538 researcher's discovery about guns

[gejohnston]

4. Does Marshall point out what those strawmen are?

Those are the only selling point. When you look at the objective studies by criminologists (peer-reviewed in criminology journals), not in-house publications without any peer review and not cited anywhere "studies".
1- Marshall's entire argument is based on "argument by assertion"
2- He ignores the fact that Australia had one mass shooting (using our definition) in the 30 years before and after the National Firearms Agreement and Port Author. There were 22 people killed in mass murder events before and 21 after in that 60-year span. Most of them by arson and other weapons. Crime in the UK, especially gun violence" was actually lower when there was no gun control at all.
3- He assumes that there is no gun regulations in the US. Chances are, he is completely ignorant of US gun laws (federal and state) let alone of those in Australian states (technically they have no federal gun control laws) and the UK.

She is right. Gun control, be it here or anywhere else, is entirely based on ideology and control. Marshall is full of shit. He has not seriously studied the issue his article clearly shows that.