# The Brady Bill, revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2002, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-brady-bill-revisited/133069 "2002-10-20T05:30:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-brady-bill-revisited/133069/21 "2002-11-03T00:50:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian \* > \*\* Riboflavin_\*, if you are worried that I am just driving by, then why respond? As you would know if you had read my last post, “I try to act as though each new GCer is willing to actually engage in debate, despite what experience shows, even when they open up with absurdities like your post, and specifically insulting nonsense like your comment.” As happens most of the time, it turns out that you’re not actually willing to engage in debate, but that’s life. > [@](#): > > As you have no time for that, I have no time for those who would make an assertion based on a lack of information one way or the other. Please pardon me for not being suprised that you aren’t able to compose a coherent argument. All of that stuff about how difficult it would be to compile information from police reports is just you shouting into the virtual world in a futile attempt to compel others to believe you, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I may have only been here for 9 posts (which should be irrelevant to the points I might make) but I already know you. I have talked to you before in other venues. You have no interest in proposing an argument and defending it. You have no time for logic or data. You simply make vehement statements, as if shouting into the virtual world will compel others to believe you. _pats head_ It’s nice to see that you love me so much, though I have no idea who you are. Why don’t you start a pit thread if you want to get reacquanted? I will admit that I do appreciate the irony in someone who jumps into a thread with a post asserting that compiling information from police reports is difficult, closes on an insult, then fails to respond when challenged making a statement like yours above. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-brady-bill-revisited/133069/22 "2002-11-03T02:53:21Z")
Let me speak clearly for you, **Riboflavin**. I objected to this: > [@](#): > > (A better approach to discussing waiting periods would be to look at how many people used a newly purchased gun to commit a crime within the waiting period either before the waiting period was law or in areas without a waiting period. From the complete lack of evidence provided by waiting period supporters, I have deduced that the number is zero or practically zero.) If you were to say that the studies were conducted and found no support for the effect of waiting periods, I would say, great, that is evidence. For you to say that no studies exist, so you conclude that no crimes have been prevented, I say that is exceptionally weak. There is no need to get re-acquainted - I was speaking of your ilk, not you specifically. I’ll try to be more clear for your benefit in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-brady-bill-revisited/133069/23 "2002-11-03T06:40:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian \* > If you were to say that the studies were conducted and found no support for the effect of waiting periods, I would say, great, that is evidence. If there’s no evidence for waiting periods either reducing or increasing the number of murders, it seems perfectly reasonable for me to conlcude that they don’t have an effect until some evidence is shown one way or the other. I could see you objection if I was claiming that waiting periods led to more murders due to the lack of evidence that they prevent any, but ‘no effect either way’ certainly seems a reasonable null hypothesis. > [@](#): > > For you to say that no studies exist, so you conclude that no crimes have been prevented, I say that is exceptionally weak. I never claimed that no such studies exist, either quote me saying that or talk about what I actually said. What I said was that waiting period supporters have failed to provide any evidence that waiting periods do any good, and from that I conclude that they don’t have any numbers supporting that waiting periods do good. In the absence of evidence that waiting periods do either good or harm, I presume that they have no appreciable effect, much the same way that if people were taking medicine without any noticeable effect, that the medicine was doing no good or harm. > [@](#): > > There is no need to get re-acquainted - I was speaking of your ilk, not you specifically. I’ll try to be more clear for your benefit in the future. \*\* BTW, instead of all of the bit about ‘I’ve seen you on other message boards’ ‘no, I wasn’t talking about you specifically’ perhaps you could tell us what you believe would be so difficult about conducting a study on waiting periods? You still haven’t cleared up what you thought would be difficult despite your rather angry post asking if it was possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-brady-bill-revisited/133069.md?page=1)