In the last 5 months there have been at least 71 kids killed by guns. Average just under 6 years old

[DanTex]

141. That's a fair answer.

But would you agree that, on net, the costs to society of guns far outweigh the benefits? It seems clear to me. Yes, there are hunting and recreation benefits, as well as self-defense, but if you add those up they don't come close to the harms.

Do you also agree that the benefits of cars are much greater than the benefits of guns? This also seems obvious to me. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. That is why bringing up the fact that cars kill as many people as guns is irrelevant. Sure, cars kill some people, but cars also provide far, far greater benefits.

I agree that most gun owners don't kill anyone or do anything wrong with their guns. But the fraction of gun owners that do bad things is not the essential figure. The net cost benefit analysis is what matters. Even though only a small fraction of gun owners do damage, the amount of damage they do is large.

By the way, I'm not advocating a ban on all guns, because I think that would go to far in the other direction. I do think that having no guns at all would be better than the status quo, but I think there is a middle ground somewhere that is best of all. Certainly, something like registration of all handguns, which would reduce the harms while barely even affecting the benefits, should be a no-brainer.