HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Important Anti-Gun Study ...

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:15 AM

 

Important Anti-Gun Study Shown to be Flawed (if facts matter)

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Recently, a professor published a study in the Journal of Public Health in support of another AWB. The study is an important one and will influence others. Other influential sources will refer to it. Some already have.

The Harvard School of Public Health, as just one example, recently referred to the anti-gun ownership study while saying
"Compared with the United States, Switzerland ... (has a lower rate) of gun ownership, stricter gun control laws, and their policies discourage gun ownership.

"Rosenbaum, Janet E. Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2012; 33:46-58.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/other-countries/index.html

The example statement of alleged lower gun ownership, stricter gun control laws, and anti-gun policies in Switzerland is either true or not true.

The study is either a fact-based one or one which is at odds with the facts. If you have an anti-gun politician who is going to rely upon it, shouldn't you be aware of whether it is reliable or not? As the MSM makes a push for another public controversy, and as certain politicians in Washington and others push for greater anti-gun ownership legislation, there are those who will undoubtedly rely and refer to it. (If the study is not a fact-based one, that should be known and pointed out when anti-gun advocates claim to have relied upon it. For a historical context of how professional appearing reports and commentaries have been used for propaganda within the United States, Google "Operation Mockingbird." They say that it has been discontinued.)

A Swiss national who is familiar with Swiss law, practices, and policies, has taken the time to show how the study is flawed. In an open letter now published on the web, that author recently wrote:
"Dr. Rosembaum: It appears today that your efforts to publicize your research ("Gun Utopias? Firearm Access and Ownership in Israel and Switzerland," Journal of Public Health Policy 33, p. 47 (2012)) have accelerated. The most recent showcase for your paper and the concepts that underlie it happens to be Foreign Policy ("A League of Our Own," Foreign Policy (December 19, 2012)) but Ezra Klein showcased your research in an interview for his Washington-Post sponsored Wonkblog some days before ("Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias," Wonkblog (December 14, 2012)). It is unfortunate then that the body of your research on Switzerland can only be described as "shoddy," at best. At worst it appears more like raw academic fraud. "

http://www.finemrespice.com/node/122 (also in full text at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172100207)

More details can be found in that letter and an earlier December 2012 analysis by the same author who also wrote:
"The instant study appears to be laden with pervasive and material flaws, some of which are difficult to explain in the absence of malice. In the case of her interpretation of Swiss firearms law these defects appear particularly egregious. Further, the conclusions to which Dr. Rosenbaum leaps and her propensity to publicize them by seeking out exposure through mass media outlets are concerning. Coupled with her public advocacy statements on e.g., her Twitter stream one is given the impression that Dr. Rosenbaum is engaged in advocacy, not in science. Certainly, it is a strain to view her as an unbiased researcher in light of these impressions.

http://www.finemrespice.com/node/121


EDITED TO ADD MORE from the Swiss author who critized the article published in the Journal of Public Health :

"In fact, despite your absurd claims that ownership of firearms in Switzerland is "rare," the same data shows that Swiss civilians are better armed than the populations of Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Kosovo, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Libya, Mexico, Guatemala, South Africa, Pakistan, Jordan, Brazil, Nicaragua, Iran, El Salvador, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Laos, Chad, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Ethiopia. Perhaps now is a good moment to remind you once again that you cite the same report from which these figures are drawn repeatedly in your research?

http://www.finemrespice.com/node/122

46 replies, 4277 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Important Anti-Gun Study Shown to be Flawed (if facts matter) (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 OP
Scuba Jan 2013 #1
Recursion Jan 2013 #4
Scuba Jan 2013 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #22
Scuba Jan 2013 #25
DanTex Jan 2013 #32
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #5
DanTex Jan 2013 #2
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #6
DanTex Jan 2013 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #9
DanTex Jan 2013 #11
Recursion Jan 2013 #13
DanTex Jan 2013 #21
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #24
DanTex Jan 2013 #29
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #34
DanTex Jan 2013 #37
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #38
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #16
DanTex Jan 2013 #23
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #31
Recursion Jan 2013 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #10
Recursion Jan 2013 #17
DanTex Jan 2013 #12
Recursion Jan 2013 #15
DanTex Jan 2013 #27
Recursion Jan 2013 #30
DanTex Jan 2013 #36
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #35
DanTex Jan 2013 #39
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #40
DanTex Jan 2013 #41
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #42
DanTex Jan 2013 #43
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #44
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #20
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #28
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #45
Recursion Jan 2013 #3
ileus Jan 2013 #14
guardian Jan 2013 #26
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #46

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:28 AM

1. Claim something is flawed but provide no examples, just say it's flawed. Fools will buy that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:34 AM

4. Err... except for the specific factual rebuttals that make up the entire post?

http://www.finemrespice.com/node/122

Guns are more prevalent and significantly easier to legally acquire than the study's author claimed, as shown here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:15 PM

