[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
^^ owned.

also from wikipedia,
"In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms leglislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).[17] This paper was criticised, notably by economists Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh,[18], who argued in a blog link that time series methods are unreliable, but used those same methods to argue that gun deaths are lower now than they were on average in the 80 year period before the laws were introduced. Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this logic. I understand it from a pure statistical perspective, however, it boggles my mind on a political level.

"So, the law doesn't make any sense, but we're unsure. We'll have to leave it on the books for 100 years or so to ensure that the sample size is big enough to determine whether we've made a difference."