"In Uganda, guns would have only made the massacre greater. Much of the killing was done by cutlesses, guns would have been more efficient."
Is this just an uninformed opinion, or can you substantiate that?
It's an opinion with a solid basis. You can kill more people, more quickly with guns than cutlesses.
My opinion is that guns in the hands of those being attacked probably would have saved lives by stopping the cutlass wielders!
You have a blind spot here. Those being attacked wouldn't be the only ones with guns. The cutless wielders would now be wielding guns, perhaps like AK-47's. One might stop or disuade a cutless wielder from attacking you with a sturdy club, not so when he has a gun. Closing the door and holding it shut would protect you from a cutless wielder for a long time. A gun would just shoot you through the door. Some people could outrun a man with a cutless. A man with a gun can kill you a half mile away.
Using your logic, we would also have to say that guns in the hands of cops cause more deaths!!
I don't follow the logic. Perhaps because it's not logical.
Guns only in the hands of cops might not be a bad idea, but the NRA and all the gun nuts want everybody to have them. They resist background checks to find out if the purchaser is a serial bank robber or murderer or insane. They resist waiting periods to give time to find out. They resist closing the "gun show" loophole where any deranged person can buy a gun with no restrictions.
These are the things that cause more deaths.
