I read a book on genocides a bit ago. Forget the title - duh - I could check out my library records.
Anyway - when a majority decides to attack a minority, there are various reasons and factors. They start with discrimination and discriminatory laws, then they move isolation and attempts to remove the group. If that doesn't suit their purpose, they become genocidial.
However, the author made the point that the target group lacked the means to defend themselves.
If they have that - then you may have a civil war (which is also charming) but you don't have total annihilation of a group.
I agree with Tom, that gun control wasn't causal but it did allow the atrocities.
You may remember that in the USA, gun control laws were earlier on aimed at African-Americans as they might righteously defend themselves against oppression. The Black Panthers using the 2nd Amend. as grounds for armed SD against oppression caused gun laws to be passed in CA (by conservatives).
Now - for God's sake, if we want to look intelligent - drop the line about the Japanese not invading America. There is no scholarly source for the quote. The Japanese plans were and are well known. There was NO plan to invade the US - ever. The quote is probably false and cannot be attributed to a legit source.
We look like idiots if we keep saying that. Last, there is NO possibility that anyone could invade the USA in a conceivable time scale - so you aren't going to be a Wolverine.
We lose gun rights if we look stupid.
The Swiss situation is more complex. They weren't invaded as they cooperated with the Nazis and mined their tunnels. That was the biggest deterrent to invasion. The Germans didn't need to.
Every household is an overstatement and spme Swiss are arguing against that model. So far it hasn't been successful. The Swiss have a very different socio-economic, demographic mix than ours, so direct crime rate comparision is more complex.
What the Swiss example IS good for - is to counter the idea that gun presence per se will prime aggression and cause crime.
There are strong reasons for the 2nd Amend. but we must be factual.