Compare the US vs UK before the Dunblane massacre. The UK was a far less violent place even when civilians had guns.

In other words there were marginal, if any, benefits to disarming.

In fact, there was an increase in certain kinds of violent crimes. It may well have been a net negative.

No thank you.

Surely you realize you can't just say this in a vacuum. This is a huge topic of debate. At the very least, you need to recognize the two basic challenges of this argument:

1) Violence is no less typical in the UK; as I understand it, you are more likely to be attacked with a knife in London than with a gun in any US city, and

2) In several crucial ways, the UK and the US are completely different - not least of these is that the US is the center of hegemonic influence in the world. For sociopolitical reasons, it may not be wise to allow this hegemon to be armed and unchecked, and this might not be so for other developed nations.

I've tried to do that comparison, and the best I could come up with is that I'm not convinced it's possible. Crimes are both reported and categorized differently between the two countries, which is a major cofound, and the reporting rate differs greatly between the two. It's a general problem really with any comparison study. If you have a source for a thoughtful comparison you can share, I'd be very interested.