And that global map is..interesting too - with the exception of Canada and Cuba, the Americas are really homicide central, and to a surprising degree.
Just looking at that table, I'd say it has nothing to do with benefits whatsoever.
Nonexistent GV would be better of course, and one of the steps to achieve that, is to have as few privatly owned guns as possible.
Guns are only one variable and generally have nothing to do with the underlying socioeconomic causes of violence. We see this with state level homicide data - some states with high firearm ownership also have lower homicide rates than states with lower firearm ownership and more stringent restrictions.
"Nonexistent GV would be better of course, and one of the steps to achieve that..."
Do you have proof of that? My understanding is that gun violence exists everywhere to one degree or another. You can take various steps to reduce it, but it has never been eliminated.
So? It's one variable that can be changed.
That's a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Just looking at this table, I'd say: None whatsoever.
> If we collectively prohibited all countries worldwide from producing weapons like tanks, rocket launchers, etc...
There is an important difference between PRIVATE gun ownership and the military. Problem is, yes, ideally we would live in a violence free utopia, but if only ONE country doesn't agree to this, then pretty much everyone else has to equip an army as well.