@article{ref1,
title="Evaluating gun-policy evaluations",
journal="Criminology and public policy",
year="2003",
author="Ludwig, Jens",
volume="2",
number="3",
pages="411-418",
abstract="The paper in this volume by T. Kovandzic and T. Marvell raises an important question that is relevant for a wide range of policy issues: in cases in which policy decisions depend in part on answers to factual questions, what should policymakers do in the face of imperfect or conflicting research findings? Consider the problem facing the state legislators and going hours as they decide whether to enact or repeal a permissive right to carry concealed gun carrying law in their state. A literature review will quickly identify the influential and widely publicized papers by economist John Lott and David mustard, published in 1997 in the Journal of Legal Studies, Claiming that right to carry laws are one of the most cost effective methods yet devised for reducing crime. Yet the same review will uncover additional articles such as those bye David Nagin, Dan Black, and John Donahue also Franklin zoo meringue, suggesting that there is a little reliable evidence that such laws reduce crime. What is a policy maker to think?In what follows, I note that in principle conflicting or imperfect research evidence need not grind the policymaking process to a halt, or force policymakers to make decisions with complete disregard to the facts....<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1538-6473",
doi="10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00004.x",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00004.x"
}