“A man said to be mentally ill attacked 20 people with a knife in southwest China, killing two,” foxnews.com reports. “Two of the 20 injured people taken to a hospital died . . . The remaining 18 were in stable condition as of Monday.” Now you and I would say . . .
It should have been a defensive gun use. Knowing that it can’t be a defensive gun use in China — unless it’s a cop (armed with the funky retention set-up above) or a member of the socialist utopia’s armed forces.
The antis will say it would have been far worse in a society that “allows” its citizens to exercise their natural, civil and (in our case) Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. All the victims would have been dead!
I find this “argument” — that it’s somehow OK when people are stabbed to death and/or horrifically mutilated because more people would have been killed if “bad guys had easy access to guns” — morally repugnant.
The same people who say “If a gun control law saves one life, it’s worth it!” are arguing “If gun control laws sacrifice two people’s lives, it’s worth it!”
Interestingly, Fox News’ report on the mass stabbing ends like this:
Knives also have been used in attacks in the restive Xinjiang region, where authorities said in February that eight people including three assailants were killed and five injured during a knife attack in Pishan county.
Gun ownership is sharply restricted in China.
I wonder why they put that bit in. Playing it both ways?