We haven't banned pawn shops, either. But we do understand that they are a conduit for theft and can induce other crime, and so we tend to impose a certain amount of regulation upon them to reduce the scope of the harm.
What exact form that would take is up for discussion.
And, of course, there's other secondary markets-- sketchy people with tables illegally selling gray market consumer goods.
> So you want that the government do something, but don’t know what?
Actually, I pretty well know what, and I'll explain despite your bad faith.
* We have a century-old toolkit of ways to deal with legitimate businesses that often end up as fences. Mostly record-keeping requirements and a degree of secondary liability to encourage vetting of where they buy merchandise from. You see this toolkit applied to pawn shops, scrap metal dealers, etc...
* We also have pretty good ways, in major municipalities, of shutting down sellers of goods who open impromptu businesses on street corners with dubious goods. Increased amount of retail theft may be a signal to redouble these efforts.
* And, of course, enforcement against the actual frontline shoplifters is important, too.
Of course, all of these things are tradeoffs that impede some legitimate businesses to some extent to protect other businesses from illegal activity. The exact amount and form is open to discussion.
The reason why all your comments are getting flagged is because you're engaging in mockery instead of trying to advance the conversation and talk about specifics.
We haven't banned pawn shops, either. But we do understand that they are a conduit for theft and can induce other crime, and so we tend to impose a certain amount of regulation upon them to reduce the scope of the harm.
What exact form that would take is up for discussion.
And, of course, there's other secondary markets-- sketchy people with tables illegally selling gray market consumer goods.