Offline
Brady Bunch wrote:
Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
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 assumptionYou 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.
Help me. What does "it would be reasonable to assume that someone who supports one side of subject wouldn't support a study that showed they were wrong" mean in concrete terms in relation to Bloomberg and this school of public health?
Offline
It means I am pretty sure Bloomberg wouldn't have wrote the forward to the study if it would have shown that gun regulations did not decrease muder rates.
Do I know that for a fact, of course not.
Offline
If that were true, it would say more about mr. Bloomberg than it would about the study.
Offline
Tarnation wrote:
The law did not prevent Sandy Hook.
Neither did the "gun free zone" signs.
Just sayin'.
The law didn't call for, or require "gun free zone" signs. Doesn't even mention them.
The law required that people who want to buy a gun must apply for a license (or permit) with the local police, a process that involves a background check, as well as complete at least eight hours of gun safety training. The law also raised the minimum purchasing age from 18 to 21.