On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:22:51 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Aren't you forgetting that the main thrust of the media campaigns are
made in the year _prior_ to the law getting passed?

I'm not following you. Certainly interested parties are making their efforts
to get a law passed or not before it happens. But we're talking about trying
to measure what happened once the policy actually becomes law. Right?

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck