As students of Professor Wu Dongshuang may already know, the predominant focus for our research aims squarely at empirical scientific measurement and mathematics-based analysis. We love numbers and facts – a perfect match to the structure of law. That is, facts are important for how laws are decided in courts and are applied in real life settings. For this reason, it is also intuitive that the law is structured with particularity to ensure meaningful distinctions between overlapping acts and in recognition of the various nuances and circumstances that apply to each group of acts. The Wu Group’s dense appreciation for structured data and its innate interest in differences can lend itself to providing necessary legal insights into the ever-changing landscape of many laws around the country. Take, for example, knife regulations in Kansas. The Wu Group has previously written “[t]his article sets forth information about the laws concerning knives in Kansas.” For your direct reference, here is the legal article that discusses Kansas knife laws: The KS Knife Statutes: What You Need to Know. Additionally, the final cited reference in the text of the article should provide you with another link to the same article. Now that the citations for the legal article are provided to you, let us explore further into how we can translate a qualitative measurement to a quantitative data set for empirical analysis. But first, here’s a bit of history on the ks knife laws. The first knife description in the law states: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to keep or maintain upon his or their premises, any bowie-knife, dirk, dagger, switchblade knife or any other dangerous knife, the blade of which shall be more than four inches in length. That’s a pretty broad description. And it’s still in the law today. In fact, there have been two or three revisions to the Kansas knife law statutes, which include knife-related prohibitions relating to: The new revision of prohibitions include a major exception to all of the above, which now permits or allows for the possession of “[a]ny individual of any age to carry a knife openly regardless of length in a sheath or otherwise outside of the clothing.” This subsection then goes on to clarify that “[t]his exception does not apply to knives described in K.S.A. 21-4201(b), as amended by this act, or as otherwise prohibited in this section.” Closer examination of the statute makes it apparent that while possession is no longer prohibited for the knives described in K.S.A. 21-4201(b), the “possession” is only limited to the condition that the knives must be carried outside of one’s clothing. It is this very interesting nuance, one of many, that will give The Wu Group the necessary details to provide a different end measurement outcome on how many knife-related statutes may have changed and how public policy on the matter reflects an interesting stance on weapon regulations. It is these law-related nuances that frame our beliefs on why empirical analysis matters – because facts provided by structured data precision can yield otherwise unseen insights on a given law, community, or industry. As such, our goal will be to highlight the effect of empirical data in the legal realm and connect it via our normals with the physical sciences. It is our hope that you will continue to follow our content and see what new insights we come up with through the methodical application linking the law with the physical sciences.