It would violate the 4th Amendment to do so. No thank you, I prefer dangerous freedom to totalitarianism.
But hey - let's look at the numbers. Assume these scans start at age 14. This means about 268,000,000 people ( 2018 ) are required to be tested. Assume you have to be tested every 5 years. That's 53.4 million people per year. 52 weeks, 5 business days per week = 260 available testing days = about 205,000 tests per day = 18.6k/hr over 11 available hours.
First step is to change the objective. We can give out free poison and reduce gun violence, but unless it reduces the number of murder victims, we accomplish nothing. Objective should be to reduce murder. Looking past the method of murder is a good start. Why do some people have no trouble causing harm to others while some wouldn't even kill a spider? Violence is wired into our DNA and we have to condition ourselves to override these thoughts. If a toddler takes a toy from another, what is going to happen next? When the child is punished, the violent thoughts don't go away; they learn to hide them. I believe that conditioning our children to process these emotions early is the key to reducing murder. It should be as important as reading and math. You may say that it falls under education, but it is psychology.
First there is no we ... you mean Americans. Second, not a remote chance in hell of selling that as a concensus here. You may as well double the cost of a pint to treat imbibbers within the “context of 'negative externality' analysis. A tax to internalise the externality...” back in the UK...at least there you can impose the tax on subjects.
Yes there is. Anyone you has bothered to read the evidence. I appreciate that you're not included in the 'we'. I'm not trying to sell it as a consensus. I appreciate pro gunners reject rationality.
It is not even possible for yourself to properly explain just what this so-called "externality" actually amounts to in real world terms.
Not true. You've been given defintion, rationale and evidence estimating an optimal license fee. You continue to prefer ideological grunt over evidence based policy.
So-called "evidence" whether scientific or otherwise, cannot be used as a basis for restricting constitutional rights held by the people. Nor would such actually be wanted by those who claim to support such a notion. So-called "evidence" can be made and presented to support any notion, including the belief that public safety would benefit if the black population of the united states were exterminated since it is responsible for the majority of crimes committed in the united states according to conviction records. Whatever the standard, there is so-called "evidence" that can be utilized to support it. Widespread public support for the wholesale extermination of the homosexual community of the united states could be had if one demonstrates the community has the greatest concentration of HIV and/or AIDS out of anyone, and do not practice basic safety techniques for random sexual encounters that simply spreads the illness.
I'm not interested in your "evidence isn't evidence" academic conspiracy rant. It just confirms your ideology limitation.
The purpose is to internalize the externality (such that we face the true cost associated with our preferences). If the law of demand holds then numbers fall.
I do not know why one puts effort into euro trash and 2A let alone try and justify when no justification is needed or warranted. Euro trash waived that right long ago. Roo land included.
Again, I've already answered. Demanding repetition for a question that I have directly answered is really shoddy behaviour.
Typing this took so much longer than typing yes or no. Please cite the post where you directly answered.
I don't disagree, but that isn't something we have control over. Thousands of families with different cultures and morals will treat their children just as they had been treated by their parents and those before them. We can "educate" them all we want, but the fact of the matter stands that they will do as they wish behind closed doors. I believe that social systems and governmental policies are necessary to impede those who do wrong. For example, we can't force citizens to drive sober and at the speed limit despite all the information available to educate and deter this behavior; but we can standardize seat belts to every vehicle, we can issue tickets to punish their behavior, we can improve the design of vehicles, etc. With that said, I think you're arguing that murder is a psychology issue that may be alleviated through proper evaluation of each person's mental health. If so, I agree, as we were discussing this a few posts ago -but I think this would only work if everyone was required to participate in this, which has its own set of challenges. I chose to focus on guns for this topic because, although the human capacity for murder is the underlying issue, people murder for many different reasons -sometimes, no reason at all! But if we focus on specific types of murder and treat them individually, we can isolate a solution for each category. One size does not fit all. If I'm not mistaken, he's arguing that the presence of guns in the United States has a financial consequence that is not reflected in its current cost. Some businesses and governmental policies use a cost-benefit analysis to make decisions which requires us to monetize "goods" and "conditions" that are not commonly assigned value. These are things like property damage, mental and physical trauma, the feeling of safety, etc. In other words, it's the entire gamut of pros and cons, all the consequences and resulting outcomes which stem from a good or service -then monetized so that a comparison is possible. When there's a car crash, money is exchanged between participants to compensate one for property damage induced by the other. When a man passes by and shoots the wall of a building and walks away without being apprehended, that's uncompensated property damage which is not accounted for in the price tag. We could take this a step further and argue that every human life lost by guns is a cost to society which is not reflected in the price of guns. This is an "externality" it's the cost accrued as a consequence of guns, which is external to its price tag the "internality". To internalize the externality, therefore, means to monetize things like the "sense of safety" achieved for owning guns, the "sense of joy" appreciated by those who visit the gun range or hunt in the woods, and life saved by guns versus the "sense of danger" felt by some for knowing a gun is present, the life lost by guns, property damage by guns, noise pollution every time a gun is fired, etc. I trust Reiver will correct me.
I just realized I actually didn't finish writing... heh.. I'll restate: To internalize the externality, therefore, means to monetize things like the "sense of safety" achieved for owning guns, the "sense of joy" appreciated by those who visit the gun range or hunt in the woods, and life saved by guns versus the "sense of danger" felt by some for knowing a gun is present, the life lost by guns, property damage by guns, noise pollution every time a gun is fired, etc. These values are then added and subtracted to yield a net external cost, which is then added to the price tag. The intention isn't necessarily to reduce the amount of gun owners, but to compensate society for the cost of guns. It's a purely economic argument. Although, the consequence of this policy might very well result in less gun owners.
It was the response to your first question that you then quoted. If you continue to demand repetition I will have to watch the cricket instead.
Completely wrong. You've referred mainly to private benefits. Here we are referring to social costs. Its supply side analysis, not demand side.
I understand his intent. Yes, we know that the consequence of the policy will result in fewer law abiding gun owners. Simple economics will show that this kind of demand is elastic. I just disagree that this is the proper methodology to address the crime rate. A purely economic view of the world ignores individual rights in favor of the maximum economic benefit to society. Such a viewpoint, if extended broadly, could result in no health care for those past a certain age, or not actually providing a positive economic benefit, etc.
here is what one mope told a prosecution team I was on when we noted he was looking at an extra 8 years of federal time under 18 USC 922 "if you all bust me with a piece I get years in prison-if the other SOBs catch me without a gun I get a box in the ground for all of eternity
