I have been thinking about this issue (gun control).
I remember reading somewhere (the Economist?) of the idea of insurance for guns. Basically, how things are done now, the cost of having a gun (the chance that it will be used (maybe not by yourself) to cause damage/kill/etc) is not included in price that you pay for the gun. This encourages people who favour guns (purchase them/etc), to think that the cost is much lower than it is in reality.
There are medical costs, prison costs, costs of lives, costs of crime, and so on.
JM
I remember reading somewhere (the Economist?) of the idea of insurance for guns. Basically, how things are done now, the cost of having a gun (the chance that it will be used (maybe not by yourself) to cause damage/kill/etc) is not included in price that you pay for the gun. This encourages people who favour guns (purchase them/etc), to think that the cost is much lower than it is in reality.
There are medical costs, prison costs, costs of lives, costs of crime, and so on.
JM
Comment