>>99268329Ok, given your great source there, lets step through it;
1 >several men oh fantastic when it's not a lone nut ofc multiple people die. Several men with guns? Hundreds of casualties. 33 is piss poor.
2 >multiple peopl again. wow yeah I'm shocked. Should we ban pitchforks too? Peasants wielding those have murdered many people in history, 'cause , y'know, mob strength. Ban them!
Shit point.
3 >4 dead. OMG the horror! 4 people! That doesn't make the evening news in gun loverstan.
4 you're joking right?
5 >6 dead. Miniscule.
6 >1978. Try to stay in the last quarter century at least dude.
7 >22 dead. Halfway respectable figure. Oh wait. 'Thailand'. Well if we're including countries that aren't first world, why not go to the gold mines of iraq/Afghanistan?
8 >3 dead. Piss weak. But again, assuming bombs are a 'thing'. Try it and just wait for the party van.
9 >1995. Yeah, irrelevant. Never happen in the modern world.
10 1927. Fucking seriously? Something near on a hundred years old? Why not go 500 years and all the deaths swords inflicted? OMG
11 decent effort actually. Something tells me it wasn't to fire code tho; and this is one in... How many year event?
12 decent effort again. Fire. But,
>due to a lack of fire safety equipmentHmm.
13 again with tech that's well scrutinised in the modern world? At least try something current decade.
Idk why I bothered, really. Rubbish source.
But, let's see; only 3 and 6 are relevant to the discussion. And those 'mass killings' are so low in bodies you have only proven my point.
