Sorry. The OP, of course.
Ya know, there’s a reason serious people like to do cost-benefit analyses, rather than cost-cost comparisons. After all it’s modern medicine that’s extended average life expectancy by 30-40 years in the last century, not modern firearms.
Of course you’re correct about medicine, Minty. However, the point of the glurge, as Hibbins observed, was to demonstrate how silly it is when gun opponents don’t do cost-benefit analyses. Even something as obviouly beneficial as modern medicine could be denigrated if we looked only at the bad side.
It seems to me that almost all articles by gun opponents (a group that appears to include the majority of the US media) include costs only, such as gun-related deaths.
Okay, point taken. If this was the intent, it did its work, because I was outraged. So much so that I lost my beloved composure for a second.
Now, the benefits of widespread gun ownership were…
…reduced crime.
Really? I’m going to get one right now.
Yep, december, no doubt that private gun ownership deters some potential criminals. But don’t forget that the easy availability of guns also encourages some potential criminals since guns give them the ability to put a bullet in your forehead if you take offense at being victimized.
The tricky part, of course, is calculating which effect is greater.