It is ludicrous that people are actually arguing this. I mean completely insane. Yeah, you grab a knife and I grab a gun and let us see who is more likely to survive. I am sure the armed forces of the world will bow to your superior logic and get rid of guns and equip all their armies with knives from now on because they are so much more effective.

> They produce wounds with massive blood loss.

Yeah, that makes complete sense. A clean knife wound that goes a couple of inches into your body will produce more blood loss than hole bored entirely through your body by a fragmenting shell is it richochets around your body and leaves a big gaping exit wound on the other side.

I think your "fact mode" is a little faulty. Time Magazine, for instance, states that bullet wounds are 7 times more likely to be be fatal as knife wounds ( http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/dropguns3.html ). Not to mention it is a LOT harder to inflict them.

Edit: You know, the funny thing is that I am not nearly as anti-gun as I appear sometimes on here. It just that the silly arguments that some pro-gun people spout are just so insane and illogical it drives me nuts, and the macho posturing that you frequently see associated with the pro-gun camp is also very annoying to me. There are plenty of good arguments on the pro-gun side, but this is not one of them.