Re: Todays rant

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:43:23 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 12/6/2024 3:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 14:39:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 12/6/2024 4:18 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 20:29:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 12/5/2024 6:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

 
I remember someone who insists that the fact that people who have guns
sometimes get shot mean that having a gun makes you more likely to get
shot.

You're not remembering. You're imagining straw man positions. Just like
Tom, you imagine arguments in which you're "winning."
 
I've given multiple citations of reputable sources, and many links to
reputable studies. You've given only snarks, which is one of the reasons
I so seldom respond to you.
 
You've got the intellectual depth of a whiny third grader.

 
My, I seem to have upset Mr. Tricycle! How could that have happened?  ;-)
 

I remember it well. You went on and on insisting that the correlation
between gun shot victims and gun owning victims meant owning a gun was
dangerous.

 
Post links to exactly what I said, and we can discuss. People here don't
trust your "memory" any more than we trust the "memory" of Tom Kunich.

 
See below:
 

As for your citations of reputable sources, the thing is;  you saying
they're reputable doesn't make them reputable.

 
Yeah, I know. Any source that disagrees with your simplistic mind is not
reputable. Perhaps I should be quoting the Epoch Times instead?  Or
maybe Tucker Carlson?  ;-)
 
Have you yet grown the courage to ride your tricycle on a bike path
without having a handgun for feelings of security?
 
I thought not.

 
And the data's clear that a gun in the house "for
protection" greatly increases the chance someone in that
house will be badly hurt or killed by it. Houses without
guns are almost always safer.
--Krygowski
 
Do you really want to discuss that nonsense? I'm ready if you are.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

 
I don't doubt that (I don't actually know it) as people who
face greater danger (wolves, bears, home invaders, rapists)
in their immediate environment are much more likely to arm
themselves.
 
As you note frequently, correlation is not causation.

 
Protection againsst a bear might require something bigger than my
.380, and neither wolves or bears are likely to be put off by merely
displaying a gun.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 

I’d assume that depends on the bear, Polar Bears are a large and unique in
that they view humans as prey, with other animals it’s a outlier with
unwell animals such as wounded/ill tigers/lions.

Wolves don’t seem to be a huge concern unless your a sheep though are
solutions to that, ie sheep dogs, which have an area effect.

Certainly the North American YouTube’s etc don’t take guns but bear spray
and so on, cycling in bear country to be vaguely on topic!

Roger Merriman