jsamples wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
I agree with you--I don't believe that public health bureaucrats will
necessarily be more impartial. The point of Ropeik's article was that,
initially, the EPA and the automobile
Going back to the original subject of the thread ... .
John Lott gave a talk on campus last night. Among the interesting points:
Switzerland has more ownership of handguns and long guns per capita
than the U.S., even excluding the weapons that Swiss adult males are
required to have for
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Guns, Less Crime?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Girard wrote:
Why not look at the statistics? Here are some :
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
United Kingdom 1
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
I agree with you--I don't believe that public health bureaucrats will
necessarily be more impartial. The point of Ropeik's article was that,
initially, the EPA and the automobile industry each wasted
Krugman's original attack on Cato et al. was remarkably anti-liberal (in the
classical sense or specifically in the sense of supporting a marketplace in
ideas). Krugman's underlying assumption (which, I think, Bill Dickens shares
to some extent) was that there are two kinds of intellectuals
Bryan Caplan Wrote:
I don't think we really disagree here.
Less than I thought when I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were
implying that we were government funded and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds us. If
that is not what you are saying then we are closer to agreement
Hi David,
Unfortunately, as the reaction to Lott's work demonstrated, that
perception has very little connection to reality. Opponents claimed
that the work was funded by the firearms industry--on the grounds
that the Olin foundation got its money long ago from the Olin
Corporation, which
David Friedman wrote:
At 3:39 PM -0500 1/19/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that strikes me in this debate is that the argument seems to be
focusing on the total number of guns in existence in a region as being the
deterrent to crime. Or maybe it is the percentage of individuals
who
This discussion of research incentives and bias is pretty interesting,
reminding me of some of Paul Krugman's recent disparaging remarks about
e.g. the Cato Institute versus Brookings.
Consider a organization that gets 100% of its funding from the
conservative Coors brothers. People would
At 6:12 AM -0700 1/21/01, Chris Rasch wrote:
What you really need is a piece with
coauthors, one of whom one side will find it hard to attack, the
other the other side. You can get that by picking authors who are
identified with one side or another in general, but are not committed
on
At 12:43 PM -0500 1/21/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm relieved to hear you point this out because the Economist article that
inspired me to start this thread seemed to be making a different argument. I
thought that they may have missed the point of Lott's study, but I was not
familiar enough
Hi Pierre,
I don't see how the incentives of government, public-health
bureaucrats, or the way they are selected, makes them more impartial.
The EPA's manipulation of evidence in the secondhand-smoke case
illustrates this quite strikingly. U.S. District Judge William Osteen:
?The court is
I would suggest if you already have strong belief's about the value of
gun control laws, your opinion on the issue is unlikely to be swayed by
statistical studies counter to your belief, regardless of the quality of
the study.
I would tend to agree. If I might put it another way, suppose you
At 1:55 AM -0700 1/20/01, Chris Rasch wrote:
Even if you have no a priori strong opinion, I think it would be wise to
be skeptical of studies funded by ideological organizations. For
example, I would be quite skeptical of a study performed by HandGun
Control, Inc. and I am sympathetic to those
Hi David,
To begin with, neither John Lott nor David Mustard is or was a
University of Chicago professor. Mustard was, I'm pretty sure, a grad
student, and Lott was an Olin Fellow--a visiting position.
Thank you for the correcting my error. I don't think that my error(s)
detract from my
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Girard wrote:
Why not look at the statistics? Here are some :
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
United Kingdom 1
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
United Kingdom 7
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
Girard wrote:
Why not look at the statistics? Here are some :
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Murders committed with
Culture is a key
variable here. Given the culture, the freedom to defend
oneself may well be correlated with lower crime rates. Vermont in
the US
has the most liberty in self-defense and low crime rates relative to
other
states.
Indeed, global, country-wide statistics don't tell a reliable
story
One thing that strikes me in this debate is that the argument seems to be
focusing on the total number of guns in existence in a region as being the
deterrent to crime. Or maybe it is the percentage of individuals who own guns.
The total number of guns argument seems very unpersuasive to me.
19 matches
Mail list logo
