Run down this list of attacks searching for the highest casualties per incident then look at how limited access to firearms is in those countries and locales.
We can then run down the list of the worst terrorist attacks on our own soil if you like.
A lack of access to firearms accomplishes nothing but forcing those looking to commit such acts to seek less selective means and for mass casualty events explosives and incendiaries are the choice worldwide.
Would you prefer a dozen or two dozen gunshot victims or dozens, even hundreds of bombing victims per incident?
I’m not interested in how many people bombs kill per event, I’m interested in one simple thing: are casualties inversely related to firearm access as the original argument claimed?
I don’t know as that can be proven true or false. There’s too many variables.
What can be demonstrated is that in a mass casualty attack, firearms produce less casualties than many of the other common options. Imagine what a few pressure cooker bombs like were at the marathon would do if dropped in trash cans in the hallways of a school, and set to go off between classes.
