Thread: States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Its not a difficult analysis. See Cook and Ludwig's work into the social costs associated with the crime effects. The only ad hoc decision is how life is valued. Typically we'd rely on accepted practice in standard cost-benefit analysis

I see. So what you're trying to say is that guns shouldn't be in the hands of poor people. Nice.

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

I see. So what you're trying to say is that guns shouldn't be in the hands of poor people. Nice.

I'm stating the obvious. There is a market failure and to ignore it will necessarily generate a deadweight loss. Those that want to impose that deadweight loss are supporters of coercion. A nasty result, but unfortunately the pro-gunners are full of authoritarian types

Originally Posted by Reiver

e.g. a license fee to correct for the market failure in price

Originally Posted by Reiver

Its not a difficult analysis. See Cook and Ludwig's work into the social costs associated with the crime effects. The only ad hoc decision is how life is valued. Typically we'd rely on accepted practice in standard cost-benefit analysis

Interesting although I'm not familiar with Cook and Ludwig's work so I cannot comment on it.

I have found an interesting paper on the cost-benefit analysis of human life but it relates to how much should logically be spent to prevent a death and not how much the life is actually worth. There would be a difference between the two as one mitigates risk while the other is basically compensatory. I would actually argue against how much money the government spends to "potentially" save a life.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...n4/v27n4-8.pdf

For example we've seen billions of dollars being spent on the US West Coast to retrofit bridges to be more earthquake resistant. Most of these bridges have been around for decades and very few bridges have ever collapsed because of earthquakes. Personally I wouldn't touch them if they are basically sound as designed and if they happen to collapse in a future earthquake then replace them with a stronger bridge. If someone happens to die because of it then "Oh well, tough luck." We could save literally hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

Continuing on I would assume that all of the fees collected would be for distribution to the victim's or their families of gun violence. Giving this money to the government is nothing but another revenue source for the government unrelated to the issue of firearms and would just be spent on other things.

I would also wonder how all of the statistical information would need to be gathered, compiled and compared. Logically if a life is potentially saved it offsets the potential loss of a life. While we might have good statistics on gun related deaths the information on how the possession of a firearm may prevent an death is far less complete. The very possession of a firearm may prevent an attack completely resulting in no statistical data being collected.

We would also have to address other compensation related to the loss of a life. For example if a drug dealer uses a firearm and kills someone and law enforcement confiscates $1 million from that individual then that $1 million could be used to offset the loss of life. Those that actual use a firearm for nefarious purposes should have the greatest financial liability related to such usage. Civil lawsuit awards must be accounted for and well as property forefeiture under the law.

I would also anticipate provisions that would reduce the fees such as a reduction based upon taking a firearms safety course. This unquestionably reduces the likelihood of accidental deaths. We should also expect a reduction if a person submits to a background check for a CCW as this also represents a reduced risk. Military or police training could also be mitigating factors in determining the specific fee.

Finally, since the goal is to reduce the overall number of firearms the fee should only be applicable to the purchase of new firearms. Existing firearms are already in circulation so the fee on them would not change the number of firearms entering the population.

In any case the fee could not be so high as to encourage evading the fee.

Are these rational considerations?

I can only think of one and that would be that firearms could be rated based upon their actual use for nefarious purposes and that all firearms should be available for purchase. For example, why is it that some Americans can own an M1919 machine gun but most are denied and an M1919 machine gun has not been used to kill anyone in America for over 60 years to my knowledge. The same is true with a Thompson Submachine gun. While they were widely used for crime in the 1930's they haven't been since then but some people can own them while most cannot.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

There would be a difference between the two as one mitigates risk while the other is basically compensatory. I would actually argue against how much money the government spends to "potentially" save a life.

This is about understanding the distinction between private and social costs. Ignoring the difference is not an option

Continuing on I would assume that all of the fees collected would be for distribution to the victim's or their families of gun violence.

No. Whilst earmarking can be a valid method, the fee isn't about redistribution or compensation. Its a market correction.

I would also wonder how all of the statistical information would need to be gathered, compiled and compared.

We merely need to test the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Aspects such as "the very possession of a firearm may prevent an attack" are automatically included in the analysis. Of course this provides an additional reason to ignore spurious relationships (with raw data incapable of understanding these competing effects)

We would also have to address other compensation related to the loss of a life. For example if a drug dealer uses a firearm and kills someone and law enforcement confiscates $1 million from that individual then that $1 million could be used to offset the loss of life.

Completely irrelevant. We only need to know the extent of the market failure (i.e. how gun prices, being a private cost, fall behind social costs)

I would also anticipate provisions that would reduce the fees such as a reduction based upon taking a firearms safety course.

Wrong again. We're referring to a market failure. We're not referring to a regulation issue created through bounded rationality.

