Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[KAWDUP]

The government already makes these kinds of decisions. The most recent number I found was from 2011. At that time, the value of a human life was estimated to be $9.1 million. So 1,000 lives would be worth $9.1 billion which is about 8 times the budget of the ATF. I haven't made any estimate about how many lives something would save. You can make your own estimate, and this comparison should make it clear that the main argument for or against whatever it is you're talking about isn't money. The argument can be about effectiveness or individual rights or some other thing, but it's not about money. To come up with an estimate where a program isn't worth the cost, you have to 1st decide that the strategy just doesn't work...and if that's what you really want to say, then say that.

Well doesn't its cost matter if its effectiveness saves little to no lives? My whole point in discussing cost was this:
1) Is is more than 0.
2) Based on my stated belief about its effectiveness, it very well could be non-cost-effective too.

So, in those two respects I disagree with your sort of blanket statement that it couldn't be about the cost.

Putting cost numbers to the effectiveness may have been pointless, but doesn't really change the argument.

 

[Michchamp]

so I think we all agree that if in theory if gun control legislation/additional restrictions on ownership/ban on assault weapons/whatever you want to call it was ineffective, sure... then there would be no point doing it.

but this is all in theory... because there is more than ample evidence to show that these things do work, countries with more restrictive laws have FAR fewer shootings & fatalities than the U.S. per capita, and to my knowledge, no country has gone bankrupt or even incurred substantial debt from enforcing it's own laws in this regard.

So, sadly, it's time to move on.

 

[redandguilty]

Well doesn't its cost matter if its effectiveness saves little to no lives? My whole point in discussing cost was this:
1) Is is more than 0.
2) Based on my stated belief about its effectiveness, it very well could be non-cost-effective too.

So, in those two respects I disagree with your sort of blanket statement that it couldn't be about the cost.

Putting cost numbers to the effectiveness may have been pointless, but doesn't really change the argument.

You might need to restate your belief for me. How much good is not much good? 1 life per year, 5, 10 ,100?