Re: Todays rant

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