Scucca

Still banging on with your knowledge deficiency! That marginal social costs are positive has already been shown by the empirical evidence into crime effects. You'd have to argue those crime effects do not exist. You're incapable of achieving that. We're therefore left with the empirical evidence summed by comments such as Cook and Ludwig's (2006, Aiming for evidence-based gun policy, Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, Vol 25, pp 691-735):

While quantifying the magnitude of these social costs is difficult, contingent valuation (CV) survey estimates suggest the costs of gun violence may be on the order of $100 billion per year (Cook & Ludwig, 2000). Most ($80 billion) of these costs come from crime-related gun violence. Dividing by the annual number of crime-related gunshot wounds, including homicides, implies a social cost per crime-related gun injury of around $1 million (Ludwig & Cook, 2001)

It would be nice to be confronted by a gun fanatic arguing with knowledge

__________________

Goobieman

-cough-
Horseshi'ite
-cough-

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Voidwar

You are either lying or misunderstanding, as I have no deficiency.

I know exactly what you are saying, I just know that it is bull****.

As I said, you can provide no proof in a particular case, and thus your "externalities" are non-existant. I don't have to attack your weak theory in exactly the place you specify. I can simply attack it in the particular case. You cannot show the "externalities" of one particular case, and so I can deny they exist at all and in any case.

Scucca

You've made no relevant remark, either theoretical or empirical. I can only go by that.

Knowledge deficiency again! The social costs have already been shown. I've even quoted estimated figures. Given these costs, the market price will be too low. Basic supply & demand!

If you wanted to try and grasp relevance you'll have to attack the abundant empirical research that I've dipped into. Start with Cook and Ludwig, given they've come out with marginal social cost measures. What aspect of their empirical methodology would you question? Let's have some content from you

Voidwar

Incorrect, and your rote recital of that falsehood just reinforces the weakness of your position.

Bald. Faced. Lie.

You were asked to show the existance thereof in a specific case or instance, and you can't, because your " externalities" are non-existant. If they did exist, you would be able to demonstrate the "externalities" of my weapons, or Ikari's, or any particular case, but you fail and run away from that challenge, because it blows your line of reasoning out of the water.

Scucca

Voidwar,

As usual, your posts have been corrupted by basic knowledge deficiency. Try discounting the following comment (because if you cant you really have nothing):

While quantifying the magnitude of these social costs is difficult, contingent valuation (CV) survey estimates suggest the costs of gun violence may be on the order of $100 billion per year (Cook & Ludwig, 2000). Most ($80 billion) of these costs come from crime-related gun violence. Dividing by the annual number of crime-related gunshot wounds, including homicides, implies a social cost per crime-related gun injury of around $1 million (Ludwig & Cook, 2001)

Those crime costs ensure externalities after all!

Voidwar

Its all made up crap, since you can't point to any cost of any particular gun.

You perpetuate an aggregate farce.

Your "externalities" are a falsehood, like the "quintessence", or "ether". A theory, that turns out to be completely false.

Besides that, you are the dodgiest dodger around, Dodgy McDodgerson, so why don't you answer the fifty or so questions you have dodged on this thread ?

You won't answer them, because you cannot provide the requested proof in the particular case, because your "externalities" are a complete fabrication.

Scucca

Chortle, chortle! Thats the best example of anti-intellectualism I've seen on this thread.

You have nothing. Can you deny that gun prevalence impacts on crime rates? Can you deny that crime represents a social cost?

Without any relevant comment, you certainly cannot deny therefore that the market fails. Knowledge deficiency of supply/demand amongst the gun fanatics is darn ugly!

Voidwar

Recycled comment, your material is running thin.

You sir, have posted again, without providing the requested proof.

That makes this yet another instance of Dodging.

Scucca

Don't be shy! Can you deny that gun prevalence impacts on crime rates? Can you deny that crime represents a social cost?

For the first question, I'd like to see application of the available empirical evidence (at least Lott!). Cheers