The study cited by yourself cites the work of Arthur Kellermann. Beyond that particular matter, there are numerous flaws presented in the so-called "study" that undermine its credibility. To begin with, the entire "study" is predicated on the basis of those who are criminally assaulted are going to be shot as a result, even though there is nothing to show that these two instances are directly related to one another. The time and place of assault are neither controlled nor accounted for, nor were criminal histories with regard to the participants in either the control and case groups. Nor are geographical locations and differences accounted for, such as separating incidents that occurred outside of the home compared to inside the home. These are just a few of the significant, overwhelming flaws plaguing the work of Charles Branas.
Not very practical. We just have to live with what we have. Thankfully, things have calmed down here since the 1980s and 1990s when violent crime was especially bad. We are at about early 1960s level of violence.
It's worth a few thousand bucks a year to live in a place where your fresh clean shirt doesn't stick to you as soon as you go outside. That place is just too sweaty for me. Also, they don't have any mountains. You can't even see the water until you get right on top of it. Here you can see for miles and miles...
You may have a point, but I'm still not convinced. Florida respects my constitutional rights. How's California line up on that?
That you cannot acknowledge the intellectual shortcomings of those cited by yourself is your own problem.
I have been doing whatever the hell I want within reason since I got here in '64...I don't think you can buy assault rifles any more here, but that is not too important to me. Florida will still lock your ass up for growing or smoking weed, here not so much. We got the best wine, the best looking women, the best weed and the best beaches filled with scantily clad good looking babes.
Pray tell, precisely where is the intellectualism on the part of yourself in regard to this particular matter?
Thus demonstrating an inability to recognize actual critique when it was presented. Thus demonstrating an absence of intellectualism in the inability to recognize when an institution itself is being taken to task and criticized, rather than focusing on what the institution produces and disseminates to the public.
Please, your post-truth approach is decidedly anti-intellectual. I'm honest when it comes to interactions and unfortunately you achieve no intelligent argument. I understand your game. I find it abhorrent.
If basic honesty were being exercised on the part of yourself, it would be recognized that modern academia does not teach or promote the pursuit of knowledge. The failing public school system of the united states, with its ever-lowering of standards simply to produce as many graduates as possible, is evidence of such. There are too many adults in the united states population who are illiterate, for academia to hold any level of actual integrity. Too many college campuses have become intolerant of hearing ideas that differ from the presented message, with both educators and students being closed-minded, and needing safe spaces to shield them from outside thoughts that do not reinforce their preconceived notions of how the world is supposed to work, but do not match up with reality.
Explain how so. Explain how academia itself is not tainted by the current public school system, where illiteracy is allowed to run rampant, and intellectual debate is stifled.
