So I have seen it argued that guns cost money to an economy. Reiver had this nice study that showed how much it cost by actually assigning a one million dollar value to every life. Well I contend that the majority of all gun violence related deaths in the US save us money. Considering the demographic of those killed (income only to consider the tax burden they pose), the criminal background of the killer and victim and weather or not drugs were involved. I say guns in the hands of many criminals saves billions because they kill each other more than they kill law abiding citizens. My view is guns keep the streets safer because criminals more often shoot each other and that save money by eliminating the dregs of society. Prove me wrong.
Ayuh,.... The Progressive Liberals wring their hands, 'n stomp their feet, Blamin' guns,... Yet Completely Deny that Gang Violence is the root issue of Crime in American Cities... Those of Us in the "Fly-over areas" end up payin' the price for the Progressive Liberals, Ignoring the Real Issues...
Well this was ammunition used in another thread. Lets play because I want to tear it apart. It has been defended unsuccessfully. So lets play Come on anti gun crowd. http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf Quote: There are a couple more. So were assumptions made of were assumptions proved? Like I said the value of many lives is a societal negative.
Excellent point, and I would like to think this is true. But what about when the miscreants end up merely getting severely wounded, rather than immediately dying? Who foots the bill for their emergency treatment, which can run many tens of thousands of dollars?
Well you are correct. Even so it gets them off of the streets and it may be the straw that breaks their back (I doubt it) and turns them strait. My question is when there are no guns in homes who foots the bill for the higher crime rate?
