For example, if the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by 90%, but the remaining 10% were reserved for brutal, warlike autocracies, the result would be an increase in use. Or, to go back to the example of drugs, drug legalization would probably increase the number of drug users. But, there would also be a decrease in drug-related crime because control of drugs would no longer be reserved to criminals.
So it follows that giving every country nuclear warheads would be a good idea to decrease their usage? Somehow, I doubt that to be the case.
The thing about drugs is that, in theory, they only harm the user. In practice, of course, addiction causes harm to a lot more people, and I'm sure there would still be ample violence.
I also get the feeling that every time guns are debated in an American context, one is forced to discuss it on an entirely theoretical level without looking to the results in other places. Why is this the case? Is the USA so absolutely unique that the evidence everywhere else doesn't apply? (Granted, I can see the argument that guns are so hideously common in the States, that gun control at this point couldn't do much to get them all out of circulation.) But that still wouldn't contradict that the presence of so much gun violence is largely because of the fact that they're omnipresent in the US.
Of course, I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. Dogma is more important than real observations in the gun debate. And the arguments and counter-arguments always stay the same.
