I mean, why do you think they've been trying to progressively restrict guns for years?
* a large number of people
* from a distance
* with basically no effort
With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring
* even a low number of people (IF even more than one)
* from arm's reach
* with large physical effort.
Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive".
I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
Also good luck filling out all the paperwork. There's a difference between outright banning something and placing an astonishing number of administrative hurdles in the way. Private nuclear weapons come with so much paperwork as to be esssentially impracticable, but never the less possible.
At least that was the verdict last time I looked into the question.
Sure, how about a howitzer then?
What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict.
It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold.
As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system
Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.