19. There's a whole bunch of claims at the link, none of which refute the claim that ....

"Compared with the United States, Switzerland ... (has a lower rate) of gun ownership, stricter gun control laws, and their policies discourage gun ownership. "

If I missed the parts that refute these claims, please point them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:19 PM

22. If facts matter, a link was provided in the OP to Harvard School of Public Health article

 

where that statement is found.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/other-countries/index.html

If you disagree with that statement, it means that you disagree with the author of the Harvard School of Public Health article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:24 PM

25. I neither agree nor disagree with the statement that ...

"Compared with the United States, Switzerland ... (has a lower rate) of gun ownership, stricter gun control laws, and their policies discourage gun ownership. "

My point is that I did not find anything (in my admittedly cursory reading) that disputed the statement except the original poster's claim that the statement is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:41 PM

32. The statement is true:

"Compared with the United States, Switzerland ... (has a lower rate) of gun ownership, stricter gun control laws, and their policies discourage gun ownership.


This is true. Switzerland has tighter gun laws and lower gun ownership than the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:37 AM

5. If facts matter, read the detailed analysis and open letter found with the links.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:29 AM

2. LOL. "Shown to be flawed" by a right-wing blogger.

I wonder how this guy feels about global warming and evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:40 AM

6. If facts matter, on what basis do you claim that a Swiss citizen is "a right-wing blogger"?

 

The details are found in the December 2012 analysis and the more recent open letter.

They have nothing to do with your reference to "global warming and evolution."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:48 AM

8. Just because some right-wing blogger claims the "facts" are on his side, doesn't make it so...

It has everything to do with global warming and evolution. Anonymous right-wingers bloggers also claim that the "facts" are on their side on those topics. Remember "climategate", where the Glenn Beck crowd went berserk because some scientist used the word "hide" in an email.

There's a reason that the pro-gunners keep posting links to right-wing press and bloggers claiming "the studies are flawed".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:53 AM

9. If facts matter, on what basis do you claim that a Swiss citizen is "a right-wing blogger"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:04 PM

11. The blog you linked to seems to be from a right-wing American.

I'm not sure if she is Swiss or not, and I'm not sure if it matters. The point is, this pattern, where the actual scientists and the peer reviewed studies say one thing, while the anonymous bloggers say another, is a common one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:09 PM

13. The blogger *quotes the published facts* that the study author misrepresented

Look, this really is a question of "Study author claims Document X says Y, is factually wrong."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:16 PM

21. Yeah, and the blogger thinks her own interpretation of the statistics is fair and balanced,

whereas the Harvard Study is biased. Obviously. And right-wing bloggers also think that the "facts" show that global warming is a hoax. And so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:23 PM

24. You have not shown at this or any other time that the blogger is a "right-wing blogger."

 

See #16.

Repeatedly calling her a right-wing blogger, directly or by implication, does not make it so.

Your use a fact-free insult does not make her a right-wing blogger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:33 PM

29. Sorry, but "leftism/statism" are right-wing buzzwords, as much as you would like to deny it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:42 PM

34. You have not shown at this or any other time that the blogger is a "right-wing blogger."

 

See #24.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DanTex (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:55 PM

38. No. Only in your imagination.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:42 PM

33. On what factual basis do you say the blog "seems to be from a right-wing American"?

 

There is an indication that the blogger is an American in that she says that she is in favor of the Fourth Amendment.

We know from your many anti-2nd Amendment posts, that you disfavor the private ownership of firearms by ordinary Americans.

Do you now disfavor the Fouth Amendment?

Do you now claim that bloggers who are in favor the the Fouth Amendment are "right-wing bloggers"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:11 PM

16. A blogger is not a "right-wing blogger" when they post that they are in favor of

 

* gay marriage,
* the Fourth amendment,
* reproductive choice,
* and the National Endowment for the Arts.

You have no factual basis for saying or believing that the blogger is a right-wing blogger.

You also have no factual basis for believing or claiming that the Swiss national who wrote the Dec 2012 analysis and the more recent open letter is a right-winger either.

Of course, for some people, the truth is greatly overrated. All that matters to them to support their mindless name-calling is their animosity.

If your animosity is more important to you than the facts, you don't don't have to look at or discuss the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:21 PM

23. Umm... people who "express a dislike for leftism-statism" are right-wingers.

She sounds like a libertarian, rather than a cultural conservative.

Look, for every peer-reviewed study about a politically controversial topic, there are going to be fifty anonymous blog entries about how flawed and biased it all is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:37 PM

31. There are no facts to support your statment that "there are going to be fifty anonymous blog entries

 

about how flawed and biased" Professor Rosenbaum's Journal of Public Health Policy article is.

