Home

Details
    
 
 
 
Literally every statement in this op ed is counterfactual. That level of "Error" is impossible without deliberate intellectual fraud and dishonesty. From this alone, any statement you'd make on any subject would lack credibility in any professional setting.
 
So what I'm hearing is SUNYC is a worthless diploma mill with "professors" who are unable to grasp facts or present them honestly. 
 
I see you are a Cornell "grad."  I had already concluded from previous incidents that Cornell no longer has any credibility as an institute of "learning."
 
Do not attempt to argue with me on this subject. I have 25 years military and a decade civilian experience in the field. You are an ignorant, hysterical fool.  It is a shame and disgrace to our nation that you are allowed to teach.
 
You are a disgrace to intellectual honesty, morally corrupt, a complete fraud.and an overpaid welfare case wasting our tax dollars.
 
 
Thanks
 
Mike
 
--
 
 
 
 
 

Robert Spitzer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

2:52 PM (41 minutes ago)
 
  
to me
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Mr. Williamson, thanks for your email. As you fail to cite any specific instance of ΓÇ£counterfactualΓÇ¥ information in my op-ed, there is little to say, other than that IΓÇÖm perfectly comfortable standing behind the information and arguments I present, and that I really did obtain my graduate degrees at Cornell University. And SUNY Cortland is a fine public undergraduate-oriented institution of higher education, although it does not need my stamp of approval to verify that.

Regards,

Bob Spitzer

 

Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D.

Distinguished Service Professor

Department Chair

Political Science Department

SUNY Cortland

Box 2000

Cortland, NY  13045

607-753-4106 (office)

607-756-6756 (home)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

http://www2.cortland.edu/departments/political-science/faculty-staff-detail.dot?fsid=312710

https://sites.google.com/site/robertspitzercortland/

 

 

From: Mike Williamson ] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Deborah Dintino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: RE: Prof Spitzer article

 
 
 
 
 

Mike Williamson >

3:34 PM (0 minutes ago)
 
  
to Robert
 
 
 
 
 
 
Suppressors, at most, reduce noise signature about 38dB, meaning the firearm will still be at least as loud as a nailgun. Supersonic bullets still generate supersonic cracks. The weapons are still audible. They are simply less damaging.
 
Since you clearly have done zero research in this subject, even a rudimentary google search, I will remind you what you should have learned about 7th grade--decibels are a logarithmic scale, so reducing from 150-170 decibels to 120-130 is significant, but the latter is still quite loud. Not to worry, no one will make any "silent" assassinations like in that documentary "Mr And Mrs Smith."
 
Suppressors add bulk and expense to a weapon, something criminals are unlikely to do. They also get hot in use, meaning anyone sticking it down their pants (for example) will get burned.
 
Would you make a similar ridiculous claim that unmuffled cars provide "safety" to pedestrians? And help police locate them?
 
Had you done that rudimentary search, you'd find that reducing the noise on shooting ranges, frequently made of concrete, will reduce sound pressure levels to that which "merely" require plugs, not muffs, and won't cause physical pain, and in the case of defensive shootings inside the house, help prevent damage or deafness.
 
You clearly not only have zero professional training, you couldn't even be bothered to use google, then passed your hysterical, hoplophobic bias off as argument from authority because of your degrees in poli sci.
 
You are an ignorant fraud, a moral coward, and intellectually corrupt. You have nothing of value to teach anyone in any subject.
 
I stand by MY statement that any institution that would certify or employ someone of your "abilities" is not credible.  I've seen similar verbarrhea from other Cornell grads.  It seems they stopped actually caring about content and facts sometime in the mid 80s.
 
I'll bet your thesis is great comedy. Researched, no doubt, from fine sources such as Mother Jones and DU.
 

Robert Spitzer

4:07 PM (36 minutes ago)
 
  
to me
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Mr. Williamson, I did not have the space to go into relative degrees of sound generated by firearms, but as you know, there are thousands of types of firearms, from derringers to elephant guns, and they generate very different levels of noise. At the firing range in particular, there are many very good ear protective devices available to resolve the noise problem for shooters. When silencers were unregulated, they were indeed used by criminals, which is why they were regulated in the first place under the 1934 NFA, and there would be considerable incentives for at least some criminals to obtain them if they were more easily available and untraceable to the owners. As for automobiles, there is a new regulation requiring electric cars to make noise when operating at low speeds for the very reason of safety. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/quiet-hybrid-electric-cars-must-make-noise-new-u-s-safety-rule/

Regards,

Bob

 

Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D.

