@Brigid Well as I said violence is probably more closely related to social inequalities and poverty than to gun regulations, but still if you are prone to violence, it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or with your bare hands...
As for your last section, this is probably not the place to make an economic argument, but nothing is produced "for free". If you choose to spend some time producing guns, then you won't spend that time producing healthcare or education (well I actually believe our economy works the other way around, it is rather limited by its consumption than by its production -thanks again, fossil fuels-, but it is still the same : if someone spends money on buying guns and ammo, he won't spend it on something else, like education or health care)
I'm not sure you can compare guns with alcohol or even drugs in that matter. Because it is quite easy for anybody to make alcohol (well I don't say it's gonna taste good but anybody can make it and it will serve its purpose : making you drunk), it's really hard to control and regulate alcohol production. But not anybody can manufacture guns, so it is WAY easier to regulate and control gun production than alcohol.
Also guns are not something humans really need while for as long as there has been human civilizations, alcohol has been around (probably before that even). What I mean is you can only benefit from selling guns if there is a need for them, which means the society is already violent. I feel it is dubious gun trafficking would lead to violence as it needs violence in the first place to be profitable (while drugs or alcohol trafficking quench basic human thirsts).
Also a lot of european nations have banned gun usage and there are still no "gun cartels" in sight in Europe...
33
@Brigid Well as I said violence is probably more closely related to social inequalities and poverty than to gun regulations, but still if you are prone to violence, it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or with your bare hands...
As for your last section, this is probably not the place to make an economic argument, but nothing is produced "for free". If you choose to spend some time producing guns, then you won't spend that time producing healthcare or education (well I actually believe our economy works the other way around, it is rather limited by its consumption than by its production -thanks again, fossil fuels-, but it is still the same : if someone spends money on buying guns and ammo, he won't spend it on something else, like education or health care)
I'm not sure you can compare guns with alcohol or even drugs in that matter. Because it is quite easy for anybody to make alcohol (well I don't say it's gonna taste good but anybody can make it and it will serve its purpose : making you drunk), it's really hard to control and regulate alcohol production. But not anybody can manufacture guns, so it is WAY easier to regulate and control gun production than alcohol.
Also guns are not something humans really need while for as long as there has been human civilizations, alcohol has been around (probably before that even). What I mean is you can only benefit from selling guns if there is a need for them, which means the society is already violent. I feel it is dubious gun trafficking would lead to violence as it needs violence in the first place to be profitable (while drugs or alcohol trafficking quench basic human thirsts).
Also a lot of european nations have banned gun usage and there are still no "gun cartels" in sight in Europe...