If so, post them. Or post some of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:46 AM

7. Well her blog tells you how she feels about them

along with gay marriage (pro), the fourth amendment (pro), reproductive choice (pro), and the National Endowment for the Arts (pro).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:03 PM

10. Yes. He can't even get the blogger's gender right.

 

And by what nutty reason - other than ignoring the facts - can a poster claim to believe that a blogger who is favor of gay marriage is "right-wing blogger"?

And by what nutty reason - other than ignoring the facts - can a poster claim to believe that a blogger who is favor of the Fourth Amendment is "right-wing blogger"?

And by what nutty reason - other than ignoring the facts - can a poster claim to believe that a blogger who is favor of reproductive choice is "right-wing blogger"?

And by what nutty reason - other than ignoring the facts - can a poster claim to believe that a blogger who is favor of the National Endowment for the Arts is "right-wing blogger"?

Although the blogger reproduced the Swiss national's analysis in Dec 2012 and the Swiss national's open letter, there is nothing to indicate that the Swiss national is a so-called "right winger" either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:12 PM

17. Well, the blog has two authors, one of whom is a woman and one of whom refuses to state

And it's not clear which writes a given post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:06 PM

12. Sorry, she...

Here's her mandatory "I'm not a Republican" apology...

Q. You are a filthy Republican nut job, aren't you?
A. Yes, yes, sure. I recognize the need to associate any free-market, finance or economics based discussion with the worst elements of the Republican Party- as real argument is more difficult. Unfortunately, I am not a Republican, nor do I share those values. It has become fashionable in the Western world to brand anyone who expresses a dislike for leftist-statism as a Bush supporter, as if this guilt by association, true or not, should wash away all credibility. I find most of the people quick to associate me with Republicans or insinuate that I am some kind of rabid fan of George Bush (an insult which, despite my lack of support for the former President, I find bemusingly comic) have no clue whatsoever what my beliefs are.

Do you know anyone of sound mind who "expresses a dislike for leftism-statism"? LOL. Me neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:11 PM

15. Sure, plenty of people

Do you know anyone of sound mind who "expresses a dislike for leftism-statism"?

Dozens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:31 PM

27. You must have a lot of right-wing friends...

Why don't you go into GD and make a post warning about the evils of "leftism/statism" and see how well it goes. Those are right-wing buzzwords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:35 PM

30. My friends are a mix, politically. It's part of living in DC.

Why don't you go into GD and make a post warning about the evils of "leftism/statism" and see how well it goes.

Because for the most part it's not something I worry about. I think there are places that are too statist (see my LBN post about Iceland having a list of approved baby names), but the ways the US is one of them are very few (mostly having to do with the drug and terror wars).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:53 PM

36. Yup, the blogger is a libertarian nutcase.

Just as I suspected. Here we go...
http://www.finemrespice.com/node/107

(a) Wants to kill the welfare state
(b) Laments that there is no true free market party in the US (any more)
(c) Thinks the US has fallen into "the same quasi-socialist plague" as Russia, China, and Europe.

Etc. This is a loony libertarian absolutist who wants to go back to some fantasy pre-WWII (or even pre-1900) small government fantasy. Not someone who lives in the real world.

An interesting (if somewhat archaic) feature of contemporary American political discourse that characterizes its last half decade is the propensity for Founder worship. In the context of what one hopes is the death rattle of the welfare state, the great clash between neo-liberal and conservative (perhaps even neo-conservative) forces in the United States is nearly (but not quite yet) joined. But when it comes to taking sides finem respice grows decidedly despondent. After all, there is no free-market party in the United States any longer- and on reflection one might ask: "since the post war period, has there ever been?" Be this as it may, however, it isn't difficult to surmise that the catalyzing agent for this conflict is the impending collapse of the quasi-socialist "blue model" and, depending on the degree of pessimism one possesses, the collateral doom of Western democracies. And finem respice must, by necessity, use this term "Western democracies" rather expansively.

...

As a fiscal entity the United States fares little better than the many competing systems in the world political sphere today. Can one possibly say that China, Europe or Russia are materially worse off from a fiscal perspective than the patron saint of free markets, the United States? Perhaps by measure of GDP per capita. Perhaps by measure of standard of living. But as a fiscal entity? Indeed not. And the formers will follow the latter in due course, to be sure.

Instead the United States has fallen victim to the same quasi-socialist plague that afflicts these systems. If anything, her endurance must be credited only to her higher starting point on the great fiscal descent into collapse. There was simply more of other people's money to plunder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:44 PM

35. What about sticking with the facts instead of engaging in name calling?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:05 PM

39. As pointed out by Scuba above, the blogger doesn't actually seem to dispute the central facts.

Switzerland has tighter gun laws and lower gun ownership than the US.

I think what happened here is that you are so anxious to believe that the ivory tower intellectuals are trying to take away your guns that you didn't bother to realize that (a) you are citing an anonymous blog entry from a loony libertarian nutjob and that (b) she doesn't actually refute the central facts.

