Driving in the Los Angeles area, I caught most of a public radio segment on the supposed cost of "gun" violence. Some of the usual suspects took their usual stances, but it was worth hearing. There are links to the Mother Jones article on the On Point page at
http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/whats-the-real-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america
The anti argument is, to me, a new and inventive approach.
Because I'm not going to waste my time listening to something from NPR, and they didn't provide a transcript which I can read far faster than a "discussion," I'll just go out on a limb here and make these predictions.
1) They included the cost of law enforcement of "gun violence," but ignored the fact that the violence would exist without the guns, just with different weapons.
2) They included the cost of medical bills for "gun violence", and, as above, decided that violence wouldn't have occurred at all without the guns and so did not compare those cost to, say, a brutal stabbing or beating with tire irons.
3) Aren't these people believers in the broken window fallacy? Hey, at least that money isn't just sitting around doing nothing: we are giving those poor doctors and policemen work!