By popular request I'm going to comment on Lott's LA Times oped on the assault weapons ban. Basically, I agree with Lott here. As I noted earlier the ban doesn't make sense.
However, Chris Mooney has a point when he writes:
Providing balance is one thing, and it's something op-ed pages should strive for. But if op-ed editors can't get the other side from a credible expert---which Lott emphatically isn't---they shouldn't just publish anybody for the sake of having different perspectives represented.
It's not as if the LA Times couldn't have found someone credible to argue against the ban. For example, see Matthew Yglesias.
More like this
Lott has an opinion piece on page 15 of today's Australian. Lott writes:
Americans may feel safe when an academic addresses a conference using a laser pointer. In the hands of an Australian, however, there is understandable fear that these devices could do untold harm. An…
I'm threading the needle between eight days of Hanukkah, twelve days of Christmas, Top Ten lists, seven deadly sins, and any other enumerations with this eleven-item top ten list. So, as promised earlier, to continue on this Marlowe-esque Long Goodbye here is a reprint of a post I enjoyed writing…
I mean the title in a different sense than most science bloggers or SciBlog readers will likely presume. I mean it as one who studies science, not one who practices it - given the complexity, esteem, importance, and promise of the scientific enterprise, such deeper understandings of what this…
If you visit ScienceBlogs regularly, you've probably read about ScienceBloglings Sheril Kirshenbaum's and Chris Mooney's proposal for a presidential debate about science. There's a lot I like about this proposal, but the reality of what could happen bothers me. First, what I like about the idea…
"Matthew Yglesias" and "credible" do not belong in the same sentence, unless there is a word like "not" or "hardly" somewhere in between. This is the guy who spawned the UL about strawtards believing Austria was part of the communist East Bloc, solely because Arnold Schwarzenegger (1) mentioned that the USSR had occupied portions of Austria following WW II, (2) recalled a trip when he and his family had to travel into the Soviet sector, without further explaining that he wouldn't have to travel "into" the sector if his native Styria was part of it, and (3) mentioned that Austria had socialist tendencies relative to the U.S.
Maybe Lott wasn't the best messenger, but I don't think Yglesias would have been, either, unless the idea was to pick a guy who has more credibility among hard-lefties who are more likely to support the ban.
Thank you for your comment, Xrlq, but I'm afraid that I don't find your criticism of Yglesias at all persuasive. Both you and Yglesias are speculating about the reaction of listeners, neither of you appear to have even informally surveyed people to find out their interpretation of Schwarzenegger's words. If this means that Yglesias is not credible, then equally, neither are you.
Ahem. As you surely know, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, not on the skeptic who disputes it. Informally, I know some Americans who are very knowledgeable about Europe, and many more who are not. Of the latter group, most seem to think of Austria as a popular ski resort in Europe similar to Switzerland, while others mix it up with Australia. [Alas, that last group appears to include the U.S. Postal Service - when I lived in Austria I was advised to have Americans write "Europe" in addition to "Austria" on any correspondence addressed to me - and this was long before Austria joined what is now the EU.] But I don't know anyone who knows just enough about Austria to place it central Europe, yet little enough to place it on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Do you?
Question for you, Tim. Your criticism of the Australian buy-back plan was that the cost ($500) was not enough to justify the tiny reduction in homicides. The money could have been better spent. Does the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban feature similar costs? If it's cost-free, then it surely makes more sense to keep it in place: a small reduction in homicides is a reduction nonetheless.
Another question: converting a semi-automatic to an automatic weapon would require gutting the firing mechanism. Is this common practice? Is there a better way for criminals to aquire automatic weapons?
Final question: Lott suggests that gun control advocates are worried about their later credibility. Is there another motivation? For example, do gun control groups argue that restricting gun availability according to characteristics undermines their larger project? In other words, do they worry that banning assault weapons implies that pistols are safe alternatives?
Questions, questions.