with a range weapon like a gun. If we had no guns, we would simply see people being killed with swords and the like. Nothing would change. War is War. Desire is Desire. Also True but it's also easier to kill someone accidentally with a crossbow or bow than a knife as well. You could accidentally stab someone during a very dark night.

Plenty of casualty have happened throughout many wars due to accidentally bayoneting as well. Really, I see no difference between a sword and gun. Accidental deaths or not. A knife does not make it automatically a "win" weapon because as sure you idiot proof something - someone will make a better idiot.

I will in no way argue against that most weapons are prone to be used in accidental killings, but guns are just far more likely to be used to accidentally kill someone than any other weapon.

There's a number of reasons for this.

Take a sword or rapier for instance. These are not easy weapons to handle, and far from everybody can master their use. Guns are easy to master; you point, you pull the trigger (assuming the safety is off), you kill/maim. That's so simple that even children can figure it out. Most accidental killings are of the "in the moment" kind. Take for instance the children who find the guns and accidentally end up killing themselves or someone else. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a sword or knife, than with a gun, especially for a child.

Some of the other reasons are also that guns are fast. It's almost impossible to react to a gunshot before it hits you. No one can rush someone with a sword as fast, and nobody jabs someone else with a knife at anywhere near supersonic speed. Coupling fast weapons with "in the moment" scenarios, you have a recipe for tragedy.

and if you don't have enough experience or grip it correctly - you miss and the hammer nails your fore-skin between your pointing finger and your thumb. To be honest, most inexperienced gun shooters will close their eyes or wince in the recoil yet to come etc. Making their shots vary. A person with a gun is just as likely to hit you as someone is to stab you.

Stabby stab. A sword or rapier is just as easy. It doesn't take a genius to say "pointy end first". Accidentally killing because the parents didn't bother to put it in a proper place is parental stupidity. There is a reason why most gun owners say "Ammo and Gun separately". The stupidity of the parents is a completely separate issue.

Hell when I was a kid and we had stick fights - we beat the living shit out of each other. we didn't care. Sword fighting is just the same and can be just as deadly. A kid swings a sword to show off to his friend, bounces off a lamp and lops his friend's ear off. Accidents can happen just as frequently. And the sword doesn't need to jab you at supersonic speeds, few people have the agility to completely dodge a knife stab coming at them from close range. Some would freeze completely in place. Some would attempt to grab the knife, impaling their hand on it. I could continue.

 

[freakonaleash]

Simple question. I live in Australia, where our murder rate (per person) is about one 90th (around 0.11) of the US rate. Most of the first world also has a murder rate around the same as Australia. Americans (as in US - Canada has about the same rate as Australia) kill each other at a rate that the rest of world find unimaginable.

So why is that the case? The fact that we don't have guns, and it is nigh impossible for a criminal to get his hands on a gun here (obviously gun controls won't work if you can just drive to the next state and buy one there - they work in Australia because they apply federally)? Or is the US just culturally barbaric?

Personally, I'd go with 'the guns'. If you prefer 'the US is culturally inferior' as an explanation, then be my guest...

Or we're just THAT tough.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Simple question. I live in Australia, where our murder rate (per person) is about one 90th (around 0.11) of the US rate. Most of the first world also has a murder rate around the same as Australia. Americans (as in US - Canada has about the same rate as Australia) kill each other at a rate that the rest of world find unimaginable.

So why is that the case? The fact that we don't have guns, and it is nigh impossible for a criminal to get his hands on a gun here (obviously gun controls won't work if you can just drive to the next state and buy one there - they work in Australia because they apply federally)? Or is the US just culturally barbaric?

Personally, I'd go with 'the guns'. If you prefer 'the US is culturally inferior' as an explanation, then be my guest...

Or we're just THAT tough.

Or you know, we have a population that is 14 the size of yours. 307 million versus 22 million. So frankly, the fact that your crime rate is lower is not surprising.

Population of America: 307,006,550
Population of Australia: 21,874,900

I think size has to do with something. I am sure if we scaled here the differences wouldn't be so drastic. Also due to the large population, we have much of variety of people.

