

No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't
lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.


Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much
more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the
threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger
using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim 
in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not
be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually
_use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.)
It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a
knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more
common. That's why it is important to look at the overall
(not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of
substitution, different criminal techinques of using different
weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.


"Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't
too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the
usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts
to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your
pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun
than actually stabbed with a knife.


Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in
unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman 
without much problem.

You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime
Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a
knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives
in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost
all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore,
using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case)
a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless
of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective
than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat"
nearly as often as they do guns.