A police officer with a standard side arm was no match for an untrained teen with a rifle. They will not be able to stop a Sandy Hook or Columbine or Aurora style gunman with a rifle and body armor (none at Columbine, yes at the others). Maybe, maybe not...won't hurt to try. OTH the article was authored by --aardvark droppings ------------- Two thumbs up on writing aardvark droppings..
"Guns, by Stephen Williamson: Like most of you, I've been thinking about guns for the last few days. As economists, what do we have to say about gun control? ... "What's the problem here? ... The people who buy the guns and use them seem to enjoy having them. But there are third parties who suffer. ... There are also information problems. It may be difficult to determine who is a hunter, who is temporarily not in their right mind, and who wants to put a loaded weapon in the bedside table. "What do economists know? We know something about information problems, and we know something about mitigating externalities. Let's think first about the information problems. Here, we know that we can make some headway by regulating the market so that it becomes segmented, with these different types of people self-selecting. This one is pretty obvious, and is a standard part of the conversation. Guns for hunting do not need to be automatic or semi-automatic, they do not need to have large magazines, and they do not have to be small. If hunting weapons do not have these properties, who would want to buy them for other purposes? "On the externality problem, we can be more inventive. A standard tool for dealing with externalities is the Pigouvian tax..., the Pigouvian tax we would need to correct the externality should be a large one, and it could generate a lot of revenue. If there are 300 million guns in the United States, and we impose a tax of $3600 per gun on the current stock, we would eliminate the federal government deficit. But $3600 is coming nowhere close to the potential damage that a single weapon could cause. A potential solution would be to have a gun-purchaser post collateral - several million dollars in assets - that could be confiscated in the event that the gun resulted in injury or loss of life. This has the added benefit of mitigating the moral hazard problem - the collateral is lost whether the damage is "accidental" or caused by, for example, someone who steals the gun. "Of course, once we start thinking about the size of the tax (or collateral) needed to correct the inefficiency that exists here, we'll probably come to the conclusion that it is more efficient just to ban particular weapons and ammunition at the point of manufacture. I think our legislators should take that as far as it goes."
Oh great an economist, with little or no knowledge of firearms or the constitution, weighing in - with a new tax idea.
First of all, look up what an "assault rifle" is because you don't know. Second, some principals might have stopped Lanza had they been armed and in her shoes, some not. It depends on a lot of factors but one thing is sure. That principal had almost no chance. Had she been armed her odds would have been a lot higher.
A lot of people are very offended by the NRA as they thought they would actually include "meaningful contributions", not promote a training program that we could purchase from them. People thought that the NRA might put people over profits for once, but instead they want to capitalize on this tragedy.
Funny my solution doesn't cost more govt money. I say ban the ban on assault weapons anything goes and I mean ANYTHING. That would put us back to the full meaning of the 2nd amendment.