The New Exchange » Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:20 pm

It's a bit much to put Hopkins in the same bin with the CPRC (which, from what I can find, was founded about two years ago by a guy with a beef about gun legislation pushed after Sandy Hook).
Would you really put them on the same level?

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:21 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:
Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:

Like a dog with a bone? Come on, I mentioned everyone has a side they are trying to support, including CPRC, the authors at Johns Hopkins and Bloomberg. It isn't like I only mentioned Bloomberg.

Why?
Are you suggesting that Bloomberg cooked the numbers in the study?
No, what I am saying is Bloomberg is for gun regulations. They wouldn't have had interest in a study that doesn't show gun regulations show a postive result. I'm saying if the authors would have done the study for the 15 year period and shown that the result was different, Bloomberg wouldn't be involved.
.

You have no proof of that.

Brady Bunch · 6/13/2015 1:26 pm

Is Hopkins more respected than CPRC? Absolutely, and deservedly so.

Does that mean I should take a study that is presented by a policy advocating wing of the university and not question it? Absolutely not.

Last edited by Brady Bunch (6/13/2015 1:31 pm)

Brady Bunch · 6/13/2015 1:31 pm

Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Goose wrote:

Why?
Are you suggesting that Bloomberg cooked the numbers in the study?
No, what I am saying is Bloomberg is for gun regulations. They wouldn't have had interest in a study that doesn't show gun regulations show a postive result. I'm saying if the authors would have done the study for the 15 year period and shown that the result was different, Bloomberg wouldn't be involved.
.
You have no proof of that.

Of course I don't have proof, but I think it is a reasonable assumption since Bloomberg supports gun control legislation. They wouldn't be involved in a study that goes against what they support.

Just like CPRC wouldn't support a study that would show gun control regulations worked, I have no proof they wouldn't support, but it is a reasonable assumption

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:31 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:
Is Hopkins more respected than CPRC? Absolutely, and deservedly so.

Does that mean I should take a study that is presented by a policy advocating wing of the university and question it? Absolutely not.

Question whatever you like. It's healthy.
But, Bloomberg isn't involved in conducting studies.
He is a generous contributer to the school.
But, your earlier statement that Bloomberg "would not be involved" if the study had a different result is unsupported.
Are you suggesting that if the people at Hopkins decided to conduct their study by the terms and time frame that the CPRC would set, and showed a decrease in deaths of only 12%, that Bloomberg would have withdrawn his funding, or meddled in th estudy?
Such insinuations demand proof.

Last edited by Goose (6/13/2015 1:33 pm)

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:35 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:

Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:

No, what I am saying is Bloomberg is for gun regulations. They wouldn't have had interest in a study that doesn't show gun regulations show a postive result. I'm saying if the authors would have done the study for the 15 year period and shown that the result was different, Bloomberg wouldn't be involved.
.
You have no proof of that.
Of course I don't have proof, but I think it is a reasonable assumption since Bloomberg supports gun control legislation. They wouldn't be involved in a study that goes against what they support.

Just like CPRC wouldn't support a study that would show gun control regulations worked, I have no proof they wouldn't support, but it is a reasonable assumption

You just wrote that you believed that Hopkins was deservedly more respected than the CPRC.
Now, you just equated the two.
?

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:40 pm

I've been looking at the Site and publications of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I have to say, pretty impressive.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/

BTW, why do you suppose that Bloomberg supports gun legislation, and why does this school study gun violence?

Brady Bunch · 6/13/2015 1:40 pm

Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Is Hopkins more respected than CPRC? Absolutely, and deservedly so.

Does that mean I should take a study that is presented by a policy advocating wing of the university and question it? Absolutely not.
Question whatever you like. It's healthy.
But, Bloomberg isn't involved in conducting studies.
He is a generous contributer to the school.
But, your earlier statement that Bloomberg "would not be involved" if the study had a different result is unsupported.
Are you suggesting that if the people at Hopkins decided to conduct their study by the terms and time frame that the CPRC would set, and showed a decrease in deaths of only 12%, that Bloomberg would have withdrawn his funding, or meddled in th estudy?
Such insinuations demand proof.

That is not what I am suggesting.

Goose · 6/13/2015 1:41 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:
Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Is Hopkins more respected than CPRC? Absolutely, and deservedly so.

Does that mean I should take a study that is presented by a policy advocating wing of the university and question it? Absolutely not.
Question whatever you like. It's healthy.
But, Bloomberg isn't involved in conducting studies.
He is a generous contributer to the school.
But, your earlier statement that Bloomberg "would not be involved" if the study had a different result is unsupported.
Are you suggesting that if the people at Hopkins decided to conduct their study by the terms and time frame that the CPRC would set, and showed a decrease in deaths of only 12%, that Bloomberg would have withdrawn his funding, or meddled in th estudy?
Such insinuations demand proof.
That is not what I am suggesting.

What are you suggesting?
And why do you suppose this school studies gun violence, and why do you think Bloomberg supports gun control legislation.

Brady Bunch · 6/13/2015 1:46 pm

Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:

Goose wrote:

You have no proof of that.
Of course I don't have proof, but I think it is a reasonable assumption since Bloomberg supports gun control legislation. They wouldn't be involved in a study that goes against what they support.

Just like CPRC wouldn't support a study that would show gun control regulations worked, I have no proof they wouldn't support, but it is a reasonable assumption
You just wrote that you believed that Hopkins was deservedly more respected than the CPRC.
Now, you just equated the two.
?

I didn't equate the two. I just said it would be reasonable to assume that someone who supports one side of subject wouldn't support a study that showed they were wrong.

I have tried to have a reasonable discussion in regards to this. You are clearly not understanding what I am trying to say based on what you think I am suggesting or saying which I clearly am not.