Item — HN Reader

So are you claiming that the substitution rate is 100%? Any evidence for that?

If it's any less than that, we've saved some lives. Which I consider a Good Thing™, but you're obviously entitled to your own opinion.

Or is this the old "if we can't prevent 100%, there's no point in preventing any"-canard?

2 comments

There has to be some threshold. How many lives per year is worth restricting the freedom of every law abiding citizen?

Let's say we could ban peanuts, and it would save 50 people every year. Would it be worth it? Probably not. How about 100 million. Probably so.

There isn't any good evidence either way. It's too hard to control the variables. It's possible that banning guns increased homicides from guns and other means. It's possible that it prevented homicides from guns and other means. There is really no way to tell from the evidence. But it is certainly not clear that it helps.