Yes, that is surely the case. Likewise, a great reduction in the need for cars and their usage would also be a net positive for society and the environment. However, what I was challenging was the assertion that
mandatory veganism or
banning cars were comparable to effective gun regulation as policies based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals.
Veganism to reduce carbon emissions and animal suffering, a car-less society to improve communities and public health, and the right to bear arms for the security of a free state are all lofty ideals. However, we have no examples or reasons to believe that enforcing the first two by decree is even feasible, nor can we imagine the unpredictable side effects. On the other hand, there are many examples of states where gun ownership is heavily regulated, restricted, or virtually banned which however remain secure and free and with no obvious downside.
