You have heard much conversation about gun reforms in the United States. Existing laws in the United states allow easy access to guns. A new law is being introduced that makes the acquiring and possession of guns more difficult. It is thought that the new gun law will reduce guns deaths by 10%. Currently gun deaths in the US before the bill passed was 20,726 deaths a year. Many on the right say that such a law is not worth it as "guns do not kill people, but people kill people" (i.e., access to guns have no impact on the death rate). Those who passed the bill believe that easy access to guns are the cause of gun deaths and create a lot of added cost to society. They believe the law serves to improve benefits to society, reducing deaths and associated costs. Please use the tools of CBA to take a position. Identify direct and indirect costs and benefits and use the tools discussed in class to address this issue. Any assumptions need to be stated and costs and benefits can/should be based on sound hypotheticals (though you can use the internet to find data). Which side is right and how will you frame this via a short report to convince a skeptical audience? Give me a short report.