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 <Robert.Spitzer@cortland.edu>

2:52 PM (41 minutes ago)
 
   
to me
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Mr. Williamson, thanks for your email. As you fail to cite any specific instance of “counterfactual” information in my op-ed, there is little to say, other than that I’m 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

 

 

 

From: Mike Williamson ] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Deborah Dintino < eborah.Dintino@cortland.edu" target="_blank">Deborah.Dintino@cortland.edu>
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.  QCRkdM8jCK84ZCQ">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)%20753-4106" target="_blank">607-753-4106 (office)

607)%20756-6756" target="_blank">607-756-6756 (home)

robert.spitzer@cortland.edu

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.