Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Pizza Hut, again | Main | Interesting discussion on Cruikshank and 14th Amendment »

Canadian paper interviews Steve Levitt

Posted by David Hardy · 2 April 2008 01:11 PM

Story here. He's and economist and the author of Freakonomics. While he's had battles with John Lott (as I recall, the dispute was over whether more CCW means less crime, Lott's position, or doesn't affect crime one way of the other, his position), he tells the Canadian paper that gun laws do nothing to lower crime rates, a swimming pool in the backyard is more dangerous than a gun in the house, and gun laws have few effects, except when they are counterproductive effects.

· Crime and statistics

6 Comments

Ron | April 3, 2008 8:08 AM

When a intended Killer decides to exercise his/her dirty deed, would he/she want to whip out a gun in the middle of a Mall where he/she knows that nearly everyone in the Mall is armed and ready to defend themselves, knowing that he/she would be gunned down before firing off a second round.

No, the Killer wants a place that is safe for them to inflect as many causalities as desirable. They want a "Weapons Free" zone where people are like Sheep ready for the slaughter.

Ryan | April 3, 2008 11:43 AM

Huh. I really like that swimming pools are more dangerous fact. Never thought of that, but putting it that way and then seeing how many kids drown in pools vs accidents from guns in the home really puts it in perspective. I know a few people with swimming pools. I don't know if I know anyone without a gun in the house. When you think about that and still more kids drown... wow.

Ryan | April 3, 2008 12:03 PM

Let me clarify my last comment-- I am not suprised by the lack of firearm accidents-- I am suprised pools are so dangerous.

Glenn Dale | April 3, 2008 12:11 PM

Thanks for posting. I have thought the Lott vs. Leavitt dispute was a ridiculous tempest in a teapot given that Leavitt has never argued that guns increase crime etc. Leavitt has only ever argued that they couldn't replicate Lott's numbers indicating that increased gun possession decreases crime. Nor did Leavitt argue that guns increase/decreas/are neutral on crime rates, merely that they couldn't reproduce Lott's numbers/conclusions.

straightarrrow | April 4, 2008 12:11 AM

Ryan, more small children drown in five gallon buckets than are injured or killed by guns. More children die every year in Little League Baseball than die from accidental shootings.

The children stats the anti's are always waving around are mostly purposeful over drug turf or gang war or during the commission of a crime. Many of these children aren't. Some studies include "children" up to the age of 22.

Nomen Nescio | April 4, 2008 1:25 PM

when mr. Levitt claims that "it costs like three bucks to see a doctor", i'm losing respect for him. i pay more like 50 dollars for an office visit, myself.