If your child is murdered by a knife wielding criminal the logical thing to do is to start an anti-gun group.
"When her 22-year-old son was stabbed on a Syracuse street three months ago, Helen Hudson galvanized other mothers to form Mothers Against Gun Violence."
I feel for the womans loss. I cannot imagine what it would feel like having my child murdered.
But I must confess I do find her deductive reasoning skillls somewhat lacking. How did that thought process work? "Since my son was killed with a knife I must do everything I can to stop people from owning guns." Or perhaps, "A knife is made of steel. A gun is made of steel. A knife killed my son, but since it was made of steel then maybe it was just a sharp pistol. Therefore if I eliminate guns which are made of steel then no one will be stabbed with a sharp pistol" Or maybe, "Since knives & guns are both made of steel then if I eliminate guns knives will disappear as well since they're made from the same material"
Personally I would have thought, "Since my unarmed son was stabbed with a knife then obviously he wouldn't have been stabbed if he had a gun. So therefore I will encourage people to learn how to use & carry guns so they won't be stabbed to death by criminals the way my son was." But that's just me.
Correction: Kevin at The Smallest Minority correctly points out that the son was stabbed but survived. Apperently I was so taken aback by the rest of the story that I just assumed the son was killed, despite it being written very plainly that he survived. Thanks to Kevin for pointing that out.