Finally, since the goal is to reduce the overall number of firearms the fee should only be applicable to the purchase of new firearms. Existing firearms are already in circulation so the fee on them would not change the number of firearms entering the population.

You'd be correct if guns weren't a durable product. They're obviously not. Note also that the social cost analysis has already been undertaken in 'per annum' terms

Originally Posted by Reiver

This is about understanding the distinction between private and social costs. Ignoring the difference is not an option


No. Whilst earmarking can be a valid method, the fee isn't about redistribution or compensation. Its a market correction.


We merely need to test the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Aspects such as "the very possession of a firearm may prevent an attack" are automatically included in the analysis. Of course this provides an additional reason to ignore spurious relationships (with raw data incapable of understanding these competing effects)


Completely irrelevant. We only need to know the extent of the market failure (i.e. how gun prices, being a private cost, fall behind social costs)


Wrong again. We're referring to a market failure. We're not referring to a regulation issue created through bounded rationality.


You'd be correct if guns weren't a durable product. They're obviously not. Note also that the social cost analysis has already been undertaken in 'per annum' terms

There is something about you hints to me you carry a gun for proection

Originally Posted by Reiver

No. Whilst earmarking can be a valid method, the fee isn't about redistribution or compensation. Its a market correction.

This doesn't make sense to me because imposing taxation, and a fee is a form of taxation, that increases the revenues of government merely increases the social cost. I could see a benefit in these fees being used as compensatory for victims and their families but I can't see it providing any real benefit if it merely funds government. Government is also coercive so we'd merely be replacing one form of coercion with another form of coercion. It would be a net "no-win" situation. We need a win-win situation.

Another point comes to mind. If reducing the total number of guns in society without limiting the ability of the individual to protect themself is the goal because it would result in less crime then the government would, in theory, require less revenue to combat crime. Currently we're paying for the "social costs" of firearms through taxation so is the proposal of adding fees to gun purchase also linked to reducing taxation?

The social costs is already being carried, predominately by property owners that pay property taxes which support law enforcement, and it is spread over all of the property owners. The fee seems to target the cost for this social costs on the gun owners so wouldn't linkage to a reduction in the tax burden also be requires as lower overall costs for law enforcement would be the result of this proposal? It isn't a question of off-setting revenue but instead a reduction in the cost of law enforcement resulting from a reduction in gun related crimes.

I would also anticipate provisions that would reduce the fees such as a reduction based upon taking a firearms safety course. This unquestionably reduces the likelihood of accidental deaths. We should also expect a reduction if a person submits to a background check for a CCW as this also represents a reduced risk. Military or police training could also be mitigating factors in determining the specific fee.

This was not disputed so can I assume that it is logical and acceptable? For example, the ownership of firearms by some individuals does or can reduce criminal activity. I happened to be one of those that advocated after 9/11 that US citizens that were willing to submit to a background check for a CCW permit and that would take the required training (at their own expense) could have provided security on commercial airlines in the United States. This is really based upon the Constitutional provisions for "calling forth the militia" in the event of a national emergency as all adult Americans are basically considered to be the militia of the United States.

There are literally millions of quaiified Americans, many former US military, that would have volunteered and even paid for the training to protect America from attacks similiar to the 9/11 attacks. As it is the US government hired "Air Marshalls" where the cost per arrest has been about $300 million and all they've arrested were drunks on airplanes. The government is wasting money providing security that Americans are fully able to provide for themselves. The odds against an Air Marshall being onboard a the average commercial flight is about 1000:1 because we simply can't afford enough Air Marshalls to cover the many tens of thousands of flights daily in the US.

BTW About two years ago I was in a MacDonalds in Arizona and two "citizens" were armed with 9mm openly displayed. I never felt safer in my life as anyone that presented a "lethal threat" in that MacDonalds would have faced immediate armed resistance. I felt safer with them than I would have with two police officers although the security provided to all of the patrons would have been similiar.

Anyway, as I see it there should be virtually no fees for such an individual and the criteria for such individuals could be established.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

This doesn't make sense to me because imposing taxation, and a fee is a form of taxation, that increases the revenues of government merely increases the social cost.

Nonsense. This is a market failure created by a distinction between private costs and social costs. The fee ensures that externalities are internalised. How the revenues are used is a political decision

Currently we're paying for the "social costs" of firearms through taxation so is the proposal of adding fees to gun purchase also linked to reducing taxation?

We're referring to externalities created by our personal preferences. You're looking at different issues. Could we use revenue to help fund the criminal justice system? Of course, but its irrelevant to the design of the gun control measure.

Note your use of social costs with taxation is invalid.

This was not disputed so can I assume that it is logical and acceptable?

It was dismissed: We're referring to a market failure. We're not referring to a regulation issue created through bounded rationality. You're again confusing issues