 

[Panda Mania]

Guns, in real life, make me extremely nervous. And why wouldn't they? These are weapons that can deal enormous (& pointedly lethal) harm at the bending of a finger. Handling one relatively safely requires much training and applied knowledge.

I like them in my media, and I like toy versions of them, but when it gets down to srs busness, I'm afraid of guns ._. They're dangerous (dur).

I haven't studied crime rates in detail, but could America's lenient gun control be the reason behind its high number of homicides when compared to other First World countries?

 

[LCP]

Simple question. I live in Australia, where our murder rate (per person) is about one 90th (around 0.11) of the US rate. Most of the first world also has a murder rate around the same as Australia. Americans (as in US - Canada has about the same rate as Australia) kill each other at a rate that the rest of world find unimaginable.

So why is that the case? The fact that we don't have guns, and it is nigh impossible for a criminal to get his hands on a gun here (obviously gun controls won't work if you can just drive to the next state and buy one there - they work in Australia because they apply federally)? Or is the US just culturally barbaric?

Personally, I'd go with 'the guns'. If you prefer 'the US is culturally inferior' as an explanation, then be my guest...

U.S is better at convicting.

 

[Valanthe]

A wise person once told me "Do not fear someone who owns many guns, Fear the person who owns only one."

What he meant is, if you own several firearms, and are proficient with them, then unless you are the densest block of meat to ever walk, then you understand and respect firearms, and know how to handle them safely. It's the idiots who go out and get a gun because they want to be cool that are the real danger. I do not count criminals in this, because if someone has the intent to kill you, whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a plastic wiffle bat, they'll find a way, and the laws only restrict law-abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Accidental deaths by firearms are the real crime, and any time someone does die 'accidentally' to a firearm, it's almost always because of lack of training, improper storage, or neglectful use. So in short, firearms don't bother me in the slightest, and people who are trained and preferrably certified to handle them definitely don't, but the thought that there are people out there who don't even know what a trigger lock is, or would let their six year old play with an uzi, that keeps me up at night.

 

[Danpascooch]

On a societal scale, it would be nice if nobody had guns, unfortunately there is no way to achieve that.

On a personal scale, I don't want to get fucking shot, and there is nothing I personally can do to rid the entire country of guns, so I'm going to get one to defend myself.

I concur. If there's a possibility I could get shot - I want a gun so I can possibly shoot back. The worst possible thing in that situation is not being able to do anything. The moment you are in a situation where you could use a gun - and you don't have access to them is the moment you are wishing you had one.

I propose a thought experiment;

Imagine a world where guns are not available, and nobody is able to get one. In order to kill, someone has to really want to do it and be willing to get close enough to, for instance, stab someone. (the crossbow argument does not hold, those things are not easily concealed and can't go full auto, but for the rest of the experiment, rule out all ranged firearms. The car argument does not hold either, as A) the car's purpose is not to kill, as it is not created to be a weapon, B) most cars make a lot of noise, you can usually hear a speeding car, and C) ramming someone with a car again requires you to get in close range of the target as you speed closer, plus speedy cars are hard to maneuver outside of long roads and highways.)


Now in stead imagine a world where guns are freely available to everyone. The instinct to arm yourself to match the arms of other people drives everyone to own guns, and everyone can, at varying range, kill people. Where ever you go, a gun could be nearby, and you are driven to always carry gun on you, just in case you need to match arms with someone else. It all comes down to who draws first, which is unnerving to almost anyone. Some of the most effective killing tools around, whose sole purpose and design is that of maiming and killing (target practice aside) are everywhere

Which world do you prefer living in?

gun world. At least then I don't have to worry about a knife to the back and bleeding out to death. Knives and daggers/swords are much easier to conceal and to kill people with.

Actually you still have to worry about a knife to the back in the gun world, a gun does not make knives ineffective. And you can bleed to death from a bullet wound as well.

