You embrace the rush. A week or so ago in the Texas Hill Country a man entered the Saturday afternoon mass, got up and announced he was going to kill every Catholic in the place. Four very old men managed to get him out of the church and lock the door. This incident was reported by only one news outlet. When you can't go to a old people's mass without incident I'd say being prepared is much better.
If you ship them UPS, you would have to turn them over to an FFL and have them shipped to an FFL and then go pick them up from the FFL, and then do it all over again to get them home. Is that right or wrong? I think I'd just put up with the airline method. You will probably need to plan for extra time at the airport - getting there earlier.
I play it safe and never go to church. Those places are full of wicked people that need forgiveness..
The so-called "research" does not show anything, except for the nonsensical and erroneous belief held on the part of those hiding behind their academic credentials, that laws somehow prevent crimes from being committed. Nothing they have presented actually proves such a position as being factually correct.
How would you know? You haven't read it, nor can you offer one genuine critique of empirical methodology.
Getting up each morning and not only believing that nothing bad can possibly happen to yourself, and having no plan for how to respond in case such actually comes about, is hardly an acceptable alternative course of action to engage in. Striving to be ignorant of reality is not a worthwhile goal to aspire towards.
Then what the above indicates is that the united states is a dangerous place to live in, and those who choose to legally carry a concealed firearm for their own protection, are motivated by sound reason and facts based on these findings? It is not simple paranoia, but recognition of what the reality of the situation is?
It has indeed been read, that is why it is dismissed as amounting to nothing. If laws truly did work as is being claimed by yourself, there would not be thousands of felons found in illegal possession of a firearm every single year.
Why haven't you made one reference to problematic data, empirical method or robustness test? (You don't have to answer, we both know)
Such has indeed been done, simply not recognized by yourself. The fact these so-called "researchers" choose to believe that laws have the ability to prevent an action from occurring, and present what they claim as being "data" that supports their flawed and false position, is problematic data in itself. The real world does not correspond with what they present, meaning these so-called "researchers" are wrong. It is either that, or reality itself as we know it is irreparably broken.
Some people's definition may stray from what the dictionary states. That's why I asked. For example, do you think me carrying firearm everyday, everywhere I can legally do so is reckless and unsafe?
So that it cannot be recognized by yourself once again? These individuals cannot honestly consider themselves as being researchers, as they mistakenly believe that firearm-related restrictions actually deter and prevent crimes from occurring in a specific area in which the restriction is in effect, even if it can be easily subverted by simply traveling to a neighboring city where it is not in effect. Neither firearm-related restrictions, nor any other type of restriction codified into law, has the physical ability to prevent any crime from occurring. Their sole reason for existence is to define a specific behavior or act as qualifying as a criminal offense, and proscribe a punishment for when someone actually does commit the act. Meaning that nothing is prevented, thus meaning the personal beliefs of these researchers are proven as being intellectually deficient through real world observation, yet they continue to maintain their belief in these false notions rather than accepting what is reality.
The flaws with the so-called "data" have already been explained. It is presented by those who do not recognize reality for what it is, and instead choose to present what they believe reality should be. they are peddling fantasy, not the truth.
Incorrect. Guns, shovels, hammers, cars or any other tool are nothing without people and their “personal behavior”. Tell me you’ve never met a person who you wouldn’t trust behind the wheel of a car. What if their “personal behavior” meant chugging a fifth of vodka before driving? Saying “high death toll” is a relative term and, as such, relatively meaningless. Twenty deaths is a lot, especially if it’s someone close but there’s a big difference between saying 20 deaths out of 100 people and 20 deaths out of a million people. Someone who actually understand data and statistics should understand this point.
Basic error. The research shows gun ownership is a stand out phenomenon (i.e. we cannot reject the more guns=more crime hypothesis). Focus on the research and see where you go.