Distinguished Service Professor

Department Chair

Political Science Department

SUNY Cortland

Box 2000

Cortland, NY  13045

607-753-4106 (office)

607-756-6756 (home)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

http://www2.cortland.edu/departments/political-science/faculty-staff-detail.dot?fsid=312710

https://sites.google.com/site/robertspitzercortland/

 

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:34 PM
To: Robert Spitzer
Subject: Re: FW: Prof Spitzer article

 
 
 
 
 

Mike Williamson

4:44 PM (0 minutes ago)
 
  
to Robert
 
 
 
 
 
 
This would move them from NFA to GCA. If you don't know what that means, I encourage you to do some research. They'd still be "regulated," and their purchase recorded.
 
They are unregulated in any number of civilized countries, including NZ. The UK only requires a valid firearm certificate to own them.
 
PhDs have been used in crime. Bleach has been used in crime. Carb cleaner has been used in crime. That argument is specious.
 
These same arguments were made about concealed carry, "assault weapons," "Saturday night specials," ad nauseum.  In every case, the hyperbole was proven ridiculous.
 
I'd be happy to educate you on the subject, but it was obvious from the beginning that your biases and phobias trump your rational brain.
 
I did not mention electic cars, and we're not discussing bows (which are much quieter than firearms). Would you argue that a gasoline or diesel powered car shouldn't be quieted at all, for "Safety"? BTW, the early suppressors were modeled off car mufflers.
 
Suppressors don't "silence" anything. The quietest setup I'm aware of is still about 115 decibels. That's a fairly bulky .22 rifle that no one has ever used in a murder I'm aware of.

As far as a "readily available" "unregulated" silencer, that's called a 2 liter soda bottle, or an oil flter, and some duct tape. Again, this is readily findable on google in 30 seconds, complete to Youtbue videos (though you should be aware that most of those cameras don't accurately record sound).  If any gangbanger wanted that, it would take less than a minute to fabricate, would make his weapon bulkier, and still wouldn't actually "silence" it.

Nor do laws prevent criminals from acquiring anything.
 
My statement stands. You are willfully ignorant and arguing from an authority you don't possess, with dishonest approach and intent.
 
If you decide you'd actually like to witness, or, horrors, use a suppresssed weapon on the range to understand exactly what they look, feel, sound and perform like, under professional supervision, I can arrange it.

Details

I think it's just hilarious listening to Commiefornicators talk about how big, brave, California is going to quit Trumpistan and go elsewhere.

First, I'd like to address an issue that always comes up with this--the Democrat and "liberal" claim that California is a net producer revenue wise, and all us "lesser" states should be beholden to them.  Notice that first we should "All pay our share to help the less fortunate among us." But as soon as they can create a claim that they pay more than they get, suddenly those poor states are a drain on their mighty wealth.

IOW, they turn into what they claim Republicans are.

There Is No Such Thing As An Intellectually Honest Democrat. There Cannot Ever Be, Because The Root Philosophy Is Based On Dishonesty And Greed.

Now, back to Cumstainfornia:

Anyone thinking this just isn't actually thinking.

First of all, a large chunk of CA's income is from air and sea ports bringing in huge amounts of goods from Asia and the Pacific, for the US.  If they stop being part of America, there are three ways this plays out:

A: They continue to make the stuff available at a fair price, and simply become a de facto American protectorate.

2) If they refuse, Oregon and Washington thank them greatly for the YUGE increase in business, and CA withers and dies. The end.

c} If they get those states to go along with them, Florida, Texas, the Carolinas and Louisiana will thank them for the business and prices will go up slightly, but not a lot, because orders of scale matter, and CA withers and dies, taking OR and WA with them. The end.

Second, CA better make a good deal on that, or they can kiss the Southwestern power grid, fuel, and water from the Colorado River goodbye. We'll swap them even--one container of imported goods, one gallon of drinking water or megawatt hour of power.

Third, CA is taking 12% of the US debt, based on population. Failure to do so is grounds for the IRS to collect, with help from the US Army if needed, just like we did to those Confederate Democrats when they decided they were too good for civilized society.

Speaking of which:

Yeah, those federal installations.  Those belong to the US. I guess you can keep the infrastructure, at fair market value, and 12% of the Federally owned equipment and weapons, as long as you take that debt we discussed. And if you refuse? Remember that previous civil war we just discussed?  

