You can read Steve Levitt's op-ed on pools and guns here. It is quite clear from the op-ed why he wrote it: he lost his son and he didn't want another parent to lose a child to a preventable accident. I am totally disgusted with Lott for accusing Levitt of exploiting the death of his child to cover his "rabidly anti-gun" views. I'm too angry to write any more.
More like this
Brad Delong points us to a New York Times profile on "rabidly anti-gun" Steven Levitt. The whole thing is worth reading, but this part is especially interesting to me:
The year after he was hired, his wife gave birth to their first child, Andrew. One day, just after Andrew turned a year old…
Just so people don't have to take my word for the nature of Lott's attack on Levitt, here are Lott's exact words. On page 54: - Another panel member, Steve Levitt, an economist, has been described in media reports as being "rabidly anti-gun."[10]
On page 289:[10] Dave Kopel and Glenn…
Mac Diva is trying to figure out why Lott does the things he does. Atrios explains why he cares about Lott. Brad Delong says that I have "a very strong case". Matt Yglesias has some thoughtful comments on appropriate behaviour in this case. ArchPundit has one two posts.
On Monday Glenn Reynolds…
by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
[Editor's note: A version of this piece was published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than guns." ]
What's more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there…