--BD
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Davies" <d_squared_2002 at yahoo.co.uk> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 1:16 AM Subject: Re: guns & crime
:
: --- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote: >
: This is a joke, right?
: >
: > His big breakthrough is that his data is better
: > because he uses
: > subscription information to Guns & Ammo magazine
: > (about 500k
: > subscribers) to estimate gun ownership?
: >
: > /jordan
:
: Heh, I dunno. The section on proving that G&A
: subscription is a good instrument for gun ownership
: looks a bit hysterical to be true. But on the other
: hand, proving that Guns & Ammo readership is
: correlated with murder rates isn't proving nothing.
: And it strikes me that G&A subscriptions are likely to
: be a much better indicator of what's fucked-up about
: guns in America than actual gun ownership, since as
: you've regularly and convincingly argued, guns are
: owned by all sorts of normal people for all sorts of
: normal reasons. But if the American Guns & Ammo is
: anything like its UK counterpart, I'd say that reading
: it is certainly a decent instrument for something or
: other.
:
: in other news, Duggan's critique of Lott & Mustard is
: basically the same as Tim Lambert's; that the counties
: which passed CCW laws didn't actually see higher gun
: ownership (there weren't "more guns").
:
: In unrelated news, I still dislike the phenomenon of
: the blurring of the distinction between econometrics
: and criminology.
:
: dd
:
:
: ____________________________________________________________
: Do You Yahoo!?
: Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
: or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
: