Then on the other hand we have:
Exhibit A) Switzerland, 25 guns for 100 inhabitants, two mass shootings in the last 100 years
Exhibit B) France, extremely restrictive gun laws, two mass shootings in less than one year
So there's that...
Exhibit A) Switzerland, 25 guns for 100 inhabitants, two mass shootings in the last 100 years
Exhibit B) France, extremely restrictive gun laws, two mass shootings in less than one year
So there's that...
Swiss gun laws are definitely not as strict as France's. Look it up.
How many mass shootings per year over the last decade? Two decades? And so on?
It's like those who pointed to Australia banning guns after the Port Arthur massacre:
"Homicides went up three per cent the next year! Gun control doesn't work!"
1. "Homicides" encapsulated other methods than "with a gun", and most importantly,
2. Whilst there are 17,000 homicides a year in the US for which a three per cent rise represents over five hundred more deaths, the conveniently omitted fact was that that same three per cent rise in Australia meant that deaths went from 94 to 96, in other words, an anomaly.
but no ammo. that one would be handed out in wartime.
but unknown how many Swiss have used their assault rifle to club someone to death.
That it's possible for a determined group to acquire guns and attack people is one thing. It being possible for a single mentally unstable person to do so is quite another.
What about Columbine (multiple shooters, conspired in advance to commit the attack), terrorism, mass shootings?