Reply #267: oh, lord, whacking moles again

[iverglas]

Reading this executive summary, you will find that concealed-carry (either "shall" or "may") was not linked to reduction in violent crime rates, a position consistent with most of the pro-2A posters here, straw from anti-2A notwithstanding.

No, you will NOT find any such thing.

You will find exactly what you quoted:

"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons."


There was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE because the EVIDENCE WAS NOT COLLECTED.

Not insufficient evidence of effectiveness.

Insufficient evidence TO DETERMINE effectiveness.


Reading this executive summary, you will find that concealed-carry (either "shall" or "may") was not linked to reduction in violent crime rates, a position consistent with most of the pro-2A posters here, straw from anti-2A notwithstanding.

No, you will NOT find any such thing. You will find that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to determine whether there was a link.



http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"



The meaning of this was explained over and over and over by our resident moderator at the time -- a statistician by profession.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=118586&mesg_id=118697


you never know, my own explanation may help someone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=96095&mesg_id=96167