Roger: Isn’t there an inconsistency in saying that (1) repealing a ban on handgun sales made no difference in crime rates, but (2) imposing a ban on handgun sales increased crime rates? Isn’t the obvious resolution of the conflict to say that there is likely some other factor that caused one of the effects?

It’s the position of the anti gun folks that if bans are relaxed crime will increase, and that bans lead to reduction in crime. The two studies show that neither is true.

Are there other factors involved? Undoubtedly. And gun control, like any quack cure, can result in the other factors being disregarded. The result can be that policies and programs that could make a difference won’t get implemented, as politicians squander resources on the politically correct policy even after it’s proven ineffective.

First, statistical work is routinely admitted at trials, if the conclusions of the statistical studies have any relevance to the issues at hand.

Second, the “sub rosa” reference was to the Court’s use of facts, not to the briefs.

JohnF–I agree that these kinds of briefs invite subrosa factfinding at the appellate level. But the problem is that it’s kind of a prisoner’s dilemma–the other side of the argument is going to file these kinds of things, so you better file your own.

It is regrettable that this has become commonplace in the Supreme Court, which will doubtless make overt and sub rosa fact findings throughout whatever opinion it issues, without those facts having been given the scrutiny that lower-court fact finding could provide.