I started reviewing the paper, but have had to put it on hold due to competing priorities.
That being said, I’m seeing a repeating patterns in obfuscation that Donohue seems to prefer. Mainly in citing contentious sources as authoritative, and using prose so turgid as to induce sleep in anyone trying to understand his points. --guy-- From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel D. Todd Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:58 PM To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Subject: New Stanford gun control study Has anyone reviewed the methodology and findings of the new Stanford study? http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
