« Pizza Hut, again | Main | Interesting discussion on Cruikshank and 14th Amendment »
Canadian paper interviews Steve Levitt
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.
6 Comments
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.
Let me clarify my last comment-- I am not suprised by the lack of firearm accidents-- I am suprised pools are so dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
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.