Honestly, and this is totally speculative, it wouldn't be that difficult at all for a special operative to score any number of kills in a college setting with a knife before the authorities discovered anything was amiss and instituted a lockdown.
Since when is a machete a knife? And remember, we're also discussing a stealth component re: the knife, here - which is something that a machete pretty much
fundamentally lacks.
Those Rwandan fuckheads aren't exactly germaine, here.
Edit: you seem to be confused, so let me lay the whole thing out again.
Rikku_Chan said pretty much that the anti-gun bit makes no sense, because even if he had no gun, he still had lethal intent, and he would have found an another weapon to you.
To which I said that, while that's maybe true, a gun is a powerful tool - if he didn't have a gun, he'd probably have amassed a much small body count.
To which she replied that that's bs, he could have done just as well with a knife.
I said I didn't think it'd be that easy, and she said you could (easily?) stealth it up and cause just as much havoc before an alarm went up. I still doubt that, but it was based on that statement (A), coupled with her statement that if people had their own guns, they could have protected themselves (B), I said that A and B seem fairly incompatable.
To explain, if we assume A to be true, then a gun is no protection. If you can't raise an alarm or defend yourself from this hypothetical sneaky knifeman killer who has no trouble doing so, then a gun isn't much of a help, either. You wouldn't get a chance to use it, right?
Therefore, if A, then not B: the guns would do nothing to protect the wielders. They could protect people against gunmen (except from a distance), yes, but logically then - if the guns are no protection against knives, wouldn't people with the Lethal Intent That Will Win Through (another seeming posited statement of hers) switch to knives?
If A holds true, then B doesn't seem to make much sense - guns then wouldn't offer much protection from people who want to kill, they would seem to instead merely redefine what the weapon of choice is.
