Re: Todays rant

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 23:18:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2024 10:32 PM, John B. wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 14:19:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/8/2024 10:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 12/7/2024 11:45 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

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

On 7 Dec 2024 16:14:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

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

>
Evan a North American black bear can be dangerous if you inadvertently
get to close to her cubs. I'd want a fairly powerful handgun if that
happed, and hopefully the load warning shot would fend her off. I've
occasionally seen black bear while bicycling in Florida, but they
always run off. We also have cougars in Florida, but it's rare to see
one. I have seen cougars while hiking in Colorado. They're bigger than
Florida cougars, and I'm told they are less afraid of humans.
>
When bow hunting deer, canoeing, or camping in bear country in
northern Wisconsin, years ago, I always carried a .357. An ounce of
prevention, as they say. It's probably not even legal to do that
today.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
In those sort of situations I’m told that a rifle ie has better range or
rather accuracy so folks can hit targets at range, a pistol at the ranges
that one is likely to hit a bear etc are fairly close and realistically
probably not much use at that point.
>
Certainly folks who do exploring with polar bears are very much told you
will not get time for a warning shot even on open ground, you’ll only get
time for one shot before it’s closed the distance.
>
Roger Merriman
>

>
I am not a hunter.
>
  From my understanding however, the sidearm is for close
immediate threat such as walking up to your wounded target.
It's a different problem from stalking and carefully aiming
from a distance, for which rifle or bow are preferred.
>
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deer-attacks-hunter-who-shot-it-in-arkansas/
>
https://fox59.com/news/national-world/kentucky-hunter-dies-after-struggle-with-wounded-deer/
>
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/hunter-killed-by-deer-hed-shot-that-got-back-up-and-attacked-him/

>
The hunters I know would be appalled to not kill a deer with one bullet
even at fairly long distances as is often the case with, Red Deer which
your hunting from significant distances and it’s a big animal.

>
And yet American fans of rifles with "ooh, cool!" military appearance
try to justify the use of the rapid fire AR platform for hunting deer.
>
I'm not a hunter either, but anyone who needs rapid fire to take a deer
is an incompetent slob.

 
Why do you insist on flaunting your ignorance (shades of Tommy), there
a multitude of semi automatic rifles and shot guns used for hunting
dating back to many year before the AR.
 
1905:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_8
 
1902:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Auto-5

>
My statement stands: Anyone who needs rapid fire to take a deer is an
incompetent slob.
>
You hunted deer, correct? How many times did you shoot more than, say,
even five shots within 30 seconds after first seeing a deer? Please do
answer!

Krygowski present a non sequitur argument and then proceeds to ask for
evidence about it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman