Most economic theories that make a lot out of the correlation between crime rates and something else are eventually shown to have relied on faulty inferences drawn from those correlations. For instance, is a poor economy the cause for an increase in crime? Really? Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1 "But some experts said the figures collided with theories about correlations between crime, unemployment and the number of people in prison. "
I wouldn't know what a "anti-gun culture" entails. Those in favour of gun control are pro-gun after all. Irrational preferences are certainly centred on gun fanatics
Around 2:30 a.m., a 78-year-old homeowner alerted police to a man trying to break into his home in Corpus Christi, Texas and armed himself with a handgun. Police arrived to see the intruder entering the home and called out for him to stop, but the criminal disobeyed the order, entering the home. Once the intruder was inside, the homeowner shot and killed him. The case is being investigated, but in a discussion with the local media of circumstances in which deadly force can be used, District Attorney Mark Skurka noted, “breaking into someone’s home is definitely one of those circumstances.” Lt. Isaac Valencia shared a similar sentiment, stating, “The 78-year-old was very shaken up. In the twilight of your life and you have to take a life… You’re protecting your property and family.” (The Caller, Corpus Christi, Texas, May 23, 2011)
It internalises externalities. You seem to think in binary: i.e. "gun bans" or "no gun bans". The fee recognises that there are utility gains from gun ownership, but ensures that gun prices are adapted to take into account social costs.
Why not impose mandatory minimum sentences on criminals who commit a crime with a gun. Then the problem is addressed not the tool.
Correcting market failure isn't a punishment. Its actually about reducing coercion, as demonstrated by the recovery of deadweight loss
Forcing a citizen to pay for a right they constitutionally have is punishment. We should not punish citizens for excercising their rights.
Because leftists routinely excuse the actor, because he wasn't loved as a child, or had a drunk for a father, or some such nonsense, while demonizing an inanimate object, the gun.
Actually,the gub'mint should tax everyone who does NOT carry a gun to help protect themselves and society. They are relying on the police to protect them more than the Armed Citizen and are adding to the fiscal budget so they should be required to pay more for the service.
There are mandatory sentences with several offenses committed with a gun. Capital punishment doesn't seem to be a deterrent either.
Ignoring coercion characterised by social costs is simply irrational. A market correction isn't punishment; a market correction is an efficiency enhancement understood within an individualist framework
No it is a punishment, without a doubt. The social cost of a law abiding citizen owning a gun and using it responsibly is nil.
You're just ignoring the evidence, where private and social costs certainly are distinct. Stamp your feet as much as you want, it won't impact on the rational result
You are touting non existent "evidence", and it is actually you stamping your feet. I am just sitting back and chuckling at your posts.
