People with Guns Kill People

Sorry to post a letter to the editor two days in a row, but I found that John Hetterick of Plymouth (Star Tribune, April 6) said just what I was thinking:

WHO KILLS PEOPLE?
People do, yes, but it's easier with big gun

"What difference will it make if a kid takes a gun or a knife to school and kills people?" asks an April 5 letter writer who argues that perpetrators, not their weapons, are to blame in mass killings.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's really hard to defend yourself against a gun, especially a semiautomatic gun, if unarmed. On the other hand, one has a fighting chance against a knife, even if unarmed.

Further, it's vastly easier for a crowd to overwhelm a knife-wielder than a person with a repeating gun. Finally, it takes vastly more courage (and/or derangement) to attack with a knife than with a gun. And that means that the frequency of such attacks would be far lower if guns weren't so readily available.

And, yes, of course the person wielding the weapon is to blame for any attack, whatever the weapon may be. But allowing our ludicrous license of access to weapons with the potential to kill dozens of people in a few minutes lies with the lack of courage and will of our leaders, as well as the rigidity of the NRA.

Rational weapons laws do not have to restrict constitutional rights, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that weapons access should go unregulated. Were that the case, I'd like a Trident submarine, please. Good grief!

Is this obvious bit of reality so hard to believe for those who make the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, such as the April 5 letter writer? 

Would Trayvon Martin be dead if George Zimmerman hadn't had a gun on him? Seems doubtful to me, even if Zimmerman had been carrying a knife.

And recent research has shown that people holding even a fake gun are more likely to think other people are armed. Which explains a lot.