[Veratyr]

> In areas with strict gun control but limited access to firearms, mass killings still happen with other modalities. A lot of things can effectively kill a bunch of human beings assembled in a restricted area: knives, machetes, bombs, trucks, etc..

If these things were as effective as suggested, why is it that in America, one of the prime examples of loose gun control, just about all the recent mass killings have been committed with guns?

The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck) or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs).

To give an example in favour of reduced frequency/lethality, have a look at Australia. We just don't see many mass killings there.

[nicobn]

A car attack killed 6 and wounded 30 in Melbourne in January of this year.

Granted, attacks are much rarer in Australia. Part of this is attributable to the population difference: all things proportional, you'd expect 13 attacks in the US for 1 in Australia if the rate is the same between the two countries.

[Turing_Machine]

"The other modalities exist but they're less effective (knife/machete/truck)"

No, they aren't. This guy in Las Vegas killed ~160. The 9/11 attackers killed ~3,000.

> or are hard to manufacture and use (bombs).

No, they aren't. The Happy Land Social Club attacker killed 87 with a dollar's worth of gasoline.

[slamdance]

58 were killed in Vegas, as of today's count.

[Turing_Machine]

Thanks... I think I momentarily confused it with the number of wounded.

[slamdance]

2016 Nice, France terror attack used a truck to kill more people than the Las Vegas killer in less time. 86 Dead, 458 injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack