If the state wants to prevent unauthorized people from using someone else's weapon to hurt themselves or others, then the state should subsidize gun locks, safes, etc. People having effectively more money to buy such safety goods will induce competition among producers to produce good products. This is in contrast to regulations (e.g., Maryland) forcing people to purchase a gun lock with a gun, resulting in competition among producers to produce the cheapest possible joke of a product that barely qualifies as a gun lock.
Of course, the devilish detail is, where should the money to pay for the subsidy come from? Logically, it should be taxes on the general population, those whose safety is increased by gun owners securing the guns better.
Having a legal set up that permits third-party gun storage in a way that is immune from being confiscated by the state would also increase safety by decreasing unauthorized use, but it seems states would rather keep their power to confiscate -- eliminating that type of business -- even if it means more people get shot.
No comments:
Post a Comment