4 ms·

> Just looking at this table, I'd say: None whatsoever. Just looking at that table, I'd say it has nothing to do with benefits whatsoever.

• usrbinbash 5y ago
  Lower gun violence is a benefit. Nonexistent GV would be better of course, and one of the steps to achieve that, is to have as few privatly owned guns as possible.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    Lower violence is a benefit. Guns are only one variable and generally have nothing to do with the underlying socioeconomic causes of violence. We see this with state level homicide data - some states with high firearm ownership also have lower homicide rates than states with lower firearm ownership and more stringent restrictions. "Nonexistent GV would be better of course, and one of the steps to achieve that..." Do you have proof of that? My understanding is that gun violence exists everywhere to one degree or another. You can take various steps to reduce it, but it has never been eliminated.
    • usrbinbash 5y ago
      > Guns are only one variable So? It's one variable that can be changed.