Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rogersmith 3749 days ago
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...

6 comments

France has 31.2 guns for 100 inhabitants. Also Switzerland's gun control laws are probably more extreme than that of France.
France has roughly the same permitting system and storage regulations as Switzerland but you may not posses given types of rifles/handguns. Furthermore there is a limit on ammunition you can purchase per year.
France may have more guns per inhabitants but it's mostly hunting rifles/sports gun.

Swiss gun laws are definitely not as strict as France's. Look it up.

Swiss mostly regulate ammo, not guns.
Let's go beyond just gun control here.. Look at Canada gun ownership there is More per capita than the United States and gun violence is practically unheard of. -- There's something else wrong w/ this country..
Wikipedia has guns per 100 residents as 113 in the US, 31 in Canada.
How many mass shootings has France had in the last 100 years?
Rather than two events which, however horrible, are an anomaly.

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.

misleading on Switzerland, if you served in the Amry (compulsory service) you have an assault rifle at home.

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.

All you'll get out of B is responses about terrorism and it doesn't count.
Right, because if some crazy asshole shoots people randomly it's a mass shooting but if he happens to be muslim it's terrorism. Sorry, keep forgetting about that memo.
Well the relevant difference is whether the shooters had external support to commit their crime.

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.

Feel free to share your sources establishing the shooters of both the Paris Hebdo and Bataclan attacks received external support.

What about Columbine (multiple shooters, conspired in advance to commit the attack), terrorism, mass shootings?

I'm not saying anything about any particular shooting, I'm saying that's the relevant difference.
Actually I think the current practice is to label pretty much everything terrorism. Part of the perpetual crisis strategy used to justify the militarization of police forces.