The knife argument makes no sense. Guns can have a higher death toll within seconds compared to a knife. Knives recuire an actual strength to successfully kill someone in one blow not to mention physical contact. No one is killing 13 people in a bar with one knife especially in a crowd. Someone would at least intervene the knife wielder or the person getting stabbed is fighting back (possibly). Guns catch people unaware.

From his link (http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/):

- On average, domestic homicides accounted for 40 percent of homicide incidents in Australia each year.

- Acquaintance homicides accounted for 35 percent of all homicide incidents.

- An average 33 stranger homicide incidents occur each year in Australia

Also a graph there that shows cause of death by gun shot wounds:

- 1996 saw 106 deaths

- 2014 saw 32 deaths

Most those gunshot wounds would be domestic homicides by farmers (who have hunting rifles on the farm) killing their families cause life just got too difficult.  So the gun restrictions have worked.

Guns have a higher death toll depending on how many bullets they can shoot in a certain amount of time, how many people are around, how those people react, how well the shooter handles the gun, etc. A knife never jams btw and you don't need to reload it. People at a bar/club/concert, where it's typically dark and loud, people are drunk, people are clumsy and sometimes falling down, people get date raped more often because they aren't paying as much attention, getting in fights, etc. All these reasons and more make it extremely likely that someone could walk in and start stabbing people, especially in the back, and continue through a bunch before anyone else realizes what's going on. If nobody in the bar has a weapon, are you going to confront the person with the knife? Why would anyone else? Wait until they go for someone else across the room and run is what most would do.

If you were going to try and take as many people out as possible, and you felt you wouldn't come close to achieving your goal, that's when crazy people start to think in terms of strength in numbers. If you can't win a war because the enemy has better weapons, then you make sure you have way more soldiers to throw at them. If you can't kill enough people, find more killers. Bullets don't always hit a point that instantly kills you, or necessarily kills or terribly harms you, and someone who knows how to use a knife to kill, can be highly effective in a very short period of time. Why bother trying to set up a group for a mass shooting and potentially get caught, when you can just buy some guns? Well if you take those guns away, now the risk is worth it, and you start to see groups of crazies stabbing in mass killings.

America is not like other nations, and assuming banning guns will just make the problem go away is naive. America lives and breathes war, and guns go along with that. Part of American culture is fighting for what you believe in. Politically if possible, but if that doesn't work, then the most effective weapons will do the trick. Just look at the Countries history in terms of wars. American citizens fought those battles, and weren't forced to, using mostly American weapons. Trying to calm America, is like trying to get an alcoholic to stop drinking, or a druggy to stop using, or a smoker to stop smoking. Now for those individuals, one of the best ways to help cure them, is to ease them off the substance. You don't just stop cold turkey because that can actually make things much worse. You also have to understand, that the large majority, still drinks alcohol, smokes tobacco, or hits the bong, yet are able to go about their daily lives with next to no issues.

This is a very good post. I agree with all of this. There is a massive problem and changes need to be made.

Gun favorists will keep denying every argument, though, just like o_O.Q does. Did anyone else notice how he always gets in these threads and shouts his same old pseudo-arguments? I found some actual footage of him when he read the news about this recent shooting:

For the pro-gun folks, if it says "right to bear arms" why can't civilians have grenade launchers? I think guns/rifles are lame, but a grenade launcher is pretty bad ass, why isn't that under "right to bear arms"?

You do realise America has the resources to do all the things both parties talk about. First off, ask your government to stop starting so much wars that soldiers have to suffer through for the rich to get richer. Then use your resources wisely for health and education for all so no one has to suffer through mental illness alone but also has the advantages of good education, discipline and knowledge to get through life and not resort to violence, and corn u[ with better gun laws. If the driving license is more rigorous than the gun license, there are issues to deal with for you guys

Probably because grenade launchers didn't exist back then, where as inciting violence most certainly did. If the left would agree to let the right make one decision, and only one, where they would face zero push back, I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented your idea.

The logic behind banning guns, most certainly leads to banning knives like some places, then banning human operated automobiles, etc. A somewhat similar question to the one you posed. Why is it legal in America to get a pilots license if it's not strictly for your job or business? 19 hijackers proved it's beyond a horrible idea already, so.

And the #1 cause of gun deaths in the United States is suicide. We count that as part of our gun statistics.

The gun ban in Australia reduced the number of gun related deaths, but didn't have any measurable impact on the number homicides. 

Because 230 years ago when the Constitution was written, only lame ass muskets and long rifles existed.  It really should say "right to bear reasonable arms," which is how we interpret those original words today -which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted us to do when they wrote those original words all those years ago.

There is no way they could have anticipated the weapons of today, thus, it is up to us today to define which arms are reasonable and which are not.

While we cannot specifically equate the results to causal factors by simply looking at the homicide rate, looking at only correlations, this is objectively false.

Here is a chart showing Australia's homicide rate with a trend line:

The homicide rate was cut almost in half between 2013 and 1996. Claiming Australia's homicide rate hasn't fallen since 1996 is demonstrably false.