Maybe you ought to try reading the studies first rather than just the gun blogs. Science is not a "leftist" conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:20 PM

40. "ivory tower intellectuals" = more name calling

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:23 PM

41. You are still ignoring the facts. Your blogger friend doesn't actually dispute the study.

Why won't you take a look at some of the actual peer reviewed studies? Why do you insist on getting your information from anonymous right-wing bloggers?

Is it because you know that the legitimate science isn't going to support your political views, so instead you search for whatever you can find to feed your biases?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:33 PM

42. Found any of the "fifty anonymous" bloggers that you say exist (#23)?

 

You still have not shown that the blogger is a "right-wing blogger."

You certainly haven't shown that the Swiss national who wrote the detailed critiques is a "right-winger."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:51 PM

43. LOL. I'll take that as an admission that your OP is false.

Why else would you change the subject rather than try and defend your "facts"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:01 PM

44. You're as illogical as ever. Your posts certainly show that you're an expert as changing the subject

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:14 PM

18. Pretty thin gruel there, Dan. I think she summed up your attack pretty well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:15 PM

20. So you got her gender right this time.

 

Do you have explanation - other than ignoring the facts - to claim that a person is a "right-wing blogger" when they say that they are in favor of
* gay marriage,
* the Fourth amendment,
* reproductive choice,
* and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Do you have any factual basis for saying or claiming that the Swiss national who wrote the Dec 2012 analysis and the more recent open letter is a "right-winger"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:33 PM

28. If the Swiss author of the Dec 2012 article and open letter used sarcasm or otherwise

 

implied that he was a Repubican, where's your link for that?

None of us have any factual basis for believing that the Swiss national is a Republican.

If a person other than the author of the Dec 2012 article and open letter expressed "a dislike for leftism-statism," that doesn't mean that the author of the Dec 2012 article and open letter did so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:50 PM

45. "poisoning the well"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:33 AM

3. "Here in Switzerland we resent being pressed into forced labor in the salt mines...

...of America's rapidly devolving culture wars"

OK, that's a good line. I remember some UK Tories feeling the same way when they were forced to defend NHS against Republican hysteria during the HCR debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:10 PM

14. Facts don't matter...we all know guns kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:25 PM

26. Quelle surprise!

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:54 PM

46. Trained eyes recognize rightwing cretinism

Just because some right-wing blogger claims the "facts" are on his side, doesn't make it so...

That too was my initial reaction -- huh? a blogger getting credibility?
The critique page I read was as much devoted to ad hominem as to actual rebuttal:

1 apparent that your foreign language skills leave much to be desired.
2 despite your absurd claims that ownership of firearms in Switzerland is "rare," 3 it is habit among lazy scholars
4 so contorting are the intellectual acrobatics .. But mere data cherry-picking is not the limit of the flaws in your arguments.
5 Using them as indicators of "gun violence" is to torture the definition of that term beyond recognition.
6 your gross misrepresentation of trends in Swiss gun control, which you have repeatedly alleged is on the rise*
7 your conduct has been so egregious
8 your research that pertains to Switzerland it would be difficult to regard as anything other than academic dishonesty
9 retraction is not forthcoming within 10 days finem respice will formally submit its findings in support of charges of academic dishonesty to the University of Maryland, the institution you were affiliated with
10 can only be described as "shoddy," at best.At worst it appears more like raw academic fraud


A trained eye can recognize rightwing cretinism quickly, even when cleverly masked within the realm of academics.

* asterisk to #6 above, critiquer wrote: Any serious scholar of Swiss firearms policy would have known that in 2011 the Swiss held a popular referendum calling for more gun control, supported in large measure by the same organizations which pressed the Switzerland to join the European Union.. . The gun-control measure was thoroughly trounced

The trained eye immediately recognizes that by refusing to name the guncontrol measure on the swiss referendum, indicates critiquer reluctant to name it. Why? because it was a 'subsequent' guncontrol measure, one which would have required all those swiss assault rifles issued to young swissies when they mature to manhood, to be stored at armories, not kept in the young mens' homes - it was an attempt to lessen gundeaths - homicides & suicides & accidents.
.. what was the prior guncontrol measure which this rejected one was subsequent to? a law which requires swiss govt ammunition for those assault rifles to be stored at armories, not in militiamen's homes - this passed earlier 00's.
So the trend is indeed to stricter guncontrol despite this setback. In fact, strict guncontrol measures were enacted about 1999 iirc, which nra & gungurus admonished the swiss for allowing, strict guncontrol which had the backing of around 85% of the swiss public.

Personally, I think this rejection of the most recent law requiring assault rifles to be kept at armories, was in part out of fear of losing a 'free rifle' at the end of the home guard service. Ha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread