It must drive the left in the US absolutely insane that a country with more liberal gun laws than California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, DC, New York and Hawaii is way safer than their beloved Australia or the United Kingdom (the Swiss **gun** homicide rate is even lower than Australia!). Hence they continually have to spread lies about the laws here and gaslight people over it. The same misinformation is spouted in this businessinsider article that gets posted all the time in this site: https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2
Can you specify what is it that’s wrong?
Can you please keep your US politics out of this sub?
you can contact the author of the article (published in 2011) if you really _care_ about accuracy, but I guess it’s better to post it in a internet forum.
This is awful. I have no clue about scientific papers, however as much as I understand “peer reviewed” and “published” often does not mean anything depending on who reviews and publishes a paper. Which adds even more to the confused notion nowadays that the scientific approach is not valid.
High impact factor journal? The impact factor of the journal is 1.42, which I’m pretty sure is low for the field.
Yeah, I don’t really get why a paper published in 2011 is relevant at all. There is also no political discussion about gun laws in this country right now, so I suspect that this is about american politics again…
Yawn.
Has it even been peer-reviewed?
It appears that she didn’t understand crap about the legal text which was provided to her. That is assuming she was honest.
For instance, yes you do have to motivate your request with proof that you need a firearm, but that is only in case you don’t request it for either sports or hunting. She seems to have completely missed that part.
Amis being Amis… liberal or not.
In the end they are Amis.
Simple: Lazy peer reviewer.
The article was published in 2011, so at first I thought the law might have been changed, but according the Fedlex’s version from 1.12.2010 it is not the case: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en (menu on the left, select the version you need).
So it seems to boil down to an erroneous premise that has not been verified by peers and thus made it into the final version. Which is indeed rather sad.
You can write to the editor of the journal if you think it is wrong. This forces the authors of the paper to respond or correct it
“High-impact journal” lol
If you have a problem with the paper, ask the author directly about it if you wish. Just because you think it’s ‘wrong’ doesn’t mean that it necessarily is and so on.
15 comments
It must drive the left in the US absolutely insane that a country with more liberal gun laws than California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, DC, New York and Hawaii is way safer than their beloved Australia or the United Kingdom (the Swiss **gun** homicide rate is even lower than Australia!). Hence they continually have to spread lies about the laws here and gaslight people over it. The same misinformation is spouted in this businessinsider article that gets posted all the time in this site: https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2
Can you specify what is it that’s wrong?
Can you please keep your US politics out of this sub?
you can contact the author of the article (published in 2011) if you really _care_ about accuracy, but I guess it’s better to post it in a internet forum.
This is awful. I have no clue about scientific papers, however as much as I understand “peer reviewed” and “published” often does not mean anything depending on who reviews and publishes a paper. Which adds even more to the confused notion nowadays that the scientific approach is not valid.
High impact factor journal? The impact factor of the journal is 1.42, which I’m pretty sure is low for the field.
Yeah, I don’t really get why a paper published in 2011 is relevant at all. There is also no political discussion about gun laws in this country right now, so I suspect that this is about american politics again…
Yawn.
Has it even been peer-reviewed?
It appears that she didn’t understand crap about the legal text which was provided to her. That is assuming she was honest.
For instance, yes you do have to motivate your request with proof that you need a firearm, but that is only in case you don’t request it for either sports or hunting. She seems to have completely missed that part.
Amis being Amis… liberal or not.
In the end they are Amis.
Simple: Lazy peer reviewer.
The article was published in 2011, so at first I thought the law might have been changed, but according the Fedlex’s version from 1.12.2010 it is not the case: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en (menu on the left, select the version you need).
So it seems to boil down to an erroneous premise that has not been verified by peers and thus made it into the final version. Which is indeed rather sad.
You can write to the editor of the journal if you think it is wrong. This forces the authors of the paper to respond or correct it
“High-impact journal” lol
If you have a problem with the paper, ask the author directly about it if you wish. Just because you think it’s ‘wrong’ doesn’t mean that it necessarily is and so on.