True enough however they would have to get close enough. It's either a world of melee, or a world of range/melee - I prefer the range combat. I'm not physical type where I have tons of muscle to push people. Also I suggest re phasing your worlds then, you mislead me to believe the world of guns had no melee weapons, not that it makes much of a difference.

In the world of the melee, fighters would simply practice with their melee weapons. That is the only difference. The method of killing would be simply more upfront and personal.. sort of. Assuming they didn't stab you in the back.

I'm sorry if I was not clear on the thought experiment, but I only said that the worlds were either with guns, or without.

Point of the matter is, that it becomes a lot easier to kill in a world with guns than in a world without guns. It is also easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

that is also because ranges of hand to hand combat styles have risen over the years. Before the rise of kung-fu and all that jazz - not many people had access to hand to hand training or weapon training for that matter.

Only reason why it's easier to kill someone with a range weapon like a gun. If we had no guns, we would simply see people being killed with swords and the like. Nothing would change. War is War. Desire is Desire. Also True but it's also easier to kill someone accidentally with a crossbow or bow than a knife as well. You could accidentally stab someone during a very dark night.

Plenty of casualty have happened throughout many wars due to accidentally bayoneting as well. Really, I see no difference between a sword and gun. Accidental deaths or not. A knife does not make it automatically a "win" weapon because as sure you idiot proof something - someone will make a better idiot.

I will in no way argue against that most weapons are prone to be used in accidental killings, but guns are just far more likely to be used to accidentally kill someone than any other weapon.

There's a number of reasons for this.

Take a sword or rapier for instance. These are not easy weapons to handle, and far from everybody can master their use. Guns are easy to master; you point, you pull the trigger (assuming the safety is off), you kill/maim. That's so simple that even children can figure it out. Most accidental killings are of the "in the moment" kind. Take for instance the children who find the guns and accidentally end up killing themselves or someone else. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a sword or knife, than with a gun, especially for a child.

Some of the other reasons are also that guns are fast. It's almost impossible to react to a gunshot before it hits you. No one can rush someone with a sword as fast, and nobody jabs someone else with a knife at anywhere near supersonic speed. Coupling fast weapons with "in the moment" scenarios, you have a recipe for tragedy.

and if you don't have enough experience or grip it correctly - you miss and the hammer nails your fore-skin between your pointing finger and your thumb. To be honest, most inexperienced gun shooters will close their eyes or wince in the recoil yet to come etc. Making their shots vary. A person with a gun is just as likely to hit you as someone is to stab you.

Stabby stab. A sword or rapier is just as easy. It doesn't take a genius to say "pointy end first". Accidentally killing because the parents didn't bother to put it in a proper place is parental stupidity. There is a reason why most gun owners say "Ammo and Gun separately". The stupidity of the parents is a completely separate issue.

Hell when I was a kid and we had stick fights - we beat the living shit out of each other. we didn't care. Sword fighting is just the same and can be just as deadly. A kid swings a sword to show off to his friend, bounces off a lamp and lops his friend's ear off. Accidents can happen just as frequently. And the sword doesn't need to jab you at supersonic speeds, few people have the agility to completely dodge a knife stab coming at them from close range. Some would freeze completely in place. Some would attempt to grab the knife, impaling their hand on it. I could continue.

I'm not saying killings would decrease if guns went away, but I have to say that in the heat of the moment, it's a lot easier to pull the trigger than it is to shove a blade into someone, I don't mean actual physical ease, but what I mean is it's so far removed from what you're actually doing that in the heat of the moment it's easier to do without thinking of the consequences.

Pulling a trigger is a lot easier to do in anger without really thinking about it than drawing a sword and shoving it into someone.

 

[Blitzwarp]

It causes more trouble than it might help prevent crime.

Killing machines that shouldn't be owned by civilians IMO.

This is my opinion nicely summarised.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Stuff

I'm not saying killings would decrease if guns went away, but I have to say that in the heat of the moment, it's a lot easier to pull the trigger than it is to shove a blade into someone, I don't mean actual physical ease, but what I mean is it's so far removed from what you're actually doing that in the heat of the moment it's easier to do without thinking of the consequences.

