both gun-free and gun-owning homes enjoy exactly the same general burglary deterrence effects from widespread American gun ownership.(positive externality) so why not subsidize guns to non-criminals?
2006-12-10 21:13:34 · 2 answers · asked by mcnult345 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
i know this is not the best way to deter crime, but holding variables constant, it has a positve externality (non-gun owners benefit), so would a subsidy create even higher social benefit?
2006-12-10 23:16:19 · update #1
Well, even if you are right (which, if memory serves, is highly doubtful), more guns also means more gun-related accidents (in particular, those involving children)... That's a large negative externality, isn't it?
2006-12-11 04:30:42 · answer #1 · answered by NC 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
how do you differentiate between criminals and good citizens or people with clean records?
think of the problems this will cause if more people have access to guns?
Cheaper guns means alot more criminals can have access to such tools of their trade by asking their friends to buy for them or even steal from those who have guns.
crimes should be dealt in another approach. Some examples would be heavier punishments and more effective police system.
2006-12-10 21:30:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