Scucca

I can't agree. For example, increases in the education budget here in Britain coincided with increases in smoking rates amongst our youth. Rather than passive measures, we've had to go for something rather aggressive: following the massive rises in price via taxes, restrictions on smoking opportunities have become increasingly severe. Its a lesson in the inability of education, given its not simply about knowledge deficiency

You again go for more active policies. For example, the binge culture can be reduced via strict licensing regulations. At the extreme, nationalisation of the alcohol market can be employed.

Control over the characteristics of who is able to own a gun may be sufficient. We still have a failing market though, given gun prevalence increases crime.

And we can use that to reject the idea that license fees are against the right to own guns. The tax required would not be prohibitive.

Cigarette taxation was never predicted to totally eliminate smoking. As with a gun license, it would reduce quantity demanded as the externality is internalised.

__________________

Gladiator

Dear Scucca,

Your statement that education does not work, is a little over-broad.

How can we frame the problem that concerns you?

Is it the number of handguns that are unlocked in residential home, where children might play?

Shots fired in residential neigborhoods can go astray and injure a child. What types of handgun shots are of concern to you?

Is it the number of shots fired in residential neighborhoods by outlaws?

Is it the number of shots fired by law abiding gun toters, who are protecting themselves?

Is it the number of shots fired by the police?

Is it the number of shots fired with handguns in domestic disputes?

Is it the number of shots fired by those who are unathorized to carry handguns, but carry, or have unauthorized access to a handgun, and fire shots in a residential neighborhood in order to settle disputes that have arisen?

The District of Columbia Gun law was stricter than allowed by the US Constitution, but the DC Handgun law only served to encourage crimes in DC, because law abiding citizens were shure not to have a gun. The DC Crime rate did not go down with the DC ban on handguns. The DC Handgun ban was in effect for about 30 years, something like 1981 till last week.

Your asserting that more handguns cause more crime, is not a given. More handgun ownership may be a RESULT of, or a response to, increased crime.

The crime rates in neighboring Virgina and Maryland were lower than for DC.


..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

Scucca

I recognise how education is utilised. Despite its ineffectiveness, it meets a core government need: to, at least, suggest government action.

Not really. Even with owners who do their utmost to ensure the minimisation of accidents, gun prevalence will still feed into higher crime via the secondary gun market

We've certainly covered this issue. To show how self-defence is a relatively minor issue, the empirical analysis into the use of guns for spouse abuse was used.

Indeed. Given the possibility of reverse causation, the use of raw data should be shunned. Not surprisingly, I've therefore referred to empirical analysis that test for these problems and investigate the robustness of the 'more guns=more crime' findings.