Pulling a trigger is a lot easier to do in anger without really thinking about it than drawing a sword and shoving it into someone.

I dunno about that, even I - I already know - I would kill if I have to defend myself would have a hard time pulling that trigger including in anger. Actually be killing in a fury or anger is less likely to happen than a comet hitting the earth. I am more of the cold intellect fury, I think my actions thru before I commit them. A knife or sword can just as quickly be drawn in anger. Actually, I think a sword is easier. Much more easier to release the tension that is in your body in one solid blow.

More often than not, guns and swords and stuff aren't even used as weapons. Other common items are used more often in anger. Any form of blunt or objects can be used. Most people simply don't have access to the guns while they are angry. If they are nearby, they simply the objects that happen to be the object of choice. If someone wants to kill in anger, they will find a way.

As far as I can tell, our arguments are situational and too closed in, you have to look at the overall picture in order to understand where guns fit in. To be honest - if someone wants to kill, be it in anger or otherwise - they will find a way. A gun can be just easy as to bash their skull in with a vase or garden tool.

 

[Calcabrina]

I like guns. I really don't see anything wrong with owning one, as long as you know how to use it.
My dad has two guns (as well as three tasers) in my house, and he sometimes takes me to the gun club. I've been going since I was 12. I actually plan on collecting them, once I'm old enough.
But again, as long as you have it legally, for self defense, and you know how to use it properly, there's nothing wrong with having one.

 

[y1fella]

The fact is that in the world there are people who will cause you harm should they have enough motivation. People need to be able to defend them selves. So in the case of America yes people should be allowed guns. Other places are different though.
Gun laws in say Australia are way tighter and it is much more difficult for criminals to get a gun therefore reducing the need for a gun.
But in America with much more relaxed gun laws more people have guns there fore there is greater need for guns.
Does that make sense?

 

[Ohhi]

Whats there to think about if you use them correctly then they do no harm to the society but if you use them wrong like gangs and dangerous minorities and whites do then they become dangerous to human life. but not that human life is important in the first place.

 

[Hatchet90]

They're the best way to kill people you don't like.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Firearms are a wonderful tool to use in sport and hunting, a necessary weapon to use during times of war, and a last resort to use in self-defense.

 

[Danpascooch]

Stuff

I'm not saying killings would decrease if guns went away, but I have to say that in the heat of the moment, it's a lot easier to pull the trigger than it is to shove a blade into someone, I don't mean actual physical ease, but what I mean is it's so far removed from what you're actually doing that in the heat of the moment it's easier to do without thinking of the consequences.

Pulling a trigger is a lot easier to do in anger without really thinking about it than drawing a sword and shoving it into someone.

I dunno about that, even I - I already know - I would kill if I have to defend myself would have a hard time pulling that trigger including in anger. Actually be killing in a fury or anger is less likely to happen than a comet hitting the earth. I am more of the cold intellect fury, I think my actions thru before I commit them. A knife or sword can just as quickly be drawn in anger. Actually, I think a sword is easier. Much more easier to release the tension that is in your body in one solid blow.

More often than not, guns and swords and stuff aren't even used as weapons. Other common items are used more often in anger. Any form of blunt or objects can be used. Most people simply don't have access to the guns while they are angry. If they are nearby, they simply the objects that happen to be the object of choice. If someone wants to kill in anger, they will find a way.

As far as I can tell, our arguments are situational and too closed in, you have to look at the overall picture in order to understand where guns fit in. To be honest - if someone wants to kill, be it in anger or otherwise - they will find a way. A gun can be just easy as to bash their skull in with a vase or garden tool.

I'm not saying it could happen to you, or that people who want to kill won't find a way, I'm just talking about that rare case where someone is JUST close enough to be willing to kill in anger, and a gun allows enough removal from the fact that a sword doesn't.

Honestly, the amount of people this would ever apply to is small enough that it's not really a point against guns, I'm just saying that there is one small niche I believe that would result in a death where bladed weapons wouldn't because they are so visceral.