No, of course not.
But I think it fair to say that had he had a gun instead of a knife the injuries would be far worse and likely some deaths, too.
Not fair to say.
You are speaking of a contingent condition in which he is the only person with a firearm, and everyone else is defenseless.
Let me give you a brief rundown on why if any weapons ought to be banned from the public, it ought actually to be blades and not guns. The force of the blade is a function that relies on the physical properties of the person using the blade. If society were filled with persons with blades and was otherwise devoid of law, the most physically adept would dominate.
However, if everyone in society were armed with firearms, the most physically adept would not dominate, because the force of the firearm is not a function that relies on the physical properties of the individual with the firearm. It might rely on marksmanship, but marksmanship is not worn on the sleeve like physical might. The question would always remain as to whether the person I intend to dominate is a better shot than I. Further, the use of blades allows for an adapting to the fight in a way which is impossible with the use of firearms. The strong man might not know exactly how the weak man will react when he seizes him, but the situation allows for the adaption through the struggle, in which might still predominantly dominates weakness.
The reason individuals are terrified of firearms is because they are terrified of loud noises combined with the release of the flame. They are, in effect, scared of dragons. This is why firearms have dominated the fields of battle throughout Europe since their introduction, yet they were less efficient, less accurate, etc. than string and bow. Guns bark, bows sing. Individuals run from the bark; and, usually, the running from the bark is what brings about their own peril.
Are you still afraid of loud noises, LG? Do you keep a nightlight to keep the dragons away?
