As I recall, Mythbusters decided that if you brought a knife to a gun fight, but are within twenty feet, you have the advantage, although that must be situational.
I think this page makes some good points, but I am not exactly impressed:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...l-reform-myths
They talk about the strict gun control in D.C. and Chicago, but there was a mass shooting in the Navy Yard, and Chicago is infamous for gun violence.
The gun used in the Navy Yard shooting was bought legally in another state, "exposing gaps in the current background checks system."
I do not understand what arguments against closing gaps in background checks might be, but I also do not understand what arguments might be in favor of the NRA. It seems like they are only concerned with profit.
"[C]ities like Chicago are plagued by the illegal trafficking of firearms."
I imagine that law enforcement is doing their best to fight that, but obviously it is not good enough.
Mom recently talked to my sister on speakerphone and my dear sibling went on a rant about guns and talked about "Australian" comedian Jim Jefferies and how he systematically destroyed pro-gun arguments. I would like to see these arguments, with some kind of Australian to family-friendly filter. The one thing that I remember her saying was that, supposedly, responsible gun owners keep their guns in a safe, but when burglars break in with the intention of murdering your family, your guns are in a safe, so you will be unable to use them to defend your family.
Point taken, but how long would it take for the police to arrive? Everyone knows that responsible cell phone owners keep their cell phones locked up! Your phone is not necessarily more accessible than your weapon.
As usual, I argue the situation is complicated. I think it was the Guardian page that had statistics stating that guns were involved in thirty-two times as many murders as justifiable homicides.
I blame that new Rock and Roll.