Interview on Bloomberg TV about US Gun Laws
Labels: appearances, television
Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
Labels: appearances, television
posted by John Lott at 1:01 AM
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-Interview with the Washington Post
-Debate on "Guns Reduce Crime"
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
-US Supreme Court Wire
-Futures for Financial Markets
-judgepedia
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Larry Elder's The Elder Statement
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
Firearmstruth.com -- a media-watchdog website
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Robert Stacy McCain's Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Elizabeth Blackney's blog
Eric Rasmusen
Your "Economics" Portal to the World by Larry Low
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Blog at Newsmax.com
Pieces I have written at BigGovernment.com
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
4 Comments:
It's sad that neither Eric nor the host understand what "automatic weapon" means, or that they are already heavily regulated, or that legally-owned automatic weapons are almost never used to commit crime.
Nice to see an interviewer that lets both sides finish their thoughts!
Great job Mr. Lott.
John,
First, I just don't understand how the media twists every tragedy with a gun involved into a gun control debate. It doesn't happen with anything else.
President Obama just signed an order stating that if a Predator Drone attack will kill less than 50 civilians, there is no need for authorization. Why is there no debate on drone control?
If car accidents kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people in this country alone every year, why is there no debate on car control? Speed control? Or road safety?
The fact of the matter is, Jared murdered and injured innocent human beings. Those that twist this around into the state trying to illegally curtail our liberties because of 1 person out of 300 million is just plain sick.
Why isn't that a debate? Mentally stunted power hungry people running around trying to turn a tragic criminal event into an opportunity to expand the state's ability to lord over its subjects?
Is it even possible for a news outlet to even have a debate on anything without injecting visual information that attempts to influence the viewer thereby negating the viewpoints of targeted guest(s), while supporting the views of others?
What is so difficult in allowing the views expressed to be judged without an attempt to influence the outcome of said debate? Can it be fear?
Post a Comment
<< Home