"C. D. Tavares" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:36 PM +1000 8/16/03, Tim Lambert wrote:
>
> >> Whoever is correct, there is no published
> >> > support for Lehrer and Lott's claim that the law caused crime
> >> > increases.
>
> >> They *do* explicitly claim that the ban caused no reduction in crimes, but
> >> they never say that it caused an *increase* in crime, as you twice assert
> >> that they do.
>
> > I did not misstate their work.
> >
> > They wrote:
> > "Even though guns will leak into the District and Chicago from
> > neighboring areas, at least some minor benefit still should have
> > been observed if gun bans reduce crime. Instead, the opposite was
> > the case. The gun bans appear to have disarmed only law-abiding
> > citizens while leaving criminals free to prey on the populace"
>
> There are two ways one can read this, and neither supports Tim's thesis.
>
> One, "opposite" refers to "some minor benefit should have been observed,"
> not the following clause.
>
> Two, even if you apply it to the following clause instead, the "opposite"
> of "gun bans reduce crime" is "gun bans do not reduce crime," not "gun bans
> increase crime."
No it isn't. I just checked by asking my kids "What is the opposite
of reduce?". Both said "increase". And if you still think that it is
ambiguous, Lott's own subtitle (which you snipped from your reply):
D.C. gun laws have increased crime
surely makes it clear what he meant.
--
Tim
