Levitt
tlambert | April 22, 2003Glenn Reynolds finally gets around to blogging on the accusation in his article that Levitt is "rabidly antigun". Remarkably, Reynolds does not mention or link to any of the discussion about this that has occurred on many blogs.
tlambert | April 20, 2003Roger Ailes comments on Reynolds and Kopel's failure to show any evidence in support of the "rabidly antigun" claim. Greg Beato also has some extensive comments. Tom Spencer has two comments, as does Atrios here and here.
tlambert | April 17, 2003Max Sawicky links here, as does Brad Delong and Hesiod.
Meanwhile, in a post that seems to have drifted in from some alternate reality, the William Sjostrom take on the Kopel/Reynolds/Lott attacks on Levitt is that Brad Delong is a sleaze.
In a previous message Glenn Reynolds claimed to have taken Levitt's word that he wasn't rabidly anti-gun. In his blog it did not seem that Reynolds had taken Levitt's word, so I asked him to clarify his position. He wrote: I was quite clear in my InstaPundit post on this: I don't know Levitt. Someone who I…
tlambert | April 16, 2003Mac 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 wrote: Kopel sent an update to the NRO piece some time ago stressing Levitt's denial of the charge. Although Lambert doesn't mention this, I imagine that he's aware of it. I don't know if it has appeared on their site yet or not.
It turns out that "some time ago" was Reynolds' special way of…
tlambert | April 15, 2003Kevin Drum has a nice summary on Lott's anonymous attack on Levitt. Kieran Healy tells what Lott's next step will be. Brian Linse thinks Reynolds and Kopel should offer some answers. Atrios links here. And Tom Spencer has two posts. First, he observes that Reynolds' cover up for Lott raises questions about Reynolds. Second, he is impressed by Lott: However, can you imagine the chutzpah on the part of Lott to quote an article in a book that is quoting himself as an unnamed source to bolster an argument he's advancing in the book? You've got to give it to Lott, he…
tlambert | April 14, 2003First, a recap and a time line on the Kopel/Lott/Reynolds attacks on Steve Levitt:
16 Aug 2001
Glenn Reynolds claims that the NAS panel is "stacked" with "ardent supporters of gun control", especially Levitt.
29 Aug 2001
Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds write an article in National Review Online where they claim that most of the people on the panel are anti-gun and that Levitt has been described as "rabidly antigun". They offer no evidence to support their attack on Levitt.
29 Aug 2001
Levitt emails Reynolds, denying the charge, pointing to this op-ed as evidence that he is not rabidly…
tlambert | April 12, 2003 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.
tlambert | April 11, 2003I asked Steve Levitt about Lott's attack. He comments: I wrote that op-ed piece on swimming pools and guns almost a full year before it was published. Members of the U of C publicity department can attest to that. I wrote it at the tail end of the summer, so they suggested waiting until the beginning of the next summer to try to publish it, which I did. I had certainly never heard of any NRC panel at the time I wrote it. I wrote it because it is the truth and it is an important point
So Lott was wrong about the timing of when Levitt's op-ed was written. Lott either knew this or was…
tlambert | April 10, 2003Just 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 Reynolds, ibid., 347. Levitt apparently tried to overcome this image by writing his first op-ed about a week before his name was publicly nominated for the panel. Given that panel members are supposed to not have strong views on the topic that they are studying, it was strange that…
tlambert | April 9, 2003I've been reading Lott's new book, The Bias against Guns. Chapter 3 is entitled "How the Government Works against Gun Ownership". The heart of the chapter is on pages 53--55, where he argues that the National Academy of Sciences stacks its panels against guns.
His first example is their panel on firearms research. He argues that the panel was set up "to examine only the negative side of guns". Lott writes: Rather than comparing how firearms facilitate both harm and self-defense, the panel was only asked to examine "firearm violence" or how "…