Also, I think I meant to write Baltimore instead of Boston, but I think the point stands regardless.
Well, yeah. Most non-murderers don't murder, too.
As someone else pointed out, you can still buy ammunition in Switzerland. There's plenty of access to guns. The difference is absolutely one of culture, which is what my point was.
You should probably add that most US gun owners are law-abiding gun owners.
Most people abide by the law until they don't:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
And in a lot of jurisdictions in the US all you need to get a gun in the first place is a pulse, which isn't much of a filter in determining whether a person can actually safely handle one. I'd be curious to know the survey results of owners who could recite Jeff Cooper's Four Rules:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety
Personally I like the little mnemonic / acronym that is taught in Canada, A.C.T.S.:
1. Assume every firearm is loaded.
2. Control the muzzle direction at all times.
3. Trigger finger off trigger and out of trigger guard.
4. See that the firearm is unloaded [and P.R.O.V.E. it is safe].
If people followed these or the classic military rules gun accidents would almost be a thing of the past.
Not that I think that will happen:
if people could just stop
- drunk driving,
- speeding
- driving while texting
- etc
that would probably save even more lives, but I don't see that happening either.
Your examples strengthen the point I was trying to make: The numbers on drunk driving over the decades, and auto safety in general, are an example of what government regulation with societal support can achieve. Perhaps some day firearm regulation and licensing will achieve the advances that the automobile has seen.
If only guns were licensed more like automobiles:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
Unfortunately, with police departments being defunded or restricted, illegal gun ownership and use will only rise over time.