Also, you can find your own damned troops, pilots and sailors for them, take over your own training, pay for your own goddamn defense of those sea lanes that are now your problem, not ours. You may not have actually priced what a destroyer, or even a frigate costs these days, nor an F16 in a current block, nor even a quarter million uniforms, rifles, backpacks and the relevant trucks.

So the entire proposal comes from smoking too much Medical Marijuana. If CA actually tries this, they'll be a third world country in short order.

The good news is they might actually get rid of all the illegal Mexicans. The bad news is, it will either be because their economy will be worse than Mexico's, or because they get absorbed by Mexico.

So in the end:

They'll scream like little bitches.

They'll throw some tantra and astroturf some riots.

They'll stay in the US, to their and our detriment.

 

Fucking pussies.

Details

Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Drop a glock in a camp fire, let it burn and try to fire it the next day
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 7 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I bet the 1911 would fire.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee I bet the 1911 won't. Apparently you've never done any blacksmithing.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 6 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Or run over it with an M1 Abrams
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson And I guess my question is, why are you leaving your gun in a campfire?
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson An Abrams will smash any gun flat, or into the surface underneath, or both. Don't be ridiculous.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 5 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Let's see, you need a gun and take one from a burned out tank.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 5 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee Right. Well, when the game is over and you're back in the real world, we'll talk.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 5 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I know an AK will fire under those conditions
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 4 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee My 1911 is solid steel. Tracks of a tank would simply smoosh it into the dirt. Wipe it off and it will fire. If it were torched in a fire, a minimal amount of cleaning and it would fire.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 2 mins
Brian Corbino
Brian Corbino Just.... No.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ 1 min
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee as long as the spring components were not destroyed it would. The thermoplastics of a glock would be destroyed much faster
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Brian Corbino
Brian Corbino I've watched the frames for a 1911 be born. They only drop 5 ton on a red hot bar to get one. Driving a 20+ ton tank over it is going to snap it like a twig.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee Are you 16? Because if you're not, you deserve all kinds of scorn for your compelete ignorance.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee 20 tons spread out over the track width and length. pounds per square inch
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson A decently hot campfire will distort a 1911, and will destroy the temper on everything, especially the springs. It will not fire again, ever.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I will concede the fire
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson I'm going to immortalize this conversation for posterity.
Like ┬╖ Reply ┬╖ Just now

Details

You may have noticed a trend in the media.  Beyond the increasing industry need for clickbait headlines ("Something you may be eating for dinner right now is a deadly toxin. We'll tell you how to buy a book to find out what it is after this commercial break!")

Some of the alleged stories are bloody ridiculous. "David Gellenter, fiercely anti-intellectual computer scientist, is being eyed for Trump's science adviser." 

Um...a computer SCIENTIST...who is a university professor, is somehow "anti-intellectual." 

Or is he just anti-liberal, which is to say, probably a real intellectual? (See what I just did there? We'll come back to that in a bit.) 

Also, that was a tweet, therefore on Twitter, where the Twits hang out to get their news.  We'll also come back to that.

I remember one of these jumping out at me in March of 2009, to the effect of, "Palin's Daughter's ex-Boyfriend's Mother Abuses Prescription Pain Meds."

So, your headline is that someone related to someone who used to be involved with someone who was related to someone who no longer is newsworthy has a medical problem, so this is now newsworthy, or more accurately, you're trying to lay blame on the former VP candidate, right?

This isn't news. This is bullshit.

Now we come to the problem: The entire current generation of "reporters" (because one cannot call them "journalists") grew up with Blogger, LiveJournal, Myspace, and now Twitter and Facebook.

They literally cannot tell the difference between news and op-ed.  The opinion is the headline is the story, and if you disagree, you must be racist, or homophobic, or a Teabagger, or Trump supporter, or Literally Hitler (tm).

Now we come back to what I did up above.  I did in fact put opinion and condescension in my blog post, because this is a blog post, not a journalistic report.

People are worried that the "mainstream" press is being threatened by "fake news."

The reality is there's nothing to worry about.  There's no longer a difference. The millennials have destroyed any credibility the news industry might have had left.  All that matters now is who can shout the loudest.

That's opinion by the way, but I hope you heard me.

  1. Okay, I Have To Comment...
  2. A Friend Calls The Match Perfectly

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home