This is asinine. So let me get this straight. By paying a licensing fee, less people will be killed or kill themselves? Is that right? Most consumers act upon their desires that just happen to be within the law. Do you choose your actions according to other people's preferences?
Yep. As I said, market correction! Whilst one can expect aspects of altruistic behaviour, we certainly can expect selfishness to be the norm. Do I, for example, understand the need for fuel taxes because of pollution damage? Yep. Pay it willingly
Buying a $900 gun, a $150 holster, $300 of ammunition and $400 laser designator for the gun, it is then claimed by tacking on another $100 sin tax, that will STOP gun purchases? Yeah right!
But the externality is internalised, recovering the deadweight losses associated with market failure. There's nothing wrong with consumption according to marginal social costs equalling marginal social benefits. However, with guns, the evidence shows that isn't the case. We effectively impose coercive costs on others through our personal perferences
My point is, that you do nothing to stem problems by taxing things. You Europeans think taxing everything is your solution. Does not work, my friend.
That Pigovian taxes can be used to internalise externalities is a simple economic fact. Ignoring those externalities isn't rational
>>>What's to know? 'Subsequently' means 'follows'. The handgun ban did not turn Chicago or DC from Ozzie & Harriet communities into murder capitols.
Let's cut out the play on words, my friend. "Externalities" must be your favorite word. Cut the crap. You ignore the fact that taxing something does nothing to stop something. Here's an example. The Brits outlawed motorized skate boards in the name of safety. Then, they realized they could charge a licensing fee for them, so they allowed them to be used, but for a fee. Did this change the safety of these skate boards? Of course not.
No. Being a fan of individualism I'm not a fan of the coercion involved. To ignore that coercion is either irrational or a celebration of authoritarianism You're showing your ignorance of the concept. The purpose isn't to stop gun ownership. That would be against simple efficiency criteria. The purpose is to ensure that gun owners face the true costs of their behaviour. Given we have market failure we need a price correction. This again only describes your ignorance of the concept. We're not referring to anything to do with bans. We are, however, referring to over-consumption created through a distinction between private costs and social costs. There are only two potential reactions: the Pigovian tax or, through the Coase Theorem, the protection of property rights. Clearly the latter makes no sense in this case
What coercion? ...and what does the price correction accomplish, other than financially punishing the law-abiding citizen? You make no sense.
Crime Already told you. It ensures that we face the true cost from our preferences. This ensures a recovery of deadweight loss that characterises the market failure I've just bothered to ensure that I type 'with knowledge'
...and what does this accomplish, and who benfits from this fee? Obviously, it does nothing for gun control.
You're asking for repetition. This is about ensuring the welfare losses through market failure are eliminated. It ensures optimal behaviour (with consumption according to true costs). The impact? We'd expect, because of the law of demand, a reduction in gun ownership and- given the crime effects- a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. To argue against this gun control proposal you have to support inefficiency from coercive relations
An individual to individual sale at a gun show has no such background check requirement in some states.
This post shows definitively that you are not objective in the least since you reject all of the NRAs research just because the NRA conducted the study. You crack me up!
It may not have been utopia before, but how do you know that taking guns away from law abiding citizens didn't take a away a deterrent, thus increasing the murder rate?
You already know that the authoritarian personality is a right wing trait. Do you support a result that fails to internalise externalities? If you do you are celebrating coercion and therefore attacking a very basic aspect of individualism.
You support government intervention in gun rights do you not? You, like most leftists, want the government to enforce your own morality and ideas on the rest of the public. It's a product of arrogance and a need to dominate and control.
I support a correction because of market failure. I know the authoritarian types aren't particularly clued up with the notion, but that just reflects a disregard of individualism.
To say that gun ownership will be reduced because of a fee, is just ridiculous. Cigarettes have been taxed heavily, and people keep smoking. Lung cancer cases keep rising. The only thing a licensing fee may do is prevent someone at the poverty level from purchasing a gun in order to protect their family. So now you have an unarmed family that is more vulnerable to home invasion, all while the criminal bypasses the licensing fee by stealing guns. Nothing accomplished.
