Mike Riddle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:09:11 +1000, Tim Lambert wrote:
>
> >>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".
>
> I'm sure Tim realizes the truth of the old statistical saying that the absence
> of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
> In a similar manner, the absence of a reduction does not necessarily mean the
> presence of an increase, or vice versa.
However, they did not just say that there had not been a reduction.
They claimed that there had been an increase.
And 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
